USMANU DANFODIYO UNIVERSITY, SOKOTO

FACULTY OF LAW

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

COURSE CODE: LAW 212

COURSE TITLE: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW II

GROUP 3: PRESENTATION WORK

OUTLINE/TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. NAMES OF FACILITATORS
2. PRESENTATION QUESTION
3. ABSTRACT
4. INTRODUCTION
5. BODY
6. CONCLUSION
7. REFERENCE

DATE: 30/7/2025
 NAMES OF PRESENTATION FACILITATORS

NAMES ADMISSION NUMBERS

1. SULEIMAN ABDULJELEEL 2310500031

2. DAUD AISHA OLUWADAMILOLA 2310500033

3. SANI MURTALA MUHAMMAD 2310500028

4. MUHAMMED ABDULLAH SHEIKH 2310500027

5. ADAMU FATIMA 2310500026

6. MURTALA IDRIS 2310500030

7. IBRAHIM ZAINAB UMAR 2310500034

8. BELLO MUHAMMAD 2310500025

9. NASIRU MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM 2310500024

10. SADIQU SIDDIQU 2310500029

1
 PRESENTATION TOPIC.

ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND BLOCKADES IN MODERN

CONFLICTS.

DISCUSS THE LEGALITY AND IMPLICATIONS OF ECONOMIC WARFARE

METHODS, INCLUDING BLOCKADES, CYBER ATTACKS ON
INFRASTRUCTURES AND SANCTIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

EXPLORE ECONOMIC WARFARE IN THE CONTEXT OF WESTERN SANCTIONS

ON RUSSIA (DUE TO THE UKRAINE WAR),
THE NAVAL BLOCKADES OF YEMEN,
AND U.S SANCTIONS ON IRAN.

ARE THESE SANCTIONS LAWFUL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

2
 ABSTRACT
This study undertakes a comprehensive legal analysis of economic warfare in
modern conflicts, focusing on the methods of economic sanctions, blockades, and
cyberattacks against critical infrastructures. It examines their evolving role as
strategic tools in statecraft and armed conflict, situating them within the normative
framework of international law. Beginning with a conceptual and historical overview,
the paper evaluates the regulation of such measures under the United Nations
Charter, particularly Articles 2(4),39_42, and 51, as well as customary norms on the
use of force, non-intervention, and economic sovereignty. The analysis extends to
contemporary case studies: Western sanctions on Russia in response to the Ukraine
war; the naval blockade of Yemen; and United States sanctions on Iran. Each case
is assessed for compliance with international humanitarian law, including the
proportionality principle, distinction, and the prohibition of collective punishment.
Special attention is given to the legal status of unilateral coercive measures, the
implications of cyber-enabled economic disruption, and the precedent set by
landmark cases such as Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua V. United States) and Oil Platforms (Iran V. United States). Drawing from
United Nations resolutions, International Court of Justice jurisprudence, and
scholarly commentary, the paper concludes that while Security Council–mandated
sanctions and blockades have a firmer legal basis, unilateral actions often operate in
a legal grey zone, risking violations of jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and human rights
law. The findings underscore the need for clearer codification of economic warfare
rules, particularly in relation to new domains such as cyber operations, to ensure that
coercive economic measures remain consistent with international peace and
humanitarian standards.

Keywords: Economic warfare, Sanctions, Blockades, Cyber operations, UN Charter,

Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, Humanitarian law, Sovereignty, International Court of
Justice.

3
INTRODUCTION
Economic sanctions and blockades, when used in modern conflicts, are subject to
international law, particularly international humanitarian law (IHL), which aims to
protect civilians and limit the impact of conflict. While these measures can be
effective tools for achieving political objectives, they must be implemented carefully
to avoid causing undue suffering to civilian populations and violating international
legal principles.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ECONOMIC COERCIVE

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

IHL, including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, emphasizes
the protection of civilians and civilian objects during armed conflict. Sanctions and
blockades, as coercive measures, must adhere to these principles, particularly
regarding proportionality and distinction (the targeting of military objectives while
minimizing harm to civilians).

U N CHARTER
The UN Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to impose sanctions under
Article 41 when it determines a threat to international peace and security. However,
these actions must be consistent with the purposes and principles of the U N

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

Certain rules regarding the conduct of hostilities, such as the prohibition of
indiscriminate attacks, also apply to the implementation of sanctions and blockades,
as they can have significant consequences for civilian populations.

CHALLENGES
Humanitarian Impact:
Sanctions and blockades can severely impact civilian populations, leading to
shortages of food, medicine, and essential goods, as well as economic hardship and
social disruption.

TARGETING
Ensuring that sanctions are targeted at specific individuals or entities responsible for
the conflict, rather than impacting the entire population, is crucial.

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT

Robust monitoring mechanisms are needed to assess the impact of sanctions and
ensure compliance with IHL.
LEGALITY
The legality of sanctions and blockades must be carefully assessed, taking into
account the principles of necessity.

4
DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Sanctioning states must also ensure that their actions comply with their own
domestic laws and regulations.
EXAMPLES
The US-led sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, while aimed at curbing Saddam
Hussein's regime, are often cited as an example of the devastating humanitarian
consequences of sanctions.
The ongoing Israeli blockade of Gaza has been criticized for its impact on the civilian
population, particularly in terms of access to essential goods and services.

BODY
(I) ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND BLOCKADES IN MODERN
CONFLICTS.

Economic sanctions and blockades are coercive measures designed to compel a

state or non-state actor to change behavior without direct military engagement.
While both can cripple an adversary’s economy and affect civilian populations, they
are regulated differently under international law, and their legality depends on source
of authority, method of implementation, and humanitarian impact.

Conceptual Distinction
Economic Sanctions
Restrictive economic measures (trade bans, asset freezes, financial restrictions)
imposed by one state, group of states, or international organizations Punish
aggression, human rights violations, terrorism and Can be unilateral or multilateral;
legality depends on context

Blockade
Naval or air measure to prevent goods, services, or persons from entering or leaving
enemy territory. Wartime military strategy; prevent resupply, treated as an act of war;
subject to law of armed conflict

Legal Framework
U N CHARTER
1. Article 2(4) – Prohibits use of force against territorial integrity or political
independence.

Blockades that involve armed force are generally considered use of force.

2. Chapter VII (Articles 39–51) – Authorizes the UN Security Council to impose

sanctions and, in certain cases, blockades to maintain or restore international peace
and security.

5
Article 41: Sanctions (non-military measures)

Article 42: Blockades (as military enforcement measures)

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

Sanctions without UN authorization may be lawful if:
They do not constitute use of force.
They do not violate WTO or treaty obligations unless justified (e.g., necessity,
countermeasures).

Blockades are only lawful in armed conflict and must meet conditions under the San
Remo Manual (1994) and Hague/Paris Conventions.

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (IHL)

Proportionality: Can not cause excessive harm to civilians relative to the anticipated
military advantage.

Starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited (Art. 54 Additional Protocol I to the

Geneva Conventions; Rome Statute Art. 8(2)(b)(xxv)).

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IN PRACTICE

A. UN-Imposed Sanctions
Legally binding on all member states (e.g., sanctions on North Korea for nuclear
proliferation).
Aim to be targeted (―smart sanctions‖) to avoid humanitarian crises.

CHALLENGES
A. Often circumvented.
May cause unintended socio-economic collapse.
B. Unilateral & Regional Sanctions
Imposed by individual states or regional bodies (e.g., US sanctions on Iran; EU
sanctions on Russia).

Controversial:
Some argue unilateral sanctions without UNSC approval violate the principle of non-
intervention.
Example:
ICJ Nicaragua v. USA (1986): Economic measures intended to coerce another
state’s policy can breach non-intervention.

