International sanctions

International sanctions are political and economic decisions that are part of diplomatic efforts by countries, multilateral or regional organizations against states or organizations either to protect national security interests, or to protect international law, and defend against threats to international peace and security.^[1][2][3][4] These decisions principally include the temporary imposition on a target of economic, trade, diplomatic, cultural or other restrictions (sanctions measures) that are lifted when the motivating security concerns no longer apply, or when no new threats have arisen.

According to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, only the UN Security Council has a mandate by the international community to apply sanctions (Article 41) that must be complied with by all UN member states (Article 2,2). They serve as the international community's most powerful peaceful means to prevent threats to international peace and security or to settle them. Sanctions do not include the use of military force. However, if sanctions do not lead to the diplomatic settlement of a conflict, the use of force can be authorized by the Security Council separately under Article 42.

UN sanctions should not be confused with unilateral sanctions that are imposed by individual countries in furtherance of their strategic interests.^[5] Typically intended as strong economic coercion, measures applied under unilateral sanctions can range between coercive diplomatic efforts, economic warfare, or as preludes to war.

For the first 45 years of the United Nations' history, sactions were only imposed twice: once against Rhodesia in 1966 and then against South Africa in 1977.^[6][7] From 1991, there was a sharp increase in their usage.^[8] The UN voted for sanctions twelve times in the 1990s alone.^[9] According to Thomas G. Weiss, the soar in sanctions can be attributed to the shift in attitudes as a consequence of the end of the Cold War, where there was a "newfound willingness" from UN member nations to "intrude in issues that were once off-limits".^[7]

Types

There are several types of sanctions.

• Economic sanctions – typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)
• Diplomatic sanctions – the reduction or removal of diplomatic ties, such as embassies.
• Military sanctions – military intervention
• Sport sanctions – preventing one country's people and teams from competing in international events.
• Sanctions on the environment – since the declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, international environmental protection efforts have been increased gradually.

Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely economic reasons, and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures, rather than bans on trade.

Economic sanctions

Main article: Economic sanctions

Economic sanctions can vary from trade barriers, tariffs, and restrictions on financial transactions. These types of sanctions impose import duties on goods or bans on the export of certain goods to the target country, to a full naval blockade of the target's ports in an effort to block imported goods. The objective of the sanctioning country are to impose significant costs to the target country to coerce a change in policy or attain a specific action from the target government.^[10] However, the effectiveness of economic sanctions has been challenged, as its harsh impacts cause more harm to the general population rather than the target regimes it is designed to hurt.^[11]

Diplomatic sanctions

Diplomatic sanctions are political measures taken to express disapproval or displeasure at a certain action through diplomatic and political means, rather than affecting economic or military relations. Measures include limitations or cancellations of high-level government visits or expelling or withdrawing diplomatic missions or staff.

Military sanctions

Similarly military sanctions can range from carefully targeted military strikes to degrade a nation's conventional or non-conventional capabilities, to the less aggressive form of an arms embargo to cut off supplies of arms or dual-use items.

Sport sanctions

Sport sanctions are used as a way of psychological warfare, intended to crush the morale of the general population of the target country. Sports sanctions were imposed as part of the international sanctions against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1992–1995, enacted by UN Security Council by resolution 757. The Gleneagles Agreement approved by the Commonwealth of Nations in 1977, committed member nations to discourage contact and competition between their sportsmen and sporting organisations, teams or individuals from South Africa. However, it was not binding and unable to stop events such as the 1980 British Lions tour to South Africa or the 1981 South Africa rugby union tour of New Zealand. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, many sporting bodies imposed sport sanctions against Russia and Belarus. The target countries are usually not allowed to host any sporting events and not allowed to have their flag and state symbol displayed.

Sanctions on the environment

Sanctions on the environment include both economic and political issues such as trade since these are all interdependent. The trade barriers and restrictions on trade are the key factors since they are engaged with the problems of endangered species, ozone-depleting chemicals, and environmental laws. Although the sanctions and laws regarding the environment are relatively new, recent concerns over the environmental issues encouraged individuals and governments to actively cooperate in dealing the problems.

