Iran is going to sue Russia

Iran is going to sue Russia



Many people were shocked by the words that Iran had decided to sue the Russian Federation the day before. “So much for the friendly state,” they said on the sidelines. Let's try to figure out what the matter is, and what caused such righteous anger from Mr. Ahmadinejad.

So, the whole point of the issue is that, according to the resolution of the UN Security Council, Russia has stopped the supply of C-300 complexes to Tehran. But the agreement on the supply of arms between the two countries was signed, and the contract on the part of Iran was paid. On the one hand, the claims of Iranians can be understood. But Russia considers itself to be a full-fledged subject of the global legal space, and, therefore, must comply with all resolutions and resolutions adopted by the higher authorities, such as, for example, the UN Security Council.

The Security Council resolution of June 2010 unequivocally says that Iran, in connection with the continued deployment of its nuclear program, is prohibited from supplying various types of weapons, including rocket systems. Prohibited and technical assistance to the Iranian side for the operation of military equipment. Russia took all these words as a ban on the supply of the C-300 complex. But Iran did not see in the resolution a specific indication that it is C-300 that it is strictly prohibited to bring into the country.

The situation could come to a real legal deadlock: on the one hand, the contract, on the other - a ban from the UN. It was here that the Iranian partners decided to make, as they say, a knight's move. The Iranian ambassador to our country said at his press conference that the Russians must correctly understand the initiative of Tehran. Reza Sajjadi told reporters that the lawsuit will allow Russia and Iran to continue the partnership at the same level of supply. Everything looks somewhat confusing, but the ambassador continues to clarify the essence of the matter. It turns out that in this case the International Court of Justice “obliges” the Russian side to fulfill its part of the contract, that is, to make a court decision on the resumption of the C-300 shipment.

Earlier, representatives of Rosoboronexport stated that Iran should not worry. According to the head of the concern Anatoly Isaikin, all deliveries will be resumed as soon as possible, as soon as the sanctions are revised or completely lifted. But Iran did not wait for this day, which, as they say, may never come, but put forward its own version of the solution to this stalemate.

The case is now for the International Court of Justice. If this organization is truly independent, then the decision must be made in favor of resuming the fulfillment of the terms of the contract. The whole complexity may lie not so much in the engagement of the court, but in the fact that the court may face the “problem” of the very prohibitive Security Council resolution.

It should be noted that the very idea of ​​using the International Court of Justice as a possible opposition to the resolutions adopted is a real precedent in world law. A positive decision of the court, if adopted, will cast doubt on all decisions of the UN Security Council, and, therefore, the need for its continued existence.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Matroskin 26 August 2011 08: 56 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The UN Resolution didn’t say anything about defensive weapons. Or didn’t I understand something? And if this helps to circumvent the UN garbage, let them go on trial. Everyone understands that Iran is on the line for, “democratization,” how Pindos act and NATO also knows everything. Iran needs S-300 desperately.
  2. hundert
    hundert 26 August 2011 10: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    All is correct. The point may be foreign trade bans for individual manufacturers.
    Claims are filed "obligate to comply," and not a penalty. The complexes will be delivered by court order. And the wolves are full, and the sheep are whole.
  3. Varnaga 26 August 2011 11: 15 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    The Security Council resolution is just a good reason to break the contract with Iran. "Iran paid a small advance in the amount of $ 160 million. Our crafts, according to the contract, prepared the appropriate amount of S-300, the Iranian military trained us to work with the S-300. But then things stalled. The Iranians did not want to pay the remaining amount and were endless negotiations on reducing prices and deliveries of S-300 without payment, and ours, in accordance with the signed contract, considered that “money in the morning is chairs in the evening.” When it finally became clear that for the Iranians to “squeeze” Russia in this matter was the matter the principle and there is no hope of payment, they spat on everything, took advantage of the opportunity and canceled the contract. "
    1. Professor 26 August 2011 14: 38 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Dear Varnaga, Please share the source of information.
      1. Varnaga 26 August 2011 14: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/exclusive/view/60542/
        1. Professor 26 August 2011 17: 29 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Thanks. Very informative.
    2. Matroskin 26 August 2011 15: 48 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Varnaga and you read on the link below?
      "MOSCOW, October 7. Russia and Iran are negotiating a refund to the Iranian side of money for undelivered S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems.

      "The contract has been canceled, we are negotiating how to compensate for the funds received from Iran," said Sergei Chemezov, head of Russian Technologies, ITAR-TASS reports.

      And the reason for the failure of this contract, please note that it is named as an official of the contractor:

      "The head of Russian Technologies recalled that the supply of S-300 to Iran is prohibited by decree of the President of Russia after the imposition of sanctions by the UN Security Council."
      1. Varnaga 26 August 2011 16: 07 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        read, read. I repeat again, the main reason for the refusal is the failure to pay Iran, which was imposed by the Security Council resolution. There is a coincidence of many factors that led to the well-known result. I also ask you to note that the Russian side has fulfilled its agreements on the production of complexes, which is why we are talking about the reimbursement of funds. The latter, the author, as usual, says “and the contract from Iran was paid for” without mentioning that this is only an advance part, thereby distorting the real state of affairs.
  4. cVM
    cVM 26 August 2011 13: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    we needed to sell Iran s-300 is a bargain not only economically, but also strategically
    1. Varnaga 26 August 2011 14: 29 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      For the advance? A bargain from the point of view of the State Department, bravo, you continue to maintain your reputation.
  5. Fantom75100
    Fantom75100 26 August 2011 15: 01 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    First of all, NATO did not give a damn about the decisions of the Security Council. Should other UN members follow the rules?
    1. MaxArt
      MaxArt 26 August 2011 17: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      NATO countries spit on the UN, because there are a lot of them. Each of them individually - France, England, UAE, etc. would never have dared. And together, with the whole crowd, they sneezed at the UN, which had long lost power. In the same way, we alone - to get around the ban, we need determination and political will, as well as a delicate calculation - how much it hurts and how much the sending of the complexes will help us.

      Personally, I have no doubt that Iran will be "democratized", and will do so even with our facilities. We will supply 50 complexes - they will launch 250 tomahawks. 50 tomahawks will find their goals for anyone, and then democratize their health. Therefore, it’s more expensive for us to single-handedly shout against the UN resolution in search of small (statewide) profits.
  6. AleksUkr 26 August 2011 18: 09 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    To sell or not to sell, support or not support US initiatives? The question is very interesting. But doesn’t it seem to you that we have already supported ourselves so much that we have lost almost everyone who even went to our friends for the sake of appearance? Friendship is friendship, and tobacco is apart. But unfortunately, our part of the tobacco is somehow less and less. And claims more and more. And our leaders do not have the political will and determination to defend the interests of their country. To what have come that even our generals prefer Western ships, armored vehicles, and small arms. Soon we will ask permission to set up a post to guard our military facilities or not, to whom and what to sell, what to release. Our fathers and grandfathers, who brought Victory to our Motherland at 45, are clearly turning over in their graves, looking at the stupid management and sale of their interests. Why did they die?
  7. stas 26 August 2011 23: 47 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    There is no such country in the world as Russia, which would border such a large number of states. And the more of them we make our friends, or at least not enemies, the stronger our country will be. C-300 in Iran will only benefit us.
  8. LESHA pancake
    LESHA pancake 28 August 2011 10: 36 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    IRAN THROWS ON THIS TRANSACTION AS THE LAST HOOKS. IT IS NOT AMAZING ONLY WHAT THIS HAS DONE OUR Kremlyov Guide.