Important Links

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2199354?
searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default
%3A8aca1cfb8f9c78b2e9fd61b620e81cf8
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20689860?
searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default
%3A8aca1cfb8f9c78b2e9fd61b620e81cf8
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/40704424?
searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default
%3A8aca1cfb8f9c78b2e9fd61b620e81cf8
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25658015?
searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default
%3A8aca1cfb8f9c78b2e9fd61b620e81cf8
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25658015?
searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default
%3A8aca1cfb8f9c78b2e9fd61b620e81cf8

A/RES/70/151
Bearing in mind all the extraterritorial effects of any unilateral legislative, administrative and
economic measures, policies and practices of a coercive nature against the development process
and the enhancement of human rights in developing countries, which create obstacles to the full
realization of all human rights.
Recalling article 1, paragraph 2, common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights15 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,15 which
provides, inter alia, that in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence

Strongly urges States to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic,
financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter that impede
the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries;

Urges all States not to adopt any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law
and the Charter that impede the full achievement of economic and social development by the
population of the affected countries, in particular children and women, that hinder their well-
being and that create obstacles to the full enjoyment of their human rights, including the right of
everyone to a standard of living adequate for his or her health and well-being and his or her right
to food, medical care and education and the necessary social services, as well as to ensure that
food and medicine are not used as tools for political pressure;
Condemns the continuing unilateral application and enforcement by certain Powers of unilateral
coercive measures, and rejects those measures, with all their extraterritorial effects, as being
tools for political or economic pressure against any country, in particular against developing
countries, adopted with a view to preventing those countries from exercising their right to decide,
of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems, and because of the
negative effects of those measures on the realization of all the human rights of vast sectors of
their populations, in particular children, women, the elderly and persons with disabilities(right
to self determination).

Reaffirms, in this context, the right of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development;

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, proclaimed by the Assembly in its resolution
3281 (XXIX), in particular article 32 thereof, no State may use or encourage the use of
economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from
it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any
kind

Reaffirms paragraph 30 of the outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption
of the post-2015 development agenda, entitled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development” , 13 in which States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating
and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with
international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of
economic and social development, particularly in developing countries;

Reiterates its support for the invitation of the Human Rights Council to all special rapporteurs
and existing thematic mechanisms of the Council in the field of economic, social and cultural
rights to pay due attention, within the scope of their respective mandates, to the negative impact
and consequences of unilateral coercive measures

Sanctions, Retorsions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal

Framework Tom Ruys1
Pg 2
THe concept of sanctions is limited to those levied by multilateral organizations - approach is
reflected in the work of ILC where lang of sanctions is absent. The term retorsion is used and it
is mainly used to refer to measures under taken by the UNSC under the Charter.
DARIO- measures which can be undertaken by an organization against its members according to
the rules.
ILC work on state responsibility pays little attention to the concept of sanctions. Instead focus is
on retorsion and countermeasures.
States can adopt unfriendly measures as long as they do not amount to a breach of international
law obligations.
Principle of non-intervention only applies to coercive acts. Duty of non intervention only applies
to acts that qualify as coercive.
OAS charter- no country can use economic policies in a way that forces the sovereign of another
state to change its policies.
When Obama applied sanctions on Venezuela numerous latin american states with Union of
South American Nations condemned it.
Reso 70/185- adopt urgent measures to eliminate the threat of unilateral and coercive sanctions.

Arguments from the other side

In the absence of explicit conventional obligations a state is entitled to impose sanctions on
another state.

Principle of non intervention has significantly eroded due to state practice. In Nicaragua, the
court’s attention was drawn to a series of economic constraints. But the court could not regard
the kind of actions complained of in the economic plane as illegal

There are no documents which prima facie allow or disallow the legality of economic sanctions.
Giegerich- even though an economic sanction as such is not unlawful its use of coercive force for
an intervention would be unlawful.

M Janmejad and M wood emphasize on the element of coercion- the more dependant a country is
on another country and the more intensive the impact of a sanction - the more likely such action
is to breach the principle of non intervention.

The measure of retorsion does not as such violate an international law but there are some
qualifications- but retorsion is subject to various restrictions-

Empagaran Antitrust case- US SC - congress extending the applicability of US law would create
a risk of interference with the ability of the foreign state to independently regulate its affairs.

Primary sanctions generally apply to US persons or to situations where there is a US nexus (such
as the involvement of a US person, US-originating goods or transactions that take place within
US borders). Secondary sanctions authorize OFAC or the US State Department to threaten
sanctions on a person - even a non-US citizen - for a specified activity. Sanctions are intended to
discourage non-US persons from engaging in specific transactions, even if these transactions are
not subject to primary sanctions(https://www.sanctions.io/blog/primary-and-secondary-
sanctions-explained)

US secondary sanctions- which seek to cutoff foreign parties from access to US financial
markets.

Staying - countermeasures by injured states

When sanctions involve conduct that would normally qualify as international wrongful on part of
states they cannot qualify as retorsions.
Forthcoming - they may constitute a non forcible by an organization against a member state.
Countermeasures by injured states are called reprisals. Reprisals were defined as acts of self
defense by self help by injured state in retaliation for acts contrary to international law on part of
offending state, which have remained
As a matter of principle it is uncontested that under the law of international responsibility,
internationally wrongful,act by one state may lead another state to adopt certain counter
measures.
The Draft Articles on Responsibility of State- an injured state can take countermeasures against
an internationally wrongful act- Art 49(1) if an international judicial body finds to the contrary-
then the state resorting to countermeasures does so at its own risk. 1
Second countermeasures must be directed against the wrongdoing.2
The counter measure must be stopped on the resumption of performance of obligations.
Gabcikovo Nagymaros Case- found czech asasuming unilateral control over danube water was
not commensurate with Hungary’s suspension.
US France Arbitral Tribunal
42(b) of draft articles - ILC developed the ways of identifying the injured state- first the state is
specially affected by the breach,
Inspite of the broad understanding the concept of injured state is hard to fit into the ARSIWA
framework.
Even if the broad definition of injury is agreed to - hard to fit the current regime of economic
sanctions- why? - firstly, unclear whether the act trigerring the sanction in the first place is a
breach of international law and secondly, economic sanctions are often adopted by states that do
not by any reasonable standards qualify as injured state.

1
For a good overview concerning the nationality requirement, see e.g. P. Okowa, µAdmiVVibiliW\ and
Whe laZ on inWeUnaWional responsibility, in M.D. Evans, op. cit., supra n. 15, pp. 477-508, at 481-494
2
In Interim Accord, foU inVWance, Whe ICJ foXnd WhaW GUeece¶V objecWionV Wo Whe foUmeU
YXgoVlaY RepXblic of Macedonia¶V admission to NATO could not be justified as proportionate
countermeasures since the objection was not aimed at achieving the cessation of a wrongful act by the
latter State. ICJ, Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995, (Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment 5 December 2011, ICJ Rep. p. 644, at § 165
Situations arise where the sanctions (1) conflict with relevant treaty (2) do not comply with
relevant customary law.

