The Independent Analytical Centre for Geopolitical Studies “Borysfen Intel” allows analysts to express their views on specific political, economic, security, information situation in Ukraine and the world at large, based on personal research and geopolitical analysis.
Note that the authors’ point of view
Born in 1995,
5th year student of the Institute of International Relations
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv,
Specialist field — “International Law”
Each of us will inevitably be called to account. And there is no difference — for the actions lawful or unlawful. In either case one will have to take responsibility, either before the court of God, or in front of a jury trial, the International Criminal Court or the International Court (the Tribunal) of the UN, but it is bound to be. Our history is proof of this.
But will it be the responsibility of which we will be proud (for certain successfully completed tasks), or — will we have to answer for the consequences of our actions or inaction (or even worse — for tacit consent!), which had led to negative (criminous or even criminal) consequences? And that applies both to each individual (person) in his daily life, an individual country or coalition of countries in their activity, and the international community or organization within a framework of which there are many subjects.
In this short, but specific study I would like to raise questions purely about sanctions in international law, as they are both a form and a means of international legal responsibility at the same time. The experience of their application shows that they are one of the most effective international regulatory mechanisms. But international legal regulation — is the influence of public authority on inter-state relations through international law.
For Ukraine, which for already almost three years has been leading the liberation struggle against the Russian aggression, the question of introducing and maintaining the international political and economic sanctions against the Russian Federation is extremely urgent and vital.
International sanctions are collective or unilateral coercive measures, which are applied by states or international organizations to those who have violated the rules of international law. They can be applied unilaterally or multilaterally. That is, international sanctions are a means with the help of which the violated rights are restored and compensation is sought.
Each type of international sanctions has its own kinds, forms and ways of their use. This was reflected in the above-given scheme of classification of international sanctions, which, under legitimate circumstances, can and should be used against Russia. Regarding the forms of international sanctions, they sometimes coincide or differ depending on the type (in each case, we will consider and analyze them specifically).
In general, every subject of international law has the right to measures of compulsion. States may implement this right individually, collectively and through international organizations. Sanctions are a unilateral process. The subject which applies a sanction cannot be a violating entity. The ground for application of sanctions is not so much the fact of international violation, as failure to comply with international obligations for mitigation of consequences of the violation.
There are sanctions used as self-help, and sanctions to be applied with the help of international organizations.
We begin our analysis with the sanctions used by states as self-help.
Self-defense — a special kind of sanctions, which are expressed in using in relation to the wrongdoing state of coercive military measures in accordance with the UN Charter in response to its military actions (provocation, border violation, aggression, etc…). There are two forms of self-defense: necessary defence and self-defense against aggression.
The Francis Gary Powers U-2 Pilot Cinderella Stamp
Necessary defense is to defend the state by the armed forces against the encroachments of a foreign state to the inviolability of the state border, its military provocations, which still cannot be qualified as an act of aggression (flights of foreign military reconnaissance aircraft over the territory of the victim state, provocative actions of warships in the territorial waters of the state, etc.). In case of necessary defense, it is a must to warn the offending state about the possibility of its use if it (the offending state) does not stop such actions. Warning is a must also because the offense can objectively be missing (for example, measures of combat training of the wrongdoing State) or be forced (violation of the state border because of an accident or navigation errors). The use of armed force in such cases is not justified.
For example, May 1, 1960, over the Soviet Union was shot down an American spy plane U-2. The American pilot F. Powers acknowledged that he had been carrying out a combat mission. That is, the Soviet Union used its right of defense. In 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet missile shot down another US spy plane U-2. In both those cases there was a flight of military reconnaissance aircraft over the territory of the victim-state, which used its right to self-defense, although had not warned about it.
The right to self-defense against aggression — is the sovereign right of any state, as aggression is the most serious international offense. But to use it the state has to adhere to the principle of proportionality. In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may use armed force in the exercise of the right to self-defense against an armed attack until the Security Council has taken the necessary actions to maintain international peace and security with the help of other measures. The UN Charter emphasizes the importance and immutability of this right, calling it an essential. The right to self-defense belongs to the state-victim of an attack. It also decides on the question of the order of its use. But the state must immediately report about the fact of an armed attack on it to the UN Security Council.
For example, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States stated that they had the right to use armed force against terrorist organizations and states that supported them in the exercise of its right to self-defense. On this basis, the USA and its allies conducted a military operation against Afghanistan in 2001. Such understanding of the right to self-defense did not meet protest from the international community.
Besides, the UN Charter provides for the right not only to the individual but also to collective self-defense, which can take place only at the request of the state attacked. Without such a request, other states do not have the right to take measures for collective self-defense.
