On 21 and 22 March 2021, the United States, European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom announced common sanctions against China over accusations of serious human rights abuses against the Uyghur minority. Whilst Washington had already accused Beijing of carrying out a genocide against the Uyghur population, it is significant that Western countries have presented such a compact and drastic front. Beijing swiftly responded with its own sanctions, reviving historic tensions between China and the West.

Why are international sanctions so important? 

CONTEXT: THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE UYGHUR MINORITY

The Uyghurs are an ethnic minority community composed of 10 to 15 million individuals who are mostly based in the autonomous province of Xinjiang in the northwestern part of the People’s Republic of China. Most Uyghurs are Sunni Muslims, in contrast to China’s majority Han ethnic group who identify mainly with Taoism, Confucianism, or Buddhism.

Allegations have increasingly been made that the Chinese government has been actively preventing journalists from publicising the human rights violations being carried out in the region: namely, the presence of massive re-education camps where Uyghurs are forcibly detained, reduced to forced labour, and denied their religious freedom. Moreover, a decrease in the number of births has been recorded, and human rights activists relate this to the fact that Uyghur women are reportedly being forcibly sterilised. 

The treatment of the Uyghurs was once more brought to the fore when the very first independent report on the situation was published by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in cooperation with the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and accused China of breaching the 1948 Genocide Convention.   

Shortly afterwards, the Foreign Ministers of Canada and the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) Secretary of State issued a joint statement expressing their “deep and ongoing concern regarding China’s human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang,” evidence of which can be found in the Chinese government’s “own documents, satellite imagery…[and in] overwhelming eyewitness testimony”. The statement confirmed that they would “stand together to shine a spotlight on China’s human rights violations”.

The European Union (EU) then adopted its own sanctions against Chinese actors (along with others from Russia and Myanmar), also on the grounds of human rights abuse allegations. The sanctions implemented were targeted: visa bans and the freezing of assets of four Chinese officials supposedly involved in running internment camps, two of whom are former members of the Communist party and administrative officials who have allegedly played an active role in the repressive policies against Uyghurs.

THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS

The question therefore arises: what can be done when a state allegedly violates international law by committing human rights abuses? 

It is worth noting from the outset that the use of force is strictly prohibited under international law, save for in exceptional circumstances; and even then—for instance, through the use of legitimate defence—there are several substantive and procedural conditions to fulfil. This principle, now recognised as one of the founding principles of the modern international community, is enshrined in article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter (the Charter), which explicitly prohibits the use of force as a means of solving conflicts and disputes amongst states.

This does not mean, however, that threats to international security and peace are to remain unpunished under international law. Rather, it entails that the use of military force should only be resorted to when all peaceful options have proven, or are likely to prove, to be inadequate or ineffective. Who, then, can impose sanctions, and how?

In general terms, under international public law, the United Nations Security Council is the sole body entrusted with the maintenance and restoration of peace in the case of an actual or potential threat to international peace or security. However, international regional organisations—such as the EU—in compliance with the general principles of international law, may apply their own sets of sanctions. 

Further, under article 39 of the Charter, the Security Council shall “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression” and take non-military action (article 41) or even military (article 42) “to restore international peace and security”. In doctrine, to “sanction” is the definition typically given to any non-military measure the Security Council either obliges or recommends member states adopt under article 4.  

Appealing to the Security Council, or waiting for it to intervene, however, might delay the adoption of those measures best suited to the circumstances. This is due to the fact that the Council is composed of 15 members, five of which (US, UK, Russia, China, and France) are entitled to a so-called veto power. The conflicting visions and political priorities of these countries, as evinced many times in the past, may unduly halt or freeze the action of the Council.

To avoid such an impasse, states have over time developed a new tool to react to international law violations: unilateral sanctions, adopted outside the United Nations system. In this way, states have the possibility to put (non-military) pressure on their counterparts to take action both quickly and efficiently. Such measures—also known as sanctions—target bilateral trade for the most part, but if needed, they can also evolve into more serious measures such as the suspension of diplomatic relations.

WHAT NOW?

It seems very safe to assume that diplomatic and economic relations between China and the West will be hostile, distrustful, and uncertain for many months to come.  

China’s response to the sanctions was immediate. The Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson condemned the sanctions issued by the US and its allies, calling them “a mistake,” and urging its counterparts to “stop lecturing others on human rights and interfering in their internal affairs”.

Many Western lawmakers and academics are now prohibited from entering the Chinese mainland and territories, and “companies and institutions associated with them are also restricted from doing business with China”. Even former US Secretary of State Pompeo was blacklisted.

China’s harsh reaction, whilst alarming, may not come as a surprise. The extent of the sanctions adopted against it, paired with the fact that so many countries adopted them in parallel is remarkable and almost unprecedented. In the case of the EU, for instance, it was the first time since the 1989 Tiananmen square incident that Brussels has ever adopted sanctions against Beijing. This is even more significant considering that the two had just recently signed a comprehensive and innovative investment agreement, the future of which, according to some EU officials, is now at stake.

In conclusion, whilst the interconnectedness of our modern economy is soon likely to reopen dialogue between China and the West, it cannot be denied that Beijing’s projects for wider integration, and possibly even its economic and commercial projects, are bound to take a step backwards.

Irene Malusà is an Italian lawyer with a Master’s Degree in Italian Law and a Bachelor’s Degree in French Law, as well as a Post-Graduate Diploma in Diplomatic Studies. She is deeply passionate about International Law, Climate Change and Human Rights. She has served as a volunteer for Amnesty International and for independent NGOs providing first legal assistance to migrants and other fragile categories. In her free time, she loves reading, classical and jazz music and photography.

LinkedIn