The Compendium of the 2014 UN High Level Review of Sanctions, including its 150 recommendations, is now available here on the UN Website. The Document number is A/69/941 – S/2015/432. The review, sponsored by Australia, Finland, Germany, Greece and Sweden, took place from May – November 2014, and involved a series of meetings between Member States, the Secretariat as well as other UN bodies.
The starting point of the review was to look at the 16 regimes in place, and discuss how to improve the existing sanctions system from there. The compendium has many useful recommendations and observations. Here are a few:
- It emphasizes the move towards using sanctions to address trafficking in wildlife products and natural resources;
- It highlights the importance of using sanctions to address transnational threats and new technologies; (Recommendation 146)
- It recommends using sanctions to better address existing and emerging threats on, for example, incitement to genocide, sexual violence in conflict, and gross violations of women’s rights; (Recommendation 132)
- It advocates the establishment of a Trust Fund for sanctions implementation assistance, a proposal originating from Jordan. (Recommendation 126). While not going so far as to reference Article 50 of the UN Charter (special economic problems), together with recommendations 123 – 125 on assessments for assistance, it charts a future path towards better coordination and provision of assistance.
- The Compendium also proposes better coordination between the ICC and the UN, highlighting the absence of clear processes in the past, and the possibility of future synergies. For example, the compendium makes the very sensible recommendation of automatically listing individuals (where a relevant sanctions regime applies) after an arrest warrant has been issues by the Pre-Trial Chamber. (Recommendation 100).
The compendium is a useful and current document, that gives a current state-of-play of UN sanctions while adding onto the Interlaken, Bonn and Stockholm and Greek initiatives of prior years. Nonetheless, it must be noted that an attempt to pass a Security Council resolution last November on some of these same issues failed. See the Security Council report assessment here of a draft resolution that was debated but never brought to a vote. Attempts to strengthen capacity building, assistance and implementation for UN sanctions remain controversial – whether because of ongoing hesitation about the robustness of the tool, or because of opposition to strengthening the Secretariat’s policy making capacities.
What impact this document will have remains to be seen, but as the race heats up for the next Secretary General, one hopes that the recommendations will form part of the campaign, and further that future Secretary Generals will play a greater role in sanctions implementation, by for example, including substantive reports on sanctions in their briefings to the Security Council. (See recommendation 50).