ICCT Snapshot: What are Sanctions?

A growing number of terrorist entities are being proscribed or sanctioned at the international, regional or national level, but what does this entail? Do sanctions work? This snapshot offers some background information on the different types of counter-terrorism sanctions, and their alleged effectiveness.  

What is a sanction and what kind of sanctions exist? 

Sanctions are a common tool in foreign policy. In general, sanctions are considered a coercive, yet non-punitive and non-violent measure, aiming at a change in behaviour or policy of those sanctioned. However, especially the non-punitive aspect is frequently debated. They are generally considered to be temporary administrative measures imposed by executive powers, rather than by a court. Although they were used before, the utilisation of counterterrorism sanctions significantly increased after 9/11. Sanctions are usually put in place by designating an entity or individual as terrorist. Common sanctions comprise freezing assets and financial transactions, travel bans, arms embargos, or import and export restrictions. 

Who imposes sanctions? 

On a supranational level, legally binding sanctions can be imposed by the United Nation’s Security Council or the Council of the European Union.  

In case of the EU, sanctions must be unanimously adopted by the Council, following agreement reached by consensus in a dedicated working group where all EU member states are represented (COMET WP). Through this process, sanctions become legally binding for all member states and oblige member states.  

Sanctions can also be imposed unilaterally by single states. Prominent examples include the United States’ (US) lists of Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTO) and Specially Designated Terrorists (SDT) and related sanctions. Some countries, such as Germany or France instead proscribe and/or ban organisations based on their extremist or non-constitutional agenda, such as the banning of Generation Identity (GI) in France, and therefore do not necessarily require an entity’s involvement in terrorism. 

Who can be sanctioned? 

Sanctions were initially imposed against countries for instance Syria and Iran, accused of sponsoring or supporting terrorism. However, this practice tended to affect the general population more than those actually responsible for certain actions or policies. Therefore, sanctions were increasingly tailored to specific groups or individuals. These sanctions are referred to as ‘smart sanctions’ or ‘targeted sanctions’. This usually entails the subsequent “criminalisation” of affiliation with, and provision of logistical and material support to the sanctioned entity. The EU maintains a list of 22 sanctioned terrorist groups all based outside Europe and dominated by Islamist entities, but also including other religious, separatist, far-left and more recently far-right organisations. The EU has a distinct sanction regime against the Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda (AQ) as well as against Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) complementing the UN sanctions regime. Both supranational organisations and states can also directly sanction individuals considered playing a key role in (international) terrorism. The EU’s list contains 16 individuals, while 15 are sanctioned under the IS/AQ sanction regime and six are sanctioned under the Hamas/PIJ sanction regime. 

What criteria are used to decide on sanctions? 

There is no automatic process for the imposition of sanctions after a terrorist incident. Rather, their concrete imposition is often driven by political considerations, possible due to the lack of a universally accepted terrorism definition. Therefore, sanctions vary significantly across states and organisations. In the case of the EU, certain criteria must be met in order to impose sanctions: a person or group must either be convicted or under investigation by the competent authority of a member state or third country, for supporting or participating in terrorism. The imposition of sanctions by the US often has an extra-territorial impact, meaning other countries or organisations should follow suit or will face being sanctioned themselves if they continue interacting with the listed organisations. -  

Are sanctions effective and what are potential pitfalls? 

It is difficult to make a general assessment of the effectiveness of sanctions which depends on the concrete circumstances of each case. There is modest evidence that sanctioning groups decreases their attack frequency due to diminished operational capabilities. On the one hand, sanctions are considered a powerful tool as their imposition on the grounds of being “terrorist” sends a strong, delegitimising political message, raises the awareness for an increased need of cooperation between both national and international agencies against the sanctioned individual or entity, and significantly raises the costs for individual engagement. Moreover, sanctions are lower-risk and lower-cost than hard counter-terrorism measures.  

However, sanctions can also entail a number of negative effects: their imposition usually “criminalises” any interaction with a sanctioned group which makes (peace) negotiations much more difficult and often deters humanitarian organisations from aiding on-site. Due to the lack of an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, states might also use sanction list to clamp down on political opposition. Despite the fact that the Council of the European Union periodically reviews it terrorist sanction regimes at least every six months while at the UN level, the Ombudsperson overseeing the implementation of the sanction regime against al- Qaeda and IS and has the mandate to advise on delisting sanctions are eventually governed by administrative rather than by criminal law. This makes it more difficult for individuals to contest or appeal the measures taken against them. This undermines the universal principle of due process and might ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the measure.