Ever since its adoption, the status of the JCPOA has been the subject of discussion amongst scholars. This has been mainly due to the fact that, had the JCPOA been conceived as a Treaty, it would entail certain consequences for the parties to the document “signed”. This Note takes a different approach, however, and aims to take a more nuanced view of the obligations brought forth by the document. If one is to consider the background of the obligations of the UN Member States under UNSC Resolution 2231, namely being obliged “…under Article 25 of the Charter…to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions…”, the status of the JCPOA itself under international law becomes less relevant. In other words, the JCPOA is granted a special position in international law; one that is “endorsed” by a UNSC Resolution, and thereby, having a special place so that the UN Member States have an obligations to adhere to it, and facilitate its implementations.

With this consideration in mind, the Note provides a hybrid approach to the question of JCPOA and the dispute between Iran and other participants to it; one that provides the facts necessary in order to come to the rationale behind Iran’s lawful measures under international law. After analysing the Trump administration’s justifications in its withdrawal from the plan, as well as the EU’s obligations under international law, the lawful measures by Iran to counter (and induce) the participants are analysed through the text of ARSIWA.