The modern international order prides itself on being governed by law rather than power. The Charter of the United Nations speaks of sovereign equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, and collective responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Yet one area of international practice increasingly exposes the tension between these ideals and political reality: the growing use of unilateral sanctions. ALSO READ: Selective accountability will not bring peace to eastern DR Congo Hardly a month passes without news of another country, institution, company, or individual being sanctioned. Governments justify such measures as necessary responses to human rights abuses, unconstitutional changes of government, terrorism, electoral irregularities, or armed conflict. The stated objective is often to influence behaviour without resorting to military force. ALSO READ: Global double standards are existential threats to Tutsi in Great lakes region But one fundamental question remains surprisingly absent from public debate. Who authorizes the sanctioning powers themselves? The United Nations Charter clearly establishes that binding international sanctions are the responsibility of the UN Security Council. Such measures derive legitimacy from a multilateral process, however imperfect that process may be. ALSO READ: Global Witness in service of a new scramble for Congolese minerals Increasingly, however, sanctions originate elsewhere. Individual states or regional organizations now impose extensive restrictions independently, often affecting countries well beyond their own jurisdictions. Access to banking systems, financial markets, insurance, technology, shipping, investment, and international commerce can be interrupted through decisions taken in a handful of capitals. This raises an uncomfortable paradox. ALSO READ: When the teachers fail the test: The crisis of Western human rights credibility If international law prohibits one state from interfering in the sovereignty of another, under what legal doctrine do unilateral coercive measures acquire global reach? More importantly, who evaluates whether these sanctions comply with international law? ALSO READ: The Great Lakes challenge: A genocide ideology and complicity In domestic legal systems, every exercise of public authority is normally subject to judicial review. Governments can be challenged before independent courts. Administrative decisions may be overturned. Citizens enjoy due process. Internationally, however, no equivalent mechanism exists for reviewing most unilateral sanctions. ALSO READ: Why genocide ideology doesn’t dissolve three decades after dispersion of genocidaires Those imposing sanctions often become investigators, prosecutors, judges, and executors simultaneously. Such concentration of authority would be difficult to justify within national constitutional systems. Yet internationally it has become increasingly normalized. Africa has particular reasons to engage with this debate. ALSO READ: Why blaming Rwanda won't solve DR Congo's crisis Many African countries have experienced sanctions at various stages of their political development. Sometimes these measures have reflected genuine international concern. At other times they have appeared closely intertwined with broader geopolitical interests. Regardless of the merits of individual cases, a consistent concern emerges: the absence of universally applicable standards. Why are similar situations treated differently? Why do strategic alliances appear to influence responses? Why do some humanitarian crises trigger sweeping sanctions while others provoke only diplomatic statements? Selective enforcement weakens confidence in international justice. Justice derives credibility not simply from its objectives but from its consistency. The issue extends beyond Africa. Countries in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and even Europe have experienced varying forms of unilateral economic pressure. As global power becomes more diffuse, many governments increasingly question whether the existing sanctions architecture reflects universal principles or the geopolitical preferences of the most influential economies. None of this implies that governments should escape accountability. States violating international law should indeed face consequences. Human rights abuses, aggression, terrorism, and unconstitutional seizures of power cannot simply be ignored. The question is not whether accountability should exist. The question is who should administer it. If accountability is exercised collectively through internationally agreed institutions, it reinforces the rules-based order. If it is exercised primarily through unilateral decisions, it risks reinforcing perceptions that power rather than law determines international outcomes. Perhaps the time has come to consider an international framework governing unilateral sanctions themselves. Such a framework could require clear legal justification, proportionality, humanitarian safeguards, periodic review, transparent objectives, and independent international assessment of effectiveness. Just as sanctions seek to hold states accountable, the sanctioning process itself should be accountable. No legal instrument should exist without oversight. No coercive measure should be immune from scrutiny. No state, however powerful, should become the sole arbiter of international legitimacy. The international community has spent decades debating who deserves sanctions. The next debate may prove even more important. Who sanctions the sanctioners? Until that question is answered, the international order will continue to struggle with a contradiction at its very heart: justice that cannot itself be subjected to justice. The writer is a political and diplomatic analyst specialising on Africa and countries of the Great Lakes Region.
