• The Complete Research Material is averagely 240 pages long and it is in Ms Word Format, it has 1-5 Chapters.
  • Major Attributes are Abstract, All Chapters, Figures, Appendix, References.
  • Study Level: MTech, MSc or PhD.
  • Full Access Fee: ₦30,000

Get the complete project » Instant Download Active


Global governance becomes critical in attaining world peace and security as trans-national crises become complex and challenging in the paradigm of international politics. The role of international organizations has been pivotal to combat global problems such as terrorism, deviant states producing nuclear weapons, environmental disasters and intra or inter states conflicts. In resolving these crises, diplomacy is handled in secrecy because military intervention is costly, but sanctions are employed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) once there is a threat or an actual infringement on world peace and security. When these sanction regimes are implemented, some states evade them, some allied states may not be willing to execute UNSC resolutions, there could be conflict between domestic and international laws and vulnerable citizens suffer the consequences rather than their leaders who were agents of crises e.g Iran and Libya. The study therefore examined global governance and the emerging trends in the implementation of UNSC sanctions.

The research used the doctrinal methodology by adopting a combination of laws, rules, regulations, and instruments in international relations so as to rationalize the roles played by UNSC sanctions in global governance. The historical approach was also used to support the doctrinal method by tracing the development of global governance, sanctions and the United Nations (UN). Other sources of data included International Treaties and Instruments, UN Charter, scholarly journal articles, international law textbooks, case law and relevant UN Resolutions. The study is qualitative in nature.

The study found that not all UNSC sanctions are effective in the paradigm of international politics given the current state of global governance since only 10 percent of targeted sanctions have yielded the intended results. The economic and humanitarian consequences of sanction regimes of the UNSC on some selected states, groups and individuals are still felt but has been ameliorated by the introduction of smart sanctions. The emergence of UNSC targeted sanctions is a clear improvement on the comprehensive sanctions. UNSC Sanctions are not made to last forever as most people believe and there are means of terminating these measures such as reverse Resolution.   

The research concluded that improved global governance is pertinent for a total effective implementation of UNSC sanctions in our contemporary world in order to ensure global peace. Despite the emergence of UNSC targeted sanctions, till date, the measures are still left with their shortcomings such as infringement on freedom of movement through a travel ban, more so, targeted sanctions are more evaded than comprehensive sanctions. The study recommended that for UNSC sanctions to be successful in this contemporary global governance and way beyond, Proper assessments before, during and after a sanction episode should be observed so as to reduce both economic and humanitarian consequences and sanction evasion; and an autonomous review Procedure at the UNSC level is also to be established.

Keywords: Global Governance, Sanctions, Humanitarian, International Peace, Resolutions



1.1. Background to the Study

The crises and threats presently being experienced worldwide are alarming and far beyond the sustenance, grip and control of the states wherein, their occurrences take place. Countries are warring against one another, some are so deviant that they produce nuclear and ballistic materials. Individuals and groups are executing terrorist activities that are unimaginably destructive and contaminable deadly diseases such as Ebola are sometimes not efficiently curtailed since they run across states’ borders. Moreover, during this era, we have Populist insurgency across the globe, ‘BREXIT’, Niger fraud and speculations that some states may also withdraw their membership from powerful organizations like the United Nations. There are also unfriendly environmental occurrences and situations, some nations are still not democratised, there is general insecurity in all spheres of life (water, food, health, shelter and even clothing), and the standard of living per person declines daily.

The way in which the world can become a better place by overcoming the problems mentioned above through established and available actors/stakeholders, resources, mechanisms and systems is crucial to this work.

  Global governance is growingly necessary to achieve international peace and security especially as the world becomes more interconnected and complex. For over a half century, the global governance institutions have been persistently responsible for the management of general global menace in all spheres of human security. Since globalisation emerged, the powers of global institutions have grown to ensure international security and stability.[1]

Contemporary and emerging global menace and crises need an effective collective answer. In international relations, a tool that is insufficient is diplomacy; military intervention is expensive and frequently politically unviable.[2] Sanctions are frequently used by the United Nations Security Council (UN Security Council) since the post-Cold War pe­riod in response to global threats and problems. Sanctions arise between diplomacy and military interventions. These sanctions are perceived as being very efficient when employed with other strategies available to the international community. This efficiency is due to the fact that diplomacy is conducted away from pub­lic view and military onslaughts are very expensive.[3] Global governance is indeed the management, control and resolutions of issues, interests or problems that have trans-national concerns or repercussions such as piracy, terrorism, international trade and security, climate change amongst others. These events go beyond the boundaries of a single state and eventually have both positive and negative global results.

