Analysis of the JCPOA: A Legal Perspective on International Agreements

This report provides a legal analysis of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), examining whether it constitutes a legally binding agreement or a political commitment. It explores the legal issues arising from the US withdrawal, the powers of the US president in relation to such agreements, and the implications for international law. The report references relevant legal concepts such as treaties, the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, and executive waivers. It concludes that the JCPOA is a political commitment, not a legally binding agreement, and therefore the US can withdraw. The analysis considers the roles of states, legal judgements, and legal reasoning to support its conclusions. The report also discusses the European Union's response to the US withdrawal and the concept of political commitments under international law. References to relevant books and journals are included to support the analysis.

Legal Case Paper

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
International law is basically a system of agreements and treaties between the nations that
normally govern the interactions of the nations, citizens and the businesses of the other nation.
There are generally two types of international law which includes private and public law. A
treaty is basically an international agreement, covenant, pact, protocol or the exchange of letters
which are binding on the states who have signed the particular agreement (Pitts, 2018). This
report shall cover the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
MAIN BODY
Legal issue
 Whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is an agreement or political
commitment?
 Whether the JCPOA is binding on the parties ?
 Whether USA has power to withdraw from this agreement ?
Legal judgement
From the exit of USA from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, European Union
enacted the blocking statue in order to nullify the sanctions of USA on countries who are trading
with Iran. According to the State Department of USA, JCPOA is not a agreement or signed
document, rather it is a political commitment between the states.
JCPOA is a non legal agreement. There were no legal documents or treaty signed by any
of the six states and Iran which therefore do not makes it legally binding on any of the states.
Political commitments are non legal agreement's which are not legally binding on states (Hurd,
2017). All its formalities, specifications to be mentioned and the duration of such commitment
vary considerably. Such variation shall not modify the existing legal obligations or laws. Unlike
legal agreements, there are no specific requirements to enter into a political agreement under
international law. Therefore, political commitments are not binding on states under international
law. The main characteristic of a political commitment is that it do not impose any obligation on
states under international law and also nation do not incur any state responsibility for the
violation of the same.

US may withdraw from JCPOA at anytime they want as it is a political commitment and
it do not have have binding obligation. The president under US laws have powers to unilaterally
terminate the agreements not binding legally upon the state.
Legal reasoning
Basically treaties merely being applied when there has been a proper ratification and
signature in all the parties and that agreement will be opt as legal,valid and binding. Parties to a
treaty mainly ratify it by general reservations or can also be done by declarations and if there is
not a proper ratification,declaration and signed document then it may not be called out as a treaty
it will then be framed as political commitments.
The Vienna Convention on the law of treaty states that according to (Article 2(1)a) treaty
is basically an international agreement between states or countries in a written form and it is
always being framed by international law that may be in a single instrument or in two or more.
It is not legally binding and as US presidents has a right of an executive wavier which means that
the president of United States has the right to delay implementations about certain provisions that
are being written in the law. It implies that president may at anytime use there powers for
revoking there mere agreements between the parties (Shaw, 2017).
President Obama has also used this executive waivers in 2015 for lifting the sanctions on
Iran as by not letting therm pursue nuclear weapons. So there may be said that these are political
commitments that can be revoked anytime if needed.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded from the report that JCPOA is not an agreement but just an political
commitment as it is not written and signed and because of it this is not legally binding on any
country. And United State cannot be bound as they may reauthorize wavier and it is just a
political commitment which need not to be forcefully applied

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Hurd, I., 2017. How to do things with international law. Princeton University Press.
Pitts, J., 2018. Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire. Harvard University Press.
Shaw, M.N., 2017. International law.