Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Unilateral EU Economic Sanctions on the UN Collective Security Framework: The Cases of Iran and Syria

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Economic Sanctions under International Law

Abstract

The European Union’s economic sanctions against Iran and Syria have been both wide-ranging in scope and far-reaching in impacting the lives of ordinary people. It is noteworthy that the bulk of the EU’s sanctions have been adopted without the authority and support of the UNSC—an organ in whose hands the coercive activities are centralized and monopolized according to Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. This chapter describes sanctions regimes introduced by the EU, and then moves to analyze the basis on which they have been adopted. The law applicable to sanctions raises constitutional issues of the relationship between the UN and EU and of the rights and obligations of States under constituent instruments of both organizations. It draws on various options of the relationship between UN and EU focused upon in international judicial practice, and the ways in which EU’s claims to ‘autonomy’ from the UN should be properly handled. As a next step, the legality of the EU’s measures under general international law is examined. It then assesses the propriety of sanctions in the light of broader policy and institutional considerations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Council decided that all States had to prevent the supply, sale or transfer to Iran “of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.” S.C. Res. 1737(2006), para 3, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1737 (23 December 2006).

  2. 2.

    S.C. Res. 1803(2008), para 5, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1803 (3 March 2008).

  3. 3.

    Resolution 1929 prescribes that all States should prevent the sale or transfer to Iran of “battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems … .” S.C. Res. 1929(2010), para 8, U.N. Doc S/RES/1929 (9 June 2010).

  4. 4.

    EU Council Common Position 2007/140/CFSP of 27 February 2007 Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran.

  5. 5.

    EU Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 Setting up a Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering and Transit of Dual-use items, Article 2 (defining dual-use products as “items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and shall include all goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”).

  6. 6.

    EU Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran and Repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP.

  7. 7.

    EU Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 Amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran.

  8. 8.

    EU Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 Amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran; Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran and Repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010.

  9. 9.

    EU Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012.

  10. 10.

    EU Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 Concerning Restrictive Measures against Syria.

  11. 11.

    EU Council Regulation (EU) 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 Concerning Restrictive Measures in View of the Situation in Syria and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011.

  12. 12.

    EU Statement, Common Messages Regarding EU Sanctions against the Iranian Nuclear Programme (June 2013) available at www.teheran.diplo.de/contentblob/3888574/Daten/3270125/Sanktionen_common_messages_EU_DL.pdf.

  13. 13.

    Admission of a State to the Membership of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1948 I.C.J. 64.

  14. 14.

    S.C. Res. 1696(2006), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1696 (31 July 2006).

  15. 15.

    IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, para 52, GOV/2011/65 (8 November 2011) (emphasis added).

  16. 16.

    Idem, para 53.

  17. 17.

    Idem, para 56.

  18. 18.

    IAEA, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by Director-General, paras 42, 51, 54, GOV/2012/9. (24 February 2012).

  19. 19.

    The views of most States have been expressed through regional organizations such as the Organisation of Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. See OIC Final Communiqué, OIC/SUMMIT-11/2008/FC/Final, para 83; see also OIC Resolution 9/11-P(IS), Dakar Summit, 13–14 March 2008, paras 3–4; Declaration of the 33rd Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Baku, 19–21 June 2006, para 12; NAM Statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Issue, Havana, 11–16 September 2006, para 2; Letter from the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, para 3 U.N. Doc. S/2006/1018; Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, Final Document, Putrajaya, Malaysia, 27–30 May 2006, para 91; NAM Statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Issue, 15th Ministerial Conference, Tehran, 27–30 July 2008, paras 3, 8.

  20. 20.

    See Orakhelashvili 2011, Ch. 3.

  21. 21.

    1962 I.C.J. 164–165.

  22. 22.

    See generally Orakhelashvili 2011, Ch. 3.

  23. 23.

    Fox and Wickremasinghe 1993, p. 952.

  24. 24.

    EU Council Regulation (EEC) 1432/92 of 1 June 1992 Prohibiting Trade between the European Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro; EU Council Regulation (EEC) 990/93 of 26 April 1993 Concerning Trade between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

  25. 25.

    OAS, Resolution I, Sixth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Final Act, San Jose, 16–21 August 1960, operative para 1; OAS Resolution I, Ninth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Final Act, Washington DC, 22–26 July 1966, operative para 3.

  26. 26.

    Repertory of Practice of the UN Security Council, 1959–1963, p. 318.

  27. 27.

    U.N. Charter, Article 103 (“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”).

  28. 28.

    Repertory of Practice of the UN Security Council, 1959–1963, p. 318.

  29. 29.

    Treaty of Lisbon (2007) O.J. (C306/01).

  30. 30.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 3 September 2008.

  31. 31.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Kadi, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 18 July 2013.

  32. 32.

    1963 E.C.R. 12.

  33. 33.

    See Case T-306/01, Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, 2005 E.C.R. II-3533, paras 10–16; Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities 2005 E.C.R. II‐3649, paras 10–16.

  34. 34.

    Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Kadi, Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 18 July 2013, para 87.

  35. 35.

    Case T-315/01, Kadi v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities 2005 E.C.R. II‐3649; Case T-306/01, Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, 2005 E.C.R. II-3533.

  36. 36.

    Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom (Grand Chamber), 27021/08, 7 July 2011.

  37. 37.

    Nada v. Switzerland, 10593/08, 12 September 2012.

  38. 38.

    Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session (2001), Yearbook of the UN International Law Commission, vol. 2, p. 128, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add. 1 (part 2).

  39. 39.

    Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/83 (2001).

  40. 40.

    Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session (2001), Yearbook of the UN International Law Commission, vol. 2, p. 130, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add. 1 (part 2).

  41. 41.

    IAEA, Agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, INFCIRC/214, (13 December 1974).

  42. 42.

    Cf. Orakhelashvili 2011, Ch. 5.

  43. 43.

    Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session (2001), Yearbook of the UN International Law Commission, vol. 2, p. 128, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add. 1 (part 2).

  44. 44.

    Schmitt 2011, pp. 66–69.

  45. 45.

    For the text of the League’s sanctions documents see Dokumente zum Abessinienkonflikt: Entschließungen und Vorschläge über die Anwendung von Maßnahmen gemäß Article 16 des Völkerbundspaktes, 6 ZaöRV 137 (1936).

  46. 46.

    Walters 1969, pp. 669–670, 672.

References

  • Fox H, Wickremasinghe C (1993) UN implementation of UN economic sanctions. ICLQ 42:945

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2011) Collective security. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (2011) The turn to the discriminating concept of war. In: Schmitt C, Writings on war (transl. and ed. by Timothy Nunan). Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters FP (1969) A history of the League of Nations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B152TT, UK

    Alexander Orakhelashvili

Authors
  1. Alexander Orakhelashvili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Orakhelashvili .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hague Centre for Law and Arbitration, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ali Z. Marossi

  2. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Marisa R. Bassett

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Orakhelashvili, A. (2015). The Impact of Unilateral EU Economic Sanctions on the UN Collective Security Framework: The Cases of Iran and Syria. In: Marossi, A., Bassett, M. (eds) Economic Sanctions under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-051-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation