The present article will review the legal aspects of the U.S. sanctions against Iran under the international legal rules particularly with reference to the legal system embodied in the UN Charter and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. I will do my best to submit legal responses to two questions. First, is U.S. unilateral sanctions against Iran legal or illegal and if so, what are the options available to Iran as a reaction to those sanctions?
As US has repeatedly, raison d'être of the sanction imposed I.R of Iran is that, Washington hopes that sanctions will persuade the Iranian government to be completely open about its nuclear program and to scrap any weapons-related research and building programs and US alleges that its acts complied with international law but at first glance this is precisely Woodrow Wilson’s view in 1919.
President of the US noted: "A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist."
Although the international law principles in the temporary world compared with 1919, have changed fundamentally, it seems that the United States sanctions against Iran is continuing Wilson’s view. Wilson was correct in defining a boycott as a deadly weapon, but he was wrong when he said that a boycotted nation would be forced to surrender. Cuba and Iran have soundly refuted this, Cuba with more than 50 years and Iran also with about three decade of heroic resistance to the U.S. blockade and sanctions.
Undoubtedly, main reason for resistance of Iran when are facing unprecedented conflict characterized by unilateralism, can be their Legal firm belief that US Decisions are illegal and in complied with international law in general and mutual and bilateral obligation.
In this article I do best to gauge the legitimacy of U.S sanctions against Iran with comprehensive examination under legal obligations between two countries which still are in force in light the UN Charter and Jurisprudence of ICJ to with absolute neutrality that is required in scientific research.
2. Evaluation of Sanction against Iran
The United States has imposed unilateral sanctions against I.R of Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the capture of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and all along these years it has been even more institutionalized and refined through the approval of several Presidential Proclamations and legal measures that have turned it into an increasingly rigorous and all-embracing policy.
The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions with Iran. The Department of State's Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation is responsible for enforcing and implementing a number of U.S. sanctions programs restricting access to the United States for companies that engage in certain commercial activities with Iran in accordance of ISA, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), Executive Order 13590, and Executive Order 13622.
B) Tighten sanctions
Since then, the policy of economic suffocation, has being continued and implemented, which is a clear evidence of the obsession of successive United States’ administrations to change and collapse the political, economic and social system chosen by the Iranian people in the exercise of their right to self-determination, sovereignty and right to Development and freedom of trade and business.
During last three decades, the political, legal and administrative mechanisms of US policy have been tightened and reinforced against Iran aiming at a more efficient implementation of it. As can be ascertained while browsing the web sites of the US Departments of the Treasury and Commerce, The restrictive measures against Iran continues to be one of the most unfair, all-embracing, severe and longest-lasting system of unilateral sanctions ever imposed against any country in the world.
An American author Michael P. Malloy’s United States Economic Sanctions: Theory and Practice in his book can find the definition of these terms from an American perspective. He is of the view that “Economic sanctions have become an increasingly prevalent feature of U.S. international economic and foreign policy”. He means the term “economic sanction” as follows “any country-specific economic or financial prohibition imposed upon a target country or its nationals with the intended effect of creating dysfunction in commercial and financial transactions with respect to the specified target, in the service of specified foreign policy purposes.
The term “sanction” in the present context therefore includes a range of trade and financial measures that may be imposed in varying combinations, administered by a number of agencies.”Malloy emphasizes that instrumentally, the historical objective of most sanctions imposed by Western countries has been to induce change in another country’s behavior by inflicting economic damage.
3. Legal challenges to the US sanctions
A) US Sanctions violate UN Charter
Sanctions imposed on Iran are incompatible with international norms and even violates some rules of international law: a) two fundamental principles of international law that plays an important role in the international legal order and the UN Charter is embedded (sovereign equality and non-intervention) and recognized by International customary law, b)the Treaty of Amity, Economic relations, and consular rights between the US and Iran of 15 August 1955, c)declaration of the government, particularly point I of General Declaration 19 January 1981 and finally, d)state immunity principle, that International court of justice emphasized that the rule occupies an important place in international law and international relations.
