header-logo header-logo

16 September 2020 / Marc Weller
Issue: 7902 / Categories: Features , International justice , Profession
printer mail-detail

International law: Lethal weapon(s)

27516
Marc Weller outlines why & how he believes the US bungled the Iran sanctions snapback

In brief

  • Non-compliance: an increasingly serious pattern.
  • Ongoing debate: US withdrawal from the deal, Iranian compliance or non-compliance and a possible US attempt to trigger the snapback.
  • Legal disputes: tense relations between governments.

In August, the US Administration attempted to trigger the Iranian sanctions snapback. Broad UN sanctions against Iran had been removed in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. The deal committed Tehran to abandoning its reputed nuclear weapons programme. The snapback allows the parties to the deal to bring the sanctions back into operation through a unilateral claim of significant non-compliance—an important safeguard in view of the feared break-out from the international nuclear non-proliferation regime by Iran.

However, when the US sought to exercise its claimed right to bring the full range of UN sanctions back into operation through a unilateral application to the Security Council, this request was simply ignored. If this position is maintained, this would represent an unprecedented

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll