Amidst US-Iran nuclear talks, Iran wants UN human rights body to pronounce sanctions contrary to human rights

At a time when the US-Iran nuclear negotiations are ongoing, Iran leads a request before a UN human rights body, in parallel.

Iran and Palestine spearheaded Human Rights Council Resolution 24/14, which mandates the Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee to look into the socioeconomic impact of unilateral sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights.

US sanctions on Iran, while much criticized and debated, have worked, as they pushed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of office and made possible for the moderate in comparison, Hassan Rouhani, to come to power.

That brought a foreign policy shift and put Iran back on the international scene – from Rouhani’s social media engagement on Twitter to willingness to engage in international bi-lateral and multi-lateral diplomacy. Iran-US nuclear talks leading to an implementable deal or a private meeting with Israel’s Netanyahu would have been unthinkable just a year ago.

Rouhani came to power precisely because of US sanctions. Lifting them was one of his election platform pillars. Talks with the US have led to partial easing already.

Amidst US-Iran bi-lateral nuclear talks, this Iran-led request to the UN human rights body is an attempt to try to get them to ascertain that unilateral sanctions are contrary to human rights, and to grant itself another argument in the ongoing engagement with the US over the lifting of the stifling sanctions that have barred investors and trading partners from doing business in Iran, which some estimate are costing as much as $7bln to Iran's economy. Oil companies and Iran's leadership, both eager to see sanctions lifted, are meeting on the sidelines in Davos this week.

But there is more to the story. While it is true that the US sanctions have had a key impact on ousting Ahmadinejad – and many would argue, for the better of the region and the world – it is undeniable that this was done at the expense of ordinary Iranians, with the aim of starving them into voting. This is why the action Iran has spearheaded has merit -- the unknown is the exact legal interpretation and assessment mechanism that experts in the Advisory Committee would assume. At stake is the controversial right to development.

In this request, the Advisory Committee has a balancing act to perform over the course of the following months – on one hand, to acknowledge the adverse effect of unilateral sanctions on the most vulnerable poor, while avoiding becoming a tool in the hands of a regime that ranks towards the bottom in terms of human rights record.

The Human Rights Council reconvenes for its 27th session in September this year. At that time will be due the 2014 report, which precedes the 2015 report in which the Advisory Committee has to a suggest a mechanism for assessment of the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.

Views: 223


You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Killer Robots, Ethics, & Governance, with Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, has a simple solution for stopping the future proliferation of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons: "Ban them." What are the ethical and logistical risks of this technology? How would it change the nature of warfare? And with the U.S. and other nations currently developing killer robots, what is the state of governance?

As Biden Stalls, Is the "Restorationist" Narrative Losing Ground?

U.S. Global Engagement Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev notes that former Vice President Joe Biden is, in foreign policy terms, most associated with a "restorationist" approach. How does this differentiate from other candidates? What approach will resonate most with voters?

Democratic Candidates & Foreign Policy after Iowa, with Nikolas Gvosdev

With the (incomplete) results of the Iowa Caucus putting the spotlight on Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, what do we know about their foreign policy platforms? How do they differentiate themselves from Joe Biden? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev shares his thoughts and touches on voters' possible perception of Sanders as a "socialist" and how climate change could become an issue in this election.





© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.