The Charter makes it clear that the UN will rely on “collective measures,” decided on by the consensus of the member states of the Security Council to ensure peace and security, rather than the unilateral acts of states such as the U.S. The charter merely recognize mutual sanction which imposed by SC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, article 41 reads follows: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations. Professor Abi Saab defines sanction as a coercive response to an internationally wrongful act authorized by a competent social organ. James Crawford is of the view that it may be inferred from the definition of Abi-Saab that a “competent social organ” is not an individual state acting in its own right, or even a small group of states so acting. Instead it seems to refer to some competent social organ authorized to act on behalf of a collective interest, such as, for example, the Security Council. Imposition of national legislation having extra-territorial application are thus contrary to this norm and as such undermine the collective authority of the Security Council, which is the only competent social organ mandated by the international community to impose coercive measures in accordance with the procedures of Chapter VI and VII of the UN Charter.
B) US Sanction and non-intervention principle
Numerous multilateral treaties embody the prohibition on intervention. For example, the UN charter, Article 2 (7), while directed at the conduct of the organization itself as distinct from its Member states, is premised on a general principle of non – intervention. About Non-intervention in internal affairs Art VI of the Helsinki Final Act states also provided: The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations. They will accordingly refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such intervention against another participating State. They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
This principle involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference; though examples of trespass against this principle are not infrequent. The ICJ considers that it is part and parcel of customary international law. As the Court has observed: "Between independent States, respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations", and international law requires political integrity also to be respected.
Nicaragua filed suit against US at ICJ and the court took the opportunity to consider and determine the framework of this principle. Nicaragua has complained to the Court of certain measures of an economic nature taken against it by the Government of the United States, beginning with the cessation of economic aid in April 1981, which it regards as an indirect form of intervention in its internal affairs. Some evidence was referenced by Nicaragua as follows:
- According to information published by the United States Government, it provided more than $ 100 million in economic aid to Nicaragua between July 1979 and January 1981; however, concern in the United States Congress about certain activities attributed to the Nicaraguan Government led to a requirement that, before disbursing assistance to Nicaragua, the President certify that Nicaragua was not "aiding, abetting or supporting acts of violence or terrorism in other countries" (Special Central American Assistance Act, 1979, Sec. 536 (g)). Such a certification was given in September 1980 (45 Federal Register 62779), to the effect that “on the basis of an evaluation of the available evidence, that the Government of Nicaragua 'has not co-operated with or harbors any international terrorist organization or is aiding, abetting or supporting acts of violence or terrorism in other countries'".
- An official White House press release of the same date stated that “The certification is based upon a careful consideration and evaluation of all the relevant evidence provided by the intelligence community and by our Embassies in the field... Our intelligence agencies as well as our Embassies in Nicaragua and neighboring countries were fully consulted, and the diverse information and opinions from all sources were carefully weighed."
- However, on 1 April 1981 a determination was made to the effect that the United States could no longer certify that Nicaragua was not engaged in support for "terrorism" abroad, and economic assistance, which had been suspended in January 1981, was thereby terminated. According to the Nicaraguan Minister of Finance, these also affected loans previously contracted, and its economic impact was more than $ 36 million per annum. Nicaragua also claims that, at the multilateral level, the United States has acted in the Bank for International Reconstruction and Development and the Inter-American Development Bank to oppose or block loans to Nicaragua.
- On 23 September 1983, the President of the United States made a proclamation modifying the system of quotas for United States imports of sugar, the effect of which was to reduce the quota attributed to Nicaragua by 90 per cent. The Nicaraguan Finance Minister assessed the economic impact of the measure at between $ 15 and $ 18 million, due to the preferential system of prices that sugar has in the market of the United States.
- On 1 May 1985, the President of the US made an Executive Order, which contained a finding that "the policies and actions of the Government of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States" and declared a "national emergency". According to the President's message to Congress, this emergency situation had been created by "the Nicaraguan Government's aggressive activities in Central America". The Executive Order declared a total trade embargo on Nicaragua, prohibiting all imports from and exports to that country, barring Nicaraguan vessels from United States ports and excluding Nicaraguan aircraft from air transportation to and from the United States.
