Sanctions are just government-backed discrimination

Sir Keir Starmer cancelled the Rwanda scheme because of “profound respect for international law” and his government’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet at the same time, his government tramples over the human rights of those targeted with sanctions.
“Designated persons” lose access to their money. No one can lend to them. They lose their businesses and homes. Their children are thrown out of school. They face travel bans that break families. They can apply for subsistence — from their own money — but as the government states, “high-net-worth individuals should not expect … continuation of their previous lifestyle”.
Targets have done nothing wrong, but they contaminate others. Relatives or friends become “involved persons” and open to sanctions in their own right, even though there was no original crime and nothing to be “involved” in. Nonetheless, ministers can impose sanctions to “further a foreign policy objective of the government”. For now, the objective is to pressure Russian civilians to influence the Kremlin.
This is collective punishment, which would be impermissible if the UK were at war. Under Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention: “Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation … are prohibited.” Article 33 derives from Article 50 of the Hague Convention, which says: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”
The UK is doing this at home, in peacetime. Gone are convention rights to quiet enjoyment of property, respect for family life and livelihood, freedom of thought and expression, access to justice and effective remedies. Discrimination is fine, if the Foreign Office says so.
Legal challenges are difficult because sanctions obstruct access to lawyers. Complaints generally fail. Complainants are told that the impact of sanctions is temporary, despite accepted evidence of destroyed businesses and suicide risk.
• Rwanda scheme cancelled … but it has already cost £700m
Judges defer to ministers on “proportionality” because, set against a grand foreign policy objective like stopping a war, the human rights of individuals come up short. “Severe” harm to families is outweighed by “community interest” in maintaining sanctions.
This is wrong. The UK has not derogated from the European Convention to excuse sanctions, so convention rights remain part of the UK’s commitment to all people in its jurisdiction. Human rights must never be crushed by “community interest”. That is the point of them.
Analogies of “flexible” human rights in compulsory purchase are bad. Sanctions involve massive compulsion — to do the impossible — without compensation.
The Convention rights under threat are precious, and were won at terrible cost. The prime minister and judges should protect them for everyone.Michael Swainston KC is a tenant at Brick Court Chambers