Study of New U.S. Unilateral Sanctions,
1997-2001

By Barry E. Carter, with the assistance of Michael T. Williams ¹

Introduction

This study provides a summary compilation of the relevant new U.S. laws authorizing, and Executive Branch decisions imposing, unilateral U.S. economic sanctions from 1997-2001.² It also includes many of the cases where an existing U.S. sanction was removed or modified.

The length of this compilation might appear daunting. It reflects, however, the frequent authorization of sanctions by Congress and the frequent actual imposition of U.S. sanctions. This study does not attempt here to draw conclusions about the appropriateness or effectiveness of these laws and Executive Branch actions. Rather, this is meant to be a compilation that the reader can use as a resource and from which the reader might draw conclusions.

This study has been prepared in part because there has not been a recent compilation of all new U.S. sanctions, or the underlying U.S. laws or Executive decisions.³

Because of the different time periods and scope of previous studies on sanctions, this study begins by treating 1997 as a base year. This means that some sanctions in new U.S. laws in 1997 are listed, even though they were simply continuations of previous sanctions. Although this has the effect of creating, for example, a long list of sanctions in the 1997 foreign aid appropriations law, it seemed to be a helpful way to inform the reader who might not be aware that these sanctions were carried over from previous laws or Executive decisions.⁴ After 1997, this compilation focuses on new laws and decisions, and on changes in existing sanctions.

Methodology. This study's authors have identified new unilateral U.S. sanctions and the relevant laws and Executive decisions by searching relevant databases (including news reports, legislation, and the websites of USA*Engage, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Controls, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative), reading relevant new legislation (including the recent laws regarding money laundering, airport security, and anti-terrorist measures), and interviewing experts on sanctions.

Constructively compiling a list of the new U.S. laws and Executive Branch decisions requires a workable definition of an economic sanction. This study draws upon the definition used by the President's Export Council (PEC) in 1997. As the PEC indicated: "The sanctions that may be imposed include blocking of assets and a prohibition on all dealings with a foreign country and its nationals, restrictions on exports to or imports from a particular country or foreign person, the withholding of financial assistance or trade benefits from a foreign country, a ban on participation in U.S. government procurement, and opposition by U.S. representatives in international financials institutions to loans or financial assistance to a particular country." (President's Export Council (PEC), Appendix I.) ⁵

The definition of unilateral economic sanctions also takes into account the purposes of the sanctions. Consistent with the PEC, the focus here is on sanctions that are intended "to change the behavior of a foreign nation with respect to its own conduct or the conduct of its nationals. The foreign policy objectives can be far reaching and include the transition to democracy, opposing terrorism or support of terrorist activities, sanctioning drug producing and drug-transit countries, supporting human rights, opposing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and protecting the environment." (Id.)

On the other hand, like the PEC, the definition here of foreign policy and national security does not include the use of economic sanctions as a tool to obtain trade or commercial objectives-e.g., the use of sanctions to encourage foreign countries to provide market access. Although interesting and important, the use of economic sanctions for such economic purposes brings in a host of other situations (e.g., intellectual property protection), raises new and difficult issues, and often involves different laws. As a result, this compilation of economic sanctions laws and decisions includes only those that were undertaken for non-economic foreign-policy purposes.

The PEC study indicated that it attempted to include the "threatened imposition of unilateral economic sanctions" as well as their deliberate imposition. Including threats raises many factual questions. For example, does it qualify as a sanction if a U.S. Ambassador or other U.S. representative makes a confidential statement to another country's leader that the United States might cut off foreign assistance or deny special tariff benefits ⁶ if the foreign government failed to take certain actions? And, if so, how does one categorize and reliably collect these "threats," "warnings," and "hints"? Accordingly, given the problems of categorization and proof, this study does not attempt in general to compile "threatened impositions." However, if Congress passes a law that explicitly conditions an economic sanction on certain actions by a foreign country (e.g., a cutoff of foreign assistance if there is a military coup in a country or if it is designated as engaging in religious persecution), this study lists the new law. Here, the "threat" is explicit and public.

The focus is on U.S. unilateral economic sanctions. These are sanctions that the United States is authorized, under U.S. law, to impose or already has imposed without comparable actions by other countries against the target country. These sanctions are the most controversial, in part because the impact of the sanctions might be diluted by foreign companies filling any gaps while U.S. companies lose business to these foreign rivals. The United States also participates in multilateral sanctions, such as those now in place against Iraq. These are usually the result of U.N. Security Council resolutions. This compilation does not include multilateral sanctions.

The focus is also on U.S. sanctions against countries. Also, because of the size and quasi-state nature of the Palestinian Authority (also referred to sometimes as the Palestine Liberation Organization or PLO) and the Taliban, the study has identified sanctions against them. ⁷

Although the focus of this study is on sanctions against countries, the compilation includes at the end a list of some new laws and Executive Branch actions aimed at individuals or organizations. For example, asset freezes have been imposed against people and groups believed to be involved in terrorism, drug production and trafficking, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This might involve a law (e.g. the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act in 1999) or an Executive Order (e.g., No. 13,224 of September 23, 2001, against Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden). However, partly because of the very specific and focused impact of these sanctions on individuals, this study does not try to track the frequent additions or changes in the lists of individuals and organizations covered.

Observations. Although this study does not attempt to draw conclusions about the appropriateness or effectiveness of the laws and Executive Branch actions, some general observations arise from this study and from comparing it with prior major studies. First, Congress continues frequently to authorize a wide variety of sanctions against a number of target countries and against a great number of individual groups and entities. In turn, the Executive Branch continues to act to impose sanctions on countries, groups, and individuals.

Second, compared to the increased use of U.S. unilateral sanctions in 1993-96, there is a definite decline in the imposition of new unilateral sanctions against target countries in recent years. This results, in part, from the fact that the United States already had many sanctions in place by 1996. However, the decline in new sanctions also results from the considerable public debate that occurred since 1996 about the appropriate role of unilateral U.S. economic sanctions. USA*Engage (a business coalition), think tanks, academics, and others called attention to the then little-noticed and sometimes haphazard process of authorizing and imposing unilateral sanctions. Questions were raised about the effectiveness of some of these sanctions and more attention was paid to their costs for American businesses and the costs of lost U.S. jobs. A focal point for the debate was provided by legislation initially introduced by Senator Richard Lugar and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who were later joined by others, including Senator Chuck Hagel and Representatives Philip Crane and Calvin Dooley.

Third, and on the other hand, the period 1997-2001 has seen the growing use of sanctions against individuals and organizations. As indicated below, this compilation focuses on identifying sanctions against countries. However, during the course of the research, it became clear that there were a great number of new sanctions being imposed against individuals and groups.

This recent development would seem to reflect a growing sophistication in the use of sanctions, as broad sanctions against nation-states are supplanted, or at least supplemented, by more focused ones. Of course, this development also reflects the evolving international priorities of the United States. The increased U.S. efforts to combat terrorism, drugs, and proliferation are often directed at individuals or organizations as the primary culprits, and not necessarily at countries.

With all that said about scope and definitions, this study hopefully provides a thorough compilation of the relevant new U.S. laws authorizing, and Executive Branch decisions imposing, unilateral U.S. economic sanctions from 1997-2001.

1 Barry E. Carter is a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Director of its Program in International Business and Economic Law. Among other publications, Prof. Carter is the author of the award-winning book, International Economic Sanctions: Improving the Haphazard U.S. Legal System (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1988). Michael T. Williams is a second-year law student at Georgetown.
top

2 The compilation even includes one law that was passed in 2001, but signed in January 2002-i.e., The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY 2002.
top

3 The well-known studies by the President's Export Council (PEC) and by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) were both published in early 1997 and included sanctions only through 1996. PEC, Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A Review of Existing Sanctions and Their Impacts on U.S. Economic Interests with Recommendations for Policy and Process Improvement (June 1997). NAM, A Catalog of New U.S. Unilateral Economic Sanctions for Foreign Policy Purposes 1993-96 (March 1997); see comments on this and other studies in Sen. Jesse Helms, What Sanctions Epidemic?, 78 Foreign Aff. 2 (1999).
top

Dianne E. Rennack of the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress updated her careful guide to current U.S. law (but not Executive actions) through 1997, and then published compilations of U.S. laws and proposed legislation for 1999-2000 and for 2001 (through June 28, 2001). See, respectively, CRS Report to Congress: Economic Sanctions to Achieve U.S. Foreign Policy Goals: Discussion and Guide to Current Law (Updated Jan. 22, 1998); CRS Report to Congress: Economic Sanctions: Legislation in the 106th Congress (Updated December 15, 2000); Sanctions-related legislation introduced in the 107th Congress (as of June 28, 2001) (unpublished).

Gary C. Hufbauer, Jeffery J. Schott, and Kimberly A. Elliott have provided excellent empirical analyses of an exhaustive list of the major actual uses of economic sanctions against countries by the United States and/or other countries, starting with their Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History and Current Policy (Institute for International Economics: 1985), with a second edition in 1990. A third edition is due out later in 2002, with most of the case studies now available on the website of the Institute for International Economics: http://www.iie.com. Barbara Oegg is working with the group on the third edition. For other recent literature on sanctions, see also Richard Haass, Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy (1998).

4 For example, the prohibition on foreign assistance to Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria in the 1997 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Act for FY 1998 were continuing bars from the prior year's appropriation law. Similarly, the 1997 President Determination that Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, and Syria were on the list of major illicit drug producing and/or major illicit drug transit countries subject to some sanctions was consistent with the President's determination in 1996.
top

5 This definition is generally consistent with the other major studies noted in footnote 4 above. There is some debate among observers as to whether or not cutoffs or limits on U.S. foreign assistance should be counted as a sanction. This study, as well as the other major studies, do include these efforts. For example, under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).
top

6 For example, under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).
top

7 Note, however, while that this compilation of laws and Executive actions against countries is thorough and largely complete, it is not entirely exhaustive. First, the authors might well have missed a few in the reams of legislation. Second, it did not seem productive to include all the variations on some laws (e.g., limiting foreign assistance for family planning). Third, some laws were not included because of their apparent marginal nature-e.g., a foreign aid provision that withholds foreign aid from countries whose diplomats are delinquent in paying their D.C. parking fines.
top