Unilateralism is not justice: Rethinking sanctions against African states

Economic sanctions have become one of the most frequently used instruments of international politics. Governments impose them claiming to defend democracy, human rights, peace, or international security. Yet an uncomfortable question remains: who decides which countries deserve punishment, under what legal authority, and according to whose standards? ALSO READ: Who sanctions the sanctioners? The missing accountability in international affairs For many African countries, Rwanda included, sanctions are no longer an abstract concept. They have visibly become recurring features of international relations, often affecting governments, businesses, financial institutions, and ordinary citizens alike. From Zimbabwe and Sudan to Eritrea, Mali, Burkina Faso, and at various times Rwanda, African states have experienced different forms of political or economic restrictions imposed by external actors. ALSO READ: Why blaming Rwanda won't solve DR Congo's crisis The first distinction that must be made is between sanctions authorised collectively by the United Nations Security Council and sanctions imposed unilaterally by individual states or regional organisations. ALSO READ: My weird feeling about U.S. sanctions against Rwandan individuals and entities The UN Charter provides the Security Council with authority to impose sanctions when international peace and security are threatened. Such measures derive their legitimacy from an agreed international legal framework, even though debates continue regarding their effectiveness and fairness. Unilateral sanctions are different. They are imposed by one country or a coalition of countries outside the UN framework. They often rely on domestic legislation with extraterritorial effects, allowing one state to influence commercial relations far beyond its own jurisdiction. Increasingly, access to banking systems, international finance, insurance, shipping, technology, and investment can be restricted through decisions taken in foreign capitals rather than by multilateral institutions. ALSO READ: When the teachers fail the test: The crisis of Western human rights credibility This raises profound questions. Can one sovereign state legitimately determine the economic fate of another without international judicial oversight? I am not a lawyer. I am a curious citizen. Can domestic laws enacted in one country acquire global reach simply because of that country’s financial or geopolitical influence? Does such practice strengthen the international rules-based order or weaken it? These questions resonate particularly strongly across Africa, where memories of colonial domination and neocolonialism remain vivid. Political independence was achieved decades ago, yet economic dependence often leaves many countries divided and vulnerable to decisions over which they have little influence. Supporters of unilateral sanctions advance several arguments. They contend that sanctions offer an alternative to military intervention, allowing governments to respond to coups, electoral fraud, human rights abuses, terrorism, or violations of international law without resorting to armed conflict. Targeted sanctions directed at specific officials, military leaders, or companies are presented as more humane than comprehensive embargoes. In practice, however, sanctions frequently extend beyond their intended targets. Financial institutions become reluctant to process transactions. Investors withdraw. Insurance costs increase. Supply chains are disrupted. International companies avoid legitimate business because of legal uncertainty or reputational concerns. This phenomenon of “over-compliance” often means that ordinary citizens bear costs never intended by policymakers. African economies, many of which remain heavily dependent on external markets, development finance, and imported technology, are particularly exposed to these secondary effects. There is also the question of consistency. Why are some countries sanctioned swiftly while others facing comparable allegations escape similar measures? Taking sides is not the way to go when you claim to be called mediator. It betrays your position and exposes you as alleged false mediator. Why are geopolitical allies sometimes treated differently from geopolitical rivals? Hidden interests are the most obvious causes behind the move. Selective application inevitably creates perceptions that sanctions serve strategic interests as much as universal principles. This perception weakens confidence in international institutions. The issue becomes even more complex when sanctions intersect with ongoing conflicts. Some argue that economic pressure encourages negotiation. Others contend that it hardens positions, strengthens nationalist sentiment, and complicates humanitarian operations. History offers examples supporting both views. In some situations sanctions have contributed to political transitions. In others they have persisted for decades without achieving their stated objectives while inflicting significant economic hardship. Africa therefore has legitimate reasons to advocate a more principled international conversation. First, sanctions should remain firmly anchored in international law (if still applicable) rather than unilateral political discretion whenever possible. Second, their objectives should be precise, measurable, and subject to periodic review. Third, humanitarian exemptions must function effectively in practice, not merely on paper. Fourth, there should be credible mechanisms to assess whether sanctions are producing the intended political outcomes or merely deepening poverty and instability. Finally, countries subjected to sanctions should have meaningful opportunities to challenge or review such measures before impartial international bodies. Assuming they still have a meaningful mandate. The broader issue extends beyond Africa. It concerns the future of global governance itself. If powerful states increasingly assume the authority to police international conduct independently, the distinction between law and power risks becoming blurred. A rules-based international order cannot rest solely on the capacity of the strongest to enforce their preferences. It must also rest on universally accepted legal principles, equal sovereignty, due process, and institutional legitimacy. Unilateralism may sometimes appear efficient. It may even produce short-term political leverage. But efficiency should never be confused with justice. For Africa, whose future depends upon predictable international rules, equitable partnerships, and respect for sovereignty, the central question is not whether accountability matters: it unquestionably does. The question is whether accountability should be exercised through universally accepted legal institutions or through the unilateral decisions of the world’s most powerful states. The answer will shape not only Africa’s place in the international system but also the credibility of that system itself. A world governed by common rules is more stable than one governed by selective power. Justice derives its legitimacy from impartiality. When it becomes unilateral, it ceases to be justice and becomes an expression of power. The writer is a political and diplomatic analyst specialising on Africa and countries of the Great Lakes Region.

Opinions

Unilateralism is not justice: Rethinking sanctions against African states