International School of Bucharest Model United Nations ( ISBMUN 2011)

BUCHAREST, ROMANIA February 4-7, 2011

2nd Committee of the General Assembly (EcoFin)

TOPIC 2 The economical effects of collective punishment by economic sanctions

STUDY GUIDE

Sanctions are an instrument available to the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the
U.N. Charter, that is, in the event of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of
aggression. Used only twice during the period of the Cold War, from 1945 to 1990, against
Rhodesia (1968) and then South Africa (1977), the use of sanctions has increased since the
break-up of the USSR and the end of East-West bipolarization in international relations. The
1990s might be called the "sanctions' decade". No fewer than 15 sanctions regimes were
adopted by the Security Council from 1990 to 2000: against Iraq (1990), the former
Yugoslavia (1991), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992), Libya (1992), Somalia
(1992), Haiti (1993), UNITA (1993), Rwanda (1994), Liberia (1994), the Bosnian Serbs
(1994), Sudan (1996), Sierra Leone (1997), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1998), the
Taliban (1999), Eritrea and Ethiopia (2000). The sanctions against Haiti were lifted in 1994
and against the FRY in 1996. A new arms embargo against the FRY was imposed in 1998.
Air sanctions against Sudan never went into force. The sanctions against Libya were
suspended in April 2000 but have not been lifted yet. The arms embargo against Eritrea and
Ethiopia ended May 16, 2001. On the other hand, the sanctions against UNITA, Liberia and
the Taliban have been gradually stepped up by the Security Council. The sanctions against
Iraq, in force for over ten years although humanitarian exemptions (the oil-for-food program)
were gradually widened, have been at the heart of the debate on the use of sanctions for
several years. Indeed it is the example of Iraq which has allowed the international community
to realize the political and, above all, the humanitarian problems that the imposition of
sanctions may raise, in particular in the case of global economic sanctions against a whole
country

This principle is aimed at implementing laws and policies that:

promote a just distribution of resources amongst people living in the world today, whether
within or between countries;
preserve, maintain and renew natural resources and the global environment so that they will
be available to future generations;
recognize especially the rights of indigenous people, as well as the rights to development, to
work, to education, to property, to be treated equally and to the highest achievable standard of
physical and mental health;
promote legal empowerment of the poor.
These laws and policies can help meet the eight Millennium Development Goals set to end
extreme poverty worldwide by 2015.

We have enough food to feed everybody. Yet many still go hungry. While many people are
overwhelmed with choice, and constantly encouraged to buy more, around the world billions
struggle daily just to survive. But countries and people are not rich or poor solely by good or
bad luck. Our economic system is driven by consumption and market prices. It tends to
concentrate wealth and to leave those without purchasing power to lose out. On top, debt
burdens maintain the present distribution of wealth and resources. Poor countries and people
are often prevented from lifting themselves out of poverty instead of supported in doing so.

Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on
another for a variety of reasons. Economic sanctions include, but are not limited to, tariffs,
trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas. The most famous example of an
economic sanction is the fifty-year-old United States embargo against Cuba.

Economic sanctions are not always imposed because of economic circumstances. For
example, the United States has imposed economic sanctions against Iran for years, on the
basis that the Iranian government sponsors groups who work against US interests.

The United Nations imposed stringent economic sanctions upon Iraq after the first Gulf War,
and these were maintained partly as an attempt to make the Iraqi government co-operate with
the UN weapons inspectors' monitoring of Iraq's weapons and weapons programs. These
sanctions were unusually stringent in that very little in the way of trade goods were allowed
into or out of Iraq during the sanction period (further information about these sanctions and
their effects can be found at www.casi.org.uk and at [1]). The sanctions were not lifted until
May 2003, after the government of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

There is a United Nations sanctions regime imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1267
in 1999 against all Al-Qaida- and Taliban-associated individuals which has undergone years
of modification by a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions. The cornerstone of the regime
is a consolidated list of persons maintained by the Security Council. All nations are obliged to
freeze bank accounts and other financial instruments controlled by, or used for the benefit of,
anyone on the list.

Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely
economic reasons, and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures, rather than bans
on trade.

Economic sanctions can vary from imposing import duties on goods from, or blocking the
export of certain goods to the target country, to a full naval blockade of its ports in an effort to
verify, and curb or block specified imported goods.

Well known examples of economic sanctions include the United Nations sanctions against
South Africa, United Nations sanctions against Zimbabwe, United Nations sanctions against
Iraq (1990–2003) and the United States embargo against Cuba (1962–present). Since 1993
many countries have imposed trade sanctions on Burma (Myanmar). South Africa is the
typical case study used for giving sanctions credibility, though that is a contentious claim
itself.

On May 13, 1998, the United States and Japan imposed economic sanctions on India,
following its second round of nuclear tests.

In 2001/2002, the United States imposed economic sanctions against the state of Zimbabwe,
through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 or ZDERA, S. 494,
restricting access to financing, debt relief and rescheduling, forcing the government to operate
on a cash only basis.

The Security Council consequently began a comprehensive review of sanctions in the general
working group on sanctions and started to substantially change its practice when imposing
new sanctions. This working group, set up in April 2000, was expected to submit its final
conclusions at the end of 2000. A draft report has been prepared but is still waiting for the
approval of certain Security Council members, still pending as of May 2001, before it can be
definitively adopted.

France, which was largely instrumental in launching the debate on sanctions for both political
and humanitarian reasons, has consistently maintained that in order for the sanctions to be
effective they must be:

Targeted: the case of Iraq has demonstrably shown the serious drawbacks to a comprehensive
embargo which unfairly hurts civilians and tends to be counterproductive politically by
strengthening the very government whose compliance is being sought through the sanctions.
Therefore, to avoid a negative humanitarian impact, the sanctions must be crefully tailored to
target those responsible for the policy or situation opposed by the Security Council, be it a
government, movement or some other entity;

Limited in time and regularly assessed: sanctions should not be maintained on an automatic
basis but should be periodically assessed by the Security Council who has to take a formal
decision each time it wants to extend them. It is therefore essential to have regular Security
Council reviews of the sanctions regime together with an evaluation of their political
effectiveness and reassessment of any unintended consequences (humanitarian impact, impact
on other states);

Imposed with clear political objectives and specific criteria for their lifting: Sanctions are an
instrument for exerting pressure in order to reach a political objective, namely the restauration
of peace and international security. The goal is to bring about a change in the behaviour of a
specific state or entity. Sanctions must be an incentive rather than punitive;
Coupled with provisions for effective humanitarian exemptions: the goal is to prevent the
sanctions from having an unwanted impact on civilians;

Exceptional: The imposition of sanctions is a serious measure which should be used only in
situations referred to in Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, i.e. any threat to the peace, breach of
peace or act of aggression so determined by the Security Council. Secondary sanctions, i.e.
those against a third state for failing to comply with U.N.-imposed sanctions, do not meet this
criteria and are not a good thingin principle.

It would also be desirable to make greater use of article 50 of the U.N. Charter which permits
any other state confronted with special problems arising from U.N.-imposed sanctions to
consult the Security Council about taking appropriate measures to correct the unwanted
effects of sanctions. A state, generally a neighbor of another state subject to sanctions, may
suffer economically or financially from the imposition of the sanctions in question. It is then
up to the Security Council to take the appropriate measures to remedy the unintended effects
of the sanctions against the other state.

At this point, with the exception of Iraq which is subject to an arms embargo and a
comprehensive economic, financial and trade embargo, the main sanctions regimes in force
are carefully targeted sanctions intended to deprive a state or movement of the resources to
engage in or finance war: arms embargoes (UNITA, the Taliban, Liberia, non-governmental
entities in Sierra Leone, FRY), targeted financial sanctions (UNITA, the Taliban), oil
embargo (UNITA), embargoes on diamonds (UNITA, the Sierra Leonean RUF, Liberia), air
embargo (against the Taliban), travel ban (Sierra Leonean RUF, UNITA, Liberia).

Humanitarian exemptions are now almost systematically provided for as a matter or course,
with varying results on the ground. The oil-for-food program for Iraq is the largest
mechanism of this type, given the comprehensive nature of the embargo. There are also
systematic exemptions to the air embargo against Afghan territory controlled by the Taliban
intended to guarantee the continuity of humanitarian assistance to the population
(humanitarian NGOs can get a permanent exemption). Limited duration is also tending to
become the rule. The four new sanctions regimes adopted in the last year have been imposed
for a limited period of time: the embargo on non-certified Sierra Leonean diamonds has been
imposed for 18 months; the arms embargo against Eritrea and Ethiopia was imposed for one
year; the air embargo and arms embargo on the Taliban have been imposed for one year; the
recent sanctions against Liberia for one year as well.

To be succesful, sanctions must also be implemented in an effective way. It is the role of

sanctions committees to monitor their implementation and handle the exemptions that may be
granted for humanitarian, religious or political reasons. Sanctions committees are subsidiary
bodies of the Security Council. They are composed of representatives of the 15 Security
Council members. Currently, there are ten sanctions committees, each of them chaired by the
permanent representative of a non-permanent member of the Security Council. The reform of
their working methods, called for by the above-mentioned general working group on
sanctions, would enable them to be more transparent and open as well as to rely on a
enhanced support from the U.N. Secretariat. In the absence of any permanent mechanism for
monitoring sanctions and the illegal trafficking of high value commodities in armed conflicts
and in order to support the sanctions committees, the Security Council has set up independent
ad hoc expert panels on several occasions to investigate the implementation of the various
sanctions regimes and report back to the Council (this has been done in the cases of Angola,
Sierra Leone, Liberia and Afghanistan).

In September 2001, the Security Council has decided to lift sanctions imposed on Federal
Republic of Yougoslavia and Sudan.

Security Council decisions have reflected a more refined approach to

the design, application and implementation of mandatory sanctions.
These refinements have included measures targeted at specific actors,
as well as humanitarian exceptions embodied in Security Council
resolutions. Targeted sanctions, for instance, can involve the
freezing of assets and blocking the financial transactions of
political elites or entities whose behavior triggered sanctions in the
first place. Recently, smart sanctions have been applied to conflict
diamonds in African countries, where wars have been funded in part by
the trade of illicit diamonds for arms and related material.
As part of its commitment to ensure that fair and clear procedures
exist for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and for
removing them, as well as for granting humanitarian exemptions, the
Security Council, on 19 December 2006, adopted resolution 1730 (2006)
by which the Council requested the Secretary-General to establish
within the Secretariat (Security Council Subsidiary Organs Branch), a
focal point to receive de-listing requests and perform the tasks
described in the annex to that resolution. The Security Council took
another significant step in this regard by establishing, by its
resolution 1904 (2009) the Office of the Ombudsperson.

On 17 April 2000, the members of the Security Council established, on

a temporary basis, the Informal Working Group on General Issues of
Sanctions to develop general recommendations on how to improve the
effectiveness of United Nations sanctions. In 2006 the Working Group
submitted its report to the Security Council (S/2006/997), which
contained recommendations and best practices on how to improve
sanctions.

The task of the Working Group is to develop general recommendations on

how to improve the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions. Within
this framework the Working Group will now also address issues such as
those listed below, including, as appropriate, and with the consensus
of its members, through open and informal dialogue with interested
Member States, as well as international, regional, intergovernmental
and other relevant organizations:

(a) Improving cooperation between sanctions committees, monitoring

bodies and regional organizations, and assessing the possibility of
reporting by regionnal organizations as an alternative to the
reporting by individual States;

(b) Duration and lifting of sanctions;

(c) Assessment of the unintended impact of sanctions and ways to

assist affected untargeted States;

(d) Improving national implementation of sanctions;

(e) Enforcement of targeted sanctions, especially such sanctions as

assets freezes or travel bans targeting individuals or entities;

(f) Delisting procedures in relation to the implementation of targeted

sanctions and the legal consequences of listing and delisting;

(g) Secondary sanctions against States violating sanctions;

(h) Improving archives and databases in the Secretariat, including the

Roster of Experts.

The Working Group benefits from all available sanctions expertise,

including by being briefed, on a case-by-case basis, by appropriate
experts.

LINKS:

Report on the Expert Seminar on Targeting UN Financial Sanctions, 17.

- 19.03.1998 (Interlaken I) :
http://www.seco.admin.ch/themen/00513/00620/00639/00641/index.html?
lang=en&download=NHzLpZeg7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1ad1IZn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCD
dIJ4gmym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--

"Targeted Financial Sanctions: A Primer,” Thomas J. Biersteker, Sue E.

Eckert, and Natalie Reid, background paper for the Targeted Financial
Sanctions Simulation Exercise, Newport, RI, Naval War College, May
2000 http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub/Targeted_Financial_Sanctions_Primer.pdf
Global Policy Forum on Sanctions:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/sanctions.html