Unilateral Coercive Measures: Towards International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights

Abstract

The use of coercive measures including economic sanctions has been favoured by certain, predominantly Western, states as an alternative to the use of armed force, asserting pressure to effect change at arm's length via an apparently non-lethal use of force. Yet the assumption that the use of economic sanctions presents 'non-lethal' and 'non-destructive' solutions is a misapprehension. 1 For the target state, the impact of multilateral and unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) on its humanitarian capacity can be long-term and devastating, and can be the cause, directly and indirectly, of the collateral damage of gross human rights and humanitarian violations.Concerns about the humanitarian implications of comprehensive sanctions (both multilateral and unilateral) have been well rehearsed, for example, in the wake of the consequences suffered by the general population of Iraq and Haiti in the 1990s. 2 The public and political outcry that followed prompted a move by the Security Council away from comprehensive measures to those designed to be 'smart' by targeting named individuals, groups, governments and organisations. 3 Yet, somewhat ironically, compared to comprehensive measures, the humanitarian impact of smart sanctions has been said to be more difficult for the target state to circumvent because they are more difficult to 'cheat'. 4

Unilateral coercive measures in the doctrine of modern international law

“…На фоне рассуждений о правомерности применения государствами односторонних принудительных мер на первый план вышли так называемые «разумные» санкции [4], которые применяются в отношении отдельных физических и юридических лиц, правительств, организаций [14]. Названные меры позволяют «свести к минимуму отрицательные побочные эффекты и, в частности, избежать риска нарушения прав человека беднейших и наиболее уязвимых групп населения в странах, против которых эти меры применены» [15].…”