Opinion The Iran Deal and the Rule of Law

18:56  11 may  2018
18:56  11 may  2018 Source:   nationalreview.com

Iran's president: US ending deal will be 'historic regret'

  Iran's president: US ending deal will be 'historic regret' Iran's president is warning President Donald Trump that pulling America out of the nuclear deal with world powers would be a "historic regret.President Hassan Rouhani made the comments Sunday in the city of Sabzevar while on a tour of Iran's Razavi Khorasan province.

Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel, Applying the UNCITRAL Rules : The Experience of the Iran -United States Claims Tribunal, 4 Int'l Tax & Bus. Law . The UNCITRAL Rules were conceived for tribunals formed to deal with one particular arbitration in international com-mercial relations, either by ad hoc or

Abstract. In the nineteenth century, the last of a series of tribal dynasties ruled Iran , and the Shia religious establishment had a monopoly of law , which However, in practice the sharia courts enjoyed almost all judicial power and dealt with cases in accordance with well-developed Shia rules of

President Obama with Secretary of State John Kerry in 2015.© Kevin Lamarque/Reuters President Obama with Secretary of State John Kerry in 2015.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Has President Donald Trump just shown the world that America’s word is worthless?

That’s one of the chief arguments put forward by opponents of Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a.k.a. the Iran nuclear deal. The president’s dismissal of the concerns of America’s allies and partners in the PK5+1 group that negotiated the deal is being criticized as epitomizing an “America First” approach in which friends, as well as foes, can no longer count on the U.S. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen argued that after Trump’s decision, the world may come to believe “America’s word is worthless.” His colleague Nikolas Kristof described the move as a form of “vandalism” that demonstrates a similar lack of respect for both alliances and strategic continuity from one administration to the next.

Israeli PM steps up calls to end the Iranian nuclear deal

  Israeli PM steps up calls to end the Iranian nuclear deal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is stepping up his calls on the world to cancel the nuclear deal as President Donald Trump weighs whether to withdraw the United States from the 2015 agreement with Iran.In a briefing to foreign reporters Netanyahu said "a deal that enables Iran to keep and hide all its nuclear weapons know-how, is a horrible deal.

For any member of Congress genuinely concerned about rule of law , it is incumbent upon them seriously to consider the legal ramifications of the Iran nuclear deal and its blatant disregard of binding U.S. law .

Due process vanished from college campuses. Members of Congress and Trump officials were spied on to protect the Iran nuke deal and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The rule of law didn’t exist under Obama.

The problem with this argument has more to do with the events of 2015 than with the current debate on the merits of Trump’s decision. Had the Obama administration passed the Iran deal as a treaty, giving it not only greater legitimacy but the force of law, it would be possible to argue that Trump indeed trashed the good name of the United States by going back on the nation’s word. Instead, in deliberately bypassing the constitutional process for ratifying a pact with a foreign power, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry assumed that once the deal was in place, no successor would dare try to overturn it.

The jury is still out on whether Trump can, as he clearly intends, turn the clock back to 2013, when international sanctions first brought Iran to the table. At that moment, with the Iranian economy teetering on the edge of collapse, the Islamist regime’s negotiators were shocked to find that every time they said “no” to Western demands, Kerry and his team were prepared to simply accept their refusals and move on to new concessions. The result was a pact granting international approval to a nuclear program that had previously been considered illegal, and making it all but certain that Iran would acquire a nuclear weapon eventually. But since it seemed impossible for international sanctions to ever be reimposed — America’s European partners had happily abandoned them as soon as possible — Obama believed his legacy was safe.

Macron: Trump Could Start a War With Iran Nuclear Deal

  Macron: Trump Could Start a War With Iran Nuclear Deal <p>President Donald Trump could start a war if he chooses to fully withdraw from the Iran deal later this month.\</p>Marcon said in an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel that exiting the Iran deal "would mean opening Pandora’s box." "It could mean war,” he said Saturday, adding, “I don’t believe that Donald Trump wants war.

This philosophy drove him to support the Iran deal and to take the stance of a climate hawk. He grounded the search for peace, moreover, in the rule of law .

Ayatollah Khomeini issued 500 fatwas on Iranian intellectuals and the opposition. Iran ’s foreign minister should not be surprised that West is not wholeheartedly committed to securing a full nuclear deal . A country that assassinates its exiles all over the world and flouts the rule of law regularly is not

Though the document that contained the final version of the JCPOA was never actually signed by the Iranians, it effectively constituted the most significant foreign treaty negotiated by the United States since the end of the Cold War. Yet Obama and Kerry had no intention of following the process set up by the Constitution for ratifying treaties. Instead, they classified the deal as merely an understanding between the United States and other governments.

The excuse for doing so, as illogical as it was false, was eventually provided by Kerry, at a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing: “Well congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and it has become physically impossible. That’s why [we bypassed the Senate]. Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore.”

It was an example of the sort of senseless hyperbole that is usually associated with Trump rather than Kerry. But it is also worth noting that within 48 hours of Kerry’s statement, the United States ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency submitted to it the document certifying the formal ratification of a treaty: an Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, one of four related pacts that the Senate had passed in the years leading up to the Iran deal under the same constitutional ratification process that had been used for more than two centuries. In truth, it was never “physically impossible” to pass a treaty through the proper constitutional channels.

Oil pops above $70 for first time since 2014

  Oil pops above $70 for first time since 2014 Rising oil prices just passed another milestone as traders prepare for the possibility that President Trump will abandon the Iran nuclear deal.Oil prices have been climbing partly because of expectations that President Donald Trump will abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to export more crude.

The P5+1 effort with Iran on the nuclear issue is a case of classic multilateral idealism: global relationships as moral, ordered, rational, and based on the rule of law . Projecting their own views onto a very different culture, administration leaders have touted the opportunities the deal offers Iran

MR. COSTA: What do the new rules mean for Americans and the future of the law ? Plus, the president says the Iran nuclear agreement is a bad deal and requests Congress to act. PRESIDENT TRUMP: (From video.) The Iranian regime continues to fuel conflict, terror

Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA can’t have shown the world that America’s word is worthless, because the JCPOA never represented America’s word to begin with.

Obama’s brazen refusal to submit the JCPOA to the Senate gave the lie to the notion that America’s word was at stake in sticking to the deal. But in one of the cleverest maneuvers of his eight years in office, he was still able to procure a fig leaf of congressional cover for the agreement, with crucial help from Republicans who were otherwise publicly opposed to his scheme.

Obama was making foreign policy with the same arrogant contempt for the constitutional separation of powers that he had shown in making immigration policy. The likely implementation of the Iran deal without Senate approval was no different from Obama’s executive orders that granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in full disregard of Congress’s refusal to pass the laws he wanted. The difference in this case was the foolish desperation of Republicans to be granted the appearance of having a say in the matter.

Iran president warns of 'problems' as Trump decision looms

  Iran president warns of 'problems' as Trump decision looms Iran's president has warned the country could face "some problems" ahead of President Donald Trump's decision on whether to pull out of its nuclear deal with world powers. Without directly naming Trump, Rouhani's remarks on Tuesday at a petroleum conference in Tehran represented the first official Iranian comment on the U.S. president's overnight tweet that he'd make an announcement on the deal Tuesday. "It is possible that we will face some problems for two or three months, but we will pass through this," Rouhani said.Rouhani also stressed Iran wants to keep "working with the world and constructive engagement with the world.

Gorsuch Defends the Rule of Law in Immigration Case. SocietyNews. It gained a better deal on uranium enrichment than Washington has offered to its own allies. Taiwan, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates were denied enrichment arrangements that Iran now has pocketed.

How Benjamin Netanyahu accidentally made the case for the Iran nuclear deal . The key problem with the Rule of Law in this country is not that, from time to time, protesters may stay in certain private and public spaces too long.

That was the context for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, championed by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker. President Trump has accused Corker of being responsible for the Iran deal, and he’s not entirely wrong. While Corker opposed the JCPOA and then voted against it, his bill was always something of a setup for opponents of the deal. It ostensibly placed a check on the president’s extra-constitutional Iran gambit, by giving Congress the right to limit the president’s ability to lift economic sanctions. But what it created was a backward treaty-confirmation process: Instead of requiring the assent of two-thirds of the Senate to the pact, it gave Obama a shortcut.

Under Corker’s legislation, all the president needed to do to thwart a resolution disapproving the JCPOA was exercise his veto power, and then have just over one-third of either the House or Senate sustain it. In the end, the Democrats were prepared to sustain Obama’s veto, and the GOP majority in the Senate could not even muster the votes to end a filibuster of its attempt to override. This allowed the president the ability to claim that the JCPOA had passed Congress, despite majorities in both the House and Senate on record as being opposed to it.

Consensus on any issue is difficult to obtain in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of contemporary Washington. But it is not impossible if there is general agreement on an issue involving national security. Had Kerry brought back from Vienna a treaty that fulfilled Obama’s 2012 campaign promises about ending, rather than merely legalizing and postponing, the Iranian nuclear program, it would have garnered considerable support from Republicans, as well as from allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia that are in the crosshairs of the Iranian regime. Instead, he brought back a treaty that really was impossible to pass through the Senate.

Thus, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA can’t have shown the world that America’s word is worthless, because the JCPOA never represented America’s word to begin with. If Obama’s acolytes are now frustrated that his signature foreign-policy “achievement” has been undone with the stroke of a pen, they have no one to blame but their hero himself.

The Latest: White House condemns Iran's 'reckless actions' .
The White House is condemning Iran's "reckless actions," accusing the country of "exporting destabilizing influence throughout the Middle East." White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders has issued a statement citing actions in Syria and Saudi Arabia. She is calling on "responsible nations" to pressure Iran to "change this dangerous behavior.

Source: http://us.pressfrom.com/news/opinion/-144074-the-iran-deal-and-the-rule-of-law/

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

This is interesting!