Acceptance of third state countermeasures

After the adoption of ARSIWA a number of scholars, have mapped additional evidence in State
practice, Katselli- tendency towards acceptance of third-state countermeasures.
Dupont- if the sanction is not challenged by atleast some actors in the international arena it may
well constitute the foundation of another precedent.
There is a lack of express opinio juris-states refrain from qualifying their actions
Pg 24- citation 183- state practice may also be evidenced from the fact that a number of states
have passed UNGA resolutions condemning third party sanctions.

Matyas Mitro Article

Pg 21
Acts of aggression- defined in art 8 of the rome statue to mean all acts as enumerated in
resolution 3314. Rome Statue- itis the act against the sovereignty of another state.
Violence which is not explicitly prohibited by the Charter cannot constitute amount to an act of
aggression.

To be noted that Art 8(2) mentions armed force is prohibited as an act of aggression and not
economic sanctions(pg 22).

UN Charter and Economic Aggression

Domb states that it has often been assumed that term “ economic aggression”, derives its name.
Construction emphasizes the economic nature of the measures used to coerce for eg:
manipulation of tariff, imposition of embargoes etc.
A blockade depends on the use of force to prevent cargo from reaching its destination, and would
constitute an act of aggression under Resolution 3314.
One could take the standpoint that it also intends to avert use of others of force, if economic
warfare potentially does- inflict similar strain on international security and peace. PG 26

PG 26 narrow
During san franciso conference a brazilian proposal to amend art 2(4) - UN Charter- made
explicit reference- to threat or use of economic measures as an equal category.
Citation no 62- the reluctance surrouding its inclusion stems from the fact that it would have
made the powers of the council to label anything as use of force and similarly for the member
nations to respond to anything as use of force. 3

Argument for wide interpretation

Weak states would have no way of answering to the economic warfare of more powerful states.
In the modern world importance of economic warfare exceeds that of conventional warfare
therefore must include it to remain relevant.
Citation 63- citation 63- inclusion means that states can no longer pursue their interests by non
violent means.

Even though the Art. 2(4) UN Charter does not expressly refer to economic force, it is relevant to
highlight that there are scholars of the view that a wide interpretation should include it – not
least with regards to the argument that economic coercion and pressure is increasingly
commonplace on the international arena which, as stated above, would supersede the narrow
concept of force mentioned in Charter. An interpretation in which economic force is included in
the Charter definition of ‘use of force’ would substantiate the argument that economic sanctions
may in certain cases be regarded as ‘acts of aggression’. The reason for this is that the use of
‘economic force’ contrary to the UN Charter would then, potentially, be able to amount to an act
of aggression according to both Resolution 3314 and Art. 8 bis of the Rome Statute
IMP- for the sanctions to amount to acts of aggression it needs to come under the purview of the
use of force.

Non Intervention - wide

Citation 67
. Two elements of an unlawful intervention are often distinguished. First, there must be an
‘intervention’ by one state in the affairs of another. Second, the intervention must bear on
‘matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely’.4

Friendly relations declaration affirms that the states have an obligation to refrain in their
international relations from political military or any other form of coercion; that States shall
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence.5

3
Dempsey, P., Economic Aggression & Self-Defense in International Law: The Arab Oil Weapon and
Alternative American Responses Thereto. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Volum
4
Jamnejad and Wood, The Principle of Non-intervention, Leiden Journal of International Law (2009), p.
349.
5
A/RES/25/2625.
If state intervention below the level of armed attack then self defence is not permissible. In case
of intervention below this level only other forms of economic warfare such as self help and
retorsions are permissible.

Application of the principle – authors-wide

Jamnejad and Wood hold that the principle of non-intervention is also to apply to acts other than
the use of armed force, and there is no reason to exclude economic measures. According to the
authors, the principle of nonintervention has two elements: the first is coercion and the second is
an intention to change the policy of the target state. This can be exemplified with the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an organization that controls much
of the global supply of oil and maintains its prices. Nearly every decision made by it might be
regarded as intervention since its decisions will have effects on the global economy, in
potentially dramatic ways.

Article 51
This viewpoint would assumedly by extension also hold that an economic intervention would
never be able to amount to an act of aggression – not least since ‘Art. 51 self-defense’ against
acts of aggression are justified according to both the Charter and ICJ jurisprudence.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF WTO DOES NOT SUFFICE THE CRITERION OF USE OF
FORCE< AGGRESSION ETC.

Sanctions A Background- pg 34
It is a type of behaviour to constrain access to resources.
PG35- legal if they occur in response to an already unlawful act in international law.

Article 15 Breach consisting of a composite act

1. The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of
actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful occurs when the action or
omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to
constitute the wrongful act.
2. In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with
the first of the actions or omissions of the series and lasts for as long as these
actions or omissions are repeated and remain not in conformity with the
international obligation.
Pg 35
Defn of sanction - Stein argues that the hope of targeted sanctions is that they can adversely
affect particular actors and leave others unscathed, that they can pressure imports and exports
of critical items while leaving food and medicine untouched. A concern with the general
consequences of economic sanctions, what came to be called comprehensive sanctions, led,
according to Stein, to a widespread interest in targeted and smart sanctions

Sanctions as forms of economic aggression.

Question raised by martin is whether some form of economic sanctions can rise to the level of
‘coercive interference’.

FOR SANCTIONSAS USE OF FORCE

Every second year, the U.N. General Assembly votes on a Resolution condemning “unilateral
economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing
countries”.102 This could to a certain extent imply that autonomous sanctions are typically
perceived as coercive, at least considering the language used by the GA in the Resolution.6

AGAINST SANCTIONS
This view proposes that the definition of ‘coercion’ is strict, that economic sanctions do not
satisfy that definition, and that state practice seems to suggest that there is no principle of
customary international law prohibiting sanctions.104 The ICJ seems to support this view in the
Nicaragua case – immediately after defining the nature of unlawful intervention, the court
rejected the notion that states could be obliged to continue trade relations with another country
absent some treaty commitment.7

It could more be complicated, however, to determine whether sanctions do or do not breach any
treaty or customary obligations binding upon the sanctioning state. The extent to which the
principle of non-intervention or international law limits the admissible scope for such sanctions
remains ambiguous.

6
102Voting on the Resolution last took place in 2021, see Resolution A/C.2/76/L.16/Rev.1. The United
States has consistently rejected the Resolution, arguing that sanctions are a legitimate way to achieve
foreign policy, national security, and other national and international objectives, see Walters, J.
Explanation of Vote for the Adoption of the Unilateral Economic Measures as a Means of Political and
Economic Coercion against Developing Countries, 23 November 2021. 103 See A/C.2/76/L.16/Rev.1.
The GA States that it is “Gravely concerned that the use of unilateral coercive economic measures /…/
has a general negative impact on international economic cooperation” and is “Recognizing that such
measures constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law as set forth in the Charter, as
well as the basic principles of the multilateral trading syste
7
Nicaragua v. United States, supra note 14, at para. 276. The ICJ States that “A State is not bound to
continue particular trade relations longer than it sees fit to do so, in the absence of a treaty commitment or
other specific legal obligation”
When are sanctions lawful

Secondly, sanctions can be deemed lawful(i) because they are undertaken following a binding
Chapter VII Resolution of the Security Council, (ii)because they are undertaken by an injured
state or organization pursuant to ARSIWA and DARIO rules on countermeasures, or because
they are otherwise approved of by the targeted State. Ruys, furthermore, emphasizes that an
important grey area nevertheless remains.8

As we have seen, Domb is of the view that the term ‘economic aggression’ derives its name
from the means used to apply pressure on a victim state and that this construction emphasizes
the economic nature of the measures used to coerce, for example, the manipulation of tariffs,
the imposition of embargoes and boycotts, the dumping of goods, and the freezing of funds. The
fact that the EU sanctions regime is grounded on an outspoken desire to change Russian policy
and the sanctions regime covers, for example, asset freezes, trade restrictions, closure of EU
airspace to Russian aircraft, financial transaction bans, suspension of broadcasting rights,
prohibitions on investments in Russia, prohibition on imports from Russia, prohibitions on
exports to Russia and restrictions of access to EU capital markets109 should suffice for the
argument that the sanctions regime may be regarded as at least ‘coercive’ in nature

The claim that the sanctions regime is ‘aggressive’ can only be maintained with an underlying
presupposition that the EU sanctions regime’s coercive and/or unlawful nature is of such a
degree that it can be regarded as constituting a ‘use of force’ in accordance with the Charter
definition. A state act below the gravity threshold for ‘use of force’ cannot be considered an ‘act
of aggression.

Examples of law ful sanction

EU sanctions are backed by rules and regulations in much the same way as UNSC backed
sanctions.

EU sanctions are bound by the provisions of international treaties, UN regulations and EU

legislation. Therefore, the legal framework of EU sanctions contains several exceptions that are
necessary to protect the rights granted to individuals and entities by EU regulations. For
instance, EU restrictive measures must respect the GATT and WTO provisions, other than
allowing listed individuals to receive healthcare treatments in the EU or to participate in
international meetings held in European countries.9

8
108 Ruys, T., p. 27.
9
Giumelli, F., p. 126.
Jazairy on Economic Sanctions
● Current trend towards the centralization of authority with regards to the use of economic
sanctions.
● And Chapter VII gives the Security Council the exclusive power to adopt economic
sanctions in situations that endanger such international peace and security. This leads to
the dominant view of the international community, according to which economic
sanctions taken outside this framework are “unilateral” and unlawful. Nonetheless, some
thirty states, mainly advanced Western ones, challenge this position and advocate that
unilateral sanctions are legitimate tools with which to pursue certain foreign policy
objectives.
● this opposition of views is persistent and perennially appears in debates in the UN
General Assembly on resolutions regarding the topic of human rights and unilateral
coercive measures, as well as in other forums. On the other hand, the rejection of the
U.S. embargo on Cuba—one of the most highprofile and long-lasting cases of unilateral
sanctions—has become so widespread within the international community that it
reached overwhelming consensus if not total unanimity in the General Assembly in . The
latest resolution condemning the embargo, adopted on November , , had states in favor
and only two against, with no abstention10. A/RES/73/18- Concerned about the
continued promulgation and application by Member States of laws and regulations, such
as that promulgated on 12 March 1996 known as “the Helms-Burton Act”, the
extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate
interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and
navigation, This act sought to sanction the government of CUBA- UNGA calls it a
violation of sovereignty.

Point on CIL
● The measures condemned are the “laws and regulations” adopted by states, “the
extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate
interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and
navigation
● The resolution refers to a number of general principles, including “the sovereign equality
of States, non-intervention and non-interference in their internal affairs and freedom of
international trade and navigation, which are also enshrined in many other international
legal instruments.” The resolution preamble also refers to “declarations and resolutions
of different intergovernmental forums, bodies and Governments that express the
rejection by the international community and public opinion of the promulgation. and
application of measures of the kind referred to above.” These positions strongly support
the view that unilateral coercive measures with secondary or extraterritorial effects,

10
Resolution / was adopted by a vote of states in favor and against (United States and Israel). The
resolution is the latest of a long series of UN General Assembly resolutions adopted annually since
condemning the U.S. embargo on Cuba. United Nations General Assembly, Resolution /, “Necessity of
Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America
against Cuba,” November , , undocs.org/en/A/RES//.
 “which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or
persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation,” are almost
universally seen by the international community as illegitimate. This suggests an
emergent (if not already established) rule of customary international law.

Self Determination
● The right of people to self-determination, the realization of which “is an essential
condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights,” can
also be affected by unilateral sanctions, especially comprehensive ones. This right is
recognized in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which both state in their
Article that “by virtue of that right [the peoples] freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
● The second paragraph of Article of both covenants provides that “in no case may a
people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” Scholars have noted that in that
respect “it is plain that in a given case, universally imposed sanctions regimes, which are
insufficiently tailored or targeted and which lack adequate humanitarian exemptions,
could have the cumulative effect of depriving a population, or substantial sections of it, of
their means of subsistence.” It also seems reasonable to argue that “unilateral
economic sanctions (as opposed to multilateral UN measures under Chapter VII of the
Charter) imposed by one State or group of States on another, to compel the latter to
change a particular political or economic policy, could amount to a prohibited
intervention and a denial of self-determination- CAN USE ALL THE EXAMPLES OF THE
POSSIBLE HUMANITARIAN IMPACTS TO ARGUE.
PG 5 - evidence of how sanctions in the real world cripples economies now if they manage to
cripple the economies too bad.
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/do-sanctions-violate-international-law?0=ip_login_no_cache
%3Dd2d32a565e46a02a6dec15662a947e9e (SYED ALI AKHTAR)

(7) In its General Comment 8 (1997) the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
discussed the effect of economic sanctions on civilian populations and especially on children. It
dealt both with the effect of measures taken by international organizations, a topic which falls
outside the scope of the present Articles,804 as well as with measures imposed by individual
States or groups of States. It stressed that ìwhatever the circumstances, such sanctions should
always take full account of the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rightsî,805 and went on to state that: ìÖ it is essential to distinguish between the basic
objective of applying political and economic pressure upon the governing elite of a country to
persuade them to conform to international law, and the collateral infliction of suffering upon the
most vulnerable groups within the targeted country. Analogies can be drawn from other
elements of general international law. For example, Additional Protocol I of 1977, article 54 (1)
stipulates unconditionally that ì[s]tarvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.î807
Likewise, the final sentence of article 1 (2) of the two United Nations Covenants on Human
Rights states that ìIn no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Book On Sanctions
The book measures the legality of economic sanctions. At the outset, the terminology used to
define coercive economic measures is clarified. Subsequently, the legality of unilateral
economic sanctions is reviewed in light of the principles embedded in the UN Charter, the
authority to impose countermeasures stipulated in the Draft articles, established principles of
jurisdiction in international law and the immunities that international law accords to states, as
well as to state officials. In the last section, the consistency of unilateral economic sanctions
with wto law is examined.

