Japan Considers International Law to Guarantee Iran’s Oil Exports
When it comes to the international law implications of an embargo many auxiliary problems tend to creep up for those that aren’t directly involved with said embargos. One such example is set to happen on the 1st of July when the EU embargo on Iranian crude oil and its central bank come into effect. Japan, worried about the fallout such an embargo would have on the supply of oil to their country, has begun to look to international law firms in London and abroad for a solution.
The embargo, according to international law reports, will ban European countries from transporting, purchasing and insuring crude oil or fuel originating in Iran or intended for distribution anywhere in the world. As any international law firm will tell you although the embargo is limited to the EU, any business partnerships (such as Japan’s with a few EU countries) will suffer when the embargo goes live. As such should the EU choose to go through with the Iranian oil sanctions, Japan will probably choose to rapidly introduce a bill to be endorsed by early June. The bill is fairly straight forward for any international law association to comprehend; it will allow tankers to continue importing crude oil from Iran and even cover them with full insurance regardless of the strongest enforcement of the EU’s oil sanctions.
In March under pressure from Asian oil importers the midnight oil was burning in many international law offices to amend the sanctions to lessen the blow to countries whom still rely on the crude. It was agreed that European insurers, who cover most of the world’s tanker fleet, would continue to be allowed to insure shipments from Iran on behalf of non-EU members. An international law commission will gather on the 14th of May to further discuss the sanctions and its dynamics; it is hoped a clearer decision will be made on that day. Until then Japan is under the mercy of international law, although as it has proven, there are always options and avenues it can take.
Similarly to science experiments revealing truths, so court cases are to the legal system. Often the result of a single pioneering case can set the standard of judgement for all those that follow. For example if you are charged for clogging up a neighbours drainpipe which causes damages, the courts might look back on similar cases to decide on the severeness of punishment and the result in earnest. Let’s look at some of these pioneering high court cases that have led the way for fair trial and punishment.
The ‘Texas v. Johnson (1989)’ case set a precedent for freedom of speech in the United States. While any 
The ‘Gideon v. Wainwright’ (1961) set the precedence for court cases in law requiring a defence attorney be state appointed to a defendant if one could not be afforded. Clarence Earl Gideon was walking nearby the scene of a burglary when he was arrested as a suspect of the crime. He couldn’t afford a lawyer and was forced to represent himself although he couldn’t; without a defence Gideon found himself convicted. However the Supreme Court stepped in again and declared his rights were violated and the Sixth Amendment required state courts to appoint lawyers for defendants who couldn’t afford them.