The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not impact humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

Judges at the International Court Of Justice handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

The ruling is likely to have, at most, limited practical impact on the implementation of sanctions, which Washington is reimposing and tightening after pulling out of a 2015 nuclear deal that Iran signed with world powers.

READ MORE: Trump imposes sanctions on Iran after pulling out of nuclear deal, urges others to follow suit

The ICJ is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and both the United States and Iran have effectively ignored its decisions in the past in cases they have brought against each other.

The court found that assurances offered by Washington in August that it would do its best to ensure sanctions would not affect humanitarian conditions were “not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns raised” by Iran.

“The court considers that the United States must, in line with its obligations under the 1955 treaty, remove by means of its choosing any impediment arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018,” said Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, reading a summary of a ruling by the 15-member panel of justices.

WATCH: Iran argues to have U.S. sanctions lifted as America argues it is misusing World Court.

The sanctions may not hurt “exportation to the territory of Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs such as medicines, medical devices and foodstuffs and agricultural commodities as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation,” he said.

Washington argued last month that Iran’s request was an attempt to misuse the court and that the 1955 treaty specifically ruled out using courts to resolve disputes.

The treaty was signed long before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution which turned the two countries into arch foes.

READ MORE: U.S. threatens Iran with ‘strongest sanctions in history’ if treaty demands not met

U.S. State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead had said Iran’s real quarrel was Iran’s frustration over U.S. plans to pull out of the 2015 nuclear pact, under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

The unilateral U.S. move has been opposed by the other countries that are party to the agreement, including Washington’s close European allies Britain, France and Germany as well as Russia and China.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect Nov. 4 aimed at sharply curtailing Iranian oil exports.

WATCH: Iran’s Rouhani says country wants no sanctions or bullying</s>Iran filed a lawsuit against the United States earlier in July in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that the Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and re-imposing the unilateral sanctions in May violated a 1955 treaty between the two countries.

Today, the ICJ announced its decision on Iran lawsuit, reprimanding the US government’s illegal move to restore anti-Iran unilateral sanctions ordering Washington to lift restrictive measures linked to humanitarian trade, food, medicine and civil aviation.

Iran has welcomed ICJ ruling as ‘a victory for rule of law’. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweeted after the court’s decision was announced that it was “another failure for sanctions-addicted USG [US government] and victory for rule of law. Imperative for int’l community to collectively counter malign US unilateralism.”

Iranian Foreign Minister, furthermore, released a statement on Wednesday afternoon saying that the court’s unanimous decision was another clear testament to the truthfulness of Iran and the illegitimacy and unfairness of the United States’ sanctions against Iranian people and citizens.

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian newspaper, in relation to the ICJ ruling, the US ambassador to the Netherlands, Pete Hoekstra, said in a statement “this is a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction.”</s>The World Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not impact humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

Judges at the International Court Of Justice handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of US President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

The ruling is likely to have at most limited practical impact on the implementation of sanctions, which Washington is reimposing and tightening after pulling out of a 2015 nuclear deal that Iran signed with world powers.

The ICJ is the United Nations' highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and both the United States and Iran have effectively ignored its decisions in the past in cases they have brought against each other.

The court found that assurances offered by Washington in August that it would do its best to ensure sanctions would not affect humanitarian conditions were "not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns raised" by Iran.

"The court considers that the United States must, in line with its obligations under the 1955 treaty, remove by means of its choosing any impediment arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018," said Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, reading a summary of a ruling by the 15-member panel of justices.

The sanctions may not hurt "exportation to the territory of Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs such as medicines, medical devices and foodstuffs and agricultural commodities as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation," he said.

Washington argued last month that Iran's request was an attempt to misuse the court and that the 1955 treaty specifically ruled out using courts to resolve disputes.

The treaty was signed long before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution which turned the two countries into arch foes.

US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead had said Iran's real quarrel was Iran's frustration over US plans to pull out of the 2015 nuclear pact, under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

The unilateral US move has been opposed by the other countries that are party to the agreement, including Washington's close European allies Britain, France and Germany as well as Russia and China.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect Nov. 4 aimed at sharply curtailing Iranian oil exports.</s>UN court orders US to lift some Iran sanctions

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to civil aviation safety.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice is legally binding, but the Trump administration said the U.S. was terminating a decades-old treaty that Iran used as the basis for its case.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said withdrawing from the 1955 Treaty of Amity was long overdue and followed Iran "groundlessly" bringing the complaint to the U.N. court.

