form of comprehensive embargo regimes which are directed to impair the institutions and instrumentalities of the “target State”. The ultimate goal is to influence and
change the politics of the “target State” without having to apply any military force
against it. Historic examples of comprehensive embargoes include non-forcible
economic measures against the former South-African apartheid regime or against
the repressive military government of Myanmar (formerly “Burma”). Some States,
above all frequently the United States but increasingly also the EU, have introduced
non-forcible economic countermeasures on a unilateral basis—be it with or without
an applicable UN mandate.
However, there are also a number of other examples of economic countermeasures
applied against States which either did not generate any visible political result(s) so
far (even if the measures are consistently intensified, as, e.g., in the case of North
Korea)
14 or which resulted in long-standing external policy instruments (applied
against Cuba, Libya or Iran) where the causal impact of economic countermeasures
and the desired political outcome remains doubtful. In the twenty-first century, a
surge of political instability in some parts of the word and the systematic global threat
by terrorist organisations (such as “Al Qaida” or the so-called “Islamic State”) has
resulted in a significant increase in the use of specifically targeted economic and
financial sanctions as a modern tool of foreign policy. There has been a continuous
development to apply more frequently so-called “smart” or “intelligent” sanctions
which target specific problematic regions and/or assets, outlawed products, business
sectors or even individual companies and natural persons.
15 In the maritime world,
for example, “IRISL” (i.e. the Islamic Republic Iran Shipping Lines and its management) was an explicit target of the sanctions portfolio which had been initiated against
Iran and which has been progressively reinstated on a unilateral basis by the United
States (since 2018).
As a political reaction to the Russian annexation of Crimea, “smart sanctions”
have also been introduced by the EU and the USA against certain Russian individuals and entities, accompanied by purely political measures, such as the suspension
of Russia from the “Group of Eight” (G8), representing the leading industrial
countries of the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, previously existing trade and
finance restrictions have often been tightened further and companies are under
heightened public scrutiny. All in all, the enforcement of the applicable rules has
become increasingly complicated and expensive. If unilateral sanctions of different
legislators are completely uncoordinated, however, the different rules have the
14 By the end of 2018, the UN Security Council had adopted thirteen Resolutions in relation to North
Korea. For example, UN Security Council Resolution 2397 was adopted on December 22, 2017 in
response to North Korea’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a
threat to international peace and security.
15 See Burri (1998).
Sanctions Compliance Risks in International Shipping: Closure of Five. . .
293
change the politics of the “target State” without having to apply any military force
against it. Historic examples of comprehensive embargoes include non-forcible
economic measures against the former South-African apartheid regime or against
the repressive military government of Myanmar (formerly “Burma”). Some States,
above all frequently the United States but increasingly also the EU, have introduced
non-forcible economic countermeasures on a unilateral basis—be it with or without
an applicable UN mandate.
However, there are also a number of other examples of economic countermeasures
applied against States which either did not generate any visible political result(s) so
far (even if the measures are consistently intensified, as, e.g., in the case of North
Korea)
14 or which resulted in long-standing external policy instruments (applied
against Cuba, Libya or Iran) where the causal impact of economic countermeasures
and the desired political outcome remains doubtful. In the twenty-first century, a
surge of political instability in some parts of the word and the systematic global threat
by terrorist organisations (such as “Al Qaida” or the so-called “Islamic State”) has
resulted in a significant increase in the use of specifically targeted economic and
financial sanctions as a modern tool of foreign policy. There has been a continuous
development to apply more frequently so-called “smart” or “intelligent” sanctions
which target specific problematic regions and/or assets, outlawed products, business
sectors or even individual companies and natural persons.
15 In the maritime world,
for example, “IRISL” (i.e. the Islamic Republic Iran Shipping Lines and its management) was an explicit target of the sanctions portfolio which had been initiated against
Iran and which has been progressively reinstated on a unilateral basis by the United
States (since 2018).
As a political reaction to the Russian annexation of Crimea, “smart sanctions”
have also been introduced by the EU and the USA against certain Russian individuals and entities, accompanied by purely political measures, such as the suspension
of Russia from the “Group of Eight” (G8), representing the leading industrial
countries of the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, previously existing trade and
finance restrictions have often been tightened further and companies are under
heightened public scrutiny. All in all, the enforcement of the applicable rules has
become increasingly complicated and expensive. If unilateral sanctions of different
legislators are completely uncoordinated, however, the different rules have the
14 By the end of 2018, the UN Security Council had adopted thirteen Resolutions in relation to North
Korea. For example, UN Security Council Resolution 2397 was adopted on December 22, 2017 in
response to North Korea’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a
threat to international peace and security.
15 See Burri (1998).
Sanctions Compliance Risks in International Shipping: Closure of Five. . .
293