Extraterritorial Sanctions, Transnational Corporate Activity, and State’s Duty to Protect
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Unilateral (extraterritorial) economic sanctions, that are often imposed on states and non-state actors by another state, are incompatible with international human rights law. Major powers use their dominant positions in the global economy to attempt influence the political behaviour of states by imposing economic measures against them. Nevertheless, the principal Business and Human Rights instruments as well as other International Law instruments do not address extraterritorial sanctions and their negative impacts on the operation of foreign business entities and the consequent human rights violations. These sanctions threaten a wide range of rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights law and cause irreparable collateral damage. This paper is a critical inquiry into the relationship between extraterritorial sanctions, their negative impacts on the operation of the business entities in sanctioned state, and sender state’s extraterritorial human rights obligations. In order to answer this question, the paper will explore state’s duty to protect in more details in the context of imposition of extraterritorial sanctions.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Works are licensed under Creative Commons license “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).”
This license permits readers to share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format under the following terms: Attribution — one must give appropriate credit, and provide a link to the license. Non Commercial — one may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If one remixes, transforms, or builds upon the material, one may not distribute the modified material.
References
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (adopted 6 November 1974) UNGA Res A/RES/3281, art 32.
UNGA Res 69/180 (18 December 2014) UN Doc A/RES/69/180 [1].
he Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘US Sanctions Violate Human Rights and International Code of Conduct, UN expert Says’ (6 May 2019) <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24566&LangID=E> accessed 4 May 2021.
UNHRC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights’ (30 August 2018) 39th Session UN Doc A/HRC/39/54 [25].
Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic sanctions reconsidered. (3rd edn, Expanded edn, Peterson Institute for International Economics 2007).
Nigel D White, ‘UN Sanctions: Where Public Law Meets Public International Law’ (2011) 74 Modern L Rev 3, 457.
Susan Hannah Allen and David J Lektzian ‘Economic Sanctions: A Blunt Instrument?’ (2013) 50 J Peace Research 121
Ali Z Marossi and others, Economic Sanctions under International Law Unilateralism, Multilateralism, Legitimacy, and Consequences (T.M.C. Asser Press 2015)
Jeremy Matam Farrall and Kim Rubenstein, Sanctions, Accountability and Governance in a Globalised World (Cambridge University Press 2009).
Stanislav Mraz and others, ‘Economic Sanctions Against Iran and Their Effectiveness’ (2016) 182 Aktual'ni Problemy Ekonomiky = Actual Problems in Economics 22.
See International Crisis Group (ICG), ‘Spider Web: The Making and Unmaking of Iran Sanctions’ (25 February 2013) Middle East Report N°138 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/512c78bf2.html> 15, accessed 23 April 2021.
Robert McCorquodale and Penelope Simons, ‘Responsibility beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law’ (2007) 70 The Modern Law Review 598
Markus Krajewski, ‘The State Duty to Protect Against Human Rights Violations Through Transnational Business Activities’ (2018) 23 Deakin L Rev 13, 39
Claire Methven O’brien, ‘The Home State Duty to Regulate the Human Rights Impacts of TNCs Abroad: A Rebuttal’ (2018) 3 Bus & Human Rts J 47
Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2011) 29 Netherlands Q Human Rights 578.
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ‘General Comment No. 8: The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights’ (12 December 1997) UN Doc E/C.12/1997/8.
Jerg Gutmann and others, ‘Economic Sanctions and Human Rights: Quantifying the Legal Proportionality Principle’ (2018) IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.
Matthew Happold and Paul Eden (eds), Economic Sanctions and International Law, (Hart 2016) 1.
See UNGA ‘Workshop on the impact of the application of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights by the affected populations, in particular their socioeconomic impact on women and children, in the States targeted’ (23 May 2014) UN Doc A/HRC/24/14.
See Dursun Peksen, ‘Better or Worse? The Effect of Economic Sanctions on Human Rights’ (2009) 49 J Peace Research 59. Also see Cristiane Lucena Carneiro and Laerte Apolinário, ‘Targeted Versus Conventional Economic Sanctions: What Is at Stake for Human Rights?’ (2016) 42 Intl Interactions 565.
Boris Kondoch, ‘The Limits of Economic Sanctions under International Law: The Case of Iraq’ (2001) 7 J Intl Peacekeeping 267, 273-74.
CESCR ‘General Comment No. 8: The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights’ (12 December 1997) E/C.12/1997/8 [16].
UNGA’ Human rights and unilateral coercive measures’ (18 September 2014) 27th Session UN Doc A/HRC/27/L.2.
UNGA ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights’ (29 August 2017) 72nd Session UN Doc A/72/370, [33]-[59].
Council Regulation ‘protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom’ (22 November 1996) (EC) No 2271/96.
Sigrun i. Skogly and Mark Gibney, ‘Economic Rights and Extraterritorial Obligations’ in Economic Rights: Conceptual, Measurement, and Policy Issues, ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 276.
John Omanique, ‘Universal and Inalienable Rights: A Search for Foundations’ (1990) 12 Human Rights Q 465.
Sigrun Skogly, ‘Extraterritoriality: Universal Human Rights Without Universal Obligations?’ in Sarah Joseph and others (eds), Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2010) 96.
Larissa Ramina, ‘TWAIL – ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ and Human Rights: Some Considerations’ (2018) 5 Revista de Investigações Constitucionais 261, 265.
Monika Heupel, ‘How Do States Perceive Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations? Insights from the Universal Periodic Review’ (2018) 40 Human rights quarterly 521, 545.
Sigrun I Skogly and Mark Gibney, ‘Transnational Human Rights Obligations’ (2002) 24 Human Rights Quarterly 781, 798.
Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties Law, Principles and Policy (Oxford University Press, 2011) 17-18.
Marco Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: an Overview (2011), <https://www.ejiltalk.org/extraterritorial-application-of-human-rights-treaties-an-overview/> .
Robert McCorquodale and Penelope Simons, ‘Responsibility beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law’ (2007) 70 The Modern Law Review 598, 624.
D. Augenstein and D. Kinley, ‘When human rights ‘responsibilities’ become ‘duties’: the extraterritorial obligations of states that bind corporations’, Ch. 11 in S. Deva and D. Bilchitz (eds.), Human Rights Obligations of Business (2013, CUP) Sara L Seck, ‘Conceptualizing the Home State Duty to Protect' in Karin Buhmann, Lynn Roseberry and Mette Morsing (eds), Corporate Social and Human Rights Responsibilities. Global, Legal and Management Perspectives (Palgrave Macmillan 2011).
Penelope Simons and Audrey Macklin, The governance gap : extractive industries, human rights, and the home state advantage (Routledge 2014) 182.
Claire Methven O'Brien, ‘The Home State Duty to Regulate the Human Rights Impacts of TNCs Abroad: A Rebuttal’ (2018) 3 BHRJ 47.
Beth Van Schaak, ‘The United States’ Position on the Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Obligations: Now is the Time for Change’ (2014) 90 Int’l L Studies 20, 20.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976)
Monica Lugato, ‘Sanctions and Individual Rights’ in Coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law, Natalino Ronzitti, eds (Brill 2016) 171, 179-180.
Stoll and others, Study: Extraterritorial sanctions on trade and investments and European responses, (European Union, Belgium: 2020) 102, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/653618/EXPO_STU(2020)653618_EN.pdf> 60.
ICCPR (n 49) art 2(2) reads as follow: “Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.”
Paul M Taylor, A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The UN Human Rights Committee’s Monitoring of ICCPR Rights (Cambridge University Press 2020), 628.
Charter of the United Nations (adopted 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, art 2(1): “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
UN Charter, supra note 132, Art. 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
B.S Chimni, ‘Critical theory and international economic law: a third world approach to international law (TWAIL) perspective’ in John Linarelli (ed.), Research Handbook on Global Justice and International Economic Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2013) 251.