Introduction
Economic sanctions have become a dominant tool in international relations, shaping global conflicts without direct military engagement.[1] Economic sanctions are “the deliberate, government-inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations.”[2] These measures are imposed to compel state or non-state actors to comply with international norms.[3] Nevertheless, sanctions frequently lead to legal and moral dilemmas, especially when they affect humanitarian needs.[4]
This paper examines the legality of economic sanctions under international law by exploring their legal basis, the tension they create between sovereignty and human rights, and their compliance with international humanitarian law. Although sanctions act as a non-military approach to upholding international standards, they frequently result in unforeseen humanitarian impacts and legal conflicts.[5] More precise legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms are necessary to ensure that sanctions remain effective while minimizing harm to civilians.[6]
The Legal Basis for Economic Sanctions
Economic sanctions derive legitimacy from the United Nations (“UN”) Charter.[7] Under Chapter VII, the UN Security Council (“UNSC”) has the authority to impose sanctions when international peace and security are threatened.[8] Article 41 authorizes measures “not involving the use of armed force,” which include trade restrictions, asset freezes, and financial prohibitions.[9] For example, the UNSC Resolution 1718 (2006) imposed economic sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear weapons program; the Resolution restricted trade and financial transactions, as opposed to a direct military response.[10]
Economic sanctions have evolved as a tool of international enforcement over time.[11] The League of Nations introduced collective sanctions as a response mechanism to breaches of international law in 1921.[12] However, League-imposed sanctions on Italy – during its invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s – failed, demonstrating the limitations of early sanctions.[13] The modern UNSC framework seeks to address such weaknesses by mandating compliance and enforcement mechanisms.[14]
Multilateral sanctions – brought by entities like the UNSC—are generally considered lawful; unilateral sanctions—imposed by individual states or regional organizations—however, are more controversial.[15] Critics argue that unilateral sanctions violate international law, particularly when they amount to economic coercion.[16] Under the framework of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”), trade restrictions are required to comply with the obligations set forth in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”), except for specific exceptions related to national security.[17] The International Court of Justice (“ICJ’) examined this matter in the case of Nicaragua v. United States (1986), concluding that the economic actions taken by the United States (“U.S.”) against Nicaragua were a form of unlawful interference according to customary international law.[18] More recently, many argue that U.S. sanctions on Venezuela infringe upon Venezuela’s right to self-determination and economic autonomy—yet another issue affiliated with the use of unilateral sanctions.[19]
Human Rights Implications
By restricting access to essential goods (food, medicine, and financial services), sanctions can also have severe human rights consequences.[20] In Venezuela v. Council (2019), the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) examined whether European Union (“EU”) sanctions on Venezuela disproportionately harmed civilians.[21] Likewise, in Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland (2016), the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) ruled that sanctions must comply with due process guarantees under international human rights law.[22] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”) obligates states to respect the right to an adequate standard of living; this raises questions about the legality of unilateral economic restrictions, given their sweeping impact on a given society.[23] Concerns of this nature become especially pressing when financial sanctions restrict humanitarian access, hindering the ability of international organizations to provide medical assistance or food aid.[24] Reports from the UN Human Rights Council indicate that broad-based sanctions disproportionately affect vulnerable populations—including women, children, and the elderly; this creates a question about their legality under international human rights frameworks.[25]
Economic Sanctions & International Humanitarian Law
Beyond issues regarding sovereignty and human rights, economic sanctions should be assessed through the lens of International Humanitarian Law (“IHL”).[26] Broad-based sanctions often disproportionately impact civilians, which may conflict with IHL’s principle of proportionality.[27] The principle of proportionality rules that actions taken in conflict must balance military necessity against the impact on civilian populations; the principle prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.[28] Economic sanctions that create mass suffering, such as those imposed on Iraq, have been criticized as a form of collective punishment, which is a violation under the Geneva Conventions.[29] The 1990s U.S. sanctions on Iraq led to widespread malnutrition, medical shortages, and the loss of two million lives.[30] Such measures contradict the core principles of IHL, which seek to minimize civilian suffering.[31] Instead, these sanctions negatively impact entire populations.[32]