Operation Desert Storm Coalition, 1991
An example of collective self-defense is the actions of states, that provided military assistance to Kuwait after Iraq’s attack on it in 1990. In a number of its decisions that followed, the UN Security Council recognized the same right to collective self-defense of any state, helping to Kuwait in its just war.
However, an abuse of the right to self-defense is also possible.
Thus, in April 1986, US aviation bombed Tripoli (Libya). This resulted in a significant number of civilian victims. The reason for the bombing was the attributed to the Libyan security services explosion at a disco in Western Berlin, from which US military personnel suffered.
In July 1993, the USA bombed Baghdad, having accused Baghdad of plotting to assassinate the US President during his stay in Kuwait.
That is, in both cases, the US administration “substantiated” its actions by the right to self-defense. Although hardly anybody doubted that those actions had nothing to do with diplomatic protection or self-defense.
Reprisals — are legitimate measures for coercion, used in order to restore the violated rights and to limit or eliminate the rights of another state in response to its misconduct. Reprisals cannot be used in response to actions that are not international offenses. They should match the harm caused and include the use of coercion required for compensation. Bombing, seizure of foreign territory, blockade, intervention, etc. are not considered reprisals by the modern international law.
Lawful forms of reprisals are only political and economic reprisals: deprivation or restriction of diplomatic privileges and immunities of officials of the offending state; embargo; boycott; sequestration of assets; freezing of the offending state’s deposits in their banks; withdrawal of their deposits from the banks of the offending state, and so on. The most tangible forms of reprisals are breaking trade and economic relations with the offending state and its complete economic isolation.
Economic forms of reprisals include: embargo (prohibition to sell the property and technologies in the territory of the offending state), boycotts (prohibition to purchase and import into the territory property originating from that state); freezing the offending state’s deposits in their banks; withdrawal of their deposits from the banks of the offending state; denunciation or cancellation of contracts with that state.
There are many examples of these: in 1807 — a ban on the export of all goods from the United States. United States President introduced embargo, hoping that that measure would put in a quandary Britain and France, who had seized American merchant ships. It was canceled in 1809; 2012 — oil embargo against Iran. Fearing that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, Western countries, the US and Israel used economic pressure measures, including an embargo on Iranian oil. Prior to that, the United States imposed severe financial sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran; when, as a result of the elections in 2006, “Hamas” came to power in Palestine, the USA and EU countries stopped funding Palestine, and that created economic and humanitarian problems there.
As for political reprisals, here are some examples: denunciation of the German-Polish treaty in 1934; denunciation of the Egyptian treaty of 1936 on the Suez Canal; cancellation by the USSR in April 1945 of the Agreement (Pact) of neutrality with Japan of 1941. In 1991, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR denounced the Union Treaty of 30 December 1922 and decided not to consider Ukraine as a constituent part of the USSR.
Besides, the system of political sanctions imposed by the USA against Cuba (if we consider absolutely all steps, starting from October 10, 1960 to September 6, 2014, directed by the United States against Cuba) had actually led to its complete economic blockade.
Retorsions — retaliatory measures of coercion, which lead to restriction of the interests of the offending state, which are not protected by international law. That is, these are measures for one state’s influence on another, which aim to encourage the latter to stop unfriendly, unfair and discriminatory actions. Retorsions can also be used in response to an unfriendly act, unfair, biased behavior of another subject, but to the extent permitted by international law.
Most often retorsions are used by the state in case of discrimination of its citizens on the territory of another state, and in case of unfriendly restrictions of economic and cultural ties, etc.
International practice has developed the following forms of retorsions: restrictions on imports from the offending state; increase in customs duties on the products of that state; introduction of quotas and licenses for trade with the state; presenting excessive demands to goods and companies from the offending state; increasing tax payments and the like. As retorsions should also be consider the measures such as nationalization of the property of the offending state, its businesses, and so on.
Political forms of retorsions are all sorts of limits that are set for diplomats and citizens of the offending state; recall of diplomatic representatives from the offending state; declaring the employees of the diplomatic mission of the offending state persona non grata; cancellation of scheduled visits of heads of state, and so on.
So, retorsions are measures identical or similar to those against which they are directed. At this, the right to retorsions always belongs to the state. But unlike the right to reprisals, it does not occur as a result of an offense committed by another entity. Hence an important feature of retorsions — they can be used as a preventive measure, in the presence of the threat of offence. While reprisals can be used only after the offense is a fait accompli. In this they differ.
Here is an example of retorsions: the USSR People’s Commissars Council’s Decree of November 26, 1937 “On the Property of Foreigners Who Do not Reside in the Territory of the USSR”, adopted in response to actions of a number of states that did not recognize Soviet citizens’ rights to property (real estate) in their territories.
