Page in work. Changes and mistakes of any form are likely.
As usual feedback is welcome.
Terminology, legal specifications and practice: The term sanctions is mostly used to denote restrictions taken by a state or a group of state on another state often as coercive measures. In international law (including the UN Charter), sanctions are not well specified.
Motivations/Goals: Sanctions are motivated by different goals such as justice-system-like (e.g. punish a break of international law to discourage future breaks), capability control (e.g. prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons) or political (e.g. restrict an unfriendly/unwanted government). Sanctions then sometimes are coercive (encourage/enforce the [state] actor to change its behavior), punishment (deterring effect on others doing the same) or restrictive (Hinder a government/country to achieve certain goals; for example to produce nuclear weapons.).
Implementations: Depending on the goal of a sanction, different implementations are possible. Frequently used are economic, technological or travel restrictions.
A more formalized and specified international justice system with predefined sanctions could increase predictability and so preventive effects play more and sanctions are less [perceived as] unfair.
The notes below list goals and methods of sanctions, mostly without judgement, though an opinion on some principles is given.
This page is general and not specifically about the invasion of Russia into the Ukraine which is part of a complex conflict between Russia, the EU, the NATO and different fractions within the Ukraine (although this conflict situation motivates the considerations here). Accordingly some statements do apply and some do not apply. Considerations on sanctions for the invasion as part the complex conflict are on the page on the conflict.
- Here a causal and direct connection is considered as necessary to sanction an entity, as it is the practice in most domestic justice systems.
- Sanctioning entities with the goal they pressurize others is not supported here.
- Openness of diplomatic is considered crucial i.e. sanctions hindering diplomatic channels are not supported here. // Such sanctions may even be taken/abused with the goal to prevent communication and peace talks.
- The effect of sanctions on 3rd parties is ideally minimized unless consulted and agreed first (usually only possibly friendly actors).
- Reversibility i.e. not lasting effects once the sanctions are lifted, at least for sanctions taken ad hoc for coercion/motivation. // Sanctions targeting complex supply or support chains can be hard to reverse. For sanctions targeting [military] capabilities, this is possibly hard to avoid or is even a purpose.
Some(times) sanctions [can] violate human rights - the opinion here is, that in such situations alternatives should be looked for.
International law regarding sanctions is still not very organized and the concept of sanctions varies depending on the situations and the agents taking sanctions. Often sanctions are taken by governments after actions they do not approve e.g. (perceived) violation of security interests or for actions (presumably) violating international laws or disapproved for other reasons. For a detailed discussion see Asada or Ruys.
Here it is opted for a better basis and regulation of sanctions in international law - so that they indeed work like a justice system i.e. predictable but not arbitrary penalties => preventive effects and more accepted as fair.
Here the focus is sanctioning of states and not of persons. The latter is usually not supported here: Is having a certain nationality or being friend with somebody, a reason to be sanctioned? In most current legal systems, the formers are not reasons e.g. when a company does wrong it’s employees are usually not punished unless they did wrong, similar for friends or relatives of ‘wrong-doers’ unless they did wrong themselves there is no punishment.
Exceptions:
- In specific events it can make sense however to take the state membership (nationality) into account e.g. when there is a risk of propaganda or tumults, though then the intention is not to sanction but to prevent other violations of the local order.
- Liability for crimes such as war crimes is a different topic. // The opinion here is, that restrictions can be adequate but should be decided by an appropriate court in a fair process according to predefined rules with the same standards across the world.
Sanctions are grouped here into the purposes/goals/motivations:
Discourage unwanted behavior by deterrence: Similar to laws within a country which encourage legal behavior through deterrence by imposing restrictions/punishment on unlawful behavior.
Encourage a wanted certain behavior e.g. promote [economic] freedom.
Usually ‘implemented’ not as sanctions but as a reward based approach. However in some situations - e.g. when the rewards are near universal and bound to a single topic - the concepts are not clearly separable i.e. when everybody gets a reward except those failing on a single topic, rewarding everybody adhering has the same result as sanctioning those not adhering.
Reduction of Military Capabilities: Prevention to acquire certain capabilities. Prevention can target single goods or entire industries. E.g. export restrictions on technologies to produce [offensive] military equipment and/or military equipment which is especially dangerous for civilians such as nuclear weapons or long-range rockets. // can target other industries
Reduction of the Capabilities to do War: Sanctioning a state to reduce its ability to do war.
Long-term capability control is a severe measure as most implementations reduce the welfare of the people of an entire state. // In general, this is not supported here.
Staying Neutral: As staying neutral means supporting neither side in a conflict, in some asymmetric conflicts economic restrictions on invaders can be adequate. For example when only one country invades, warfare only takes place in the invaded country, which (usually) shoots its economy - the economy of the invader on the other hand can continue running, thus continuing trade can mean supporting the invader.
Politically motivated Restrictions: E.g. sanctioning a country with an unfriendly/disliked government.
Depending on the goals the targets and methods differ. Sanctions can be implemented as:
Not all points of the list above, are supported here. For example not supported is: Depending on the methods, there is the risk to (overly) restrict not involved 3rd persons e.g. civilians not having to do anything and limited options to oppose a wrong doing by a government - even in a democracy options can be limited and/or late. There are good reasons to avoid to overly restricting 3rd persons: 1) Humanity reasons - especially when the motivation for sanctions are humanity reasons, and 2) to prevent ‘generating’/being [perceived as] a common extern enemy.
In work and not fully/in detail read and incorporated [yet] (still the case as of December 22).
Ruys, Tom. “Sanctions, retortions and countermeasures: concepts and international legal framework.” Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017. 19-51.
Asada, Masahiko. Economic sanctions in international law and practice. Taylor & Francis, 2020.
Selected statements: Asada on the definition of sanctions:
Legal System
A framework specifying/defining actions allowed and not allowed actions by juridical persons. Not allowed actions are have predefined and (or at least) predictable set of sentences [to discourage them].
In national laws: Deterrence (by negative return values) and an educational process are crucial in criminal law. A main goal is to prevent criminal actions at minimal costs for society. Justice is a major goal of civil law. In civil law, often actions are reversible (for example paying back of money acquired illegally) and so justice in the sense of ‘common sense fairness’ is possible.