Two q: what norms of PIL are violated by unilateral sanctions? To what extent can PIL restrain
nations?

Retorsions
It is attributed to the incompleteness of international law. Its scope is as wide as the unregulated
conduct of the states.
Retorsion belongs to the instruments of self-help deployed unilaterally by states. These
instruments may be punitive or may aim at goals such as retribution or deterrence. 11

Scholars provide numerous examples of the acts that fall under the definition of retorsion:
“terminating the payment of development aid or the provision of military assistance; unilaterally
imposing legally permissible economic sanctions such as an arms embargo; recognition of a
situation (the sovereignty of a third State over territory also claimed by the target State);
suspending, terminating, or refusing to prolong a treaty; and withdrawing from an international
organization in order to protest this organization’s political activities.”

11
Giegerich (n 339)
For instance, the withdrawal of voluntary aid programmes constitutes an act of retorsion.345
Trade embargoes and other restrictions on trade might represent retorsions or be tantamount to
countermeasures, depending on the scope of such restrictions and states’ membership at the
wto. 12

Reprisals –
Draft articles of the ILC countermeasures.
The act committed must be internationally wrongful and it must be committed in response to a
prior wrongful act.
Article 22- countermeasures- forcible measures undertaken- for the reparation of the injury.
GabčÌkovo-Nagymaros Project case, the International Court clearly accepted that
countermeasures might justify otherwise unlawful conduct ìtaken in response to a previous
international wrongful act of another State and Ö directed against that Stateî,

Where countermeasures are taken in accordance with article 22, the underlying obligation is not
suspended, still less terminated; the wrongfulness of the conduct in question is precluded for the
time being by reason of its character as a countermeasure, but only provided that and for so
long as the necessary conditions for taking countermeasures are satisfied.
Read Article 22 with Article 42 and 43
42
A State is entitled as an injured State to invoke the responsibility of another State if the
obligation breached is owed to: (a) That State individually; or (b) A group of States including that
State, or the international community as a whole, and the breach of the obligation: (i) Specially
affects that State; or (ii) Is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the other
States to which the obligation is owed with respect to the further performance of the obligation
43

Notice of claim by an injured State 1. An injured State which invokes the responsibility of
another State shall give notice of its claim to that State. 2. The injured State may specify in
particular: (a) The conduct that the responsible State should take in order to cease the wrongful
act, if it is continuing; (b) What form reparation should take in accordance with the provisions of
Part Two.

Economic Sanctions
1. he crux of the debate revolves around the scope of the prohibition of the use of force
and the scope of the principle of non-intervention. Both principles are engrained in the
UN Charter – yet the question whether these principles restrain states’ ability to impose
unilateral economic sanctions remains unsettled.
2. Point Against sanctions being violations: fierce opposition normally came from
Russia and China- but both frequently rely on such coercive measures (pg 85 pdf) –

12
 maybe useful to argue that there is not CIL prohibition because CIL prohibition requires
Practice + Opinio Juris.

CIL for sanctions as violations

 As per this view CIL condemns the use of economic coercion.
 It is also worth mentioning numerous resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly
condemning unilateral coercive measures and their implications. Alexandra Hofer
analysed the UN resolutions on the subject and deliberations between the UN Member
States, as well as the opinions of legal scholars.408 Hofer concludes that such a general
prohibition has not emerged.
 According to Alexandra Hofer, twenty-one resolutions condemning unilateral coercive
measures for their negative impact on human rights have been adopted since 1996,
and nineteen resolutions entitled ‘Unilateral economic measures as a means of political
and economic coercion against developing countries’ have been adopted since 1993. In
both resolutions, it was argued that unilateral coercive measures constitute a violation. of
international law. Despite this, Hofer argues that the general prohibition on the use of
such measures has not yet emerged.\
 RESEARCH ON THIS GUY’S OPINION -IMP

Sanctions and 2(4) pg 88

 There has been some argument for the fact economic coercion may fall within the ambit
og s 2(4) of the charter which is mostly false.
 Pak rep says that it also covers economic coercion- cites resolution 2160 of UNGA. With
respect to the prohibition of the use of force, the UN General Assembly Resolution reads
as follows: “States shall strictly observe, in their international relations, the prohibition of
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Accordingly, armed attack by one State against another or the use of force in any other
form contrary to the Charter of the United Nations constitutes a violation of international
law giving rise to international responsibility.” unga Res 2160 (30 November 1966) UN
Doc a/res/2160 (xxi).
 ONE INSTANCE WHERE SCHOLARS ARGUED THAT ECONOMIC SANCTION
AMOUNTS TO THE USE OF FORCE: The Arab oil embargo was the spark that lit the
fuse: after oil-producing Arab countries temporary restricted oil shipments to several
countries, including the United States, scholars started to vigorously argue that
economic coercion is tantamount to the use of force prohibited under the UN Charter. 13
13
Hartmut Brosche, ‘The Arab Oil Embargo and United States Pressure against Chile: Economic and
Political Coercion and the Charter of the United Nations’ (1974) 7 Case Western Reserve Journal of
International Law
 Pg 8 – the arab countries decided to impose embargo progressively till the Israeli forces
completely withdrew.
 Articles 10-15 of LON- have to exhaust peaceful means, UN charter 2(4) prohibits the use of
force- (pg 17) Pg 18 cit 54- third world countries have been vocal in their demand for inclusion of
  James Delanis- traditional view is restrictive whereas the view of the developing states
considers a more liberal interpretation.

Arab Oil Article

 The key word of Article 2 (4) of the Charter is the term "force." It is questionable if this
covers only physical or armed force. A vast number of publicists on international law
understand it in this narrow sense. Bowett writes: *
Taking the words in their plain, common-sense meaning, it is clear that, since the
prohibition is of the use or threat of force, they will not apply to economic or political
pressure, but only to physical, armed force.14
 Force is prohibited, if it is directed against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state or if it is otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations. It is beyond doubt that the political independence of a state can be
eroded without the use of armed force. Just how effective weapons of economic warfare
can be has been demonstrated in the first portion of this article detailing the facts of the
Arab oil embargo and the U.S. pressure against Chile. Turning to the purposes of the
United Nations, it is not obvious that only military force is inconsistent with these
objectives. Further it is hard to call these kinds of coercion a means of peaceful
settlement of dispute within the meaning of Article 1(1) and 2(3).
 Rejecting the wide interpretation argument good one- A comparison with other parts
of the Charter shows that in some provisions the term "force" is used without additional
explanations, whereas in other articles the language "armed force" is to be found.6 This
different terminology could lead to the conclusion that the word "force" without the
special addition "armed" has to be understood in a broader sense. This conclusion is,
however, unwarranted. Article 44, for example, speaks of "force" only, though it deals
with "armed" force as can easily be seen by an examination of its context.
 Argument Against wide interpretation-
Pg 20 –
Without this influence no normal economic and diplomatic relations between states are possible;
a minimum of influence and contact is essential and necessary for the peaceful co-existence of
nations and for the maintenance of peace. Two recent examples illustrate this phenomenon. The
United States imposed strong pressure on the government of South Vietnam in order to sign the
armistice agreement drafted by the U.S. and North Vietnam and in the most recent Middle-East
conflict the parties were forced to end the war under pressure from the two superpowers. Further
pressure is currently being used in attempts to bring about a final peace treaty. Thus, economic
and political coercion play an important role in the regulation of international conflicts, without
being collective measures authorized by organs of the United Nations.
For further interpretation we may look at the nexus between Article 2(4) and Articles 39 and 51
of the Charter. The Security Council's monopoly over the use of force laid down in Articles 39
and 42 is one of the counterparts of the prohibition of the use of force, Because of this close

economic and political means and pressures within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Charter.
14
BOWETr, SELF-DEFENSE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 148 (1958).
 relationship it is arguable that the terms "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of
aggression" in Article 39 constitute a disposition of the "force" prohibited in Article 2(4).
 Interpretation widely is also based on the preamble by various scholars of the eastern block-
Their arguments are based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations as formulated in
Articles I and 2 of the Charter: development of friendly relations, respect for the principles of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and achievement of international cooperation in
solving international problems of an economic or social character. They emphasize the economic
interdependence between states in our modern world. Due to this fact economic coercion is most
dangerous for the independence of a state and could be even more effective than armed force in
reducing a country's power of self-determination, especially if its economy depends primarily on
a single crop or on the export of a single product.
Representatives of the developing countries alleged that the use of economic and
political coercion is akin to the use of armed force and likely to achieve similar results.
As military hostilities become more and more unlikely, developed countries use their
economic capacity to obtain their political objectives, and as a result force their will upon
weaker states(pg 24)
The Western Powers opposed this view very strongly and argued that politics and
economic measures are intermingled and cannot always be separated. A certain degree
of uncertainty would be introduced if any kind of economic pressure were prohibited. The
sovereignty of states would generally be affected if states were allowed to denounce
certain economic measures of another state as "force." Nevertheless, delegates of
Western states admitted that a distinction should be drawn between economic pressure
used for the purpose of affecting the political independence of other states and other
kinds of pressure which are a mere corollary of economic necessities, not being used to
obtain these "tainted" objectives.
 WIDE INTERPRETATION BASED ON DRAFTING HISTORY:
This amendment was rejected by a vote of 26 to 2.69 From this legislative history it may
be concluded that the delegates in San Francisco opposed the idea of a broadly
construed Article 2 (4).'o Nevertheless, the session reports do not support this
conclusion: "The Delegate of the United States made it clear that the intention of the
Authors of the original text was to state in the broadest terms and absolute all-inclusive
prohibition; the phrase 'or in any other manner' was designed to insure that there should
be no loopholes. ' 71 According to these remarks the possibility that economic coercion
falls within the provisions of Article 2(4) is not absolutely excluded."2 Even if the vote
indicates a certain degree of hesitation by the conference to give the prohibition of force
a broad interpretation, one has to bear in mind that the United Nations Charter is no
historical monument, but a living instrument which continues to expand due to the
dynamic and progressive nature of our international society whose prime objectives is
still the maintenance of peace and security.

the practice of the United Nations, the results reached are confirmed; early resolutions of
the General Assembly indicate a narrow interpretation on the prohibition of the use of
force.7" More recent resolutions, on the other hand, deal expressly with economic and
political pressure and emphatically condemn this kind of coercion. Resolution 2131 (XX)
 "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention" has already been mentioned. Other
examples are Resolutions 1803 (XVIII) and 2160 (XXI). The latter, "Strict Observance of
the Prohibition of the Threat or Use of Force," states: Accordingly, armed attack by one
State against another or the use of force in any other form contrary to the Charter of the
United Nations constitutes a violation of international law giving rise to international
responsibility
 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION FOR WIDE INTERPRETATION-
On December 21, 1965 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 2131
(XX),14 the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States
and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty."
Paragraph 2 of this resolution reads:
No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to
coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination
of the exercise of its sovereign rights, or to secure from it advantages of any kind.
Resolution 2625 (XXV) by the General Assembly,: Further, the passage dealing with sovereign
equality reads in its original draft: "International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the
sovereign equality of States, in the spirit of understanding and without the use of any form of
pressure." ' Due to these facts it becomes evident that the use of any kind of pressure is contrary
to the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes.
 THESE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE MEANS TO SETTLE DISPUTES
Pg 30 – article 33 explains the general obligation- and enumerates various procedures
for pacific settlement- Negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their
own choice.
Even if this list is not considered to be exhaustive, it is quite clear that embargoes,
boycotts, blockades, reprisals, or other kinds of economic and political pressure do not
constitute procedures of pacific settlement. They are not peaceful means and not
appropriate for the solution of disputes. The use or imposition of such measures would
constitute a violation of the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means.

ARSIWA AND SANCTIONS

FOR SANCTIONS as Violations pg 98

 First and foremost, countermeasures can be imposed only as a response to a prior
violation of an international obligation477 and “are limited to the non-performance for the
time being of international obligation of the State taking the measures towards the
responsible State.

 Second, countermeasures can be directed only against a state responsible for an

internationally wrongful act.480 Third, countermeasures should be temporary in
character481 and proportionate to the initial violation of the international obligation.
Examining unilateral economic sanctions from the perspective of international law: With an
emphasis on human rights instruments
 Pg 2- Sanctions do not result in casualties outside the sanctioned government, but it
puts so much pressure on the embargoed country that it cannot resist it (Padover1942 p:
108)
 Paragraph 1 of the Declaration on the Prohibition of Interference in the Internal Affairs of
Governments stipulates that; "Armed intervention and all other forms of intervention, or
the beginning of threats against the character of the state or its political, economic and
cultural elements, violate international law."
 Five years after the Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 2625 was issued, entitled
"Declaration of the Principles of International Law on Friendly Relations and Cooperation
between States under the Charter of the United Nations"7 . The text of paragraph 1
above has been explicitly endorsed in the text of the abovementioned resolution, which
has been widely accepted as the competent text for the interpretation of the Charter of
the United Nations. (Rosenstock, 1971, p: 713).Are UN Resolutions binding ? - While
it is accepted that UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding, it should be noted
that these resolutions play a major role in the proclamation of existing customary law as
well as the emergence of customary rules. (O. Asamoah, 1967, pp. 46-62 pg 4
 The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights freely states the
right of all nations to selfdetermination and economic, social, and cultural
development8 . The UN General Assembly has also emphasized the principle of non-
interference through unilateral economic action in the Charter of Economic Rights and
Duties of States, adopted by the 1974 UN General Assembly.
 Pg 3- Unilateral sanctions imposed outside the mechanism are illegal under the Charter
of the United Nations. According to Article 39 of the Charter, the Security Council will
make recommendations and recommendations on the existence of any threat to peace,
breach of peace, or act of aggression. Article 41 of the Charter, therefore, provides a set
of measures that can be imposed by the United Nations Security Council. Accordingly,
the Council may request member States to implement the measures adopted by the
Council.
 MOST BASIC POINT ON SOVEREIGNITY: To preserve the sovereignty of states,
customary international law has historically prohibited coercive interference in the
internal affairs of states (Jennings and Watts, 1992, pp: 129). However, due to
increasing economic interdependence between governments, a non-coercive
economic pressure has the same consequences as a coercive intervention in
practice and ultimately leads to the fact that; a strong government can impose its
domestic policies on weak governments. Hence, the economic pressure exerted by
the sanctioning government forces the sanctioned government to change its policies
within its territory. This situation, whether with or withou t the use of force, is in practice
equivalent to intervention (Nyun, 2008, p: 499)//////// (This principle prohibits all
governments or groups from interfering directly or indirectly in the internal and
external affairs of other governments. Prohibited interference should be about issues
that any government is allowed to decide freely because of the principle of sovereignty.
These include the choice of the political, economic
  Read about the doctrine of affects propunded by the US while justifying the unilateral
sanctions- pg 7 – allows the congress to pass laws affecting foreign terrritories if risk to
internal security. Many nations say that extra territorial jurisdiction applies to only acts
that violate the fundamental norms of international law. - The doctrine of influence is
neither part of customary international law nor acceptable based on the rules of
international jurisdiction of States (Evans, 1997, pp: 216, 226)
 Given the universally accepted right to development, the United States remains hostile
to this right and has often voted against resolutions promoting or upholding it30 .
However, the US position cannot meet its international obligations in this regard.
Regardless of how a state deals with an international treaty (For example, a state not
signing or exercising a reservation right to a treaty), - now taking away the right to
development is coercive and against sovereignity. - Secondary US sanctions are
considered an intervention in the sovereignty of a third state because these sanctions
affect the national sovereignty of that country (Meyer, 2009, pp. 905-968).
 The right to development is one of the inalienable human rights that are inherently
related to the sovereignty of the people (manchak, 2010, pp: 417-451). Article 1 and
paragraph B of Article 55 of the Charter of the United Nations, obliges member states to
develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the sovereignty of
nations, to raise living standards, and to provide employment for economic and social
development. The right to self-determination not only obliges states to respect and
promote this right but also obliges them to refrain from any coercive action that deprives
people of this right (Umozurike). , 2005, p: 208).
 The right to self-determination not only obliges states to respect and promote this right
but also obliges them to refrain from any coercive action that deprives people of this right
(Umozurike). , 2005, p: 208)
 The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) on 14 December
1960, entitled the Declaration of Independence of States and Peoples37. This decree
stipulates: "All people have the right to self-determination; "Using this right, they
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and political
development." (Extraterritorial Application of National Legislation, ”p: 11). The result of
the right to self-determination is that all people have the inherent right to choose their
preferred government as the basis for political, economic

Julia
 Extra territorial sanctions amounting to access restrictions are legal based on nationality
and terrtitorial restrictions- pg 15
 The law on sanctions is still developing and not all areas have been clearly developed
yet. This applies in particular to states’ remaining powers of self-help, next to the UN’s
competence to impose centralised sanctions based on
 Although the counsel for Nicaragua argued that the cessation of economic aid, a
significant ‘reduction in the sugar quota for United States imports from Nicaragua’, as
well as the trade embargo would ‘add up to a systematic violation of the principle of non-
intervention’, the Court found that it was ‘unable to regard such action on the economic
plane as is here complained of a as a breach of the customary-law principle of non-
 intervention’.138 Nevertheless, this does not necessarily seem to imply that an embargo
or the cessation of aid could never constitute an intervention.(pg 26)

Against Sanctions as Violations

 A number of procedural preconditions apply to countermeasures, such as the

requirement to call on the responsible state to fulfil its obligations,487 the requirement to
notify the responsible state of a decision to take countermeasures and offer to
negotiate,488 and a prohibition on imposing countermeasures if an internationally
wrongful act has ceased489 or if there is a pending dispute before a court or tribunal
which is authorised to issue a binding decision.
 The rationale for unilateral sanctions is that; the severe economic difficulties caused by
the economic sanctions force the political opponents in the target government to stand
up against their leaders and demand changes and force the target government to
change the protested behavior. (Askari et al., 2003 pp: 68-69).
 Economic sanctions have also raised human rights concerns. Because the harmful and
destructive effects of these sanctions on the living conditions of the citizens of the
country increase the possibility of violating basic human rights such as the right to
adequate food, access to basic medicines, the right to health, etc. (Javed, 2014: 107)
which somehow affects the right of self determination.
 PG 3 - Unilateral sanctions are not in conflict with the Charter, as Article 4 4 4 of the
Charter prohibits only (threat or use of force) unilaterally. Therefore, the prohibition in the
Charter cannot include unilateral economic sanctions of states against each other.
Because these sanctions do not involve any force or even threat of use of force, Article 4
4 4 of the UN Charter prohibits members from threatening to use force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Cleveland, 2001, pp. 50-52).
 PG 4 - However, according to the traditional interpretation, the most important goal of
classical international law was to regulate military action and the use of the armed
forces, not foreign trade policies (Queguiner, 2006, p. 793). Therefore, according to this
interpretation, countries are completely free in their economic policies towards other
governments, including economic sanctions, and do not contradict the UN Charter

Examining unilateral economic sanctions from the perspective of international law: With an
emphasis on human rights instruments

JULIA
 Helms Burton Act – 184 states oppose it- 184 states voted in favour of a UN General Assembly
Resolution which in its preamble expresses concerns about the Helms-Burton Act, ‘the
extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of
entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation’ and which
‘call[s] upon all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind
referred to in the preamble to the present resolution, in conformity with their obligations under
the Charter of the United Nations and international law .
  POINT That of Jurisdiction from the previous article.
 Today, the rules of jurisdiction are rather understood to ‘define the limits of the
powers of coexisting “sovereigns”’, and international law developed permissive rules
for states’ jurisdiction to prescribe.
 Both nationality and territorality principles are not being obeyed and the other countries
are coerced into falling into foreign policy preferences.
 Although some states consider themselves to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over
foreign companies that are controlled by their nationals, including the USA, the ‘control
theory’ is not widely accepted,88 and difficult to bring in line with the reasoning of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Barcelona Traction case
 Unilateral sanctions need to respect principles of necessity and proportionality,pg 22
 Pg 23- comprehensive embargo which extra territorially directs other states- violates
both the principles of sovereignity.
 Counter measures – pg 25- u cannot qualify as an injured state world wide.

