Since everyone is talking about sanctions right now (vis-a-vis the Russia-Ukraine war), let’s look at sanctions as a foreign policy tool, and how they have been used. And thus we take a brief look at sanctions, or ‘Sanctions 101’, as educators would have it.

Under internatinal law, the only body that can impose sanctions is the United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC). Sitting in a composition of 5 Permanent Members and 10 other non-Permanent Members, the UNSC is empowered by much-touted Chapter VII of the UN Charter to impose sanctions upon countries that threaten international peace and security.

However, there is nothing in international law to prevent individual states to impose unilateral sanctions against an individual, an entity, or another state that they feel has wronged them. These unilateral sanctions are often wielded as a foreign policy tool by the countries such as the United States, and regional organisations such as the European Union. In fact, the United States has imposed one of the longest-standing unilateral sanctions in the world – against Cuba.

And every year at the United Nations, member states vote overwhelmingly in favour of the ‘wrongness’ of such unilateral sanctions. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) also have as one of their rallying cry, the injustice of imposing such unilateral sanctions. Yet the sanctions continue.

I wrote in the New Straits Times on the topic of “Do Sanctions Really Work”, arguing that sanctions are only effective if they actually hurt the entity targeted, and if that entity cares about the hurt. In some cases, such as the sanctions against North Korea, the sanctions are ineffective because the North Korean regime does not care about the sanctions imposed, or the suffering it causes.

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2022/04/792411/do-sanctions-actually-work

This is one of the reason why sanctions are almost always imposed by the more powerful states. It is a simple principle of Sanctions 101, really. Countries such as Malaysia, which have less clout in international affairs, may also impose sanctions but its effectiveness would be very much in question!

Coming back to the multilateral system, the United Nations has established a number of Sanctions Committees that looks only at the sanctions that have been adopted by the UNSC. These work of these committees are revisited often, and the committees themselves will be terminated (disbanded) when the need no longer arises. The Committee banning diamonds from Cote d’Ivoire, for example, was terminated in 2016 after 12 years of work because it ceased to be relevant anymore.

Very early on in the Russia-Ukraine war, when invasion was still merely a possibility, the European Union and the United States were already talking of sanctions against Russia and its interests. The trick with sanctions – in order for it to be effective – lies also in the timing: sanction an entity too soon and you remove the incentive for the entity to comply with the ultimatum; sanction an entity too late and that entity might already have made other ‘arrangements’ to circumvent the sanctions. [Such as moving their assets out from being directly controlled by their close associates, or else liquidating their interests abroad to minimise the risk.] In Russia’s case, I refuse to believe that President Putin did not see the sanctions coming, seasoned strategist that he is.

When sanctions are imposed upon a country, it takes the form of an Asset Freeze (where the country may not utilise their assets abroad or gain benefit / enjoyment from it), a trade ban (where imports from and exports to that country will cease altogether), or a suspension of diplomatic relations (where the ambassador to that country is recalled, or the ambassador of that country is made persona non grata). In the case of a trade ban, again – the country imposing a sanction should be one of the major trading partners of the country sanctioned, or else it will not matter very much. The most effective kind of trade ban is one where other countries join in and impose the same, or else the sanctioned country will just move their trade elsewhere.

Sanctions against individuals are much easier to impose. A travel ban would stop the person from travelling into the country which is imposing the ban, while an asset freeze would work much the same way it does when it is directed against a country. Travel bans can only be imposed if the individual MUST travel to that country. In the case of ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, when the Trump Administration imposed a travel ban against her, she still travelled the world – the only thing she could not do was to enter the United States, for whatever reason.

I hope that this blog, on Sanctions 101, has helped. Feel free to drop me a line if there is any particular topic on which you want to cast a spotlight. Cheers.