Pompeo said the administration would proceed with sanctions enforcement with existing exceptions for humanitarian and flight safety transactions.

"The United States has been actively engaged on these issues without regard to any proceeding before the ICJ," he said.

Meanwhile, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said the administration also was pulling out of an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Iran or others, notably the Palestinians, could use to sue the U.S. at The Hague-based tribunal.

President Donald Trump moved to restore tough U.S. sanctions against Iran in May after withdrawing from Tehran's nuclear accord with world powers. Iran challenged the sanctions in a case filed in July at the International Court of Justice.

In a preliminary ruling, the court said that Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.

By limiting the order to sanctions covering humanitarian goods and the civil aviation industry, the ruling did not go as far as Iran had requested.

The U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Hoekstra, pointed that out in a tweet.

"This is a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction," the ambassador tweeted. "Even so, it is worth noting that the Court declined today to grant the sweeping measures requested by Iran. Instead, the Court issued a narrow decision on a very limited range of sectors."

While imposing the so-called provisional measures, the court's president, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, stressed that the case will continue and the United States could still challenge the court's jurisdiction.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif praised the court ruling on Twitter, calling it "another failure for sanctions-addicted" U.S. and a "victory for rule of law." He added that it is imperative for the international community "to collectively counter malign US unilateralism."

Iranian state television trumpeted the court's decision in a scrolling graphic at the bottom of TV screens: "The victory of Tehran over Washington by the Hague Court."

No date has been set for further hearings in the case.

At hearings in August, Tehran sought the suspension of sanctions while the case challenging their legality is being heard — a process that can take years. U.S. lawyers responded that the sanctions are a legal and justified national security measure that cannot be challenged by Tehran at the world court.

In its decision, the court said that the U.S. sanctions "have the potential to endanger civil aviation safety" in Iran and that sanctions limiting sales of goods required for humanitarian needs such as food, medicines and medical devices "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."

The court said that the Trump administration must "ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted" and payments not restricted if they are linked to the humanitarian and aviation goods.

The court also told both the United States and Iran to "refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute."

U.S. lawyers had told the court that the administration would "use its best endeavors" to look at concerns about humanitarian and aviation related issues caused by the sanctions.

But in its written ruling the court said that the American assurances "are not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns" raised by Iran.

Iran alleges that the sanctions breach the 1955 Treaty of Amity, which regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

The treaty was signed when the U.S. and Iran were still allies following the 1953 revolution — fomented by Britain and the U.S. — that ultimately cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Diplomatic relations were severed following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and takeover of the U.S. Embassy and ensuing hostage crisis. However, the treaty had remained in force.

Associated Press writer Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, and AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee in Washington, contributed to this report.</s>UN court orders US to lift some Iran sanctions

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to civil aviation safety.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice is legally binding, but the Trump administration said the U.S. was terminating a decades-old treaty that Iran used as the basis for its case.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said withdrawing from the 1955 Treaty of Amity was long overdue and followed Iran "groundlessly" bringing the complaint to the U.N. court.

Pompeo said the administration would proceed with sanctions enforcement with existing exceptions for humanitarian and flight safety transactions.

"The United States has been actively engaged on these issues without regard to any proceeding before the ICJ," he said.

Meanwhile, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said the administration also was pulling out of an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Iran or others, notably the Palestinians, could use to sue the U.S. at The Hague-based tribunal.

President Donald Trump moved to restore tough U.S. sanctions against Iran in May after withdrawing from Tehran's nuclear accord with world powers. Iran challenged the sanctions in a case filed in July at the International Court of Justice.

In a preliminary ruling, the court said that Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.

By limiting the order to sanctions covering humanitarian goods and the civil aviation industry, the ruling did not go as far as Iran had requested.

The U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Hoekstra, pointed that out in a tweet.

"This is a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction," the ambassador tweeted. "Even so, it is worth noting that the Court declined today to grant the sweeping measures requested by Iran. Instead, the Court issued a narrow decision on a very limited range of sectors."

While imposing the so-called provisional measures, the court's president, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, stressed that the case will continue and the United States could still challenge the court's jurisdiction.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif praised the court ruling on Twitter, calling it "another failure for sanctions-addicted" U.S. and a "victory for rule of law." He added that it is imperative for the international community "to collectively counter malign US unilateralism."

Iranian state television trumpeted the court's decision in a scrolling graphic at the bottom of TV screens: "The victory of Tehran over Washington by the Hague Court."

No date has been set for further hearings in the case.

At hearings in August, Tehran sought the suspension of sanctions while the case challenging their legality is being heard — a process that can take years. U.S. lawyers responded that the sanctions are a legal and justified national security measure that cannot be challenged by Tehran at the world court.

In its decision, the court said that the U.S. sanctions "have the potential to endanger civil aviation safety" in Iran and that sanctions limiting sales of goods required for humanitarian needs such as food, medicines and medical devices "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."

The court said that the Trump administration must "ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted" and payments not restricted if they are linked to the humanitarian and aviation goods.

The court also told both the United States and Iran to "refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute."

U.S. lawyers had told the court that the administration would "use its best endeavors" to look at concerns about humanitarian and aviation related issues caused by the sanctions.

But in its written ruling the court said that the American assurances "are not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns" raised by Iran.

Iran alleges that the sanctions breach the 1955 Treaty of Amity, which regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

The treaty was signed when the U.S. and Iran were still allies following the 1953 revolution — fomented by Britain and the U.S. — that ultimately cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Diplomatic relations were severed following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and takeover of the U.S. Embassy and ensuing hostage crisis. However, the treaty had remained in force.

Associated Press writer Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, and AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee in Washington, contributed to this report.</s>The U.N.'s top court has ruled in Iran's favor in its dispute with the U.S., giving the country a partial victory by saying the U.S. "must remove" sanctions that could stop food, medical supplies and other humanitarian products from entering Iran.

The unanimous ruling from the International Court of Justice orders the U.S. not to restrict money flowing between Iran and its trading partners for a list of products it says should be cleared for export to Iran, from medical devices and agricultural commodities to parts and equipment needed to safely maintain Iran's civil aviation.

Limiting food and medical products "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran," the court said.

Iran filed the case in July, after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the Iran nuclear deal that was reached in 2015 along with members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany and the European Union. The court's ruling also referred to the 1955 treaty of amity that laid out economic relations between the two countries.

The court's ruling leaves intact U.S. sanctions that cover a range of Iranian economic activity, from exports of carpets and food to financial transactions and trade in metals.

In Iran, the threat of renewed sanctions have been taking a toll since at least the spring.

"Since, let's say, March, there has been unprecedented acceleration in the prices of everything - almost everything," a Tehran resident told NPR's Peter Kenyon. The prices of a few items, like fuel and bread, were tightly regulated, he added.

The ruling comes one month before the Trump administration is due to impose another round of sanctions on Iran, on Nov. 4. That's when the country's oil industry will likely be targeted.

When the first round went into effect in August, President Trump said in a tweet, "These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level." Any country doing business with Iran, he said, would not be allowed to trade with the United States.

Trump says the nuclear deal was too accommodating to Iran, calling it a one-sided agreement that opened new financial doors to a dictatorship.</s>The United Nations' top court has issued an interim order that requests the United States to lift sanctions linked to humanitarian goods and civil aviation imposed against Iran.

"On humanitarian grounds, the US must remove by means of its choosing any impediment to the free exportation to Iran of goods involving humanitarian concerns," the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said in its ruling on Wednesday.

Tehran had urged the ICJ, also known as the World Court, to order Washington to suspend the sanctions temporarily while it hears Iran's case in full, a process that could take years.

The ICJ's rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them.

Al Jazeera's Zein Basravi, reporting from Tehran, said that in essence, the ICJ decision is not exactly what the Iranians wanted, nor is it what the Americans wanted.

Iranians would have wanted a "complete lifting of all of the sanctions", Basravi said.

"They [ICJ judges] talked about parts and equipment for civil aviation - which has been a source of a lot of strife in Iran," he said.

"Even though this court's rulings cannot be appealed and they are binding, there is no way to enforce it - especially that the US has left the court," Basravi said.

Tehran had also argued that the sanctions imposed since May by US President Donald Trump's administration violate the terms of their 1955 Treaty of Amity.

Washington says that Iran's request is an attempt to misuse the court. Iran has invoked a little known 1955 Treaty of Amity that was signed before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which caused a sharp deterioration in bilateral ties that has endured until today.

US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead argued during oral hearings last month that the 1955 treaty specifically rules out using courts to resolve disputes.

Iran's real quarrel, she argued, is not within the court's jurisdiction, but Iran's frustration over President Trump's plan to pull out of a 2015 landmark agreement between Iran, the US and five world powers.

That pact saw sanctions against Tehran lifted in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

But the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement in May and announced unilateral plans to restore sanctions against Tehran.

The US move has been opposed by other major powers, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, which helped negotiate the deal.

Iran says the US sanctions, which have prompted many foreign companies to stop doing business with it and are undermining its already weak economy, violate the terms of the 1955 treaty.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect by November 4.</s>THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' highest court has ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to the safety of civil aviation.

President Donald Trump moved to restore tough U.S. sanctions in May after announcing he was withdrawing from Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers. Iran challenged the sanctions in a case filed in July at the International Court of Justice.

In a preliminary ruling in the case, the court said Wednesday that Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.

The U.S. is expected to challenge the court's jurisdiction in a future hearing.

The economic impact of sanctions has already triggered protests in Iran, some of which have been broken up by security forces using tear gas.

Iran alleges that the sanctions breach a 1955 bilateral agreement known as the Treaty of Amity that regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

The treaty was signed when the U.S. and Iran were still allies following the 1953 revolution — fomented by Britain and the U.S. — that ultimately cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Diplomatic relations were severed following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and takeover of the U.S. Embassy and ensuing hostage crisis. However, the treaty remains in force.

Wednesday's ruling could set up another clash between the Trump administration and a Hague-based court.

Last month, Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, denounced the International Criminal Court — a separate and unrelated institution based just a few miles away from the International Court of Justice.

The ICC prosecutes people accused of war atrocities while the ICJ settles disputes between nations.

Bolton said last month that "for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."</s>Judges at the International Court of Justice, the highest United Nations court, will rule Wednesday on an Iranian plea to have US sanctions against Tehran lifted.

Iran asked the ICJ, which is also known as the World Court, to order Washington to suspend the sanctions temporarily while it hears Iran's case in full, a process that could take years.

Washington says that Iran's request is an attempt to misuse the court. Iran has invoked a little known 1955 Treaty of Amity that was signed before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which caused a sharp deterioration in bilateral ties that has endured until today.

US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead argued during oral hearings last month that the 1955 treaty specifically rules out using courts to resolve disputes.

Iran's real quarrel, she argued, is not within the court's jurisdiction, but Iran's frustration over US President Donald Trump's plan to pull out of a 2015 pact between Iran, the US and other major world powers.

That pact saw sanctions against Tehran lifted in return for it accepting curbs on its nuclear programme. But the Trump administration said in May that it was withdrawing from the agreement and announced unilateral plans to restore sanctions against Tehran.

The US move has been opposed by other major powers, the Britain, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, which helped negotiate the deal.

Iran says the US sanctions, which have prompted many foreign companies to stop doing business with it and are undermining its already weak economy, violate the terms of the 1955 treaty.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect Nov. 4.

The ICJ is the United Nations' highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and the United States and Iran are both among a handful of countries that has ignored its decisions.</s>The following content is sourced from external partners. We cannot guarantee that it is suitable for the visually or hearing impaired.

This content was published on October 3, 2018 8:47 AM

FILE PHOTO: Iran's President Hassan Rouhani speaks at a news conference on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 26, 2018. REUTERS/Brendan Mcdermid

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Judges at the International Court of Justice, the highest United Nations court, will rule Wednesday on an Iranian plea to have U.S. sanctions against Tehran lifted.

Iran asked the ICJ, which is also known as the World Court, to order Washington to suspend the sanctions temporarily while it hears Iran’s case in full, a process that could take years.

Washington says that Iran's request is an attempt to misuse the court. Iran has invoked a little known 1955 Treaty of Amity that was signed before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which caused a sharp deterioration in bilateral ties that has endured until today.

U.S. State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead argued during oral hearings last month that the 1955 treaty specifically rules out using courts to resolve disputes.

Iran's real quarrel, she argued, is not within the court's jurisdiction, but Iran's frustration over U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to pull out of a 2015 pact between Iran, the U.S. and other major world powers.

That pact saw sanctions against Tehran lifted in return for it accepting curbs on its nuclear programme. But the Trump administration said in May that it was withdrawing from the agreement and announced unilateral plans to restore sanctions against Tehran.

The U.S. move has been opposed by other major powers, the Britain, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, which helped negotiate the deal.

Iran says the U.S. sanctions, which have prompted many foreign companies to stop doing business with it and are undermining its already weak economy, violate the terms of the 1955 treaty.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect Nov. 4.

The ICJ is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and the United States and Iran are both among a handful of countries that has ignored its decisions.
The International Court of Justice orders the U.S. to lift sanctions against Iran related to the import of humanitarian goods and civil aviation safety.