ABSTRACT
Global governance becomes critical in attaining world peace and security as trans-national crises become complex and challenging in the paradigm of international politics. The role of international organizations has been pivotal to combat global problems such as terrorism, deviant states producing nuclear weapons, environmental disasters and intra or inter states conflicts. In resolving these crises, diplomacy is handled in secrecy because military intervention is costly, but sanctions are employed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) once there is a threat or an actual infringement on world peace and security. When these sanction regimes are implemented, some states evade them, some allied states may not be willing to execute UNSC resolutions, there could be conflict between domestic and international laws and vulnerable citizens suffer the consequences rather than their leaders who were agents of crises e.g Iran and Libya. The study therefore examined global governance and the emerging trends in the implementation of UNSC sanctions.
The research used the doctrinal methodology by adopting a combination of laws, rules, regulations, and instruments in international relations so as to rationalize the roles played by UNSC sanctions in global governance. The historical approach was also used to support the doctrinal method by tracing the development of global governance, sanctions and the United Nations (UN). Other sources of data included International Treaties and Instruments, UN Charter, scholarly journal articles, international law textbooks, case law and relevant UN Resolutions. The study is qualitative in nature.
The study found that not all UNSC sanctions are effective in the paradigm of international politics given the current state of global governance since only 10 percent of targeted sanctions have yielded the intended results. The economic and humanitarian consequences of sanction regimes of the UNSC on some selected states, groups and individuals are still felt but has been ameliorated by the introduction of smart sanctions. The emergence of UNSC targeted sanctions is a clear improvement on the comprehensive sanctions. UNSC Sanctions are not made to last forever as most people believe and there are means of terminating these measures such as reverse Resolution.
The research concluded that improved global governance is pertinent for a total effective implementation of UNSC sanctions in our contemporary world in order to ensure global peace. Despite the emergence of UNSC targeted sanctions, till date, the measures are still left with their shortcomings such as infringement on freedom of movement through a travel ban, more so, targeted sanctions are more evaded than comprehensive sanctions. The study recommended that for UNSC sanctions to be successful in this contemporary global governance and way beyond, Proper assessments before, during and after a sanction episode should be observed so as to reduce both economic and humanitarian consequences and sanction evasion; and an autonomous review Procedure at the UNSC level is also to be established.
Keywords: Global Governance, Sanctions, Humanitarian, International Peace, Resolutions
Word Count: 465
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
Title Page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Abstract vi
List of Tables xii
List of Cases xiii
List of Abbreviations xiv
List of Instruments xvi
List of U.N Resolutions xvii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Statement of Problem 8
1.3 Objective of the Study 11
1.4 Research Questions 12
1.5 Methodology 12
1.6 Scope of the Study 13
1.7 Significance of the Study 14
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms 15
1.9 Structure of the Study 16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction 18
2.1 Conceptual Model 18
2.1.1 Global Governance 18
2.1.2 The Concept of Sanctions 26
Content Page
2.2 Architects in Global Governance 30
2.2.1 International Institutions 30
2.2.2 Countries 35
2.2.3 Non-Governmental Organizations- NGOs 37
2.2.4 Experts 38
2.2.5 Multinational Corporations-MNCs 39
2.3 The United Nations: at the Center of Global Governance 41
2.4 Challenges of Global Governance 44
2.5 Theoretical framework 46
2.5.1 Network Governance 46
2.5.2 The Theory of Collective Security 48
CHAPTER THREE: UNITED NATIONS SECURITY
COUNCIL SANCTIONS MECHANISMS IN CURBING
THREATS TO GLOBAL PEACE AND SECURITY
3.1 The Security Council 53
3.1.2 Composition of the Security Council 54
3.2 The Sanctions Committee 57
3.2.1 Originating Powers of the Sanctions Committee 58
3.2.2 The Capacity and Administrative Techniques of the Sanctions Committees 58
3.3 Legal basis for UN Security Council Sanctions 60
3.3.1 Sanctions Under League of Nations “Covenant” 61
3.3.2 United Nations Charter 62
3.3.3 Sanctions under the UN Charter 63
3.3.4 Comparison of the UN charter and its precedent 66
3.4 History of sanctions 68
3.5 Objectives and Purposes of UN Security Council sanctions 69
3.5.1 Settlement of Dispute 70
3.5.2 Limitation of Nuclear Weapon 71
Content Page
3.5.3 Opposing Terrorism 73
3.5.4 Establishing Democracy 75
3.5.5 Safety of Ordinary Citizens 77
3.6 Logic and types of Sanctions 79
3.6.1 Economic Sanctions 79
3.6.2 Political Sanctions 82
3.6.3 Smart or Targeted Sanctions 83
3.6.4 Unilateral sanctions 84
3.7 Obligations to Implement and Comply with UN Sanctions 85
3.8 The Morality of Sanctions 86
3.9 Humanitarian Consequences of Sanctions 88
3.10 Evasion of Sanctions or Sanctions Bursting 90
3.11 Termination of Sanction Regimes 92
CHAPTER FOUR: UN SECURITY COUNCIL
SANCTIONS AGAINST STATES: SOME SELECTED
CASE STUDIES
4.0 Introduction 94
4.1 UN Sanctions on Iran –Background 95
4.1.1 History Of Sanctions On Iran 96
4.1.2 Sanctions on Nuclear Program 99
4.1.3 Financial Sanction 103
4.1.4 Oil And Gas Sanction 106
4.1.5 Shipping and Cargo Inspections 107
4.1.6 Panel of Experts 107
4.1.7 UN Sanctions on Arm To Be Terminated Later 110
4.2. UN Sanctions on Libya-Background 110
4.2.1 No Fly Zone 112
4.2.2. Enforcements of Arms Embargo 114
Content Page
4.2.3 Ban on Flights 115
4.2.4 Asset freeze 115
4.2.5 Designation 116
4.2.6 Panel of Experts 116
4.3. UN Sanctions on North Korea-Background 118
4.3.1 Regulating Enforcement Measures 120
4.3.2 Realistic Enforcement Measures 120
4.3.3 Arms Embargo 121
4.3.4 Ban on Luxury Goods 122
4.3.5 Financial Sanctions 123
CHAPTER FIVE: THE EMERGENCE OF TARGETED
SANCTIONS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNITED
NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
5.0 Introduction 125
5.1 From Comprehensive to Targeted Sanctions 126
5.2 Who is Targeted? 130
5.3 Smart Sanctions against Individuals 135
5.3.1 Osama Bin Laden-Background 137
5.3.2 UN Sanctions against Osama Bin Laden 139
5.3.3 Muammar Gaddafi-Background 142
5.3.4 UN Sanctions On Mammaur Gaddafi 144
5.4. Targeted Sanctions against Groups 145
5.4.1 ISIL (Islamic State of Iran and Levante)-Background 146
5.4.1.1 UN Resolutions on ISIL 146
5.4.2 The AQT (Al Qaeda and Taliban)-Background 147
5.4.2.1 UN Sanctions On Al Qaeda and Taliban 148
5.4.3 Challenges of Targeted Sanctions by Individuals 149
5.5 Review of Cases 150
5.5.1 The Kadi Case 150
Content Page
5.5.2 The Al-Jedda Case 153
5.6 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of UN Targeted Sanctions 155
5.7 Shortcomings of the Targeted Sanctions Regime 159
5.8 The UN Security Council Reforms on Targeted sanctions 163
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.0 Introduction 167
6.1 Summary 167
6.1.1 Summary of Findings 168
6.2 Conclusion 177
6.3 Recommendations 179
6.3.1 Genuine Deliberation on Law of Human Rights 179
6.3.2 Development on the Strategies of The Sanctions Committee 180
6.3.3 Assessment of Sanction Episodes 180
6.3.4 Amendments of the UN Chatter 181
6.3.5 Establishment of an Autonomous Review Procedure 181
6.3.6 Enhancement of the Standard of public Awareness/debate 182
6.4 Contribution to Knowledge 182
6.5 Suggestions for Further Studies 183
REFERENCES 185
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
5.1 Effectiveness of UN targeted Sanctions 158
5.2 A summary of Sanctions Effectiveness distribution 159
LIST OF CASES
Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 27021/087, ECtHR (Judgment) [Grand Chamber] (7 July 2011).
Behrami and Behrami v. France, Grand Chamber, (Application No. 71412/01)
Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, Grand Chamber, (Application No. 78166/01),
31 May 2007.
Vlastimir and Borka Bankovic and others v Belgium, and others, Grand Chamber,
(Application No. 52207/99), 12 December 2001.
Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. European Commission, [2010] ECR II-0000 (30 September
2010).
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACHR: American Convention on Human Rights
AU: African Union
BRICS: Brazil, China, India, the Russian Federation and South Africa
BWC: Biological Weapons Convention
CFSP: Common Foreign and Security Policy
CJEU: European Court of Justice
CPHRFF: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
CWC: Chemical Weapons Convention
DPRK: Freedoms Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights
ECtHRT: The European Court of Human Rights
EU: European Union
FATF: Financial Action Task Force
G.A.T.T.: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades
G7: The Group of 7
HCOC: Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation
I.M.F: International Monetary Fund
IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization
ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IMO: International Mari-time Organization
INTERPOL: International Police
ISAF: International Security Assistance Force
ISIL: Islamic State of Iraq and Levant
ISU: Implementation Support Unit
ITF: International Tennis Federation
IRA: Irish Republican Army
JCPOA: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
MTCR: Missile Technology Control Regime
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NTBT: Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
NTC: National Transitional Council
OCHA: The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OIC: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (‘OIC’)
OPCW: Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
PTBT: Partial Test Ban Treaty
SCO: Shanghai Cooperation Organization
SWIFT: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
TSC: Targeted Sanctions Consortium
UEFA: Union of European Football Federation Associations
UK: United Kingdom
UN: United Nations
UNCIO: United Nations Conference on International Organization
UNODA: United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
UNSC: United Nations Security Council
USA: United States of America
WB: World Bank
WCO: World Customs Organization
WTO: World Trade Organization
LIST OF INSTRUMENTS
Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI
Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919
European Communities and Certain Related Acts, 1997 O.J. C 340/1
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5
Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 167
Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated Version), Rome Treaty, 25 March 1957
Treaty of Versailles of 28 June 1919
Treaty on European Union (Lisbon Treaty) 2007, OJ C 306/255
Treaty on European Union (Maastricht text), 29 July 1992, O.J. C 191/1
LIST OF UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
SC/RES/1 (1946) adopted by the Security Council at its 2nd meeting.
SC /RES/1970 (2011) adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting.
SC/RES/1132 (1997) adopted by the Security Council at its 3822nd meeting.
SC/RES/1160 (1998) adopted by the Security Council at its 3868th meeting.
SC/RES/1193 (1998) adopted by the Security Council at its 3921st meeting.
SC/RES/1214 (1998) adopted by the Security Council at its 3952nd meeting.
SC/RES/1267(1999) adopted by the Security Council at its 4051st meeting.
SC/RES/1333(2000) adopted by the Security Council at its 4251st meeting.
SC/RES/1343 (2001) adopted by the Security Council at its 4287th meeting.
SC/RES/1363(2001) adopted by the Security Council at its 4352nd meeting.
SC/RES/1373(2001) adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting.
SC/RES/1390 (2002) adopted by the Security Council at its 4452nd meeting.
SC/RES/1518 (2003) adopted by the Security Council at its 4872nd meeting.
SC/RES/1521 (2003) adopted by the Security Council at its 4890th meeting.
SC/RES/1533 (2004) adopted by the Security Council at its 4926th meeting.
SC/RES/1572 (2004) adopted by the Security Council at its 5078th meeting.
SC/RES/1591 (2005) adopted by the Security Council at its 5153rd meeting.
SC/RES/1672 (2006) adopted by the Security Council at its 5423rd meeting.
SC/RES/1718 (2006) adopted by the Security Council at its 5551st meeting.
SC/RES/1737 (2006) adopted by the Security Council at its 5612th meeting.
SC/RES/1874 (2009) adopted by the Security Council at its 6141st meeting.
