International sanctions legislation in the U.S., EU and UK:
a comparative study
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 883854 | ORCID: 0000-0001-8765-9825 | RESEARCHER_ID: U-6969-2018
Article received: 01.06.2022. Accepted: 02.09.2022
In recent years, unilateral restrictive measures have become a widespread instrument of foreign policy, and the process of their legalization has sharply accelerated. The article compares the sanctions legislation in the US, the EU and the UK in relation to the countries’ political interests and priorities. The authors carried out a comparative analysis of sanctions areas and targeting, differences in their approaches to “humanitarian exemptions”, the level of judicial control, as well as sub-sanctioned jurisdictions that predetermine the effects of sanctions not only for the targets, but also for third countries and actors. Today, the harmonization of the US, EU and UK sanctions regimes is becoming more and more obvious. The US sanctions course led to the formalization of similar regimes in the EU and the UK, which dealt with chemical weapons, human rights and cyber security. At the same time, the EU does not allow its members to use sanctions as a tool of economic competition, while the US sanctions legislation is based on the “threats to national security” criterion (in the broad sense), which has no direct link to international law. The EU has a relatively higher level of judicial control over the compilation of sanctions lists. While it was up until recently in line with the EU take on sanctions, the UK, has recently expanded the interpretation of the British Nexus, making its sanctions policy increasingly in line with the American approach, as reflected by the gradual replication of the practice of secondary sanctions.
Eckes, C. (2019). EU sanctions regime cannot be an ‘EU Magnitsky Act’. EUobserver. https://euobserver.com/opinion/144968
Giumelli, F. (2013). Beyond intergovernmentalism: the Europeanization of restrictive measures? Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(3), 390‐405.
Kamminga, M.T. (2012). Extraterritoriality. Gross violations – Comity – Jurisdiction of states, extra-territorial. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (pp. 1070-1077). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Montaldo, S., Costamagna, F., & Miglio, A. (2020). EU Law enforcement. The evolution of sanctioning powers. New York: Routledge.
Nephew, R., & Mortlock, D. (2017). Brexit’s Implications for UK and European sanctions policy. New York: Columbia University in the City of New York.
Portela, C. (2020). A blacklist is (almost) born: building a resilient EU human rights sanctions regime. European Union Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/blacklist-almost-born
Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Artyushkin, V.F., Kazantzev, A.A., & Sergeev, V.M. 2021. Balance of power between the G-20 states: analysis with multidimensional scaling method. Polis. Political Studies, 2, 125-138. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.02.09
Bogaturov, A.D. (2019). The Chinese angle in the world-system management. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 85-95. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.07
Danilin, I.V. (2020a). The U.S.-China technology war: risks and opportunities for P.R.C. and global tech sector. Comparative Politics Russia, 11(4), 160-176. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10056
Danilin, I.V. (2020b). Conceptualizing American strategy in the technology war against China: economy, geopolitics, techno-nationalism. Journal of International Analytics, 11(4), 21-38. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-4-21-38
Glandin, S. (2018). The exterritorial effect of American sanctions. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 8(2), 10122. (In Russ.) https://di.org/10.21128/2226-2059-2018-2-105-122
Glandin, S.V., & Panov, F.Yu. (2020). Sanctions and restrictive measures of the United Kingdom before and past Brexit. Zakon, 6, 149. (In Russ.)
Morozov, V.A. (2019). Sanctions policy: a review of the Russian International Affairs Council’s publications. International Organisations Research Journal, 14(3), 151-157. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2019-03-08
Politika sankcij: celi, strategii, instrumenty: hrestomatiya [The policy of sanctions: goals, strategies, tools: anthology]. (2018). Moscow: Russian International Affairs Council. (In Russ.)
Timofeev, I.N. (2018). Sanctions against Russia: directions of escalation and policy of counteraction. Report of the Russian International Affairs Council, 37. (In Russ.) https://russiancouncil.ru/papers/Sanctions-Report37ru.pdf (accessed 15.09.2021).
Timofeev, I.N. (2020). “Sanctions for sanctions violation”: U.S. Department of Treasury enforcement actions against financial sector. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 73-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.06
Vojnikov, V.V. (2015). The EU vs. Russia: legal nature and implementation of the Union’s restrictive measures. Baltijskij region, 1, 89-100. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5922/2074-9848-2015-1-5
Korgun I.A., Toloraya G.D.,
On the question of effectiveness of sanctions against DPRK. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No3
International assistance and sanctions pressure: geometry of interlinkages. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No6
The U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: Experience and Eventual Implications. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No4
“Sanctions for Sanctions Violation”: U.S. Department of Treasury Enforcement Actions against Financial Sector. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No6
Political parties as traditional mechanisms of representation in modern societies. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No2