INTRODUCTION

When defining sanctions, scholarship commonly makes the distinction between two categories. The first contains ‘multilateral’ or ‘centralized’ sanctions adopted by an international organization (IO) on the basis of its constitutive act against member States or non-State actors. Such sanctions may involve a member State's suspension from participation or even its expulsion, a ‘social sanction’ in response to wrongdoing. In some cases, IOs adopt more far-reaching measures, such as the suspension of trade or the interruption of financial transactions. A well-known example is the sanctions regime of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) against Iran, which was in place until 2015. Importantly, States consent to these measures when they ratify the organization's constitutive act and become members. The UNSC has the authority to adopt sanctions under Art. 41 UN Charter. The second category consists of ‘unilateral’ or ‘decentralized’ sanctions adopted by States unilaterally per their national legislation or executive powers or by IOs against non-member States. The typical example would be US sanctions and European Union restrictive measures against countries such as Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. Real life, however, is not always so neatly organized.

There are instances where a regional organization, which is a ‘non-universal grouping that [is] essentially self-defining in terms of memberships as well as of object and purposes’, has suspended a member without having the explicit power to do so. While such measures are adopted by a regional organization against a member State, they are not based on the former's constitutive act. Often-cited examples in the literature are the League of Arab States (LAS) sanctions against Libya and Syria for human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law when these two States cracked down on popular unrest during the Arab Spring in 2011.