Unclear Role of Sanctions in International Law

The UN which was established with the purpose of preserving international peace and security has used so many different methods to avoid and control disputes in over six decades it has been working. In general and according to UN chart, the following strategies can be pointed:

1. Public Security: An action with which all member countries suppress the offender country through public attempts or by force.
2. Preventing Diplomacy: A diplomatic action before dispute starts and controlling critical spots using peace-keeper forces.
3. Peaceful Solution of Disputes: Different methods such as judgment, arbitration and making peace with which international disputes can be solved.
4.  Settling Peace: An attempt to create consent between sides of a dispute through signing agreements, contracts, etc.
5. Peace-making: Actions taken following disputes occur to stabilize peace. Such as giving development aids, social administration, supporting human rights, observing elections, etc.

According to chapter eight of the chart, UN Security Council can react to threats to international peace and security through sanctions. Also, according to article 41 of the chart, Security Council can decide what action to take to enforce their decision if the option of using armed forces is off the table. It also can request the members to give up their economic relations, rail, sea, air, post, telegraph, radio and even political relations totally or partly.

However, the chart doesn’t authorize all strategies. Only the ones the council finds useful will be used. Sanction is a way to suppress governments which are threatening international peace and security, to change their policies. Security Council has two pre-assumptions to use sanctions:

• Studying the costs of the sanction and the benefits of the action that led to sanction, the government under sanction might change its behavior as the council asks them to.
• Imposing sanction, the council seeks suppression from inside the country through influencing the people of that country. As a result, opposition groups are anticipated to strengthen by the impacts of the sanction and eventually the government will have to change its policies that the council considers as being threats to international peace and security.

Naturally though, these theories are significant only when governments are willing to co-operate at more or less the same level. Legal commitments of member countries are based on article 25 of the UN chart according to which governments have accepted putting Security Council’s resolutions into action. Of course member governments might want to keep on to their relations with the under sanction government in the fields that are not included in the sanction. Since the council has no observing force, it can assign a sanction committee in the resolution. This committee can work with other governments and organizations to enforce sanctions item to item.

The 1990s decade can be called “Sanctions Decade”. However, Security Council had used its authority to impose non-military force once on “South Rhodesia” 1968-79 and once again on “South Africa” 1974-94. But sanctions were used 17 times afterwards to encounter threats to international peace and security.

A look at international sanctions can well reflect the complication of international demand for them. Sanctions were used against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Ethiopia and Eritrea that were involved in wars with other countries. In Angola, Sirloin and Liberia sanctions were used to stop civil wars and in other cases like in Somalia and Haiti to improve human right conditions.

 Sanctions against Libya, Afghanistan and Sudan were for fighting international terrorism. These examples had different results. The first kind which was used against Iraq after invading Kuwait, failed to make a change in that country. In Somalia, Haiti and former Yugoslavia and other cases, sanctions were proven not to have much effect in comparison with other alternatives. Many sanctions in the 90s had no clear purpose and were not efficient either. Problems they caused regarding humanity issues were also undeniable and this brings up the issue of the connection between sanctions and violating human rights laws.

Generally the efficiency of sanctions in connection with their purpose has always been a subject of analysis. For instance, ban on sales of weapons to Yugoslavia had no impact on the continuation of the battles by Serbs. Neither increase of poverty among Iraqi people had an effect on changing the regime but it actually enabled that regime to put people under more pressure. It is not making the decision that really matters but it is the efforts from the time the decision is made to predict and reduce its negative effects. Article 50 of the chart allows countries that are facing economical problems due to sanctions against other countries to consult the council to solve the problem.

On the whole, experiences of the sanction decade provided the council with a new image on the legitimacy of this means and the council is still using it. Last case was the sanction on North Korea and a resolution against Iran is on council’s agenda. However, experience has shown that sanctions are a decision that Security Council might make but how it can affect a government’s behavior is something that cannot be talked about in certain.