Weaponizing Sanctions in International Law: Legal Frameworks,  Sovereignty Concerns, and the Global Order 

ABSTRACT

Economic sanctions have become significant instruments of diplomacy, increasingly utilized  by countries and international organizations to affect the behavior of other nations, non-state  entities, and individuals. Although sanctions aim to achieve various foreign policy  objectives—from combating terrorism to encouraging democratic governance—their  legitimacy under international law is debated. This article examines the changing legal  frameworks that regulate sanctions, particularly in relation to the United Nations Charter and  customary international law. It also evaluates the growing trend of unilateral sanctions,  particularly those imposed by the United States and the European Union, and their effects on  sovereignty, human rights, and the principle of non-interference.This paper advocates for a  multilateral, transparent, and rights-based methodology for the implementation and  enforcement of sanctions, informed by judicial interpretations and recent geopolitical events,  such as sanctions imposed on Russia, Iran, and China. In conclusion, the article suggests  reforms aimed at enhancing accountability, providing legal clarity, and achieving equilibrium  in global sanctions frameworks.

Introduction

The application of economic sanctions has emerged as a defining feature of global diplomacy  in the 21st century. As non-military means of exerting pressure, sanctions enable nations and  international organizations to exert influence without resorting to warfare. They are  frequently defended as essential reactions to breaches of international standards—spanning  issues from violations of human rights to infringements on territorial integrity. Nevertheless,  the legitimacy of these actions, both legally and morally, remains a subject of controversy.

Sanctions manifest in various forms: commercial restrictions, freezes on assets, bans on  travel, and limitations on financial operations. While some receive endorsement from the  United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter, others are enacted unilaterally or regionally, particularly by the United States via its domestic  legislation such as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA),  or by the European Union through its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).  Unilateral sanctions introduce complicated legal issues under international law, especially  concerning state sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention, and the legality of applying  laws extraterritorially. In numerous cases, sanctions also adversely affect civilian populations,  leading to demands for enhanced legal scrutiny and accountability frameworks.

This article explores the legal structures, judicial interpretations, and practical consequences  of economic sanctions within international law. It assesses whether current practices conform  to the core principles of international law and proposes potential legal reforms to foster  greater consistency and fairness in the employment of sanctions as a foreign policy  instrument.

Research Methodology

This article employs a research methodology that is both analytical and comparative in  nature. It thoroughly analyzes primary sources, including treaties, documents from the United  Nations, rulings from international courts (such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and  the WTO Dispute Settlement Body), as well as domestic laws regarding sanctions (including  U.S. sanctions legislation and EU regulations). To bolster the analysis, secondary sources  such as scholarly articles, legal commentaries, and reports issued by international  organizations have been utilized. 

The methodology is doctrinal in its scrutiny of the legal foundations of sanctions and  comparative in its evaluation of various state practices and judicial reactions. Additionally,  the article incorporates recent developments and media coverage to frame the legal  discussions within the context of ongoing geopolitical events.

A legal framework 

A.United Nations Charter

According to international law, Article 41 of the UN Charter grants the United Nations  Security Council (UNSC) the authority to implement non-military sanctions in response to  threats against international peace and security. These sanctions can involve “complete or  partial interruption of economic relations” or “severance of diplomatic relations.¹” Sanctions  enacted under this framework are deemed lawful and mandatory for all member states in  accordance with Article 25 of the Charter, which mandates adherence to UNSC resolutions.²  

1. U.N. Charter art.41
2. U.N. Charter art.25.
3. U.N. SC Res. 1737, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1737 (Dec. 27, 2006).

Instances of this include UNSC sanctions targeting Iran, North Korea, and organizations  associated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Such sanctions are multilateral, sanctioned through  collective decision-making, and typically come with mechanisms for monitoring and exemptions for humanitarian resolutions.^.3  

B.Unilateral sanctions and Domestic laws 

In contrast to sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, unilateral sanctions  are enacted by individual nations. The United States has been the most frequent implementer,  utilizing laws like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Global  Magnitsky Act, and CAATSA to freeze assets, obstruct transactions, and penalize foreign  entities.⁴

Likewise, the European Union enforces autonomous sanctions within its Common Foreign  and Security Policy (CFSP) framework. Nonetheless, these unilateral sanctions often lack a  foundation in international law and may face criticism for infringing upon the principle of  non-intervention and the equality of sovereign states

The WTO and trade law implications 

Economic sanctions could contravene commitments outlined in the World Trade Organization  (WTO) agreements, especially the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).  Nonetheless, GATT Article XXI permits exceptions for national security, which countries have become more inclined to cite as a rationale for sanctions. ⁵  

This situation prompts worries about the potential misuse of security exceptions to protect  trade restrictions motivated by political interests from being evaluated by the WTO.

Global Magnitsky Act, and CAATSA…(50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1708 (IEEPA). 5. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XXI, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.

 Judicial interpretations 

International Court of Justice( ICJ)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dealt with the topic of economic coercion in  cases such as Nicaragua v. United States, where it determined that the U.S. trade embargo on  Nicaragua was a violation of international obligations and the principle of non-intervention. ⁶ In the 2018 case of Iran v. United States, the ICJ issued provisional measures against U.S.  sanctions that were claimed to infringe upon the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two  countries.⁷

B.WTO dispute panel

In the case of Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, the WTO Panel  acknowledged that although national security exceptions are somewhat self-judging, they  remain open to scrutiny to avoid misuse. ^.8

European Court of Justice (ECJ)

The ECJ has confirmed the EU’s independent sanctions while highlighting the importance of  proportionality and due process, particularly in situations related to asset freezes and  individual listings.

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 245–246.

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. U.S.), Order, 2018 I.C.J. 623. 8. Panel Report, Russia—Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc. WT/DS512/R (adopted Apr. 5,2019).

Critical analysis

Economic sanctions, especially those that are unilateral, pose significant legal and ethical  dilemmas within international law. A primary criticism is their selective and politically driven  application, often influenced more by geopolitical considerations than by uniform legal  principles. For example, while nations like Iran and North Korea endure severe sanctions,  other states with dubious human rights records often evade similar accountability due to their  strategic partnerships.A key concern pertains to the infringement on state sovereignty.  Unilateral sanctions—particularly those with extraterritorial implications, such as U.S.  secondary sanctions—impact not only the targeted nations but also third-party states and  businesses that interact with them. This is at odds with the principle of non-intervention,  which is fundamental to the UN Charter. 

Additionally, such actions frequently lack clarity, due process, and judicial oversight.  Individuals and entities placed under sanctions often receive no notification or chance to  contest their listing, as illustrated in the Kadi case adjudicated by the ECJ. The absence of  legal recourse undermines the principle of a fair trial as stipulated in international human  rights law. ⁹

Another concern centers on the humanitarian repercussions of broad economic sanctions. The  sanctions imposed on Iraq during the 1990s, for example, led to significant civilian hardship,  such as malnutrition and inadequate access to medical supplies. This prompts inquiries about the proportionality and collateral damage associated with economic pressure, which could  breach the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).¹⁰

Furthermore, the reliance on GATT Article XXI’s national security exemption risks crafting a  loophole for veiled protectionist measures. If every trade limitation can be justified under the  guise of security, it endangers the integrity of the rules-based international trading system.

Kadi and Al Barakaat Int’l Found. v. Council and Comm’n, Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C 415/05 P, [2008] E.C.R. I-6351.

Recent developments

1.Sanctions on Russia (Post-Ukraine Invasion)

In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, some of the most extensive and  coordinated sanctions in recent history have been implemented. The United States, European  Union, United Kingdom, and various allied nations have introduced comprehensive measures  aimed at Russia’s central bank, sovereign wealth fund, energy industry, and wealthy elites. These sanctions represent a notable change towards the use of financial instruments as a  weapon, incorporating limitations on SWIFT access and foreign exchange .¹¹ Although these  actions are permissible under domestic laws, their long-term effects on the global financial  system, monetary independence, and energy security continue to evolve.

2.U.S. Sanctions on Iran, China, and Cuba

The U.S. maintains extensive sanctions on Iran due to its nuclear activities and on China over  purported human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The Helms-Burton Act aimed at Cuba illustrates  the global impact of U.S. sanctions, which frequently conflict with international agreements.  These actions have created friction even with allied nations, prompting the EU to initiate  WTO disputes and implement blocking regulations to resist the influence of U.S legislation.¹²

3.Pushback from the Global South

Numerous nations in the Global South, such as India, Brazil, and members of the Non Aligned Movement, have voiced their unease regarding the increasing prevalence of  unilateral sanctions. They contend that these sanctions compromise sovereign equality, hinder  economic development, and diminish the United Nations’ ability to uphold global order. Recent resolutions from the UN General Assembly have also urged caution in the application  of unilateral coercive measures, highlighting a growing international unease over the  legitimacy and consequences of such actions. ¹³

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 11, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.

Council Regulation (EU) 2022/328 of 25 Feb. 2022, 2022 O.J. (L 50) 1.

 Suggestions

Given the intricate and often contentious nature of economic sanctions, particularly those that  are unilateral, several actions can be considered to improve their legality, legitimacy, and  effectiveness:

1. Reassert the Primacy of the UN in Sanctioning

The global community should reestablish the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as the  foremost authority in matters of sanctions. As the sole entity with the legitimate power to  enforce sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, sanctions led by the UNSC possess  greater international legitimacy, ensure participation from multiple nations, and are more  likely to be viewed as impartial.

1. Incorporate Humanitarian Protections

Sanctions should include specific exemptions to ensure the provision of vital supplies,  including food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance. Sanctions that disproportionately  impact civilians—particularly those in vulnerable situations—breach fundamental principles  of international humanitarian law and human rights. The implementation of targeted  sanctions—aimed at political leaders rather than the general population—can help alleviate  unintended consequences.

Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1. 13. G.A. Res. 76/165, U.N. Doc. A/RES/76/165 (Dec. 16, 2021).

Enhance Legal Accountability and Clarity

Countries that impose sanctions should set up legal review systems, allow affected  individuals access to remedies, and increase transparency regarding the criteria for  designations. This is crucial to maintain the right to due process and to prevent the politically  motivated misuse of economic pressure.

Revaluate WTO Exceptions

There is an urgent need to clarify and possibly reform the exceptions clauses in the WTO  framework, especially GATT Article XXI, to avert abuses disguised as national security  measures. This would necessitate a balance of institutional interests—addressing genuine  concerns while preventing the weakening of multilateral trade agreements.

Foster Dialogue on an International Code of Conduct

A lasting solution may include the development of a Global Code of Conduct on Unilateral  Sanctions, involving both developed and developing nations, to establish normative  guidelines on the lawful imposition of unilateral sanctions without compromising  international collaboration, development, and peace.

Economic sanctions, particularly those enacted unilaterally, function as a complex instrument  in international relations. While they can act as peaceful measures to compel adherence to  international standards, they also bring serious issues related to sovereignty, legality, and  humanitarian consequences.

The growing dependence on sanctions by powerful nations, lacking multilateral support,  weakens the international rule of law and leads to a fragmentation of the global legal  framework. In the future, enhancing multilateral collaboration, ensuring fair procedures, and protecting civilian rights should be the foundational principles of any credible sanctioning  system.

Only through the equilibrium of enforcement, legality, and empathy can sanctions truly serve  as a fair and effective tool within the international legal system.

Reference(S):

Books:-

1.Iain Cameron, The Protective Scope of the EU Blocking Regulation and Its Limits, in  European Foreign Affairs Review (2018).

2.Michael Bothe, Legal and Political Limits to the Power of the UN Security Council to  Impose Sanctions, 3 Max Planck Y.B. United Nations L. 273 (1999).

Journals:-

1.Larissa van den Herik, The Contribution of the UN Sanctions Regime to the International  Rule of Law: A Review of Recent Developments, 14 J. Conflict & Security L. 539 (2009).

2.Erika de Wet, The Role of Human Rights in Limiting the Enforcement of UN Security  Council Sanctions, 10 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 255 (2010).

Case Laws:-

1.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment,  1986 I.C.J. 14.

2.Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 2018  I.C.J. 623.

3.Kadi and Al Barakaat Int’l Found. v. Council and Comm’n, Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C 415/05 P, [2008] E.C.R. I-6351.

Official Websites:-

1.U.S. Department of the Treasury, Sanctions Programs and Country Information,  https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country information (last visited July 17, 2025).

Legal Instruments & International Documents:-

1.Charter of the United Nations, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993. 2.General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.

3.International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993  U.N.T.S. 3.

4.Council Regulation (EU) 2022/328 of 25 Feb. 2022, 2022 O.J. (L 50) 1.

5.Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1.

6.WTO Dispute Panel Report, Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, WTO Doc.  WT/DS512/R (Apr. 5, 2019).

7.G.A. Res. 76/165, U.N. Doc. A/RES/76/165 (Dec. 16, 2021).