Finally, the court in paragraph 244 with recalling that as already noted, Nicaragua has also asserted that the United States is responsible for an "indirect" form of intervention in its internal affairs in as much as it has taken, to Nicaragua's disadvantage, certain action of an economic nature. The Court's attention has been drawn in particular to the cessation of economic aid in April 1981; the 90 per cent reduction in the sugar quota for United States imports from Nicaragua in April 1981; and the trade embargo adopted on 1 May 1985. While admitting in principle that some of these actions were not unlawful in themselves, counsel for Nicaragua argued that these measures of economic constraint add up to a systematic violation of the principle of non-intervention, concludes… At this point, the Court has merely to say that it is unable to regard such action on the economic plane as is here complained of as a breach of the customary law principle of non-intervention.
C) US Sanction and state Immunity principle
The ICJ judgment in the Jurisdiction Immunities of the State case, notes in the first place that the rule of State immunity is one of the fundamental principles of the international legal order and emphasizes that this principle has to be viewed together with the principle that each State possesses sovereignty over its own territory and that there flows from that sovereignty the jurisdiction of the State over events and persons within that territory. Exceptions to the immunity of the State represent a departure from the principle of sovereign equality. Immunity may represent a departure from the principle of territorial sovereignty and the jurisdiction which flows from it In this case the ICJ consideration of the treatment of United States practice on State immunity, in paragraph 88, in this regard, stated that With reference to national legislation, Italy referred to an amendment to the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, first adopted in 1996. That amendment withdraws immunity for certain specified acts (for example, torture and extra-judicial killings) if allegedly performed by a State which the United States Government has “designated as a State sponsor of terrorism” (28 USC 1605A). The Court notes that this amendment has no counterpart in the legislation of other States. None of the States which has enacted legislation on the subject of State immunity has made provision for the limitation of immunity on the grounds of the gravity of the acts alleged.
D) US Sanctions incompatibility with UNGA Resolutions
Although the UNGA resolutions aren’t binding, but some of them indicate the opinion juris of international community particularly the issues raised at the resolutions adopted by majority vote. on 22 December 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on “unilateral economic ensures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries”,( A/RES/60/185) by a recorded 120 votes in favor to 1 against (United States), the Assembly urged the international community to eliminate the use against developing countries of coercive economic measures that were neither authorized by UN organs nor consistent with the principles of the Organization’s Charter, and which contravened the basic principles of the unilateral trading system. The resolution expressed grave concern that the use of unilateral coercive economic measures adversely affected the economy and development efforts of developing countries in particular and had a general negative impact on international economic cooperation and on worldwide efforts to move towards a non-discriminatory and open multilateral trading system.
E) US Sanctions and international criminal law
These actions constitute not only violation of the provisions of UN charter and other international obligations but can also be considered in the field of international criminal law.
The US policy particularly to support the blockade can be enough to constitute the act of genocide by virtue of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) and as an act of economic warfare as established by the Declaration on the Law of Naval Warfare adopted by the London Naval Conference of 1909. The economic sanctions against Iran, focused at they are in undermining the very survival of the civilian population itself, amount to a form of collective punishment outlawed by the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions alike. There is never a justification for such collective punishment of civilians.
In this aspect, some Juristic and lawyers believe that intensity of the illegal actions presently being enforced, for example, against Iran, are causing great suffering and serious injury to millions of people in those countries. They are illegitimate and fall under the exact definition of crimes against humanity.
F) US Sanction and bilateral obligation
The Treaty of 1955 is still in force and the ICJ had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in platform case and it had decided in 1980 that the Treaty of 1955 was applicable at that time. As the Court recalled, none of the circumstances brought to its knowledge in the present case would cause it now to depart from that view. According to ICJ interpretation of the word "commerce" in Article 10, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of 1955 that it included commercial activities in general- not merely the immediate act of purchase and sale, but also the ancillary activities integrally related to commerce, the US breached its obligations to the I.R of Iran, inter alia, under Articles 1 and 10 (1) of the Treaty of Amity and international law.
4. International Responsibility
For obvious breach of mutual and bilateral obligations undertaken toward I.R. of Iran, the government of US is responsible under rules and principles of internationally wrongful Acts.
A) Possible Legal Excuses
The US cannot rely on any legal excuses for avoiding his responsibilities, but for a comprehensive review of the subject, some possible excuses, will be examined as follows:
The first excuse may be, Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), provides that: The present Treaty shall not preclude the application of measures. On 1996 in the ICJ Judgment in Oil Platforms case(Preliminary Objection) in paragraph 20, with considering to that paragraph, express this text could be interpreted as excluding certain measures from the actual scope of the Treaty and, consequently, as excluding the jurisdiction of the Court to test the lawfulness of such measures. It could also be understood as affording only a defense on the merits. The Court, in its Judgment of 27 June 1986 in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), adopted the latter interpretation for the application of an identical clause included in the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation concluded between the United States and Nicaragua on 21 January 1956. Iran argues, in this case, that the Court should give the same interpretation to Article XX, paragraph 1 (d). The U.S, for its part, in the most recent presentation of its arguments, stated that "consideration of the interpretation and application of Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), was a merits issue". The Court sees no reason to vary the conclusions it arrived at in 1986. It accordingly takes the view that Article 20, paragraph 1 (d), does not restrict its jurisdiction in the present case, but is confined to affording the Parties a possible defense on the merits to be used should the occasion arise.
The Second excuse, US may be argued that those restriction measures had imposed in framework of Security Council resolutions context for implementing mandatory Security Council resolutions on Iran. This allegation is considered as two aspect, domestic law and international law; The US government adopted the 1945 US United Nations Participation Act and according with that US Sanctions should be invocation of the US UN Participation Act which authorizes the US’s executive to carry out Security Council sanctions adopted on the basis of a determination of a threat to the peace, so on my viewpoint is that the legal basis clearly US domestic legislation.
Indeed, US Sanctions are also far more comprehensive that sanctions mandated by the UN Security Council. For instance, US sanctions mandate sanctions on Iran’s energy and general financial sector, which the Security Council sanctions do not. They are unilateral and with rare exception are far more comprehensive than that the Security Council requests. The US acts are officially designated to put pressure on Iran for changing its conduct in relation to certain of its supposed domestic (nuclear) & International (money laundering & financing of the terrorism) activities. The UN as an international organization has a special legal system (lex specialist) for this reason; any country hasn’t recourse to previsions of UN chapter and its hierarchy system, as justification. the content of the SC. Res which were adopted against the Iran contain clear references to the necessity of compliance of the states to humanitarian issues (in Article 10, Resolution 1929); respect for the laws and obligations of the states with respect to international trade (introductory part of the resolution); compliance with International Law of the Sea and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (introductory paragraphs as well as Paragraph 15 of the executive section). Considering to the following resolution, may be useful to uphold this argument, SC. Res 1737 (2006) provides, ... that Iran has not complied with this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary.
Moreover, there is no evidence supporting of this allege that resolution grant discretionary authority to states to broaden the scope of the measures and recourse to article 103 UN chapter. Even SC. Res 1929 (2010) Expressly Stressing that nothing in this resolution compels States to take measures or actions exceeding the scope of this resolution, including the use of force or the threat of force. In important case in national level, Supreme Court of the Netherlands in his Judgment in the case of sanction regulations against Iranian students on 2012 with considering the Dutch State contends that it was obliged to distinguish between Iranian and non-Iranian nationals because Resolution 1737 itself makes that distinction and The distinction State by the Sanctions Regulation relies on article 103 UN Charter. That article means that in case of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the Charter with obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the Charter shall prevail. The chapter also emphasize that if the Security Council adopt a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in which the members are called to take action, the State is required to comply therewith. The Court in response to the question of the measures that should be the starting points that Resolution 1737 itself this no specification contains and that does not require the Charter UN a particular way of implementing the Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. In principle the UN Charter allows the member states free to choose between the various possibilities of transposing into their national law. The State implementation must be made in accordance with the applicable rules of national law. The obligation to perform the resolution will consequently affect the State in which execution is to save his right other international obligations, in particular with respect for fundamental rights. Therefore, the right implementation which the State has to examine the fundamental rights that belong to the general principles of Community law.
B) US Sanctions as a Countermeasure
The US and its relevant regulations don’t comply with certain rules state of responsibility act. The international law commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, seeks to set out the law of Countermeasure in Articles 47-50. The reciprocal actions, especially “reciprocal restrictive measures,” which are only applicable to stop an international violation or make up for losses resulting from it, are taken as the basis of US’s actions against Iran, it has not observed all necessary conditions which should be present for such measures to be taken. For example, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which was drawn up by the United Nations International Law Commission in 2001, is among the most important international instruments on the rights and obligations of states. It has considered preconditions in articles 49, 50, and 51 for the legitimacy of “countermeasures”:
1. An injured State may only take countermeasures against a State which is responsible for an internationally wrongful act in order to induce that State to comply with its obligations…. Countermeasures are limited to the non-performance for the time being of international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State,” (paragraphs 1 & 2 of Article 49 of the Draft);
2. “Countermeasures must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account the gravity of the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question,” (Article 51 of the Draft);
3. “Countermeasure shall not affect: (a) the obligation (of the state) to refrain from the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights; (c) obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals; and (d) other obligations under peremptory norms of general international law.” (Article 50 of the Draft)
4. “State taking countermeasures is not relieved from fulfilling its obligations: (a) under any dispute settlement procedure applicable between it and the responsible State; (b) to respect the inviolability of diplomatic or consular agents, premises, archives and documents.” (Article 50 of the Draft)
5. Countermeasures are limited to the non-performance for the time being of international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State. Countermeasures shall, as far as possible, be taken in such a way as to permit the resumption of performance of the obligations in question. (Paragraphs 2 & 3 of Article 49 of the Draft).
6. These principles have been frequently referred to in courts and for handing down judicial decisions, those draft articles were applied with apparent approval by the ICJ in the Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project. In accordance with draft article 47, Countermeasures are acts which would normally be illegal but which may be justified as against another State because they are taken in response to a prior illegality on the part of that State. However, there are strict conditions and restrictions set out in the ILC Draft Articles for States to be able to use Countermeasure, which are set out in article 48-50. In present case, in the absence of any clear request addressed to the United States or the international community from the allegedly injured States, the illegal measures taken cannot be excused as countermeasures.
As discussed above and according to the aforesaid logics, the adoption of unilateral sanctions by the US constitutes a fundamental breach of the International obligation and also the I.R of Iran can consider bringing an international case before the competent judicial forum. The case could submit to ICJ or IUSCT. According to Article 21 of the Treaty of Amity which is still in force, any dispute between the two parties as to the interpretation or application of the treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the ICJ. In the jurisdictional phase of platform case the Court has had to decide whether the Treaty of Amity affords a basis of jurisdiction in respect of any of the claims advanced by Iran. In its judgments the court assumed jurisdiction on the basis of the treaty and provide an important precedent in this regard. The court ruled that any action by one of the Parties that is incompatible with those obligations is unlawful, regardless of the means by which it is brought about”.
Moreover Iranian officials can filed their suit in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the present case is based on article 17 of the general Declaration, which provides, this Tribunal has jurisdiction for hearing to any dispute arises between the parties as to the interpretation or performance of any provision of this Declaration, either party may submit the dispute to binding arbitration.
The damages inflicted on the I.R. of Iran as a result of malicious steps taken by US, on legal mind raise a question, how can victim state do for compensation, all damages (Intellectual damages and tangible damages) which were suffered with regards? In responded to this question, In view of the above arguments, we find that, the United States is under an obligation to make reparations to the Islamic Republic for the violation of its international legal obligations and Iran can recourse to competent Court, Iran as a claimant, could be requested the Court to adjudge and declare as follows:
a) Immediately stop all illegal activities,
b) Restore the position of Iran, to that which existed prior to before the imposition of sanctions against Iran,
c) Compensate for all kinds of damages were imposed against Iranian people and its government.
