Unilateral Sanctions in International Law: Notion and Essence.

Unilateral sanctions have become a pervasive feature of the contemporary international legal and political landscape, reaching unprecedented levels of application. Nevertheless, despite their widespread use, unilateral sanctions lack a coherent theoretical and regulatory framework, posing significant doctrinal and practical challenges. This article addresses the definitional ambiguities surrounding unilateral sanctions in international law, aiming to provide clarity and precision to this complex concept. To achieve this, the article examines key legal terminology, including terms such as 'sanctions', 'institutional sanctions', 'unilateral sanctions', and 'unilateral coercive measures', offering a conceptual understanding of each. Building on this foundation, the article critically evaluates two primary approaches to conceptualising unilateral sanctions. The first approach views unilateral sanctions as instruments of international law enforcement. However, an analysis of the international legal framework and State practice reveals that unilateral sanctions fail to align with the concept of sanctions, which is currently confined to measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Instead, unilateral sanctions may correspond to the notions of 'self-protection' or 'self-help' measures, specifically countermeasures and retorsions, provided they meet the stringent requirements imposed by international law. The article further argues that, in practice, unilateral sanctions often exceed the lawful scope of self-protection measures, pursuing broader political and security objectives. Consequently, unilateral sanctions are best defined as coercive measures applied outside the UNSC framework, with the aim of inducing a change in the behaviour of a target to accomplish established foreign and security policy goals, which may encompass the enforcement of international law. By delineating unilateral sanctions in this manner, the article highlights the inadequacy of existing international law provisions governing self-help acts to fully regulate these measures. This analysis invites further exploration of relevant international legal rules necessary to regulate unilateral sanctions comprehensively, paving the way for future research in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]