« No dating Arabs! | Main | Ahmadinejad and 9/11 conspiracy »

March 05, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83420523653ef01310f6c9d5c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Qom Enrichment Facility: Was Iran Legally Bound to Disclose? :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cyrus, you want to keep this link handy with regards to Code 3.1 and the "when has Iran to inform" questions:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2218/iaea-legal-adviser-on-arak-darkhovin

The IAEA's own legal adviser found that the question of providing of design information etc as it differs between new Code 3.1 (the IAEA's questionable position) and old Code 3.1 (Iran's position) is too murky to be judged "non-compliance".
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/file_download/162/Legal_Adviser_Iran.pdf

Please check especially point 4 of the analysis in the above document.

/quote/
4. While Iran's action are inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement, this should be seen in the proper context. Given the fact that Article 42 is broadly phrased and that the old version of Code 3.1 had been accepted as complying with the requirements of this Article for some 22 years prior to the Board's decision in 1992 to modify it as indicated above, it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulations in itself constitutes non-compliance with, or a breach of, the Safeguard Agreement as such. It should also be noted that currently more than 60 States with operative SQPs based on the old standard text of SQPs, and 27 States party the NPT but without a CSA in force, are not yet bound by provisions similar to that in the modified Code 3.1.
/endquote/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Me In the Press