Economic Sanctions under International Law: Legality and Limits

I. Introduction: The Normalization of Economic Sanctions

Economic Sanctions under International Law have become one of the dominant tools of contemporary statecraft, used to influence the behaviour of states, entities, and individuals without crossing the threshold of armed force. Their modern appeal is straightforward: sanctions promise “action” when military options are politically costly, diplomatically risky, or legally constrained. Yet this normalization has outpaced legal clarity. The result is a persistent gap between frequent use and contested legality, especially where sanctions are imposed unilaterally, extended extraterritorially, or produce severe civilian harm.

Two developments explain why sanctions have moved from episodic measures to an institutionalized feature of international relations. First, major powers increasingly treat economic pressure as a substitute for military intervention, particularly after the Cold War, when the political tolerance for long wars declined while expectations of “doing something” in crises remained. Second, sanctions practice has shifted away from comprehensive embargoes toward “targeted” or “smart” measures—asset freezes, financial restrictions, travel bans, sectoral controls—intended to concentrate pressure on decision-makers and strategic sectors rather than whole populations. This shift is partly a reaction to the humanitarian consequences associated with broad-based sanctions in the 1990s and early 2000s, and it is now embedded in both UN and regional sanctions design.

Normalization, however, does not mean legalization. International law has no single, universally accepted definition of “economic sanctions,” and the term is often used to describe legally distinct phenomena: retorsion (unfriendly yet lawful acts), countermeasures (otherwise unlawful measures justified under strict conditions), and collective sanctions authorized by the UN Security Council. The legal status of a measure depends on which category it fits, not on how policymakers label it. This definitional instability is one reason sanctions debates frequently talk past each other: critics often challenge “sanctions” as coercion or collective punishment, while defenders reframe them as legitimate regulation of trade, finance, or access to markets.

The legal controversy is sharpest for unilateral sanctions imposed without Security Council authorization. These measures are widely used, but their justification oscillates between two competing narratives. One narrative treats sanctions as an expression of a state’s economic sovereignty: states can choose with whom to trade, invest, or transact. The opposing narrative treats many unilateral regimes as coercive interference that violates the principle of non-intervention and, in some configurations, infringes the sovereign equality of states. The controversy is not academic. It affects compliance incentives, third-state reactions, countersanctions, and the stability of the trade and financial system.

Another reason sanctions legality is difficult is that sanctions operate across multiple legal regimes at once. A sanctions program can trigger, simultaneously, questions under:

• The UN Charter order (collective security, sovereign equality, non-intervention)

• The law of state responsibility (countermeasures, proportionality, procedural duties)

• International trade law (GATT/GATS obligations and exceptions, especially security exceptions)

• International human rights law (due process in targeted sanctions; foreseeable humanitarian harm; impacts on socio-economic rights)

• Jurisdiction and immunities (extraterritorial reach; secondary sanctions; treatment of state assets and officials)

Because these frameworks do not always align, a measure can be defensible in one legal register and problematic in another. For example, a state may argue that a trade restriction is justified under a security exception in trade law, while another state frames the same measure as unlawful coercion or as an impermissible extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction. Recent WTO litigation has highlighted how national security claims can be assessed through legal reasoning rather than treated as purely self-judging political determinations, even though the scope and standard of review remain contested in practice.

Human rights concerns deepen the legitimacy problem. Sanctions are now routinely defended as humane because they are targeted; yet targeted sanctions raise their own legal issues, particularly regarding procedural fairness, evidence standards, and access to an effective remedy for listed persons. The UN’s own architecture has evolved to respond to due process critiques in counter-terrorism listings, including the development of review mechanisms such as an independent Ombudsperson in specific regimes. This illustrates a broader point: as sanctions normalize, pressure grows for legal safeguards that make coercion more accountable.

At the same time, the international system remains divided on the broader humanitarian and developmental impacts of unilateral coercive measures. UN human rights bodies and mandate-holders have repeatedly documented negative effects linked to sanctions, secondary sanctions, and overcompliance, particularly on vulnerable groups and essential sectors. These findings are often disputed by sanctioning states, which argue that humanitarian exceptions, licensing systems, and targeted design mitigate harm. The legal relevance of this debate is unavoidable because foreseeability of harm, proportionality, and the duty to respect core protections intersect with the claimed legality of the measures.

This article addresses the normalization of sanctions through a focused legal question: when are economic sanctions lawful under international law, and what limits constrain them? The central claim developed across the article is that legality is clearest at two poles—Security Council sanctions under Chapter VII, and countermeasures that satisfy the strict conditions codified and elaborated in the law of state responsibility—while the broad middle category of unilateral sanctions pursued for general policy objectives, especially those with extraterritorial “secondary” effects, remains legally fragile and politically divisive.

The analysis proceeds on the premise that sanctions must be evaluated as legal instruments, not merely as policy preferences. That requires disciplined classification, careful attention to primary rules (Charter principles, trade obligations, human rights protections) and secondary rules (state responsibility), and a realistic account of contemporary practice. The objective is not to treat frequent use as proof of legality, nor to assume illegality from controversy alone, but to identify the doctrinal pathways that make sanctions lawful, the recurring fault lines that make them unlawful, and the institutional design features that determine legitimacy in practice.

II. Defining Economic Sanctions in International Law

The concept of economic sanctions occupies an uneasy position in international law, largely because it lacks a single, authoritative definition. Neither the United Nations Charter nor customary international law provides a comprehensive legal meaning of “economic sanctions.” Instead, the term is used descriptively to capture a wide range of restrictive economic measures adopted for political or security-related purposes. This absence of definitional precision is not merely semantic; it has direct consequences for legal analysis, because the legality of a measure depends on its juridical classification, not on the political label attached to it.

At its broadest, economic sanctions can be understood as deliberate restrictions on economic relations imposed by one or more subjects of international law with the aim of influencing the conduct of another state, entity, or individual. These restrictions may affect trade, financial transactions, investment, access to markets, movement of capital, or control over assets. Yet such a general description conceals crucial legal distinctions. International law does not treat all economically restrictive acts in the same way. Some are lawful by default, some are conditionally lawful, and others are prohibited unless justified under narrowly defined exceptions.

1. Sanctions as an Umbrella Term

In legal doctrine, “sanctions” function primarily as an umbrella term rather than a technical category. It often conflates at least four different types of measures:

• Retorsion,

• Reprisals,

• Countermeasures, and

• Collective sanctions are authorized by international organizations, most notably the UN Security Council.

  
  

Each of these categories is governed by different legal rules. Failure to distinguish among them is a recurrent source of analytical error in both political discourse and legal argumentation.

2. Retorsion: Lawful but Unfriendly Acts

Retorsion refers to unfriendly yet lawful acts taken in response to objectionable conduct by another state. Typical examples include the withdrawal of trade preferences, suspension of aid programs, termination of bilateral agreements in accordance with their terms, or restrictions on diplomatic privileges that remain within the bounds of international law.

From a legal perspective, retorsion does not raise issues of justification because the acts involved are lawful in themselves. A state is generally free to decide with whom it trades, invests, or cooperates economically, provided it does not breach treaty obligations or customary rules. Many measures commonly described as “sanctions” fall into this category, particularly when they consist of non-discriminatory refusals to engage in economic relations.

3. Reprisals and the Evolution Toward Countermeasures

Historically, the term “reprisals” was used to describe coercive responses to internationally wrongful acts. Over time, this concept evolved and was refined through state practice and codification efforts, culminating in the modern doctrine of countermeasures as reflected in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

In contemporary international law, non-forcible reprisals are subsumed under the concept of countermeasures. The older terminology survives mainly in historical accounts and political rhetoric. This evolution reflects an attempt to discipline coercive practices by subjecting them to procedural and substantive constraints.

4. Countermeasures: Conditional Legality

Countermeasures occupy a central place in debates on economic sanctions. They refer to otherwise unlawful acts that become temporarily lawful when taken in response to a prior internationally wrongful act, provided strict conditions are met. These conditions include:

• The existence of a prior internationally wrongful act attributable to the target state,

• A demand for cessation and reparation,

• Proportionality between the injury suffered and the measures adopted,

• Reversibility and temporality of the measures,

• The exclusive purpose of inducing compliance with international law rather than punishment.

Many unilateral economic sanctions are defended as countermeasures. However, this justification is legally demanding. Measures adopted without a clearly established breach, or for broadly defined policy objectives such as regime change or generalized deterrence, struggle to fit within the countermeasures framework.

5. Collective Sanctions and Institutional Authorization

A distinct category consists of collective economic sanctions imposed by international organizations, above all the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These measures differ fundamentally from unilateral sanctions in legal character.

Security Council sanctions derive their legality from institutional authorization rather than from the law of state responsibility. Once adopted, they are binding on all UN Member States and prevail over conflicting treaty obligations. Their collective nature is often cited as a source of enhanced legitimacy, even though their humanitarian and legal implications remain subject to scrutiny.

6. Unilateral Sanctions as a Residual Category

The most contested category comprises unilateral economic sanctions imposed outside a competent international organization and without a direct prior injury. These measures do not neatly qualify as retorsion, and they frequently fail to satisfy the conditions for countermeasures. Their legal basis is therefore uncertain.

Supporters of unilateral sanctions often rely on arguments grounded in economic sovereignty and evolving state practice. Critics emphasize their coercive character and incompatibility with principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality. The absence of consensus on their legal status explains why unilateral sanctions remain one of the most divisive issues in contemporary international law.

7. Targeted and Sectoral Measures

Modern sanctions practice increasingly favors targeted or sectoral measures, such as asset freezes, financial restrictions, travel bans, and controls on specific industries. These techniques are designed to minimize humanitarian harm and increase precision. Legally, however, targeted design does not resolve foundational questions of authority and justification. A targeted measure can still be unlawful if it violates due process guarantees, exceeds jurisdictional limits, or lacks a valid legal basis.

8. The Importance of Precise Classification

Defining economic sanctions in international law is not an abstract exercise. Classification determines which legal regime applies, which standards of review are relevant, and which defenses are available. Without precise categorization, debates about legality risk collapsing into political disagreement rather than legal reasoning.

For this reason, any serious assessment of sanctions must begin by disaggregating the concept into its constituent legal forms. Only then is it possible to evaluate claims of legality, responsibility, and compliance in a structured and disciplined manner.

III. Economic Sanctions under the UN Charter Framework

The UN Charter provides the central normative framework for assessing the legality of economic sanctions in contemporary international law. Although the Charter does not explicitly regulate “economic sanctions” as such, its foundational principles—sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the collective security system—shape both the permissibility and limits of coercive economic measures. Any analysis of Economic Sanctions under International Law must therefore begin with the Charter order and the distribution of authority it establishes between individual states and collective institutions.

1. The Prohibition of Force and Its Economic Boundary

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. As a matter of settled interpretation, economic sanctions do not, in themselves, constitute “force” in the sense of Article 2(4). The prevailing view in doctrine and practice is that the concept of force is confined to armed or military force.

This does not mean, however, that economic coercion is legally neutral. The Charter deliberately separates the prohibition of force from other constraints on state conduct, leaving room for non-forcible but still unlawful forms of pressure. Economic sanctions, therefore, fall outside Article 2(4) but remain subject to other Charter principles, particularly the prohibition of intervention and the rules governing collective security.

2. The Principle of Non-Intervention

The principle of non-intervention occupies a pivotal position in debates on unilateral economic sanctions. Rooted in Article 2(7) of the Charter and customary international law, it prohibits coercive interference in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of states.

The legal difficulty lies in determining when economic pressure becomes “coercive” in the relevant sense. Not every adverse economic effect amounts to unlawful intervention. States routinely adopt policies—tariffs, export controls, investment restrictions—that affect others without breaching international law. Intervention arises only when measures are designed to compel a state to adopt or abandon specific policies in areas reserved to its sovereign discretion.

Many unilateral sanctions are explicitly aimed at influencing internal political choices, governance structures, or leadership decisions. In such cases, the line between permissible economic pressure and unlawful intervention becomes thin. This explains why sanctions practice has generated persistent disagreement within the UN system, particularly between sanctioning states and those that emphasize strict adherence to sovereignty and non-interference.

3. Collective Security and the Role of the Security Council

The clearest legal basis for economic sanctions under the UN Charter arises within the collective security system established in Chapter VII. When the Security Council determines the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, it may decide on measures not involving the use of armed force. These measures expressly include economic and financial restrictions.

Sanctions adopted under Chapter VII differ fundamentally from unilateral measures. Their legality does not depend on the law of state responsibility or on claims of economic sovereignty. Instead, it flows directly from institutional authorization by the Security Council acting on behalf of the international community. Once adopted, such sanctions are binding on all UN Member States and prevail over conflicting treaty obligations.

This institutional authorization is often cited as a source of enhanced legitimacy. At the same time, Security Council sanctions have themselves been subject to sustained legal scrutiny, particularly regarding due process, humanitarian impact, and the availability of review mechanisms. The Charter framework thus provides legality, but not immunity from legal critique.

4. The Absence of a General Charter Authorization for Unilateral Sanctions

A crucial feature of the UN Charter framework is what it does not contain. The Charter does not confer a general right on individual states to impose economic sanctions for the purpose of enforcing international law or promoting compliance with international norms. Outside the Security Council context, states must rely on other legal bases, such as retorsion or countermeasures, to justify restrictive economic measures.

This structural choice reflects the Charter’s preference for centralized decision-making in matters involving coercion and international peace and security. Unilateral sanctions adopted in the absence of Security Council authorization therefore operate in a legally sensitive space. Their compatibility with the Charter depends on their characterization, purpose, and effects, rather than on any explicit textual permission.

5. Charter Constraints Beyond Authorization

Even where sanctions are formally authorized by the Security Council, the Charter framework does not remove all legal constraints. The Council is bound by the purposes and principles of the UN, including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Over time, this has led to demands for greater procedural safeguards, humanitarian exemptions, and mechanisms to address wrongful listing and overbreadth.

These developments are legally significant because they illustrate a broader trend: economic sanctions, once treated as a purely political instrument of collective security, are increasingly evaluated through legal standards derived from the Charter itself. This evolution reinforces the idea that sanctions' legitimacy under the UN Charter is not static, but conditioned by compliance with the broader normative architecture of international law.

6. Implications for the Legality Debate

The UN Charter framework establishes a clear hierarchy. At one end are Security Council sanctions, which enjoy a strong legal foundation but remain subject to internal constraints. At the other end are unilateral sanctions pursued without institutional authorization, which must navigate the prohibitions of non-intervention and the limits of sovereign discretion.

This hierarchy explains why disputes over economic sanctions rarely turn on abstract claims about effectiveness. Instead, they focus on authority, coercion, and compliance with Charter principles. Understanding this structure is essential for assessing the legality of sanctions and for situating unilateral practices within, or at the margins of, the Charter-based international legal order.

IV. Unilateral Economic Sanctions and State Responsibility

The law of state responsibility provides one of the most frequently invoked legal frameworks for justifying unilateral economic sanctions. In the absence of authorization by the UN Security Council, states often argue that sanctions constitute lawful responses to internationally wrongful acts committed by another state. This argument rests on the doctrine of countermeasures, as codified and elaborated by the International Law Commission in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The relevance of this framework lies in its attempt to reconcile decentralized enforcement with the preservation of legal order.

1. Countermeasures as a Legal Concept

Countermeasures are defined as measures that would ordinarily be unlawful but become temporarily permissible when adopted in response to a prior internationally wrongful act. Their legal function is corrective rather than punitive. They are intended to induce compliance with international obligations, not to exact retribution or pursue broader political objectives.