BLOCKADES IN PRACTICE
A. Traditional Wartime Blockades
Must be declared and enforced impartially.
Must allow passage of humanitarian relief.

6
Must not starve civilians.
B. Modern Examples
1. Gaza Blockade (Israel) – Justified by Israel as a security measure; critics argue it
amounts to unlawful collective punishment.

2. Yemen Naval Blockade (Saudi-led coalition) – Accused of violating IHL by

restricting essential supplies.

3. Ukraine War – Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian ports condemned as unlawful

aggression.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS

ICCPR, ICESCR: Economic measures must not violate fundamental rights to life,
food, health.

OHCHR & UNGA: Excessive unilateral sanctions may be ―unlawful‖ if they cause
disproportionate harm to civilians.

The concept of ―collective punishment‖ (prohibited under Art. 33, Fourth Geneva
Convention) is relevant.

JURISPRUDENCE AND SOFT LAW

ICJ, Nicaragua v. USA (1986) – Economic coercion may breach non-intervention.

ICTY, Prosecutor V. Tadić – Blockades in armed conflict must comply with IHL.

San Remo Manual (1994) – Detailed rules on naval blockades.

UNGA Res. 2625 (Friendly Relations Declaration) – Prohibits coercive economic

measures infringing sovereignty.

KEY LEGAL TESTS FOR LEGITIMACY

A measure will generally be lawful if:

1. It has a valid legal basis (UNSC authorization or lawful countermeasure).

2. It complies with proportionality and necessity.
3. It does not target civilians or cause starvation.
4. It allows humanitarian access.
5. It is non-discriminatory and not indefinite.

7
EMERGING TRENDS

Shift toward targeted sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans).

Cyber blockades: Restricting internet access or online commerce as a modern

equivalent.

Growing calls for accountability for sanctions/blockades that cause humanitarian

disasters.

LEGALITY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE INCLUDING BLOCKADES, CYBER

ATTACKS AND SANCTIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. BLOCKADES

Definition

A blockade is a measure to prevent vessels, aircraft, goods, or people from entering

or leaving enemy territory, usually during armed conflict.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

UN Charter

Article 42: UNSC may authorize blockades as enforcement measures.

Without UNSC authorization, a blockade is lawful only in an armed conflict and must
comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea

(1994)
Must be declared, effective, and non-discriminatory.
Cannot have the sole purpose of starving civilians.
Must allow humanitarian relief.

Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I (Art. 54)

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

Customary Law
Blockades in peacetime without UNSC authorization are generally seen as illegal
coercive measures.

8
CASE AND PRACTICE

ICJ, Nicaragua v. USA (1986): U.S. mining of Nicaraguan harbors and disruption of
shipping found to violate sovereignty and non-use of force.

Gaza Blockade: Criticized for disproportionate humanitarian impact; legality debated.

[Link] ATTACKS ON ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURES

Definition

Cyber operations aimed at disrupting economic systems — e.g., banking networks,

energy grids, stock exchanges to impair a state's functioning.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

UN Charter Article 2(4) – Prohibits the use of force; cyberattacks that cause effects
comparable to kinetic attacks (e.g., destruction, death) may qualify as ―use of force.‖
Tallinn Manual 2.0 (Non-binding) – Provides expert guidance:
Cyber operations that cause physical damage or injury = armed attack.
Operations that merely cause economic loss without physical damage may be
unlawful if they breach sovereignty or constitute prohibited intervention.

International Humanitarian Law

If in armed conflict, cyberattacks must meet IHL principles: distinction,
proportionality, and necessity.
Attacks on purely civilian infrastructure (banks, hospitals) are prohibited unless they
become military objectives.

CASE AND PRACTICE

NotPtya (2017) malware attack: Attributed to Russia; caused billions in economic

losses worldwide.
Hypothetical in Tallinn Manual: Disabling a stock exchange during peacetime could
breach sovereignty and possibly be an unlawful intervention.

ECONOMIC SANCTION
Definition
Restrictive economic measures to pressure a state, entity, or individuals to change
behavior, often involving trade bans, asset freezes, or travel restrictions.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
UN Charter Article 41
UNSC-authorized sanctions are binding on all members.

9
 Customary International Law
Unilateral sanctions without UNSC approval are controversial; legality assessed
under non-intervention and sovereignty principles.
ICJ, Nicaragua v. USA (1986)
Economic coercion to influence another state's political choices can violate the
principle of non-intervention.

Human Rights Treaties

ICCPR & ICESCR require that sanctions not unduly harm civilian populations (right
to food, health, life).

Modern Developments
Move towards targeted sanctions (―smart sanctions‖) to avoid humanitarian impact.
UNGA resolutions have criticized unilateral coercive measures as contrary to
international law.

Key Legal Tests

A method of economic warfare will be lawful if:

1. Authority – UNSC mandate, or justified as lawful self-defense/countermeasure.

2. Necessity – Must address a genuine threat.
3. Proportionality – Harm to civilians not excessive compared to military/strategic
objective.
4. Distinction – Target only military or government assets, not civilian essentials.
5. Humanitarian Access – Relief efforts must not be impeded.
Cyber economic attacks are an emerging grey area, with legality hinging on
effects, attribution, and compliance with IHL.
Economic sanctions are lawful if UNSC-approved or valid countermeasures;
unilateral sanctions remain legally and politically contested. In all cases,
humanitarian considerations and proportionality are decisive in determining legality.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC WARFARE METHODS INCLUDING

BLOCKADES, CYBER ATTACKS AND SANCTIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW

Economic warfare in modern conflicts extends beyond the battlefield, using

economic pressure as a weapon to achieve strategic goals.
While these measures often avoid direct kinetic violence, their effects can be as
destructive — crippling economies, destabilizing societies, and challenging the
integrity of international legal frameworks.
General Legal and Political Implications

10
Sovereignty & Non-Intervention
Economic coercion can undermine the sovereign equality of states (UN Charter Art.
2(1)) and violate the principle of non-intervention (UNGA Res. 2625).
Erosion of the UN Collective Security System
Widespread reliance on unilateral measures bypasses the UN Security Council,
weakening its authority.
Humanitarian Impact

Civilian populations bear the brunt — sanctions, blockades, and cyber disruptions
often impair access to food, medicine, and essential services.
Fragmentation of Norms
Inconsistent state practice blurs the boundaries between lawful economic measures
and unlawful coercion.

SPECIFIC IMPLICATIONS BY METHODS

A. Blockades
Implications

1. Potential Classification as Act of War

Under the UN Charter, a blockade in peacetime can be considered a ―use of force,‖
triggering the right to self-defense (Art. 51).
2. Humanitarian Law Violations
Prolonged blockades risk violating IHL by causing starvation (AP I, Art. 54; Rome
Statute Art. 8(2)(b)(xxv)).
3. Economic Destabilization
Can collapse entire sectors reliant on imports/exports — leading to mass
unemployment and economic migration.
4. Diplomatic Isolation
States imposing blockades without UNSC authorization may face condemnation and
reciprocal measures.
Example
The Saudi-led blockade in Yemen drew allegations of war crimes due to severe
civilian food and medical shortages.

B. Cyber-Attacks on Economic Infrastructure

Implications
1. Attribution Challenges
Difficulty in proving state responsibility (Art. 2 of ILC Articles on State Responsibility)
undermines accountability.
2. Blurring Peace and War
Cyber-economic attacks may occur outside declared hostilities, making it unclear
when IHL applies.
3. Risk of Escalation

11
A severe cyberattack on financial systems could be interpreted as an ―armed attack,‖
justifying kinetic retaliation.
4. Global Spillover
Cyber operations often spread beyond intended targets, damaging neutral states’
economies (as seen with NotPetya malware).
Example
A cyberattack disabling a national payment system could trigger economic collapse
within days, raising questions of proportional self-defense.

C. Economic Sanctions

Implications
1. Human Rights Concerns
Broad sanctions may breach obligations under the ICCPR and ICESCR (right to
health, food, life).
2. Legitimacy Crisis for Unilateral Sanctions
Unilateral coercive measures — without UNSC approval — are often denounced as
violations of international law.
3. Risk of Politicization
Sanctions can be used selectively against weaker states, eroding trust in
international norms.
4. Long-Term Economic Fragmentation
Overuse of sanctions can encourage alternative financial systems (e.g., de-
dollarization, creation of parallel SWIFT systems).
Example
U.S. secondary sanctions on Iran not only crippled Iran’s economy but also
penalized third-party states, straining diplomatic relations.

Cross -Cutting Implications

Area Common Impact of Blockades, Cyber-Attacks, and Sanctions

Humanitarian Civilian suffering through shortages, unemployment, and inflation.

Legal Norms Risk of setting precedents that weaken UN Charter rules on use of
force and intervention.
Global Economy Disruption of trade, investment, and supply chains with spillover
effects on neutral states.
Conflict Resolution Hardens negotiating positions, prolonging hostilities.
Accountability Gaps in enforcement mechanisms for economic warfare
violations

12
Strategic and Doctrinal Shifts

Hybrid Warfare Integration

Economic measures are now part of hybrid warfare, blending military, cyber, and
economic pressure.
Normative Development
Soft law (Tallinn Manual, San Remo Manual) is increasingly cited, but binding treaty
law is lagging behind technological realities.
Rise of Countermeasures
States are more willing to retaliate economically, raising risks of economic escalation
cycles.

EXPLORATION OF THE ECONOMIC WARFARE IN THE CONTEXT OF

WESTERN SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA (DUE TO THE UKRAINE WAR)

Scope and Legal -Political Framework

Western sanctions on Russia represent one of the most expansive economic warfare
campaigns in modern history, targeting key sectors—energy, finance, defense,
aviation, and high-tech—as well as freezing central bank assets and cutting access
to SWIFT.
A substantial portion of Russia’s foreign reserves—estimated between $300–335
billion—remains frozen by G7 and EU nations, sometimes discussed as possible
postwar reconstruction funds.
These measures are primarily defensive, aimed at weakening Russia’s ability to
sustain its military operations. Though aggressive in economic terms, they're
considered lawful within the framework of sovereign countermeasures under
international law, especially when backed by UNSC-sanctioned or collective state
action.

Economic Consequences for Russia

A. Energy Sector
Western-imposed price caps and embargoes on Russian seaborne oil and refined
products have dramatically reduced export earnings—some estimates suggest
losses of €160 million/day (~$175 million/day) early on.
Despite such measures, Russia continues to earn substantial revenue: energy
export income in 2024 was only marginally lower than pre-war levels, enabling
continued military funding.
Western sanctions have significantly eroded revenue streams but not crippled
them, in part because Russia has rechanneled exports toward non-Western markets
at discounted rates.

13
B. Trade, Industry & Technology
Imports of advanced technology have plummeted (~28%), severely impacting
defense and industrial capacity.
Manufacturing outputs in sectors like automobiles (–90%), electronics, and
machinery have dramatically contracted; yet Russia continues producing simple
manufactured goods.

C. Finance & Investment

Capital flight and freezing of reserves have choked off access to international
finance, leading to the first sovereign default in decades and widespread negative
FDI inflows.

D. Economic Resilience
Despite massive pressure, Russia’s GDP grew by 3.6% in 2023, largely owing to
robust oil revenues and wartime fiscal stimulus.
Russia has redirected energy exports mainly toward China, India, and the Middle
East, and increased the use of the ruble and yuan in trade settlements.
Alternate financial systems like SPFS are being used to circumvent SWIFT
exclusion.

