Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Restrictive Measures: A Study of the Legality of Countermeasures and EU's Sanctions Imposed on Russia and Iran

Hellberg, Arvid LU (2023) LAGF03 20232
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats har undersökt konceptet kontraåtgärder inom folkrätten i förhållande till EU:s användning av sanktioner som ett medel för att tvinga efterlevnad av internationella förpliktelser. En kontraåtgärd är en åtgärd som i sig själv är olaglig men blir laglig när den tas som svar på en annans stats olagliga handling. Syftet med kontraåtgärden är att förmå den felande staten att upphöra med sina felaktigheter och återgå till att följa sina inter-nationella förpliktelser. Förutom kontraåtgärder finns det andra åtgärder som ryms inom paraplybegreppet sanktioner. En av dessa åtgärder är ve-dergällningar som i sig inte är olagliga och används snarare som politiska markeringar. För att kontraåtgärder ska vara lagliga måste de uppfylla ett... (More)
Denna uppsats har undersökt konceptet kontraåtgärder inom folkrätten i förhållande till EU:s användning av sanktioner som ett medel för att tvinga efterlevnad av internationella förpliktelser. En kontraåtgärd är en åtgärd som i sig själv är olaglig men blir laglig när den tas som svar på en annans stats olagliga handling. Syftet med kontraåtgärden är att förmå den felande staten att upphöra med sina felaktigheter och återgå till att följa sina inter-nationella förpliktelser. Förutom kontraåtgärder finns det andra åtgärder som ryms inom paraplybegreppet sanktioner. En av dessa åtgärder är ve-dergällningar som i sig inte är olagliga och används snarare som politiska markeringar. För att kontraåtgärder ska vara lagliga måste de uppfylla ett antal kriterier som är stadgade i artiklarna 49–53 i ARSIWA. Förutom att uppfylla dessa kriterier måste staten som vidtar en kontraåtgärd anses vara antingen en skadad stat, som stadgas i Artikel 42 ARSIWA, eller vara en annan än en skadade stat, som stadgas i Artikel 48 ARSIWA.
Tredjestatskontraåtgärder är ett koncept som innebär att en stat som inte är direkt skadad ändå har möjlighet att vidta kontraåtgärder i syfte att tvinga efterlevnad av internationella förpliktelser, ofta av erga omnes (partes)-karaktär. Om möjligheten till tredjestatskontraåtgärder överhuvudtaget existerar inom folkrätten har debatterats under en lång tid. När ILC tog fram ARSIWA kunde man inte enas huruvida en sådan rätt existerade och kunde därför inte uttryckligen införas i artiklarna. Resultatet blev Artikel 54 ARSIWA som är en kompromiss där dessa åtgärder varken förbjuds eller tillåts. De som förespråkar en rätt för tredjestatskontraåtgärder menar att den är ett viktigt verktyg för att tillse att internationella förpliktelser efterlevs. De menar att den är i linje med den internationella sedvanerätten och att farhågorna som motståndarna har om att den kommer missbrukas är överdrivna. Motståndarna menar att detta verktyg kommer missbrukas av starkare stater som förklär sina politiska ambitioner i den goda allmän-hetens namn. De menar även det inte finns något uttryckligt stöd i den in-ternationella sedvanerätten. Säkert är att EU vid flera tillfällen agerat som om en rätt för tredjestatskontraåtgärder existerar.
I min analys av EU:s kontraåtgärder mot Iran och Ryssland utredde jag dels konceptet skadad stat och efterlevnaden av de skyddande förutsättningarna för att vidta kontraåtgärder, dels om tredjestatskontraåtgärder är förenliga med folkrätten. Angående EU:s kontraåtgärder mot Iran kom jag fram till att EU var att anse som en skadad stat eftersom NPT utgör en ”interdepen-det obligation”. Däremot är det oklart om EU uppfyller alla de andra förut-sättningarna som krävs för att vidta en laglig kontraåtgärd. För att tredje-statskontraåtgärder eventuellt ska vara lagliga krävs ett allvarligt och sys-tematiskt brott mot förpliktelser erga omnes (partes). Varken ARSIWA eller den internationella sedvanerätten svarar på om tredjestatskontraåtgär-der är lagliga vilket innebär att rättsläget är fortsatt oklart. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis has studied the concept of countermeasures in public interna-tional law. I have analysed two cases where the EU has imposed sanctions on States that do not follow their international obligations. A countermeas-ure is a measure that is inherently illegal but may become legal if it is adopted as a response to another State’s unlaw act. The purpose of a coun-termeasure is to induce cessation and compliance of the wrongdoing State. The term sanction is a wide concept which includes countermeasures and acts of retorsion. An act of retorsions is inherently legal and is used as a tool to express political ambitions. For countermeasure to be legal they must follow procedural and substantial conditions which are set in the Ar-ticles... (More)
This thesis has studied the concept of countermeasures in public interna-tional law. I have analysed two cases where the EU has imposed sanctions on States that do not follow their international obligations. A countermeas-ure is a measure that is inherently illegal but may become legal if it is adopted as a response to another State’s unlaw act. The purpose of a coun-termeasure is to induce cessation and compliance of the wrongdoing State. The term sanction is a wide concept which includes countermeasures and acts of retorsion. An act of retorsions is inherently legal and is used as a tool to express political ambitions. For countermeasure to be legal they must follow procedural and substantial conditions which are set in the Ar-ticles 49-53 in ARSIWA. Apart from following these conditions a State must also be regarded as “an injured State” or “other than an injured State” according to Articles 42 and 48 ARSIWA.
