Sanctions Showdown - Are Unilateral Coercive Measures Legal Under International Law

Author: LawSphereX

Category: International Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:02:46.881145+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:08:55.434Z

SANCTIONS SHOWDOWN: ARE UNILATERAL COERCIVE

MEASURES LEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Dhruv Nitesh Thakker, Dr. DY Patil College of Law

ABSTRACT

The Origins of Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCM) can be traced back to

432 BC when Athens imposed a trade embargo on the traders of Megara

from its marketplaces. Ever since then the tool of unilateral sanctions has evolved to arms embargo, sanctions on targeted individuals, etc. The proponents of UCMs consider it to be a powerful diplomatic tool for the maintenance of international peace and security, especially when there is a lack of agreement or consensus purely due to political reasons. However, the critics substantiate that UCMs are just political measures for strong-arming nations, individuals or even organisations who do not fall in line with the respective nations’ policies. This essay aims to evaluate both the sides and comment on the applicability and legality of sanctions both when authorised by the United Nations Security Council or when imposed unilaterally by a nation or an organisation such as the European Union.

Introduction

The first document use of Sanctions or Coercive Measures was by Athens in 432 BC when the Empire of Athena banned traders of Megara from its marketplaces1, ever since then the use of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) have been extensively used as a tool of international diplomacy and conflict resolution. However, in a world which is extremely interconnected, the question of contention is whether these unilateral economic coercive measures fall within the legal ambit of international law or not. Sanctions by nature are intented to put pressure on a particular nation, organisation or an individual in retaliation to their violation of human rights norms, international norms and mainly to fulfil their foreign policy objectives.

In the current geopolitical scenario, unilateral coercive measures are largely adopted by superpowers or organisations such as the United States2 and the European Union3 and the sanctions adopted by them outside the purview of the United Nations Charter or International Law raise both ethical and legal concerns. The legality of unilateral coercive measures is one of the most hotly debated and contested topics within international jurists especially since there is no one right or or wrong answer to the question. The proponents of UCMs vehemently argue that these measures are very much necessary for the enforcement of international law and the maintenance of international peace and security when there is a failure of global consensus on multilateral forums such as the United Nations.

Additionally it is also argued that UCMs fall under the ambit of the state’s sovereign right to take actions either for self defence or for their national interest. There are several international law frameworks such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which essentially provide a basis for determining the legality of UCMs. This blog will deal with the summary of the intricate realm of legality and the validity of unilateral coercive measures, their impact on the targeted states, their validity within the United Nations system and a potential case study as well.

1 K. Alexander, The Origins and Use of Economic Sanctions, in Economic Sanctions (2009), DOI:

10.1057/9780230227286_2.

2 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Sanctions Programs and Country

Information, https://ofac. treasury. gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information. 3 European External Action Service, European Union Sanctions, https://www. eeas. europa. eu/eeas/europeanunion-sanctions_en (last visited Nov. 29, 2024) Navigating the Legal Maze: The Framework of Unilateral Sanctions In order for us to decipher the legality of unilateral coercive measures it is important to firstly define unilateral coercive measures. As per the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)4, the term unilateral coercive measures is defined as economic measures taken by one State to compel a change in the policy of another State.

When the most fundamental treaty or agreement in the realm of international economic law is taken into consideration, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)5, which operates under the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) lays down the basic rules and principles for international economic relations. The most fundamental or basic rule, even known as the golden rule in GATT, is nondiscrimination, and most favoured nation (MFN) treatment which is codified in Article 1 of the said agreement, and further article 11 also prohibits quantitative restrictions. These articles by their straight interpretation are violated with the imposition of UCMs. However, the GATT or the WTO has had a little to no effect on the deterrence of imposing economic sanctions. This might be because of the inclusion of a security clause within the GATT, i. e.

Article 21(b)(iii), which allows a contracting party to take actions which are necessary for its own safety. The wide application of this article is primarily due to its wording which allows arbitrary application of the article. On the other hand when we take into consideration the concept of Retorsion in international law, which by definition6 is an unfriendly act towards another state, which does not violate the principles of international law. Examples for the same include suspension of voluntary aid programs or severance of diplomatic aid programs. On the other hand when we take the concept of a Reprisal under international law which can be defined7 can measures of pressure that deviate from the normal rules of international law.

The term reprisal is synonymous to the term of countermeasures which is codified under the ILC 2001 Articles on the Responsibilities of 4 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures, https://www. ohchr. org/en/special-procedures/sr-unilateral-coercive-measures (last visited Nov. 29, 2024).

