Within the systematic framework of international law, general legal principles can be regarded as the very foundations of the global order, playing an irreplaceable role in safeguarding the credibility and integrity of international law.

These principles have emerged from the continuous practice and tacit agreements of states and other international actors, and through this gradual process, they have paved the way for the development of further rules in international law.

Among these principles, a foundational rule such as ex injuria jus non oritur “the denial of legitimacy to unlawful acts” holds a special and distinguished position. According to this rule, no right or privilege can arise from an illegal act, nor can it bestow legitimacy upon such an act, for recognizing rights stemming from a breach of obligation is tantamount to endorsing and legitimizing the very act of wrongdoing. Thus, the purpose of this rule is to protect the legal system from falling into contradiction and to prevent the ascendancy of realities born of power or force over legal norms. This principle is a tangible reflection of the international community’s efforts to ensure the rule of law and to preserve the integrity of the legal system.

Deviation from this principle would equate to defining "right" through "might," a notion fundamentally at odds with the essence of international legal order, threatening its foundational legitimacy. As a widely accepted general principle, solidified through the gradual, unwritten consensus of international actors, it provides a framework for the development and reinforcement of other legal rules, particularly in the relatively under-codified domain of international law, where such principles act as architects of legal order.

Nevertheless, current realities have at times made the interpretation and application of this principle fraught with difficulties. In the arena of practical politics and power-driven interests, states have often been led to disregard this principle. In many cases, a state that invokes this principle in rhetoric has, in practice, sought to legitimize the gains of its own unlawful acts through justification or silence, thereby denying its own wrongdoing.

The principle of ex injuria jus non oritur “the denial of legitimacy to unlawful acts” must stand as a firm bulwark against this danger, preventing realities born of the violation of rules from being entrenched under the cloak of legitimacy and international acceptance. A contemporary example of the practical challenge to this principle can be seen in the conduct of the three European states party to the JCPOA and their invocation of the so-called “snapback mechanism”—a situation that vividly illustrates the tension between theory and practice in international law and challenges how field realities impact legal principles.

Within the framework of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231, explicit obligations were placed upon European countries. Paragraph 26 of the agreement explicitly stipulated that the reimposition of lifted sanctions or the imposition of new sanctions by any party would constitute a fundamental breach—a breach that would entitle Iran to suspend its own commitments and legitimize any proportionate Iranian response to such measures. In addition, paragraph 28 required member states to refrain from any action or inaction that would undermine the object and purpose of the agreement. Furthermore, paragraph 29 went even further, obligating member states to actively facilitate the normal course of their economic relations with Iran and to avoid any policy that would impede such relations—a commitment that explicitly called for a proactive, supportive role by the parties to the agreement.

In practice, however, with the withdrawal of the United States and the reimposition of its sanctions, the obligations set forth in paragraphs 26, 28, and 29 became a real test for Europe—a test in which the three European countries, despite the clear legal obligations under the JCPOA and Resolution 2231, failed. The European countries’ refusal to take effective compensatory measures amounted to a violation of both their positive and negative obligations toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, thereby undermining any claim of adherence to the agreement.

Based on the established principle of  ex injuria jus non oritur “the denial of legitimacy to unlawful acts,” it is clear that no right can arise from a breach of obligation. A state that has itself violated the agreement cannot enjoy the rights arising from that very agreement, nor can it possess the legal legitimacy necessary to invoke it.

Yet, what is now taking place is different: three European countries, in the position of violators of the agreement, have invoked the very agreement whose provisions they themselves have breached. Under the pretext of invoking the JCPOA’s mechanisms, they seek to use it as a means to exert pressure and impose restrictions on the Islamic Republic of Iran—an act that paints a vivid picture of the dominance of political interests over legal foundations in the conduct of these states.

In sum, the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur“the denial of legitimacy to unlawful acts” cannot be regarded merely as a theoretical and abstract rule in international law. Rather, it must be seen as a reflection of the collective will of the international community to uphold the rule of law. This principle remains the benchmark of legitimacy in the international legal system, under which breaching states cannot present themselves as claimants of rights and benefit from an agreement they have themselves violated.

The attempt by European governments—having breached their own fundamental obligations and disregarded the requirements of Resolution 2231—to resort to the snapback mechanism is a clear instance of legitimizing the breach of commitments and distorting established principles of international law, lacking any legal justification.

Today, the credibility and efficacy of international law hang on the global community’s adherence to minimum norms that are now more than ever under threat. The future of the international legal order depends on whether the will of states and international institutions permits violators of commitments to appear on the stage of international law as claimants of rights, thereby transforming the legal system into a tool for justifying their own actions.