The use of non-military sanctions

A common, traditional assumption is that the imposition of non-military sanctions represents a less drastic alternative to military action as a response to situations threatening international peace and security, being comparatively less harmful to civilian populations. Influenced by this assumption, the UN Charter directs the Security Council to at least give consideration to the adoption of such measures before proceeding to authorise military enforcement action in those scenarios in which it has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. However, non-military sanctions are not without their problems and have been the source of controversy in particular because of their humanitarian consequences. Although the legal framework applicable to their imposition appears prima facie to afford the Council with considerable discretion in utilising non-military sanctions, their legitimacy has increasingly been challenged on account of their perceived incompatibility with norms found in international human rights and humanitarian law. Following damning humanitarian criticisms of sanctions during the 1990s, the Council moved towards the adoption of a more targeted approach to their design and implementation. However, concerns have continued to be expressed over the effectiveness of sanctions in realising their objectives, alongside negative side-effects. Debates remain ongoing in respect of future means of improvement.