MEZINÁRODNÍ SOUDNICTVÍ: NOVÉ ÚKOLY A VÝZVY

forever only those sanctions that it had suspended pursuant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (hereinafter the “JCPOA” or the “Plan”) but by action of 8 May 2018 reimposed following its withdrawal from the non-legally binding JCPOA. “ 29 Přes velký počet výskytů výrazu sankce v textech obou rozhodnutí Mezinárodního soudního dvora je nutno konstatovat, že Soud dosud nevzal tento výraz za svůj a nepo skytl sporným stranám ani odborné veřejnost vodítko, jak mu rozumět. Nevyužívá ani opisné výrazy „restrictive measures“, „coercive measures“, „unilateral measures“ nebo „countermaesures“/“counter-measures“. V situaci, kdy Soud má po třebu odkázat přímo na sankce USA, využívá obecný výraz „measures“, např.: – “The Court notes that, as of 6 August 2018, contracts concluded before the imposi tion of measures involving a commitment on the part of Iranian airline companies to purchase spare parts from United States companies (or from foreign companies selling spare parts partly constituted of United States components) appear to have been cancelled or adversely affected.” 30 – “Furthermore, the Court notes that, while the importation of foodstuffs, medical supplies and equipment is in principle exempted from the United States’ measures , it appears to have become more difficult in practice, since the announcement of the measures by the United States, for Iran, Iranian companies and nationals to obtain such imported foodstuffs, supplies and equipment. In this regard, the Court observes that, as a result of the measures , certain foreign banks have withdrawn from financing agreements or suspended co-operation with Iranian banks.” 31 – “Rejects the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction raised by the United States of America relating to the measures concerning trade or transactions between the Islamic Republic of Iran (or Iranian nationals and companies) and third countries (or their nationals and companies);” 32 – “In the view of the Court, there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify considering Iran’s Application inadmissible on the ground of abuse of process. In particular, the fact that Iran only challenged the consistency with the Treaty of Amity of the measures that had been lifted in conjunction with the JCPOA and then reinstated in May 2018, without discussing other measures affecting Iran and its nationals or companies, may reflect a policy decision.” 33 29 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates) (Preliminary Objections) [2021] ICJ Rep 71, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Brower, odst. 2. 30 Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 October 2018, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 623, odst. 88.

31 Tamtéž, odst. 89. 32 Tamtéž, odst. 104.

33 Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) , Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2021, p. 9., odst. 95.

85