Research Article


DOI :10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962    Full Text (PDF)

Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law

Cenk Keskin

The international community is organized horizontally. There is no hierarchically superior institution in the relations prescribed among equals, and rules are formed in the direction of common interests; thus, the legal order pertaining to the international community differs from classical municipal legal orders. Effective compliance with rules is ensured in proportion to the parallels of mutual interests in the international order. An increase has been observed in cooperation particularly with the increase of interdependencies due to globalization. Violating the rules of international law creates a responsibility for that state. Individual and collective means of enforcing a state to comply with international rules are observed to exist. However, despite any warning to comply with international law, some actors in this community continue to be in violation and insist on exhibiting illegal behaviors. Economic sanctions and countermeasures applied on the basis of erga omnes obligations do not yet grant the same rights as an injured state to third-party states that have not been directly harmed by an unlawful act. However, developments in the Russia-Ukraine war have brought forth a new perspective to international law. Economic sanctions have become increasingly popular as a form of sanction and within themselves also possess a rich variety. Some of these diverse sanctions are not as effective as was assumed and also lack legal support. Some economic sanctions with a long prior history have been observed to result in harsher outcomes than the use of force based on their effects and to also affect a largely innocent population instead of the perpetrators of the violations. The legal regime of effective economic sanctions that directly aim for results is currently taking shape against the perpetrators of unlawful behavior.

DOI :10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962   IUP :10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962    Full Text (PDF)

Uluslararası Hukukta Ekonomik Yaptırımların Hukuka Uygunluğu ve Etkinliği Sorunu

Cenk Keskin

Bilindiği üzere uluslararası toplum yatay olarak organize olmuştur. Eşitler arasında düzenlenen ilişkilerde hiyerarşik bakımdan üstün bir kurum olmaması, kuralların ortak menfaatler doğrultusunda şekilleniyor olması bu hukuk düzenini klasik ulusal hukuk düzenlerinden ayırmaktadır. Bu durumun bir sonucu olarak uluslararası düzende karşılıklı menfaatlerin paralelliği oranında kurallara riayet etkin olarak sağlanmaktadır. Özellikle küreselleşmenin getirisi olarak karşılıklı bağımlılıkların artmasıyla iş birlikteliklerinde de bir yoğunlaşma gözlenmektedir. Milletlerarası hukuk kuralların ihlali ise söz konusu devletin sorumluluğunu doğurmaktadır. Uyarılara rağmen ihlale devam eden, aykırı tutumunda ısrar eden devleti uluslararası hukuka uymaya zorlayan ferdi ya da kolektif yollar bulunmaktadır. Erga omnes yükümlükler temel alınarak uygulanan ekonomik yaptırımlar ve karşı önlemler, hukuka aykırı fiilden doğrudan zarar görmeyen üçüncü taraf devletlere, zarar gören devletle aynı hakları henüz tanımamaktadır. Ancak Ukrayna-Rusya savaşında yaşanan gelişmeler uluslararası hukuka özellikle ekonomik yaptırımlar bakımından yeni bir perspektif getirmektedir. Farklı yaptırımlar arasında gittikçe daha fazla rağbet gören ekonomik yaptırımlar kendi içinde zengin bir çeşitliliğe sahiptir. Bu çeşitlilik içinde bazı yaptırımlar zannedildiği kadar etkin olmadıkları gibi hukuki destekten de yoksundur. Geçmişi çok eskilere dayanan bazı ekonomik yaptırımların ise etkileri bakımından kuvvet kullanılmasından daha da vahim sonuçlar doğurduğu, doğrudan sorumluları değil suçsuz geniş halk kitlelerini etkilediği tespit edilmektedir. Dolaylı yoldan sonuç hedeflemektense, doğrudan hukuka aykırı davranışın faillerine yönelik etkin ekonomik yaptırımlar ve bunların hukuki rejimi günümüz gelişmeleriyle yeniden şekillenmektedir.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Despite its shortcomings, the United Nations (UN) constitutes the most important platform for the current functioning of international law. The efforts made to maintain peace internationally and to ensure common security are reflected in the preamble of the UN Charter. As one of the most important elements in maintaining international peace, when the system envisaged for preventing the use of force fails to be implemented as intended, the UN will then try to fulfill the same task under very different conditions. As a result of globalization, the intertwined economic relations and financial mechanism that keeps the wheels of trade turning can sometimes turn into a very dangerous weapon and drag nations into warlike conditions. The international legal norms that constitute the source of economic sanctions should be such that it is prevented from doing more harm than good.

While economic sanctions have been a highly preferred tool in international relations in recent years, they have become a point of heated discussion. Many states, especially Western ones, not only implement UN Security Council resolutions but also use unilateral sanction regimes to protect their national interests and at times international social order. In addition to states, which are the main subject of international law, regional and multilateral international organizations are also observed to attempt to achieve similar outcomes through economic sanctions. Economic sanctions are conceptually based on the UN collective system or the countermeasures under the law of international responsibility and have diverse applications these days.

Sanctions are generally defined as a threat to act in cases of non-compliance with the law, the realization of a threat when necessary, and the measures aimed at ensuring behavior in accordance with international law. Economic sanctions that are applied in this context aim to change the unlawful behavior of the target state using commercial and financial means. While the UN International Law Commission used sanctions as the term for joint measures taken by international organizations in its study on state responsibility, it also defined unilateral actions as acts that are contrary to international law and that States can implement against a harmful state as countermeasures. However, if the violated norm of international law is at the level of jus cogens, then an erga omnes aggravated responsibility will occur towards the whole of the international community; and if all states besides the injured state are expected to give the right to employ common countermeasures, the practical importance of the distinction between sanctions and countermeasures will diminish.

Another important factor in terms of economic sanctions is the authority that imposes the sanction. In terms of international law, different criteria emerge depending on whether the sanction originates from the UN, an international organization, or a State. Some authors argue that third-party states may resort to countermeasures when the peremptory rules of international law are violated. This argument is based on Article 42 of the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). According to Article 43, a state may invoke the responsibility of another state in cases where the breached obligation is owed directly to that state, to a group of which the state is a member, or to the international community. Similarly, Article 48 states that a State other than the directly injured State may invoke the responsibility of the infringing State if the breach occurs against a group of States, including the requesting State, or against the international community as a whole. The main difference between the two rules is that one emphasizes the obligation, while the other emphasizes the damage. Although some authors rightly argue that reading this article alongside Article 54 does not allow sanctions against international law while still allowing retaliation; however, practices show that international law is shaped in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, because autonomous economic sanctions originate from municipal law, their compliance with international law will be contested, especially in terms of their application in cases abroad. Similarly, non-intervention in internal affairs, humanitarian law, human rights law, international trade law, international investment law, and the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in particular exist as legal boundaries that must be taken into account.

The effectiveness of economic sanctions, the legal basis of which is dubious in terms of current positive law, is another matter of discussion. The aim of sanctions is to ensure compliance with the rules of international law. Extensive sanctions such as export, import, and investment restrictions targeting entire economies are being replaced with point-based, guided sanctions that are assumed to be smart. However, this does not mean that extensive sanctions such as trade embargoes have been abandoned. Economic and financial sanctions are currently used together to provide the maximum benefit, with the results being analyzed in short intervals with the help of technology and the sanctions regime being modified accordingly rather than leaving the economic sanctions to their own fate once they have been decided and not inspecting their implementation, which occurs as one of the main reasons for their failure.

When examining the recent economic sanctions against Russia, democratizing the country appears impossible, and pressure is put on Russian policymakers by targeting the decline in people’s purchasing power through wide-ranging economic sanctions and restrictions on accessing foreign currency assets in banks, thus causing an economic bottleneck in their daily life. Trying to block key sectors of Russia with targeted sanctions in order to prevent Russia from financing a long-term war does not seem very likely, nor are these sanctions effective in pressuring a change in policy. On a psychological level, pressure has been exerted on the Russian government by making the Russian people feel guilty, similar to what was done in Germany after World War II, and also by announcing the drama in Ukraine to the global public, especially on social media. However, to say that such propaganda has had a negative impact on national public opinion would be inaccurate, as the Russian government exercises tight control upon its media.

In principle, International Law is known to support the protection of fundamental rights. Texts such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights have always aimed to raise this level of protection. However, recent practices have revealed the harmful individual effects of economic unilateral sanctions while the people of the whole country are able to escape legal scrutiny. When considering the frequency with which digitalization and artificial intelligence are used in daily life, more intense efforts should be made to use these opportunities to increase the impact of economic sanctions while reducing the illegal and undesired impacts in terms of Human Rights Law, Humanitarian Law, and international trade, as well as International Law of course. A divisive picture of the world has emerged as a result of the Russian people having been harmed by the implemented measures, in addition to the states and individuals that do business with Russia. The policies pursued with vengeful outlooks indicate that a difficult process is expected in the world economy, which has yet to have healed from the wounds of the COVID-19 pandemic. 


PDF View

References

  • Kitaplar ve Kitap Bölümleri/ Books and Book Chapters google scholar
  • Cassese A, International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2005) google scholar
  • Charron A, ‘Sanctions and Africa: United Nations and Regional Responses’ in Boulden J (ed), Responding to Conflict in Africa: The United Nations and Regional Organizations (Palgrave 2013) 77-98 google scholar
  • Dupont PE, ‘Human rights implications of sanctions’ in Masahiko Asada (ed) Economic Sanctions in International Law and Practice (Routledge 2020) 39-61 google scholar
  • Giumelli F, ‘Implementation of sanctions: European Union’ in Asada M (ed), Economic Sanctions in International Law and Practice (Routledge 2020) 116-135 google scholar
  • Gordon R, Smyth M and Cornell T, Sanctions Law (Hart 2018) google scholar
  • Hayashi M, ‘Russia: The Crimea Question and autonomous sanctions’ in Masahiko Asada (ed), Economic Sanctions in International Law and Practice (Routledge 2019) 223-243 google scholar
  • Keskin AC, Avrupa Birliği Temel Kurum ve Değerleri (On İki Levha 2019) google scholar
  • Lowenfeld A, International Economic Law (OUP 2002) google scholar
  • Milaninia N, ‘Jus ad bellum economicum and jus in bello economico: The Limits of Economic Sanctions Under the Paradigm of International Humanitarian Law’ in Ali Z Marossi and Marisa R Bassett (eds), Economic Sanctions Under International Law (TMC Asser and Springer 2015) 95-124 google scholar
  • Ruys T, ‘Sanctions, Retorsions and Countermeasures: Concept and International Legal Framework’ in van den Herik L (ed), Research Handbook on UN Sanction and International Law (Elgar 2017) google scholar
  • Shaw M, International Law (6th edn, Cambridge 2008) google scholar
  • White ND and Abass A, ‘Countermeasures and Sanctions in International Law’ in Malcolm Evans (ed) International Law (OUP 2018) 521-547 google scholar
  • Makaleler/Articles google scholar
  • Ahn DP, ‘Economic Sanctions: Past, Present and Future’ (2019) 20 Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 126-132 google scholar
  • Carter BE and Farha R, ‘Overview and Operation of U.S. Financial Sanctions, Including the Example of Iran’ (2013) 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law 903-913 google scholar
  • Chacko E, ‘Due Process Is in the Details: U.S. Targeted Economic Sanctions and International Human Rights Law’ (2019) 113 AJIL Unbound 157-162 google scholar
  • Gordon J, ‘The Invisibility of Human Harm: How Smart Sanctions Consumed All the Oxygen in the Room’ (2015) 82(4) Social Research 863-874 google scholar
  • Gutmann J, Neuenkirch M, Neumeier F and Steinbach A, ‘Economic sanctions and human rights: Quantifying the legal proportionality principle’ (2018) 2/18 Research Papers in Economics, Universität Trier google scholar
  • Hofer A, ‘The Developed/Developing Divide on Unilateral Coercive Measures: Legitimate Enforcement or Illegitimate Intervention?’ (2017) 16(2) Chinese Journal of International Law 175-214 google scholar
  • Hovell D, ‘Unfinished business of international law: The questionable legality of autonomous sanctions’ (2019) 113 AJIL Unbound 140-145 google scholar
  • Ilieva J, Aleksandar Dashtevski, and Filip Kokotovic, ‘Economic Sanctions in International Law’ (2018) 9(2) UTMS Journal of Economics 201-211 google scholar
  • Kirilakha A, Felbermayr G, Syropulos C, Yalcin E and Yotov Y, ‘The Global Sanctions Data Base: An Update that Includes the Years of the Trump Presidency’ (2021) 10 School of Economics Working Paper Series LeBow College of Business, Drexel University <https://ideas.repec.org/p/ ris/drxlwp/2021_010.html> Erişim Tarihi 10 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • Lopez GA, ‘In defence of Smart Sanctions: A Response to Joy Gordon’ (2012) 26(1) Ethics & International Affairs 135-146 google scholar
  • Mack A and Khan A, ‘Efficacy of UN sanctions’ (2000) 31(3) Security Dialogue 279-292 google scholar
  • Martin C, ‘Economic sanctions under international law: A Guide for Canadian Policy’, Rideau Institute on International Affairs and the Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa Research Report (2021), <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3973142> Erişim Tarihi 10 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • Meissner K, ‘How to sanction international wrongdoing? The design of EU restrictive measures.’ [2022] Review of International Organizations <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-022-09458-0> Erişim Tarihi 12 Mayıs 2022 google scholar
  • Özdamar Ö and Shahin E, ‘Consequences of Economic Sanctions: State of the Art and Paths Forward’ (2021) 23 International Studies Review 1646-1671 google scholar
  • Pape RA, ‘Why economic sanctions do not work’ (1997) 22(2) International Security 90-136 google scholar
  • ——, ‘Why economic sanctions still do not work’ (1998) 23(1) International Security 66-77 google scholar
  • Peksen D and Drury AC, ‘Economic Sanctions and Political Repression: Assessing the Impact of Coercive Diplomacy on Political Freedoms’ (2019) 10(3) Human Rights Review 393-411 google scholar
  • ——, ‘Coercive or Corrosive: The Negative Impact of Economic Sanctions on Democracy’ (2010) 36(3) International Interactions 240-264 google scholar
  • Peksen D, ‘Economic Sanctions and Human Security: The Public Health Effect of Economic Sanctions’ 7(3) Foreign Policy Analysis 237-251 google scholar
  • ——, ‘Economic Sanctions and Official Ethnic Discrimination in Target Countries, 1950-2003’ (2016) 27(4) Defence and Peace Economics 480-502 google scholar
  • ——, ‘How Do Target Leaders Survive Economic Sanctions? The Adverse Effect of Sanctions on Private Property and Wealth’ (2016) 13(1) Foreign Policy Analysis 215-232 google scholar
  • Peksen D, Peterson TM and A. Drury AC, ‘Media-Driven Humanitarianism? News Media Coverage of Human Rights Abuses and the Use of Economic Sanctions’ (2014) 58(4) International Studies Quarterly, 855-866 google scholar
  • Pirim CZ, ‘Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunda Devletlerin Ağırlaştırılmış Sorumluluğu: Kuramsal Bir Değerlendirme’ [2012] Public and Private International Law Bulletin 147-182 google scholar
  • Reisman WM and Stevick DL, ‘The Applicability of International Law Standards to United Nations Economic Sanctions Programmes’ (1998) 9(1) EJIL 86-141 google scholar
  • Schmidt J, ‘The Legality of Unilateral Extra-Territorial Sanctions under International Law’ (2022) 27(1) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 53-81 google scholar
  • Şimşek GE, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Ekonomik Yaptırımlar ve ABD’nin Tek Taraflı Yaptırımlarının Kısa Bir Değerlendirilmesi’ (2020) 78/4 İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 2049-2078 <https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2020.78.4.0011> erişim 23 Mart 2023 google scholar
  • Tzanakopoulos A, ‘The Right to Be Free from Economic Coercion’, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper (41/2015) google scholar
  • İnternet Kaynakları/Online Resources google scholar
  • ‘European External Action Service’ <https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/ institutions-and-bodies/institutions-and-bodies-profiles/eeas_en> Erişim Tarihi 10 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • European Union, ‘EU Priorities 2019-2024’ (2019) <https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/eu-priorities_en> Erişim Tarihi 13 Ağustos 2022 google scholar
  • Frost L, ‘Primer: Sanctions on Russia and Their Implications’ (IFLR, 22 March 2022) <https://www. iflr.com/article/b1x8nlrgf71rzd/primer-sanctions-on-russia-and-their-implications> Erişim Tarihi 11 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • Garfield G, ‘Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children from 1990 to 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Golf War and Economic Sanctions’ (2019) Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, <https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ A2E2603E5DC88A4685256825005F211D-garfie17.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 8 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • Ongena S, Pestova A and Mamonov M, ‘The price of war: Macroeconomic effects of the 2022 sanctions on Russia’ (VoxEU & CEPR, 15 April 2022) <https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/price-war-macroeconomic-effects-2022-sanctions-russia> Erişim Tarihi 11 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • Pekşen D, ‘Socio-Economic and Political Consequences of Economic Sanctions for Target and Third-Party Countries’ <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Events/Seminars/ CoercitiveMeasures/DursunPeksen.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 11 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • ‘Russia Faces ‘Reverse Industrialization’ in Sanction Squeeze’ (Bloomberg, 22 April 2022) www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-22/russia-faces-reverse-industrialization-in-sanctions-squeeze> Erişim Tarihi 11 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, ‘United Nations Security Council Sanctions Regimes’ (2022) <https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/www.un.org.securitycouncil/files/ subsidiary_organs_factsheets.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 11 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • ‘UN Sanctions’ (Security Council Report, 25 November 2013) <https://www.securitycouncilreport. org/research-reports/un-sanctions.php> Erişim Tarihi 8 Ağustos 2022 google scholar
  • UN Security Council (UNSC), ‘Sanctions’ <https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/ information>. Erişim Tarihi 19 Ağustos 2022 google scholar
  • US Department of Treasury, ‘U.S. Treasury Announces Unprecedented & Expansive Sanctions Against Russia, Imposing Swift and Severe Economic Costs’ <https://home.treasury.gov/news/ press-releases/jy0608> Erişim Tarihi 11 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • von der Leyen U, ‘Speech by President von der Leyen at the EP Plenary on the social and economic consequences for the EU of the Russian war in Ukraine - reinforcing the EU’s capacity to act’ (European Commission Press Corner, 4 May 2022) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_2785> Erişim Tarihi 11 Mayıs 2022 google scholar
  • Uluslararası Andlaşmalar/ International Treaties google scholar
  • Birleşmiş Milletler Andlaşması RG 6902/24.08.1945 (24 Ağustos 1945) google scholar
  • Charter of the Organization of American States (Date of Conclusion 30 April 1948) 119 UNTS 3 google scholar
  • Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47 google scholar
  • Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Date of Signature 9 December 1948) 78 UNTS 277 google scholar
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Date of Signature 30 October 1947) 55 UNTS 194 google scholar
  • Havana Charter for an International Trade Organisation (24 March 1948) UN Doc E/C.2/78 google scholar
  • Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community [2007] OJ C306/01 google scholar
  • European Convention on Human Rights (Date of Conclusion 04 November 1950) 213 UNTS 221 google scholar
  • Uluslararası Örgüt Metinleri/ International Organization Texts google scholar
  • BM google scholar
  • ‘Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session’ (2001) 2(2) YILC google scholar
  • International Law Commission, ‘Summary records of the second session’ [1950] 1 YILC 130-150 google scholar
  • OHCHR, ‘Analytical study focusing on gender-based and sexual violence in relation to transitional justice’ UN Doc A/HRC/27/21 google scholar
  • UN Doc A/RES/ES-11/1 google scholar
  • UN Human Rights Council Rep 37/21 (2018) google scholar
  • UN Human Rights Council, ‘Situation of Human Rights in Cuba’ (27 January 2007), UN Doc A/ HRC/4/12 google scholar
  • UN Secretary General, ‘Annual Report on the work of the Organisation’ (1998) UN Doc A/53/1 google scholar
  • UNCHR, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights’ (2018) UN Doc A/73/175 google scholar
  • UNHRC Rep ‘Report of the Human Rights Council on its thirtieth session’ UN Doc A/HRC/30/2 google scholar
  • UNHRC Rep ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review’ (2017) UN Doc A/ HRC/36/10 google scholar
  • UNHRC ‘Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures’ (2018) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/37/21 google scholar
  • UNGA Res 36/103 (9 December 1981) UN Doc A/RES/36/103 google scholar
  • UNGA ‘Human rights and unilateral coercive measures’ (18 January 2019) UN Doc A/RES/73/167 google scholar
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217 A(III) (10 December 1948) google scholar
  • UNSC Res 1267 (15 Oct 1999) UN Doc S/RES/1267 google scholar
  • UNSC Res 1333 (19 Dec 2000) UN Doc S/RES/1333 google scholar
  • UNSC Res 1390 (16 Jan 2002) UN Doc S/RES/1390 google scholar
  • UNSC Res 1718 (14 Oct 2006) UN Doc S/RES/1718 google scholar
  • DTÖ/GATT google scholar
  • United States Exports Restrictions (Czechoslovakia) (8 June 1949) BISD II/28 google scholar
  • Yargı Kararları/ Judgments google scholar
  • ABD Mahkemeleri google scholar
  • Al Haramain Islamic Found Inc v US Dep’t of Treasury, 686 F 3d 965 (9th Cir 2012) google scholar
  • Kadi v Geithner, 42 F Supp 3d 1 (DDC 2012) 6-7, 11-13, 29 google scholar
  • Kindhearts v Geithner, 647 F Supp 2d 857 (ND Ohio 2009). google scholar
  • Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı google scholar
  • Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Commission and United Kingdom v Kadi [2013] Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 google scholar
  • Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P, and C-595/10 P European Commission and the Council of the European Union v Yassin Abdullah Kadi [2013] google scholar
  • Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR I-06351 google scholar
  • Case T-85/09 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission [2010] ECHR II-05177 google scholar
  • Uluslararası Adalet Divanı google scholar
  • Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russia) (Order) 7 March 2022, <https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 9 Aralık 2022 google scholar
  • Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Order) [2018] ICJ Rep 623 google scholar
  • Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) (Merits) [2021] ICJ Rep 71 google scholar
  • The Case of the S.S. “Lotus” (France v Turkey) PCIJ Rep Ser A No 10 google scholar
  • Yasa Metinleri/ Law Texts google scholar
  • Public Law 115-44 (2 August 2017). 31 USC 5326 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Keskin, C. (2023). Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 43(1), 139-176. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


AMA

Keskin C. Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin. 2023;43(1):139-176. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


ABNT

Keskin, C. Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, [Publisher Location], v. 43, n. 1, p. 139-176, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Keskin, Cenk,. 2023. “Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 43, no. 1: 139-176. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


Chicago: Humanities Style

Keskin, Cenk,. Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 43, no. 1 (Mar. 2024): 139-176. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


Harvard: Australian Style

Keskin, C 2023, 'Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law', Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 139-176, viewed 3 Mar. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Keskin, C. (2023) ‘Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law’, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 43(1), pp. 139-176. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962 (3 Mar. 2024).


MLA

Keskin, Cenk,. Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 43, no. 1, 2023, pp. 139-176. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


Vancouver

Keskin C. Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law. Public and Private International Law Bulletin [Internet]. 3 Mar. 2024 [cited 3 Mar. 2024];43(1):139-176. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962 doi: 10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962


ISNAD

Keskin, Cenk. Questioning the Legality and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions in International Law”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 43/1 (Mar. 2024): 139-176. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1179962



TIMELINE


Submitted25.09.2022
Accepted23.03.2023
Published Online29.03.2023

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.