No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Sanctions Imposed by the European Union: Legal and Institutional Aspects
... See, e.g., Gestri (2016) ...
As a response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States and the European Union have put in place far-reaching and highly coordinated sanctions against Russia. While their sanctions are similar in content, the United States and the European Union differ in their sanctions’ history as well as in their respective sanctions frameworks, which govern how sanctions are adopted, implemented, and challenged. These frameworks constitute the backbone of the sanctions imposed and shape their effectiveness and impact. They therefore are critical for the United States’ and the European Union’s capacity to conduct geopolitics. This article explores the sanctions frameworks of the United States and the European Union from a comparative perspective and investigates their similarities and differences. It argues that the post 2022 sanctions against Russia are in many ways a turning point for the European Union’s sanction practice, uncovering considerable insufficiencies, but also sparking critical reflection and much needed innovation. It furthermore underscores that a good look at the long-serving United States’ sanctions framework will pay off for the European Union, when creating the foundation for future sanctions regimes.
... In this respect, Marco Gestri has described the European Union as "a trailblazer" in implementing the doctrine of "collective countermeasures." 21 The idea of collective countermeasures remains controversial. A clear hurdle (elaborated upon below) is the need for states collectively to establish that they fit the qualification of "an injured state." ...
Enforcement by way of unilateral economic sanctions has been described as “one of the least developed areas of international law.”1 The term “sanctions” is notoriously difficult to define and does not itself appear in the key international instruments. With economic sanctions regularly referred to as President Trump’s “weapon of choice,” and with opposition to such measures growing, greater certainty is needed in this area of law if the legitimacy and effectiveness of sanctions are to be preserved. This essay distinguishes UN-authorized sanctions from three types of “autonomous” sanctions (collective corrective sanctions, unilateral corrective sanctions, and unilateral coercive sanctions) and argues that many uses of unilateral sanctions are either unregulated or based on questionable legality.
... In this respect, Marco Gestri has described the European Union as "a trailblazer" in implementing the doctrine of "collective countermeasures." 21 The idea of collective countermeasures remains controversial. A clear hurdle (elaborated upon below) is the need for states collectively to establish that they fit the qualification of "an injured state." ...
Enforcement by way of unilateral economic sanctions has been described as “one of the least developed areas of international law.” The term “sanctions” is notoriously difficult to define and does not itself appear in the key international instruments. With economic sanctions regularly referred to as President Trump's “weapon of choice,” and with opposition to such measures growing, greater certainty is needed in this area of law if the legitimacy and effectiveness of sanctions are to be preserved. This essay distinguishes UN-authorized sanctions from three types of “autonomous” sanctions (collective corrective sanctions, unilateral corrective sanctions, and unilateral coercive sanctions) and argues that many uses of unilateral sanctions are either unregulated or based on questionable legality.
... Another potential obstacle is associated with the requirement to grant blacklisted individuals and entities due process rights, such as allowing them to challenge their designation in front of an EU court. 79 As a result of this jurisprudence, the possibility remains that individuals and entities blacklisted in response to severe labour standard violations can challenge their designation in the Court of Justice. Nevertheless, while annulments of designation under the proposed mechanism remain a possibility, they are highly unlikely. ...
This paper argues that the idea of targeted sanctions should be transferred to the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters and to the Generalised System of Preferences. It posits that the targeted approach can strengthen the conditionality
provisions in trade agreements to promote compliance with labour standards and that enforcement mechanisms can be designed as a precise tool capable of affecting
individuals, companies and sectors.
This chapter identifies and analyzes recent legal developments in arguably one of the most dynamic areas of EU external action, namely, restrictive measures. Drawing on the extensive research in this area, the chapter briefly outlines the concept of sanctions and their typology in the EU context, before exploring how these measures are imposed and implemented. It then examines current issues relating to the legality of restrictive measures and compensation under EU law, as they emerge from the recent case law of the European Courts. Particular attention is paid to targeted measures against individuals, as these have increased sharply in response to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Uluslararası örgütlerin üyesi olmayan devletlere karşı aldıkları önlemlerin uluslararası hukuk bakımından niteliğinin belirlenmesi ve bu önlemlerin hukuki incelemesinin yapılması, günümüzde artan uygulama örnekleri dikkate alındığında, önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada Avrupa Birliği (AB) tarafından Doğu Akdeniz’deki sondaj ve arama faaliyetleri nedeniyle Türkiye’ye karşı başvurulan önlemlerin örnekliğinde bir inceleme yapılacaktır. Önce Türkiye’ye karşı alınan önlemlerin neler olduğu tespit edilecektir. Ardından uluslararası örgütlerin başvurdukları önlemler cebrî karakterleri esas alınarak genel uluslararası hukuk bakımından sınıflandırılacak ve her bir önlem kategorisine dair temel bilgiler ve ayırt edici hususlar aktarılacaktır. Türkiye’nin AB üyesi olmaya aday devlet statüsü önlemler bakımından kısaca incelendikten sonra, AB’nin aldığı önlemlerin söz konusu önlem kategorilerden hangisine dâhil olabileceği ve hangi şartların gerçekleşmesi gerektiği muhtemel gerekçeler dikkate alınarak sunulacaktır. Ulaşılabilen bilgiler ışığında önlemlerin uluslararası hukuka uygunlukları ve muhtemel hukuka aykırılık durumları değerlendirilecektir. Bu makale gerek uluslararası örgütlerin gerekse devletlerin farklı gerekçelerle sıkça başvurdukları önlemlerin uluslararası hukuk bakımından durumuna ve sınırlarına ilişkin bir vaka çalışmasıdır.
Der Aufsatz thematisiert humanitäre Ausnahmeregelungen im internationalen Sanktionsrecht. Zunächst wird das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Sanktionsregimen und humanitärer Hilfe nachgezeichnet und das Instrument der humanitären Ausnahmeregelung als Lösungsmöglichkeit skizziert. Daraufhin wird die Entwicklung humanitärer Ausnahmeregelungen auf UN-Ebene dargestellt. Ein besonderer Fokus wird hierbei auf die Verabschiedung der Resolution 2664 (2022) des UN-Sicherheitsrates gelegt. Die Resolution etabliert eine dauerhafte und standardisierte humanitäre Ausnahmeregelung, gültig für alle sich bereits in Kraft befindenden sowie zukünftigen Finanzsanktionen der UN. Der Inhalt dieser als „Meilenstein“ und „Paradigmenwechsel“ betitelten Resolution wird dargestellt und die Auswirkungen der Resolution auf das Sanktionsrecht der UN, EU und Deutschlands beleuchtet. Der Autor kommt zum Ergebnis, dass die Auswirkungen der Resolution zu einem Paradigmenwechsel im Sanktionsrecht der UN führen, die EU die gesetzten Akzente aufgreift, jedoch nicht vollständig in das eigene Sanktionsrecht umsetzt und die Auswirkungen auf das Sanktionsrecht Deutschlands noch nicht erkennbar sind. Diese in Teilen festgestellte positive Entwicklung im internationalen Sanktionsrecht auf den einzelnen Ebenen übersetzt sich jedoch nicht automatisch in eine Auflösung des Spannungsverhältnisses vor Ort, wie eine Fallstudie aufzeigt, die das Zusammenwirken der Sanktionsregime auf den verschiedenen Ebenen anhand eines Beispiels aus der Praxis beleuchtet. Die Analyse zeigt auf, dass so lange humanitäre Ausnahmeregelungen nicht von allen Sanktionsurhebern einheitlich umgesetzt werden, Verbesserungen des Sanktionsrechts auf einer Ebene in der Praxis nicht wirksam durchgreifen.
This book provides in-depth coverage and analysis of the international law, rules and principles that govern the use of force. Through a unique intra-disciplinary perspective, it examines how the law on the use of force functions within the international legal system and how it interacts with other relevant areas of the law. This includes arms control law, the law governing the use of the international commons, the law of armed conflict and human rights law, and the law of international responsibility. It offers an accessible guide to the law on the use of force to students and practitioners, alongside providing a unique perspective on the place and function of the law on the use of force within the wider legal landscape which will appeal to both academic professionals and others interested in how law regulates the use of force.
Karşı önlem, uluslararası haksız fiil sahibi bir devleti uluslararası yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmeye yöneltmek için başvurulan bir zorlama yoludur. Karşı önlemin hukuka uygun olması için mağdur devlet tarafından haksız fiil sahibi devlete yönelik alınması ve ona borçlu olduğu yükümlülüklerin yerine getirilmemesi şeklinde uygulanması gerekmektedir. Karşı önlemler ve başvuru koşulları, Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun 2001 yılında kabul edilen “Devletlerin Uluslararası Hukuka Aykırı Fiillerinden Doğan Sorumluluğu”na ilişkin maddeler metninde detaylı olarak düzenlenmiştir. Ancak Metnin “mağdur devletten başka devletlerce alınan önlemler” başlıklı 54. maddesinde “karşı önlemler” yerine “hukuka uygun önlemler” ifadesine yer verildiğinden, üçüncü devletlerin, bir bütün olarak uluslararası topluluğa yönelik bir ihlal gerekçesiyle sorumlu devlete yönelik karşı önlem alıp alamayacağı halen tartışılan bir meseledir. Bu makale, Rusya’nın Ukrayna’ya saldırısı üzerine Ukrayna dışındaki üçüncü devletlerce kararlaştırılıp uygulanan önlemlerin hukuki niteliği meselesi üzerine yoğunlaşmıştır. Çalışmada öncelikle, Rusya’nın Ukrayna’ya saldırıları üzerine AB üyesi devletler ile İsviçre, ABD, İngiltere, Kanada ve Avustralya tarafından bu fiillere cevaben alınan önlemler sıralanacak, ardından “bir bütün olarak uluslararası topluluğa yönelik bir yükümlülüğün ihlali” sebebiyle üçüncü devletlerce alınan önlemlerin hukuki niteliği tartışılacaktır.
