States’ sanctions are measures adopted by a state vis-à-vis another state, its citizens, or entities.
Since states are equal in their sovereignty and are prohibited from interfering in one another’s internal affairs, these types of sanctions often cause controversy and backlash. The sanctioned states tend to challenge the standing of other states to make outside determinations on the human rights situation on the ground, and even frame them as unlawful interventions.
Although the unilateral character of state-to-state sanctions may cause concern for some actors, there are factors that support the legitimacy of such sanctions:
- It is within a state’s sovereignty to build economic, diplomatic, and cultural relations with other states in whichever way it pleases. It is within a sovereign state’s discretion to stop or limit such relations by means of sanctions.
- Sanctions are often demanded by the population of the sanctioned state. The violations that trigger sanctions can be grave and substantial. The call to impose sanctions is often voiced and lobbied for by the sanctioned state’s civil society, undermining the argument that outsiders do not represent the interests of the actual population.
Examples of such sanctions include the United States’ sanctions on Cuba or Switzerland’s sanctions on Belarus.
International organizations’ sanctions are measures adopted by an international organization vis-à-vis a state, its citizens, or entities. There are two subcategories of these types of sanctions:
When a state joins an international organization, it transfers part of its sovereignty to the organization.
The organization’s structure typically includes collective bodies, competent to make strategic decisions on behalf of the organization. The rules and instruments of the organization often stipulate situations in which member states may be sanctioned and the procedure for such sanctioning. The sanctions against member states may include:
- Suspension of funding.
- Suspension of membership.
- Suspension of providing certain services.
- Limiting voting rights within the organization.
- Termination of membership.
These types of sanctions cause little controversy. There is an assumption that states consent to being governed by the organization’s rules, being fully aware of the rules on sanctions. They may dispute the factual grounds for imposing sanctions, but rarely question the legality of the sanctions mechanism as a whole.
Examples of such sanctions include the United Nations Security Council sanctions mechanism or the Council of Europe mechanism of limiting voting rights in the Parliamentary Assembly. The EU typically does not label actions against its own member states as sanctions, understanding sanctions as a foreign policy tool. However, Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union provides for a mechanism of suspending certain rights of member states. This in effect may be characterized as an internal sanctions mechanism.
Measures taken by international organizations against non-member states face the same criticism as unilateral state-to-state sanctions.
Since they are taken by an organization against states that never subjected their policies to the scrutiny of such organizations, there is concern about the competence of such organizations to make any determination and ‘punish’ the wrongdoer.
The counterarguments about the legitimacy of unilateral state-to-state sanctions also apply to sanctions imposed by international organizations against non-members. Reputable international organizations are often called upon to react to human rights violations by imposing sanctions. The sanctions typically remain within the organization’s discretion of determining its cooperation strategies.
Examples of such sanctions include the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and other states, as well as the United Nations Security Council sanctions against North Korea.