THE NOTION OF SANCTIONS IN THE DOCTRINE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abstract

The article explores the issue of sanctions in international law with a focus on defining the term. This topic has been of interest to researchers for many years, but there is still no universally accepted approach to resolving it, both in terms of international law doctrine and its sources. This lack of clarity in terminology creates practical problems related to controversial practices in applying sanctions and their subsequent legal assessment from the perspective of international law. Given the increasing number of sanctions regimes, it is crucial to address these issues urgently. While foreign legal literature has made systematic attempts to tackle this problem, domestic literature has not paid sufficient attention to the concept of sanctions. Taken together, these factors point to the expediency of conducting this study, which aims to outline the range of measures that are defined as sanctions in modern international law. Based on the analysis conducted, it is argued that the science of international law adopts two approaches in defining sanctions. The first, broad approach suggests that the concept of sanctions should encompass coercive measures taken by the injured state individually as self-help in the form of countermeasures and retorsions to ensure compliance with the violated obligations by the offending state, as well as coercive measures taken collectively by the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to restore international legality. Instead, the second, narrower approach defines sanctions exclusively as coercive measures applied by the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The author concludes that the narrow approach is currently regarded as prevailing in the science and aligns with the provisions of modern international law. Simultaneously, attention is drawn to the widespread phenomenon of so-called “unilateral sanctions” in the world practice, the definition and legal nature of which also remain controversial. The review of existing definitions concludes that they all share the common understanding of these measures as coercive measures taken by a state, group of states, or international organizations without the approval of the UNSC, with the intention of compelling another state to change its policy. This understanding of “unilateral sanctions” distinguishes them from “sanctions” in the strict sense of the term and as defined by the prevailing narrow approach. Nonetheless, the practice of state relations shows the widespread use of these measures and their identification as “sanctions” in domestic legislation. This suggests that, in reality, there are two distinct coercive measures referred to as “sanctions” in today’s international reality. These include coercive measures taken by the UNSC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, as well as coercive measures taken by a state, a group of states, or international organizations without the approval of the UNSC to compel another state to change its policy.