Symposium

• Aznar-Gómez, Mariano J.

Abstract

This last ‘decade of sanctions’ began with a most comprehensive set of measures against Iraq, most of which remain in force, despite the fact that they have not solved the ‘Iraq problem’. Some lessons may be learned, however, from the Iraqi experience. It has helped the UN Security Council develop the new ‘smart sanctions’, particularly those targeting regimes with basic human rights implications. Nevertheless, the Council has normally been reluctant to include human rights violations as the principal <it>ratio decidendi</it> of sanctions and, when sanctions are decided, the Council has adopted an ad hoc approach, thus avoiding the creation of precedents. Moreover, although important efforts to increase transparency and effectiveness have been made, the sanction regimes continue to be managed independently, with a case&hyphen;by&hyphen;case approach and allowing too much secrecy. Finally, the Council's new practice regarding ‘authorizations’ for the use of force against targeted states does not provide for a clear system of controls, and the vagueness of the mandate incorporates another caveat in the Council's resolutions. This paper explores whether these recent trends show a tendency towards ‘deregulation’ in the Security Council's action in defence of basic human rights, seeking as such to create a scenario governed by authoritative case&hyphen;by&hyphen;case decisions and avoiding a clear set of legal rules of public international law.