In theory, this framework offers a disciplined legal basis for unilateral economic sanctions. In practice, however, the threshold requirements are exacting, and many contemporary sanctions regimes struggle to satisfy them. The gap between doctrinal conditions and actual practice is a central reason why unilateral sanctions remain legally contested.

2. The Requirement of a Prior Internationally Wrongful Act

The first and most fundamental condition for lawful countermeasures is the existence of a prior internationally wrongful act attributable to the target state. This requirement is often underestimated in sanctions practice. Political disagreement, policy divergence, or dissatisfaction with internal governance does not, in itself, amount to a breach of international law.

For sanctions to qualify as countermeasures, the sanctioning state must be able to identify a specific legal obligation that has been breached and to attribute that breach to the target state under the rules of attribution. Sanctions imposed in response to perceived threats, anticipated misconduct, or generalized concerns about international order do not meet this threshold. This requirement alone excludes a significant portion of unilateral sanctions from lawful characterization as countermeasures.

3. Procedural Preconditions: Notice and Demand for Compliance

The law of state responsibility imposes procedural obligations on states considering countermeasures. Before adopting such measures, the injured state must call upon the responsible state to cease the wrongful conduct and, where appropriate, to provide reparation. Countermeasures are conceived as a last resort, not a first response.

In sanctions practice, these procedural steps are frequently compressed or bypassed. Measures are sometimes adopted rapidly, in parallel with diplomatic condemnation, or as part of broader political strategies. The absence of a clear prior demand for compliance weakens the legal claim that sanctions are genuine countermeasures rather than instruments of pressure or deterrence.

4. Proportionality and the Scope of Economic Pressure

Proportionality is a core substantive constraint on countermeasures. The measures adopted must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account both the gravity of the breach and the rights affected. This requirement does not mandate symmetry, but it does prohibit excessive or indiscriminate harm.

Economic sanctions pose particular difficulties in this regard. Their effects often extend beyond the responsible state apparatus to private actors, third states, and civilian populations. Financial restrictions, trade embargoes, and sectoral controls can generate cascading economic consequences that exceed the original legal injury. When sanctions are broad, open-ended, or designed to exert maximal economic pain, proportionality becomes difficult to sustain as a legal justification.

5. Temporariness, Reversibility, and Purpose

Countermeasures must be temporary and reversible. They are legally justified only so long as the internationally wrongful act persists and only for the purpose of inducing compliance. Measures aimed at permanent economic isolation, structural degradation, or regime destabilization fall outside this logic.

Many unilateral sanctions regimes are framed in indefinite terms, with removal contingent on wide-ranging political transformations rather than the cessation of a specific legal breach. Such designs undermine the legal characterization of sanctions as countermeasures, because they shift the objective from compliance to coercive transformation.

6. Third-Party Countermeasures and Collective Interests

One of the most unsettled questions in the law of state responsibility concerns countermeasures adopted by states that are not directly injured by the wrongful act. Some states and scholars argue that serious breaches of obligations owed to the international community as a whole justify collective or third-party responses. Others maintain that the law does not yet permit such measures outside institutional frameworks.

Unilateral economic sanctions are often justified based on defending shared values or community interests, such as human rights or international peace. Yet the legal status of third-party countermeasures remains uncertain. Without clear acceptance in customary law, reliance on this justification further weakens claims of legality.

7. Assessment of the Countermeasures Justification

The countermeasures framework demonstrates that international law does not exclude unilateral responses to wrongdoing. At the same time, it imposes constraints that are rarely met in full by contemporary sanctions practice. Many unilateral economic sanctions lack a clearly identified prior breach, fail to respect procedural requirements, exceed proportionality, or pursue objectives incompatible with the logic of temporary inducement.

As a result, the law of state responsibility does not provide a blanket legal shield for unilateral economic sanctions. Instead, it functions as a filtering mechanism that distinguishes narrowly circumscribed lawful responses from broader practices that remain legally vulnerable. This distinction is critical for understanding why unilateral sanctions continue to generate deep legal disagreement despite their widespread use.

V. Economic Sanctions and International Economic Law (WTO/GATT)

Economic sanctions intersect directly with international economic law, particularly the legal framework established under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the broader World Trade Organization (WTO) system. This interaction exposes a structural tension between two competing logics: the commitment to trade liberalization and non-discrimination on one hand, and the use of economic restrictions as instruments of foreign policy and security on the other. Understanding this tension is essential for assessing the legality of Economic Sanctions under International Law beyond the UN Charter and state responsibility frameworks.

1. Core WTO Obligations Affected by Sanctions

Economic sanctions frequently implicate foundational WTO obligations. Trade embargoes, import and export restrictions, financial prohibitions, and sectoral bans may conflict with:

• The principle of most-favoured-nation treatment,

• Commitments on market access and tariff bindings,

• Prohibitions on quantitative restrictions,

• Obligations relating to transit, services, and payments.

Because many sanctions are implemented through domestic trade and financial regulations, their consistency with WTO law depends on their structure and effects rather than on their political motivation. Measures that discriminate between trading partners or restrict trade flows in a manner inconsistent with scheduled commitments prima facie engage WTO responsibility.

2. General Exceptions and Their Limited Role

One possible avenue for justification lies in the general exceptions clauses, which permit trade-restrictive measures adopted to protect interests such as public morals, public order, or human life and health. In sanctions contexts, these exceptions have occasionally been invoked to defend measures targeting human rights abuses or illicit activities.

However, reliance on general exceptions is legally constrained. Such measures must satisfy strict conditions, including necessity, non-arbitrary application, and consistency with the underlying structure of the agreement. Broad sanctions regimes, particularly those imposed for geopolitical or security reasons, often struggle to meet these requirements. As a result, general exceptions play a limited role in shielding sanctions from WTO scrutiny.

3. National Security Exceptions and Their Contested Scope

The most significant interface between sanctions and WTO law arises under the national security exceptions. These provisions allow states to adopt measures they consider necessary for the protection of essential security interests, including those taken in time of war or other emergencies in international relations.

For decades, national security exceptions were treated as politically sensitive and largely insulated from adjudication. Recent dispute settlement practice has altered this perception. Panels have affirmed that while states retain discretion in identifying their security interests, this discretion is not unlimited. The existence of an international emergency and the plausibility of the security rationale are subject to objective assessment.

This development has important implications for sanctions. Measures framed as security-driven are no longer automatically immune from legal evaluation. The invocation of national security must now be supported by a demonstrable link between the sanctions and a genuine emergency in international relations.

4. Unilateral Sanctions and the Fragmentation of Trade Law

Unilateral economic sanctions raise particular challenges for the coherence of the multilateral trading system. When sanctions are imposed outside collective frameworks, they risk fragmenting trade relations by creating parallel regimes of compliance, exemptions, and countersanctions. This fragmentation is intensified by secondary sanctions, which pressure third-state actors to comply with restrictions they did not adopt.

From the perspective of international economic law, such practices undermine predictability and reciprocity. They also shift enforcement from multilateral dispute settlement toward unilateral leverage, weakening the institutional balance of the WTO system. These systemic effects explain why many states view unilateral sanctions as incompatible with the spirit, if not always the letter, of WTO law.

5. The Limits of Trade Law as a Constraint

Despite these tensions, international economic law does not operate as an absolute barrier to sanctions. The WTO framework was not designed to eliminate all forms of politically motivated trade restrictions. Instead, it reflects a negotiated balance between liberalization and regulatory autonomy.

In practice, the effectiveness of WTO law as a constraint on economic sanctions depends on political will, dispute settlement dynamics, and broader geopolitical alignments. Where disputes are pursued, WTO law can clarify legal boundaries and discipline overreach. Where disputes are avoided or blocked, sanctions continue to operate in a legally ambiguous space.

This reality reinforces a broader conclusion: international economic law provides important, but incomplete, constraints on economic sanctions. It does not resolve the legality question on its own, but it adds a critical layer of legal scrutiny that interacts with, and sometimes challenges, security-based justifications under general international law.

Also Read

• The Struggle for Human Rights in Authoritarian Regimes

• The Concept of Soft Power in International Relations

• Law and Power in International Society

• Strait of Hormuz: Tensions, Law, Security, and Global Trade

• US and Venezuela Tensions in International Law

• The Role of International Law in Diplomacy

VI. Human Rights Constraints on Economic Sanctions

Human rights law constitutes one of the most significant normative constraints on the design, implementation, and evaluation of economic sanctions. As sanctions have become a normalized instrument of international policy, their interaction with internationally protected rights has moved from the periphery of legal debate to its center. The question is no longer limited to humanitarian consequences in extreme cases, but extends to structural compatibility between sanctions regimes and binding human rights obligations.

1. The Shift from Collective Punishment to Rights-Based Scrutiny

Early sanctions practice, particularly comprehensive embargoes, demonstrated that broad economic restrictions could generate severe and foreseeable harm to civilian populations. These experiences triggered sustained criticism grounded in international human rights and humanitarian law, prompting a gradual shift toward targeted sanctions. This evolution reflects an implicit acknowledgment that economic measures capable of impairing access to food, medicine, healthcare, or basic economic activity engage fundamental human rights norms.

Human rights law reframes the sanctions debate by focusing not on political intent, but on effects. Even measures adopted for legitimate objectives may be unlawful if they produce disproportionate or discriminatory harm to protected groups. This effect-based analysis challenges the assumption that non-forcible measures are inherently benign.

2. Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations

A central legal issue concerns the extraterritorial application of human rights obligations. Sanctioning states often argue that their human rights duties apply only within their own territory or jurisdiction. This position is increasingly difficult to sustain, where sanctions are designed to exert decisive influence over economic conditions abroad.

When sanctions foreseeably affect access to essential goods, financial services, or livelihoods in another state, questions arise regarding the sanctioning state’s responsibility to respect, protect, and avoid impairing the enjoyment of human rights beyond its borders. Human rights bodies have repeatedly emphasized that states must refrain from actions that obstruct the realization of rights in other states, particularly where the impact is direct, predictable, and substantial.

3. Socio-Economic Rights and Humanitarian Impact

Economic sanctions frequently implicate economic, social, and cultural rights, including the rights to health, food, work, and an adequate standard of living. Restrictions on trade, finance, and investment can disrupt supply chains, inflate prices, and weaken public services, even where humanitarian exemptions exist on paper.

Licensing systems and exemptions are often cited as safeguards. In practice, overcompliance, administrative delays, and risk aversion by private actors can render exemptions ineffective. The legal relevance of this phenomenon lies in foreseeability. If systemic impediments to humanitarian access are known and persistent, the resulting harm cannot be dismissed as incidental.

4. Due Process and Targeted Sanctions

Targeted sanctions raise a distinct set of human rights concerns related to procedural fairness. Asset freezes, travel bans, and financial restrictions imposed on individuals and entities may interfere with property rights, freedom of movement, and reputation. International human rights law requires that such interferences be accompanied by minimum procedural guarantees.

These guarantees include adequate notice of listing, access to reasons, an opportunity to challenge the measures, and some form of independent review. Sanctions regimes that rely on confidential intelligence, opaque criteria, or indefinite listings risk violating due process standards. Judicial and quasi-judicial scrutiny of targeted sanctions has reinforced the principle that effectiveness does not justify the absence of legal safeguards.

5. Proportionality and Necessity in Human Rights Analysis

Human rights law introduces a proportionality analysis that complements, but is distinct from, proportionality under the law of state responsibility. Even if sanctions qualify as countermeasures or fall within a state’s regulatory discretion, they must still pursue a legitimate aim, be suitable to achieve that aim, and impose the least restrictive means available.

This analysis is particularly demanding in sanctions contexts because economic pressure often produces diffuse and long-term consequences. Measures that are open-ended, insufficiently tailored, or poorly monitored struggle to satisfy necessity requirements. Proportionality thus functions as a substantive brake on escalation and overreach.

6. Human Rights Justifications and Their Limits

Some unilateral sanctions are defended as necessary responses to serious human rights violations committed by the target state. This argument invokes the protection of community interests and, in extreme cases, obligations owed erga omnes. While morally compelling, this justification does not eliminate legal constraints.

Sanctions adopted in the name of human rights must themselves comply with human rights standards. Measures that generate widespread civilian harm, lack procedural fairness, or undermine basic socio-economic rights risk reproducing the very violations they claim to address. The absence of a clear legal framework authorizing unilateral human rights sanctions explains why this justification remains controversial despite growing political support.

7. Human Rights as a Legitimacy Test

Human rights law does not prohibit all economic sanctions, but it imposes demanding conditions on their design and implementation. It shifts the focus from state intent to human impact, from political discretion to legal accountability. In doing so, it exposes a central tension: sanctions are increasingly justified as humane and precise, yet their real-world operation often falls short of these claims.

This tension reinforces a broader conclusion of this article: the legality of economic sanctions cannot be assessed solely through security or responsibility frameworks. Human rights constraints operate as an independent and cumulative test of legitimacy, one that continues to challenge the normalization of sanctions in international practice.

VII. Jurisdiction, Extraterritoriality, and Secondary Sanctions

Jurisdictional questions lie at the heart of contemporary controversies surrounding economic sanctions. As sanctions regimes have expanded in scope and sophistication, they increasingly regulate conduct occurring outside the territory of the sanctioning state. This expansion has intensified debates over extraterritoriality, sovereign equality, and the limits of lawful jurisdiction under international law. Secondary sanctions, in particular, represent one of the most legally contentious features of modern sanctions practice.

1. Jurisdiction in International Law

International law recognizes several bases for the exercise of jurisdiction, including territoriality, nationality, the protective principle, and, in limited circumstances, universality. Economic sanctions traditionally rested on relatively orthodox jurisdictional links, such as regulating domestic actors, financial institutions, or transactions occurring within the sanctioning state’s territory.

Problems arise when sanctions extend beyond these traditional bases. Measures that regulate foreign companies, foreign banks, or foreign individuals solely because of their dealings with a sanctioned state test the boundaries of accepted jurisdictional competence. While states retain broad authority over their internal economic regulation, international law does not grant unlimited power to project regulatory control outward. Jurisdiction must remain anchored in a recognized connecting factor.

2. Extraterritorial Effects versus Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

A crucial distinction must be drawn between measures that have extraterritorial effects and those that assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. Many lawful acts of state regulation produce effects abroad without violating international law. Tariffs, export controls, and financial regulations routinely influence foreign markets indirectly.

Secondary sanctions, however, often go further. They condition access to the sanctioning state’s market, currency, or financial system on compliance with restrictions that apply to conduct taking place entirely outside its territory. In such cases, the regulatory logic shifts from incidental effect to deliberate extraterritorial reach. This shift is what renders secondary sanctions legally controversial.

3. The Structure of Secondary Sanctions

Secondary sanctions typically operate through indirect coercion. Rather than prohibiting conduct outright, they threaten adverse consequences—such as loss of market access, asset freezes, or exclusion from financial systems—if third-state actors engage in transactions with sanctioned targets.

Legally, this technique blurs the line between choice and compulsion. Although third-state actors are formally free to decide their conduct, the economic consequences of non-compliance are often so severe that the choice is largely illusory. This raises questions under international law about coercion, interference with the sovereign regulatory space of other states, and respect for economic autonomy.

4. Sovereign Equality and Non-Interference

Secondary sanctions challenge the principle of sovereign equality by effectively compelling third states to align their policies with those of the sanctioning state. Even when framed as private compliance obligations, the cumulative effect is to externalize domestic policy preferences and to override divergent regulatory choices made by other governments.

From the perspective of non-interference, secondary sanctions may constitute indirect intervention. By penalizing foreign actors for lawful conduct under their own domestic law, sanctioning states risk intruding into areas that international law traditionally reserves to sovereign discretion. This concern explains why secondary sanctions frequently provoke diplomatic protests, blocking legislation, and countermeasures.

5. Financial Jurisdiction and Systemic Power

A distinctive feature of modern sanctions practice is the centrality of financial jurisdiction. Control over key currencies, payment systems, and correspondent banking networks has enabled certain states to exercise leverage far beyond their territorial boundaries. Financial sanctions often rely on jurisdictional claims linked to currency use, clearing mechanisms, or access to financial infrastructure.

While such connections provide a formal jurisdictional hook, their expansive interpretation raises systemic concerns. When financial centrality becomes a vehicle for regulatory dominance, the line between lawful jurisdiction and structural coercion becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. This dynamic has significant implications for the stability and neutrality of the international financial system.

6. Legal Responses by Third States

States affected by secondary sanctions have adopted various responses, including blocking statutes, counter-sanctions, and regulatory shields designed to protect domestic actors from foreign enforcement. These measures underscore the absence of consensus on the legality of secondary sanctions and illustrate the risk of escalation through competing jurisdictional claims.

Such responses also reveal a deeper fragmentation of international law. Rather than resolving disputes through centralized adjudication, states increasingly rely on unilateral defensive measures, reinforcing legal uncertainty and political polarization.

7. Assessment of Jurisdictional Limits

Jurisdictional analysis exposes a core vulnerability in contemporary sanctions practice. While primary sanctions regulating domestic conduct rest on relatively firm legal ground, secondary sanctions operate at the outer edge of accepted jurisdictional authority. Their legality depends less on formal doctrine than on contested interpretations of coercion, connection, and consent.

This ambiguity does not render all secondary sanctions unlawful per se, but it places them under heightened legal scrutiny. As sanctions regimes continue to evolve, jurisdictional limits will remain a critical test of their compatibility with international law and with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention that underpin the international legal order.

VIII. Case Studies and Contemporary State Practice

Contemporary state practice provides essential insight into how legal principles governing economic sanctions are interpreted, contested, and operationalized in real-world contexts. Case studies reveal recurring patterns: reliance on unilateral measures in the absence of collective authorization, expansion toward sectoral and financial restrictions, increasing use of extraterritorial leverage, and parallel efforts to frame sanctions as consistent with international law. At the same time, these cases expose persistent legal fault lines concerning authority, proportionality, jurisdiction, and human rights impact.

1. Sanctions against Iran: Layered Legality and Institutional Interaction

Sanctions imposed in response to Iran’s nuclear program illustrate a complex interaction between collective and unilateral measures. Security Council sanctions adopted under Chapter VII provided a clear legal foundation during earlier phases. Alongside these, several states and regional actors imposed additional unilateral restrictions targeting finance, energy, shipping, and insurance.

From a legal perspective, this layering complicates analysis. Collective sanctions benefited from institutional authorization, while unilateral measures required independent justification, often framed as countermeasures or as exercises of economic sovereignty. The coexistence of both regimes blurred legal accountability and amplified compliance burdens for private actors. It also demonstrated how unilateral sanctions can persist even when collective measures are suspended or terminated, raising questions about proportionality and temporariness.

2. Sanctions against Russia: Security Claims and Systemic Effects

Sanctions imposed following Russia’s actions in Ukraine represent one of the most extensive sanctions regimes in recent history. These measures include asset freezes, financial restrictions, export controls, and energy-related sanctions. While some measures were coordinated among multiple states, they were not authorized by the Security Council, due to the veto power of a permanent member.

Legal justifications have emphasized responses to serious breaches of international law and threats to international peace. Critics have highlighted the reliance on unilateral authority, the expansive scope of sectoral sanctions, and the extraterritorial impact on third-state actors. This case underscores how geopolitical realities can bypass collective security mechanisms, leaving unilateral sanctions as the dominant enforcement tool despite unresolved legal controversy.

3. Sanctions against Syria: Humanitarian Impact and Due Process Concerns

Sanctions imposed in response to the conflict in Syria reveal the tension between human rights objectives and humanitarian consequences. In the absence of a Security Council consensus, states adopted unilateral measures aimed at pressuring state institutions and officials. These measures expanded over time to encompass broad economic sectors.

Despite formal humanitarian exemptions, evidence of overcompliance and indirect harm to civilian populations intensified legal scrutiny. The Syrian case illustrates the limits of targeted design in practice and reinforces the relevance of human rights constraints, particularly where sanctions interact with fragile economic and health systems.

4. Sanctions and Venezuela: Competing Narratives of Legality

Sanctions related to Venezuela highlight the fragmentation of legal narratives surrounding unilateral measures. Sanctioning states have framed restrictions as responses to democratic breakdown and human rights violations. Venezuelan authorities, by contrast, have characterized the measures as unlawful coercion and economic warfare.

This dispute illustrates how sanctions legality is often argued through competing legal lenses rather than resolved through authoritative adjudication. It also demonstrates the strategic use of international legal forums to challenge or defend sanctions, even where jurisdictional or admissibility barriers limit substantive review.

5. Regional Practice and the Role of the European Union

Regional sanctions regimes, particularly those adopted by the European Union, occupy a distinctive position. They are formally unilateral at the international level but internally collective. This dual character has enabled more structured procedures, including listing criteria, review mechanisms, and judicial oversight.

