0
0
Note: this article is part of the International Law Society and The Witness Journal’s collaboration and article competition.
Economic sanctions are a prominent tool within the scope of international relations. They are employed by countries to impede upon or influence the behaviour of a target state without resorting to military intervention. This article argues however, that economic sanctions are ethically and legally detrimental.
Since the end of the Cold War, the use of economic sanctions has increased dramatically; while they are intended to pressure target governments into aligning with the interests of the imposing country or complying with aspects of international law, they are often viewed as a less violent and more cost-effective alternative to retaliation or military intervention. However, their legal and ethical implications come at a cost. Whilst some argue that they compel target states to cease actions that threaten or violate the sovereignty of another state, as well as promote democracy, their purpose has since been disputed. From food and medical shortages to depression, these repercussions raise critical questions about the balance between political objectives, human rights, and the rule of law.
State sovereignty, as stated in the UN Charter Article 2(4), affirms that states have the right to govern themselves, without the undue interference of other states. The roots of this philosophy can be traced back to Rousseau, who argued that sovereignty was the embodiment of the ‘general will’ of the people, thereby reaffirming the importance of a state’s autonomy. However, the restrictive measures that are implemented when imposing economic sanctions can be seen as a violation of state sovereignty. The economic decline of Venezuela following economic sanctions is just one of the example of this. With Venezuela’s economy being highly dependent upon oil, amounting to more than 80% of exports, it is little wonder that its economic collapse coincided with a decline in oil revenues.
Sanctions were part of the US’s broader strategy to remove Venezuelan president Maduro, whilst simultaneously recognising Juan Guiado’s interim government. Since 2005, sanctions imposed through both executive and congressional orders (e.g. Executive Order 13827 – which prohibits all transactions, financing, and other dealings involving digital currency) have robbed Venezuelans of their human rights, with the revenue from oil export having been long used to cover imports from food to medicine. Recent statistics reveal that 87% of Venezuelans reject US sanctions. A key issue to explore is whether the harm inflicted on civilians is justified by the political or security-based objectives that sanctions aim to achieve. Sanctions often have severe and disproportionate effects on civilians, with measures leading to food shortages, inflation and widespread poverty, indirectly harming the poorest communities within the said states.
As Joy Gordon notes, sanctions are the modern version of siege warfare: each involves the systematic deprivation of a whole city or nation of economic resources. And indeed, economic sanctions raise
significant questions concerning moral and ethical implications. Therefore, it seems apparent that sanctions imposed on weaker states, which usually infringe on the liberties and rights of innocent civilians, carry more consequences than benefits.
The legal implications of sanctions within the scope of international law remain a key subject of debate and scrutiny, particularly regarding their imposition outside the UN framework. Article 41 of the UN Charter allows the security council to undertake non-military action to enforce its decisions, as a means of maintaining international peace and national security. However, unilateral sanctions imposed by individual states of regional groups such as the US or the EU have raised concerns in recent years.
After Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2018, the lives of Iranians have drastically changed. The economic sanctions have violated the civilians economic, social, and cultural rights, with the ‘right to an adequate standard of living’ contained in article 11(1) of the UN international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (1966), infringed upon. The political and foreign policy
success of these sanctions has been debated, a result of the ‘non compliance with fundamental human rights principles.’ Ultimately, the humanitarian consequences of economic sanctions cannot be justified under international law. US administrations’ use of severe sanctions as a political tool to punish the Iranian regime has already inflicted severe hardship on the Iranian population.
Since Russia’s unwarranted and erroneous invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the European Council has adopted 10 packages of sanctions against Russia, with the ultimate aim being their inability to fund the war. The council has targeted the political, military and economic elite responsible for this invasion, with areas such as food and pharmaceuticals excluded from the measures. The economic sanctions included restrictions on Russia’s financial sector, the removal of Russia from SWIFT interbank transactions and new rules on aviation and energy. The sanctions are seen to be successful, after 3 years of war, the Russian GDP is now 10-12% below pre-invasion trends.
Economic sanctions remain a deeply contested tool of international relations. While proponents argue that sanctions are necessary to deter violations of international law and uphold global security, their real-world impact often extends beyond governments, disproportionately harming civilians. The recent examples of Venezuela, Iran, and Russia illustrate their detrimental effects, as well as the legal and ethical dilemmas they pose to ordinary citizens, the innocent and those not involved in discussions.
Image: Palestinians live in an area destroyed by Israeli airstrike in Rafah, Gaza Strip, Ashraf Amra, 2025//CC BY-SA 4.0
Average Rating