SC/RES/1907 (2009) adopted by the Security Council at its 6254th meeting.
SC/RES/1970 (2011) adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting.
SC/RES/1973 (2011) adopted by the Security Council at its 6498th meeting.
SC/RES/1988 (2011) adopted by the Security Council at its 6557th meeting.
SC/RES/2087 (2013) adopted by the Security Council at its 6904th meeting.
SC/RES/2094 (2013) adopted by the Security Council at its 6932nd meeting.
SC/RES/2231 (2015) adopted by the Security Council at its 7488th meeting.
SC/RES/2270 (2016) adopted by the Security Council at its 7638th meeting.
SC/RES/232 (1966) adopted by the Security Council at its 1340th meeting.
SC/RES/300 (1995) adopted by the Security Council at its 1592nd meeting.
SC/RES/316 (2013) adopted by the Security Council at its 1650th meeting.
SC/RES/3333 (2000) adopted by the Security Council at its 2322nd meeting.
SC/RES/661 (1990) adopted by the Security Council at its 2933rd meeting.
SC/RES/678 (1990) adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting.
SC/RES/751 (1992) adopted by the Security Council at its 3069th meeting.
SC/RES/752 (1992) adopted by the Security Council at its 3075th meeting.
SC/RES/757 (1992) adopted by the Security Council at its 3082nd meeting.
SC/RES/788 (1992) adopted by the Security Council at its 3138th meeting.
SC/RES/820 (1993) adopted by the Security Council at its 3200th meeting.
SC/RES/841 (1993) adopted by the Security Council at its 3238th meeting.
SC/RES/841 (1993) adopted by the Security Council at its 3238th meeting.
SC/RES/864 (1993) adopted by the Security Council at its 3277th meeting.
SC/RES/872 (1993) adopted by the Security Council at its 3288th meeting.
SC/RES/873 (1993) adopted by the Security Council at its 3291st meeting.
SC/RES/917 (1994) adopted by the Security Council at its 3376th meeting.
SC/RES/918 (1994) adopted by the Security Council at its 3377th meeting.
SC/RES/955 (1994) adopted by the Security Council at its 3453rd meeting.
SC/RES/2337(2017) adopted by the Security Council at its 7866th meeting.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the Study
The crises and threats presently being experienced worldwide are alarming and far beyond the sustenance, grip and control of the states wherein, their occurrences take place. Countries are warring against one another, some are so deviant that they produce nuclear and ballistic materials. Individuals and groups are executing terrorist activities that are unimaginably destructive and contaminable deadly diseases such as Ebola are sometimes not efficiently curtailed since they run across states’ borders. Moreover, during this era, we have Populist insurgency across the globe, ‘BREXIT’, Niger fraud and speculations that some states may also withdraw their membership from powerful organizations like the United Nations. There are also unfriendly environmental occurrences and situations, some nations are still not democratised, there is general insecurity in all spheres of life (water, food, health, shelter and even clothing), and the standard of living per person declines daily.
The way in which the world can become a better place by overcoming the problems mentioned above through established and available actors/stakeholders, resources, mechanisms and systems is crucial to this work.
Global governance is growingly necessary to achieve international peace and security especially as the world becomes more interconnected and complex. For over a half century, the global governance institutions have been persistently responsible for the management of general global menace in all spheres of human security. Since globalisation emerged, the powers of global institutions have grown to ensure international security and stability.[1]
Contemporary and emerging global menace and crises need an effective collective answer. In international relations, a tool that is insufficient is diplomacy; military intervention is expensive and frequently politically unviable.[2] Sanctions are frequently used by the United Nations Security Council (UN Security Council) since the post-Cold War period in response to global threats and problems. Sanctions arise between diplomacy and military interventions. These sanctions are perceived as being very efficient when employed with other strategies available to the international community. This efficiency is due to the fact that diplomacy is conducted away from public view and military onslaughts are very expensive.[3] Global governance is indeed the management, control and resolutions of issues, interests or problems that have trans-national concerns or repercussions such as piracy, terrorism, international trade and security, climate change amongst others. These events go beyond the boundaries of a single state and eventually have both positive and negative global results.
The role of the United Nations (UN)[4] in global governance is very germane in international politics. In the absence of a world government to ascertain the rules and regulations governing relations between states, diverse workable means are needed to resolve global crises.[5] The foundation to establish institutional framework for policy formulation and decision making at the international level is implemented by the UN.[6]
The entire paradigm of the UN was formulated to deal with the basic actors in international politics such as states. In order to achieve this purpose, the UN Security Council is imposed with a distinct power to deal with threats to the international peace and security through a procedure of international security created in global politics. The UN Security Council responds to those threats by imposing sanctions against the origin of the intimidation.[7] Subsequent to the Cold War, comprehensive sanctions have been polished and have emerged in commendable manner through a change in types of targets and purposes of these measures. Beginning in 1992, sanctions moved gradually away from the comprehensive model, often including a general trade embargo, and their associated humanitarian impact, toward targeting leaders and decision-makers responsible for defying international norms.[8]
Recently, UN Security Council sanctions are in the glare of the public especially regarding Al Qaida-Taliban, Côte d’Ivoire, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, and Libya and currently Syria with meaningful expansion of traditional targeted sanctions in some cases. These sanction regimes both emphasize the increasing use of this measure and unending doubts about the future of UN Security Council sanctions in the face of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the adaptability of some present targets, pervasive misconceptions, and other problems to sanctions’ legality, integrity, and effectiveness.[9]
Mostly, sanctions are seen as a substitute to military force. When sanctions are imposed to punish an offending party socially, economically, or politically rather than militarily, it is employed with the intentions to solve a conflict without the mass suffering and sacrifice required by war. Sanctions have sometimes been effective, and are broadly used.[10] There were nearly as many sanction episodes after the end of the Cold War as there were during the first ninety years of the twentieth century.[11] The most high-profile cases were comprehensive UN sanctions imposed on Iraq, Haiti, and former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.[12] Ultimately, all three episodes generated at least moderate concessions.[13] In this research, the history and uses of sanctions, some associated problems, and how sanctions can be made more effective in terms of implementation will be examined.
The UN Security Council has targeted sanctions against individuals and other non-state actors in its application of the measures. When sanctions were employed for the very first time, it was the white minority government of Southern Rhodesia, which was a British Colony at the time and not a sovereign state that was besieged.[14] Practically all UN Security Council sanctions regimes partly affected individuals and occasionally members of governments and their closest associates and relatives.[15] In recent years, many persons are ‘blacklisted’ by the UN Security Council as likely terrorists.[16] Usually such sanctions include travel bans and Assets freeze. These types of sanctions are the emerging trends in the implementation of UN Security Council sanctions and are known as “Targeted or Smart Sanctions”.[17]
A mechanism governing the behaviour of all stakeholders in the international political system is International law with the main function of ensuring peace and security in the global community.[18] A new set of issues concerning possible violations of individual rights were raised by targeted sanctions which were developed as a consequence of such concerns.[19] The Kadi case[20] is a judgement that bothers on the challenges of individuals who were listed by the sanctions committee of the UN Security Council,[21] and the Al-Jedda case[22] is on the legal consequences of targeted sanctions. These two cases are thoroughly examined in chapter four of this research. The use of force though not prohibited is usually not the desired way of regulating international actors’ behaviour; hence the use of sanctions is often desired to compel a state to adhere to the rules of international law.[23]
The UN through her Security Council is built as a global institution that possesses the legal rights to guarantee international peace and security by adopting mechanisms not involving the use of force to ensure its decision.[24]The UN Security Council has the responsibility of preventing and repressing acts of encroachment in all states especially in instances of a breach of or threat to peace or international security. It can also intervene if state governments (failed state situations) cease to protect human rights and unable to exercise control of governance as was the situation in Libya. [25] There are 15 UN Member States in the Security Council, out of which, five are persistently permanent members,[26] namely, China, United States (U.S), United Kingdom (U.K), France and Russia. The other ten are non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly to two year non-renewable term. The membership at the Security Council are regionally chosen to depict representation, so that three members are from Africa, two each from Asia, Latin America, Western Europe, and 1 representative from Eastern Europe.[27] The UN Security Council has wide powers to ensure global peace and security, most especially under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and its decisions are binding on all UN members.[28]
Once the UN Security Council determines that there exists a threat to peace, breach of peace or act of aggression on any state, it is empowered to give consideration to the application of measures provided in articles 41 and 42.[29] Article 39 of the Charter provides that “the Security Council shall first determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression to be able to take necessary measures pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter”. Article 41 states that:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.[30]
The quotation provides for non-military interventions by the UN Security Council and it is broadly linked with the application of sanctions episodes.[31] The Security Council has made use of a variety of non-military measures under Article 41 of the Charter. In the case of Iraq[32], the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[33] and Haiti[34], the Council imposed a complete commercial and financial embargo, supported by measures such as a flight embargo and prohibition of participation in sporting events. For instance a relevant extract from the UN Security Council resolution on Haiti reads as follows:
- All states should prohibit the sale of petroleum, petroleum products, arms and related materials including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, police equipment and spare parts for any aforementioned to Haiti;
- A ban on all traffic from entering the territorial waters of the country carrying any of the aforementioned products
- Any foreign funds held by Haiti would be frozen.[35]
Mostly in other cases, however, the UN Security Council was more selective. In the case of resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) on Libya, prohibition of flights to and from that country was buttressed by the responsibility to freeze Libyan assets and the prohibition to export oil-related equipment.[36] The UN Security Council Resolution 748 decided that, all member states should:
- Deny permission of Libyan aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory if it has taken off from Libyan territory, excluding humanitarian need;
- Prohibit the supply of aircraft or aircraft components or the provision Servicing of aircraft or aircraft components;
- Prohibit the provision of weapons, ammunition or other military equipment to Libya and technical advice or training;
- withdraw officials present in Libya that advise the Libyan authorities on military matters;
- significantly reduce diplomatic and consular personnel in Libya;
- prevent the operation of Libyan airline offices;
- deny or expel Libyan nationals involved in terrorist activities in other.[37]
Comprehensive sanctions were applied to Iraq in reaction to its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction (1990-2003) immediately after the Cold war.[38] These comprehensive sanctions were also applied during the break-up of the former Yugoslavia (1991- 1996).[39] The UN Security council expressed concerns at the situation in the former Yugoslavia, notably the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, requesting that all parties end the fighting and respect the ceasefire agreement signed on April 12 1992.[40]
These sanctions were further applied in Haiti (1993-1994).[41] These comprehensive sanctions episodes were implemented when President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in a coup,[42] and the UN Security Council did not have an alternative but to impose further international sanctions on the country after the military authorities refused to ensure an agreement to hand over power.[43] These were mainly economic or travel bans as provided for in the UN Charter.[44]
The 1990s witnessed a proliferation of UN Security Council sanction regimes, most often in the form of targeted sanctions within the context of an intrastate conflict. The following are some of the resolutions imposed, 751 Somalia (1992-present),[45] 788 Liberia (19922001);[46] 820 Yugoslavia (1993-1996;[47] 864 Angola (1993-2002),[48] 918 Rwanda (1994-2008),[49] 1132 Sierra Leone (1997-2010),[50]1160 Kosovo (1998-2001).[51]
It was only in 1995 that all permanent members definitively recognised that “further collective actions in the Security Council within the context of any future sanctions regime should be directed to minimize unintended adverse side-effects of sanctions on the most vulnerable segments of targeted countries.[52]
The Security Council was established by the UN Charter.[53] The Security Council is the main organ responsible for the maintenance of global peace and international security at the UN and is strongly dependent upon the will of the member states since it does not have troops of its own.[54] This Thesis seeks to examine the implementation of the UN Security Council and whether sanctions do really work in a 21st Century global governance. In this research, 21st Century global governance is adopted so as to efficiently review targeted sanctions of the UN Security Council which came to lime light around this time.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
1.2. Statement of the Problem
The major problem associated with the imposition of sanctions are the Humanitarian consequences. This is because during implementation of sanction regimes, people lose their homes, jobs, families. There will also be lack of food, medical facilities, some people die and neighbouring states are affected by the influx of refugees. Since inception of sanction episodes, versed UN officials and envoys cautioned about dreadful humanitarian consequences.[55] In March 1991, Under Secretary General Martti Ahtisaari reported the appalling effects of sanctions in Iraq and that it has been turned to “a pre-industrial age” while endemic health issues and famine would result if medical facilities are not supplied.[56]
The humanitarian problems caused by economic sanctions against Iraq proved there was adverse impact on the population.[57] Targeted sanctions emerged as a means of ensuring that only the people affected by sanctions are those responsible for their imposition in the first place.[58] The shift from comprehensive to targeted sanctions shows the unwillingness of the UN Security Council to place comprehensive sanctions anywhere following the humanitarian disaster in Iraq.[59]
Another problem associated with UN Security Council sanctions is the circumvention of these measures by states, groups, companies and individuals which greatly constitutes to the unsuccessfulness of sanctions in a contemporary global governance. Often, some states evade sanctions and indirectly transfer the consequences of sanctions to vulnerable citizens that were not targeted by the imposition of smart sanctions.[60] The reliable data on the extent of global sanctions evasion is not easy to access, as these activities are for obvious reasons not publicly announced. People who evade UN sanctions regimes do not announce it in the Press or media. Trans–national organised crime-relying on methods such as the use of front companies, black-market trading, re-flagging and re-numbering cargo ships and cross boarder smuggling are activities that support circumvention of sanctions.[61] All these prevent effective implementation of sanctions.
Another problem with the UN Security Council sanctions is in terms of monitoring and assessment of sanction regimes. When there is no assessments of sanction episodes prior to implementation, both foreseen and unforeseen consequences on states, groups and individuals will not be evaluated and this will result in unsuccessful implementation. Lack of assessment during and after the sanction regimes will also not allow the right provisions to be made in the relevant UN resolutions establishing such episode. The morality and ethics of the decisions of the UN Security council also calls for concern by all stakeholders[62] since this has negative effect on implementation of UN Security Council sanctions because some states and other international actors may be reluctant to ensure implementation of sanctions on other targeted states or individuals.
The structure of the UN Security Council and the integrity of the permanent members are also problems that affect the implementation of sanction regimes and the exhibition of any negative attitude by any permanent member has been severely condemned in international politics since the principles in the UN Charter is breached.[63] The effectiveness of the UN Security council, however, has come into question, regarding the use of comprehensive economic sanctions. Criticisms over the imposition of these sanctions have included its uneven standards, and using sanctions as punishment and/or as a means of merely legitimizing those posed by the more powerful states.[64] The resulting problem is that these claims not only speak to the effectiveness of sanctions, but they also cast doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of the Security Council as a whole. The collective security system of the UN can be more effective, expanded, and legitimate if in order to address threats to international peace and security, it deals with each case on an individual basis,[65] without fear or favour.
Problems may also arise if a targeted state refuses to comply with UN Security Council sanction episode which may lead to the imposition of stricter forms of sanctions such as use of military sanctions. Such a situation also present some legal problems and may prohibit effective implementation of such sanctions. Furthermore, the adoption of targeted sanctions has shown that these acts can be challenged at domestic/regional courts by individuals who feel their human rights are violated. Human rights that may be threatened by these sanctions include the right to health, right to life, property rights, rights to freedom of movement and liberty to choose a residence, the right to respect for private and family life, and above all, procedural rights.[66] This and many other questions will be resolved in the course of this research.
Another problem with the UN Security Council sanctions are the ethical and moral shortcomings linked to them. The results of sanction episodes on Iraq in the 1990s, such as human suffering, pain, harm, death, breaching of economic, cultural and most importantly, fundamental human rights of innocent citizens reflected these problems.[67]
The link between domestic law and Public International law depicts some problems in the implementation of UN Security Council sanctions.[68] Sanctions are imposed on states and other global troupers by international organisations in order to ensure security and related goals can only be secured through the successful working of both public law and public international law.[69] This means that Sanctions resolutions agreed by the UN Security Council and other international organs create an obligation upon governments to act against the targeted state, entity or individual, which demand implementation in domestics law, thus raising multiple issues of connecting legal orders and obligations, as well as accountability and responsibility.[70]
The need to explore the emerging trends in UN Security Council sanctions in a contemporary global governance necessitated this research since research on the combination of these two independent variables are dearth. This will be achieved by examining the sanctions episodes imposed on some selected countries, blacklisted individuals and terrorist organizations. All these problems bothering on the successfulness of UN Security Council sanctions in a contemporary global governance are examined in this study.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to examine the successfulness of UN Security Council sanctions regimes in a contemporary global governance. The specific objectives are to:
- interrogate how global governance and UN sanctions consistently impact on each other in a complex global governance;
- analyse the economic and humanitarian consequences of sanctions Regimes of the UN Security Council on some selected states, groups and individuals;
- examine the practical shift of UN Security Council sanctions from comprehensive to targeted or smart sanctions and
- explore the implementation/termination of UN Security Council sanctions in the efforts to maintain global peace and security;
1.4. Research Questions
The Thesis seeks to address the following questions:
- Does the UN Security Council sanction really work given the contemporary state of Global governance?
- What are the economic and humanitarian consequences of UN Security Council sanctions regimes on some select states, groups and individuals?
- Has the practical switch of UN Security Council sanctions from comprehensive to targeted or smart sanctions minimized the problems associated with effectiveness of sanctions?
- Can the sanctions of the UN Security Council on a state or individuals be automatically terminated after the scheduled time-frame lapses?
1.5 Methodology
This research adopted the doctrinal methodology by using a combination of laws, rules, regulations, principles, ethics, norms, interpretive guidelines and values in international relations so as to rationalize the roles played by UN Security Council sanctions in a 21St Century global governance. International Treaties and Instruments, UN Charter and other relevant legal documents on global governance and UN sanctions were used in this research. Decided and relevant cases will be adopted as well. Furthermore, to ensure the doctrinal approach in this research, International law textbooks were used. The research is qualitative in nature, analytical, applies reasoning and uses of suitable and relevant words to comprehend and get contemporary information that is relevant to the topic. The results in this are analysed and not graphed. This work further investigated why and how UN Security Council sanctions are made.
The historical approach is also used by tracing the development of global governance, sanctions and the UN. The thesis employs desk-based research method. Desk research involves examining a variety of sources, including scholarly journal articles, views of think tanks. It will also involve literature review by way of referring to books on international politics. Germane official documents of the UN will also be resorted to.
The internet is now a pertinent source of knowledge and an effective medium for research. This study accessed hundreds of books and other print publications that have been made available online that would be extremely difficult to locate otherwise, including out of-print books, and classic literature and textbooks that would be much less accessible in their printed form.
1.6. Scope of the Study
The research focused on the effects of sanctions regimes of the UN Security Council on various states with specific review of the situations in North Korea, Libya and Iran. The efforts and position of the UN Security Council in contemporary global governance were also examined. The influence of global actors (international organizations, multi-national corporations and non-governmental organizations) on the imposition and implementation of UN Security Council sanctions on states and individuals are reviewed. The research interrogated if there are proper assessments before UN Security Council sanctions are implemented and effective monitoring while Sanctions are in place so as to avoid sanctions evasions. Furthermore, the study reviewed whether the adoption of targeted sanctions in achieving global peace and the implementation of UN Security sanctions, has better advantages than the comprehensive sanctions.
The time frame for this work is from 1990 to 2016. The UN Security Council resolutions on some selected states, groups and individuals were reviewed to analyse both the humanitarian and economic consequences of the implementation of sanctions within this period. For reference purposes, the UN Security Council sanctions before 1990 are mentioned in this study. The connection between Public international law and Public law as they both relate to the imposition of sanctions on states are also reviewed. The research did not attempt to query the legality of the sanctions regime of UN Security, since they are already entrenched in Article 24 of the UN Charter. In the course of this work, military sanctions are not explored since the scope of this research only covers sanctions under Article 41 of the UN Chatter.
The rationale for choosing the following countries are explained below;
Iran- UN Security Council sanctions have been on Iran for over three decades. But on January 15, 2016, most of its sanctions were terminated on Iran because it complied with the stipulated nuclear dismantlement commitments under the agreement (“Implementation Day”). The choice of Iran as one of the countries to be examined in this Thesis is important since it will depict what the UN Security Council “got right’’ before Iran bowed to the pressure of Sanctions and prove the aftermath effects of sanctions on a state after the revocation of sanction regimes.
Libya – The UN Security Council sanctions on Libya are still on-going. The rationale for Libya as a country to be probed is to explore sanctions that are in existence in a not too deviant or stubborn country.
North Korea – North Korea is seen as the most deviant and rogue state in sanctions bursting and evasion, hence the choice of the state so as to examine the tactics adopted to burst sanctions and eventually weakening sanctions imposed on it. Sanctions are not an easy tool to use against North Korea. Whether their impact is viewed from an economic or political perspective, the verdict seems to be negative.[71] In scholarly writings, the episodes on North Korea are said to be the type most resistant to the successful implementation of sanctions. The government inflicts great penury on its population and these leaders are dictatorial, repressive and tyrannical.[72] This research examined the causes of deviance on North Korean’s part.
This research is necessitated in order to show the link, impact and connection between UN Security Sanctions in a contemporary, complicated and complex global governance in solving world crises so that humanity can have a better place to reside.
1.7. Significance of the study
This research is one of the very few literature in academics that shows the connection between global governance and UN Security Council Sanctions. The work reviewed and examined whether the regimes of UN Security Council sanctions have evolved to be effective law enforcement tool of international law in global governance.
The roles the UN Security council plays in global governance through the implementation of its sanctions are interrogated. The prominent role the UN Security Council sanctions in solving global security problems is a major spot which needs critical reflection in academic literature. This study examined these issues and in so doing, has contributed to knowledge and research.
This research examined the successfulness of both comprehensive and targeted sanctions of the UN Security Council. Therefore, the work has contributed towards examining these issues properly and filling the existing gaps in the scholarly literature.
The study would also serve as a pertinent reference for students, researchers and policy makers who have interest in the relationship between global governance and the implementation of UN Security Council sanction regimes. The thesis would be a motivation to others to conduct further research on the area so that enticing issues related to the UN Security Council regimes with special attention on North Korea, Libya and Iran can be examined.
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms
Global Governance: global governance is the management, control and resolutions of matters, welfares or difficulties that have trans-national trepidations or repercussions, for example; natural disasters, famine, intra and inter states conflicts, piracy, climate change, terrorism, international trade and security and so on. These are problems that transform beyond the borders of a single government and subsequently have international penalties.
Sanctions: sanctions are defined as mechanisms adopted by states, international (e.g. U.N) and regional organizations (e.g. E.U and A.U) in resolving issues and interests that are beyond the capacity of states to handle and also checking acts of delinquency from states, groups, corporate bodies or individuals to safeguard global peace and security.
Rogue States: These are states that do not comply with rules, regulations, norms, practices and etiquettes in the paradigm of international politics. Such countries are also referred to as being stubborn, deviant and aberrant.
UN Resolutions: These are numbered rulings and verdicts passed by the UN Security Council after a vote by both the permanent and non-permanent members to resolve crises in international politics.
1.9 Structure of the Thesis
The dissertation consists of six chapters.
Chapter one illustrated the background of study on global governance and UN Security Council sanctions; the second section examined the statement of problem; the next two sections explored objectives and research questions of the thesis. These are followed by the significance of study and scope of the work; sections seven and eight focuses on methodology and Rationale respectively.
Chapter two reviews the literature on the concept of global governance and its analytical and normative phenomena in maintaining global peace and security. The roles of UN Security Council as a global governance organization especially in terms of the implementation of its sanctions regime was analysed. The challenges of global governance was also discussed. To achieve this aim, the various global actors in global governance and their roles are analysed. This chapter attempted to reconstruct collective security and Network global governance as useful theories in the effective implementation of the sanctions of the UN Security Council. Subsequently, the roles of international organisations, especially UN Security Council, in global governance was explored. The chapter further focused on the relationship between global governance and UN Security Council sanctions.
