Report on the Application of International Sanctions in Upholding the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Imperative for Action in the Face of Institutional Paralysis

This report examines the critical role of international sanctions in upholding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The paralysis of the United Nations Security Council, frequently impeded by the veto power of its permanent members, has led to devastating humanitarian consequences in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) and Ukraine. This institutional failure undermines the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The declaration of famine in Gaza on 15 August 2025 represents a catastrophic failure to achieve SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). While the European Union (EU) has implemented measures concerning Ukraine, its inaction regarding the oPt constitutes a significant policy gap, challenging its commitment to international law and the SDGs. The inability of EU Foreign Affairs Ministers to agree on sanctions as of 30 August 2025 necessitates an urgent review of state obligations to act.

Sanctions as a Tool for Enforcing International Law and SDG 16

The Legal Framework for Sanctions

While the term ‘sanctions’ is not explicitly defined in the UN Charter, such measures are established tools for maintaining international peace and security, a cornerstone of SDG 16. Article 41 of the UN Charter provides for measures not involving armed force to restore legality. Historically, these have included:

• Trade sanctions
• Arms embargoes
• Asset freezes
• Travel bans

The evolution from broad economic sanctions, which had severe humanitarian impacts in the 1990s, to targeted sanctions reflects a greater alignment with the SDG principle of ‘leaving no one behind’. Targeted sanctions aim to hold individuals and entities accountable for policy decisions that violate international law, thereby avoiding indiscriminate harm to civilian populations and protecting progress towards SDGs 1 (No Poverty) and 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

State Obligations and Countermeasures

Beyond the UN Security Council, states have obligations under international law to respond to serious breaches of peremptory norms (jus cogens). The International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States affirm the right to take countermeasures to induce compliance with international law. All states share a responsibility to prevent and punish war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This collective obligation is fundamental to achieving SDG 16, which calls for ending violence, promoting the rule of law, and ensuring equal access to justice for all.

Case Study: The Crisis in the oPt and the Derailment of the 2030 Agenda

Humanitarian Catastrophe and Failure to Meet Global Goals

The situation in the oPt, particularly Gaza, represents a complete reversal of development progress and a failure to protect fundamental human rights. The conflict has resulted in a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions, directly contravening multiple SDGs.

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The IPC’s declaration of famine on 15 August 2025, follows repeated conclusions by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry that starvation is being used as a method of warfare.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): An estimated 70% of those killed in Gaza were women and children, with UNICEF reporting over 50,000 children killed or injured. The deprivation of medical care amounts to a crime against humanity.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The siege of Gaza has been identified as a form of collective punishment. The lack of accountability for perpetrators of atrocities undermines the very foundation of this goal.

International bodies, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have issued orders and warrants that Member States are obligated to enforce. The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion further obligates states to abstain from economic dealings that entrench Israel’s unlawful presence in the oPt, linking trade policy directly to the enforcement of international law.

The European Union’s Role and Responsibility

Policy Instruments for Upholding Human Rights and SDGs

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is mandated to advance human rights and international law. The EU possesses specific tools designed to translate these commitments into action, which are critical for supporting the 2030 Agenda.

1. The EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR): Established in 2020, this regime allows the EU to target individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights violations such as genocide and crimes against humanity. It is a direct mechanism for promoting accountability, a key target of SDG 16. While it has been applied in numerous contexts, its use regarding the oPt has been limited to extremist settlers and activists obstructing aid.
2. The EU-Israel Association Agreement: Article 2 of this agreement establishes that respect for human rights is an “essential element.” This provides a legal basis for reviewing and potentially suspending parts of the agreement to ensure that EU trade relationships do not contribute to violations of international law, thereby aligning economic policy with SDG 16 and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

A Failure of Political Will

Despite these instruments and clear evidence of widespread violations, the EU has failed to reach a consensus on meaningful sanctions. High-level meetings have concluded without agreement on measures such as travel bans on government ministers, asset freezes, or arms embargoes. This inaction stands in contrast to measures taken by other nations, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, which have sanctioned Israeli ministers for inciting violence. Germany’s decision to halt exports of military equipment that could be used in Gaza further highlights the growing divergence within the international community. The EU’s failure to act undermines its credibility and its stated commitment to a rules-based international order, which is essential for the achievement of all SDGs.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Aligning EU Action with International Obligations and the SDGs

The EU possesses the leverage and the legal obligation to act decisively to halt atrocities and uphold international law. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in the oPt is a direct challenge to the core principles of the 2030 Agenda. To fulfill its role as a global leader in human rights and sustainable development, the EU must:

• Implement Targeted Sanctions: Immediately utilize the EUGHRSR to sanction key government officials and entities responsible for violations in the oPt. Frozen assets could subsequently be allocated for reparations and reconstruction, contributing to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Enforce the Association Agreement: Act upon the “essential element” human rights clause of the EU-Israel Association Agreement to ensure EU policy coherence and prevent complicity in maintaining an illegal situation.
• Support International Justice: Actively enforce the provisional measures of the ICJ and support the work of the ICC, reinforcing the institutions central to SDG 16.
• Foster Coordinated Action: Work towards a unified position that prioritizes the protection of civilians and accountability, demonstrating a genuine commitment to SDG 17.

