This thesis focusses on the assessing the legality of the responses of the IAEA, the UN Security Council and certain member states to the Iranian nuclear crisis from 2006 to 2015. The purpose of this thesis is to highlight the fact that the Iranian situation was primarily a legal dispute, encompassing various complex legal questions which were largely side-stepped in the handling of the crisis. This thesis examines the mandates of the IAEA and Council to make the case that in numerous instances both engaged in ultra vires actions in their handling of the Iranian issue. This thesis examines the referral of the case by the IAEA to the Council and the resulting enforcement measures, their compatibility with the strictures of the Charter and the Council’s powers. Unilateral sanctions imposed by the US and EU are analysed as countermeasures and their legality as such is assessed, as are the legal issues associated with forcible counter-proliferation measures of surgical strike and cyber-attack. Reflecting on the 2016 outcome, this thesis concludes that Iranian nuclear crisis was prolonged and exacerbated by the failure to treat the situation as a legal, rather than purely political issue.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:731911 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Coffey, Darina |
| Publisher | University of Birmingham |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/7932/ |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds