Advertisement

Jus ad bellum economicum and jus in bello economico: The Limits of Economic Sanctions Under the Paradigm of International Humanitarian Law

  • Nema MilaniniaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter argues that economic sanctions—including sanctions imposed outside of the armed conflict context—should be regulated by the principles underlying international humanitarian law (IHL). It considers the challenges associated with applying other sources of law, namely international human rights law and the law on countermeasures, to economic sanctions and the benefits of viewing sanctions through IHL. The chapter then describes what limits would regulate economic sanctions when borrowing IHL principles. In doing so, the chapter constructs two general categories of rules: jus ad bellum economicum—or the principles concerning when economic sanctions can be used—and jus in bello economico—or the principles concerning limits governing sanctions programs.

Keywords

Security Council Armed Conflict Appeal Chamber Trial Chamber Geneva Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Acevedo D (1984) The US measures against Argentina resulting from the Malvinas Conflict. Am J Int Law 78:323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askari H et al (2003) Economic sanctions: examining their philosophy and efficacy. Praeger Publishers, WestportGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber R (2009) Facilitating humanitarian assistance in international humanitarian and human rights law. Int Rev Red Cross 91:371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowett D (1972) Economic coercion and reprisals by states. Va J Int Law 18:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchheit L (1976) The use of nonviolent coercion: a study in legality under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. In: Lillich R (ed) Economic coercion and the new international economic order. The Michie Company Law Publishers, Charlottesville, p. 41Google Scholar
  6. Calamita N (2009) Sanctions, countermeasures, and the Iranian nuclear issue. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 42:1393Google Scholar
  7. Cannizzaro E (2006) Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war. Int Rev Red Cross 88:779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassese A (2004) International law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleveland S (2001) Norm internalization and US economic sanctions. Yale J Int Law 26:1Google Scholar
  10. Craven M (2002) Humanitarianism and the quest for smarter sanctions. Eur J Int Law 13:43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford J (2001) The relationship between sanctions and countermeasures. In: Gowlland V (ed) United Nations sanctions and international law. Kluwer Law International, Leiden, p. 57Google Scholar
  12. Deeks A (2013) Consent to the use of force and international law supremacy. Harv Int Law J 54:8Google Scholar
  13. Dörmann K (2003) Elements of war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drezner D (1999) The sanctions paradox: economic statecraft and international relations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardam J (1993) Proportionality and force in international law. Am J Int Law 87:391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hathaway et al (2013) Consent-based humanitarian intervention: giving sovereign responsibility back to the sovereign. Cornell Int Law J 46:499Google Scholar
  17. Helal M (2014) Justifying war and the limits of humanitarianism. Fordham Int Law J 37:551Google Scholar
  18. Howlett A (2004) Getting “smart”: crafting economic sanctions that respect all human rights. Fordham Law Rev 73:1199Google Scholar
  19. Hufbauer G et al (2007) Economic sanctions reconsidered, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. LaRae-Perez C (2002) Economic sanctions as a use of force: re-evaluating the legality of sanctions from an effects-based perspective. Boston Univ Int Law J 20:161Google Scholar
  21. Le Mon C (2003) Unilateral intervention by invitation in civil wars: the effective control test tested. NY Univ J Int Law Policy 35:741Google Scholar
  22. Kaempfer W, Lowenberg A (1986) A model of the political economy of international investment sanctions: the case of South Africa. Kyklos Int Rev Soc Sci 39:377Google Scholar
  23. Kretzmer D (2013) The inherent right to self-defence and proportionality in jus ad bellum. Eur J Int Law 24:235Google Scholar
  24. Malloy M (2003) Oú est votre chapeau?: economic sanctions and trade regulation. Chicago J Int Law 4:371Google Scholar
  25. McNeal G (2014) Targeted killing and accountability. Geo Law J 102:681Google Scholar
  26. Megret F (2002) ‘War’? legal semantics and the move to violence. Eur J Int Law 13:361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meron T (1995) Extraterritoriality of human rights treaties. Am J Int Law 89:78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meron T (1996) The continuing role of custom in the formation of international humanitarian law. Am J Int Law 90:238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meron T (2000) The Martens Clause, principles of humanity, and dictates of public conscience. Am J Int Law 94:78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miranda L (2012) The role of international law in intrastate natural resource allocation: sovereignty, human rights, and peoples-based development. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 45:785Google Scholar
  31. Moussa J (2008) Can jus ad bellum override jus in bello? Reaffirming the separation of the two bodies of law. Int Rev Red Cross 90:963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Narula S (2006) The right to food: holding global actors accountable under international law. Columbia J Transnatl Law 44:691Google Scholar
  33. Nguyen R (2013) Navigating jus ad bellum in the age of cyber warfare. Calif Law Rev 101:1079Google Scholar
  34. Nyun T (2008) Feeling good or doing good: inefficacy of the US unilateral sanctions against the military government of Burma/Myanmar. Wash Univ Glob Stud Law Rev 7:455Google Scholar
  35. O’Connell M (2002) Debating the law of sanctions. Eur J Int Law 13:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Owen M (2013) The limits of economic sanctions under international humanitarian law: the case of the Congo. Tex Int Law J 48:103Google Scholar
  37. Padover S (1942) Wilson’s ideals. American Council on Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  38. Porotsky R (1995) Economic coercion and the general assembly: a post-Cold War assessment of the legality and utility of the thirty-five-year old embargo against Cuba. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 28:901Google Scholar
  39. Reinisch A (2001) Developing human rights and humanitarian law accountability of the Security Council for the imposition of economic sanctions. Am J Int Law 95:851Google Scholar
  40. Reisman W (2009) Sanctions and international law. Intercult Hum Rights Law Rev 4:9Google Scholar
  41. Reisman W, Stevick D (1998) The applicability of international law standards to United Nations economic sanctions programmes. Eur J Int Law 9:86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roscini M (2010) Worldwide warfare—jus ad bellum and the use of cyber force, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law XIV:85Google Scholar
  43. Sandoz Y et al (eds) (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  44. Sassoli M (2009) The implementation of international humanitarian law: current and inherent challenges. In: McCormack T (ed) Yearbook of international humanitarian law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, p. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmitt M (2013) Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Segall A (1999) Economic sanctions: legal and policy constraints. Int Rev Red Cross 81:763Google Scholar
  47. Singh S (2011) Non-proliferation law and countermeasures, in nonproliferation law as a special regime. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Sloane R (2009) The cost of conflation: preserving the dualism of jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the contemporary law of war. Yale J Int Law 34:47Google Scholar
  49. Solis G (2010) The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Steenberghe R (2012) Proportionality under jus ad bellum and jus in bello: clarifying their relationship. Isr Law Rev 45:107Google Scholar
  51. Verri P (1992) Dictionary of the international law of armed conflict. Martinus Nijhoff, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  52. West M, Murphy S (1990) The impact on U.S. litigation of non-recognition of foreign governments. Stanf J Int Law 26:435Google Scholar
  53. Wippman D (1996) Military intervention, regional organizations, and host-state consent. Duke J Comp Int Law 7:209Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of the ProsecutorInternational Criminal Tribunal for the Former YugoslaviaThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations