UN sanctions as human rights and humanitarian law devices

Happold, Matthew

doi:10.4337/9781784713034.00012

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…119 This view is supported by the existing court practice: the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU guarantees the right to good administration, and to an effective remedy, and a fair trial, 120 and these guarantees are frequently invoked in disputes before the EU courts over economic sanctions. 121 Arnoud Willems and Alessandra Moroni name the following four pleas as the most frequently argued by individuals and entities targeted by the EU unilateral sanctions:…”

Section: Magnitsky-style Sanctions and Human Rights Of Their Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A New Perspective on a Twisted Relationship

Bogdanova

2023

European Yearbook on Human Rights 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Literature and practice outlining the relationship between human rights and unilateral economic sanctions veer in two opposite directions. One strand of Intersentia Iryna Bogdanova 172 1The term 'private sanctions' has evolved in the context of the unprovoked war of aggression waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, in order to denote sanctions decided on, and taken by, private companies, in additional to the sanctions taken by individual states, in the absence of the UN-authorised sanctions: O.D. Hart, D. Thesmar and L. Zingales, 'Private Sanctions, National Bureau of Economic Research' , Working Paper 30728, December 2022, available at https://www. nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30728/w30728.pdf, last accessed 13.07.2023. literature advocates for sanctions to redress grave human rights violations. This position has been epitomised in the legislation allowing the imposition of economic sanctions for human rights violations occurring abroad (Magnitskystyle sanctions). The opposing voice criticises unilateral economic sanctions irrespective of their objectives and forms, mainly by emphasising their negative repercussions on the enjoyment of human rights. This position is officially adopted by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, and is reflected in numerous reports on the matter, which are traditionally supported by the most-sanctioned countries.This contribution aims to explore perplexing and multifaceted relations between human rights and unilateral economic sanctions, an issue that is politically tainted, and which has been insufficiently analysed from a legal standpoint. Retreating from the clashes between these prevailing old, unworkable dichotomies, this contribution argues for a more nuanced portrayal of the subject matter.Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions 2 According to Art. 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council 'shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security' . Art. 41 of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to call upon the members of the UN to apply such measures as 'complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations' . Arts. 25, 48 and 103 of the UN Charter make any such decision binding upon the members of the UN. 3 E.g. the African Union (AU), the League of Arab States, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Organization of American States (OAS) all have the possibility to use autonomous punitive measures of political (suspension of membership) or economic (embargoes) character, in response to violations of certain rules or principles of these organisations.4

show abstract

Section: Magnitsky-style Sanctions and Human Rights Of Their Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A New Perspective on a Twisted Relationship

Bogdanova

2023

European Yearbook on Human Rights 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If we consider that by imposing sanctions, the sender is harming the target nations’ overall economy and the business interests of its firms, lessening their value, target states have incentives to take countermeasure against sanctioning states. Targeted states can follow the concept of proportional reciprocation in international law, taking matters into their own hands by confiscating something of value from the sender’s firms via nationalization to compensate for the losses caused by sanctions (Alexander 2009; Happold and Eden 2016). The relative ease by which host countries can seize firms, especially for immobile assets including natural resources and their rents, and the high costs absorbed by MNCs and their shareholders following expropriation, makes nationalization an attractive strategy for targeted states (Eaton and Gersovitz 1984; Frieden 1994, 567-68; Kobrin 1984).…”

Section: Sanctions and Foreign Asset Expropriationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expropriations without adequate compensation, which are illegal under international law, can be interpreted by the targeted state as a countermeasure to sanctions, if the initial sanctions are deemed to be illegal acts. In this case, expropriations could be seen as the target taking something of proportional reciprocal value to the sender’s initial restrictions on the target’s firms (Alexander 2009; Happold and Eden 2016). By acting in a tit-for-tat manner with sender countries, targeted states indirectly levy costs on senders that they could not otherwise impose against more militarily and economically powerful countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Economic Sanctions on Foreign Asset Expropriation

Lee

Lektzian

Biglaiser

2022

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies suggest that home countries impose economic sanctions following host state expropriation of home firms. However, and not addressed in the empirical literature, is the possibility that sanctions lead targeted countries to nationalize firms from sender countries. Using bilateral expropriation data from 1985 to 2010, and controlling for endogeneity issues, we find that sanctions significantly increase expropriation risk, encouraging targeted states to inflict pain in a reciprocal manner on sender countries. Expropriations also enable targeted nations to acquire economic assets from foreign firms, undermining the restricting goals of sanctioning states, and provide opportunities for leaders to show political resolve at home by standing up to senders. Our results are robust using monadic or dyadic data and different statistical methods, indicating another sanction-busting strategy used by targeted countries.

show abstract

“…Economic sanctions are means of exerting pressure on a country or government to force them change their political behavior (Cortright and Lopez, 2018;Brzoska, 2015); they are implemented multilaterally (at the United Nations), regionally (EU) and unilaterally by one country (Happold and Eden, 2019). Sanctions are considered as one of the foreign policies of the US government to exert pressure on governments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A contextualized study of blockchain technology adoption as a digital currency platform under sanctions

Ronaghi

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe blockchain technology is based on distributed ledger. Many stakeholders, such as developers, entrepreneurs and technology lovers, consider the blockchain as an economic and business re-creation that is faced with numerous challenges in its application. Blockchain technology is the backbone of many digital currencies, i.e. Bitcoin and Ethereum. Although presently digital currencies are recognized as payment and exchange instruments in many countries, the economic sanctions imposed on some countries have restricted the possibility of the trading. So, this study seeks to evaluate the adoption of blockchain for digital currency use in Iran in the shadow of economic sanctions.Design/methodology/approachThe developed value-based technology adoption model and smart PLS software have been used in this research. The statistical population of the study was people active in the Iranian stock market; the purpose for this selection was their familiarity with financial and digital currency issues.FindingsThe results show that the terms of sanctions, usage and facilitating conditions are directly related to users' perceived value of digital currency and its use; As a result, in a sanctioned country like Iran, the use of digital currencies is being accepted as a way of rolling out economic sanctions and thus making commercial payments.Originality/valueAs well as the fact that evaluating the adoption of the blockchain technology in a sanctioned country like Iran is considered as the originality aspect of the research, applying an extended model in the technology adoption is also the research innovation.

show abstract

UN sanctions as human rights and humanitarian law devices

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A New Perspective on a Twisted Relationship

Human Rights and Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A New Perspective on a Twisted Relationship

The Effects of Economic Sanctions on Foreign Asset Expropriation

A contextualized study of blockchain technology adoption as a digital currency platform under sanctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About