|
Sanctions
are an instrument available to the Security Council acting under
Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, that is, in the event of any threat
to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.
Used only twice during the period of the Cold War, from 1945 to
1990, against Rhodesia (1968) and then South Africa (1977), the use of
sanctions has increased since the break-up of the USSR and the end of
East-West bipolarization in international relations.
The 1990s might be called the "sanctions' decade".
No fewer than 15 sanctions regimes were adopted by the Security
Council from 1990 to 2000: against Iraq (1990), the former Yugoslavia
(1991), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992), Libya (1992),
Somalia (1992), Haiti (1993), UNITA (1993), Rwanda (1994), Liberia
(1994), the Bosnian Serbs (1994), Sudan (1996), Sierra Leone (1997),
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1998), the Taliban (1999), Eritrea
and Ethiopia (2000). The
sanctions against Haiti were lifted in 1994 and against the FRY in
1996. A new arms embargo
against the FRY was imposed in 1998.
Air sanctions against Sudan never went into force.
The sanctions against Libya were suspended in April 2000 but
have not been lifted yet. The arms embargo against Eritrea and Ethiopia ended May 16,
2001. On the other hand,
the sanctions against UNITA, Liberia and the Taliban have been
gradually stepped up by the Security Council.
The sanctions against Iraq, in force for over ten years
although humanitarian exemptions (the oil-for-food program) were
gradually widened, have been at the heart of the debate on the use of
sanctions for several years. Indeed it is the example of Iraq which has allowed the
international community to realize the political and, above all, the
humanitarian problems that the imposition of sanctions may raise, in
particular in the case of global economic sanctions against a whole
country.
The
Security Council consequently began a comprehensive review of
sanctions in the general working group on sanctions and started
to substantially change its practice when imposing new sanctions.
This working group, set up in April 2000, was expected to
submit its final conclusions at the end of 2000.
A draft report has been prepared but is still waiting for the
approval of certain Security Council members, still pending as of May
2001, before it can be definitively adopted.
France,
which was largely instrumental in launching the debate on sanctions
for both political and humanitarian reasons, has consistently
maintained that in order for the sanctions to be effective they must
be:
Targeted:
the case of Iraq has demonstrably shown the serious drawbacks to a
comprehensive embargo which unfairly hurts civilians and tends to be
counterproductive politically by strengthening the very government
whose compliance is being sought through the sanctions.
Therefore, to avoid a negative humanitarian impact, the
sanctions must be crefully tailored to target those responsible for
the policy or situation opposed by the Security Council, be it a
government, movement or some other entity;
Limited
in time and regularly assessed:
sanctions should not be maintained on an automatic basis but should be
periodically assessed by the Security Council who has to take a formal
decision each time it wants to extend them.
It is therefore essential to have regular Security Council
reviews of the sanctions regime together with an evaluation of their
political effectiveness and reassessment of any unintended
consequences (humanitarian impact, impact on other states);
Imposed
with clear political objectives and specific criteria for their
lifting:
Sanctions are an instrument for exerting pressure in order to
reach a political objective, namely the restauration of peace and
international security. The
goal is to bring about a change in the behaviour of a specific state
or entity. Sanctions must
be an incentive rather than punitive;
Coupled
with provisions for effective humanitarian exemptions: the goal is to prevent the sanctions from having an
unwanted impact on civilians;
Exceptional:
The imposition of sanctions is a serious measure which should
be used only in situations referred to in Chapter VII of the U.N.
Charter, i.e. any threat to the peace, breach of peace or act of
aggression so determined by the Security Council.
Secondary sanctions, i.e. those against a third state for
failing to comply with U.N.-imposed sanctions, do not meet this
criteria and are not a good thingin principle.
It
would also be desirable to make greater use of article 50 of the U.N.
Charter which permits any other state confronted with special problems
arising from U.N.-imposed sanctions to consult the Security Council
about taking appropriate measures to correct the unwanted effects of
sanctions. A state,
generally a neighbor of another state subject to sanctions, may suffer
economically or financially from the imposition of the sanctions in
question. It is then up
to the Security Council to take the appropriate measures to remedy the
unintended effects of the sanctions against the other state.
At
this point, with the exception of Iraq which is subject to an arms
embargo and a comprehensive economic, financial and trade embargo, the
main sanctions regimes in force are carefully targeted sanctions
intended to deprive a state or movement of the resources to engage in
or finance war: arms embargoes (UNITA, the Taliban, Liberia,
non-governmental entities in Sierra Leone, FRY), targeted financial
sanctions (UNITA, the Taliban), oil embargo (UNITA), embargoes on
diamonds (UNITA, the Sierra Leonean RUF, Liberia), air embargo
(against the Taliban), travel ban (Sierra Leonean RUF, UNITA,
Liberia).
Humanitarian
exemptions are now almost systematically provided for as a matter or
course, with varying results on the ground.
The oil-for-food program for Iraq is the largest
mechanism of this type, given the comprehensive nature of the embargo.
There are also systematic exemptions to the air embargo against
Afghan territory controlled by the Taliban intended to guarantee the
continuity of humanitarian assistance to the population (humanitarian
NGOs can get a permanent exemption).
Limited duration is also tending to become the rule.
The four new sanctions regimes adopted in the last year have
been imposed for a limited period of time: the embargo on
non-certified Sierra Leonean diamonds has been imposed for 18 months;
the arms embargo against Eritrea and Ethiopia was imposed for one
year; the air embargo and arms embargo on the Taliban have been
imposed for one year; the recent sanctions against Liberia for one
year as well.
To
be succesful, sanctions must also be implemented in an effective way.
It is the role of sanctions committees to monitor their
implementation and handle the exemptions that may be granted for
humanitarian, religious or political reasons. Sanctions committees are subsidiary bodies of the Security
Council. They are
composed of representatives of the 15 Security Council members. Currently, there are ten sanctions committees, each of them
chaired by the permanent representative of a non-permanent member of
the Security Council. The
reform of their working methods, called for by the above-mentioned
general working group on sanctions, would enable them to be more
transparent and open as well as to rely on a enhanced support from the
U.N. Secretariat. In the absence of any permanent mechanism for
monitoring sanctions and the illegal trafficking of high value
commodities in armed conflicts and in order to support the sanctions
committees, the Security Council has set up independent ad hoc expert
panels on several occasions to investigate the implementation of the
various sanctions regimes and report back to the Council (this has
been done in the cases of Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia and
Afghanistan).
In September 2001,
the Security Council has decided to lift sanctions imposed on Federal
Republic of Yougoslavia and Sudan.
|