The use of sanctions and unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) as a central instrument of foreign policy has become increasingly common and widespread in recent years, especially among a number of wealthy and powerful nations in the West. In 2015, the late Dr. Idriss Jazairy, then serving as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and international sanctions, presented a highly detailed report to the United Nations General Assembly shining a critical light on the global reach of these measures. He noted that “one third of humanity lives in countries that are currently targeted [by UCMs] in one way or another.” Another report conducted by the economist Francisco Rodriguez and published last year by the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that about 29 percent of global GDP is produced in sanctioned countries, up from only 4 percent in the 1960s. Additionally, in June of this year, the Washington Post published a comprehensive analysis revealing a sharp increase in US-imposed sanctions over the past two decades. The findings show that the United States now enforces three times as many sanctions as any other nation or international body on the planet, with a third of all countries in the world facing a variety of stringent financial penalties on individuals, properties, groups, or organizations.
Notwithstanding their enormous expansion in terms of frequency, type, target, and scope, unilateral sanctions and coercive measures are fraught with myriad issues. For one, although the imposition of sanctions and UCMs is often cloaked in the lofty and high-minded rhetoric of protecting human rights, promoting (Part I) democracy, and fostering peace to make them more palatable and offer a veneer of legitimacy, there is a substantive and still growing body of compelling evidence from within the vast academic literature, reports conducted by international organizations, and numerous case studies demonstrating their illegality and the hugely detrimental impact that they have on targeted nations. Essentially the modern equivalent of a medieval siege and representing a surrogate of warfare, these measures, applied unilaterally and without the explicit authorization or consensus of the international community, do not conform to international law, international humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter, or the basic norms and principles governing peaceful, diplomatic relations among states. Moreover, regardless of their label – comprehensive, sectoral, targeted, or smart – they invariably wreak tremendous damage on targeted countries by inflicting a range of devastating social, economic, health, humanitarian, and other consequences, while also undermining peace, increasing displacement, and sharply driving up irregular migration flows. And although the adverse effects of sanctions extend to reach all segments of targeted nations, they disproportionately and indiscriminately harm the most vulnerable population groups, including children, women, the elderly, the sick, and the poor.
Today, Eritrea is one country among many others that is saddled by an array of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures that have been imposed by a number of powerful major Western nations, predominantly the United States and the European Union. The following article lays out how these restrictive measures, both within the context of Eritrea and much more broadly, are unlawful and lack any legal foundation.
Lacking a legal foundation and violating rights
It does not take an international legal expert to recognize that the unilateral sanctions and coercive measures imposed on Eritrea (as well as on other countries) lack any sort of legal foundation and do not protect rights. Instead, it is quite clear that they violate the fundamental principles of human rights and various international or regional instruments. There is no shortage of examples demonstrating this basic point. (Due to space constraints, only a few are highlighted here.)
To begin, consider the United Nations Charter, which is the constitutive instrument of the United Nations and identifies both the rights and obligations of all member states. UCMs on Eritrea represent an open attack on the principles set forth in the Charter, such as independence, sovereign equality, non-intervention, and multilateralism. Since, by definition, they are imposed outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council, the measures entail a violation of Article 41 of the Charter, which gives only the Security Council the authority to use a variety of measures not involving the use of armed force – such as sanctions – to “give effect to its decisions.” That UCMs are imposed unilaterally, lacking due process and without or beyond the authorization of the Security Council, also means that they breach Article 103, which declares that obligations under the United Nations Charter prevail over any other international agreements. Moreover, as pointed out last year by Alfred de Zayas, who served as the United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, “the destabilizing impact of UCMs on international order can amount to a threat to international peace and security within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter.”
Second, UCMs constitute a flagrant violation of a number of articles from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICESCR and the ICCPR are multilateral treaties adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and represent two key pillars of the International Bill of Human Rights. (Both treaties were adopted in 1966 and came into force a decade later.)
