Unilateral Sanctions Research Articles

Our Exploration of Countermeasures against the Abuse of Unilateral Sanctions by the United States

Currently, the international landscape is undergoing changes, with unilateralism on the rise. Of which, economic sanctions are the most common form. Due to the lack of effective specialized international rules in the current international rule system, unilateral sanctions are increasingly frequently used by individual countries. The abuse of unilateral sanctions has impacted the normal operation of international mechanisms. Unilateral sanctions were originally used in a country’s domestic law, but now some countries, such as the United States, expand their own laws’ extraterritorial application through the continuous expansion of connection points, thereby giving their sanctions against foreign entities a cloak of legitimacy, which goes against the principles of international law and the basic norms of international relations (Bai, 2018). From a legal perspective, the implementation of illegal unilateral sanctions is achieved through the improper interpretation and application of international treaty exception clauses. From international custom, unilateral sanctions beyond countermeasures refer to those imposed by states other than the injured state, who deliberately legalize countermeasures related to sanctions, which greatly contributes to the abuse of unilateral sanctions. In this context, China should accelerate the construction of its anti-sanctions legal system to effectively counter the threats and damages caused by unilateral sanctions and firmly safeguard its sovereignty, security, and development interests.

Barriers to child vaccination: The role of international sanctions

International sanctions are often imposed with the aim of influencing the political behavior of target states, but they may have unintended consequences on public health. This study empirically examines the impact of international sanctions on child immunization rates in developing countries. Utilizing panel data from 76 developing countries between 2000 and 2019, the analysis explores how different types of sanctions, including those from the US, EU, and UN, as well as economic and unilateral sanctions, affect the immunization rates for DPT, Hepatitis B, and Measles vaccines. The findings indicate that sanctions, particularly those imposed by the US and EU, significantly reduce vaccination rates, with economic and unilateral sanctions showing the most substantial negative impact. Additionally, the study highlights the moderating role of health spending, revealing that increased healthcare investment can mitigate some of the adverse effects of sanctions. Poorer developing countries are disproportionately affected compared to their more affluent counterparts. The results underscore the need for policymakers to consider the broader public health implications of sanctions and for international efforts to ensure that essential medical resources remain accessible in sanctioned countries. This study contributes to the literature by providing comprehensive empirical evidence on the detrimental effects of international sanctions on child immunization, advocating for a balanced approach that protects public health while achieving geopolitical objectives.

О НЕКОТОРЫХ ВОПРОСАХ ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ ПОНЯТИЯ «САНКЦИЯ» В СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ЮРИДИЧЕСКОЙ НАУКЕ

The article examines the retrospective and modern aspects of the definition of sanctions in interna-tional law, characterizes various types of sanctions, including international political and economic sanctions. The author's interpretation of the definition of international sanctions is proposed, taking into account the modern realities of world politics, describes the mechanism for analyzing interna-tional sanctions, using the example of sanctions that have been in force and are in force against Iraq, Iran and Cuba, their consequences and countermeasures. The article also examines the issues of expediency and fairness of unilateral sanctions, analyzes countermeasures (retaliatory measures) that a state can apply in response to international legal violations of another State.

Unilateral sanctions before the General Court: Venezuela v. Council

Unilateral sanctions before the General Court: Venezuela v. Council

Research on interregional oil cooperation-sanctions with evolutionary game

PurposeThe game strategies differ when different regions participate in the oil game. Under what circumstances will different participants choose cooperation or sanction strategies? This is the core issue of this paper.Design/methodology/approachRegarding the current and future game behavior between different regions in the oil trade, this paper constructs an evolutionary game model between two regions to explore the possibility of sanctions strategies between the two sides in different situations.FindingsThe research finds: (1) When the benefits of in-depth cooperation between the two regions are greater, both sides tend to adopt cooperative strategies. (2) When the trade conflict losses between the two regions are smaller, both sides adopt sanctions strategies. (3) When a strong region trades with a weak region, if the former adopts a sanctions strategy, the net profits are greater than the benefits of in-depth cooperation between the two regions. If the latter adopts a sanctions strategy, the net profits are less than the trade conflict losses between the two regions. There will be the strong region adopting a sanctions strategy and the weak region adopting a non-sanctions strategy. At this time, the latter should reasonably balance the immediate and future interests and give up some current interests in exchange for in-depth cooperation between the two regions. Otherwise, it will fall into the situation of unilateral sanctions by the strong against the weak.Originality/valueThere is no paper in the existing literature that uses the evolutionary game method to analyze the oil game problem between the two regions. This paper constructs a two-party evolutionary game model composed of crude oil importers and crude oil exporters and, based on this, analyzes the evolutionary stability between the two regions under sanctions and cooperation strategies, which enriches the energy research field.

The Lawfulness of Unilateral Sanctions in the Wake of a US–China “Sanctions War”

The Lawfulness of Unilateral Sanctions in the Wake of a US–China “Sanctions War”

THE NOTION OF SANCTIONS IN THE DOCTRINE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

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.

The Quest for Proportionality in the Changing Landscape of the Unilateral Sanctions of the European Union

The Quest for Proportionality in the Changing Landscape of the Unilateral Sanctions of the European Union

Making Something Out of (Almost) Nothing?

Abstract With an ever-increasing number of reports denouncing systematic mistreatments against Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities detained in Xinjiang ‘re-education’ camps, the time is ripe for the international community to explore possible judicial and quasi-judicial avenues to hold China to account. Excluding from the present analysis unilateral sanctions, as well as possible investigations and proceedings before international criminal tribunals, this article focuses on the role of inter-State human rights communications in securing justice. Given China’s enduring reluctance to engage in dispute settlement mechanisms – particularly by formulating reservations to compromissory clauses enshrined in human rights treaties –, the quest for accountability poses significant challenges. By broadening the inquiry to alternative avenues, such as the inter-State quasi-judicial communication procedure under both the icerd and the ilo’s Constitution, as well as addressing the feasibility of requesting an icj’s advisory opinion as an inter-State case in disguise, it is still possible to envisage narrow pathways that might be worth pursuing.

Legality, Legitimacy and Institutionalization: China’s Dilemma of Sanctions and Economic Coercion

ABSTRACT In what ways did Beijing learn from the strategy, tactics and legality of sanction campaigns in international relations? What accounts for shifts in the Chinese thinking on sanctions in the past two decades? By analyzing the evolution of scholarly discussions about economic statecraft from 2001 to 2022, the article illustrates a dilemma: how to condemn U.S. unilateral sanctions while advocating for China’s own experimentation with economic coercion? The rising tension shifted the focus on the legality and legitimacy of U.S. sanctions to China’s own economic leverages and legal framework for coercive economic statecraft. Moreover, by muddling the distinction between defensive anti-sanctions measures and offensive use of sanctions, the new legislative development may usher China in a new phase of using coercive economic statecraft.

Potential sanctions on the Northeast Asia supergrid: A network theory perspective

This study examines the impact of the potential imposition of cross-border sanctions in the proposed Northeast Asia supergrid under various scenarios. To predict the outcomes of plausible sanctions, we apply a network theory of sanctions to a simulation model of the Northeast Asia supergrid. We calculate the loss to each country connected to the supergrid by each scenario in which one country sanctions another country. Multilateral sanctions cause more loss than unilateral sanctions do, but multilateral sanctions are infeasible in some cases owing to energy dependencies among countries. Our simulation applies different rules on how to share the benefits generated by the supergrid. While the benefit-sharing rule affects the size of loss from sanctions, it does not change the availability of sanctions. China and Russia, as significant power exporters, hold a crucial role in implementing sanctions. China can enforce effective sanctions against Russia, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. In contrast, Japan, not directly connected to China, is vulnerable to sanctions from other countries.

Unilateral Sanctions under International Law and Effectiveness of Blocking

INTRODUCTION. This article discusses modern international legal concept of unilateral sanctions. The authors contribute to the emerging discussion on the qualifying of unilateral sanctions under international law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this study we took into account the works of both Russian and foreign scholars in the field of international economic law, as well as analyzed documents and materials of international organizations (United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO) and others) in order to assess the compatibility of unilateral sanctions with international law. General scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction), special legal methods (formal-legal, technical-legal, method of legal analogy) and comparative legal method were used in the presented research.RESEARCH RESULTS. Presented analysis has shown that widely used term “unilateral sanctions” leads to abusive and inappropriate use of international legal term. Analysis of compatibility of unilateral sanctions with other types of coercive measures such as countermeasures, UN Security Council sanctions, retortions, reprisals have shown that unilateral sanctions do not fall under the meaning of all mentioned measures. In addition, unilateral sanctions should not be justified under the WTO security exceptions. The use of extraterritorial unilateral sanctions contradicts one of the fundamental principles of international law – principle of non-interference in internal affairs. Existing blocking unilateral sanctions mechanisms are not efficient enough to compensate negative effect posed by unilateral sanctions.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Authors concluded that unilateral sanctions in most of the cases do not satisfy cumulative criteria of legitimate countermeasure. Unilateral sanctions are not equivalent to the United Nation Security Council sanctions, as there are no “checks and balances” in the decision-making process in the form of determining the degree of threat to peace and security and taking into account humanitarian exceptions. Although there is some correlation between unilateral sanctions and retortions or reprisals, retortions and reprisals posses criteria of legality and proportionality, while, unilateral sanctions are introduced at the state’s discretion without any standard. Furthermore, the authors argue that to avoid abusive use of the WTO security exceptions WTO panels have to rely on the well-balanced approach used by the Panel in Russia – Transit case. This approach shows that the context of security exception should be understood as encompassing only military and closely related to military issues and does not cover political, economic, cultural or any other interests and relations. Existing blocking mechanisms of unilateral sanctions require separate qualification under international law including compatibility with the legitimate countermeasures.

‘What gives you the right?’ Foreign policymakers’ perceptions of the legitimacy of sanctions against democratic breakdown in Venezuela (2014–2019)

Drawing on contemporary debates on legitimacy and contestation in international relations, the article offers a novel analytical framework to study processes of legitimation and delegitimation of international sanctions. We apply the framework to analyse foreign policymakers’ evaluations of the legitimacy of the sanctions imposed by states and international organisations against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela. The content analysis of evaluative statements shows that (de)legitimation processes focus mostly on who has the right to enforce sanctions and reveals differentiated legitimacy evaluations of multilateral versus unilateral enforcers, as well as of different types of international organisations. Sanctions imposed by multilateral senders and with a restricted impact on targeted individuals are evaluated as more legitimate than unilateral sanctions with a wider scope. We argue that the study of the (de)legitimation of sanctions may have important implications not only for enhancing compliance, but especially for transforming international sanctions into a legitimate mechanism of global governance.

Book Review of Surya P. Subedi (ed.), Unilateral Sanctions in International Law

Book Review of Surya P. Subedi (ed.), <i>Unilateral Sanctions in International Law</i>

Fundamental jurisprudence as a strategic basis for national legal leadership

The current stage of historical development is characterized by the tendency of an increasing value and ideological crisis, directly related to the crisis of legal understanding, spiritual, moral, civilizational and cultural disorientation of jurisprudence. The unifying humanity and the legal values it has suffered have been shaken by the policy of single-vector globalization, which has called into question national identity and the primordial possibility of peoples to self-determination. The methods of dictate, unilateral sanctions, and hybrid forms of aggression that have entered into current international use, based on ideas about the exclusivity and dominance of a certain form of legal culture and civilization, destroy the sovereign equality of states, and have nothing to do with the laws of natural history development. The need to form a new global legal paradigm and substantiate the intrinsic value of domestic law as the normative embodiment of Russian civilization require the mobilization of domestic fundamental jurisprudence, which is currently experiencing a number of difficulties and is characterized by negative development trends. This concerns, in particular, the disclosure in our jurisprudence of the historical, civilizational and cultural factors of the Russian legal system, the development of the ideological and philosophical potential of the national legal heritage, the establishment of systematic work to update the methodology of legal cognition, taking into account fundamental changes in the world and in the national worldview, thematic and substantive consistency of research work with the priorities of state development. Increasing the role of fundamental disciplines in legal education and its constitutionalization, revealing the unity of the Russian state and law, the original foundations of our legal system, focusing on a predictive approach that allows us to form advanced models of legal regulation, coordinating the topics of scientific and legal research in accordance with national priorities — key areas in the field of fundamental jurisprudence.

The Lawfulness of Unilateral Sanctions in the Wake of a US-China “Sanctions War”

The Lawfulness of Unilateral Sanctions in the Wake of a US-China “Sanctions War”

An assessment of the effectiveness of sanction as a tool for diplomatic deterrence

The use of sanctions as tool for deterrence has witnessed exponential growth in recent times. The last three decades in particular has witnessed a surge in the number of sanctions used as medium in responding to numerous international confrontations. Interestingly, these sanctions have been both multilateral and unilateral in form and have mostly been evoked by NATO forces, the United States and the United Nations. The watershed references of South Africa, North Korea, Venezuela and most recently Russia comes to mind as countries afflicted by sanctions. The increasing demand by academics and the diplomatic community to interrogate sanction as a last resort of diplomatic uproar and its overall effectiveness as a diplomatic tool for deterrence is the main aim of the paper. The methodology utilized includes, content analysis and case study. The paper finds that conventional or traditional sanctions are not necessarily effective. This has been made even so, considering the bi-multipolar structure of the international system and trends in the unfolding world order, drawing insights from the case of recent unilateral sanctions from NATO forces against Russia. The paper recommends amongst other things, the need to refine sanctions to be smart enough for efficiency and to seek alternatives in the face of diplomatic uproar.

The Use of Punishment as a Way to Relization Political Goals in International Relations (Theoretical Study)

The problem of the application of punishment to realization political goals in international relations is considered. The author characterizes the social institution of punishment, indicates its place and role in the structure of social relations. The political and legal component of punishment is analyzed in the context of unilateral sanctions of some sovereign states against others. The main forms and content of the influence of political goals on the institution of international legal sanctionspunishments are determined. The author’s vision of such specific phenomena as “self-punishment” and “political engagement” is substantiated. An algorithm for identifying the political bias of decisions on the imposition of international legal penalties, as well as possible ways to develop an adequate response to them from the “punished” subjects (target states) is formulated. The empirical base of the study includes materials on the application of punishments by individual and collective subjects of international relations against the Russian Federation, including the geopolitical consequences of the relevant sanctions decisions.

Legal: The Freezing of the Russian Central Bank’s Assets

Abstract The freezing of the Russian Central Bank’s (CBR) foreign currency reserves in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been unparalleled in terms of the amounts involved and the swiftness of its international coordination. Despite the scepticism in some quarters of unilateral sanctions writ large, the key issue under international law is the compatibility of such measures with state immunity. Specifically, two questions arise. The first one is whether the law of state immunity allows for executive, as opposed to judicial, freezing of central bank property. The second one is whether, even if such measures were otherwise in breach of international law, circumstances precluding wrongfulness nonetheless render them lawful. As this article shows, the answer to the first question is finely balanced, but it is virtually certain that the ongoing attachment of the CBR’s assets constitutes lawful countermeasures.

Развитие системы менеджмента качества вуза

The paper considers the independent assessment fundamentals of the learning service quality at the institutional level, provided by the country’s higher educational establishments, in particular, the university’s quality management system. The work analyses the difficulties in developing and confirming the compliance of the quality management system of domestic universities, caused by introducing unilateral sanctions by the EU countries and the United States. It is proposed to resolve the identified problems by selecting and implementing national models of quality management systems in the university control system with the prospect of confirming their compliance with national authorised certification bodies. As a national model, a standard model of the universities and colleges’ quality system (ENQA &amp; ISO 9000) is considered, which retains its relevance at present. The ISO 9000 &amp; ENQA model has been developed and adapted to the specifics of domestic management of an educational organisation. The presence of methodological accompanying documentation for the ISO 9000 &amp; ENQA model is noted, which allows the university to independently develop, implement and assess the quality system, conduct an audit while preparing for state accreditation. The expediency of developing the quality system of an educational organisation on the basis of the considered national model of the quality management system is substantiated.