Within the systematic framework of international law, general legal principles can be viewed as the basis of a global order that plays an irreplaceable role in protecting the reliability and integrity of international law.
These principles emerge from the ongoing practices and implicit agreements of states and other international actors, and through this gradual process they pave the way for the development of further rules in international law.
Among these principles, basic rules such as ex injured justia non oritur, “denial of justification for illegal activities” hold a special and distinctive position. According to this rule, no rights or privileges arise from illegal activities. Also, recognizing the rights resulting from a violation of the obligation is precisely because it aims to approve and legalize fraud. The purpose of this rule is therefore to prevent the legal system from falling into contradictions and to prevent the real prevailing of power or power over legal norms. This principle specifically reflects the efforts of the international community to ensure the rule of law and maintain the integrity of the legal system.
This departure from the principle is equivalent to defining “right” through “power,” and is equivalent to a concept that fundamentally opposes the essence of an international legal order and threatens basic legitimacy. As a widely accepted general principle solidified through the progressive, unwritten consensus of international actors, it provides a framework for the development and strengthening of other legal rules, particularly in the territory of relatively underrecognized international law where such principles act as architects of legal order.
Nevertheless, current reality has sometimes made interpretation and application of this principle difficult. In the field of practical politics and power-led interests, states have often been led to ignore this principle. In many cases, the state that evokes this principle of rhetoric actually attempted to justify the interests of their own misconduct through justification or silence, thereby denying their own misconduct.
The non-injection principle of “denial of justification for illegal activities” must stand as a solid breakwater against this danger, preventing the reality born from violations of the rules from becoming established under the cloak of legitimacy and international acceptance. A contemporary example of a practical challenge to this principle can be seen in the implementation of three European parties on the JCPOA and invocation of the so-called “snapback mechanism.”
Explicit obligations were imposed on European countries within the framework of JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Section 26 of the agreement explicitly provided that the reimposition of the lifted sanctions or the imposition of new sanctions by any party constituted a fundamental violation. This gives Iran the right to suspend its own commitment and justify its proportional response to such measures. Additionally, paragraph 28 required Member States to refrain from conduct or omissions that undermine the purpose and purpose of the contract. Furthermore, paragraph 29 went further, requiring Member States to actively promote the usual course of economic relations with Iran and avoid policies that hinder such relations.
However, in reality, due to the re-challenges of the US withdrawal and its sanctions, the obligations mentioned in paragraphs 26, 28 and 29 have become the actual test of Europe, despite the explicit legal obligations under JCPOA and Resolution 2231. The refusal of European countries to provide effective compensation measures amounted to a violation of both Iran’s positive and negative obligations to the Islamic Republic, thereby undermining claims of compliance with the agreement.
Based on the established principles of ex inuria just non oritur, it is clear that “denial of justification for illegal activities” does not result in a right from a breach of obligation. A state in violation of a contract cannot enjoy the rights arising from that very agreement, nor have the legal justification necessary to invoke it.
But what’s happening now is different. Three European countries have invoked the very contracts that they themselves have violated the agreement, in the position of violators of the agreement. Under the pretext of invoking the JCPOA mechanism, they are trying to use it as a means of pressure on Iran and imposing restrictions.
In short, the principle of ex inuria just non oritur, “denial of justification for illegal activities” cannot be considered simply as theoretical and abstract rules in international law. Rather, it must be seen as reflecting the will of the international community groups that support the rule of law. This principle remains a benchmark of legitimacy in the international legal system, under which the infringing state cannot present itself as a claimant of rights.
The attempt by the European government violated its own fundamental obligations and ignored the requirements of Resolution 2231 – relying on a snapback mechanism is a clear example of justifying violations of commitment, distorting established principles of international law, and lacking legal justification.
Today, the reliability and validity of international law is clinging to the global community’s compliance with minimum norms that are more threatened than ever before. The future of international legal order depends on whether the will of states and international organizations allow them to violate the stages of international law as claimants, thereby turning the legal system into a tool to justify their actions.