The Iran Deal and the Rule of Law

The "Deal" that NEVER WAS !

It had NO Guts..... and it defiantly had NO Glory !

That's what will happen when a malcontent who got a purple heart for some paper cuts, and an unqualified inexperienced dude, chosen only for his hue, attempt to make world policy.

That's what will happen when a malcontent who got a purple heart for some paper cuts, and an unqualified inexperienced dude, chosen only for his hue, attempt to make world policy.

Then why did you vote for Trump?????????????????

"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."

Though the document that contained the final version of the JCPOA was never actually signed by the Iranians.

Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA proved to the world that the word of a Trump led America is worthless.

Trump is aware of what a dick move he made which is why he kept asking his cabinet members, "Can I break it yet?", and they kept telling him "No Mr. President, because Iran is keeping their word which means that if you break yours first you'll look like a dick while dishonoring America's world standing".

So Trump just fired the folk that tried to defend Americas honor then went out and got him some "yes master" butt kissers who finally gave him the answer he wanted to hear.

"Can I break it yet?"  "Sure boss, burn it all down and prove that the word of the Iranians has more worth than the word of a Trump led America."

Executive agreement - international law

Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution of the United States does not specifically give a president the power to conclude executive agreements. However, he may be authorized to do so by Congress, or he may do so on the basis of the power granted him to conduct foreign relations. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

Most executive agreements have been made pursuant to a treaty or to an act of Congress. Sometimes, however, presidents have concluded executive agreements to achieve purposes that would not command the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II but before American entry into the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 overage destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British naval bases in the Atlantic.

The use of executive agreements increased significantly after 1939. Prior to 1940 the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had made 1,200 executive agreements; from 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties but negotiated more than 13,000 executive agreements.

.

Is the Trump Administration Bound by the Iran Deal?

Introduction

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”)—also often referred to as the Iran Deal or the Iran Agreement—marked a significant shift in the relationship between the United States and Europe, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under this Agreement, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its existing stockpiles of low-enriched uranium, and reduce the number of its centrifuges in exchange for the lifting of a number of sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations Security Council. Iran also agreed to restrict the amount of nuclear fuel it will keep over the next fifteen years.

The Deal, signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, ended decades of animosity between the United States—and the West more broadly—and Iran. After years of tough sanctions from the US and Europe, Iran agreed to come to the negotiating table. The JCPOA, which has brought together six different world powers (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany) and the EU, will significantly stall Iran’s nuclear development program.

What is the Iran Deal?

Whether the Trump Administration can withdraw or dismantle the JCPOA rests in part on what the Agreement actually is.

What type of agreement is it domestically?

Traditionally, there have been three kinds of agreements concluded under U.S. law: 1) Article II treaties (signed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate); 2) sole executive agreements (concluded by the president acting solely and within his independent constitutional authority and without any input from Congress); and 3) congressional-executive agreements (which involve a Congressional statute, passed either before or after an agreement has been made, which grants the President authority to conclude the). On occasion, the executive has also entered into non-binding political agreements.[1]

Although the Deal may have begun as a series of talks, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (“Review Act”) re-framed what type of agreement the Iran Deal is. What was originally intended to be a way to curb the President’s power may have actually been the very thing that transformed “what would have been a constitutionally dubious exercise of unilateral executive authority (a ‘sole executive agreement’) into a constitutionally unimpeachable exercise of joint legislative and executive power (a ‘congressional-executive agreement’).” It was ultimately this Review Act that gave President Obama the authority to conclude a “legally binding nuclear agreement, [and] not just an informal political pact.” Along with the “constitutional text, democratic principles, and entrenched practice,” the Review Act adopted in May 2015 supports the binding character of the Agreement and “grants the Administration authority to negotiate and implement binding legal commitments with Iran.

What type of agreement is it internationally?

Internationally, the Iran Deal is a treaty. The distinction that exists under domestic U.S. law regarding the type of agreement the Iran Deal may or may not be isn’t replicated on the international level . The Vienna Convention established the definition of a treaty without prejudice to differing uses of the term ‘‘treaty’’ in the domestic laws of various states. Article 2, Section 1(a) of the Vienna Convention defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” Treaties have been used consistently throughout the twentieth century, to establish durable relationships and aid in international governance. They consistently serve “as an intrinsic part of our global order and have been considered legally binding.”[2] International agreements are transformed from a piece of paper, or most likely a sum of papers, meetings, phone calls, and other communications, into a binding law is the formal agreement made by countries through an act of consent.[3] The Iran Deal has all the characteristics of an international treaty: written document, buy-in from a number of states, and firm commitments. As such, under international law, the Agreement is presumptively legally binding.

Can the Trump Administration Legally Withdraw from the Deal under International Law?

As an international treaty, the Iran Deal is governed by the paramount principle of international law pacta sunt servanda—the notion that that treaties must be kept. As such, without cause or justification, the United States would be in breach of international law if it simply walks away from the Agreement. However, as laid out in the United National Security Council Resolution blessing the deal, the Agreement provides the parties with a possibility to withdraw from the agreement through a “snapback” mechanism. This allows any of the six parties to the Agreement to flag significant non-compliance and, if concerns remain unresolved, snap back all sanctions previously leveled against Iran. Nowhere in the Agreement is “significant non-compliance” defined, leaving the definition and scope up to each individual member.

Lawful but Awful

As laid out above, both domestically and internationally, President Trump has a legal and legitimate way to withdraw from the Agreement. This blog post joins a chorus of voices calling on President Trump to consider the awful implications of tearing up this Agreement, and argues it would be much more prudent for the Trump Administration to continue to abide by the Agreement and waive sanctions in return for international monitoring, limiting nuclear development, and cooperation with Iran.

For those who worry Iran has gotten the better side of the deal and that the Agreement was not enough to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it is worth noting where Iran was before the deal was struck. In 2013, at the start of negotiations, Iran’s breakout time— the time it would take Iran to create enough material for one nuclear bomb—was about two months. As a result of the Agreement, Iran will be forced to slow down its enrichment and development program for the next fifteen years, giving the international world at least that much time to prepare for a possible nuclear Iran. Many U.S. allies joined President Obama’s call for sanctions in 2009, in part because they were convinced absent a diplomatic path, “the result could be war, with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East.” Sanctions, thus, were the tool employed by the U.S. and its allies to force Iran to engage in a diplomatic solution.

There is only honor in actual "Treaties" !

This "Iran Deal" of Obamas and Kerry's was nothing more than a non-binding pinky swear !

This "Iran Deal" of Obamas and Kerry's was nothing more than a non-binding pinky swear !

.

I'm not sure President Trump agrees with you. 

If he thought your view of the JCPOA had any worth he would have gotten out January 21, 2017 instead of sticking to it for 16 months.

Instead he waited until he could get the just the right combination of Sycophants around him, stroking his tiny hands and give him the courage to, once again, embarrass America on the world stage.

If he thought your view of the JCPOA had any worth he would have gotten out January 21, 2017 instead of sticking to it for 16 months.

He had other "Important" things to deal with. NOW, he dealt with this Playground piece of paper. It's DONE !

You do mean the 145 days at his properties of which 113 were golf days, I guess we all have different concepts of what is important.

I meant and referenced nothing of the sort.

Are you posting on the WRONG article again ?

NK is poised to enter a "deal" and we know from history that their deals are subject to being dumped whenever they take a notion, trump has the same credibility now.

NK is poised to enter a "deal" and we know from history that their deals are subject to being dumped whenever they take a notion, trump has the same credibility now.

There was NO BINDING DEAL with Iran. John Kerry said as much.

Perhaps and I will admit I do not know the details, but for a "non binding" agreement it seems that everyone took it seriously and now that trump has withdrawn he wants them to still abide by its tenants, typically twisted.

John Kerry said Congress didn't have the authority to change it, as it was just an agreement (wink,wink) between executives of countries. Of course, Obama and Kerry Bypassed congress to get this Pinky Swear done.

It can be revoked by the next president because it was and still is a threat to our national security, and that of other nations in that region. It is non binding and wasn't being adhered to by Iran.

Wonder why folks are so irate over the FACT that Iran didn't/never signed or agreed to the "deal" and Trump is just vacating a worthless document?

It's Trump. 

Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

So you think something of this significance should be an agreement instead of a treaty which requires the Senate to be involved.  When Trump has a problem with the Liberal Judges in doing his Constitutional duties or rights for being the top of the Executive Branch and you think Obama can do this without anyone other than him making the decision?

To quote the Obama administration:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document.