For instance, with UCMs severely hindering targeted countries’ ability to provide a range of essential services, ranging from adequate food, health, and essential medicines to education and the continuous improvement of living conditions, they contravene Article 11 and Article 12 of the ICESCR. Furthermore, since UCMs constitute foreign intervention and restrict the right of targeted states (and their people) to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic or social development, they violate the right of peoples to self-determination, including self-determined development, as proclaimed in the ICCPR (as well as the ICESCR). A number of prominent voices have also persuasively argued how UCMs violate Article 20 of the ICCPR, relating to the prohibition of war propaganda and incitement to hatred. This is because the application of UCMs is frequently accompanied by a relentless barrage of fake news and disinformation with the apparent aim of making them seem justified or legitimate. The longstanding media campaign aimed at Eritrea is a strong case in point.
Alongside the above, the application of UCMs against Eritrea and other targeted states violates fundamental rights and principles enshrined in a number of international declarations. (Although not legally binding, declarations carry considerable moral force and serve as a clear indication of the commitments of the international community.)
For example, because UCMs constrain the ability of states to fund the various social services, food, medicine, and medical devices needed by their people, they violate obligations set under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a milestone document and key part of the International Bill of Human Rights – to respect and protect the rights of every person to life (Article 3) and to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of individuals and their families (Article 25).
As a blatant form of intervention, UCMs contravene the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty (adopted in 1965), which clearly states that “No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind.” Additionally, they fail to comply with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (adopted in 1970), which declares that “no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.”
UCMs also contravene the Declaration on the Right to Development (DRD). Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1986, it recognizes development as “a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the wellbeing of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.” UCMs fundamentally violate these entitlements and completely destroy the possibility of people in targeted countries to self-determine their development priorities, actively, freely and meaningfully participate in their own development, contribute to the process, and benefit from it. Additionally, UCMs violate the obligations set out for states detailed in Articles 3, 4, and 6, revolving around promoting cooperation, especially in order to eliminate obstacles to the realization of the right to development.
Importantly, the United Nations General Assembly, the main policymaking organ of the organization, has adopted numerous resolutions condemning or objecting to the application of UCMs and recognizing their harmful impacts. (While it is accepted that General Assembly resolutions cannot create binding legal obligations, they help to underscore existing customary international law or contribute to its emergence.) Just several examples from what is a long list include Resolution 44/215 (adopted in 1989), Resolution 69/180 (2014), Resolution 70/151 (2015), Resolution to the process, and benefit from it. Additionally, UCMs violate the obligations set out for states detailed in Articles 3, 4, and 6, revolving around promoting cooperation, especially in order to eliminate obstacles to the realization of the right to development. Importantly, the United Nations General Assembly, the main policymaking organ of the organization, has adopted numerous resolutions condemning or objecting to the application of UCMs and recognizing their harmful impacts. (While it is accepted that General Assembly resolutions cannot create binding legal obligations, they help to underscore existing customary international law or contribute to its emergence.) Just several examples from what is a long list include Resolution 44/215 (adopted in 1989), Resolution 69/180 (2014), Resolution 70/151 (2015), Resolution 71/193 (2016), Resolution 72/201 (2017), Resolution 74/154 (2019), Resolution 75/181 (2020), and Resolution 77/214 (2022).
Finally, to look at the regional level, the UCMs imposed on Eritrea (and other African nations) run counter to the Constitutive Act of the African Union (adopted in 2000), which emphasizes respect for the sovereignty of states and the need for collective action. They also violate Article 4 of the Act, which stresses non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Importantly, the 35th Ordinary Session of the African Union Assembly (held in 2022) adopted a resolution that condemned the application of UCMs and reaffirmed its solidarity with Eritrea (as well as other member states subjected to sanctions). Subsequently, in 2023, the African Union, at its 36th Ordinary Summit of Heads of State, reiterated its condemnation of UCMs imposed on Eritrea and called for their immediate lifting.
