Sanctions have become one of the defining instruments of 21st-century diplomacy. They are imposed in response to wars, coups, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, human rights abuses and alleged violations of international law. Does that international law still hold ground today? For many governments, sanctions promise a middle ground between diplomatic protest and military intervention. ALSO READ: Unilateralism is not justice: Rethinking sanctions against African states As sanctions have multiplied, a more fundamental question has received far less attention: who governs the use of sanctions themselves? The international community has developed extensive rules governing the use of force. International humanitarian law regulates armed conflict. International courts adjudicate disputes between states. Human rights treaties establish obligations that governments voluntarily undertake. ALSO READ: Who sanctions the sanctioners? The missing accountability in international affairs There is no equally comprehensive global framework governing unilateral economic sanctions. The distinction matters. Sanctions adopted by the United Nations Security Council carry a unique legal status under the UN Charter. Whatever political compromises accompany Security Council decisions, they emerge from a multilateral process intended to preserve international peace and security. ALSO READ: My weird feeling about U.S. sanctions against Rwandan individuals and entities By contrast, many of today’s sanctions originate not from the United Nations but from individual states or regional organisations. These measures often extend far beyond the jurisdictions of those imposing them, shaping access to international finance, technology, insurance, shipping and investment. Because of the central role of certain currencies and financial institutions in the global economy, sanctions imposed by a handful of governments can have worldwide consequences. Supporters argue that such measures fill gaps left by an often-paralysed Security Council. They contend that sanctions provide peaceful means of responding to aggression, authoritarianism and gross violations of human rights when collective action proves impossible. In a world where geopolitical rivalries frequently produce deadlock at the United Nations, unilateral sanctions can appear to be the only available tool. Critics counter that the absence of common standards invites inconsistency. Similar situations may produce markedly different international responses depending on strategic interests, alliances or economic considerations. They also argue that sanctions, even when carefully targeted, often generate unintended humanitarian and economic consequences for ordinary citizens through disrupted trade, financial isolation and investor uncertainty. Both perspectives contain elements of truth. History demonstrates that sanctions have sometimes contributed to negotiated settlements and political transitions. It also shows that long-running sanctions have often failed to achieve their stated objectives while imposing significant economic costs. Measuring effectiveness is difficult because sanctions are rarely implemented in isolation; they operate alongside diplomacy, military deterrence, domestic political dynamics and broader economic conditions. The growing reliance on sanctions therefore raises an institutional challenge rather than simply a political one. Should there be internationally agreed principles governing the design, implementation and review of unilateral sanctions? Such principles need not prevent states from pursuing their foreign policy objectives. Rather, they could establish minimum standards: clearly defined legal justifications, proportionality, transparency, humanitarian safeguards, periodic review and measurable objectives. Independent assessments could examine whether sanctions remain necessary, whether they are producing their intended outcomes and whether their unintended consequences outweigh their benefits. The purpose would not be to weaken accountability for violations of international law. On the contrary, accountability is strengthened when it rests on procedures perceived as consistent and legitimate. This debate is particularly relevant for countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, many of which have experienced sanctions directly or have been affected indirectly through disruptions in trade and finance. Their perspectives deserve greater attention, not because they oppose accountability, but because they highlight an enduring concern: whether international rules apply equally to all states or differently according to geopolitical influence. The international order is entering an era of increasing multipolarity. As power becomes more widely distributed, the legitimacy of global institutions will depend not only on the values they seek to uphold but also on the fairness and consistency of the methods they employ. Sanctions are likely to remain an important instrument of international relations. The question is whether they will continue to evolve through ad hoc national decisions or whether the international community will develop shared principles to govern their use. If the world believes that power should be exercised within the framework of law, then sanctions should not be the exception. They, too, deserve rules that are transparent, consistent and accountable. International order is sustained not only by the ability to impose consequences, but by confidence that those consequences are administered according to principles that all states can regard as legitimate. The writer is a political and diplomatic analyst specialising on Africa and countries of the Great Lakes Region.