5 World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm (last visited Nov. 29, 2024). 6 Thomas Giegerich, Retorsion, in Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law (Oxford University Press 2020), https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e983 (last visited Nov. 29, 2024). 7 International Humanitarian Law Guide, Reprisals, https://guide-humanitarianlaw.org/content/article/3/reprisals/ (last visited Nov. 29, 2024).

States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)8. Countermeasures can be considered as lawful acts of an unlawful international conduct, when taken specifically by an injured state towards to targeted state in order for the targeted or the responsible state to stop its unlawful conduct and also pave a way for reparations for the injured state, this can further be substantiated by article 49 of the ARSIWA. Finally, in order to label a countermeasure to be lawful, the degree of proportionality must be corresponding to the breach of obligation by the targeted state and the countermeasure must not further be a breach of fundamental human rights. In order to explore the lawfulness of UCMs, we further need to explore the concept of erga omnes obligations. This concept was introduced first in the Barcelona Traction ICJ judgment9 of 1970.

Erga omnes obligations are obligations which are obligations of a state owed to the international community as a whole and such obligations are the concern of all states. Thus we can understand from this that the violation of erga omnes obligations which technically injure all the states as a whole and hence there is a corresponding right of states to impose countermeasures for the injury. On the other hand, when we put light on the illegality of UCMs, article 32 of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States10 affirms that a state should refrain from using political or economic measures to coerce another state. The counterargument to this is about the binding nature of the stated charter and its application in practice.

Since the charter is essentially a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution, which by nature of the UN system is non-binding and just recommendatory in nature. Unilateral Coercion: Can One Country Play World Police? In this subtopic we will explore the role of the United Nations and take case study(s) for determining the legality or the illegality of UCMs. In recent years, the United Nations has recognised the need for the regulation of UCMs and their impact on innocent civilians, and hence in 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) incorporated the Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures by Resolution 27/21. The Special Rapporteur in 8 International Law Commission, Articles on the Responsibilities of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, https://legal. un. org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6. pdf (last visited Nov. 29, 2024).

9 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 1970 I. C. J. 3 (Feb. 5)

10 United Nations, Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, General Assembly Resolution 3281

(XXIX), https://legal. un. org/avl/ha/cerds/cerds. html (last visited Nov. 29, 2024). its annual thematic report11 released on the 54th session of the UNHRC, highlighted how UCMs imposed by countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom and other Western European countries have severely crippled health delivery mechanisms in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, Belarus and Syria. Similarly, the international community’s stance on disproportionate UCMs can be well highlighted by the US-Cuba trade embargo saga. Since 1992, the UNGA has denounced America’s sanctions on Cuba with the latest resolution12 adopted in 2022 wherein 185 countries condemned the sanctions on Cuba by the USA.

Highlighting the institutional sanctions and authorisation regime especially by the United Nations, article 41 under chapter 7 of the UN Charter, grants the power to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), to impose sanctions in case of a threat to international peace and security. The UN Charter under article 53 also granted the power to regional organisations to take enforcing actions provided that they are taken with the authorisation of the UNSC. The issue with authorised sanction regimes by the UNSC or any other regional organisation is over compliance with the sanctions, as further highlighted by the thematic report of the Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures released in the 51st session of the UNHRC in

2022. The report clearly highlights that overcompliance consists of self imposed restraints by

the state for political purposes which are in contravention of international law and human rights standards. Overcompliance according to the report has led to major issues in easily procuring humanitarian aid in conflict ridden countries such as Syria. Conclusion By the facts and the analysis provided it can be made clear that sanctions imposed by the UNSC under the power granted to it by the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter are lawful in nature. What needs to be highlighted in this type of sanctions is the issue of overcompliance. However, it goes without saying that the United Nations is not immune from accountability or the principle of proportionality while formulating sanction regimes. Things get a bit muddy when we determine the lawful or the unlawful nature of UCMs in the form of countermeasures, especially when a state is a third party, i. e.

not directly injured by the wrongful act committed by the targeted state. We also need to consider the economic freedom

11 United Nations Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures: Thematic

Report, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session54 (last visited Nov. 29, 2024) 12 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution on the Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America Against Cuba, https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/76/3 (last visited Nov. 29, 2024). of the states to formulate their own economic policy which falls under their sovereign power. This particular stance is also validated by the Nicaragua case13, however whether or not the case judgment can be considered as a valid precedent under international law is up for debate and study.

13 United States v. Nicaragua, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).