Snapback Mechanism and Humanitarian Considerations -drSima Moradinasab

Dr.Sima Moradinasab - Ph.D. International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2025/08/08

On 20 July 2015, Resolution 2231 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, this Resolution endorses and urges the full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), concluded on 14 July 2015 to set some limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. The JCPOA is annexed to Resolution 2231. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the JCPOA on the ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanism’, aiming at resolving any disputes between Iran and E3/EU 3, designed a mechanism known as ‘snapback’. According to snapback mechanism, if Iran does not comply with its commitments under JCPOA, all sanctions will be re-imposed. The snapback mechanism poses significant legal challenges that require appropriate action from the international community. Out of the existing problems, this blog post highlights the negative impacts of snapback on elementary considerations of humanity.

Snapback as a part of the JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism

To set certain restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and lift UN sanctions against Iran, the JCPOA was signed by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and Iran. The JCPOA is part of the 2015 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 which endorses the implementation of the JCPOA. Similar to any agreement, the JCPOA contains a dispute settlement mechanism. Paragraphs 36 and 37 on the ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanism’ determine how State parties shall resolve their disputes arising from non-compliance with the JCPOA. Resolving disputes under the JCPOA has different steps as follows:

1. If any party (i.e., E3/EU 3 on the one side and Iran on the other side) believes that the other party was not meeting its commitments under the JCPOA, the former party could refer the issue at hand to the Joint Commission for the Resolution;
2. If the issue had not been resolved by the Joint Commission within 15 days or the extended period, any participant could refer the issue to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs;
3. After Joint Commission’s consideration or review by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, any participant could refer the issue at hand to an Advisory Board for providing a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days;
4. If the issue is not resolved during this 30-day process (i.e., consideration by the Joint Commission/ Ministers of Foreign Affairs and by the Advisory Board), the Joint Commission will review the opinion given by the Advisory Board within 5 days to resolve the issue;
5. If the complaining participant believes the issue has not been resolved and is regarded as a significant non-performance, that participant is entitled to cease its commitments under the JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council to take up the issue;
6. Upon receipt of the above-mentioned notification, the UN Security Council shall vote on a resolution to continue sanctions lifting. ‘If the resolution has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise’. This re-imposition of sanctions is known as ‘snapback’.

As can be seen, snapback is not a dispute settlement mechanism, but is used whenever (1) there is a significant non-performance under the JCPOA by Iran; and (2) the issue at hand has not been resolved through the mentioned five steps and the dispute resolution procedure under the JCPOA has reached a deadlock.

Effects of Snapback on Humanitarian Considerations

‘Humanitarian considerations’ or what is known as ‘elementary considerations of humanity’ is one of the general principles of international law. In its judgment in the Corfu Channel Case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed this approach, identifying it as a general and well-recognized principle. In subsequent cases, the ICJ went even further, recognizing elementary considerations of humanity as an intransgressible principle of customary international law and as an obligation erga omnes. In the 1996 advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the ICJ held that ‘a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the human person and 'elementary considerations of humanity' […]’. In the Court’s view ‘these fundamental rules are to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law’. Then, in its advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the ICJ stated that elementary consideration of humanity ‘[..] incorporate obligations which are essentially of an erga omnes character’. The ICJ jurisprudence clearly demonstrates the legal status of the humanitarian considerations in the international legal system.

Nonetheless, elementary considerations of humanity may be breached under certain circumstances. One notable example is when a country is targeted by UN Security Council sanctions. It cannot be neglected that the direct addressee of sanctions is people (and not States). That said, humanitarian considerations and sanctions are two sides of the same coin. Keeping this in mind, it can be inferred that the snapback or re-imposition of sanctions under the JCPOA will result in a grave breach of humanitarian considerations. On the other hand, lifting UN sanctions will contribute to respecting and effectively implementing the elementary considerations of humanity.

The UN Security Council Resolution 2231 does not explicitly address humanitarian considerations. There is no doubt, however, that the UN Security Council Resolution (including the annexed JCPOA) should be interpreted by paying attention to other external relevant rules of international law. As stated by the International Law Commission in its report on the Fragmentation of International Law, this method of interpretation, known as the ‘systemic interpretation’, is a master key to the house of international law. Article 31 (3) (C) of the  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) stipulates that:

  “There shall be taken into account, together with the context […] any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”.

This question may be raised as to what is meant by the ‘relevant rules of international law’. The answer is that Article 31(3)(c) allows paying attention to all kinds of ‘relevant rules of international law’ and is not restricted to treaty norms. This is what was expressed by Jan Klabbers when he states that ‘through the backdoor of interpretation, international law, whatever its form or manifestations, is invited to join the party; and not just some international law, but ‘any relevant rules’.

Having said that, for the purpose of interpreting paragraphs 36 and 37 of the JCPOA, ‘elementary consideration of humanity’ is to be deemed as a ‘relevant rule of international law’. The intersection between humanitarian considerations and sanctions has been addressed by different UN bodies. Analyzing these reports, it can be seen that there is a consensus within the UN that sanctions have negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights.

In the 2017 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, the adverse effects of sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights were taken into account. Given the importance of humanitarian considerations in the sanctions environment, the Guiding Principles on Sanctions, Business and Human Rights were developed by the Special Rapporteur. Ensuring the implementation of humanitarian provisions is one of the main goals of the Guiding Principles. For instance, Principle 11.1 provides that ‘access to humanitarian assistance and humanitarian relief shall be granted in any and all circumstances to all persons in need, without any discrimination or distinction, in accordance with the principles of humanitarian assistance: humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence’. In the same vein, Principle 21.1 stipulates that ‘humanitarian exemptions shall be formulated in a clear, transparent and precise manner and be interpreted in the broadest possible manner, with due account of the principle of humanity’.

In 2023, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reaffirmed that the imposition of sanctions must be fully compliant with international law, including human rights provisions. Additionally, as stated by the UN Security Council, one of the purposes of UN sanctions is to protect human rights and not violate them.

These reports and guiding principles illustrate the necessity of taking a new approach to sanctions. This means that re-impositions of UN sanctions on Iran cannot and should not violate elementary considerations of humanity. Without doubt, snapback should not be implemented without regard to humanitarian consideration. This view is a direct result of living in a unified (and not fragmented) system of international law; a system in which agreements cannot be interpreted in isolation form other relevant rules of international law. 

The Way Forward

The snapback mechanism would threaten the implementation of elementary considerations of humanity. A wide range of human rights including economic, social and cultural rights will be violated by the re-imposition of sanctions.

In the unified system of international law, any agreement should be interpreted by paying attention to other relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. That said, resorting to and implementing the snapback mechanism cannot and should not ignore the necessity of respecting humanitarian considerations. This is why the need for harmonization between humanitarian considerations and UN sanctions is strongly felt.