Sanctions on individuals

The United Nations Security Council can implement sanctions on political leaders or economic individuals. These persons usually find ways of evading their sanction because of political connections within their nation.^[12]

Reasons for Sanctioning

Sanctions formulations are designed into three categories. The categories are used to differentiate between the political contexts due to the global nature of the act.

The first category involves such sanctions that are designed to force cooperation with international law.^[12] This can be seen in the sanctions placed on Iraq in Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990, after the initial invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The United Nations placed an embargo on the nation in an attempt to prevent armed conflict. Resolution 665 and Resolution 670 were further added creating both naval and air blockade on Iraq.^[13] The purpose of the initial sanctions was to coerce Iraq into following international law, which included the recognized sovereignty of Kuwait.

The second category of design is those sanctions with the purpose to contain a threat to peace within a geographical boundary.^[12] The 2010 Iran nuclear proliferation debate is a contemporary example. The current United Nations Security Council passed on June 9, Resolution 1929 providing restrictions on missile and weaponry materials that could be used for the creation of destructive weapons.^{[14][unreliable source?]} This principle of restriction is to contain the possibility of Iranian aggression within the neighboring region.

The third category involves the United Nations Security Councils condemnation of actions of a specific action or policy of a member/non-member nation.^[12] The white minority declared Rhodesian Independence on November 11, 1965.^[15] The General assemble and United Nations in a 107 to 2 vote took to condemning Rhodesia on all military, economic, as well as oil and petroleum products.^[15] The international display of disapproval forced sanctions onto the Rhodesian people, but without a clear goal as to a remedy for the economic sanctions.

The three categories are a blanket explanation on the reasons sanctions are applied to nations, but it does not go as far as to say that voting members share the same political reasons for imposing them. It is often the case for many nations to be driven by self-interests in one or more categories when voting on whether or not to implement sanctions.

Support of use

Sanctions have long been the subject of controversy as scholars question their effects on citizens, the level of ethnocentrism involved when designing and implementing sanctions, and the possibility of ineffectiveness.

Supporters of sanctions argue that regardless of sanctions' effects on a group of people, those citizens were most likely already being oppressed by their government. Supporters also argue that sanctions are the best alternative international tool, as opposed to taking no action, and that in the absence of sanctions, oppressive regimes have no incentive to reform.

On the side of opposition, it is asserted that sanctions are a way to promote nationalistic values and diminish the culture of a state. In counterargument, support is argued on the basis that something must be done and democratic peace theory is cited as sound reasoning despite any possible cultural insensitivity.

In regards to the effectiveness of the sanctions, supporters concede that multilateral sanctions have been found to work 33% of the time.^[16]

There are several ways to remove and dissolve sanctions that have been imposed on a nation(s). In some cases, such as those imposed on Iraq in 1990, only a new resolution can be used to lift the sanctions.^[17] This is done when no provision is put in the resolution for the lifting of sanctions. This is generally only done if the sanctioned party has shown willingness to adopt certain conditions of the Security Council.^[12] Another way sanctions can be lifted is when time limits are implemented with the initial sanction. After an extended duration, the sanction will eventually be lifted off the nation, with or without cooperation. The practice of time limitations has grown over the years and allows for a gradual removal of restrictions on nations conforming, at least in part, to conditions imposed by sanctioning bodies, such as the U.N. Security Council.

Criticism

It is sometimes claimed that sanctions imposed by single countries or by an intergovernmental body like the United Nations are "illegal" or "criminal" due to, in the case of economic sanctions, the right to development or, in the case of military sanctions, the Right of self-defense.^{[citation needed]}

Professor Thomas G. Weiss describes sanctions as giving nations the "ability to 'do something' and engage in cheap moralizing but refrain from serious engagement", denouncing them as moral posturing with little impact.^[7] Jovan Babic & Aleksandar Jokic also criticise sanctions, but argue that their impact is significant: "sanctions produce morally reprehensible consequences that undermine their often-cited moral justification".^[18]

Impact on Civilians

A 1996 report by International Progress Organization criticized sanctions as "an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly".^[19]