 BUREAU OF ECO., energy AND BUSI. AFFAIRS, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment, ,U.S. Dept. of St. (23 May 2011),available at: <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/ fs/2012/198393.htm> , accessed on 16 July 2014.
2 50I.S.A.(1996),availableat:http://www.house.gov/legcoun/Comps/Iran%20Sanctions%20Act %20Of%201996.pdf, accessed on 16 July 2014.
 BUREAU OF ECO., energy AND BUSI AFFAIRS, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment,,U.S. Dept. of St. (23 May 2011),available at: <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/esc/iransanctions/docs/160710.htm>,accessed on 16 July 2014.
4 Executive Office of the President, Authorising the Imposition of Certain Sanctions With Respect to the Provision of Goods, services, Technology, or Support for Iran’s Energy and Petrochemical Sectors, Federal Register, the Daily J. of the U.S. Govt. (23 November 2011), available at:
<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/23/2011-30463/authorizing-the-imposition- of-certain-sanctions-with-respect-to-the-provision-of-goods-services>, accessed on 16 July 2014.
5 Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Order 13622, Federal Register-U.S. Gov. Printing Office,(2 August 2012) available at:
<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD- 201200607/pdf/DCPD-201200607.pdf>, accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Michael P. Malloy, United States Economic Sanctions: Theory and Practice. (Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, 2001), pp. xxv+ 738; p. 3
 Ibid., p. 10
 Ibid., p.18
 Immunities of the State Jurisdiction (Germany v. Italy), 2012 I.C.J. par. 57 (Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders), available at:
<http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16883.pdf > accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml>, accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Georges Abi-Saab, “The Concept of Sanction in International Law”, in Vera Gowlland (ed.), United Nations Sanction and International Law .The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, published by Kluwer, The Hague, 2001), pp. xiv + 408 at p. 39
 JAMES CRAWFORD, The Relationship between Sanctions and Countermeasures, UN SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (Vera Gowlland ed., Kluwer, Hague, 2001) p.57.
 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania ), 9 April 1949 I.C.J., available at:
< http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/1/1499.pdf > accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) 1986 I.C.J. par.123 (June 27), available at:
< http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/9615.pdf > accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Id.par 123-125.
 U.N. General Assembly, Res 185, 60th Sess., A/Res/60/185 (22 Dec. 2005).
 Hague Ctr. for L. and Arb. And Doshisha Univ. Graduate Sch. of Global Studies, Unilateral Sanctions and International Law: Views on Legitimacy and Consequences, p.17 (11 July 2013), available at:
<http://ilcc.eu/Editor/UploadFiles/PDF/Abstracts%20of%20Presentations%20at%20the.pdf(p .17) > accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Case Concerning United States Diplomatic And Consular Staff In Tehran (United States Of America v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J.p.28, par.54 (May 24), available at:
<http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/64/9545.pdf> accessed on 17 July 2014.
 Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States Of America), Preliminary Objection, 1996 I.C. J. p.10, par.15 (December 12), available at:
< http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/7211.pdf> accessed on 16 July 2014.
 Id. p.20, para.49.
 I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 116, para. 222, and p. 136, para. 271
 ALLCO, 52nd Annual Sess., (2013), available at : <http://www.aalco.int/52ndsession/Final%20/Summary%20/Report%20/2013/pdf/> accessed on 16 July 2014.
 United Nations Security Council , Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Security Council 63th Meeting (9 June 2010), available at : <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/SC9948.doc.htm> accessed on 16 July 2014.
 ECJ, September 3, 2008, business and El KadiBakaraat, C-402/05 P, in principle, to fully Resolution 1737 and 415/05 P, LJN BF7850, NJ 2009/38, rov 285 – 326.
 G.A.,Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, U.N. GAOR, 53rd Sess.,Supp.No.10 (A/56/10),Chp.IV.E.2 (Nov.2001), available at: <http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup06/basicmats2/DASRcomm.pdf> , accessed on 16th July 2014.
 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT DECLARATION Art. II, available at:
http://www.iusct.net/General%20Documents/2-Claims%20Settlement%20Declaration.pdf accessed on 16th July 2014.