Unilateral Economic Sanctions Research Articles

Роль квазивластных отношений в трансформации механизма правового регулирования международных отношений

Introduction. The article concerns the problems and prospects of the impact of quasi-power relations on the existing system of legal regulation of international relations. Purpose. The purpose of the work is to identify international quasi-power relations and the nature of their influence on the existing model of legal regulation of international relations. Methodology. The research methodology is based on a dialectical-materialistic approach to understanding and explaining legal and historical patterns, predicting their development. Results. The existing form of regulation of international relations, due to the impact of quasi-power relations, is at the stage of an intensifying crisis and needs prompt civilized reform. Conclusion. Based on the legitimate nature of power relations, the author comes to the conclusion that the existing conflict between the legal form and content of international relations is aggravated at the level of international law not by power relations, but by their antipode, i.e. quasi-power relations manifesting themselves in international customs of the use of military force, the activities of private military companies and national intelligence services, and in unilateral economic sanctions. This practice fundamentally contradicts the existing coordination system of public international law and devalues its significance. This contradiction necessitates a change in the system of legal regulation of international relations before this happens as a result of another global war, which historically has been a way to overcome and remove accumulated contradictions.

Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A New Perspective on a Twisted Relationship

Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A New Perspective on a Twisted Relationship

Unilateral economic sanctions and food security

PurposeThis paper aims to highlight the lacunae in international trade law concerning unilateral economic sanctions that impact food security.Design/methodology/approachThis paper adopts a literature review to establish that unilateral economic sanctions impact food security and a descriptive assessment of a few such sanctions. Thereafter, it adopts doctrinal analysis of such sanctions under World Trade Organization law and identifies the gaps to address the specific situation of unilateral economic sanctions that impact food security.FindingsUnilateral economic sanctions are not effectively regulated under international law. Unilateral economic sanctions are known to impact food security not just in the targeted country but also in third countries. Under international trade law, the security exception under Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) does not currently require an assessment of necessity and proportionality of measure. However, there is scope for such an assessment in the future depending on the circumstances, particularly if a measure impacts the rights and interests of third countries by impacting global food security.Originality/valueThe paper conducts a literature review of the impact of unilateral economic sanctions on food security. It highlights the gap in the interpretation of GATT Article XXI when assessing such sanctions that adversely impact the food security of third countries. The paper may be helpful for academics, policymakers, international organizations, non-governmental organisations, etc.

Legal framework for sustainable development and current global challenges

<p>The subject of the article is the formation of the legal framework for sustainable development in the context of modern global challenges. The subject of the legal framework is the social relations of sustainable development, which are regulated by separate branches of law, but in the aggregate form a separate branch of law. The legal foundations of sustainable development, formed under the influence of international cooperation processes, are currently exposed to new threats-illegitimate economic restrictions that call into question the previously stated goals of sustainable development. The purpose of the article is to review the current state and prospects for the development of the legal framework in the context of both traditional threats and new challenges caused by the external restrictions since 2014, and to assess the prospects for sustainable development in Russia. The main research method is the study of international and Russian scientific research literature, analytical and review materials from open sources using induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis and the method of analogies. In preparing the article, historical, statistical, system-structural and causal research methods were also used. It has been proved that the first year of the functioning of the national economy under the newly introduced sanctions in 2022 showed both their negative impact and a certain adaptive potential of the economic system and companies. The article is focused on the prerequisites for the formation, essence and subject of sustainable development law, as well as on methods of legal regulation and examples of legal mechanisms for incorporating sustainable development factors into business practices. The article raises the question of the legitimacy of unilateral economic sanctions from the point of view of international law. The article also assesses the impact of sanctions on the activities of companies and their commitment to the principles of sustainable development. The conclusion is made that business community considers the mechanisms of legal regulation of sustainable development as anti-crisis measures and considers those mechanisms to be expedient and justified in the long term to pursue a policy of maintaining a commitment to sustainable development and finding ways to overcome sanctions pressure.</p>

