Are sanctions legal?

[questfortruth]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

 

[exchemist]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

Yes.

 

[questfortruth]

Yes.

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

No nation is required to get the UN's permission to take sanctions against another nation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

Maybe, but its a matter of diplomacy. I'm pleased that my government has not gotten me into a war; so sanctions don't sound so bad to me. Similarly it might feel nice to Russians that their country has acquired the Crimea, so sanctions may not seem so bad to them either. I don't know how they feel about that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Let the Russian pull back all the military troops...only solution

 

[questfortruth]

Russians that their country has acquired the Crimea

There was referendum in Crimea. The referendum was conducted when there was no government in Kiev.

 

[Altfish]

By leaving the EU, the UK has just imposed sanctions on itself.

That's a first.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There was referendum in Crimea. The referendum was conducted when there was no government in Kiev.

It is unclear to me how the Crimea was given or taken or how it joined or was acquired. The Ukrainians claim it has been taken, and I know it was part of Ukraine. I don't know if Crimea wanted to leave Ukraine. I do not know about referendums, but I do know USA is bound by some kind of treaties between Russia and Ukraine, and this could cause war. To me the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is like being at a house where the husband and wife are arguing, and if we side with one or the other we lose. Those two will fall in love again someday, and then they will criticize us for our involvement. Maybe Crimea will even become a third country. I don't know what your relationships are like. I do know that the Russian Orthodox Church began to have a conflict with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as part of this whole dispute about real estate.

I think Churches should stop backing politicians and parties. Does God care who wins at soccer matches? In America prophecies were given that God wanted Trump and Bush in power. Similarly your church (the Russian Orthodox Church) has in the past blessed certain leaders. I compare this to the prophecies for Bush and Trump. Church involvment undermines my confidence in both churches and the political claims of this or that.

What I see is that no war has happened, so I am glad that no war has happened. If we go to war then I (not I but my generation) will kill everyone involved mercilessly. This will make previous generations ashamed of us being lower animals than they were. They turned away from war and dreamed of a world where we would not have to fight, and we must not betray their trust. We should make the future better for the next generation, too.

 

[Brickjectivity]

By leaving the EU, the UK has just imposed sanctions on itself.

That's a first.

It was not like Ukraine losing Crimea which is an obscure poorly witnessed transfer of land from one nation to another. We all know why the UK left the EU. The EU wanted to take sovereignty. Many in the UK did not feel comfortable with it, so they voted leave. They can always join later when people feel more comfortable, or if the EU doesn't want the UK later than it will probably still be Ok. There is no large neighbor trying to engulf the UK by force if necessary.

 

[Altfish]

It was not like Ukraine losing Crimea which is an obscure poorly witnessed transfer of land from one nation to another. We all know why the UK left the EU. The EU wanted to take sovereignty. Many in the UK did not feel comfortable with it, so they voted leave. They can always join later when people feel more comfortable, or if the EU doesn't want the UK later than it will probably still be Ok. There is no large neighbor trying to engulf the UK by force if necessary.

The UK left the EU because it was lied to by multi-millionaires (The only ones who are gaining from the charade) and the Murdoch/Barclays press and their politician puppets. They played the 'immigrant card' and the racist right (and left) took the bait.
Nobody has yet explained to me what happens when I lose my sovereignty. We were a leader in the EU, we made the rules; now we watch from the side-lines and have to obey the rules set by others if we wish to trade with them.
We will not rejoin in my life-time, I hope we do in my childrens' lifetime - but why would the EU want the petulant child back

 

[Brickjectivity]

The UK left the EU because it was lied to by multi-millionaires (The only ones who are gaining from the charade) and the Murdoch/Barclays press and their politician puppets. They played the 'immigrant card' and the racist right (and left) took the bait.
Nobody has yet explained to me what happens when I lose my sovereignty. We were a leader in the EU, we made the rules; now we watch from the side-lines and have to obey the rules set by others if we wish to trade with them.
We will not rejoin in my life-time, I hope we do in my childrens' lifetime - but why would the EU want the petulant child back

Brexit also impacted the forum, but there was no question about whether it was legal. We wondered if it was enforceable and practical but not whether it was legal.

I am sorry that the UK has lost some of the comforts of the EU but don't see any parallel with Crimea; and it doesn't involve me directly. I've always had 100% confidence that you Brits would pull through. I see you as a monolithic enormous country many centuries old. I don't see you in terms of your physical land mass. You have a lot of inertia. I have difficulty seeing Brexit or staying in the EU either as such an important thing. Many times Britain has been courted by Europe, and its never worked. That doesn't mean it never will, but so far it has not. You just are on your own as usual.

 

[Altfish]

Brexit also impacted the forum, but there was no question about whether it was legal. We wondered if it was enforceable and practical but not whether it was legal.

I am sorry that the UK has lost some of the comforts of the EU but don't see any parallel with Crimea; and it doesn't involve me directly. I've always had 100% confidence that you Brits would pull through. I see you as a monolithic enormous country many centuries old. I don't see you in terms of your physical land mass. You have a lot of inertia. I have difficulty seeing Brexit or staying in the EU either as such an important thing. Many times Britain has been courted by Europe, and its never worked. That doesn't mean it never will, but so far it has not. You just are on your own as usual.

The Thread's Title did not include the word "Crimea" or "Ukraine", I was just giving an example of suicidal sanctions by my country.

 

[Stevicus]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

I found this paper which discusses the legality of economic sanctions.

Legality Of Economic Sanctions Under International Law: The Case Of Nicaragua (wlu.edu)

In addition to treaties and the U.N. Charter, several United Nations General Assembly resolutions have addressed the issue of coercive economic conduct. 5 6 Resolutions of the General Assembly, though not binding in a legal sense, nevertheless represent the expectations of the international community and provide evidence of the norms of customary international law. 5

The sanctions against Nicaragua are inconsistent with several United Nations resolutions.""8 An important U.N. resolution condemning coercive economic conduct is the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty (Declaration on Intervention). 5 9 Passed in 1965 by the U.N. General Assembly, the Declaration on Interventiou forbids the use of economic or political measures designed to subordinate the will of, or obtain advantages from, another state.6' In addition to the Declaration on Intervention, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (Principles of Friendly Relations) is pertinent in analyzing economic sanctions under General Assembly resolutions.16 The Principles of Friendly Relations expresses authoritative norms of economic conduct and reaffirms the Declaration on Intervention's opposition to the use of economic coercion as a means of compromising the sovereign will of another state. 62 Although both the Declaration on Intervention and the Principles of Friendly Relations forbid the use of coercive economic conduct, the resolutions apply only to economic measures that a coercing state undertakes to subordinate the sovereignty of a target state or to procure advantages for the coercing state. 63 Therefore, the legitimacy of the Reagan Administration's economic sanctions against Nicaragua under the Declaration on Intervention and the Principles of Friendly Relations turns on the purpose of the United States in implementing the trade embargo.' 64 If the United States terminated trade with Nicaragua in order to subordinate the sovereign will of the Sandinista government or to obtain advantages from Nicaragua, then the United States has violated the Declaration on Intervention and the Principles of Friendly Relations. 65 However, if the Reagan Administration did not intend to detract from the sovereignty of the Nicaraguan government or acquire any advantage therefrom, then the United States did not violate the aforementioned United Nations resolutions.' 66 The predominant intent of the Reagan Administration in ordering a trade embargo appears to have been to alter the operation of the Sandinista government and force Nicaragua to follow a course of conduct that met the United States acceptance.' 67 Specifically, President Reagan demanded that Nicaragua cease military support of Salvadoran rebels fighting the government of El Salvador, that Nicaragua end military ties with Cuba and the Eastern Bloc, and that Nicaragua discontinue military buildup and pursue a course of democratic pluralism.' 6 Before coming to power in Nicaragua in 1979, the Sandinista rulers promised the Organization of American States that, once in control, the FSLN would institute a broadly-based democratic government and hold free elections. 6

The United States asserts that the economic sanctions against Nicaragua are an attempt to induce the Sandinista government to adhere to the 1979 promises.17 0 The fact that the FSLN initially made democratic promises with which Nicaragua has failed to comply, however, does not alter the objective of the United States in imposing a trade embargo against Nicaragua, which is to induce an alteration in the Nicaraguan government., In effect, the United States insisted on the subordination of Nicaragua's sovereign right to determine Nicaragua's own course of government. 72 As a consequence of the Nicaraguan government's failure to comply with the Reagan Administration's demands, the United States ceased all trade with Nicaragua. 73 The intent of the United States was to compel the Nicaraguan government to follow a certain course of foreign and domestic conduct by means of economic coercion; therefore, the embargo violates the United Nations Declaration on Intervention and Principles of Friendly Relations. 74 An additional means of analyzing the legality of economic sanctions is the principle of nonintervention. 7 1 The duty of nonintervention underlies the important United Nations statements on economic coercion and is a significant check on the aggressive economic conduct of a state.'7 6 Under international law, the duty of nonintervention requires that a state refrain from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another sovereign state against the will of that state.' 77 Economic conduct is interventionary if a nation carries out an economic policy that coerces a target state to take a course of action that the coercing state desires.1 7 Because the United States terminated trade with Nicaragua in an effort to induce the Sandinista government to follow a course of conduct prescribed by the Reagan Administration, the economic measures imposed upon Nicaragua fall into the category of intervention.' 79 The classification of the trade embargo against Nicaragua as an act of intervention, however, does not end the analysis of the legality of the sanctions under the principle of nonintervention.8 0 A state may justify any economic conduct, including an act of economic intervention, if the state takes action in self-defense or as a legitimate act of retorsion or reprisal to secure redress for a prior wrong committed by the target state.' 8 ' For the United States to justify the trade embargo against Nicaragua as an act of self-defense, the United States would have to show that Nicaragua posed an immediate danger to the security or independence of the United States and that no alternative means of protection were available to the United States.' 82 While the United States sufficiently has outlined what it deems to be the Nicaraguan threat," 3 the United States cannot maintain with significant plausibility that Nicaragua, with a trained army of less than 50,000 troops and virtually no air force, poses an imminent threat to the United States. 8

Nor can the United States maintain that the trade embargo was a legitimate exercise of self-help under international law. 8 s By definition, an act of retorsion inherently is legal.' 6 However, the United States trade sanctions against Nicaragua may be outside the legal competence of the United States, with particular regard to treaty obligations.' 87 Thus, the sanctions fall outside the parameters of legitimate retorsion. 8 s Legitimizing the sanctions as a reprisal would require that the United States show that Nicaragua previously had violated international law in an action against the United States, that the United States had no other available means of redress, and that the trade embargo was proportionate to the wrongful act committed against the United States.8 9 The United States is unable to establish the requisite facts necessary to characterize the economic sanctions against Nicaragua as self-defense, or a legitimate act of retorsion or reprisal; the trade embargo, therefore, remains as an illegal act of economic intervention against Nicaragua.' 9 0 Although the recent economic sanctions imposed upon Nicaragua may be a politically attractive exercise of foreign policy for the Reagan Administration, the application of such measures violates a number of specific treaty commitments as well as customary international law.' 9 ' By implementing an extensive trade embargo against Nicaragua, the United States has breached its obligation under the U.N. Charter to settle its disputes in a peaceful manner. 9 2 The sanctions also violate provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the OAS Charter, and the bilateral FCN Treaty between Nicaragua and the United States.' 93 Furthermore, customary international law, as evidenced by U.N. resolutions and the principle of nonintervention, does not permit the use of economic sanctions designed to coerce the independent will of another state. 94 The Reagan Administration's trade embargo exceeds the boundaries of permissible influence, becoming instead an illicit intervention into the sovereign affairs of Nicaragua

 

[Twilight Hue]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

I somehow feel sanctions don't really work on a country like Russia.

There's always a way to adapt and survive and Russians seem to do that very well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

Why do you think sanctions work that way?

 

[Truthseeker]

Since the sanctions against the Russians bypass the UN Security Council, the sanctions are illegal.

The system is flawed. The security council is very flawed. A simple veto by one permanent member kills everything. That's not democratic. Neither is the big powers having most of the control over the security counsel. Also even when something is passed, it is often a mere resolution to satisfy all big powers. Technically they are illegal, but what can you do? Russia would veto everything in this case!

We need a system that works! How about all nations voting in the security counsel and they go by a majority alone, and what they pass is enforced. That's one possible solution, at least partially.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There was referendum in Crimea. The referendum was conducted when there was no government in Kiev.

I think concocted is the word you meant here. Or would you want the peoples of any nation that form some particular group being independent or joining some other nation based on their votes alone?

 

[questfortruth]

I think concocted is the word you meant here.

The independent international observers were present there, and they were pleased.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The independent international observers were present there, and they were pleased.

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

The whole of Ukraine didn't vote.