header-logo header-logo

More Russia sanctions—but are they effective?

23 February 2024
Issue: 8061 / Categories: Legal News , Sanctions , International
printer mail-detail
The Foreign Office has imposed a further 50 sanctions against individuals and businesses connected to Russian president Vladimir Putin or which act as sources of Russian revenue

They include electronics companies, diamond and oil traders and munitions manufacturers. So far, the UK has sanctioned about 2,000 individuals and entities under its Russia sanctions regime.

Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the latest round of measures ‘will disrupt Putin’s ability to equip his now struggling military with high tech equipment and much needed weaponry, as well as blocking him from refilling his war coffers’.

Sanctions expert Robert Dalling, partner at Jenner & Block's London office, said: ‘Although new sanctions were announced on 22 February to mark the passing of two years since the invasion, the rate of new prohibitions has now slowed, partly because the UK has already targeted the sectors of the Russian economy that are a priority.

‘The emphasis now will be on ways to tackle circumvention, as well as bringing appropriate enforcement action against companies that breach the rules. The government may also look at loopholes, such as one reportedly allowing Russian-origin oil to enter the UK if it has been refined outside Russia.’

However, John Binns, partner at BCL Solicitors, questioned the effectiveness of the sanctions regime.

‘Sanctions always send a political message, but their practical impact varies considerably,’ he said.

‘Legislators have given broad powers to ministers in this area, and the courts adopt a hands-off approach. As sanctions continue to grow in scope, can we be sure that they are fair as well as effective?

‘The downsides of sanctions include the risk of backfiring (in particular, where non-sanctions countries step in to do the business we leave behind), countermeasures, controversy, and collateral damage on innocent parties. There’s also a fundamental constitutional problem, where parliaments allow ministers to decide what conduct to sanction and who has done it, and courts largely leave them to mark their own homework.’

Issue: 8061 / Categories: Legal News , Sanctions , International
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll