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.

1. Abdullin A., Keshner М. Primenenie ogranichitel'nyh mer v kontekste obshhej vneshnej politiki ES: konceptual'nye podhody [Conceptualization of Restrictive Measures Policy in the Context of European Security Issues: New Approaches]. – Journal of Contemporary Europe. 2021. №7. P. 72-83. (In Russ.)

2. Beaucillon С. An introduction to unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions: definitions, state of practice and contemporary challenges. – Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 2021. P. 6-8.

3. Boklan D., Bahri A. The First WTO’s Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora's Box? – World Trade Review. 2020. № 19. P. 123-136.

4. Boklan D., Murashko E. Sankcii v otnoshenii uslug i nacional'naja bezopasnost': opravdanie ili zloupotreblenie? [Sanctions on trade in services and national security: justification or abuse?]. – International Justice. 2022. № 3. P. 139-156. (In Russ.)

5. Boklan D., Shaubert M. Rossiya – Mery, svyazannye s tranzitom gruzov: istoricheskiy doklad Treteyskoy gruppy Organa po razresheniyu sporov VTO [Russian Federation – Measures concerning traffic in transit case: WTO Dispute Settlement Body Panel’s historic report]. – Interational Justice. 2019. № 2. P. 20–30. (In Russ.)

6. Boklan D.S., Absaliamov V.V., Kurnosov Yu.S. Are Restrictive Measures and Countermeasures Justifiable by WTO Security Exceptions: Objective or Subjective Approach? – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2018. № 3. P. 18-29.

7. Choukroune L., Nedumpara J. International Economic Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2021. 846 p.

8. Crawford J. Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2019. 872 p.

9. Crawford J. State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. 906 p.

10. Croxton D. The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. – The International History Review. 1999. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 570.

11. Dasgupta U. Unilateral Sanctions in International Law edited by Surya P Subedi. – Asian Journal of International Law. 2022. № 12(2). P. 411-412.

12. Glandin S. Jeksterritorial'nost' amerikanskih sankcij v dejstvii [Extraterritoriality of US sanctions in action]. – International Justice. 2018. № 2. P. 105-122. (In Russ.)

13. Hinsley F.H. The Concept of Sovereignty and the Relations Between States. – Journal of International Affairs. 1967. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 242.

14. Ivanova E.M. Problema sankcij v mezhdunarodnom prave: terminologicheskij aspekt [The Problem of Sanctions in International Law: Aspect of Terminology]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. № 2. P. 181- 187. (In Russ.)

15. Kerbrat Y. Unilateral/extraterritorial sanctions as a challenge to the theory of jurisdiction. – Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 2021. P. 165-185.

16. Keshner M. Legitimnost' sankcij v otnoshenii Rossijskoj Federacii: mezhdunarodno-pravovoj analiz [The Sanctions against the Russian Federation: International Legal Analysis of Legitimacy]. – Journal of Russian Law. 2015. № 7. P. 141-152. (In Russ.)

17. Keshner M. Voprosy legitimnosti ogranichenija kontrmerami jeksterritorial'noj jurisdikcii gosudarstva [Issues of the Legitimacy of Restriction by Countermeasures of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the State]. – Journal of Russian Law. 2021. №3. P.152-171. (in Russ.)

18. Kritskiy K.V. Sankcii i odnostoronnie ogranichitel'nye mery v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave [Sanctions and unilateral restrictive measures in modern international law]. PhD thesis. Kazan. 2021. 226 p. (In Russ.)

19. Kritskiy K.V. Terminy «mezhdunarodnye sankcii» i «odnostoronnie ogranichitel'nye mery» [International Sanctions and Unilateral Restrictive Measures: Problems of Definition]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. №2. P.204-213. (In Russ.)

20. Kurdyukov G.I., Keshner М.V. Sootnoshenie otvetstvennosti i sankcij v mezhdunarodnom prave: doktrinal'nye podhody [Correlation of Responsibility and Sanctions in International Law: Doctrinal Approaches]. – Journal of Russian Law. 2014. № 9. P. 103-115. (In Russ.)

21. Lindsay P. The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: Subtle Success or Rampant Failure? – Duke Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 52. No. 6. P. 1277-1313, 1282.

22. Maleev Yu.N., Rachkov I.V., Yaryshev S.N. Sankcii v mezhdunarodnom prave: tochka ne postavlena [International Sanctions and Unilateral Restrictive Measures: Problems of Definition]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. № 2. P. 81-95. (In Russ.)

23. Miron A. Countermeasures and Sanctions. Courses of the Summer School on Public International Law. Vol. X. Moscow: The International and Comparative Law Research Center. 2022. 80 p.

24. Potemkina O. Blokirujushhij statut kak instrument suverennoj torgovoj politiki ES [Blocking statute as an instrument of EU sovereign trade policy]. Institute of Europe. Russian Academy of Sciences. Policy Brief. No. 50. 2018 (No. 146). 7 p. (In Russ.). URL: http://www.instituteofeurope.ru/images/uploads/analitika/2018/an146.pdf/ (accessed 05.06.2023).

25. Racnkov I. Jekonomicheskie sankcii s tochki zrenija prava GATT/VTO [Economic sanctions from the perspective of GATT/WTO law]. – International Justice. 2014. № 3. P. 91-113. (In Russ.)

26. Ruggie J. Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. – World Politics. 1983. No. 35(2). P. 276.

27. Ruys T., Ryngaert C. Secondary Sanctions: A Weapon out of Control? The International Legality of, and European Responses to, US Secondary Sanctions. – British Yearbook of International Law. 2020. P. 1-116.

28. Schmidt J. The Legality of Unilateral Extra-territorial Sanctions under International Law. – Journal of Conflict and Security Law. 2022. Vol. 27. Iss. 1. P. 53–81.

29. Schrijver N. The changing nature of state sovereignty. – British Yearbook of International Law. 2000. No. 70. P. 65.

30. Shaw M. International Law. 9th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2021. 1308 p.

31. Smeets M. Economic sanctions and the WTO. – Research Handbook on Economic Sanctions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 2021. P. 280-296.

32. Starshinova O.S. Primenenie otvetnyh mer v sisteme razreshenija sporov Vsemirnoj torgovoj organizacii [Retaliation in the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organisation]. PhD thesis. Moscow. 2019. 209 p. (in Russ.)

33. Ventura D. Contemporary blocking statutes and regulations in the face of unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions – Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 2021. P. 221-238.