Economic Sanctions, Blocking Instruments and Case Study of the Consequences
Abstract
With the irreversible trend of global trade, the stipulation on the sanctions of trading is directly or indirectly interfering with the national economy, contingency, and further, the making of blocking statutes and policies against extraterritorial trade sanctions. In this review, this essay first demonstrates the general categories of sanctions, outlines the corresponding blocking instruments and ordinances issued by the European Union, China, the U.K., France and other regions and countries to discuss the attempts different countries have undertaken for the prevention of the judicial application to states’ jurisdiction. This essay also addresses the evolving landscape of global trade sanctions and the countermeasures countries have taken to protect their interests. To provide a comprehensive analysis, it also adopts the empirical analysis through the case study of the consequences under these regimes. It concludes with suggestions for future possible actions considering the current practice and status, enabling the independency of states on the new cross-border weapon to achieve international checks and balances.
References
- Barnard, C. (2022). The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms. Oxford university press.
- Raustiala, K. (2005). Form and Substance in International Agreements. The American Journal of International Law, 581-614.
- Helfer, L. R. (2005). Why States create international tribunals: a response to professors Posner and Yoo. California Law Review, 899-956.
- Davis, L. &. (2003). History lessons sanctions: neither war nor peace. Journal of economic perspectives, 17(2), 187-197.
- Alexander, K. (2009). Economic sanctions. Law and Public Policy. Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited.
- Pellet, A. &. (2012). Sanctions. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.
- Colgan, B. A. (2019). Beyond graduation: economic sanctions and structural reform. Duke LJ, 69, , 1529.
- Hovell, D. (2019). Unfinished business of international law: the questionable legality of autonomous sanctions. American Journal of International Law, 113, 140-145.
- Bapat, N. A. (2009). Multilateral versus unilateral sanctions reconsidered: A test using new data. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1075-1094.
- Kilpatrick, R. L. (2020). Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea (Vol. 467). In M. C. Ribeiro. Springer.
- Du, T. (2015). Economic Sanction in International Law. China: Law Press.
- THE CASE OF THE S.S. “LOTUS”, SERIES A.-No. 70 (PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE September 7, 1927).
- Davila, E. M. (2008). International E-Discovery: Navigating the Maze. Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, 8, 1., 1.
- YE, Y. (2020). On the EU Blocking Statute. Pacific Journal, Vol. 28,No. 3, 50-60.
- Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2004) (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York October 22, 2004).
- Hoda, M. M. (2018). The aerospatiale dilemma: why u.s. courts ignore blocking statutes and what foreign states can do about it. California Law Review, 106(1), 231-.
- Hilaire, J. (2015). Adages et maximes du droit français. Dalloz. Interforum.
- IMMENKAMP, B. (2018). Updating the Blocking Regulation: The EU’s answer to US extraterritorial sanctions. Belgium: European Parliamentary Research Service.
- Bernhardt, R. B. (1992). Restatement of the Law Third: The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. St. Paul: American Law Institute Publishers.