Reshaping the Law of Economic Sanctions for Human Rights Enforcement

doi:10.1017/9781108878739.008

5 - Reshaping the Law of Economic Sanctions for Human Rights Enforcement

The Potential of Common Concern of Humankind

from Part II - Case Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2021

Iryna Bogdanova

Edited by

Thomas Cottier

Edited in association with

Zaker Ahmad

Show author details

Thomas Cottier: Affiliation:
World Trade Institute
Zaker Ahmad: Affiliation:
World Trade Institute

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In this chapter, it is argued that the deficiencies of the international human rights regime pose a difficult dilemma for individual states – when and how to respond to egregious human rights violations abroad. Being constrained by a few possible alternatives, individual states or groups of states increasingly rely upon coercive economic measures (unilateral economic sanctions) to remedy grave human rights violations. The legality of unilateral economic sanctions has been debated at length within the international community. Notwithstanding this, their consistency with public international law and more specifically, WTO law is still contestable. Against this backdrop, the chapter discusses the theoretical framework of the doctrine of Common Concern and its potential to discipline the use of coercive economic measures imposed on human rights grounds. It explores the ability of the emerging doctrine to provide a new legal framework and necessary thresholds to legitimize coercive economic measures as well as to restrict their use if they are politically motivated.

Keywords

human rights enforcement of human rights economic sanctions public morals national security exception common concern

Type: Chapter
Information: The Prospects of Common Concern of Humankind in International Law , pp. 247 - 291

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108878739.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Select Bibliography

Delanis, A., J. (1979). ‘“Force” under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter: The Question of Economic and Political Coercion’, 12 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 103–14Google Scholar

Adlung, R. (2015). ‘Export Policies and the General Agreement on Trade in Services’, 18 Journal of International Economic Law 487–510.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barrett, S. (2010). Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods (paperback ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Beitz, C. R. (2001). ‘Human Rights as a Common Concern’, 95 American Political Science Review 269–82.CrossRef Google Scholar

Besson, S. (2015). ‘The Bearers of Human Rights’ Duties and Responsibilities for Human Rights: A Quite (R)evolution?’, 32 Social Philosophy and Policy 244–68.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bodansky, D. (2012). ‘What’s in a Concept? Global Public Goods, International Law, and Legitimacy’, 23 European Journal of International Law/Journal européen de droit international 651–68.Google Scholar

Charnovitz, S. (1998). ‘The Moral Exception in Trade Policy’, 38 Virginia Journal of International Law 689–745.Google Scholar

Chilton, A. S. and Posner, E. A. (2016). ‘Respect for Human Rights: Law and History’, Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 770 1–22.Google Scholar

Cleveland, S. H. (2002). ‘Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade: A Theory of Compatibility’, 5 Journal of International Economic Law 133–189.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schefer, K. N. and Cottier, T. (2014). ‘Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Emerging Principle of Common Concern’, in Hilpold, P. (ed.), The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A New Paradigm of International Law? (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff), pp. 123–42.Google Scholar

Dawidowicz, M. (2017). Third-Party Countermeasures in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRef Google Scholar

Elagab, O. Y. (1988). The Legality of Non-Forcible Counter-Measures in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Genser, J. and Cotler, I. (2012). The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Hofer, A. (2017). ‘The Developed/Developing Divide on Unilateral Coercive Measures: Legitimate Enforcement or Illegitimate Intervention?’ 16 Chinese Journal of International Law 175–214.CrossRef Google Scholar

Paulus, A. (2012 ). ‘‘Whether Universal Values Can Prevail over Bilateralism and Reciprocity’, in Cassese, Antonio (ed.), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 89–104.CrossRef Google Scholar

Portela, C. (2018). ‘Targeted Sanctions against Individuals on Grounds of Grave Human Rights Violations – Impact, Trends and Prospects at EU Level’ 1–35.Google Scholar

Posner, E. A. (2014). The Twilight of Human Rights Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Ruys, T. (2017). ‘Sanctions, Retorsions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal Framework’ Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), pp. 19–51.Google Scholar

Ruys, T. (2019). ‘Immunity, Inviolability and Countermeasures – A Closer Look at Non-UN Targeted Sanctions’, in Ruys, Tom and Angelet, Nicolas (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 670–710.Google Scholar

Tzanakopoulos, A. (2015). ‘The Right to be Free from Economic Coercion’ 4 Cambridge International Law Journal 616–33.Google Scholar