National Implementation of United Nations Sanctions

The implementation of the United Nations council sanctions by member states has gained increasing importance in the sanctions debate over the past 15 years. Having remained long neglected in academic circles, the sanctions review process sponsored by the Swiss, German, and Swedish governments over the past decade has been instrumental in putting the question of implementation at the centre of the sanctions research agenda.1 One of the main innovations that has characterized the sanctions landscape in the aftermath of the Cold War is the transformation of sanctions instruments: the classical trade embargoes that dominated the sanctions scene for most of the 20th century have given way to more sophisticated and carefully crafted measures. The establishment of targeted sanctions has been accompanied by other novel developments, such as the practice of targeting individuals rather than These transformations make it necessary to explore how the national implementation of multilateral sanctions has been affected, as well as its consequences for the efficacy of the measures.This article sketches the main issues surrounding the national implementation of United Nations sanctions. It identifies the most salient trends in the implementation of sanctions by individual states - and regional entity, namely the European Union - and outlines how they have been affected by the emergence of targeted, often blacklist-based sanctions. At the same time, the analysis endeavours to focus on the impact that new developments have on the efficacy of the measures concerned.The article is divided into four sections. The first provides brief introduction to the transformations in sanctions as tool over the past two decades. A second section outlines conflicting trends working both in favour and to the detriment of sanctions implementation. The third reviews the problems caused by the increasing encroachment on domestic legal orders by recent sanctions regimes. A final section discusses the difficulties posed by the violation of standards of due process resulting from UN blacklists, which merits special attention as it is the source of number of legal cases in Europe.THE UN SANCTIONS LANDSCAPE AND ITS POST-COLD WAR MUTATIONSThe use of sanctions by the UN council increased significantly in the aftermath of the Cold War. While the council subjected only two countries to mandatory sanctions prior to 1989 (Rhodesia and South Africa), Carina Staibano has counted 20 voluntary and mandatory sanctions regimes that were active between 1964 and 2005.2 As of the end of November 2009, there were 11 active sanctions regimes. UN sanctions practice has undergone series of transformations at different levels. For the purpose of our analysis, the innovations introduced in UN practice can be succinctly summarized as follows.In the early to mid-1990s, the UN council began to authorize sanctions to deal with internal armed conflict, especially in countries where state authority had collapsed, or so-called failed states. This was the case even in instances where internal conflict had limited external ramifications. From that point of view, the council departed from the restrictive interpretation of what constituted a threat to international peace and security that had characterized its practice since its inception. Apart from expanding the range of situations that qualified for enforcement action, the council also started to apply some of its sanctions regimes on only one of the parties in conflict, therefore manifestly taking sides. In range of internal conflict situations such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, and Angola, the sanctions targeted rebel groups. Similarly, the goals of sanctions regimes expanded to cover gross human rights violations, concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and international terrorism, thus acquiring new roles in preserving peace and security. …