Third-party countermeasure is a concept that enables a State which is not directly injured to still adopt countermeasures. These third-party counter-measures are imagined to protect certain important legal values which are enshrined in the erga omnes (partes) concept. Whether this right exist at all in public international law has been debated under a long period of time. When the ILC created the ARSIWA there was no consensus as to whether a right to third-party countermeasures should be implemented. It resulted in Article 54 ARSIWA which is a savings clause that neither for-bids nor allows the concept. Those who promote the concept argue that it is an important tool to make sure that important international obligations are being followed. Further they argue that the practice of third-party coun-termeasures exists in the customary law. Lastly, they argue that the fear of the opposition, that the third-party countermeasures would be abused by the strong States, is exaggerated. The counterpart on the other hand, argue that this concept will be abused by strong States to promote their own po-litical ambitions under a flag of good will. They also argue that customary international law has not yet shown enough evidence of an existence of the right. Safe to say the EU and other States has on several occasions adopted third-party countermeasures.
In my analysis of the EU’s countermeasures against Iran and Russia I in-vestigated the concept of an injured State and the safeguards against abuse which are found in the procedural and substantial conditions in Articles 49-53 of ARSIWA. I also investigated whether third-party countermeasures are legal under public international law. In relation to EU’s countermeas-ures against Iran I concluded that EU is regarded as an injured State be-cause of the interdependent character of the NPT. I also found that it is unclear whether the EU had a right of adopting countermeasures against Iran due to not fulfilling the substantial conditions as stated in ARSIWA. Whether the third-party countermeasures adopted against Russia are per-missible may depend on the dignity of the breach. Serious and systematic breaches of obligations erga omnes may give rise to the use of third-party countermeasures, although ARSIWA gives no answer, and it remains un-certain in public international law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hellberg, Arvid LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20232
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
public international law, state responsibility law, countermeasures, third-party countermeasures, sanctions, obligations erga omnes
language
English
id
9142488
date added to LUP
2024-02-02 12:11:16
date last changed
2024-02-02 12:11:16
@misc{9142488,
  abstract     = {{This thesis has studied the concept of countermeasures in public interna-tional law. I have analysed two cases where the EU has imposed sanctions on States that do not follow their international obligations. A countermeas-ure is a measure that is inherently illegal but may become legal if it is adopted as a response to another State’s unlaw act. The purpose of a coun-termeasure is to induce cessation and compliance of the wrongdoing State. The term sanction is a wide concept which includes countermeasures and acts of retorsion. An act of retorsions is inherently legal and is used as a tool to express political ambitions. For countermeasure to be legal they must follow procedural and substantial conditions which are set in the Ar-ticles 49-53 in ARSIWA. Apart from following these conditions a State must also be regarded as “an injured State” or “other than an injured State” according to Articles 42 and 48 ARSIWA.
Third-party countermeasure is a concept that enables a State which is not directly injured to still adopt countermeasures. These third-party counter-measures are imagined to protect certain important legal values which are enshrined in the erga omnes (partes) concept. Whether this right exist at all in public international law has been debated under a long period of time. When the ILC created the ARSIWA there was no consensus as to whether a right to third-party countermeasures should be implemented. It resulted in Article 54 ARSIWA which is a savings clause that neither for-bids nor allows the concept. Those who promote the concept argue that it is an important tool to make sure that important international obligations are being followed. Further they argue that the practice of third-party coun-termeasures exists in the customary law. Lastly, they argue that the fear of the opposition, that the third-party countermeasures would be abused by the strong States, is exaggerated. The counterpart on the other hand, argue that this concept will be abused by strong States to promote their own po-litical ambitions under a flag of good will. They also argue that customary international law has not yet shown enough evidence of an existence of the right. Safe to say the EU and other States has on several occasions adopted third-party countermeasures.
In my analysis of the EU’s countermeasures against Iran and Russia I in-vestigated the concept of an injured State and the safeguards against abuse which are found in the procedural and substantial conditions in Articles 49-53 of ARSIWA. I also investigated whether third-party countermeasures are legal under public international law. In relation to EU’s countermeas-ures against Iran I concluded that EU is regarded as an injured State be-cause of the interdependent character of the NPT. I also found that it is unclear whether the EU had a right of adopting countermeasures against Iran due to not fulfilling the substantial conditions as stated in ARSIWA. Whether the third-party countermeasures adopted against Russia are per-missible may depend on the dignity of the breach. Serious and systematic breaches of obligations erga omnes may give rise to the use of third-party countermeasures, although ARSIWA gives no answer, and it remains un-certain in public international law.}},
  author       = {{Hellberg, Arvid}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Restrictive Measures: A Study of the Legality of Countermeasures and EU's Sanctions Imposed on Russia and Iran}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}