The Impacts of Unilateral Economic Sanctions

Background: The term unilateral economic sanctions is defined as “economic measures taken by one State imposing it on another State, examples of such measures include trade sanctions.” Economic sanctions are criticised for failing to accomplish their goal and for having destructive effects that cause poverty, human rights violations, healthcare inefficiency, and deprivation of essential living standards. These subjects and their definitions will be thoroughly covered in this article, along with their connections to the effects of unilateral economic sanctions and their political and economic effects on the countries they are imposed against. Methods: The approaches that have been used are the qualitative and analytical methods. The article gathered data regarding the impacts of unilateral economic sanctions on different levels, such as the effects on human rights and the economy, and international trade and diplomacy. Results and Conclusions: The effects of the imposed unilateral economic sanctions have shown that they were a failure and had a disastrous impact on a variety of areas, including human rights, the right to adequate healthcare and education, and the decline in the economy that increased unemployment rates.

Beyond sanctions and anti-sanctions: examining the impact on sustainable competition and China’s responses

Abstract Unilateral economic sanctions are increasingly utilized as a tool for strategic competition among states. The lack of stringent regulations in international law has encouraged states to counter such sanctions by enacting domestic legislatures such as blocking and anti-sanction laws. The complex network of sanctions, blocking statutes, and anti-sanctions has rendered cross-border trade and investment activities more challenging. Sustainable development has a competitive dimension, which requires states and entities to be commercially competitive and to pursue sustainable development goals. Unfortunately, the abuse of sanctions and anti-sanctions, as prognosticated by the Hawk-Dove game theory, has promoted lawfare instead of healthy competition among states. Research has shown that the abuse of these sanctions and anti-sanctions has worsened competitive patterns among nations, leading to a decrease in their resilience ability and severely damaging sustainable development goals. In recent years, China has faced increased pressure from economic sanctions due to trade frictions with other regions, particularly the United States. This paper aims to examine China’s approach in responding to unilateral economic sanctions, supplemented by an analysis of China’s recently enacted anti-sanction and blocking laws. This paper will also further the understanding of how states should respond to and apply unilateral economic sanctions through international law based on China’s experience.

Unilateral Sanctions in the Context of Modern International Law

The author discusses the modern international legal framework governing the application of sanctions. The author focuses on the following issues: international and regional sanctions in the context of the UN Charter, restrictions on sanctions regimes, sanctions in humanitarian law, the legitimacy of unilateral economic sanctions. The methodological base of this work is a systematic approach, which allows to consider sanctions as part of the modern international legal system. As a result of the study, it was revealed that within the framework of the existing international legal system, only the UN Security Council is authorized to impose sanctions in order to ensure global peace and security. The resolutions of the UN Security Council on the issue of the application of restrictive measures are dominant in comparison with the decisions of other international bodies and the obligations of member countries under international treaties. The legitimacy of applying regional sanctions is limited by the statutes of regional organizations. The novelty of the study lies in a comprehensive consideration of the reasons why unilateral sanctions are a violation of international law. Unilateral economic restrictions violate the free trade regime of the WTO and the principle of non-discrimination that underpins the GATT. They represent a violation of the fundamental principles of sovereign equality, as well as the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. As a result of the application of economic sanctions by certain states, extraterritorial jurisdiction is manifested, which creates a dangerous precedent for international law.

Правовые основы устойчивого развития и современные глобальные вызовы

ABSTRACT The subject of the study is the formation of the law of sustainable development in the context of modern global challenges. The subject of law is social relations of sustainable development, which are regulated by separate branches of law, forming together a separate branch of law. The legal foundations of sustainable development, which have been formed under the influence of international cooperation processes, are currently being subjected to new threats — illegitimate economic sanctions restrictions that call into question the previously stated goals of sustainable development. The purposes of the work are to review the current state and prospects for the development of the legal framework in the context of both traditional threats and new challenges caused by the sanctions policy of Western countries, and to assess the prospects for sustainable development in Russia. It is established that the first year of the functioning of the Russian economy under sanctions showed both their negative impact and a certain adaptive potential of Russian companies. The prerequisites for the formation, essence and subject of the law of sustainable development, as well as methods of legal regulation on the examples of legal mechanisms for the inclusion of factors of sustainable development in the practice of companies are considered. The issue of the legitimacy of unilateral economic sanctions from the point of view of international law was raised. The impact of sanctions on the activities of Russian companies and their commitment to the principles of sustainable development is assessed. Conclusions are drawn that the business community considers the mechanisms of legal regulation of sustainable development as anti-crisis measures and considers it expedient and justified in the long term to pursue a policy of maintaining commitment to sustainable development and finding ways to overcome sanctions pressure.

Litigating Economic Sanctions

Abstract This article focuses on the legality of unilateral economic sanctions that consist in the non-performance of obligations in the field of economic relations under relevant applicable treaties, and on the role that international adjudicative bodies can play in drawing a line between legal and illegal economic sanctions. It revisits the scarce relevant litigation before the ICJ and the WTO, pinpointing the grey areas in the law applicable to economic sanctions, on which further clarification is needed. The article argues that international adjudication can play a crucial role in such process of clarification, not only by elucidating the relevant legal regime, but also by triggering State reactions, which in turn can prompt legal developments in this area. Once the “rule-ness” of the relevant legal regime is firmly established, the need for court “supervision” will decrease, thus making it possible to envisage a fair system of international law enforcement without international courts.

THE LEGALITY OF IMPOSING UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AT THE LEVEL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Following the League of Nations' failure to deal with the Second World War, the United Nations was determined not to repeat the tragedies of war, focusing on the preservation of international peace and security, as well as the use of peaceful means to resolve international conflicts by the principles of justice and international law. To fulfill its earlier objectives, this organization had a series of assurances and punishments outlined in its charter. However, the United Nations was not the only entity to employ these penalties. Instead, governments used these penalties independently to pursue their aims and interests. As a result, the second half of the twentieth century saw a significant increase in the use of unilateral economic sanctions by countries, whether this increase is related to the intensity and breadth of imposing such sanctions at the level of international relations or to the multiplicity of their forms and levels, as well as the development of their tools and policies. As a result, unilateral economic sanctions are a clear violation of the principles of international law and its peremptory norms, particularly those that prohibit members of the international community from using or threatening to use force on the level of international mutual relations among them, as well as a violation of the rules that affirm the sovereignty of countries and the inadmissibility of intervention in their internal or foreign affairs.

Extraterritoriality in the application of economic sanctions

The article covers the issue of extraterritoriality in the application of unilateral economic sanctions.
 The article considers the relationship between the theoretical principles of state jurisdiction and legal acts and practice of states in respect of imposing economic sanctions. The jurisdiction of the state imposing sanctions may be territorial, i.e. extend to its territory and to persons who are in it, or extraterritorial, i.e. extend beyond its territory. In the field of economic sanctions, extraterritorial jurisdiction can be exercised on the active nationality, protective, and universality principles. The active nationality principle, i.e. regulation by the state of the conduct of its citizens and legal entities registered in it, is generally accepted and does not cause any objections. The protective principle, based on the need to protect national interests, is actively used by the United States, which provokes criticism. Recently, the universality principle, the imposition of sanctions on persons violating human rights, has become important.
 The lawful exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction requires a link between the state and the object of its jurisdiction. In the EU, there is a concept of the “links existing with the EU”, and in the US, there is a concept of the “American element”. The US greatly expands its jurisdiction in respect of economic sanctions by insisting on the existence of the “American element” in cases of foreign legal entities owned or controlled by US persons, using the US financial system, and possessing goods, technologies, or services originating from the US. In the sanctions issue, the EU bases itself solely on the territoriality and active nationality principles and has consistently rejected the US position on the extraterritorial expansion of US sanctions.
 It is concluded that despite the opposition, in fact, the United States expands the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction by national legislation and national practice of its application in the field of economic sanctions.

The Chinese Concept of National Security in the "New Era": Preliminary Results of the XX National Congress of the Communist Party of China

The object of the study is the relations in the field of international security arising from the exercise of State sovereignty by the People's Republic of China. The subject of the study is presented by the normative legal acts and sources of "soft law" of China, as well as the doctrinal developments of Chinese and Russian scientists in the field of national security. The idea of a "community of a single destiny of mankind" promoted in international relations is considered. Objective prerequisites for clarifying the concept of national security are characterized as signs of the onset of an "era of change" in international relations. The role of the speech of Secretary General Xi Jinping at the opening of the XX National Congress of the Communist Party of China in consolidating the content of the foreign policy and domestic policy of the state is determined. The concept of China's national security is embodied in the "comprehensive security concept" model, its implementation in the "new era" has the following features. First, it is strengthening coordination and positive interaction with other major States to build relations characterized by peaceful coexistence, general stability and balanced development. Such relations will help counteract unilateral economic sanctions. Secondly, it is government support for the key technology sector as a counterbalance to radical trade policy measures of unfriendly countries. Thirdly, it is a direct dependence of national security on social stability. And finally, it is the promotion of the idea of a "new international order" as a natural way out of the impasse in the development of a unipolar world system in which countries representing a tenth of humanity. The new type of global order emphasizes peace, development, equality and democracy. This idea of the Chinese leadership is very popular all over the world and sharply contrasts with the anachronistic principles of the current system.

Extraterritorial Sanctions, Transnational Corporate Activity, and State’s Duty to Protect

Unilateral (extraterritorial) economic sanctions, that are often imposed on states and non-state actors by another state, are incompatible with international human rights law. Major powers use their dominant positions in the global economy to attempt influence the political behaviour of states by imposing economic measures against them. Nevertheless, the principal Business and Human Rights instruments as well as other International Law instruments do not address extraterritorial sanctions and their negative impacts on the operation of foreign business entities and the consequent human rights violations. These sanctions threaten a wide range of rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights law and cause irreparable collateral damage. This paper is a critical inquiry into the relationship between extraterritorial sanctions, their negative impacts on the operation of the business entities in sanctioned state, and sender state’s extraterritorial human rights obligations. In order to answer this question, the paper will explore state’s duty to protect in more details in the context of imposition of extraterritorial sanctions.

Political-legal assessment of US unilateral economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran

تحریم‌‌های آمریکا علیه جمهوری اسلامی ایران پیشینه‌‌ای به عمر انقلاب اسلامی دارد که باعث سرنگون شدن دولت مورد حمایت آمریکا و تغییرات سیاسی در منطقه شد. دولت آمریکا از یک‌سو پیرامون حمایت از نظام‌های دیکتاتوری و نقض گسترده حقوق بین‌الملل خود را پاسخ‌گو نمی‌داند و از سوی دیگر به عنوان عضو شورای امنیت به خصوص پس از جنگ سرد، به طور گسترده از جایگاه خود در آن شورا به عنوان ابزار مشروعیت بخشیدن به منافع و سیاست خارجی خود استفاده نموده و در هر مقطعی که به هر دلیلی از جمله مخالفت روسیه و چین نتوانسته است تحریم‌‌های شورای امنیت بر ضد جمهوری اسلامی ایران را افزایش دهد؛ به اعمال و تشدید تحریم‌‌های یک‌جانبه اولیه و ثانویه روی آورده است. سؤال اصلی پژوهش عبارت است از: وجاهت تحریم‌های اقتصادی یک‌جانبه آمریکا علیه جمهوری اسلامی ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل به چه میزان است؟

Justifying economic coercion: the discourse of victimhood in China’s unilateral sanctions policy

China remains reluctant in claiming unilateral economic sanctions as a valid form of statecraft. China has consistently withheld official acknowledgment of its use of unilateral sanctions despite using them in different disputes. This has resulted to observations arguing that China is increasingly approaching the use of sanctions in a stealthier, therefore, more aggressive manner. It begs to ask, how does China’s reluctant attitude towards its use of unilateral economic sanctions fit into China’s overall foreign policy logic? More specifically, how does China’s victimhood discourse justify unilateral sanctions and at the same time, promote a positive identity of itself in light of coercion? This paper argues that China’s consistent vague acknowledgment and denial in claiming a direct hand on unilateral sanctions comes from its broad foreign policy objective of maintaining a positive identity through its discourse of victimhood. To uncover this understanding, this paper analyzes China’s official positions in six bilateral disputes where China has resorted to unilateral sanctions. While existing observations only stop at ‘plausible deniability’ as primary explanation for China’s vague rhetoric, analyzing China’s predication strategies provides a necessary nuancing in terms of how this peculiar behavior remains consistent with China’s overall foreign policy logic.

The Autonomy of Science as a Civilian Casualty of Economic Warfare: Inadvertent Censorship of Science Resulting from Unilateral Economic Sanctions.

Unilateral coercive international political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions are regular events of international relations and international law within the landscape of foreign affairs. However, while they may be prescribed by international law, or national legal systems, for peace and security reasons they have also been imposed for political grounds by powerful States such as the United States. The US sanctions are now targeting science, academic and university domains. When applied in this way, these sanctions violate international law, principles of human rights, ethics, the autonomy of scientific institutions, and the norm of universalism in science. All of which protect and promote scientific freedom of expression. It is vital that international and domestic law be correctly applied to uphold proper ethical standards and scientific independence in order to protect the work and the freedom of scholarship. In this way, law is the solution, rather than the problem.

International Human Rights Law Regulation of Unilateral Economic Sanctions

국제사회는 국제분쟁과 충돌로 평화적 해결을 부르짖는 기조 아래 일방적 경제제재 가 빈번하게 사용되고 있다. 미국은 20세기 이래 전 세계에서 경제제재 수단을 가장 많이 사용한 나라로 주로 개발도상국이 제재 대상이다. 일방적 경제제재는 일방주의에 관한 것으로 유엔헌장의 취지와 기본원칙에 위배된다. 타국에 대한 일방적 경제제재는 다른 나라의 주권을 침해하는 것은 물론, 제재 목표국과 제3국 국민의 기본적 인권 향유에도 악영향을 미치고 국제인권헌장의 인권원칙에도 위배된다. 이로 인해 역외 경제제재에 대한 국제사회의 ‘입법거부’가 잇따르고 있지만, 그 성과는 여전히 미미하 다. 이에 따라 유엔총회, 인권이사회, 경제사회이사회 등 인권보장기구들은 ‘일방적 강 제조치와 인권’이라는 의제를 놓고 일방적 경제제재를 조약·결의로 규제하면서 일방적 경제제재가 인권에 미치는 부정적 영향을 규탄하였다. 또 모든 국가가 국제법·국제인 권법·유엔헌장 기본원칙에 부합하지 않는 어떤 일방적 제재를 중단하거나 집행할 것을 촉구했다. 본 연구에서는 일방적 경제제재가 인권에 미치는 부정적 영향을 검토하였다. 또 유 엔 규제의 일방적 경제제재를 전면적으로 분석하였다. 이를 통해 각국이 다른 나라로 부터의 일방적 경제제재에 대응하는데 참고가 될 것이다. 즉, 각국은 앞으로 관련 제재 규정의 제정 및 시행에서 국제인권헌장에 따른 인권 의무를 적극적으로 이행하고, 충 분한 인권 존중과 보호를 목표로 제재 정책의 타당성을 심사해야 한다. 각국은 다른 나라로부터의 일방적 경제제재에 대응함에 있어 기존 유엔 규제의 일방적 경제제재 적용을 규탄하고 저지하는 메커니즘을 충분히 활용해야 한다. 한편, 한국과 중국은 UN회원국으로서 국제인권보장사업의 적극적 참여자이면서 한 때는 일방적 경제제재의 피해자로서 일방적 경제제재에 대한 유엔의 규제를 이해하고 지지하고 있다. 그러므로 한국과 중국은 유엔 다자체제에서의 중요한 역할을 인식하고, 국제사회에서 적극적 대화를 통해 일방적 경제제재에서 최소한의 인권보호에 대한 국 제사회의 공감대를 형성하여야 할 뿐만 아니라, 국제분쟁의 평화적 해결을 촉진하는 데 공헌하여야 할 것이다.

Targeted Economic Sanctions and WTO Law: Examining the Adequacy of the National Security Exception

Individual states increasingly rely upon targeted economic sanctions to achieve their foreign policy goals. The legality of such unilateral sanctions remains debatable in public international law. However, their proliferation and possible negative repercussions encourage targeted states to question their legality before international tribunals, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system. Against this backdrop, the article analyses three types of recently enacted unilateral targeted sanctions. In particular, sanctions imposed on human rights grounds (‘Magnitsky-style sanctions’), those targeting perpetrators of cyber-attacks, and sanctions impacting trade in information and communications technology and services (ICTS) (e.g.,Huawei sanctions) are discussed. The subsequent analysis focuses on the possible WTO-inconsistency of these economic restrictions. Following this, the possibility to justify such sanctions under the national security exception of Article XXI(b)(iii) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is explored. The conclusion emphasizes that the national security exception cannot be used to justify all types of unilateral economic sanctions, even if these measures are introduced to address national security concerns. This conclusion not only demonstrates inevitable boundaries of the national security clause but also reinforces the general tendency of questioning the legality of unilateral economic sanctions. economic sanctions, national security, WTO, Magnitsky-style sanctions, cyber sanctions, information and communications technology and services, Huawei sanctions

美国经济制裁执法管辖“非美国人”之批判分析

文章从法理、执法策略及其实施路径三个层面批判分析美国经济制裁领域对“非美国人”的执法管辖，对于化解我国企业和实体跨境交易风险、构建中国公法的域外适用体系具有重要的理论与现实意义。单边经济制裁领域的制裁目标、执法对象二元结构契合了国际法关于立法、执法管辖划分的原理，为一国公法的域外适用提供了法理空间。但是，美国执法管辖“非美国人”的实践滥用了效果管辖原理。美国依托美元金融基础设施，构造了执法管辖“非美国人”的联系因素和威慑、激励两大执法策略，以及美元同业往来账户、股东控制、执法和解、许可例外等公私互动路径。这些策略、路径滥用了美元国际货币地位，共同构成了美国对“非美国人”的“隐形”执法管辖机制。我国公法域外适用体系需要重点关注跨境执法管辖能力和机制，从公私层面积累、构建具有中国优势的执法管辖全球联系因素是基础和关键。

Конкуренция современных финансовых конгломератов

The national and worldwide financial markets were dramatically reorganized in the after financial crisis 2007–2009 years period. The financial systems development faced new macroeconomic environment. The financial conglomerates are actively competing on the financial markets in now day situation. The financial institutes’ competitiveness is determined more and more by the factor of financial innovations on the information technology base. And the competition is escalating. This is the result of the IT companies, eCommerce firm’s invasion in the financial area. They are using the marketplace, information platform, the Big Data technologies. The major world commercial banks answer is the business-model change. The banking sector, the financial companies, in their turn, are targeting to expend their personal client service orientation with the Fintech ecosystems instruments. The banks became the management centers of the financial conglomerates and banking groups. Their role today is realizing the asset control over the SPV, investment funds, pension funds, insurance companies, which are transformed into the financial conglomerate’s divisions. The financial sphere space extends and so far, the prudential regulation and authorities’ activity spreads to all financial business aspects. This government activity is targeting today also on the international multipole competition. For example, the USA technological and financial innovations on the global financial markets are combined with the multilateral and unilateral economic sanctions aimed at banning the Chinese economic and political expansion.