Statement of Interest from the Working Group of the International Committee and Military Law Task Force (for distribution to all NLG and Chapter members).
_______________

We need to stop using the word “sanction[s]” where it is not applicable. Back decades ago, women were often referred to as Babes, Girls, Dolls, and the like. As long as we accepted that language, or worse yet, used it, we conveyed the wrong message. It is time to stop using the word “sanction[s]” where it does not belong, because we are conveying the wrong message. One case in point is Cuba. Even people in favor of ending the misnamed “embargo,“ properly named “blockade,” often describe one or the other, or both of them as “sanction[s].” But they are most definitely not “sanction[s]”, and the message conveyed is the wrong one. The term “sanction[s]” suggests that the entity imposing them is doing so because of the nefarious behavior, in violation of international law, of the entity targeted.  And the UN uses the term where that is the case.  But in cases where the targeted entity has not engaged in nefarious actions, the UN uses a more appropriate term: either “coercive measures” or “unilateral coercive measures.”

Sorry to suggest we should be putting more words into our mouths, but that two- or three-word phrase perfectly describes what the USA does to countries who have done nothing wrong, but simply have adopted a different form of government. And that is the case of Cuba, which has not violated any international laws. So, I suggest, let’s start being careful when we speak, and calling something that is an [unilateral] coercive economic measure just that, and remove the stigma where it does not belong.

If you want more information on this subject, see references below.

1. U.N. Charter and Customary International Law:
   • Unilateral Coercive Measures (“UCMs”) constitute the illegal extraterritorial application of domestic legislation and the violation of the norms of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of the States, freedom of commerce, and navigation. These principles are enshrined in international legal instruments.
2. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter
   • The destabilizing impact of UCMs can amount to a threat of international peace and security.
3. Resolution 77-214 by the U.N. General Assembly
   • UCMS are condemned, according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law, as it interferes with the friendly relations and the relevant principles of the Charter of Economic Rights and the duties of States.
   • In particular, Article 32 declares that “[n]o state may use, or encourage the use of, economic, political, or any other types of measures to coerce another state–in order to obtain from it–the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it, advantages of any kind.”
   • UCMs are one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration of Right to Development and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
4. Human Rights Council Resolution 49-6, March 31, 2022:
   • UCMs violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights because such covenants stipulate, that, in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of its subsistence.
5. Resolution 49-6:
   • Urges all states to stop adopting, maintaining, or implementing UCMs because they are contrary to International Humanitarian Law. Additionally, they constitute collective punishment and are contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among states.
   • The resolution calls upon the States and relevant United Nation Agencies to take concrete measures to mitigate the negative impact of UCMs on humanitarian assistance, especially during the COVID-19 crisis.
6. Article 7 of the Rome Statute
   • It is provable that certain UCMs constitute crimes against humanity.

Sanktionen coercive measures