The JCPOA as a Non-Treaty Agreement: An Analysis of the Legal Effects of Withdrawal from the JCPOA and the Challenges of Its Enforcement Guarantees in International Law

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as one of the most significant contemporary international agreements, possesses distinctive yet ambiguous legal characteristics that distinguish its nature from that of traditional international treaties. The absence of signatures, ambiguity regarding the intent of the parties, the unconventional structure of the agreement, the lack of an independent supervisory body, as well as uncertainties surrounding the process of accession and domestic approval, have led to the JCPOA being classified more as a non-treaty arrangement than a classic treaty. These characteristics have directly affected the legal consequences of withdrawal from the JCPOA and the manner in which enforcement mechanisms may be applied.

Adopting an analytical–descriptive approach, this article first examines the legal nature of the JCPOA and the existing ambiguities in this regard, and subsequently analyzes the legal effects of withdrawal both from the perspective of the JCPOA’s own text and in light of the requirements of public international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the status of the JCPOA within the framework of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. The study further explores the role of dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms, including the roles of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Law Commission, and the JCPOA Joint Commission. The findings indicate that the structural and substantive weaknesses of the JCPOA have limited the possibility of applying effective enforcement measures against unilateral withdrawal; nevertheless, international law continues to provide tools for holding states accountable.