Political retorsions: in 1961 N. Khrushchev canceled the planned meeting at the highest level and the planned D. Eisenhower’s visit to the Soviet Union (in response to the refusal to apologize for the reconnaissance flight over the territory of the USSR of the American plane U-2); in April 1974, the Mexican Foreign Ministry announced the recall of its Ambassador from Santiago (the decision was taken due to the fact that the military coup of September 1973 in Chile caused tension between the two countries); in 1961 from Havana (Cuba) were sent off all American diplomats.
Severance or suspension of diplomatic and consular relations is a separate kind of international sanctions. At this, severance of diplomatic relations does not automatically mean severance of consular relations. Severance of diplomatic relations can occur separately or simultaneously with severance of consular relations. Besides, there may be suspension of diplomatic and consular relations as a softer form of influence on the offending state. It should be noted that these measures may be applied in response to an unfriendly act, but then they do not have the nature of sanctions.
The severance of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba in 1961
Some examples: the severance of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba in 1961; the severance of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Albania in 1961; 26 August 2008 Russia recognized the independence of Georgian territories — Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in response Georgia decided to break diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation; after Israel’s attack on Arab states in 1967, Iraq broke off diplomatic relations with Britain and the United States and announced a trade and economic boycott to them for their support of Israel’s policy. Besides, in response to the capture (November 4, 1979) of the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States imposed an embargo on trade with Iran and broke off diplomatic relations with it.
In general, there are two ways to break off diplomatic relations: individual and collective. In the first case — any state acts in its sole discretion, if it believes that it has the right to. For example, after World War II during the period from 1945 to 1971, 213 cases of severance of diplomatic relations had been recorded. And not all of them were due to an armed conflict between the parties.
In 1965 many countries broke off diplomatic relations with the Republic of South Africa — because of the latter’s Apartheid policy, a significant part of these countries for a long time did not restore diplomatic relations with it. In this case — it is the application of an international sanction — collective severance of diplomatic relations.
Non-recognition can relate to results or situations caused by unlawful actions of the offending state. Forms of non-recognition are as follows: state’s refusal to recognize the validity of treaties and agreements concluded as a result of improper use of force, or which contradict the generally recognized principles of international law; non-recognition of unlawful territorial changes that occurred as a result of the aggression; refusal to recognize the illegal (fascist, racist, colonial or puppet) regime, which leads to the isolation of such a state, and so on.
The Treaty of Madrid, 1526
For example: in 1526 the French King Francis I renounced the treaty he signed with the Spaniards Carlos V while being a prisoner of the Madrid Royal Court, stating that he had signed it under duress; Germany’s “Agreement” on protectorate over Czechoslovakia of March 17, 1939 was signed by the Czechoslovak President Emil Gacha under the threat of Germans Air Force’s bombardment of Prague and of use of physical methods of influence to E. Hache himself; the process of international isolation of the Bolshevik government, which began soon after the RSDLP(B)’s coming to power in October 1917.
Now let’s analyze the sanctions that are used with the participation and assistance of international organizations.
Suspension of rights and privileges that flow from the membership in international organizations — can be voluntary or in the form of sanctions. Voluntary suspension of the membership of the state means that it does not break off the juridical communication with the international organization. When the suspension of rights and privileges (which flow from the membership in an international organization) is in the form of sanctions — the active participation of the state in the activity of the international organization is forcibly terminated. This can be done in the form of deprivation of votes for the following actions:
- non-payment of contributions (regardless of the term of the debt — Article 7 of the Charter of WHO, Article 62 of the ICAO Convention, in case of an annual debt — Article 42 of the Charter of IMCO; in case of a two-year debt — Article 12, Paragraph 4, of the ILO Charter, Article 4 of the Charter of UNESCO, Article 19 (p. A.) Charter of the IAEA);
- non-payment of contributions in one of the principal bodies of the Organization (Article 19 of the UN Charter, Article IV, p. 8 b, c, of the Charter of UNESCO);
- non-payment of contributions only in the main bodies of the Organization (Article 62 of the Charter (Convention) of the ICAO, Article 3, p. 4 of the Charter of the FAO);
- non-payment of contributions to all organization’s bodies (Article 19/A of the IAEA Charter, Article 13, p. 4, of the Charter of the ILO);
- for violation of international non-financial obligations (in one body of the organization — Article 7 of the Charter of WHO; in the main bodies of the organization — Article 88 of the Charter of ICAO; in all bodies of the organization — Article IV of the Charter of the Arab League);
- for violating statutory non-financial obligations (Article 55 of the Constituent Instrument of the International Natural Rubber Organization).
