Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by ShahryarHedayat, Oct 13, 2015.

  1. taxiya
    Offline

    taxiya Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    3,491
    Likes Received:
    7,622
    What you are saying is basically, International law and treaty that the US signed up are load of horse piles, US will enforce it selectively and only upon others, but will fxxk it whenever want.

    Everybody knows very well the importance of enforcement, that is the brutal force. Nobody here dreams of US being self-restraint. What you have just said will wake up anyone (if there is still some) who may still have the faintest belief that US is the upholder and defender of international law that it tries to pretend.

    And lastly, it is not just US having the brute force to break or enforce, there may be times (and more and more) that you may wish others to abide something agreed, to get that you have to show respect to agreement today. Nothing is free.

    As the gloves are off, there is nothing more to debate.
     
    Khalij e Fars, plawolf and solarz like this.
  2. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,907
    Likes Received:
    10,271
    The JCPOA was not a treaty the JCPOA was not a Law, it was a deal. The JCPOA was entirely Voluntary without an enforcement mechanism.
    For the Iranians there was supposed to be such international sanctions for the US and others there was not.
    The US withdrew from the JCPOA as a policy choice, yet it only enacted sanctions on Iran. Seven wavers were issued to nations like Russia to allow JCPOA approved actions, those being conversion of Iranian Nuclear technology to a civil function.
    Those wavers stop the US from sanctioning those actions. https://www.apnews.com/afb7f68d42614c2789af28291317d333
     
  3. taxiya
    Offline

    taxiya Major
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    3,491
    Likes Received:
    7,622
    For anyone interested to understand whether UNSC is legally binding on all member states. I advice reading this wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution
    If still in doubt, check the UN charter at un.org. But please don't make up things based on personal favour.

    Here are a few key quotes:
    Here is the chain of logics, hope it is not so difficult to understand.
    • UN charter is a treaty.
    • UNSC resolution is legally binding to all members according to UN charter article 25. A treaty obligation.
    • JCPOA is part of UNSC resolution 2231, NOT a (UNSC) presidential statement. Therefore treaty obligation.
    • USA is a founding member of UN, therefore legally obliged itself (the state as a whole, not just part of its institutions) to follow UNSC resolution.
    The only way to legally withdraw from JCPOA is to FIRST leave UN, therefor be relieved of the obligation imposed by charter article 25. Otherwise, it is a rogue action.
     
  4. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,907
    Likes Received:
    10,271
    The Horse is dead quit beating it.

    The UN is a Treaty the JCPOA is not.
    Even if enacted by the security council it was never a treaty. The UN is not a global government.
    The Group that assembled it wrote a plan of action in which Iran promised to behave in a set way and would be rewarded.
    The other members said they would basically give up the right to have a domestic sanctions regime something that is not lawful. And impose mechanisms to encourage a peaceful nuclear program.

    The UN cannot trump Domestic governments.

    The US said no we don’t trust Iran and enacted a sanctions regime, but simultaneously issued wavers so as to allow the Other members of the JCPOA to maintain their investment.
    The European members basically admitted they couldn’t fulfill their end of the retaliatory sanctions if Iran broke its end of the bargain.
    And Iran has announced they they broke the limit on nuclear materials production.
    JCPOA was a joke from day one. End run around domestic nations ratification to force it in place by use of the UNSC, to prevent a veto.
     
  5. Dizasta1
    Offline

    Dizasta1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Fact of the matter remains that when an agreement is made, to go back on it, is a sign that the one who goes back on it is unreliable and discredited. Further agreements or proposed agreements are by default, a non-starter. And so far, America's track record in terms of agreements or deals is dismal at best.
     
    Anlsvrthng likes this.
  6. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    241
    Rules are clear now:
    1. there is no freedom of navigation on the world oceans, that exist only if you have guns to enforce it.
    2. If a country sanction another country then it is legal to confiscate any ships belonging to the sanctioned country .


    LOL

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/royal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48882455

     
    Khalij e Fars likes this.
  7. Khalij e Fars
    Offline

    Khalij e Fars New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2019
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    16
    Russian Nebo-M and Nezonans-N radars are not among "the most advanced" radars?
     
  8. Khalij e Fars
    Offline

    Khalij e Fars New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2019
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    16
    Wrong.

    The UNSC has power to create binding resolutions. Article 25 UN Charter: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".

    Lack of enforcement mechanism ≠ lack of ability to create binding resolutions.
     
    taxiya likes this.
  9. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,333
    Always hiding behind technicalities. The US rips away treaties all the time.
    They did it with the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and now unilaterally imposing sanctions on China. Before that they did the same on Canada and Mexico.

    Who cares what was the manner of speech behind it. It was signed by the US Secretary of State and the rest of the UN Security Council members. The US creates institutions like the UN and then applies its rules against other countries, but ignores the rules whenever it benefits it.
    The US Congress repealed it you say. The President is helpless against it you say. Well, the US Congress voted against US support on the War on Yemen and weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. Yet the US President just steamrolled over Congress! Weapons sales to Saudi Arabia continue! So don't blame US Congress. Especially when it is controlled by Republicans. There is no excuse. There is one culprit alone for leaving the JCPOA and it is the Trump administration.

    Trump thinks he can continuously and unilaterally change the terms of deals all the time.
    This is US naked aggression and anyone will see it like that.
     
    #189 gelgoog, Jul 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2019
    Khalij e Fars, taxiya and DigoSSA like this.
  10. Khalij e Fars
    Offline

    Khalij e Fars New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2019
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    16
    The JCPOA itself is not a treaty. Its legal status under US law is disputed. Some (such as Stephen Mulligan) believe it is a purely political sole-executive agreement (meaning a future POTUS can unilaterally violate it without breaching US law) whilst others (such as Golove and Ackerman) contend it is a congressional-executive agreement in light of INARA. However, most agree that the US violation of the JCPOA and re-imposition of sanctions did not violate US law.

    The legality of the JCPOA under international law is a different matter as a result of UNSCR 2231. It is widely accepted that UNSCRs can create binding international law. Even pro-US legal commentators (such as John Bellinger) concede that many paragraphs of UNSCR 2231 create binding obligations, they just contest the binding nature of the rest of the resolution.
     
Loading...

Share This Page