Economic Sanctions as an ‘Act of War’
Defining ‘Act of War’
Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits all UN members from resorting to the threat or use of force, against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. However, Art. 51 allows for use of force authorised by the UN Security Council, or in the exercise of the rights of individual or collective self-defence. The word “force” in this context was initially generally understood to refer only to military force. “Acts of War” are thus restricted by international law. General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in 1974, also sought to define ‘acts of aggression’, but excluded ‘economic aggression’ from the ambit of the resolution.
Comparison to Blockade
The closest ‘act of war’ that may be ‘analogous’ to a comprehensive economic sanction may be the act of a ‘blockade’. A ‘blockade’ is an act of war which involves restricting ships or aircrafts of some or all nations from entering or existing specific ports or coastal areas of a target country, by the threat or use of armed force. Such an act aims to degrade a country’s economy and affect its populace by preventing trade and movement of essential goods. It is included as an act of aggression in Resolution 3314 and also mentioned in Art. 42 of the UN Charter as a type of armed force that may be used by the Security Council.
A sanctioning country uses legal barriers to restrict its trade with a target country and also usually uses its economic heft to dissuade other countries from trading with a target country, by threatening to sanction them too. The question that arises is that how is this situation, from an effects-based perspective, different from a comprehensive economic sanction? If the net result is the same, that the country’s trade is restricted and its populace is deprived of essential goods, why should only a physical blockade be regarded as an act of war and be subject to stricter scrutiny. This similarity of effects can be proved empirically using historical instances of comprehensive sanctions.
Comprehensive economic sanctions cut off a country from the global financial system, block foreign investment and remittances, cause loss of employment in export industries, causes shortage of essential import goods and high-end technology, which has ripple effects on the economy and popular welfare. These effects are particular amplified for a smaller, developing country which is less likely to be self-sufficient in essential goods.
Various case studies by Prof. Joy Gordon of use of sanctions in Iran, Iraq, and Cuba, demonstrate the damaging effects of sanctions on a country’s economy and tangible loss of life and popular welfare, easily comparable to a devastating armed conflict. For instance, the sanctions regime in Iraq resulted in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 civilians, exceeding the casualties in the Gulf War that followed. The sanctions had included restrictions on import of food grains and import of essential ‘dual use’ goods such as fertilizers for agriculture and chlorine for water purification, which resulted in a famine, epidemic and rise in infant mortality.
Addressing Counter-Arguments
Exercise of State Sovereignty
The first probable argument against treating economic sanctions as an act of war, would be based on state sovereignty, namely the right of a state to dictate its own trade policy. This principle was affirmed in Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, 1986 I.C.J. 14, with specific reference to trade relations— that in the absence of a treaty commitment or other specific legal obligation, a state is not bound to continue particular trade relations longer than it sees fit to do so. States may thus argue that they have the right to choose their trade partners and treating these decisions as an act of war, would make them contingent to UNSC approval and abrogate their economic independence.