Thus, in 1999 Ukraine, together with some other countries, was deprived of the right to vote in the UN General Assembly — due to non-fulfillment of financial obligations to that international organization. In 1968, Haiti and the Dominican Republic were deprived of the right to vote in the UN General Assembly due to their financial debts on members’ contributions. In 1970 South Africa’s representation in the General Assembly was suspended because of the country’s policy of apartheid.
December 14, 1939 the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations
Rejection of membership in a certain international organization may be in the form of a ban on joining the organization or expulsion from it.
For example, in 1939, due to the USSR’s beginning of military operations against Finland and refusal to cooperate with the League of Nations in resolving the Soviet-Finnish military conflict, the Soviet Union was expelled from the international organization — the League of Nations. In February 1962, under pressure from the United States, Cuba was expelled from the Organization of American States.
Expulsion from international communication entails: breaking off economic relations; breaking off military and military-technical cooperation, transport communications (sea, air, rail, telephone, telegraph, radio, etc.); possible severance of political relations, and more.
In February 1962, under the USA’s pressure, Cuba was excluded from the Organization of American States, which led to severance of economic and other relations between the Member States of the OAS and Cuba. In 1963, at the OAU conference solutions were adopted in Addis Ababa on the collective severance of diplomatic relations with Portugal due to its colonial policy in Africa.
The UN Peacekeeping missions
Collective military (and possible non-military) measures are taken on a universal international basis (within the framework of the UN) and by individual regional organizations. In case of particularly dangerous attacks on international peace and security, international organizations may decide to take collective (coalition) military measures to maintain international peace and security. The possibility of taking such measures is provided by the UN Charter, the OAS Charter, the Arab League’s Pact and by the documents of a number of other regional organizations.
Measures taken in accordance with the UN Charter, can be used in two forms: by individual states, on behalf of and in accordance with special powers (special resolution) of the United Nations; by specially created Armed Forces of the United Nations. Determination of the order of taking military measures is the competence exclusively of the UN Security Council.
Collective measures are applied when it is necessary to prevent threats to peace and to suppress acts of aggression, but they can be used not only against the acts of aggression of a particular state, but also to prevent the escalation of an international armed conflict.
At this, the military sanctions should be applied if all other measures of influence have been used up.
Until recently, the sanctions within the framework of the UN were comprehensive and included the imposition (in accordance with UN Security Council’s Resolution) by all UN Member States of complete embargo on trade with the state-subject to sanctions. Such sanctions were used against Iraq and Yugoslavia, to less extant against Haiti, and Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). To date, UN sanctions for the most part are a ban on travels and freezing the assets of the people, included by the UN Security Council into the so-called ‘black list’ or the embargo on supplies of weapons to the state-subject to sanctions. Such sanctions are called “point” or “targeted” sanctions.
For example, the sanctions against North Korea under the UN Resolution number 1718 of October 14, 2006 include: arms embargo; embargo related to nuclear programs; a ban on exports of luxury goods to North Korea; ban on travels; freezing of assets, etc.
What Has It to Do with Ukraine?
For Ukraine, which for already almost three years has been leading a just war of liberation in the situation of Russia’s treacherous aggression against it, the issue of maintaining and extension of international sanctions against the Russian Federation remains highly relevant and vital.
In the spring of 2014 Russia cynically annexed the Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula, and launched military operations in the East of Ukraine. In general, today the annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea by Russia and its actions in the Donbas fall under the definition of aggression by the UN General Assembly resolution and the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia
Already since 2014, due to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in the Crimea, and then in the Donbas — the West (the United States, the European Union and some other countries) in several stages has introduced a number of packages of international sanctions against Russia. They mainly relate to Russian individuals and legal entities as well as individuals and institutions from among the Crimean and Donbas separatists and members of the former leadership of Ukraine. Besides, sectoral sanctions have been imposed on some sectors of the Russian economy. At this, the sanctions were amplified and extended several times. Further extension of international sanctions against the Russian Federation is expected in December 2016 — January 2017.
In general, today there are several international legal instruments of the European Union, practically acting in response to Russian aggression. Among these there are economic sanctions against specific sectors of the Russian economy, valid until 31 January 2017. As well as the restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of the Crimea and Sevastopol, valid to 23 June 2017.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine points out that Russia as an aggressor state is a party to an international armed conflict, and its leadership is solely responsible for its planning, preparation, initiation and maintenance. At the same time, no political, economic and military reasons can justify deaths of people.
Thus, in case of an escalation of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, Russia may face the prospect of a legitimate use against it of a wide range of new, including more stringent and tangible international sanctions, discussed and analyzed above.
That is, international sanctions against Russia are inevitable.
But this is a separate case.