This article is written by Khalid Mohamed Abdelwahab Fadlalla, University of Khartoum, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Economic sanctions have become prominent instruments of international diplomacy, employed to influence the behavior of states and non-state actors without resorting to armed conflict. The legality of these measures, particularly unilateral sanctions, is a subject of considerable debate within international law. While multilateral sanctions authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are generally accepted as lawful, the imposition of unilateral sanctions raises concerns about their conformity with principles such as state sovereignty, non-intervention, and self-determination.
This research critically analyzes the legal foundation of economic sanctions, focusing on their compatibility with international law. It examines the distinction between multilateral and unilateral sanctions, explores relevant case law, and considers the humanitarian implications of sanctions regimes. The paper evaluates the proportionality and effectiveness of sanctions, using case studies like the sanctions against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela to illustrate their
impact. Furthermore, it assesses the challenges posed by unilateral sanctions under the legal frameworks of international customary law and the UN Charter.
The findings of this analysis reveal that while sanctions can be effective in achieving foreign policy objectives, their legality under international law is not always clear-cut, especially when unilateral sanctions are concerned. The research concludes that clearer international legal guidelines are needed to ensure that sanctions are applied in a manner consistent with human rights and international humanitarian law, and to prevent their misuse by powerful states.
KEYWORDS
Economic sanctions, international law, UN Charter, multilateral sanctions, unilateral sanctions, state sovereignty, non-intervention, proportionality, humanitarian law, legal frameworks.
INTRODUCTION
Economic sanctions are non-military measures imposed by states or international organizations to compel a change in behavior, typically in response to violations of international law, such as aggression, terrorism, or human rights abuses. Sanctions can take various forms, including trade restrictions, asset freezes, travel bans, and limitations on financial transactions. The most recognized and legally validated sanctions are those imposed by the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes measures necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
However, unilateral sanctions — those imposed by individual states or regional organizations without UNSC approval — raise significant legal questions. International law emphasizes the principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, and the self-determination of peoples, all of which can be compromised by unilateral sanctions. While sanctions are sometimes seen as a legitimate means of enforcing international norms, they often have severe humanitarian consequences, disproportionately impacting civilians rather than the intended political or military targets.
This research paper explores the legality of economic sanctions, focusing on the distinction between multilateral and unilateral sanctions, their impact on international relations, and the legal frameworks governing their use. It analyzes whether sanctions are compatible with the fundamental principles of international law, including case law, and assesses their humanitarian implications. The goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal basis for economic sanctions and to evaluate their effectiveness in achieving foreign policy goals while minimizing harm to civilian populations.
1. MULTILATERAL SANCTIONS: LEGAL FOUNDATION AND LAW
Multilateral sanctions, authorized by the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, are considered lawful under international law. The UNSC has the power to determine the existence of any threat to international peace and security, and to take necessary measures, including the imposition of economic sanctions. Article 41 of the UN Charter outlines the legal framework for economic sanctions, allowing the UNSC to employ non-military measures to enforce its resolutions[1].
Case Law: UNSC Sanctions on Iraq (Resolution 661)
One of the most notable examples of multilateral sanctions is UNSC Resolution 661, imposed on Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. This resolution authorized comprehensive economic sanctions, including a ban on all imports and exports from Iraq, as well as a freeze on its financial assets abroad. The sanctions aimed to pressure Iraq into withdrawing from Kuwait and restoring international peace. Although the sanctions were effective in isolating Iraq economically, they also caused severe humanitarian suffering, as food, medicine, and basic necessities became scarce.
Despite the humanitarian consequences, the sanctions imposed under Resolution 661 were considered lawful, as they were authorized by the UNSC under Chapter VII and aimed at maintaining international peace and security[2]. However, the Iraq sanctions regime raised
questions about the proportionality and long-term effectiveness of such measures, leading to subsequent reforms in UNSC sanctions policy, including the adoption of targeted or “smart” sanctions that focus on specific individuals or entities rather than entire populations.
2. UNILATERAL SANCTIONS: LEGAL CHALLENGES AND CASE LAW
Unilateral sanctions, imposed by individual states or regional organizations without UNSC approval, present significant legal challenges. International law, particularly the UN Charter, prioritizes the principle of sovereign equality among states and prohibits interference in the internal affairs of other states. Unilateral sanctions often violate these principles, as they are imposed by powerful states to influence the domestic policies of weaker states without multilateral approval.
