As a non-specialist citizen, I followed the measures taken by the United States against the UAE branch of Bank Misr, on the grounds that it had engaged in financial dealings with Iranian individuals and institutions.
I was struck by what seemed to be an action that treated Egypt as though it were a state of the United States, with its banks required to comply with American policies.
This is not an endorsement of Iran’s policies, nor is it an argument against them. That is not the point.
At first, I did not understand how the United States could penalize a non-American financial institution, until I read an excellent article that explained the issue to me.
The article says:
Recent developments in U.S. sanctions policy toward Iran have entered a new phase through a dual economic measure. A closer examination of these measures from the perspective of international law suggests that Washington, by resorting to unilateral coercive mechanisms, is effectively seeking to impose extraterritorial jurisdiction over individuals and entities belonging to other UN member states. This approach raises fundamental challenges to established principles of international law, particularly the principle of sovereign equality among states, in the following respects:
First: The Lack of a Legal Basis for Secondary Sanctions
Contemporary international law establishes state jurisdiction primarily on the principles of territoriality and nationality. The exercise of jurisdiction beyond a state’s territory is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the international community, such as through decisions of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Requiring banks and economic institutions in third countries to terminate legitimate cooperation with other states, without authorization from the Security Council, constitutes an explicit violation of the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states and runs contrary to the spirit of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (UN General Assembly Resolution 3281).
There is no rule of customary or treaty-based international law that permits one state to punish or threaten to punish natural or legal persons in other countries merely because they comply with its domestic laws.
Second: Unilateral Coercive Measures as an Internationally Unlawful Act
The use of “economic intimidation” to compel an independent state to alter its fundamental policies falls within the doctrine of “unilateral coercive measures.”
Numerous resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, including recent resolutions condemning unilateral sanctions, have regarded such measures as contrary to human rights, the UN Charter, and the principles of international law.
The use of economic instruments as a weapon of political pressure, particularly when accompanied by measures such as restricting maritime access or disrupting trade, may be assessed within the framework of the definition of “aggression” contained in General Assembly Resolution 3314 and in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, particularly the Nicaragua v. United States case—especially when such measures target the economic and living conditions of an entire nation.
Third: Threatening the Principle of National Sovereignty and the International Order
States’ compliance with unilateral policies that extend beyond their territory is not merely a reaction to a bilateral dispute. It represents acceptance of a dangerous precedent in the international system.
If such practices become entrenched, they will gradually erode the concept of national sovereignty and return us to the logic of colonial relations in the twenty-first century.
In a system based on the sovereign equality of states, no state has the right to exercise tutelage over another. Resorting to force or economic coercion to impose political will constitutes a violation of the fundamental rule prohibiting intervention.
Accordingly:
The United States’ recent measures expanding secondary sanctions against Iran are not only inconsistent with its international obligations under the UN Charter; they also expose the multilateral trading system and the principle of sovereign equality among states to serious risk.
The international community and the relevant legal bodies, particularly the UN General Assembly, should adopt clear legal positions to prevent unilateral coercive practices from becoming an established but illegitimate norm of international law.
I found the article’s explanation clear in illustrating the new form of colonialism in the twenty-first century—something that should not be accepted.