Northern continental shelf case summary

Rights Based

For sanctions as violation

Article 2(4)
Could be argued that the humanitarian effects of sanctions are same as that of military
blockades.
Sanctions violate right to life : In Venezuela, for example, there was a 31 percent increase in
mortality rate from 2017 to 2018.34 Also, in the same year in North Korea more than 3,968
people died including 3,193 children under age 5 and 72 pregnant women among them, as a
result of sanctions-related humanitarian consequences. 35 Regarding Iran, sanctions’ effect on
the right to life of peoples has been recognized to some other vulnerable industries such as the
civil aviation system.
Right to food, water etc. pg 11
Right to health pg 12- iran experienced high food prices due to US sanctions.
The right to development as another vulnerable right to sanctions was reaffirmed in a number of
international documents, including the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993.47
In the face of sanctions, the vulnerable right to development could result in job losses, inflation,
economic inefficiency, and eventually impoverishment, threatening international stability
As a result, Article 2(4) of the Charter, which primarily applies to the use of force in times of war,
may be extended to other circumstances, such as those sanctioning regimes, in which the
enumerated rights are flagrantly violated
This means the humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions should be extremely high { can use
this point to argue from both sides]
  Citation 15- n that unilateral economic measures violate the U.N. Charter and the
customary international law principle of nonintervention is becoming broadly recognized
by many states and international organizations, and can be seen in many resolutions of
the General Assembly.15
 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-
operation among States, the majority of U.N. member states affirmed that “no State may
use or encourage the use of unilateral economic, political or any other type of measures
to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its
sovereign rights unilateral economic sanctions violate the sovereignty of the target.”81 A
similar provision was contained in the 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of
States,82 and in the Charter of the Organization of American State

Self De Oxford
Another is the effect of EU legislation on Arctic indigenous peoples’
communities.122 European Directive 83/129/EEC of 1982 prohibited the importation into the
European Economic Community of skins and other products derived from seal
pups.123 While the makers of the directive did not appear to expect any adverse effects on
indigenous peoples, and indeed the directive in its preamble recalled that traditionally-
practiced hunting does not harm seal pups and is ‘a natural and legitimate occupation,
conducted with due respect for the balance of nature, and part of indigenous peoples’
traditional way of life and economy’, the ban in fact triggered the collapse of the EU market
for seal furs.124 In turn, this affected the Inuit economy, which depended on the cash income
from the fur market. Although a later version of the directive made an exception for Inuit
hunting, Canadian Inuit were still disproportionately affected, and in any case the market
had long since collapsed.125 This example shows that the regulatory acts of IOs may affect
not only peoples within their member states, but also peoples who are ‘distant strangers’ or
‘global others’ due to being located in a state, or states, that are not members of the
organization

Against Sanctions as violations

 Unilateral sanctions must have the same humanitarian effects as military blockades to be
considered force and violate the UN Charter’s principle of state sovereignty.
Article 2(4) only applies to the threat or use of military force. The ICJ’s decision in Military and
Paramilitary clearly stated that the scope of force does not include economic coercion and that
sanctions did not violate Article 2(4). 31 Even the UN, which was established shortly after World

15
See G.A. Res. 44/215, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/215 (Dec. 22, 1989); G.A. Res. 46/210, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/46/210 (Dec. 20, 1991); G.A. Res. 48/168, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/168 (Dec. 21, 1993); G.A. Res.
50/96, U.N. Doc. A/RES/50/96 (Dec. 20, 1995); G.A. Res. 52/181, U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/181 (Dec. 18,
1997); G.A. Res. 54/200, U.N. Doc. A/RES/54/200 (Dec. 22, 1999); G.A. Res. 56/179, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/56/179 (Dec. 21, 2001); G.A. Res. 58/198, U.N. Doc. A/RES/58/198 (Dec. 23, 2003); G.A. Res.
60/185, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/185 (Dec. 22, 2005); G.A. Res.
War II (“WWII”), plainly demonstrates that Article 2(4) was not intended to cover economic
sanctions.\
 Unilateral sanctions may become an illegal intervention in matters primarily within the
domestic jurisdiction of targeted states, arguably violating the Charter’s non-intervention
principle. There is no intervention in matter related to your domestic matter it is our
buisness who we choose to trade with.
 argue that nonintervention has never established a rule against economic coercion, and
that it remains altogether unclear to what extent the principle of nonintervention prohibits
certain economic sanctions.16
 While it is commonly suggested to help building democracy extraterritorially, application
of any coercive measures such as economic sanctions aiming at overturning the
targeted state is prohibited under international law.17
 In this case, the political relationships between the two parties should be examined when
determining whether the principle of nonintervention has been breached.18
 Sender states may justify sanctions as an assertion of their own sovereign right to
regulate the trade relations with other nations based on a theory of “economic freedom. 19
Proponents of the economic freedom argument assert that principle of sovereignty
provides sender states with a right to freely chose the states with which they engage in
economic relationships, including the right to refrain from engaging in economic relations
with a targeted state.
 CASELAWS TO SUPPORT POINT : The PICJ held in Lotus that, absent a rule or law to
the contrary, a state could make laws relating to people or events outside of its physical
territory, and as a result, states are comparatively free to create laws and rules with
extraterritorial effect, including to whom having economic relations. Accordingly, these
actions with no coercion, albeit unfriendly, are considered retorsion hence lawful,
because, in the absence of a treaty, the sender state has no obligation to the target. In
addition, in the Military and Paramilitary decision, the ICJ supported the theory of
economic freedom by affirming that “a state is not bound to continue particular trade
16
See Mergen Doraev, The Memory Effect of Economic Sanctions against Russia: Opposing Approaches to the
Legality of Unilateral Sanctions Clash Again, 37 UNIV. PA. J. INT’L L. 375, fn. 79 (2015). 54 In the 1970 Friendly
Relations Declaration, for example, it is specified that any attempt to sub
17
For example, the Organization of African Unity (“OAU”) established the Convention for the Elimination of
Mercenaryism in Africa, which states in Article 1 that mercenaries hired to overthrow governments or OAU-
recognized liberation movements commit crimes against peace and security, making it the most aggressive
international codification of mercenaryism’s criminality. Convention of the OAU for the Elimination of
Mercenaryism in Africa art. 1, July 3, 1977, O.A.U. Doc. CM/817 (XXIX) Rev.1, 1490 U.N.T.S. 25573; See Peter
W. Singer, War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law, 42 COLUM. J.
TRANSNAT'L L. 521, 528 (2003).
18
8 For example, while economic cooperation with another country is permissible, financial assistance for a certain
presidential candidate or imposing sanctions with the aim of changing the current president in that state may be
regarded as an illegal intervention. Foreign electoral interventions are covert or overt attempts by governments to
influence elections in another country. The most extensive foreign electoral interventions in 2018 were by China in
Taiwan and Russia in Latvia; the next highest levels were in Bahrain, Qatar, and Hungary; while the lowest levels
were in Trinidad and Tobago, Switzerland, and Uruguay. See generally Anna Lührmann & Staffan I. Lindberg,
Democracy Facing Global Challenges, V-DEM ANNUAL DEMOCRACY REPORT, 2019.
19
Non-performance of trade relationships may also be considered a legitimate act of self-help and
recognized as an element of economic statecraft. See Doraev, supra note 53, at 380.
 relations longer than it sees fit to do so, in the absence of a treaty commitment or other
specific legal obligations.”20
 Retorsions are lawful in international law and solely may be challenged on the basis of
violations of international conventional law and treaties such as the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (“GAAT”) and the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”). Anti-dumping and
countervailing duty laws, as well as importation bans on specific types of products by
specific manufacturers (such as ZTE, Huawei, and possibly TikTok), are among the U.S.
retorsions. The national security exception normally is included in most bilateral and
multilateral treaties specifying that a treaty shall not preclude the application of
retorsions if the action is necessary to fulfill the obligations of a party for the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, or necessary to protect
its essential security interests.21
 However, the range of these actions that can be justified as retorsions should not be
increased to include the use of coercion and turn them into sanctions. For instance,
sanctions such as those imposed by the U.S. against Russia in response to the Ukraine
crisis cannot be justified on the basis of the permissive national security exception in
U.S. treaties. Otherwise, the national security exception might be contested as being
susceptible to state abuse, having an overly broad definition, and undermining the main
purpose of international trade laws.22
 Look at pg 34, 35 to argue that even though the under developed and developing nations
support the notion of economic sanctions as amounting to intervention-
 CITATION 15- I argue that while on political and diplomatic levels the United States and
Russia demonstrate opposite views towards the legality of unilateral economic
sanctions, today, at its very core, the actual activity of both states tends to make
unilateral sanctions more recognizable as a part of international customary law.
 Citation 15 pg 27- foreign trade is a matter of national sovereignty, and there are no
international law restrictions that would limit a state’s sovereign right to regulate its trade
relations with other nations.23
 Professor Alexander points out that “states are relatively free under the rules of state
responsibility in customary international law to adopt unilateral economic sanctions
against states, entities and individuals.”24