Drawing on the previous findings, this chapter finds that there exists a jus ad bellum oeconomicum in the sense that waging economic warfare is neither illegal nor legal, but extra-legal. A body of jus in bello oeconomico is identified, however, with a view to the numerous previously discussed rules of international economic law that regulate specific measures of economic warfare. It is argued that—in parallel to the development of the prohibition of the threat or use of force—a prohibition of the threat or use of economic force could develop in the future from the body of jus in bello oeconomico.
Broadening the view to measures of economic warfare which are not limited to the sectors treated in the previous chapters—trade, investment and currency—, this chapter contains the final case studies on sector non-specific economic warfare. First, extraterritorial national legislation is discussed in a case study on antitrust law and blocking statutes. Second, the (threat of) termination of international agreements is presented as a form of sector non-specific economic warfare in a case study looking at recent treaty practice of the United States. This includes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Paris Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Limitations of international law set by the rules on extraterritorial legislation, on countermeasures and retorsions, the law of treaties and the law of neutrality are introduced and discussed in the following.
This chapter begins by defining the object of study: economic warfare. It also clarifies the related terms boycott, embargo, sanction, blockade, retorsion and countermeasure. As usage in news coverage and academia shows, economic warfare is an elusive term and certainly not a term of art in international law. This work defines it as follows: Irrespective of whether being referred to as such, economic warfare consists of measures of an exclusively economic character taken by subjects of international law to express disapproval of the acts of the target, to induce that target to a particular conduct, or to further an economic goal of the imposing subject of international law. By falling under this wide definition, a particular measure only qualifies as economic warfare within the scope of this work—it is not deemed legal or illegal.
Conditionality has different meanings in different situations. Conditionality is applied in different policy areas such as lending or investment programmes, trade agreements and development cooperation aid. In international economic relations, for example, it indicates a performance-based aid allocation by international organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In this financial and economic context, conditionality requires governments seeking aid to agree to economic policy adjustments defined by the donors. Conditionality can also refer to the process of tying aid to a specific use or it can describe projects and programmes aimed at supporting democracy or human rights protection
The European Union increasingly uses sanctions in order to respond to breaches of international norms and adverse security developments in its neighbourhood and beyond. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of EU sanctions and discusses options on how to maintain them as an effective tool. The current shifts in international relations constitute an opportunity to clarify the strategic nature of EU sanctions and to fine-tune the sanctions machinery. EU unity and a joint diplomatic approach to international crises are vital for the success of the policy tool. Consequently, the efforts to improve the instrument need to ensure member states’ ownership of EU sanctions policy.
In the mid-1990s, the EU adopted a general policy of including human rights clauses in all of its international trade agreements. Through these human rights clauses, in addition to other tools such as Human Rights Dialogue and sanctions, the EU seeks to promote the protection of human rights in its external relations. There are, however, some issues arising regarding the content, use, implementation and activation of these clauses. Not only do human rights clauses in different agreements vary in wording and scope, but also the actual implementation and enforcement by the EU differ from case to case, raising questions as to the selective character and the consistency of the EU’s action and, consequently, as to the EU’s credibility as a normative international actor. The main deficiencies in this regard are the selective and at times inconsistent inclusion and activation of human rights clauses, as shown by an examination of the EU’s agreements and their implementation and enforcement in practice. This article examines human rights clauses in the EU’s international trade agreements and the implementation and enforcement thereof, in order to shed light on the promises and pitfalls of the EU’s human rights efforts.
As the largest economic bloc and the largest trading power in the world, the European Union uses restrictive measures as a foreign policy tool. More than 30 States and thousands of individuals and legal persons are subject to EU sanctions. This massive use of sanctions by the EU has raised several legal issues. Some of these problems were caused by flaws in the sanctions framework of the United Nations in the field of counter-terrorism. Autonomous sanctions, the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union without previous UN action, proved to be problematic too. The extensive case law of the EU Courts has demonstrated the deficiencies of the sanctions system but has also indirectly improved the quality of the procedures at UN and EU level. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union could determine some changes in the policy of the European Union.
Sanctions are one of the tools utilised to address human rights violations. They are also an increasingly prominent tool in the European Union's foreign policy. International sanctions policy is part of a global trend towards individualisation: rather than affecting the state as a whole, bans nowadays are targeted at individuals identified as responsible for the abuses. The present study analyses the evolution of targeted sanctions regimes imposed by the EU, as well as by the UN, against individuals on grounds of gross human rights violations. It focuses on the most recent developments in international sanctions practice. It provides recommendations on how this tool could be further developed at EU level, making reference to the option of adopting a Global Magnitsky-type legislation allowing for the designation of human rights abusers worldwide.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.