The Lawfulness of the Non-judicial Measures of Constraint against Sovereign Property under International Law

International Law Reading Group (ILRG) is happy to announce its fourth event in the new Early Career Research Exchange (ECRE) Series, hosting Attila Novák, who is a PhD candidate at the Catholic University of Louvain. Attila will be sharing his research titled as "The Lawfulness of the Non-judicial Measures of Constraint against Sovereign Property under International Law" with the PGR community of Edinburgh Law School.

The full abstract of Attila's research can be found below:

The research deals with non-judicial coercive measures implemented by States or international organisations that restrain a foreign State in the disposition of its sovereign assets. These measures are frequently referred to as “sanctions” and target foreign States committing breaches of international law, and they are employed to induce the foreign State to cease its unlawful activity and comply with its international obligations. Historically, the relevant state practice was related to measures targeting enemy State property and war reparations. The most recent developments concern the measures adopted concerning Russia's sovereign assets in the context of its full-scale aggression against Ukraine. Generally, the research deals with three types of measures: a provisional constraint such as asset freezes or immobilisation; measures with permanent legal effects implying the transfer of title over the sovereign assets without the concerned State’s consent and any compensation (e.g. confiscation); and finally, different modalities of using the sovereign property. The main research questions regarding the relevant practice may be articulated around the primary and secondary rules of international law, i.e. whether the measures in question are intrinsically lawful under international law and whether the potential breach could be justified per international law. On the first question, the principal issue is whether the immunity from execution applies to an administrative constraint. However, the measures in question may be at variance with other rules of international law, such as the principle of non-intervention and inviolability, the rules of international investment and international humanitarian law, and the property rights of the State and its entities. Concerning the second question, the main focus is on countermeasures, but potential justifications also include the consent of the foreign State, individual and collective self-defence, the execution of the decisions of international judicial organs, and the implementation of the resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
 

Event Link

Register for this event with Eventbrite