The role of the United Nations (UN)[4] in global governance is very germane in international politics. In the absence of a world government to ascertain the rules and regulations governing relations between states, diverse workable means are needed to resolve global crises.[5] The foundation to establish institutional framework for policy formulation and decision making at the international level is implemented by the UN.[6]

The entire paradigm of the UN was formulated to deal with the basic actors in international politics such as states. In order to achieve this purpose, the UN Security Council is imposed with a distinct power to deal with threats to the international peace and security through a procedure of international security created in global politics. The UN Security Council responds to those threats by imposing sanctions against the origin of the intimidation.[7] Subsequent to the Cold War, comprehensive sanctions have been polished and have emerged in commendable manner through a change in types of targets and purposes of these measures. Beginning in 1992, sanctions moved gradually away from the comprehensive model, often including a general trade embargo, and their associated humanitarian impact, toward targeting leaders and decision-makers responsible for defying in­ternational norms.[8]  

Recently, UN Security Council sanctions are in the glare of the public especially regarding Al Qaida-Taliban, Côte d'Ivoire, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, and Libya and currently Syria with meaningful expansion of traditional targeted sanctions in some cases. These sanction regimes both emphasize the increasing use of this measure and unending doubts about the future of UN Security Council sanctions in the face of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the adaptability of some present targets, pervasive misconceptions, and other problems to sanctions' legality, integrity, and effectiveness.[9]

Mostly, sanctions are seen as a substitute to military force. When sanctions are imposed to punish an offending party socially, economically, or politically rather than militarily, it is employed with the intentions to solve a conflict without the mass suffering and sacrifice required by war. Sanctions have sometimes been effective, and are broadly used.[10] There were nearly as many sanction episodes after the end of the Cold War as there were during the first ninety years of the twentieth century.[11] The most high-profile cases were comprehensive UN sanctions imposed on Iraq, Haiti, and former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.[12] Ultimately, all three episodes generated at least moderate concessions.[13] In this research, the history and uses of sanctions, some associated problems, and how sanctions can be made more effective in terms of implementation will be examined.

 The UN Security Council has targeted sanctions against individuals and other non-state actors in its application of the measures. When sanctions were employed for the very first time, it was the white minority government of Southern Rhodesia, which was a British Colony at the time and not a sovereign state that was besieged.[14] Practically all UN Security Council sanctions regimes partly affected individuals and occasionally members of governments and their closest associates and relatives.[15] In recent years, many persons are ‘blacklisted’ by the UN Security Council as likely terrorists.[16] Usually such sanctions include travel bans and Assets freeze. These types of sanctions are the emerging trends in the implementation of UN Security Council sanctions and are known as “Targeted or Smart Sanctions”.[17]

   A mechanism governing the behaviour of all stakeholders in the international political system is International law with the main function of ensuring peace and security in the global community.[18] A new set of issues concerning possible violations of individual rights were raised by targeted sanctions which were developed as a consequence of such concerns.[19] The Kadi case[20]  is a judgement that bothers on the challenges of individuals who were listed by the sanctions committee of the UN Security Council,[21]  and the Al-Jedda case[22] is on the legal consequences of targeted sanctions. These two cases are thoroughly examined in chapter four of this research. The use of force though not prohibited is usually not the desired way of regulating international actors’ behaviour; hence the use of sanctions is often desired to compel a state to adhere to the rules of international law.[23]

The UN through her Security Council is built as a global institution that possesses the legal rights to guarantee international peace and security by adopting mechanisms not involving the use of force to ensure its decision.[24]The UN Security Council has the responsibility of preventing and repressing acts of encroachment in all states especially in instances of a breach of or threat to peace or international security. It can also intervene if state governments (failed state situations) cease to protect human rights and unable to exercise control of governance as was the situation in Libya. [25]  There are 15 UN Member States in the Security Council, out of which, five are persistently permanent members,[26] namely, China, United States (U.S), United Kingdom (U.K), France and Russia. The other ten are non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly to two year non-renewable term. The membership at the Security Council are regionally chosen to depict representation, so that three members are from Africa, two each from Asia, Latin America, Western Europe, and 1 representative from Eastern Europe.[27]   The UN Security Council has wide powers to ensure global peace and security, most especially under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and its decisions are binding on all UN members.[28]

Once the UN Security Council determines that there exists a threat to peace, breach of peace or act of aggression on any state, it is empowered to give consideration to the application of measures provided in articles 41 and 42.[29] Article 39 of the Charter provides that “the Security Council shall first determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression to be able to take necessary measures pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter”. Article 41 states that:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.[30]

The quotation provides for non-military interventions by the UN Security Council and it is broadly linked with the application of sanctions episodes.[31] The Security Council has made use of a variety of non-military measures under Article 41 of the Charter. In the case of Iraq[32], the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[33] and Haiti[34], the Council imposed a complete commercial and financial embargo, supported by measures such as a flight embargo and prohibition of participation in sporting events. For instance a relevant extract from the UN Security Council resolution on Haiti reads as follows:

(a)   All states should prohibit the sale of petroleum, petroleum products, arms and related materials including weapons and ammunition, military  vehicles and equipment, police equipment and spare parts for any aforementioned to Haiti;

(b)   A ban on all traffic from entering the territorial waters of the country carrying any of the aforementioned products

(c)   Any foreign funds held by Haiti would be frozen.[35]

Mostly in other cases, however, the UN Security Council was more selective. In the case of resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) on Libya, prohibition of flights to and from that country was buttressed by the responsibility to freeze Libyan assets and the prohibition to export oil-related equipment.[36] The UN Security Council Resolution 748 decided that, all member states should:

(a)   Deny permission of Libyan aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory if it has taken off from Libyan territory, excluding humanitarian need;

(b)   Prohibit the supply of aircraft or aircraft components or the provision Servicing of aircraft or aircraft components;

(c)   Prohibit the provision of weapons, ammunition or other military equipment to Libya and technical advice or training;

(d)   withdraw officials present in Libya that advise the Libyan authorities on military matters;

(e)   significantly reduce diplomatic and consular personnel in Libya;

(f)    prevent the operation of Libyan airline offices;

(g)   deny or expel Libyan nationals involved in terrorist activities in other.[37]

Comprehensive sanctions were applied to Iraq in reaction to its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction (1990-2003) immediately after the Cold war.[38] These comprehensive sanctions were also applied during the break-up of the former Yugoslavia (1991- 1996).[39] The UN Security council expressed concerns at the situation in the former Yugoslavia, notably the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, requesting that all parties end the fighting and respect the ceasefire agreement signed on  April 12 1992.[40]

These sanctions were further applied in Haiti (1993-1994).[41] These comprehensive sanctions episodes were implemented when President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in a coup,[42] and the UN Security Council did not have an alternative but to impose further international sanctions on the country after the military authorities refused to ensure an agreement to hand over power.[43] These were mainly economic or travel bans as provided for in the UN Charter.[44]

The 1990s witnessed a proliferation of UN Security Council sanction regimes, most often in the form of targeted sanctions within the context of an intrastate conflict. The following are some of the resolutions imposed, 751 Somalia (1992-present),[45] 788 Liberia (19922001);[46] 820 Yugoslavia (1993-1996;[47] 864 Angola (1993-2002),[48] 918 Rwanda (1994-2008),[49] 1132 Sierra Leone (1997-2010),[50]1160 Kosovo (1998-2001).[51]

 It was only in 1995 that all permanent members definitively recognised that “further collective actions in the Security Council within the context of any future sanctions regime should be directed to minimize unintended adverse side-effects of sanctions on the most vulnerable segments of targeted countries.[52]

You either get what you want or your money back. T&C Apply

You can find more project topics easily, just search

Quick Project Topic Search