Available in Russian
Author: Petr Chuvakhin
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2025-3-78-97
Keywords: third-party countermeasures; state responsibility; obligations erga omnes; Article 54 of Articles on State Responsibility; unilateral sanctions; customary international law
This article examines one of the most controversial institutions of contemporary international law — third-party countermeasures employed by states in response to violations of erga omnes obligations. The central problem lies in the absence of clear legal regulation and the ambiguity of Article 54 of the Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which contains a compromised saving clause. The author analyzes the conceptual foundations of the institution, its historical evolution from classical reprisals to modern forms of coercion, and critically evaluates the work of the International Law Commission. The study examines key decisions of the International Court of Justice, including the Barcelona Traction and Nicaragua cases, which laid the foundations for modern understanding of erga omnes obligations. The methodology is based on systematic analysis of international legal sources, state practice, and doctrinal positions incorporating elements of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). The author applies the strict two-element test for customary international law formation, examining both objective state practice and the subjective element of opinio juris. Research findings demonstrate the absence of international consensus regarding the legitimacy of third-party countermeasures. State practice is characterized by selective application and terminological uncertainty, with states deliberately avoiding legal terminology in favor of political justifications such as sanctions or restrictive measures. Analysis of non-Western state positions within the UN framework reveals large-scale opposition to unilateral coercive measures, confirmed by General Assembly voting statistics. The geographical asymmetry in application — exclusively by developed Western states against developing countries — undermines claims of universal legal acceptance and exposes the political nature of the institution. The author concludes that third-party countermeasures represent a transitional phenomenon reflecting the crisis of traditional international legal enforcement mechanisms rather than an established legal norm. Effective protection of universal norms is only possible through genuinely universal institutional mechanisms based on state equality and objective legal criteria.
About the author: Petr Chuvakhin – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Legal Regulation in Fuel and Energy Industry, International Institute of Energy Policy and Diplomacy, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Citation:
Chuvakhin P. (2025) Problemy pravovogo obosnovaniya kontrmer tret'ikh storon v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave [Problems of legal justification of third-party countermeasures in contemporary international law]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.15, no.3, pp.78–97. (In Russian).
References
Akehurst M. (1970) Reprisals by Third States. British Yearbook of International Law, vol.44, pp.1–18.
Bogdanova I. (2022) Unilateral Sanctions in International Law and the Enforcement of Human Rights: The Impact of the Principle of Common Concern of Humankind, Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill | Nijhoff.
Chimni B.S. (2018) Customary International Law: A Third World Perspective. American Journal of International Law, vol.112, no.1, pp.1–46.
Crawford J. (2013) State Responsibility: The General Part, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Damas A.P. (2023) The Legality of Third-Party Countermeasures in Response to Violations of Obligations Erga Omnes: The Case Studies of Myanmar and Russia: LL.M. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Dawidowicz M. (2017) Third-Party Countermeasures in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dupont P.-E. (2019) Human Rights Implications of Sanctions. In: Asada M. (ed.) Economic Sanctions in International Law and Practice, Abingdon; New York: Routledge, pp.39–61.
Gaja G. (2010) The Concept of an Injured State. In: Crawford J., Pellet A., Olleson S., Parlett K. (eds.) The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.941–948.
Galindo G.R.B., Yip C. (2017) Customary International Law and the Third World: Do Not Step on the Grass. Chinese Journal of International Law, vol.16, no.2, pp.251–270.
Hakimi M. (2020) Making Sense of Customary International Law. Michigan Law Review, vol.118, no.8, pp.1487–1537.
Heiduk F. (2018) Myanmar, the Rohingya Crisis, and Further EU Sanctions. SWP Comment 2018/C 52. 7 December. Available at: https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2018C52_hdk.pdf (accessed: 04.10.2025).
Heller K.J. (2018) Specially-Affected States and the Formation of Custom. American Journal of International Law, vol.112, no.2, pp.191–243.
Hofer A. (2025) Third-Party Countermeasures: Making Custom Out of Ambiguous Practice? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol.74, no.2, pp.287–317.
Katselli Proukaki E. (2010) The Problem of Enforcement in International Law: Countermeasures, the Non-Injured State and the Idea of International Community, Abingdon; New York: Routledge.
Keshner M.V. (2015) Primenenie kollektivnykh kontrmer v otnoshenii Rossiyskoy Federatsii: vopros legitimnosti [The application of collective countermeasures against the Russian Federation: the question of legitimacy]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.2, pp.32–38. (In Russian).
Kononova K.O. (2010) “Kollektivnye kontrmery”: K voprosu o pravomernosti ikh sushchestvovaniya i vektore razvitiya v mezhdunarodnom prave XXI veka [“Collective countermeasures”: on the question of their legitimacy and the vector of development in international law of the 21st century]. Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo, no.6, pp.13–15. (In Russian).
Kozheurov Ya.S. (2015) Voyna “sanktsiy” i pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti [The war of “sanctions” and the law of international responsibility]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.2, pp.179–182. (In Russian).
Krause J. (2016) Western Economic and Political Sanctions as Instruments of Strategic Competition with Russia — Opportunities and Risks. In: Ronzitti N. (ed.) Coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law, Leiden: Brill|Nijhoff, pp.270–286.
Lipkina N.N. (2013) Kontrmery i sanktsii kak sredstva obespecheniya realizatsii mezhdunarodno-pravovykh obyazatel'stv [Countermeasures and sanctions as means of ensuring the fulfillment of international obligations]. Pravo, zakonodatel'stvo, lichnost', no.2, pp.48–55. (In Russian).
Lukashuk I.I. (2004) Pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti [The law of international responsibility], Moscow: Wolters Kluwer. (In Russian).
Nollkaemper A. (2012) International Adjudication of Global Public Goods: The Intersection of Substance and Procedure. European Journal of International Law, vol.23, no.3, pp.769–791.
Paddeu F.I. (2015) Countermeasures. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199
231690-e1020 (accessed: 04.10/2025).
Ruys T. (2017) Sanctions, Retortions and Countermeasures: Concepts and International Legal Framework. In: van den Herik L. (ed.) Research Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law, Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.19–51.
Shahabuddin M. (2019) Post-colonial Boundaries, International Law and the Making of the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar. Asian Journal of International Law, vol.9, no.2, pp.334–358.
Shahabuddin M. (2021) Minorities and the Making of Postcolonial States in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sicilianos L.-A. (2002) The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility. European Journal of International Law, vol.13, no.5, pp.1127–1145.
Subedi S.P. (2021) The Status of Unilateral Sanctions in International Law. In: Subedi S. (ed.) Unilateral Sanctions in International Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp.19–60.
Tams C.J. (2005) Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tams C.J., Tzanakopoulos A. (2010) Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development. Leiden Journal of International Law, vol.23, no.4, pp.781–800.
Tladi D. (2013) Progressive Development and Codification of International Law: The Work of the International Law Commission during Its Sixty-Sixth Session. South African Yearbook of International Law, vol.38, pp.124–143.
White N.D. (2018) Autonomous and Collective Sanctions in the International Legal Order. The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online, vol.27, no.1, pp.1–32.