Sanctions and legality
Sir: Bishop Muzorewa said recently in Washington that sanctions are destroying Rhodesia. Is it not time that we should acknowledge that the imposition of sanctions against Rhodesia was itself ultra vires the UK Charter?
Sanctions can only lawfully be imposed if there is a breach of the peace, act of aggression, or threat to peace: a situation which might lead to a breach of the peace must be dealt with by peaceful means (Art. 1). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recently admitted that this means that a threat to peace must be an existing threat if it is to justify the imposition of sanctions. Clearly there was no existing threat when sanctions were first imposed; nor has there been one during most of the subsequent Period. There may be a threat to peace in Rhodesia now, and strangely it is nowhere s.tated in the UN Charter that sanctions, if imposed, must be applied against the aggressor, rather than against its victim. This is a matter of some importance, as it is all too readily assumed that sanctions can be used, or threatened, as a matter of policy, Whereas they can only be imposed if there is an actual act of aggression, breach of the Peace, or threat to the peace such as an ultimatum, a mobilisation, or minor acts of aggression. Belatedly we should admit that .sanctions were ultra vires the Charter, and call them off. H; D. Sills
Hilletead, Greet Shelford, Cambridge
Previous page