The EU’s response to this crisis will define its commitment to the international legal order and the Sustainable Development Goals. Inaction is not a neutral stance; it is a failure to meet legal and moral obligations to protect civilians and prevent genocide.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues that are directly relevant to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary connections are with goals concerning peace, hunger, health, gender equality, and international partnerships.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article explicitly mentions the “IPC declaration of famine in Gaza” and states that “starvation is being used as a method of warfare.” This directly addresses the core mission of SDG 2, which is to end hunger and ensure access to food.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The text highlights the deprivation of “medical care” as a severe violation and notes the high number of casualties, with “50’000 children have been killed or injured.” This connects to SDG 3’s aim of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being, which is impossible in a conflict zone without access to healthcare.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article points out the disproportionate impact of the conflict on women and children, stating that “70% of the persons killed in Gaza were women and children.” This relates to SDG 5, particularly its targets on eliminating violence against women and girls.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire text revolves around the failure of international institutions like the UN Security Council, the call for accountability through the ICJ and ICC, the use of sanctions to enforce international law, and the reduction of violence and death rates in conflict. The article is a plea for strengthening international justice and peace mechanisms.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article analyzes the role of international and regional partnerships, such as the European Union, in addressing the crisis. It discusses the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and the need for collective action (or the failure thereof) among states to uphold international law, which is the essence of SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article highlights a complete regression on this target by citing the official “IPC declaration of famine in Gaza” and the conclusion that “starvation is being used as a method of warfare.”

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage… and access to quality essential health-care services.” The article notes that the deprivation of “medical care” is being used against the civilian population, indicating a total failure to provide essential health services.

3. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.2: “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.” The statistic that “70% of the persons killed in Gaza were women and children” directly relates to this target, showing that women are disproportionately victims of the conflict’s violence.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The article’s focus on the high number of civilian deaths, including “50’000 children… killed or injured,” directly addresses the failure to meet this target.
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The discussion on the “paralysis of the Security Council,” the need to enforce ICJ and ICC decisions, and the use of sanctions to ensure compliance with international law are all central to this target.
   • Target 16.a: “Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity… to prevent violence.” The article advocates for strengthening international mechanisms like the “EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime” to prevent atrocities and hold perpetrators accountable.

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.14: “Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.” The article critiques the EU’s lack of policy coherence, as its member states are “unable to agree on sanctions measures” despite the EU’s stated commitment to human rights in its external policy.
   • Target 17.16: “Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.” The article’s analysis of the blocked UN Security Council and the call for the EU and other states to act underscores the challenges and necessities of effective global and regional partnerships in maintaining peace and upholding international law.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

   • Implied Indicator for Target 2.1: The “IPC declaration of famine” is a direct, qualitative measure of extreme food insecurity, aligning with official indicators like the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) and the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). The statement that “starvation is being used as a method of warfare” serves as a causal indicator for the failure to achieve this target.

2. For SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

   • Direct Indicator for Target 5.2: The statistic that “70% of the persons killed in Gaza were women and children” serves as a direct measure of conflict-related deaths disaggregated by sex and age, which is a key indicator for violence against women and children (related to indicator 16.1.2 but applied here to SDG 5).

3. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Direct Indicator for Target 16.1: The figure of “50’000 children have been killed or injured” is a direct measure of conflict-related casualties, aligning with Indicator 16.1.2 (“Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population”).
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.3: The article implies an indicator related to the enforcement of international law, such as the “Number of enforcement actions taken by states or regional bodies in response to ICJ/ICC rulings.” The text highlights the failure to enforce ICJ provisional measures and ICC arrest warrants.

4. For SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Implied Indicator for Target 17.14: An implied indicator for policy coherence is the “Number and scope of sanctions agreed upon and implemented by the EU in response to documented human rights violations.” The article’s central point is that this number is zero for the situation in Gaza, despite the existence of the EU’s human rights sanctions regime, indicating a lack of coherence.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: opiniojuris.org