Broader Implications
Global Market & Geopolitics:
Energy sanctions sparked inflation and disrupted global supply chains, hitting
developing economies hard.
Trade diversion gave non-Western players a boost while introducing fragility into
existing structures.

Strategic Leverage
Sanctions serve as signals: demonstrating Western resolve, deterring further
aggression, and reinforcing international norms—even if not halting the war outright.

Adaptation Dynamics
Russia’s pivot toward allied markets highlights its adaptability, raising questions
about the long-term utility of sanctions.

Aspect Effect & Insight

Energy Sanctions ,Significant revenue declines, but not catastrophic—Russia adapts

and holds ground.
Trade & Industry Severe disruptions in tech-reliant sectors; basic manufacturing
remains viable.
Finance & Investment Reserves frozen, FDI dried up, financial stress
substantial.

14
Economic Resilience Notable GDP growth (2023), enabled by energy exports
and internal mobilization.
Global Impact Market volatility, inflation, and strategic shifts toward non-
Western economic alignments.
Strategic Role Sanctions used for signalling; long-term effectiveness still
contested.

THE NAVAL BLOCKADES OF YEMEN

The naval blockade of Yemen is primarily enforced by the Saudi-led coalition since
March 2015, as part of military operations supporting the internationally recognized
Yemeni government against Houthi rebels.

Stated Objective:
The coalition claims the blockade’s purpose is to prevent the smuggling of weapons
and military equipment to the Houthis from external supporters (notably Iran).

Mechanism:
The blockade restricts entry of vessels to Yemeni ports (especially Hodeidah and
Saleef) and subjects humanitarian shipments to inspections and delays.

Humanitarian Impact:
Yemen faces one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, with famine risks,
shortages of medical supplies, and severe economic collapse—conditions critics
attribute partly to the blockade.

Applicable Legal Framework

A. UN Charter
Article 2(4): Prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state.
Article 51: Allows self-defense against armed attack.
Chapter VII: Security Council can authorize enforcement measures (including
blockades) — but in Yemen, no UNSC authorization was granted for the blockade.

B. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Applies in international and non-international armed conflicts.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994)
— non-binding but widely respected:

Art. 93: Blockade must be declared and notified.

Art. 94: Must be effective (capable of preventing access).
Art. 97: Must not have the sole purpose of starving civilians or denying objects
essential for survival.
Art. 102: Must allow free passage of humanitarian assistance.

15
Geneva Conventions & Additional Protocol
Art. 54 AP I: Prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
Art. 70 AP I: Humanitarian relief must be granted rapid and unimpeded passage.
Rome Statute (Art. 8(2)(b)(xxv)): Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

C. Customary International Law

Proportionality: Civilian harm must not be excessive relative to concrete military
advantage.
Distinction: Measures must target military objectives, not civilians

Legality of the Blockade itself

Without UNSC authorization, the blockade can only be lawful if justified as self-
defense under Article 51.
The coalition argues it acts at the request of Yemen’s recognized government—
potentially legitimizing military action.

Critics argue that:

The blockade extends to areas under Houthi control without adequate differentiation
between military and civilian targets.
Its scope and duration far exceed what is necessary for interdicting arms.

Humanitarian Law Concerns

Excessive Civilian Harm:
UN reports and humanitarian organizations (OCHA, HRW, Amnesty) have
documented severe food, fuel, and medicine shortages caused or worsened by the
blockade.
Starvation as a Method of Warfare:
If proven that the blockade’s effect is to intentionally deprive civilians of essentials,
this could breach AP I Art. 54 and Rome Statute war crimes provisions.

Enforcement & Neutral Shipping

Under San Remo Manual, neutral vessels may be stopped and searched if
suspected of carrying contraband, but:
Blanket delays and denials without concrete evidence can be unlawful.
Incidents involving attacks on commercial vessels raise proportionality concerns.

4. International Responses
UN Security Council:
Resolution 2216 (2015) imposed an arms embargo on Houthis but did not authorize
a full naval blockade.
UN Panel of Experts on Yemen:
Found that the blockade contributed to humanitarian suffering and could violate
international law.

16
Human Rights Council:
Independent experts have suggested the blockade may amount to a war crime if
starvation is used deliberately.

U S SANCTIONS ON IRAN

JCPOA (2015) Under this nuclear deal, U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil and banking
were lifted in exchange for nuclear compliance commitments.
"Maximum Pressure" Campaign After exiting the JCPOA in 2018, the Trump
administration reimposed sweeping sanctions—including secondary sanctions
targeting non-U.S. actors, Iranian banks, and the National Oil Company—to compel
renegotiation.
CAATSA (2017) Mandated sanctions related to Iran’s WMD and missile programs,
IRGC, and human rights violators; includes enforcement and waiver mechanisms.
CISADA (2010) Expanded sanctions aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear proliferation and
implementing divestment-related measures

Economic Impact
Macroeconomic Effects:
Oil Revenue Drop: Crude exports plunged from ~2.7 million bpd to under 200,000
bpd post-2018, though some rebound has occurred.
GDP Contraction: Estimated economic shrinkage of ~4.8% in 2018 and another
9.5% in 2019.
Long-Term Growth Effects: U.S. sanctions have contributed to a cumulative GDP per
capita drop of ~13.4% over seven years.
Currency Collapse & Inflation: Rial depreciation by ~60%, inflation soaring beyond
40–50%, with unemployment rising.

Trade, Banking, and Industrial Disruption:

Widespread trade and financial sector isolation has impaired Iran’s import/export
capabilities, forcing reliance on barter, intermediaries, and local currencies.
Industry sectors—particularly automotive and high-tech—deteriorated due to
component shortages and lack of foreign investment.

Humanitarian and Social Consequences:

Healthcare Crisis: Access to medicines, especially for chronic illnesses like epilepsy
and cancer, has been severely restricted. Over-compliance by foreign firms makes
humanitarian transactions difficult.
Food Insecurity: Prices of nutritious foods rose by over 50%, with the cost of a
healthy diet requiring up to 80% of average family income. Food insecurity surged
dramatically, especially among vulnerable groups.

17
Excess Mortality: Economic sanctions have been linked to hundreds of thousands of
excess deaths per year globally, with U.S. measures among the deadliest due to
their extraterritorial reach.

Iran’s Adaptive Responses & Resilience

Shadow Oil Trade: Exports rebounded to ~1.4 million bpd by 2023 via covert
shipments, with China accounting for over 80% of imports.

Cryptocurrencies: In 2024, $15.8 billion in crypto flowed through sanctions-

designated Iranian entities—used to evade financial restrictions.

Economic Rebound (Selective): Under the Biden administration, some easing in

enforcement led to GDP gains and stronger ties with Russia and China—though
everyday hardships persist.

Domestic Governance Strain: Economic crisis, driven by sanctions and

mismanagement, triggered inflation over 40%, malnutrition affecting ~57%, and
youth unemployment and unrest.

Strategic & Geopolitical Implications

Diplomatic Pressure: Sanctions are intended to coerce Iran into nuclear and
behavioral concessions. Revived negotiations continue amid mutual distrust.
Global Energy Markets: Cutting Iranian oil risks supply shortages and soaring
prices—tight enforcement may raise prices by ~8%, complicating U.S. strategic
goals.

Trend Toward Norm Undermining: Unilateral extraterritorial sanctions have eroded

global norms and prompted debates over legitimacy, sovereignty, and human rights
oversight, especially as humanitarian harm deepens.

U.S. sanctions on Iran—primarily under the ―maximum pressure‖ strategy—have

exacted a heavy economic and social toll. Legally debated for their extraterritorial
reach, they've materially weakened Iran's economy, limited access to essentials, and
prompted adaptive circumvention strategies. While signaling U.S. intent to contain
Iran’s nuclear and regional influence, they've also deepened humanitarian crises and
raised questions about the ethical and strategic sustainability of such coercive
diplomacy.

18
ASSESSMENT OF THE SANCTIONS′ LAWFULNESS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW
1. Legal Framework for Sanctions and Economic Warfare

(a) UN Sanctions
Authority: UN Charter, Chapter VII (Articles 39–42) empowers the UN Security
Council (UNSC) to impose binding sanctions to maintain or restore international
peace and security.
Legality: Sanctions adopted through UNSC resolutions are generally lawful, as they
are authorized by the collective security mechanism.
Example: UNSC sanctions on North Korea (Res. 1718, 1874, etc.).

(b) Unilateral Sanctions

Definition: Sanctions imposed by individual states or regional bodies (e.g., U.S., EU)
without UNSC authorization.
Controversy:
Supporters argue they are an exercise of state sovereignty and lawful as long as
they comply with international obligations (e.g., WTO rules, human rights).
Critics argue unilateral sanctions violate principles of non-intervention (UN Charter
Art. 2(4) and customary law) and may amount to unlawful coercion.
Authority: Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ, 1986) — the Court held that coercive
economic measures aimed at regime change violate the principle of non-
intervention.

(c) Prohibition of Collective Punishment

Sanctions that cause disproportionate harm to civilians, particularly in humanitarian
contexts, may breach:

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Human rights treaties (e.g., ICCPR, ICESCR)
The prohibition on collective punishment (Art. 33, Fourth Geneva Convention).

2. Application to the Aforementioned Examples

A. Western Sanctions on Russia (Ukraine War)

Source: Primarily unilateral (U.S., EU, UK, Canada, Japan), targeting Russia’s
banking, energy, and trade sectors.

Lawfulness:
For: States can limit trade/financial dealings as part of their sovereign discretion.

Against: The intent (crippling Russia’s economy to pressure policy change) could be
seen as coercive interference in internal affairs.

19
ICJ Guidance: In Nicaragua v. U.S., broad trade embargoes aimed at political
subversion were criticized.

CONCLUSION
Politically accepted among sanctioning states, but legally contentious in the absence
of UNSC authorization.

U.S. Sanctions on Iran

Source: Mostly unilateral; some multilateral under UNSC before the JCPOA (e.g.,
Res. 1737, 1929).
Post-2018 Withdrawal from JCPOA:
The U.S. reinstated ―maximum pressure‖ sanctions without UNSC backing.
Contested: Iran claims violations of the 1955 U.S.-Iran Treaty of Amity (Alleged
Violations of the 1955 Treaty, ICJ, provisional measures 2018).
Humanitarian Concerns: Reports of restricted access to medicine and essential
goods raise human rights issues.
UNSC-backed sanctions pre-2015 were lawful; post-2018 unilateral U.S. measures
are more legally vulnerable under non-intervention and human rights law.

Naval Blockades of Yemen

Source: Imposed by Saudi-led coalition; not authorized by UNSC.

IHL Rules: Under the San Remo Manual (1994), a blockade is lawful if:

1. Declared and notified.

2. Does not starve civilians.
3. Is not intended solely to harm the civilian population.

Reality: UN experts and humanitarian agencies report severe civilian suffering,

obstruction of aid, and possible starvation.

Measure :UNSC Authorization, Compliance with IHL/Human Rights are Likely

Lawful.

Western sanctions on Russia Likely unlawful.

Mixed — harm to civilians but mostly targeted Controversial
U.S. sanctions on Iran (post-2018) Significant humanitarian impact Likely
unlawful
Yemen blockade Severe civilian harm; possible war crime,Likely unlawful

UNSC sanctions (general)l lawful Dependent on humanitarian exemptions

Presumptively lawful

20
REFERENCES

Malcon Evans, International law Fifth Edition.

Malcon Shaw, International law Fourth Edition.
U N Charter (1945).
Online Data source, Google Chrome (Fact Checked).
Consultation from International law Writers Researchers and Lecturers Inter alia.

21