{"title":"非法,除非:冻结俄罗斯中央银行的资产","authors":"Ron van der Horst","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 22 February 2022, the European Union (EU) and states such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America froze assets of the Russian central bank held in their jurisdictions. The sanctions fit in a longer pattern of states freezing assets of foreign central banks, which has been criticized by several states to be incompatible with the law of state immunity. The criticism on these types of sanctions raises the question whether freezing assets of Russia’s central bank complies with the law of state immunity. This article answers this question by investigating whether the law of state immunity is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or if it also applies in the context of executive action. Considering that the law of state immunity also applies to executive action, these sanctioning states (and the EU) violated Russia’s state immunity by freezing assets of Russia’s central bank. These sanctions, however, could be justified as (third party) countermeasures in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"38 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Illegal, Unless: Freezing the Assets of Russia’s Central Bank\",\"authors\":\"Ron van der Horst\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ejil/chad053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 22 February 2022, the European Union (EU) and states such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America froze assets of the Russian central bank held in their jurisdictions. The sanctions fit in a longer pattern of states freezing assets of foreign central banks, which has been criticized by several states to be incompatible with the law of state immunity. The criticism on these types of sanctions raises the question whether freezing assets of Russia’s central bank complies with the law of state immunity. This article answers this question by investigating whether the law of state immunity is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or if it also applies in the context of executive action. Considering that the law of state immunity also applies to executive action, these sanctioning states (and the EU) violated Russia’s state immunity by freezing assets of Russia’s central bank. These sanctions, however, could be justified as (third party) countermeasures in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad053\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Illegal, Unless: Freezing the Assets of Russia’s Central Bank
Abstract In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 22 February 2022, the European Union (EU) and states such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America froze assets of the Russian central bank held in their jurisdictions. The sanctions fit in a longer pattern of states freezing assets of foreign central banks, which has been criticized by several states to be incompatible with the law of state immunity. The criticism on these types of sanctions raises the question whether freezing assets of Russia’s central bank complies with the law of state immunity. This article answers this question by investigating whether the law of state immunity is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or if it also applies in the context of executive action. Considering that the law of state immunity also applies to executive action, these sanctioning states (and the EU) violated Russia’s state immunity by freezing assets of Russia’s central bank. These sanctions, however, could be justified as (third party) countermeasures in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of International Law is firmly established as one of the world"s leading journals in its field. With its distinctive combination of theoretical and practical approaches to the issues of international law, the journal offers readers a unique opportunity to stay in touch with the latest developments in this rapidly evolving area. Each issue of the EJIL provides a forum for the exploration of the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of international law as well as for up-to-date analysis of topical issues. Additionally, it is the only journal to provide systematic coverage of the relationship between international law and the law of the European Union and its Member States.