To mitigate civilian harm, states and organizations have implemented humanitarian exemptions for sanctions.[33] The U.S. Treasury Department issues “General Licenses” to allow humanitarian aid, but bureaucratic hurdles often delay relief efforts.[34] The 2022 Afghan sanctions regime faced criticism for failing to ensure that exemptions aid actually reached affected civilians.[35] Legal scholars have advocated for reforms aimed at creating more precise sanctions that take into account both geopolitical aims and human rights.[36] Although these exemptions are available, they often fail in practice because of banks’ reluctance, concerns about breaching sanctions regulations, and practical difficulties.[37] For example, sanctions on Syria have created major obstacles for humanitarian organizations seeking to deliver medical aid, as financial institutions frequently block transactions even when exemptions apply.[38] Therefore, it is essential to routinely carry out humanitarian impact assessments prior to imposing sanctions to prevent unintended consequences.[39]
Conclusion & Recommendations
Economic sanctions are legally grounded in both the UN Charter and state practice, but they often threaten fundamental human rights.[40] Moving forward, several reforms could ensure that sanctions remain an effective tool of international diplomacy while upholding legal and ethical standards. First, international organizations should establish clearer legal guidelines to regulate unilateral sanctions and ensure they align with international legal norms.[41] Second, these organizations should require humanitarian impact evaluations to be conducted prior to, and regularly after, the implementation of sanctions in order to reduce harm to civilians.[42] Lastly, nations should focus on diplomatic approaches instead of economic sanctions whenever feasible.[43] Enhanced cooperation between international organizations—such as the UN, WTO, and various regional bodies—could foster a more unified legal structure to regulate sanctions. By enhancing legal frameworks, international law can better balance the appropriate use of sanctions with the imperative to safeguard fundamental human rights.[44] While sanctions will continue to play a role in international relations, they must be used with caution to avoid undermining the very norms they were created to uphold.[45]
[1] Sarah Krulikowski, Economic Sanctions: An Overview, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Exec. Briefings on Trade (Mar. 2024), https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/ebot.htm.
[2] Hufbauer et al., Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, (3rd edition, paper), June 2009, 3.
[3] Krulikowski, supra note 1.
[4] Joy Gordon, A Peaceful, Silent, Deadly Remedy: The Ethics of Economic Sanctions, 13 Ethics & Int’l Affs. 123 (1999).
[5] Sanctions, Peacemaking and Reform: Recommendations for U.S. Policymakers, Int’l Crisis Grp., Report No. 8 (Aug. 28, 2023), https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-states/8-sanctions-peacemaking-and-reform-recommendations-us-policymakers.
[6] Id.
[7] U.N. Charter art. 41.
[8] U.N. Charter ch. VII.
[9] Supra note 5.
[10] S.C. Res. 1718, ¶¶ 8–12, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1718 (Oct. 14, 2006).
[11] Krulikowski, supra note 1.
[12] League of Nations, Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/League-of-Nations (last updated Feb. 21, 2025).
[13] See Cristiano Andrea Ristuccia, 1935 Sanctions Against Italy: Would Coal and Crude Oil Have Made a Difference?, Linacre College, Oxford, 4.
[14] Report no. 8, supra note 5.
[15] Aaron Fellmeth, Unilateral Sanctions Under International Human Rights Law: Correcting the Record, Yale J. Int’l L. (Sept. 6, 2023).
[16] Id.
[17] Understanding the WTO: The Organization, World Trade Org., https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2025).
[18] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
[19] Fellmeth, supra note 13.
[20] Id.
[21] Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Council of the European Union, Case C-872/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1035 (ECJ Dec. 22, 2021).
[22] Al-Dulimi & Montana Mgmt. Inc. v. Switzerland, App. No. 5809/08, 2016 Eur. Ct. H.R. 314 (June 21).
[23] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 11.
[24] Fellmeth, supra note 13; [24] Ali Gorji, Sanctions Against Iran: The Impact on Health Services, 43 Iran J. Pub. Health 381 (2014).
[25] Unilateral Sanctions Particularly Harmful to Women, Children, Other Vulnerable Groups, UN News (Dec. 8, 2021), https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/12/1107492.
[26] Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art. 33, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.
[27] Int’l Comm. of the Red Cross, The Principle of Proportionality (2023), https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-is-the-principle-of-proportionality.
[28] Id.
[29] See Doa Ali, How to Kill an Entire Country: The Legacy of the Sanctions Against Iraq, Transnat’l Inst. (July 26, 2023), https://www.tni.org/en/article/how-to-kill-an-entire-country.
[30] Ali, supra note 31; Gorji, supra note26.
[31] Gorji, supra note26.
[32] See id.
[33] Impact of U.S. Sanctions on Aid Delivery in Afghanistan, Ctr. for Strategic & Int’l Stud. (Sept. 3, 2021), https://www.csis.org/analysis/impact-us-sanctions-aid-delivery-afghanistan.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] See id.
[37] See Questions and Answers: How Sanctions Affect the Humanitarian Response in Syria, Human Rts. Watch (June 22, 2023), https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/22/questions-and-answers-how-sanctions-affect-humanitarian-response-syria.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Supra note 6; Supra note 4.
[41] Supra note 5.
[42] Id.
[43] See id.
[44] See id.
[45] See id.