A notable case of sanctions having a catastrophic impact on civilians is in Iraq. In the hopes of forcing Saddam Hussain to comply with requests to inspect Iraq's nuclear capability - or to invoke a coup d'etat - the UN imposed sanctions against Iraq. As a consequence, the GDP was halved.^[9] The cost of food for a family increased by 25000% in the space of 5 years.^[20] Between 1991 and 1998, it has been estimated that the sanctions resulted in between 100,000 and 250,000 children to die.^[21] Ultimately, the sanctions did not yield concessions from Hussain's government, and some academics use this case study to bring the efficacy of such sanctions into question.^[9]

Some policymakers view the civilian impact as necessary. In the words of US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, "the price was worth it" (although in a 2020 interview she later retracted this statement as "totally stupid").^[22]

Some scholars also highlight the UN's sanctions against former Yugoslavian republics from 1991 to 1995. In some ways, they could be considered a success as they prevented a wider conflict in Europe.^[7] However, the sanctions had catastrophic consequences. Less than a year after the first sanctions, average household income halved from $3,000/year to $1,500/year, according to estimates by economist Miroljub Labus.^[23] In October 1993, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Belgrade estimated that approximately 3 million people living in Serbia and Montenegro were living at or below the poverty line.^[24] Vulnerable & sick people suffered the most, and by 1993 most hospitals lacked basic medicines such as antibiotics and functioning equipment such as X-ray devices.^[24] In November 1994, 87 patients died in Belgrade's Institute of Mental Health due to lack of heat, food, or medicine.^[25] In the same year, The New York Times reported that suicide rates had increased by 22%.^[26]

At the 50th anniversary of the UN in January 1995, the incumbent UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali highlighted the negative effects of sanctions:

"a blunt instrument [that raises] the ethical question of whether suffering inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country is a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders whose behaviour is unlikely to be affected by the plight of their subjects."

— Boutros-Ghali, former UN Secretary General

^[27]

Boutros-Ghali also highlighted the UN's duty of care to ensure that vulnerable groups are provided with humanitarian aid during the economic fallout of the sanctions they impose.^[28]

Paternalism

Paternalism is the philosophy that one party is unaware of what is in their best interests, so another party must 'save' them, like a paternal father figure. This presupposes that the paternal party is superior, and that the party in need of intervention should not have autonomy over themselves, which should instead be given to the paternal party to act on their behalf. Jovan Babic & Aleksandar Jokic argue that sanctions are an act of paternalism.^[18]

They contend that sanctions "reinforce the position that some nations are not "adult enough" "while other nations are authorized (perhaps bound by duty) to lend a helping hand."^[18] This, they believe, contradicts the liberal notion that all peoples and nations are created equal.^[18] Babic & Jokic further assert that this attitude results in the sanctioned population being portrayed as incompetent and infantile people undeserving of dignity who it is morally permissible to allow to suffer as a consequence of sanctions.^[18]

Measuring Success

Measuring the success of sanctions - and when they should be lifted - is often difficult.

UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali commented on the objectives of imposing sanctions can often be unclear and shift over time, making it "difficult to agree upon when the objectives can be considered to have been achieved and sanctions can be lifted".^[28]

According to Thomas G. Weiss, the sanctions against the states of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s could be considered a success as they prevented a wider conflict in Europe.^[7] Ultimately, the sanctions were lifted with the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995 which saw the end of combat.

Limitations of the United Nations Sanctioning

In scenarios where the Security Council's permanent members, the P5, with their vetoes prioritize their own interests at the expense of collective action, the UNSC's effectiveness can be significantly hampered.^[29] This is evident in cases like Syria, where Russia's consistent vetoes have shielded the Assad regime from sanctions despite documented war crimes.^[30] Similarly, Western vetoes have protected Israel from censure for its actions in the occupied territories.^[31]

This selective use of the veto power exposes a fundamental tension between national interests and international responsibility. While P5 members may argue that their actions are driven by strategic considerations, historical ties, or domestic pressures, the consequences can be felt by the civilian population.^[32] Impunity for human rights abuses breeds further conflict and undermines the UNSC's legitimacy as an impartial arbiter of global affairs.

Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of the current system and explore potential solutions.^[33] These could include reforming the veto power to require unanimity for its use, increasing transparency around veto justifications, or empowering regional organizations to play a more prominent role in conflict resolution. Ultimately, overcoming the shadow of self-interest within the UNSC is essential for ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in a world increasingly grappling with complex and interconnected challenges.

Sanctions databases

• OpenSanctions^[34] is an open-source project,^[35] with OpenSanctions-wikidata integration,^[36] by Friedrich Lindenberg,^[37] tracking sanctions and financial restrictions on assets and "persons and companies of political, criminal, or economic interest".^{[38][39][40][41][42][43]}

See also

• Autarky
• Boycott
• Enforcement
• Accountability
• Humanitarian intervention
• Sanctions involving Russia
• India sanctions
• United States sanctions
• Dima Yakovlev Law
• Magnitsky Act
• Interdict

References

1. Hufbauer, Gary (2007). Economic Sanctions Reconsidered. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics. pp. 5. ISBN 978-088132-407-5.
2. Cortright, David (2000). The sanctions decade : assessing UN strategies in the 1990s. Lopez, George A. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 1. ISBN 1555878911. OCLC 43115210.
3. "Sanctions policy". European External Action Service.
4. "Assembly of the African Union Fourteenth Ordinary Session". African Union.
5. Enrico, Carisch (2017). The evolution of UN sanctions : from a tool of warfare to a tool of peace, security and human rights. Rickard-Martin, Loraine,, Meister, Shawna R. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 454 ff. ISBN 9783319600048. OCLC 1008962905.
6. Cortright, David; Lopez, George (2000). The Sanctions Decade. ISBN 9781555878672.
7. Weiss, Thomas G. (1999). "Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: Weighing Humanitarian Impulses". Journal of Peace Research. 36 (5): 499–509. ISSN 0022-3433.
8. Hufbauer, Gary, Jeffrey Schott, Kimberly Elliott, and Barbara Oegg. (2007) Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd edn. Washington: Institute for International Economics.
9. Drezner, Daniel W. (2011). "Sanctions Sometimes Smart: Targeted Sanctions in Theory and Practice". International Studies Review. 13 (1): 96–108. ISSN 1521-9488.
10. . 2011-08-07. Archived from the original on 2011-08-07. Retrieved 2022-08-29.
11. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Schott, Jeffrey J.; Elliott, Kimberly (2007). Economic Sanctions Reconsidered. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics. p. 1. ISBN 9780881325362.
12. Chesterman, Simon; Pouligny, Béatrice (2003). "Are Sanctions Meant to Work? The Politics of Creating and Implementing Sanctions Through the United Nations". Global Governance. 9 (4): 503–518. doi:10.1163/19426720-00904008. JSTOR 27800499. S2CID 151063307.
13. Schweisfurth, Theodor (1 January 1991). "The Acceptance by the Soviet Union of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ for Six Human Rights Conventions". European Journal of International Law. 2 (1): 110–117. doi:10.1093/ejil/2.1.110.
14. "Should the United Nations Security Council Impose Additional Sanctions on Iran Due to Its Nuclear Program?" CONS. (2010). International Debates, 8(9), 41–48.
15. McDougal, Myres S.; Reisman, W. Michael (January 1968). "Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern" (PDF). The American Journal of International Law. 62 (1): 1–19. doi:10.2307/2197519. JSTOR 2197519. S2CID 145393323.
16. Ang, Adrian U-Jin; Peksen, Dursun (2 July 2016). "When Do Economic Sanctions Work?". Political Research Quarterly. 60 (1): 135–145. doi:10.1177/1065912906298632. S2CID 145514518.
17. Lopez, George A.; Cortright, David (2004). "Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked". Foreign Affairs. 83 (4): 90–103. doi:10.2307/20034049. JSTOR 20034049.
18. Babic, Jovan; Jokic, Aleksandar (2000). "The Ethics of International Sanctions: The Case of Yugoslavia". The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 24 (1): 87–101. ISSN 1046-1868.
19. "Appeal against sanctions: Commission on Human Rights: Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Forty-eighth session (5–30 August 1996). Agenda item 13: International peace and security as an essential condition for the enjoyment of human rights, above all the right to life". 15 August 1996.
20. Hoskins, Eric. (1997) Humanitarian Impacts of Sanctions and War in Iraq. In Political Gain and Civilian Pain, edited by Thomas Weiss, David Cortright, George Lopez, and Larry Minear, eds. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
21. Garfield, Richard. (1999) Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children from 1990 Through 1998.
22. Oladipo, Gloria (2022-03-23). "'A trailblazer': political leaders pay tribute to Madeleine Albright". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
23. Paul Lewis (October 29, 1992). "Yugoslavs Face Hard Winter as the Blockade Bites". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
24. David B. Ottoway (October 20, 1993). "SANCTIONS CRIPPLE SERBIA, BUT NOT ITS MONEY PRESSES". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
25. Thayer Watkins, Ph.D. "The Worst Episode of Hyperinflation in History: Yugoslavia 1993-94". Retrieved June 26, 2017.
26. Roger Cohen (May 29, 1994). "Embargo Leaves Serbia Thriving". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
27. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, “Supplement to an Agenda for Peace: Position Paper of the Secretary-General on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations", 1 January 3, 1995, para. 70
28. "Boutros Boutros-Ghali on the Negative Effects of Sanctions". archive.globalpolicy.org. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
29. Jeong, Jin Mun; Peksen, Dursun (January 2019). "Domestic Institutional Constraints, Veto Players, and Sanction Effectiveness". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 63 (1): 194–217. doi:10.1177/0022002717728105. ISSN 0022-0027.
30. Melling, Graham; Dennett, Anne (2017-12-01). "The Security Council veto and Syria: responding to mass atrocities through the "Uniting for Peace" resolution". Indian Journal of International Law. 57 (3): 285–307. doi:10.1007/s40901-018-0084-9. ISSN 2199-7411.
31. Newton, Creede. "A history of the US blocking UN resolutions against Israel". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2023-12-14.
32. Jong, Daniëlla Dam-de (2020-11-12). "Who Is Targeted by the Council's Sanctions? The UN Security Council and the Principle of Proportionality". Nordic Journal of International Law. 89 (3–4): 383–398. doi:10.1163/15718107-89030007. hdl:1887/3141734. ISSN 0902-7351.
33. "Member States Call for Removing Veto Power, Expanding Security Council to Include New Permanent Seats, as General Assembly Debates Reform Plans for 15-Member Organ | UN Press". press.un.org. Retrieved 2023-12-14.
34. "OpenSanctions".
35. "OpenSanctions.org". GitHub. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
36. "Papa Abdoulaye Seck".
37. Erdl, Alexander (11 April 2023). "OpenSanctions: An Open-Source Project About Financial Restrictions". Neo4j Developer Blog. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
38. "About this project". OpenSanctions.org. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
39. "Global Sanctions Database". aleph.occrp.org. Retrieved 7 June 2023. A list of people, legal entities, and companies on sanctions lists, sourced from the OpenSanctions Project. This data is sourced from the following data sources:....
40. "OpenCorporates identifiers now in OpenSanctions: A win for the open data ecosystem". OpenCorporates. 19 July 2022. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
41. "OpenScreening : A free PEP & Sanctions screening tool". resources.linkurious.com. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
42. International Institute for Strategic Studies (28 April 2023). Arms Sales and Regional Stability. Taylor & Francis. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-000-95660-3. Retrieved 7 June 2023. OpenSanctions
43. "What is OpenSanctions? A Fair, Affordable, and Privacy-Preserving PEP/Sanction Checking". 21 Analytics. January 20, 2022. Retrieved 7 June 2023.

Further reading

• Condon, Bradly J, Environmental Sovereignty and the WTO : Trade Sanctions and International Law (2006)
• Ashouri, Mahan "The Role of transnational Private Actors in Ukrain International Flight 752 Crash in Iran Under Economic Sanctions Pressure" (2021)[1] 2021-10-01 at the Wayback Machine

External links

• OpenSanctions
• sanctions.lursoft.lv