Judicial challenges within regional legal orders have contributed to refining due process standards and evidentiary requirements. While these developments enhance internal legality, they do not resolve broader questions concerning the permissibility of autonomous sanctions under general international law.

6. Patterns Emerging from State Practice

Across these cases, several patterns emerge:

• Persistent reliance on unilateral sanctions when collective mechanisms are blocked,

• Expansion toward financial and sectoral measures with a wide economic reach,

• Increased use of jurisdictional leverage affecting third states,

• Ongoing contestation of legality rather than consolidation of clear norms.

These patterns suggest that the frequency of use has not translated into legal consensus. Instead, practice reflects pragmatic adaptation to political constraints, often at the expense of legal clarity.

7. Implications for Legal Assessment

Case studies demonstrate that the legality of economic sanctions is rarely resolved through abstract doctrine alone. It is shaped by institutional context, power asymmetries, and the availability of enforcement mechanisms. Contemporary practice confirms that unilateral sanctions operate in a legally plural environment, drawing partial support from different legal frameworks while remaining vulnerable to challenge under others.

This reality reinforces a central conclusion of this article: state practice has normalized economic sanctions as a policy tool, but it has not settled their legal status. Instead, it has entrenched a pattern of contested legality, in which sanctions persist not because their lawfulness is clear, but because alternative enforcement mechanisms are limited or politically unavailable.

IX. Conclusion: Legality Without Consensus

The analysis undertaken in this article demonstrates that economic sanctions occupy a paradoxical position in contemporary international law. They are widely used, institutionally entrenched, and politically normalized, yet their legal foundations remain fragmented and contested. Economic Sanctions under International Law operate within a plural legal environment in which authority, justification, and constraint are derived from multiple, partially overlapping regimes rather than from a single coherent framework.

At one end of the spectrum, the legality of economic sanctions is relatively clear. Measures adopted by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter rest on firm institutional authorization and form part of the collective security system. Similarly, narrowly tailored unilateral measures that genuinely qualify as countermeasures—responding to a clearly identified internationally wrongful act and respecting the strict conditions of necessity, proportionality, temporariness, and procedural discipline—can be accommodated within the law of state responsibility. These pathways reflect international law’s cautious acceptance of coercion when embedded in structured legal processes.

Beyond these limited contexts, however, consensus dissolves. Many unilateral sanctions pursued for broad policy objectives, preventive aims, or generalized value enforcement struggle to satisfy the legal criteria that international law demands. Their justifications oscillate between claims of economic sovereignty, security necessity, and moral responsibility, none of which independently provides a stable legal foundation. The increasing reliance on extraterritorial and secondary sanctions further exacerbates this instability by stretching jurisdictional principles and intensifying conflicts with sovereign equality and non-intervention.

Human rights law adds a decisive layer of constraint. It exposes the limits of formal legality by insisting on scrutiny of real-world effects, procedural fairness, and proportionality. Even sanctions that are defensible under security or responsibility frameworks may fail when assessed through the lens of due process or socio-economic rights. This cumulative scrutiny reveals that legality in sanctions practice is not binary, but conditional and relational, shaped by design, implementation, and impact.

Contemporary state practice confirms this picture. States continue to rely on economic sanctions not because their legality is settled, but because institutional deadlock, geopolitical rivalry, and the absence of effective alternatives make them attractive instruments of pressure. The result is a pattern of legality without consensus: sanctions persist amid unresolved doctrinal disagreement, legal fragmentation, and competing normative claims.

The central implication is not that economic sanctions are inherently unlawful, nor that international law is indifferent to their use. Rather, international law subjects sanctions to demanding conditions that many contemporary practices only partially satisfy. Until clearer norms emerge—either through authoritative adjudication, sustained multilateral agreement, or refined institutional safeguards—economic sanctions will remain legally functional but normatively unstable. Their continued normalization thus reflects a pragmatic response to political constraints, not the consolidation of a settled legal doctrine.

References

1. Abi-Saab, G. The Concept of Sanctions in International Law. In V. Gowlland-Debbas (ed.), United Nations Sanctions and International Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

2. Bogdanova, I. Unilateral Sanctions in International Law and the Enforcement of Human Rights: The Impact of the Principle of Common Concern of Humankind. Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2022.

3. Bossuyt, M. The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions on the Enjoyment of Human Rights. UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

4. Dupont, P.-E. The Legality of Economic Sanctions under International Law and EU Law: The Case of Iran. Articles Section, Manupatra.

5. Happold, M. Economic Sanctions and International Law: An Introduction. In M. Happold & P. Eden (eds.), Economic Sanctions and International Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

6. International Law Commission. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries.

7. Joyner, D. H. International Legal Limits on the Ability of States to Lawfully Impose International Economic and Financial Sanctions. In A. Z. Marossi & M. R. Bassett (eds.), Economic Sanctions under International Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

8. Marossi, A. Z., & Bassett, M. R. (eds.). Economic Sanctions under International Law: Unilateralism, Multilateralism, Legitimacy, and Consequences. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2015.

9. Mohamad, R. Unilateral Sanctions in International Law: A Quest for Legality. In A. Z. Marossi & M. R. Bassett (eds.), Economic Sanctions under International Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

10. Ruys, T. Sanctions, Retorsions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal Framework. In L. van den Herik (ed.), Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

11. UN Human Rights Council. Reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights.

12. World Trade Organization. Panel Report, Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit.