Browsing by Subject "proportionality"

The aftermath of World War II saw to the emergence of a new world order – sanctions. It became a tactical tool capable of inflicting coercive measures on an aggressive State to deter it from performing acts contrary to international law. However, with current global events and the study of sanctions post-1945, it is becoming evident that the intent behind the creation of sanctions remain in doubt today, given that there have been questions surrounding its legality especially when imposed unilaterally. Consequentially, sanctions (especially unilateral) have stirred contentious debates on its proportionate nature, especially when it is likely to constitute an intervention in the affairs of another State. This has been followed by several appraisals by the Court, international legal scholars and academics. Given the existential grey areas on sanctions, judicial precedence of the Nicaragua case has been set to serve as a focal point in dealing with the research question of this thesis, which is: whether ‘international law has changed or developed in matters of unilaterally imposed sanctions and non-intervention; and what threshold (if any) exists in determining an intervention?’ An answer is attempted mainly through an analysis of legal and jurisprudential materials, with political materials used to buttress past and recent events of States that have been subjected to sanctions (especially unilaterally imposed sanctions) and intervention in their internal affairs. It is then concluded that, considering several developments in international law since Nicaragua, there should be a shift from wholly relying on the Court’s finding made over three decades ago. Rather each case should be addressed to reflect current developments in international law, otherwise the fundamentals of unilateral economic sanctions remain fragmented.