In recent years, sanctions have become the tool of choice to respond to major geopolitical challenges.
They are the so-called “carrot and stick” approach, usually a combination of incentives
and punishments to induce good behaviour.
Because the EU lacks a joint military force, many EU leaders consider sanctions a powerful
foreign policy tool. EURACTIV gives you a closer look at how the
EU’s sanction regime works and what the current challenges are.
In general, decision-makers have three primary tools: sanctions, targeted incentives, and
war to encourage compliance with international norms.
However, to avoid military escalation, they frequently turn to sanctions as a middle option
between diplomacy and military action.
Sanctions are not a stand-alone policy, instead they are a tool to either impose a higher
cost for committing an action or an attempt to prevent an unwanted action from taking place.
They can target individuals, groups, companies, organisations or entire governments and countries.
The EU began to adopt its own sanctions independently from the UN in the 1980s.
Earlier sanctions were broader, as was the case when the European Economic Community
embargoed Argentine imports during the 1982 Falklands War.
However, because of international concern about the humanitarian consequences for the
population of blanket embargoes, the EU shifted to a more targeted approach.
Today, sanctions typically target military or political elites, most commonly in the
form of visa bans, asset freezes and arms embargoes.
When economic sanctions are applied, they usually target specific sectors or activities
rather than an entire economy or population.
The EU can impose sanctions, or restrictive measures as they say in Brussels, either out
of its own initiative or to implement UN Security Council resolutions.
EU sanctions programs are currently in place against 30 countries.
Between 1980 and 2014, 36% of all sanctions worldwide were imposed by the Europeans, with
only the United States using the tool more frequently.
In short, it’s a long and complicated process.
It begins with a proposal by the EU’s top diplomat presented to the member states, who
examine the measures and adopt them by unanimity.
Based on that decision, interestingly, it’s the European Commission’s financial stability
and services department, or DG FISMA for short, that prepares the regulation which will transfer
the measures into EU law.
The EU’s top diplomat and the Commission then jointly present the proposed regulation,
which returns back to the Council to go through its internal procedure.
It is then the task of member states to investigate non-compliance cases and impose penalties
when EU sanctions are breached, which may explain why enforcement can be patchy.
Meanwhile, DG FISMA monitors the implementation and enforcement of sanctions in member states,
and supports countries by answering questions of interpretation.
It’s important to note that while EU sanctions target non-EU countries, entities and individuals,
they take effect within EU jurisdiction, which means they impose obligations on EU nationals,
persons located in the EU or doing business inside the bloc.
The EU does not recognise extraterritorial sanctions, that is sanctions adopted by other
countries that apply outside their territory.
The US, on the other hand, is a prominent user of extra-territorial sanctions. Companies
or individuals can be convicted of breaching US sanctions and punished through their links
to the American jurisdiction, like dollar transactions.
To protect European businesses, the EU implemented the ‘blocking statute’ to mitigate the
effects of sanctions of its transatlantic partner.
Deciding on a joint sanctions approach among 27 member states is not an easy task - especially
when they have to be agreed by unanimity.
Europe’s diplomacy gears up for a crucial September summit, meant to define the EU’s
response to Turkey’s disruptive activities in the eastern mediterranean, the situation
in Belarus, and the poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.
For weeks, the country has been gripped by mass protests, triggered by an election believed
to have been rigged in favour of long-time strongman Lukashenko.
In August, EU foreign ministers agreed on a framework of sanctions against physical
and legal entities from the country.
Though Brussels already has sanctions in place against Belarus, the new batch - agreed and
ready to be adopted - is meant to mainly target those accused of being responsible for rigged
elections and the violent crackdown on peaceful protests.
EU-Turkey relations are facing a make-or-break moment.
The EU is preparing measures against Ankara, hoping to appease tensions in the conflict
with Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterrean.
With Greece and Turkey having overlapping claims in the region, the situation has been
escalating with military maneuvers and talk of "cause for war" by Ankara.
In August, EU foreign ministers saw no other option than to draw up a list of economic
sanctions. Who or what might be sanctioned in Turkey is still unclear.
Diplomats hinted that measures will not only target individuals but also companies involved
in the gas exploration projects.
For the moment, the EU remains cautious, having called for dialogue and de-escalation.
Germany, which now holds the EU's Presidency, has attempted to mediate between the three countries.
However, the timeline for both cases is still unclear, as a sanction regime would require unanimity.
The German Presidency has argued there is no connection between these two issues but
at diplomatic level, Greece and Cyprus view Belarus as their only leverage to pressure
the rest of Europe to sanction Turkey.
EU leaders expressed their condemnation for the poisoning of Russian opposition leader
Navalny and calls are growing to punish Moscow for the use of the Soviet-era nerve agent
Novichok. While Germany is pushing for sanctions to
come from the EU level, Brussels said it could slap new sanctions on Russia only after a
probe definitively reveals who was responsible for the poisoning.
After the occupation of Crimea in 2014, the EU already shut its capital markets to some
Russian banks and imposed travel bans and asset freezes.
Politicians in Brussels and Berlin seek an appropriate response to Russia’s actions,
which could include the suspension of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline, meant
to carry gas from Russia to Germany.
So far, no formal mechanism exists for the EU to impose sanctions on human rights abusers
worldwide, like the United States do. Their so-called ‘Magnitsky Act’, named
after Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky who died in a Moscow prison, allows to impose
sanctions like travel bands and asset freezes more quickly on specific individuals anywhere
in the world. In 2018, EU foreign minister cleared the way
to start work on a European ‘Magnitsky Act’. The cases of abuse since Magnitsky's death,
such as the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Kashoggi or the poisoning of Navalny, now
prompted the Commission to speed up the proposal for the new EU sanctions regime.
This House has called many times for a European Magnitsky Act –
and I can announce that we will now come forward with a proposal.
We need to complete our toolbox.
It’s a thin line between carrots and sticks - so stay tuned at EURACTIV for more developments
on this issue.