CYIL vol. 7 (2016)

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ

ARE UNILATERAL ȍECONOMICȎ SANCTIONS REALLY IMPERMISSIBLE…

Most of them sent by individual states (especially by United States and Soviet Union/

Russia), but also many multilateral sanctions, imposed by the United Nations,

European Communities/European Union). The team of authors led by Gary

Clyde Hufbauer studies sanctions episodes from an international politics optic (not

international law perspective); it focuses on their categorization, development and

effectiveness.

They do not challenge the legality of these measures. Anyway, they

observe the reality, they describe the fact that States employ sanctions (and usually

call them “sanctions”). It is hard to imagine that such a widespread and long-lasting

sanctions practice could support the conclusion about the unlawfulness of unilateral

sanctions. Of course, the legal background of EU sanctions and US sanctions as well

as of Russian sanctions is different from the case of UN sanctions and relies on EU

treaties

and national legislation. However, the sole fact that it does not conform to

the narrow interpretation of the UN Charter (in the sense that the Security Council

did not authorize it) cannot be simplified to a strict pronouncement that unilateral

sanctions are impermissible under international law.

3. Discussing the “collective punishment” effect of unilateral sanctions

In 1997 a group of authors and editors (Thomas G. Weiss, David Cortright,

George A. Lopez and Larry Minear) presented a book called Political gain and civilian

pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions. They were assessing the influence

of sanctions on the behaviour of sanctioned governments, on one hand, and the

influence of sanctions on the life of the civilian population. Their conclusions were

clear: comprehensive sanctions have largely negative implications for humanitarian

action; they often worsened the suffering of those already affected by war or other

serious difficulties, broadened the ranks of sufferers; in some cases sanctions

transformed a situation of major humanitarian needs into a humanitarian crisis.

Similar findings were presented also in other publications and on international

fora and led to international expert meetings in Interlaken (1998, 1999), Geneva

(1999), Bonn (1999) and Berlin (2000). These meetings represent a milestone in the

international sanctions practice; they have laid a border stone between traditional

comprehensive trade sanctions and the new form or targeted measures (arms

embargoes, financial sanctions, travel bans).

HUFBAUER, G. C. SCHOTT, J. J. and ELLIOTT, K. A.

Economic sanctions reconsidered: History and

current policy

3rd edition (Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC 2007).

DRULÁKOVÁ, R. and ZEMANOVÁ, Š. (eds) (2012) 106.

However, this text is not intented as a defence or legal analysis of the legality of unilateral sanctions. The

aim of the text is to discuss selected conclusions of Prof. Mohamad only.

WEISS, T. G., CORTRIGHT, D., LOPEZ, G. A. and MINEAR, L. (eds.)

Political Gain and Civilian

Pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions (

Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham 1997) 225.

To the background of the negotiations and their impact see STAIBANO, C. and WALLENSTEEN, P.

(eds)

International Sanctions: Between Wars and Words

(Routledge, 2005).