The European Union Human Rights Sanctions Regime and its Applicability to the Situation in Gaza and the West Bank in Accordance with International Law

[Christine Evans is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer at the law faculty of Lund University and a human rights practitioner/investigator who has worked for the UN.

Nieves Molina is an international lawyer and former senior UN officer. She is writing in her own capacity.]

This post argues that the current political situation requires urgent and critical reconsideration of the role that sanctions can play in halting serious human rights and humanitarian law violations, and beyond that, for the legal obligations that States, including regional organisations, have to act and implement such measures in accordance with international law. The present paralysis of the Security Council, where decisions are repeatedly blocked by the veto of the permanent members, is resulting in devastating consequences for civilians in the oPt and Ukraine. The IPC declaration of famine in Gaza on 15 August 2025 marks the unimaginable. While the EU has taken measures to protect the civilian population in Ukraine, EU inaction on the oPT is an ominous lacuna. 

Yet another EU high-level meeting ended on 30 August 2025 with EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs unable to agree on sanctions measures to address the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. International law demands intervention by the international community and time is running out to save the lives of civilians. When will measures in accordance with international law be taken?

Sanctions in International law

‘Sanctions’ are not defined in international law nor does the term appear in the United Nations Charter. Measures adopted as sanctions can range from trade sanctions, arms embargoes, asset freezes and travel bans. 

The diverse justifications and complex contexts in which such measures are being applied have resulted in sanctions becoming an international legal lightning rod. However, despite being highly contested in international law, Barber has observed that sanctions have a long history of being applied within the United Nations as decolonial measures, notably against apartheid. The international system of binding sanctions adopted under Chapter VII, Art. 41 of the UN Charter have the aim to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 refers to ‘measures not involving the use of armed force’ and may include ‘complete or partial interruption of economic relations’. Different forms of sanctions have been developed and exist in the international community’s toolbox to re-establish legality when a State is in breach and a threat to peace is taking place. UN Sanctions are agreed upon by the Security Council, which administers 17 UN sanctions committees. In practice however, sanctions have seldom been imposed against human rights violators whose interests align with those of one of its five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council.

The severe impact that the sanctions regimes in 1990s had on civilians, including in the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Iraq (Brubaker and Huve) resulted in repudiation of collective measures in favour of more targeted sanctions against individuals and entities with political influence (Eden and Happold). Human rights concerns as well as the humanitarian implications of general economic sanctions have led the Security Council and States to increasingly adopt so-called targeted sanctions, which as noted by OHCHR are aimed at avoiding the indiscriminate effects of general economic sanctions by specifically targeting individuals considered to be crucial to the policy decisions that are meant to be influenced by the coercive measures.

Sanctions that are not authorised by the Security Council have been questioned as ‘unilateral coercive measures’ in violation of international law, as it is claimed that these violate the principle of non-intervention, fail to respect the right to due process and negatively impact the human rights and right to development in the targeted State. States remain politically divided on the lawfulness of sanctions outside the framework of the Security Council and these divisions are reflected in the intergovernmental fora of the United Nations. In 2014, the Human Rights Council created a Special Rapporteur with a mandate on unilateral coercive measures. The General Assembly has adopted several resolutions urging States to refrain from adopting unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the UN Charter for political or economic pressure against any country, in particular against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the human rights of their populations, in particular children, women and the elderly.

However, targeted sanctions provide important measures for holding perpetrators of human rights atrocities accountable and preventing further violations and must be considered in light of international legal obligations. The role of the EU in international law compliance is becoming ever more important, particularly when the Security Council is blocked from fulfilling its role in preserving the international order. The obligations of the European Union, as well as other regional organisations, to adopt measures must be emphasised when breaches involve jus cogens norms, since these place responsibility on all States and place obligations erga omnes to intervene to protect and prevent such acts.  

The International Law Commission (ILC) has underlined in the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act (Arts. 22, 49) that countermeasures may be taken against a responsible State to induce it to comply with its obligations to cease an internationally wrongful conduct. The ILC has also underscored the responsibility of States to cooperate to bring serious breaches to an end, and not render aid nor assistance in maintaining such situations (Art.41)..

Under international law, all States have a responsibility to both prevent and punish serious war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The first article of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) is unequivocal on this obligation, so is IHL under Common Art. 1. When such violations are subject to sanctions, the objective is compliance with international law.  

Sanctions for Violations in Gaza and the West Bank?

The IPC declaration of famine in Gaza on 15 August 2025 marks the unimaginable. The devastation continued to spiral despite the stark alerts from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the General Assembly, the International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) and Israel, the UN Special Rapporteur on the oPt, humanitarian actors on the ground as well as Israeli human rights organisations and Israeli academics. OHCHR has estimated that 70% of the persons killed in Gaza were women and children and UNICEF has stated that over 50’000 children have been killed or injured in Gaza since 7 October 2023. The long-standing occupation by Israel turned into a full-scale armed conflict after the Hamas armed wing launched attacks and took hostages on Israeli territory.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the oPt and Israel has repeatedly signalled that the siege of the Gaza Strip constitutes a collective punishment against the Palestinians. It has concluded that starvation is being used as a method of warfare by Israeli authorities and the acts depriving the civilian population of objects indispensable for their survival, including medical care, amount to acts of extermination as crimes against humanity.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of international law depends on the political will to enforce it. The ICJ provisional measures ordered against Israel and the related ICC arrest warrants should be enforced by the Security Council and UN Member States. States subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ are bound by its decisions. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the oPt underlines the obligation to; abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel which may entrench its unlawful presence,and to; take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the oPt (para.278).

The latest General Assembly resolution on Gaza, adopted with the majority support of 149 States on 12 June 2025 specifically stresses ‘the need for accountability in order to ensure Israel’s respect of international law obligations, and in this regard calls upon all Member States to individually and collectively take all measures necessary, in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations’.

