The Netherlands: Court Throws Out Ban on Iranian Students

An EA reader offers a guest article:

From 1 July 2009, Iranian students in the Netherlands were excluded from taking certain courses and visiting certain places if Iran could make use of their studies to develop nuclear weaponry. The students said the measure was discriminatory and went to court to prove it.

The restrictions are based on the two-year-old United Nations resolution 1737 that obliges UN member states to ensure that certain sensitive information cannot find its way to Iran. However, Behnam Taebi, spokesman for the Iranian students, maintains that the resolution says nothing about excluding students, specifically those pursuing a Master's degree: "The Cabinet is assuming that students here intend to pass on information to Iran and that the type of information in a Master's course - fairly fundamental, basic information - could be of use to the Iranian nuclear programme. These are two assumptions the Cabinet will have to defend."


Dick Leurdijk of the Clingendael Institute for International Relations disputed the idea that the Netherlands is alone in its interpretation of the resolution, claiming about 90 countries have responded to the UN call. Taebi pointed out, however, that when he was carry out research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US, he was subject to no restrictions.

On Wednesday, a judge tossed out the decree barring Iranians from Dutch nuclear sites. The district court of The Hague ruled the policy unfairly discriminated against people of Iranian descent when it required special dispensation for admission to nine specific master's programmes and barred them from five Dutch nuclear sites.

The defence claimed these locations harbour secrets that should remain unknown to outsiders and Iran would pose a great threat if it ever developed nuclear weapons. The Dutch Government also stated the boycott punished Iran for refusing UN inspections of its nuclear programme and claimed it was bound to the boycott by international commitments. The judge found none of these arguments sufficiently persuasive: "Plenty of alternatives means exist to the same end."