Chapter three examined the evolution, history, types, scale, legality, morality, logic and termination of sanctions. This chapter also focused on evaluating the various Articles in the UN Charter that deal with what the UN Security Council does before the making of sanctions and how these measures are eventually made. How UN Security Council sanctions interact with regional sanctions was not left out in this chapter.
Chapter four analysed the successfulness of implementation of sanction regimes of the UN Security Council on states with particular references North Korea, Libya and Iran. These case reviews seek to critically examine the adaptability of these countries to the sanctions episodes of the UN Security council. The chapter will focus on the sanctions regimes in these countries and termination of sanctions using Iran as a recent example.
In chapter five, the move from comprehensive sanctions to targeted sanctions in global governance were explored. The chapter further illustrated how the shift in thinking has come about and what it means theoretically. The concerns over these smart or “designers” sanctions were examined. The chapter explores whether there is fair and clear procedures in existence for listing individuals or entities and removing them.
In chapter six, the summary, conclusion and recommendation of the research finalized the study.
[1] Jeong In-Hye, ‘What Role Should Global Governance Organizations Play in Promoting International Security Over The Next Two Decades’. (2010), International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy, Available At <http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/articles/symposium2010/participant-papers/In-Hye_Jeong_-_China.pdf>, Accessed 3 January 2016.
[3] Enrico Carish, and Loraine Rickard-Marti, Global Threats and the Role of United Nations,(International Policy Analysis, Fes ,New York, 2011) 2.
[4] Herein after, referred to as UN in this Thesis.
[5] Sagarika Dutt, ‘The UN and Global Governance: Do Ideas Alone Help? ’ (2012), India Quarterly, Volume 68, Number 2, 187.
[6] ibid
[7] Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
[8] ibid
[9] Noah Birkhauseer, ‘Sanctions of the Security Council against Individuals-Some Human Rights Problems’ Available At <http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/Birkhauser.PDF> Accessed 20 December 2014.
[11] Hufbauer Gary, Jeffrey Schott, Kimberly Elliott, and Barbara Oegg, Economic Sanctions reconsidered,
(3rd edn. Washington: Institute for International Economics, 2007).
[12] Cortright David, and George Lopez,‘Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked’ , (2004), Foreign Affairs, Volume
83, Number 4, 90–100; Retrieved from Daniel Drezner, Sanctions Sometimes Smart: ‘Targeted Sanctions in Theory and Practice’, (2011), International Studies Review, Volume 13, 96–108.
[13] ibid
[14] SC/RES/232, (1966).
[15] This was the case in Liberia SC/RES/1343 (2001), para. 7 and in Côte d’Ivoire SC/RES/1572, (2004), para 9, 11) and SC/RES/1973, (2011), para 6.
[16] Sanctions against individuals and entities belonging to or associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaida organization, SC/RES/1267 (1999); SC/RES/3333, (2000); SC/RES/1390, (2002).
[17] ibid
[18]Chiara Franco, ‘coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law’, Available at <http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai1505.pdf>, accessed 16 December, 2015.
[19] ibid
[20] Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. European Commission, [2010] ECR II-0000 (30 September 2010).
[21] SC/Res/1330 (2000).
[22] Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 27021/087, ECtHR (Judgment) [Grand Chamber] (7 July 2011).
[23] Cynthia Chipanga and Torque Mude, ‘An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Sanctions as a Law Enforcement Tool in International Law: A Case Study of Zimbabwe from 2001 to 2013’, (2015), Open Journal of Political Science, Volume 5, 291-295.
[24] Ian Hurd, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 12; See also, Simon Chesterman, The UN Security Council and the Rule of Law: The Role of the Security Council in Strengthening A Rule-Based International System, Institute for International Law and Justice (Vienna: Wograndl Druck, Mattersburg, 2008), 1.
[25] Enrico Carish, and Loraine Rickard-Marti: Global Threats and the Role of United Nations,(n4).
[26] Art. 23, UN Charter, 1945.
[27] In 1965, the composition of the non-permanent members was increased from six elected members to ten. This change was followed by the assumption of the People’s Republic of China to the permanent seat previously occupied by the Republic of China, in 1971. Since then the composition of the Security Council has remained unchanged.
[28] Devon Whittle, ‘The Limits of Legality and the United Nations Security Council: Applying the Extra-Legal Measures Model to Chapter VII Action,’ (2015), Euro J Int Law, volume 26, Number 3, 671-698.
[29] Art. 39 of the UN Charter, 1945.
[30] ibid Art. 41.
[31] Gary Wilson, The United Nations and Collective Responsibility( 1st Edition, Routledge, 2014) 84
[32] SC/RES/661(1990) and SC/RES/687(1990)
[33] SC/RES/757(1992)
[34] SC/RES/841(1993)
[35] SC/RES/841(1993), Art.10.
[36]Gian Lucia Burci, ‘The Legal Aspect of Economic Sanctions,’ Available At <http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LCIL/documents/papers/Burci.pdf>, Accessed December 17 2015.
[37] SC/RES/748(1992), Art.6.
[38] SC/RES/661(1990) and SC/RES/687(1990).
[39] SC/RES/752(1992) and SC/RES/757(1992).
[40] Bethlehem Daniel and Weller Marc, The ‘Yugoslav’ Crisis in International Law: General Issues, (Cambridge University Press,2007) 7
[41] SC/RES/873(1993) and SC/RES/917(1994)
[42]UN Sanctions (2013) NO. 3: Special Research Report –Security Council Report, Available at <securitycouncilreport.org>, Accessed 22 December, 2014.
[43] Steeve Coupeau, The History of Haiti,(Greenwood Publishing Group,2008), 119.
[44] Art. 41 of the UN Charter, 1945.
[45] SC/RES/751 (1992), It was adopted to facilitate an immediate cessation of hostilities and an observance of a ceasefire throughout the country to promote the process of reconciliation and to provide humanitarian aid;
[46] SC/RES/788(1992), was adopted after determining that the deterioration of the situation in Liberia constituted a threat to international peace and security, the Council imposed an arms embargo on the country for the purposes of establishing peace and stability
[47] SC/RES/820(1993), ), resolution went on to confirm the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its acceptance by two of the Bosnian parties, however concern was expressed over the rejection by the Bosnian Serb party of the Agreement on Interim arrangements. All the stakeholders were to ensure a ceasefire and engage in no further hostilities, “respecting the right of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and international humanitarian agencies to have unimpeded access to the entire country and ensure the safety of their staff”
[48] SC/RES/864(1993), in this resolution, the UN Security Council “expressed its concern about the deteriorating political, military and humanitarian situation in Angola and that, despite all previous resolutions and efforts, peace talks were suspended and no ceasefire was in effect.”
[49] SC/RES/918(1994), the Council expressed “its alarm and condemnation at the continuing large-scale violence in the country which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians, and went on to impose an arms embargo on the country”
[50] SC/RES/1132(1997), The President of the UN Security Council had earlier condemned the coup d’état in Sierra Leone and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had imposed sanctions on the junta. Acting under Chapter VII, the Security Council “demanded that the junta relinquish power and to cease all attacks and violence in the country, so that humanitarian aid could be delivered to the civilian population”.
[51] SC/RES/1160(1998), was adopted after noting the situation in Kosovo, the Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, imposed an arms embargo and economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, hoping to end the use of excessive force by the government,
[52] SC/RES/300 (1995).
[53] See generally Chapter V of the United Nations Charter, 1945.
[54] Temitope oludoun, ‘Peace and Security as a Catalyst for the Reform of the UN Security Council,’ (2014) Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika Cilt 10, Sayı: 39, ss.63-96.
[55] UN document S/22799, July 17, 1991, paragraph 29.
[56] Global Forum Policy, Iraqi Sanction: Humanitarian sanctions and Options for the Future, (2002), Available At <https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170-sanctions/41947.html>, Accessed 12 February, 2016.
[57] A former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in his Supplement to an Agenda for Peace report, questioned “whether suffering inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country is a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders.” UNICEF Press Release Doc – CF/DOC/PR/1999/29 of 12 August, 1999. In 1999, after conducting the first survey since 1991of child and maternal mortality in Iraq, UNICEF concluded that in the heavily populated Southern and central parts of the country, children under 5 are dying at more than twice the rate they were about 10 years ago.
[58] Dana Shamlawi, ‘United Nations Security Councils Continued Use of Economic Sanctions’, (2015), Available At http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/17/the-united-nation-security-councils-continued-use-of-economic-sanctions>, Accessed December 20, 2015. “Sanctions pushed ordinary Iranians to the edge of poverty, destroyed the quality of their lives, isolated them from the outside world and most importantly, blocking their path to democracy. As a result of sanctions, Iranians were cut off from the world”.Saeed Kamali, The Hindu, Sanctions in Iran punishes the people, not its leaders, 13 July, 2012
[59] Marcous Tourinho, ‘Towards a world police? The implications of individual UN targeted sanctions’ (2015), International Affairs, Volume 9, Number 6, 1399–1412. The use of these emerging solutions through the use of smart sanctions has not stopped the negative outcomes of sanctions on the targeted states and individuals. A times, some states evade sanctions and indirectly transfer the consequences of sanctions to vulnerable citizens that were not targeted by the imposition of smart sanctions.[59] In reality, the UN Security council (Art. 24 of the UN Charter.) may have no options but, to impose sanctions (Chapter VII of the UN Charter ) despite the harshness it may cause on the citizens and criticisms from other UN organs, regional/ international organizations, non-state actors and states.
[60] ibid
[61] ibid
[62] Gian Lucia Burci, The Legal Aspect of Economic Sanctions, (n33).
[63] Ian Hurd, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council, ( n23).
[64] Enrico Carisch and Loraine Rickard-Martin, Global Threats and the Role of United Nations Sanctions, (n4).
[65] ibid, paragraph 2.
[66]Noah Birkhauseer, Sanctions of the Security Council Against Individuals-Some Human Rights Problems Available At <http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/Birkhauser.PDF>, Accessed 21 December, 2014
[67] Lopez-Jacoiste, The UN Security System and its Relationship with Economic Sanctions and Human Rights, Max Planck Year Book of United Nations Law’’, (2010) Volume 14, 275.
[68] Thomas Pogge, Mathew Rimmer, Kim Rubenstein (eds), Incentives for Global Public Health: Patent law and access to essential medicines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
[69] On sanctions under International law see generally Nigel White and Ademola Abass, Countermeasures and Sanctions’ in M. Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rded, 2010) and Trends in UN Security Council Sanctions Since 1990’ in Vaughan, Lowe, and Adam, Roberts, Jenniffer, Welsh and Diminik, Zaum (eds),The United Nations Security Council and War (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)
[70] Nigel White, ‘UN Sanctions, Where Public Law Meets Public International Law’ (2011), The Modern Law Review Limited, Volume 74, Number 3, 456-459, a review article to: Jeremy Farrall and Kim Rubenstein (eds), Sanctions, Accountability and Governance in a Globalised World, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009) 488.
[71] Brendan Taylor, Sanctions as Grand Strategy (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2010), 52–59.
[72] Alireza Nader, “Engaging North Korea: The Efficacy of Sanctions and Inducements,” in Sanctions, Statecraft and Nuclear Proliferation, ed. Etel Solingen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 236.
DISCLAIMER: All project works, files and documents posted on this website, eProjectTopics.com are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and some of the works may be crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a reference/citation/guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). The paper should be used as a guide or framework for your own paper. The contents of this paper should be able to help you in generating new ideas and thoughts for your own study. eProjectTopics.com is a repository of research works where works are uploaded for research guidance. Our aim of providing this work is to help you eradicate the stress of going from one school library to another in search of research materials. This is a legal service because all tertiary institutions permit their students to read previous works, projects, books, articles, journals or papers while developing their own works. This is where the need for literature review comes in. “What a good artist understands is that nothing comes from nowhere. The paid subscription on eProjectTopics.com is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here by any means, and you want it to be removed/credited, please contact us with the web address link to the work. We will reply to and honour every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 – 48 hours to process your request.
