International Agreements Sanctions

OFAC`s sanctions programs involving foreign target countries, rough diamond trafficking, drug and drug traffickers, weapons of mass destruction, and global terrorism are created under the authority of economic and trade sanctions established by executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other laws enacted by the United States Congress. Legal authority for OFAC`s sanctions programs is not limited to the U.S. federal government. Many of OFAC`s sanctions programs are based on international mandates such as UN sanctions and multilateral trade agreements. Multilateral trade agreements include the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and those involving the World Trade Organization (WTO). OFAC`s sanctions programs, which include international agreements and mandates, include the following: Environmental sanctions cover both economic and political issues such as trade, as they are all interdependent. Trade barriers and trade restrictions are the main factors addressing the problems of endangered species, ozone-depleting chemicals and environmental laws. Although environmental sanctions and laws are relatively new, recent concerns about environmental issues have encouraged individuals and governments to actively cooperate to address these issues. Diplomatic sanctions are political measures taken to express disapproval or dissatisfaction with a particular act through diplomatic and political means, rather than affecting economic or military relations. Measures include restricting or cancelling high-level government visits or expelling or withdrawing diplomatic missions or personnel.

Prior to 1990, the Council imposed sanctions on only two States: Southern Rhodesia (1966) and South Africa (1977). However, since the end of the Cold War, the agency has imposed sanctions more than twenty times, most often against parties to internal conflict, such as in Somalia, Liberia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s. But despite this cooperation, sanctions are often divisive and reflect the competing interests of world powers. Since 2011, Russia and China have vetoed several Security Council resolutions on the conflict in Syria, some of which could have led to sanctions against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The case of South Africa leads to the typical example used to argue for the effectiveness of sanctions, although this so-called effectiveness remains controversial. [12] The more than two dozen existing U.S. sanctions programs are administered by the Treasury Department`s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), while other departments, including state, commerce, homeland security, and justice, can also play an important role. For example, the Secretary of State may designate a group as a foreign terrorist organization or designate a country as a state sponsor of terrorism, both of which have implications for sanctions. (Travel bans are also handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.) State and local authorities, particularly in New York, can also contribute to law enforcement efforts. Meanwhile, experts cite several good practices in shaping sanctions policy: Congress, for its part, can pass laws that impose new sanctions or modify existing ones, which it has done in many cases.

In cases where there are multiple legal powers, such as Cuba and Iran, action by Congress and the executive branch may be required to modify or lift the restrictions. Sometimes the two branches clash over the policy of sanctions. For example, Congress passed in July 2017 and President Donald J. Trump reluctantly signed a bill imposing new sanctions on Russia for its interference in the previous US presidential election. The bill, which controversially limited Trump`s ability to lift sanctions against Russia, passed with majorities without a veto. The European Union imposes sanctions as part of its common foreign and security policy (better known as restrictive measures in block twenty-eight [PDF]). Because the EU has no common military power, many European leaders see sanctions as the bloc`s most powerful foreign policy instrument. The sanctions policy must be unanimously approved by member states in the Council of the European Union, the body representing EU leaders. Sanctions do not work, do not succeed or fail in a vacuum. Such measures are most effective in maintaining or restoring international peace and security when implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peacemaking.

Contrary to the assumption that sanctions are punishments, many regimes are designed to support governments and regions working towards a peaceful transition. The sanctions regimes in Libya and Guinea-Bissau illustrate this approach. United Nations sanctions should not be confused with unilateral sanctions imposed by individual countries to advance their strategic interests. [5] Generally conceived as strong economic coercion, measures applied in the context of unilateral sanctions can range from coercive diplomatic efforts, economic warfare or a prelude to war. Governments and multinational organizations impose economic sanctions in an attempt to change the strategic decisions of state and non-state actors that threaten their interests or violate international norms of behavior. Critics say sanctions are often ill-conceived and rarely succeed in changing the behavior of a goal, while proponents say they have become more effective in recent years and remain an essential foreign policy tool. Sanctions have been the defining feature of the Western response to several geopolitical challenges, including North Korea`s nuclear program and Russia`s intervention in Ukraine. In recent years, the United States has expanded the use of sanctions, enforced them, and strengthened them against its adversaries in Iran, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela. Since 1993, many countries have imposed trade sanctions on Burma (Myanmar).

When it comes to the effectiveness of sanctions, proponents acknowledge that multilateral sanctions work in 33% of cases. [16] Looking ahead, some experts warn that sanctions should be seen as a double-edged sword that can help the US achieve its short-term policy goals, but, if used carelessly, can jeopardize the country`s long-term financial leverage. Former Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew and former State Department official Richard Nephew write: "Today, the country is largely asserting itself because there is no alternative to the dollar and no export market as attractive as the United States. But if Washington continues to force other countries to join policies they consider both illegal and reckless over the next 20 to 30 years, they risk turning away from the U.S. economy and financial system. Although sanctions are a form of intervention, they are generally seen as a cheaper and less risky approach between diplomacy and war. Policymakers may view sanctions as a response to foreign crises where the national interest is less than vital or where military action is not feasible.

Leaders have sometimes imposed sanctions while evaluating other punitive measures. For example, just four days after Saddam Hussein`s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the UN Security Council imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iraq. The Security Council did not authorize the use of military force until months later. In 2001/2002, the United States imposed economic sanctions on the State of Zimbabwe through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 or ZDERA, p. 494, by vetoing or voting against access to finance, debt relief and debt restructuring, and by forcing the Zimbabwean government to operate solely on a cash basis. UNITED Nations sanctions regimes are generally administered by an ad hoc committee and a monitoring group [...].