20
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J.
Rep. 14, ¶ 276 (June 27
21
22
The national security exception is specifically challenged by members of the GATT. For example, the
1986 Panel Report regarding US sanctions affecting Nicaragua, held that the US cannot justify its
sanctions by invoking Article XXI which is regarding the national security exception. See Doraev, supra
note 53, at 378–9
23
See generally J. Dapray Muir, The Boycott in International Law, in ECONOMIC COERCION AND THE
NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER 19, 26-28 (Richard B. Lillich ed., 1976)
24
Exec. Order No. 13685 79 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec. 19, 2014). See also OFAC, General License No. 4 of
Dec. 19, 2014 (Authorizing the Exportation or Reexportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine,
Medical Supplies, and Replacement Parts), available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/Programs/Documents/ukraine_gl4.pdf; OFAC, General License No. 5 of Dec. 30, 2014
(Authorizing Certain Activities Prohibited by Executive Order 13685 of Dec. 19, 2014 Necessary to Wind
Down Operations Involving the Crimea Region of Ukraine), available at
  Traditional international law adopted a laissez-faire approach toward the economic right
and duties of States, and it has long been considered an inherent right of an
independent, sovereign state to exercise full control over its trade relations, including the
withholding of export and prohibition of import with respect to any other state or states,
absent treaty commitments to the contrary . . . Economic pressure may be unfriendly
and even unfair, but economic coercion, per se,25
 Why do the resolutions not constitute customary international law? - In its advisory
opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the ICJ established
that a resolution can provide “evidence of a rule or the emergence of an opinio juris”,
which can be determined following an examination of “its content and the conditions of
its adoption” as well as an examination of “whether an opinio juris exists as to its
normative character”. 102 A resolution will not have normative value if it is adopted by a
divided vote and if the alleged rule refers to general principles of international law rather
than to a more specific one.103 A further obstacle to a resolution’s normative value
would be the contradictory State practice outside the United Nations.104 In addition, we
can refer to the criteria outlined by Professor Dupuy, acting as Sole Arbitrator in the
Texaco v. Libya case (1978), for establishing a resolution’s normative value: the type of
resolution, the votes and their circumstances, and the legal provision. a large majority
adopts the resolutions, it only represents slightly above two-thirds of the Member States,
thus carrying less quantitative weight. In addition, the vote remains heavily divided,
especially in the case of the topic Human rights and unilateral coercive measures,
and the majority is insufficiently representative of a variety of States.
 . Measures of coercion are mainly condemned because of their effects on human rights
or on the targeted State’s economy; States appear to be objecting to the misuse of
UCM. The only clear legal claim would be that coercive measures cannot be adopted
without a UNSC mandate, but this is immediately countered by US and EU’s voting
patterns and their consistent adoption of non-UN sanctions.
 100 pg doc pg 2: Retorsion belongs to the instruments of self-help deployed unilaterally
by states. These instruments may be punitive or may aim at goals such as retribution or
deterrence.342 Scholars provide numerous examples of the acts that fall under the
definition of retorsion: “terminating the payment of development aid or the provision of
military assistance; unilaterally imposing legally permissible economic sanctions such as
an arms embargo; recognition of a situation (the sovereignty of a third State over
territory also claimed by the target State); suspending, terminating, or refusing to prolong
a treaty; and withdrawing from an international organization in order to protest this
organization’s political activities.”343 The proportionality requirement, which is of
significance for countermeasures, does not apply to acts of retorsion.


http://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/sanctions/Programs/Documents/ukraine_gl5.pd
25
OMER YOUSIF ELAGAB, THE LEGALITY OF NON-FORCIBLE COUNTER-MEASURES IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW 202-203 (1988) (citing Digest USPIL 577 (1976))
MOOT MEMO FDI –
USE that for arguing for the illegality of sanctions.
https://www.fdimoot.org/Archive/2016/ClaimantMemorials/Ferrari.pdf

Economic sanctions harm self determination

As
1. Weakening Economic Development: Economic sanctions can hinder the economic
development of a targeted country by limiting its access to foreign markets, technology,
and investment. This can lead to decreased living standards, unemployment, and
reduced opportunities for economic growth, affecting the ability of people within the
targeted country to improve their own well-bein(the whole right to development
jurisprudence)
2. Impeding Basic Needs: Sanctions can lead to shortages of essential goods such as food,
medicine, and other humanitarian supplies, which can have a direct impact on the
population's health and well-being. This can be seen as a violation of the right to an
adequate standard of living, a fundamental aspect of the right to self-determination.
3. Impact on Human Rights: Economic sanctions can exacerbate human rights abuses by
destabilizing economies and causing social unrest. This can further limit a nation's ability
to ensure the protection of human rights and individual freedoms.is already ther in the
doc adverse impacts
REMEMBER THAT IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO TREATY OBLIGATION

OAU and Cartgena – refugee convention definition is narrow.

CIL
Tietoa Case- Jane Mcadam –imminent – reasonably forseeable – might not be rapid only but
also gradual.
Artocle 15- no one should be arbitrarily deprived of nationality
Statelessness convention 1961 – his country

Aadarsh issue-
CIL, Economic Damage,
Lumina violated – CIL –
Victim definition- 132 citation-
Reparation – restrore to the same state- cocmpensation –
Grabhcious v n – amount –
Choros factory- the wrongdoer has the obligation to make the situation if the wrong situation
has not occurred. \
Reparation –restitution compensation