Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Germany, France and the UK begin the JCPOA’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism Process – A Gateway for the Reimposition of UN and EU sanctions?

By Meredith Rathbone, Guy Soussan, Martin Willner, David O'Sullivan & Eléonore Colin on January 23, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On January 14, Germany, France and the UK initiated the dispute resolution mechanism in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) based on Iran’s decision to pull away from its obligations under the agreement. While the European participants see the dispute resolution mechanism as a way to keep the JCPOA alive, triggering the mechanism also serves as the first of several steps that must be taken before UN and EU sanctions could potentially be reimposed. Though the reimposition of sanctions is far from inevitable, it is important to understand the functioning of the dispute resolution mechanism in order to anticipate the timeline of any possible future developments.

  • Referral to the Joint Commission: Under paragraphs 36-37 of the JCPOA, the dispute mechanism process is triggered when one or more participants refers an issue of non-compliance to the Joint Commission. The commission was established as part of the JCPOA and includes members from all participants (Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the UK). Germany, France and the UK took this step on January 14. The Joint Commission has 15 days to resolve the issue, unless that period is extended by consensus.
  • Referral to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and/or the Advisory Board: If the issue cannot be resolved by the Joint Commission, the participants have two options: Either, they can refer the issue to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs for another 15-day period (subject to extension) or they may directly refer the issue to an Advisory Board. The Advisory Board can consider the issue either in parallel with (option 1) or in place of (option 2) the Ministers of Foreign Affairs’ consideration. The Advisory Board is made up of three members, one selected by each party and a third independent member. By the end of the second 15-day period, the Advisory Board will issue a non-binding opinion on compliance.
  • Reconsideration by the Joint Commission: If the opinion itself does not resolve the issue, the Advisory Board will refer the issue along with the opinion back to the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission then has an additional 5 days to resolve the issue.
  • Notification to the Security Council of Non-compliance: If the Joint Commission remains unable to resolve the issue, the European JCPOA signatories “could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing [their] commitments.” At this point European signatories could decide to notify the UN Security Council that they believe Iran’s behavior constitutes significant non-performance. According to the JCPOA, only “the complaining party” may notify the Security Council, suggesting that the United States would not be able to initiate the snap-back of UN Sanctions if Germany, France and the UK chose not to notify the Security Council.
  • Reimposition of UN Sanctions: Upon referral to the Security Council, UN sanctions are automatically re-imposed after 30 days unless the Security Council adopts a resolution to continue the lifting of sanctions. The reimposition of sanctions are “automatic” because they do not require the passage of another UN Security Council resolution, meaning that China and Russia could not veto the reimposition of sanctions. The sanctions that would be reimposed would be those found in UN Security Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010), and 2224 (2015). If reintroduced, EU Member States would automatically implement the UN sanctions.
  • Reimposition of EU Sanctions: In addition to UN sanctions, independent EU measures could also be reimposed. In a 2015 declaration, EU Member States indicated that they could “reintroduce without delay all EU nuclear-related sanctions that have been suspended and/or terminated in case of significant non-performance by Iran of its commitments under the JCPOA.” This would require a joint recommendation of the EU High Representative, Germany, France and the UK and a unanimous support of all EU Member States under the standard procedures.

It remains too early to tell how much of the dispute resolution process the parties will use and whether the initiation of this process signals the resumption of UN or EU sanctions against Iran. Over the past year, many European states have strongly dissociated themselves from the US administration’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and reimpose US sanctions on Iran. Even in the announcement triggering the dispute resolution mechanism, France, Germany and the United Kingdom reiterated their commitment to the JCPOA and their determination to preserve it. Moreover, the EU and its Member States continue to support a diplomatic solution that will enable de-escalation. Future developments will largely depend on Iran’s reaction in the weeks to come.

Photo of Meredith Rathbone Meredith Rathbone

Meredith Rathbone focuses on export controls and economic sanctions, and has assisted clients in the energy, manufacturing, telecommunications, information security, banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, and service industries, among many others, in navigating the requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International Traffic in Arms…

Meredith Rathbone focuses on export controls and economic sanctions, and has assisted clients in the energy, manufacturing, telecommunications, information security, banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, and service industries, among many others, in navigating the requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and US sanctions regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and US Department of State. She regularly assists companies in developing compliance policies, conducting internal investigations, performing training, and conducting due diligence in M&A transactions. She has represented individuals and companies facing civil and criminal investigations in this area, and has also represented clients in their efforts to be removed from OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs). She is a frequent writer and speaker on export controls and sanctions topics. She is the co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee, and also serves on the Sanctions Subcommittee of the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy.

Read Meredith’s full bio.

Read more about Meredith RathboneEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Guy Soussan Guy Soussan

Guy Soussan advises clients on various aspects of EU and French export control regulations, including controls and licensing regimes for both military and commercial products and technologies. His export practice covers compliance development and implementation, internal investigations, and enforcement matters, including voluntary disclosures.

Guy Soussan advises clients on various aspects of EU and French export control regulations, including controls and licensing regimes for both military and commercial products and technologies. His export practice covers compliance development and implementation, internal investigations, and enforcement matters, including voluntary disclosures. He also provides advice and assistance with EU economic sanctions targeting specific countries such as Iran, Libya, Syria, and most recently, Ukraine and Russia. His experience covers a wide range of industries, including manufacturing, energy, telecommunications, banking and insurance, petroleum and petro-chemicals, aerospace, and defense. He has conducted internal compliance audits, provided assistance on company compliance programs, and counseled clients on the application of the rules to specific transactions.

Read Guy’s full bio.

Read more about Guy SoussanEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, International
  • Blog:
    International Compliance Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • The FTI Award Journal
  • International Dispute Resolution
  • China Law Update Blog
  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo