Document Type : Original Independent Original Article
Author
Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Highlights
Introduction
Powerful countries have over years imposed unilateral sanctions on other countries with which they have been in conflict. During these years, the United States has imposed unilateral sanctions against countries such as Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, and China, which have placed heavy and unbearable pressures on the political system, politicians and, most importantly, the general public, leading to increased poverty, reduced economic development, and lack of access to essential human needs, to mention just a few. However, the perpetrators of these sanctions (especially the United States) have always justified their actions under the guise of democratization, legitimate defense, protection of individual freedom, removal of international threats, etc. However, the problem is that although these sanctions are claimed to essentially have certain reasons and justifications, they sometimes face objections. Hence, the main research question is, what is the rationale behind the U.S.'s unilateral sanctions, and what is the place of these sanctions in international law? The hypothesis is that the United States' reasons for these sanctions are: protection of its national interests and security, the inability of international institutions to implement smart sanctions, the need to attract the support of NGOs and voters for politicians, and asymmetric U.S. economic power. However, these sanctions have no legal basis except in cases of "reciprocity" and are condemned under international law. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the objectives and reasons for imposing unilateral sanctions and to examine their legality from the perspective of international law.
Research Method
This study was conducted based on the principles of the scientific-experimental method. The abductive research strategy was used in this applied, case, and trend study.
Findings
Findings show that unilateral economic sanctions are those imposed on a country by one or more countries without the permission of the Security Council mainly for retaliation, revenge or revision in policies inconsistent with the interests of the sanctioning country/countries.
The United States has a very transparent legal framework for imposing sanctions. Its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces the sanctions and calls them targeted sanctions. It has increased the number of sanctions in recent years. Its reasons for these sanctions are: protection of its national interests and security, the inability of international institutions to implement smart sanctions, the need to attract the support of NGOs and voters for politicians, and asymmetric U.S. economic power.
However, the opponents of sanctions argue that the imposition of sanctions have no legal basis in international law for a variety of reasons. According to Articles 1 (2), 2 (1) and 74 of the UN Charter, the imposition of unilateral sanctions violates the principles of the Charter, the principle of equality of states, the development of friendly relations and good neighborliness, and consideration of each other's interests and well-being. Also, according to Article 2 (4) of the Charter, "force" has received a mostly non-Western interpretation as a general concept to include economic pressures as well. It emphasizes the prohibition of any pressure in any way. Article 2 (7) of the Charter relates to the violation of the principle of sovereignty of states and non-intervention in their internal affairs. It is a general concept that includes any action that affects individuals, sovereignty and power. In another view, it considers the intention of intervention as well; if it is proven that the intention of punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions is to impose one's will upon another country, it will be considered intervention in internal affairs and is thus condemned.
These sanctions are also condemned by UN resolutions. Although these resolutions do not create legally binding obligations, they "may reflect or contribute to the development of customary international law". Resolutions such as 2131, 2625, 3201, and 3281 mention and condemn such sanctions.
These sanctions also violate human rights. The opponents of these sanctions emphasize their negative impact on all forms of human basic rights, arguing that, as defined by the UN Commission on Human Rights, economic sanctions are in conflict with the fundamental principles of justice and human rights. These sanctions are also a serious obstacle to international investment and financial exchange and have an irreparable impact on the human rights of all people, especially the poorest classes of society, and have devastating impacts on all members of society.
Economic sanctions may also violate the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Given the primacy of the principles of international law over those of domestic law in cases of conflict, if the sanctions are extraterritorial in nature and, in addition to the individuals, institutions and companies of the sanctioned country, they punish other countries, companies and individuals cooperating with the sanctioned country, they will be considered a violation of extraterritorial jurisdiction and be subject to serious legal problems.
Finally, states also have responsibility for engagement in international violent acts. These sanctions can be in conflict with this principle. According to Articles 42 and 48, these unilateral sanctions are prohibited except in the case of "reciprocity". "Reciprocity" is illegal if the government in question fails to justify its intentions by proving violations of international law.
Yet, the term "reciprocity" can give the perpetrators of these sanctions the pretext to interpret and abuse it the way they like. Accordingly, the main argument here is to prove reciprocity or non-reciprocity.
Results
It can be concluded that powerful countries, especially the United States, have the ability to impose sanctions on other countries unilaterally, despite their prohibition in international law, except in the case of reciprocity. It was also shown that countries, especially the United States, have their own reasons for imposing sanctions, which are mainly political rather than legal. Their main reason is to maintain its security and national interests. Given its high economic power and the dependence of other countries on its economic system, the United States reserves itself the right to exceptionally impose sanctions on other countries. These sanctions were shown to have no legal basis under numerous articles of the UN Charter, UN resolutions, human rights, the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the responsibility of states to engage in international violent acts. However, there are cases where we encounter dual interpretations of the text of the Charter regarding unilateral sanctions. These interpretations are mainly Western and do not confirm the legal prohibition of the sanctions, nor do they support and affirm them.
Keywords
Main Subjects
', './data/isjq/coversheet/651656180806.jpg'))