In addition, UN human rights experts have jointly alerted that ‘continuing to support Israel materially or politically, especially via arms transfers, and the provision of private military and security services risks complicity in genocide and other serious international crimes’.

EU Sanctions Options – Under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime and the EU-Israel Association Agreement

The EU asserts that the promotion and protection of human rights is a cornerstone of its external policy action. The EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) stated aim is to advance the rule of law, human rights, respect for human dignity and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law in accordance with Article 21 Treaty of the European Union (TEU).

EU sanctions are foreseen in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which provides for the adoption of decisions on the interruption or reduction, in part or completely, of economic and financial relations with third countries, and of ‘restrictive measures’ against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities (Article 215 TFEU). 

While EU Member States may not take unilateral actions that could affect the Union’s competences under the Treaties, Article 347 of TFEU may be invoked in order to carry out obligations a Member State has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.

Five years ago, the EU adopted for the first time a global system to impose sanctions for serious human rights violations. The EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR, 2020) applies to acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious human rights violations or abuses. These sanctions can be targeted at individuals as well as state and private entities worldwide. The EU announced that its Global Human Rights Regime would allow to even more forcefully stand up for human rights and that it would not stand by while serious human rights violations and abuses are committed.

In the past five years, there has been a very significant increase in the numbers of EU sanctions measures adopted and the number of individual, private entities and countries in which they are applied. By 27 August 2025, 131 individuals and 37 entities have been sanctioned under the EU Human Rights Sanction Regime, including 116 travel bans issued. While the majority of the human rights sanctions relate to the Russian attack on Ukraine, sanctions have also been adopted in Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Guatemala, Burma and in Israel against settlers in the West Bank and against violent Israeli activists who obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza. The legal Council Decision (CFSP 1990/2000) establishing the EU Human Rights Regime sets out that when identifying non-State actors to be sanctioned ‘the gravity and/or impact of the abuses’ should be taken into account.

An EU commissioned study on the effectiveness of the EU global human rights sanctions regime published in June 2025 noted that; ‘In keeping with the anti-impunity spirit of its genesis, the EU GHRSR could be utilised more strategically to complement and strengthen international criminal justice processes by targeting both actors wanted by such mechanisms and those frustrating their work’. 

The EU-Israel trade agreement, known as the Association Agreement, covers a range of areas including trade, political dialogue, research, energy and the environment, and sets out in article 2 that respect for human rights and democratic principles constitute an “essential element” of the agreement. 

The Association Agreement has been under formal review by the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council since May 2025, with the support of 17 out of 27 EU States . The EU is by far Israel’s main trade partner, representing around 30% of imports and exports. A full suspension of the Agreement would require a unanimous EU decision, however a decision on suspending the trade chapter could be decided by a qualified majority in the Council, meaning at least 55% of countries representing at least 65% of the population. 

On 15 July 2025, the EU Foreign Affairs Council convened to discuss sanctions and the related 10 options paper circulated among EU States on 10 July. All EU States previously received detailed internal EU reports on the large-scale violations taking place in the oPt. Among the sanction measures discussed were travel bans on certain ministers in Netanyahu’s government, asset freezes and arms embargoes. On 30 August another high-level meeting of EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs took place yet was unable to reach agreement on any sanctions measures to address the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. A decision could not even be adopted on a proposal to partially suspend Israel’s participation in EU funded research programmes. 

Of note is that in June 2025, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom jointly announced sanctions for two Israeli Ministers for inciting extremist violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. In July, the Netherlands followed suit, designating the same Ministers as “undesirable aliens in the Schengen system” based on their repeated incitement of settler violence against Palestinians, calls for illegal settlement expansion, and advocacy for ethnic cleansing in Gaza. A Schengen wide information system alert could ban entry to all Schengen countries. On 8 August, the German Chancellor announced that the German government would not authorize exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice; a politically significant move as Germany is the principal EU arms exporter to Israel. It appears likely that more EU Member States will adopt unilateral sanctions in line with Article 347 of TFEU.

The US, in a diametrically opposed move, meanwhile has adopted sanctions on ICC Prosecutors and Judges as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on the oPt for advocating for accountability. The targeting of the UN Special Rapporteur was condemned by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the President of the Human Rights Council. The UN Legal Counsel conveyed, in a letter to the US Mission to the United Nations, that Human Rights Council appointed Special Rapporteurs enjoys the status of UN experts on mission, pursuant to the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN, and are accorded the privileges and immunities “necessary for the independent exercise” of UN mandated functions. Unilateral sanctions targeting UN officials for their statements should be considered reprisals rather than sanctions under international law.

International attention has rightly focused on the EU review of the Association Agreement, however the obligations set out in the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime have largely been neglected. Such sanctions on key Israeli government members as well as state and private entities would play a critical role in halting atrocities and preventing genocide. Frozen assets could eventually be used for reparation and reconstruction in Gaza. 

The EU thus holds the means to enforce human rights, especially in view of the current efforts to undermine international law and the massive scale of civilians killed and starving in Palestine. Recent dramatic developments, notably the humanitarian role assigned to the private military entity GHF since May 2025, the Israeli government announcement of its intention to undertake forced transfers of the Gaza population to internment camps, and the launch of military operations to conquer the entire Gaza Strip – all underscore the urgency for action.

The EU holds critical leverage to revindicate international law and accountability. Furthermore, the EU has the obligation to co-operate towards bringing Israel’s unlawful presence in oPt to an end. The suffering of civilians in Palestine is intolerable. It is high time for the European Union to act and use its own policy tools to live up to the international legal obligations to protect civilians.