Description
The weakness of enforcement mechanisms in international human rights law is a persistent issue. Even 76 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accountability remains elusive in many countries, with perpetrators enjoying impunity and victims denied justice. In recent years, unilateral sanctions have gained prominence as a response to these challenges. Among them, Global Human Rights Sanctions regimes—first established by the United States in 2016 following the death of Sergei Magnitsky—stand out. These regimes, now adopted by 35 countries including the UK, EU, Canada, and Australia, allow governments to impose travel bans, asset freezes, and transaction restrictions on foreign individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, and genocide. This represents the first unilateral, thematic targeted sanctions regime focused on human rights and uniquely enables victims to seek assistance from foreign states.
As a transnational mechanism, Magnitsky sanctions operate without requiring state consent and are backed by physical enforcement, allowing the application of international human rights law across state boundaries. The proposed paper will explore how unilateral sanctions can serve as a mechanism for enforcing international human rights law. It will examine how such measures can act as third-party countermeasures against serious breaches of jus cogens norms, thereby positioning themselves as innovative tools for fulfilling the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). I will also discuss whether the new sanctions regime creates a new type of jurisdiction which allows third-party states to take the responsibility of protecting human rights in other states. By doing so, it contributes to the ongoing discussion about conceptualizing duties and responsibilities toward victims and perpetrators of gross human rights violations amid a global human rights backlash.
