Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Economic Warfare or Countermeasures? EU Autonomous Sanctions Against Russia under International Law

Rejare, Johan LU (2021) LAGF03 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats har undersökt det folkrättsliga ramverket bakom EU’s autonoma sanktioner mot Ryssland. Efter Rysslands folkrättsstridiga handlingar mot våldsförbudet och non-interventionsprincipen i Ukraina 2014, antog EU ett paket av olika åtgärder mot de som ansetts ansvariga och mot viktiga sektorer av den ryska ekonomin. Sanktionerna är autonoma eftersom de har antagits oberoende av någon resolution från FN:s säkerhetsråd i enlighet med Artiklarna 39 och 41 i FN-stadgan.
Autonoma sanktioner är beryktat svåra att definiera och att rättsligt kategorisera. Om åtgärderna inte strider mot någon av EU-medlemsstaternas internationella förpliktelser, kan de fritt utövas som rättsenliga retorsionshandlingar. Om de däremot är i strid med en... (More)
Denna uppsats har undersökt det folkrättsliga ramverket bakom EU’s autonoma sanktioner mot Ryssland. Efter Rysslands folkrättsstridiga handlingar mot våldsförbudet och non-interventionsprincipen i Ukraina 2014, antog EU ett paket av olika åtgärder mot de som ansetts ansvariga och mot viktiga sektorer av den ryska ekonomin. Sanktionerna är autonoma eftersom de har antagits oberoende av någon resolution från FN:s säkerhetsråd i enlighet med Artiklarna 39 och 41 i FN-stadgan.
Autonoma sanktioner är beryktat svåra att definiera och att rättsligt kategorisera. Om åtgärderna inte strider mot någon av EU-medlemsstaternas internationella förpliktelser, kan de fritt utövas som rättsenliga retorsionshandlingar. Om de däremot är i strid med en förpliktelse, kan de bara rättfärdigas som tredjestatskontraåtgärder i statsansvarsrätten. Huvudfrågan för uppsatsen har därför varit i vilken mån EU’s autonoma sanktioner mot Ryssland kan rättfärdigas som tredjestatskontraåtgärder. Först behövde dock frågan om de strider mot EU-medlemsstaternas förpliktelser enligt WTO-rätten i traktaten GATT och GATS undersökas.
Reseförbuden, frysningarna av tillgångar och vapenembargot som införts av EU kan kvalificeras som retorsionshandlingar, men de finansiella restriktionerna och handelsrestriktionerna strider mot EU-medlemsstaternas förpliktelser till icke-diskriminering under WTO-rätten.
För att kvalificeras som folkrättsenliga kontraåtgärder, måste de uppfylla vissa kriterier kodifierade av ILC i Artiklarna 49-53 ARSIWA. Dilemmat/problemet är att EU-medlemsstaterna inte kan anses som direkt skadade stater utifrån Artiklarna 42 och 49 ARSIWA. Eftersom förpliktelserna som brutits av Ryssland är förpliktelser erga omnes, gentemot hela det internationella samfundet, kan EU-medlemsstaterna göra Rysslands ansvar gällande enligt Artikel 48. Rätten för icke-skadade stater att vidta kontraåtgärder är dock en av de mest splittrande och kvarvarande frågorna i statsansvarsrätten. ILC undvek frågan genom att anta Artikel 54 ARSIW A.
Genom att använda en rättsdogmatisk metod med ett internationellt perspektiv, har de allmänt erkända folkrättsliga källorna tagits hänsyn till för att finna svaren på forskningsfrågorna. Eftersom de primära folkrättsliga källorna ger liten vägledning, har innehållet i den internationella sedvanerätten mestadels tolkats och undersökts utifrån rättslig doktrin och judiciella avgöranden.
Uppsatsens slutsats är att åtgärderna som strider mot EU-medlemsstaternas förpliktelser enligt WTO-rätten är tillåtna tredjestatskontraåtgärder. Den tyngre ståndpunkten i doktrinen är att de är folkrättsenliga, och åtgärderna mot Ryssland verkar uppfylla kraven, inklusive proportionalitet och nödvändighet. Emellertid är det uppenbart vad gäller dessa frågor att den generella rättsliga grunden för autonoma sanktioner kvarstår som svag. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis has examined the international legal framework for the EU’s autonomous sanctions against Russia. Following Russia’s breaches of the obligations of non-use of force and non-intervention in Ukraine in 2014, the EU adopted a package of different measures against those deemed responsible and against key sectors of the Russian economy. The sanctions are autonomous since they are imposed independently of any resolution by the UNSC under Articles 39 and 41 of the UN Charter.
Autonomous sanctions are notoriously difficult to define and legally categorise. If the measures do not violate any of the EU Member States’ international obligations, they can be freely exercised as legal acts of retorsion. If they are in breach of an obligation... (More)
This thesis has examined the international legal framework for the EU’s autonomous sanctions against Russia. Following Russia’s breaches of the obligations of non-use of force and non-intervention in Ukraine in 2014, the EU adopted a package of different measures against those deemed responsible and against key sectors of the Russian economy. The sanctions are autonomous since they are imposed independently of any resolution by the UNSC under Articles 39 and 41 of the UN Charter.
Autonomous sanctions are notoriously difficult to define and legally categorise. If the measures do not violate any of the EU Member States’ international obligations, they can be freely exercised as legal acts of retorsion. If they are in breach of an obligation however, they can only be justified as third-party countermeasures under the law of State responsibility. The main question of the thesis has therefore been to what extent the EU’s autonomous sanctions against Russia could be justified as third-party countermeasures. First, the question regarding whether they are in violation of the EU Member States’ obligations under WTO law, in the treaties of GATT and GATS, had to be examined.
The travel bans, the asset freezes and the arms embargo imposed by the EU can be qualified as retorsion, but the financial and trade restrictions against the Russian financial and energy sectors are in violation of the EU Member State’s obligations of non-discrimination under WTO law.
To qualify as lawful countermeasures, they would have to meet certain criteria codified by the ILC in Articles 49-53 ARSIWA. The dilemma is that the EU Member States cannot be considered directly injured States within the meaning of Articles 42 and 49 ARSIWA. As the obligations breached by Russia are obligations erga omnes, owed to the international community as a whole, the EU Member States can invoke the responsibility of Russia under Article 48. The right of non-injured States to take third-party countermeasures however, is one of the most divisive and unresolved issues of the law of State responsibility. The ILC infamously avoided the issue by adopting Article 54 ARSIWA.
By using a legal dogmatic method with an international perspective, the generally recognised sources of international law have been consulted to find answers to the research questions. Because there is little guidance from the primary sources of international law, the content of customary international law has mostly been interpreted and examined through legal doctrine and judicial decisions.
The conclusion of the thesis is that the measures that violate the EU Member States’ obligations under WTO law are permissible third-party countermeasures. The stronger position in legal doctrine is that they are lawful, and the measures against Russia appear to fulfil the requirements, including proportionality and necessity. However, it is evident by these issues that the general legal position of autonomous sanctions remains weak. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rejare, Johan LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20211
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
public international law, sanctions, countermeasures, third-party countermeasures, wto, gatt, gats
language
English
id
9045897
date added to LUP
2021-06-29 16:37:27
date last changed
2021-06-29 16:37:27
@misc{9045897,
  abstract     = {{This thesis has examined the international legal framework for the EU’s autonomous sanctions against Russia. Following Russia’s breaches of the obligations of non-use of force and non-intervention in Ukraine in 2014, the EU adopted a package of different measures against those deemed responsible and against key sectors of the Russian economy. The sanctions are autonomous since they are imposed independently of any resolution by the UNSC under Articles 39 and 41 of the UN Charter.
Autonomous sanctions are notoriously difficult to define and legally categorise. If the measures do not violate any of the EU Member States’ international obligations, they can be freely exercised as legal acts of retorsion. If they are in breach of an obligation however, they can only be justified as third-party countermeasures under the law of State responsibility. The main question of the thesis has therefore been to what extent the EU’s autonomous sanctions against Russia could be justified as third-party countermeasures. First, the question regarding whether they are in violation of the EU Member States’ obligations under WTO law, in the treaties of GATT and GATS, had to be examined.
The travel bans, the asset freezes and the arms embargo imposed by the EU can be qualified as retorsion, but the financial and trade restrictions against the Russian financial and energy sectors are in violation of the EU Member State’s obligations of non-discrimination under WTO law.
To qualify as lawful countermeasures, they would have to meet certain criteria codified by the ILC in Articles 49-53 ARSIWA. The dilemma is that the EU Member States cannot be considered directly injured States within the meaning of Articles 42 and 49 ARSIWA. As the obligations breached by Russia are obligations erga omnes, owed to the international community as a whole, the EU Member States can invoke the responsibility of Russia under Article 48. The right of non-injured States to take third-party countermeasures however, is one of the most divisive and unresolved issues of the law of State responsibility. The ILC infamously avoided the issue by adopting Article 54 ARSIWA.
By using a legal dogmatic method with an international perspective, the generally recognised sources of international law have been consulted to find answers to the research questions. Because there is little guidance from the primary sources of international law, the content of customary international law has mostly been interpreted and examined through legal doctrine and judicial decisions.
The conclusion of the thesis is that the measures that violate the EU Member States’ obligations under WTO law are permissible third-party countermeasures. The stronger position in legal doctrine is that they are lawful, and the measures against Russia appear to fulfil the requirements, including proportionality and necessity. However, it is evident by these issues that the general legal position of autonomous sanctions remains weak.}},
  author       = {{Rejare, Johan}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Economic Warfare or Countermeasures? EU Autonomous Sanctions Against Russia under International Law}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}