Case Law: European Court of Justice – Kadi v. Council of the European Union (2008)
The Kadi case is a landmark decision that highlights the legal complexities surrounding unilateral sanctions. Mr. Kadi, a Saudi national, challenged the EU’s implementation of a UNSC sanctions list that froze his assets without due process. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the sanctions violated fundamental rights under EU law, including the right to property and the right to a fair hearing. The ECJ held that while the EU is bound by its obligations to implement UNSC sanctions, it must also respect the fundamental rights enshrined in its legal order. This case illustrates the tension between international obligations to enforce sanctions and the protection of individual rights under domestic or regional legal frameworks[3].
Case Study: U.S. Sanctions on Iran
The United States has imposed a series of unilateral sanctions on Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, targeting its economy in response to alleged human rights violations and concerns over its nuclear program. In 2018, the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated sanctions, affecting Iran’s energy, banking, and financial sectors. Iran has challenged these sanctions at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing
that they violate international agreements, including the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the U.S. and Iran. The ICJ has issued provisional measures ordering the U.S. to ease restrictions on humanitarian goods, but the legal battle over the broader sanctions regime continues.
The legality of unilateral sanctions remains contentious, as there is no clear provision in the UN Charter that authorizes individual states to impose economic sanctions without UNSC approval. Many scholars argue that unilateral sanctions violate international customary law and undermine the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention. However, proponents of unilateral sanctions contend that they are necessary tools for states to protect their national security and foreign policy interests, particularly when multilateral efforts fail or are blocked by the veto power of permanent UNSC members[4].
3. HUMANITARIAN IMPACT AND THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY
One of the most significant criticisms of economic sanctions is their humanitarian impact, particularly when they target entire populations rather than specific individuals or entities. International humanitarian law (IHL) requires that sanctions be proportionate to the aims they seek to achieve and that they minimize harm to civilian populations. The principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of both IHL and human rights law, ensuring that measures taken in the pursuit of legitimate goals do not impose excessive suffering on civilians.
Case Study: Venezuela Sanctions
Since 2014, the U.S. and the EU have imposed sanctions on Venezuela in response to alleged human rights violations and the erosion of democratic institutions under President Nicolás Maduro. These sanctions have targeted Venezuela’s oil industry, the backbone of its economy, as well as its financial institutions. While the sanctions aim to pressure the Maduro regime into restoring democratic governance, they have exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis, leading to shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods. The UN and international human rights organizations have criticized the sanctions for disproportionately harming the civilian population, which is already suffering from hyperinflation and poverty[5]. The humanitarian consequences
of the sanctions have raised serious concerns about their proportionality and compliance with international law.
LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Under international law, sanctions must comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has emphasized that sanctions should not cause undue suffering to civilians and that humanitarian exceptions must be included in sanctions regimes to allow the flow of essential goods and services. The UN has also developed guidelines to ensure that sanctions do not violate basic human rights, particularly the right to food, health, and development. However, in practice, many sanctions regimes fail to adequately account for these humanitarian considerations, leading to widespread suffering among civilian populations[6].
IMPACT OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ON NATIONAL TRADING ACTIVITIES
Economic sanctions, while used as a tool to achieve political and diplomatic objectives, often disrupt the trading activities of targeted nations significantly. By limiting access to international markets and restricting trade relations, sanctions can impact a nation’s economy in various detrimental ways.
For instance, sanctioned nations frequently face reduced export opportunities as their trading partners are forced to cut ties due to the threat of secondary sanctions or international pressure. This restriction limits the nation’s ability to sell its goods on the global market, decreasing export revenue and diminishing foreign exchange reserves. Furthermore, import limitations hamper sanctioned country’s access to essential goods, technology, and services, which may be critical for its industries and population. Consequently, businesses that rely on imported raw materials or technology suffer from increased production costs or forced adaptation to less efficient alternatives, leading to reduced productivity and competitiveness[7].
Additionally, economic sanctions disrupt foreign direct investment (FDI) as investors become hesitant to operate in an environment with financial and legal risks. This can have long-term effects on economic growth, as the country is deprived of capital inflows and technological advancements, which are often essential for infrastructure and industrial development. The sanctions also weaken the nation’s currency by creating inflationary pressures, further discouraging trade by making imports prohibitively expensive.
Overall, economic sanctions impose a range of financial and operational constraints that slow economic growth and reduce the efficiency of a sanctioned nation’s trading activities. The prolonged impact of such restrictions often forces countries to reconfigure their trade alliances and adapt their economies toward self-sufficiency, though with limited success. Thus, while economic sanctions serve as a diplomatic tool, they significantly hinder a nation’s integration into the global economy and pose substantial challenges to its trade[8].
RATIONALE BEHIND IMPOSING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Economic sanctions serve as a strategic tool in international law, often aimed at achieving political, security, and humanitarian goals without resorting to military intervention. These sanctions can be imposed unilaterally by individual nations or multilaterally through bodies like the United Nations (UN) or the European Union (EU), intending to exert pressure on a targeted nation to influence its policies or behavior.
One primary rationale behind economic sanctions is to enforce international norms and discourage actions that threaten global peace and security, such as human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, or territorial aggression. By limiting a country’s economic resources, sanctions seek to weaken the capacity of the targeted government to sustain actions that are considered destabilizing or in violation of international laws. This approach acts as a non-violent mechanism to promote compliance and deter other states from similar conduct[9].
Additionally, sanctions aim to encourage political reform within the targeted state. For example, sanctions on oppressive regimes seek to pressure governments into adopting democratic reforms or ending human rights abuses by creating economic hardships that may erode domestic support
for the leadership. Sanctions may also target specific individuals, companies, or sectors, thus focusing pressure on those directly responsible for undesired policies.
In essence, the rationale behind economic sanctions is rooted in their potential to influence state behavior through economic means, offering an alternative to direct confrontation and promoting adherence to international law and norms[10].
ORGANIZATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPOSING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
Economic sanctions are imposed by various international and regional organizations as a means to enforce compliance with international law, uphold security, and promote human rights. One of the leading bodies is the United Nations (UN), particularly through its Security Council, which holds the authority to impose binding sanctions on member states under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Security Council utilizes sanctions to address issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and violations of territorial sovereignty, aiming to maintain international peace and security.
Another prominent organization is the European Union (EU), which enforces sanctions to address global security threats and human rights abuses. EU sanctions are adopted under its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), often complementing UN measures or independently targeting issues in Europe and surrounding regions. These sanctions can include asset freezes, travel bans, and trade restrictions.
Additionally, individual nations such as the United States, through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), frequently impose unilateral sanctions. Such measures are generally enacted in response to national security concerns, human rights abuses, and support for terrorism.
Together, these organizations play a vital role in shaping international relations, using sanctions as a strategic tool to influence state behavior while promoting global stability and justice[11].
CONCLUSION
The legality of economic sanctions under international law is a complex and contentious issue. While multilateral sanctions imposed by the UNSC are generally considered lawful under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unilateral sanctions present significant legal and ethical challenges. Unilateral sanctions often violate the principles of state sovereignty and non- intervention, and their humanitarian impact raises serious concerns about their proportionality and compliance with international law.
This research has shown that while economic sanctions can be effective tools for achieving foreign policy objectives, they often come at a high humanitarian cost. The case studies of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea illustrate the challenges of balancing the goals of sanctions with the need to protect civilian populations and respect international legal norms. As the use of sanctions continues to evolve, it is essential that the international community develops clearer legal frameworks to regulate their use and prevent abuses.
In conclusion, economic sanctions are likely to remain an important tool of international diplomacy, but their effectiveness and legality will continue to be debated. Future research should focus on developing more effective and legally sound approaches to sanctions, ensuring that they are used in a way that promotes peace and security while minimizing harm to civilians.
REFERENCES
- United Nations Charter, Art. 41.
- United Nations Security Council, Resolution 661 (1990), S/RES/661 (1990).
- Kadi v. Council of the European Union, C-402/05 P, 2008 E.C.R. I-6351 (ECJ 2008).
- Iran v. United States, Judgment, 2018 I.C.J. 2018/16 (ICJ 2018).
- International Committee of the Red Cross, “The Legal Framework for Sanctions and International Humanitarian Law,” available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/legal- framework-sanctions-and-international-humanitarian-law.
- United Nations Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, S/2014/71 (2014).
[1] Charron, A., & Portela, C. (2016). The Politics of Sanctions: Assessing the European Union’s Use of Targeted Sanctions. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
[2] Peksen, D., & Drury, A. C. (2010). “Coercive or corrosive: The negative impact of economic sanctions on democracy.” International Interactions, 36(3), 240-264.
[3] Neuenkirch, M., & Neumeier, F. (2015). “The impact of UN and US economic sanctions on GDP growth.” European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 110-125.
[4] B. M., “International Law and Economic Sanctions: Balancing Sovereignty and Intervention,” Journal of International Law.
[5] Galtung, J., “On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions: With Examples from the Cases of South Africa and Rhodesia,” World Politics.
[6] Galtung, J., “On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions: With Examples from the Cases of South Africa and Rhodesia,” World Politics.
[7] M. M. R., “Legal and Political Dimensions of Unilateral Sanctions,” Global Policy.
[8] McGowan, A., “The Legal Implications of Unilateral Sanctions,” International Law Journal.
[9] Gibbons, A. F., “The Efficacy of Economic Sanctions: A Policy Perspective,” Sanctions and the Rule of Law.
[10] Pape, R. A., “Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work,” International Security.
[11] Portela, C., “The European Union’s Use of Economic Sanctions,” European Security.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
