Search results

This paper aims to elucidate the practical and theoretical mechanisms which contribute to the perception of an economic sanction’s effectiveness as a foreign policy tool.

This paper is divided into three sections, the first two of which are heavily based on the current academic literature and media presentation of sanctions. The third section is rooted in the empirical approach presented in the first author’s exploratory work, Methods of Money Laundering (2021).

Economic sanctions cannot be perceived as effective when the standard for efficacy remains undefined and sanction circumvention remains feasible. The public perception of sanctions is characterized by a series of assumptions as well as conflict foreign policy objectives, which cultivate an economic theory that is benefited by a practical exploration of the routes of circumvention.

The efficacy of economic sanctions is not a stable equation, but rather the application of an economic tool which is dependent on its context. Paths of sanction circumvention remain open due to weaknesses in compliance regulation. These paths continue to undermine the credibility of sanctions and, ultimately, their efficacy.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the practical problems which Swiss financial service providers face following the government’s decision to implement economic sanctions.

The practical problems of implementation are based on the identified methods of circumvention in the first author’s empirical research on the mechanisms of money laundering.

Secure anti-money laundering mechanisms promote the smooth implementation of sanctions. Despite the novelty of specific sanctions requirement, it is possible to have a supportive framework in place. Also, there remain a number of practical hurdles for Swiss banks to overcome, including the pressure on sanction alignment and the significant threat of noncompliance.

The sanctions imposed on Russia in 2022 are largely examined either from a broad political perspective or from the finite details of a business consultancy perspective. This paper aims to reconcile both perspectives to illustrate how the concrete problems of sanction implementation becomes evident in the wider political picture.

This paper's main purpose is to deepen the general understanding regarding copyright exceptions and limitations as an important balancing tool of copyright law, particularly for developing countries in Africa. It seeks to address the problematic interplay between copyright exceptions and limitations on the one hand and technological protection measures (TPMs) on the other. It then aims to offer a solution for mitigating the potentially detrimental impact of TPMs on otherwise‐permitted uses of copyright‐protected knowledge materials.

The paper's approach is legal doctrinal research that relies exclusively on written texts.

The paper finds that copyright exceptions and limitations are currently in tension with the legal regulation of TPMs and their circumvention. The two do not seem to be optimally balanced, with some African countries having adopted an unduly restrictive legal approach. The paper therefore suggests a more balanced model that is in keeping with developmental ends and human rights concerns.

The paper makes a meaningful contribution by locating the discussion in Africa and providing a suggested equitable legal approach.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of money laundering methods in circumventing sanctions against individuals. In particular, it shows how politically exposed persons can circumvent sanctions through money laundering mechanisms.

A total of 70 expert interviews were conducted, comprising 35 formal interviews with prevention experts and 35 informal interviews with money launderers. By subjecting their responses to qualitative content analysis, concrete ways of circumventing sanctions are identified.

Financial sanctions against individuals are highly ineffective, as they can be easily circumvented. To successfully influence political processes, alternative mechanisms are necessary.

This study’s findings are limited to the perspectives of 70 interviewees. Hence, it is possible that a study with a larger sample conducted in different countries or at a different time could have yielded different results.

Identifying the gaps in anti-money-laundering mechanisms should provide compliance officers and legislators with valuable insights into why the current prevention schemes are ineffective and how sanctions against individuals can be circumvented. The findings, thus, highlight the scope to improve compliance mechanisms and the need for other tools to influence political processes.

The current sanctions against individuals are found to be ineffective means of influencing politics, as they can be easily circumvented. Hence, alternative mechanisms and tools are needed.

This paper aims to analyse sanctions regimes of multilateral development banks and to examine some of the topical issues surrounding sanctioning practices of these institutions. Under the Agreement for Mutual Enforcement of Debarment Decisions (the “Mutual Enforcement Agreement”), sanctions covering the sanctionable practices that are imposed and made publicly available by any participating MDB may be enforced by other participating MDBs. This dramatically amplifies the impact of debarment decisions taken by any one of the participating MDBs, while affirming the MDBs’ commitment to combating the sanctionable practices. Consequently, companies will need to invigorate their procedures with a view to managing their risks not only in relation to national legislation, but also in relation to the MDBs’ sanctioning frameworks, which have much broader geographic scope than that of national legislation. This paper first provides an overview of the tenets established by the Mutual Enforcement Agreement. Further, as all MDBs maintain their own sanctions mechanisms, the paper analyses individual sanctions regimes of the WBG, EBRD and ADB. The paper then describes the types of sanctions that may be imposed by MDBs and examines some of the challenging issues surrounding the banks’ sanctions practices.

This paper draws on the experience of senior lawyers who were intimately involved in the set-up of the sanctions regimes at the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, the EBRD and the ADB and are currently involved in the work of sanctions boards at their respective institutions.

Companies and individuals dealing with MDBs should be aware of the fact that, as a result of the Mutual Enforcement Agreement, the profile of MDBs’ fraud and corruption cases has been raised significantly and could result in global sanctions for prohibited practices in a single country. Consequently, a company engaging in a prohibited practice in its business dealings with one MDB might find itself unable to obtain financing from the four other MDBs participating in the Mutual Enforcement Agreement, and furthermore its debarment would be published by all five participating MDBs (subject to the above-described limitations of ADB’s publication regime). As MDBs continue to develop their sanctions regimes, greater harmonisation among sanctions processes is to be expected and companies doing business with MDBs should, at the very minimum, ensure that their compliance and ethics programmes are up to date, both as a preventative measure or, if wrongful actions have already taken place, as a means of mitigating the severity of possible sanctions.

A lot has been written about the consequences of criminal convictions for bribery and other corrupt practices. However, much less attention has been paid to the evolution of anti-corruption policies and procedures which have been developed by a group of leading MDBs. In fact, for many corporates, sanctions regimes of MDBs remain unchartered territory, even though these sanctions proceedings can have far-reaching business consequences. This paper will, therefore, be of interest to all companies directly or indirectly involved with MDB-financed projects, as they need to be alert to the scope of MDB sanctions proceedings and the wide-ranging adverse business consequences that may result from any enforcement action.