Economic Sanctions from the Perspective of International Law

Economic Sanctions from the Perspective of International Law

The term sanction refers to the systematic refusal by a state or group of states to establish social, economic, political, or military relations with another state, for the purpose of punishment or to induce acceptable behavior. Sanctions may be comprehensive, covering all goods and services, or limited and targeted at specific goods or categories of services.

Legitimacy of Sanctions Under the Charter of the United Nations

Sanctions may pursue several objectives, including punishing a state, encouraging a change in political behavior, and deterring a state from engaging in specific conduct. Accordingly, the United Nations may employ sanctions as a form of collective economic punishment in cases involving threats to or breaches of international peace.

When sanctions are limited to relations between two states and one state refrains from trade, services, or other economic and social relations with another, such measures are referred to as primary sanctions. In contrast, when a state expands the scope of sanctions by refusing to engage in commercial, financial, or other relations with third states that maintain relations with the sanctioned country, such measures are known as secondary sanctions.

Sanctions Imposed by One State Against Another

In relation to sanctions imposed unilaterally by one state against another, three principal theories have been proposed.

The first theory is based on state sovereignty. According to this view, states are sovereign entities that are free to regulate their external relations as they see fit.

This theory was advanced in the mid-eighteenth century by Vattel and others. The International Court of Justice, in the Nicaragua case, held that, in the absence of a treaty or a clear legal obligation, no state is required to maintain specific trade relations beyond what it considers in its own interest.

The second theory is neutrality. This approach permits direct economic warfare by one state against another while seeking to minimize its harmful effects on third parties.

The third theory is legal prohibition. This more recent theory opposes sanctions altogether. Its proponents support free trade and argue that any deliberate disruption of the natural flow of international commerce harms the global economy.

Rationale and Motivation for Sanctions

Various objectives have been proposed to justify imposing sanctions. These include influencing a state’s policies, changing its governing regime, punishing a state for its policies, symbolically expressing opposition to certain objectives pursued by a state, demonstrating solidarity with allied states, and signaling disapproval of the sanctioned state’s policies.

Sanctions are regarded as a fundamental measure positioned between military action and diplomatic action. They are neither as extreme as the former nor as lacking in enforcement mechanisms as the latter.

The United States declared regime change as the objective of sanctions imposed against Fidel Castro and Manuel Noriega. During the First and Second World Wars, sanctions were employed to weaken states’ military capabilities and thereby undermine their strategic objectives. In other cases, sanctions have been adopted to effect fundamental changes in a state’s policies, such as the sanctions imposed on Poland between 1981 and 1984 to encourage internal legal reforms. Sanctions imposed against South Africa in response to apartheid policies also fall within this category. The United States has frequently used sanctions to project its leadership role within the international system.

Messages Conveyed by Sanctions

The imposition of sanctions generally conveys three messages.

• First, the sanctioning state condemns the policies or objectives of the targeted state.
• Second, the sanctioning state demonstrates support for its allies.
• Third, the sanctioning state signals to its domestic audience that the government is prepared to take action to protect national interests when necessary.

The Position of Sanctions in International Law

Through three resolutions adopted in 1965, 1970, and 1974, titled the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, the United Nations General Assembly has stated that economic pressure has no legitimate place in international relations.

Economic pressure refers to a state’s efforts to exert influence beyond its borders by restricting access to resources, services, or markets. Cavare defines intervention as the act of one state influencing the internal affairs of another in order to impose its will. Charles Rousseau defines intervention as the act of a state interfering in the internal or external affairs of another state in order to compel that state to act or refrain from acting in a particular manner.

The principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs is recognized as one of the foundations of peaceful coexistence in international relations. The imposition of sanctions must therefore be assessed in light of this principle. Sanctions inevitably lead to violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms, including the rights to life, health, education, and development.

The United States has not based its jurisdiction to enact sanctions legislation on territorial, national, or universal jurisdiction. Instead, it has relied on the doctrine of effects-based jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions About Economic Sanctions in International Law