The UK’s new human rights sanctions should punish states, not just individuals
Amid revelations of election rigging, opposition repression and torture, the UK has used its new human rights sanction regime — so-called Magnitsky laws — against its highest profile culprit yet: Lukashenko, President of Belarus, has seen his assets frozen and is banned from entering the UK.
While it is encouraging to see the UK make its stance against human rights abuses known, we might wonder whether such actions will do much to help the situation in which Belarusians find themselves. It is becoming ever more common for human rights abuses to be called out, only for them to become yesterday’s news. There is a need for a regime with more enduring effects.
The UK’s new regime sanctions foreign individuals who commit human rights abuses, by way of freezing assets falling under UK jurisdiction and banning entry into the country. While this regime may prevent a kleptocrat like Lukashenko from buying a house in Kensington, it does not target the offending individual’s state. The prospect of being unable to holiday in Cornwall does not trouble nefarious political actors such as Lukashenko; rather, their overarching aim is holding on to power. While such sanctions do not punish the wider innocent population, they do not provide enough of an incentive for systemic change. Put simply, the state must be targeted to increase local pressure on officials responsible for human rights violations.
Otherwise, a limited sanctions regime is likely to produce limited effects. Russia blocked a UN Security Council meeting on human rights in Syria in 2018 due it being ‘not a subject on the agenda’ of the body. Saudi Arabia’s widely reported use of torture, unlawful detentions and assassinations of critics have come with little consequence. Even the USA, which claims to ‘speak up boldly on attacks on human dignity wherever’ they find them, now rebukes the International Criminal Court for opening an investigation into alleged crimes in Afghanistan and Palestine, which could probe conduct of US and Israeli nationals.
Would Magnitsky trade agreements work better instead? Penalising a state with added tariffs when it abuses human rights would provide an incentive to respect all citizens, lest they feel the economic repercussions. Human rights advocates have long touted trade agreements as a powerful tool for humanitarian good; although some states assess rights-related risks associated with trade deals, direct economic punishment discouraging human rights abuse does not occur on the international stage. Such trade agreements would be particularly important for ‘Global Britain’, which is looking to form numerous trade deals following Brexit.
One trade deal currently being negotiated is with Egypt, a country whose authoritarian regime has shown disregard for the rule of law, fair trials and freedoms of assembly and association. With just under 5% of Egyptian exports heading for British consumers, Egypt will be keen to get a deal signed. Surely this is the ideal opportunity to incorporate human rights into the agreement.
Human rights dialogue must be part of the relationship between states when trading. Indeed, it already is, at least in name– the UK’s foreign policy is clear in its aim to promote ‘British values’, one of which is respect for human rights. But unlike Magnitsky trade agreements, the current mechanisms are largely political, with diplomacy taking centre stage rather than law and contractual agreement. This approach is coming up short. Magnitsky trade agreements would mean states would know with certainty the consequences of their abusive actions. Without such legally binding measures, states are free to chance their luck.
Trade has a huge impact on human rights, both directly and indirectly. The effectiveness of incorporating human rights clauses into trade agreements has been called into question, namely because trade deals rarely lead to direct human rights violations, and that proving (let alone predicting) indirect causal human rights violations is nigh impossible. But many of the products that consumers take for granted in the UK — food, technology, clothes — are produced in inhumane ways. This has been made startlingly clear by the revelations of gross human rights violations being committed against the Uighur population by the Chinese Government. A coalition of more than 180 human rights groups have labelled ‘virtually the entire’ fashion industry culpable, by sourcing cotton and yarn from state sponsored forced labour factories in Xinjiang. We, the consumers, are the ones funding these brands — from Gap to Adidas. Trade agreements necessary to facilitate our addiction to fast fashion have direct human rights implications for citizens overseas. Furthermore, states are not doing enough to anticipate and tackle human rights risks connected to trading arrangements with other countries.
The recent footage that emerged of mass groups of blindfolded, Chinese Uighurs being loaded onto trains was a reminder that crimes against humanity are not a thing of the past. It was also a reminder of the cycle in which China gets off scot-free. New, reliable evidence emerges of gross human rights abuses by the Chinese Government; cue western outrage; cue China denying it; cue everyone returning to the normality of lucrative economic agreements with a country whose economy is predicted to be the world’s largest by 2028. Magnitsky laws will do nothing to discourage states like China from ignoring human rights obligations. International law seemingly doesn’t either. Only economic pressure makes states sit up and take notice. Trade agreements are the most effective way of piling on this pressure.
Incorporating human rights into trade agreements is not beyond us. The EU has enacted ex ante human rights assessments before trade agreements since 2012. These investigate and identify human rights related risks linked to the agreement in order to minimise adverse consequences. These assessments are aimed at identifying areas of the agreement to change and improve, rather than seeking to penalise when clauses impact human rights. Canada and Colombia engage in ex post human rights assessments on their free-trade deals, whereby both examine the effect the agreement is having on human rights in both countries. This allows them to alter terms to uphold respect for human rights. A Magnitsky trade agreement would be a step up — looking to penalise any human rights abuses by a country, rather than solely those caused by trade agreements.
The adoption of such agreements will be a challenge requiring extensive international coordination. The UK should at least engage in ex ante and ex post human rights impact assessments on the many trade deals they hope to sign — auditing both externally and internally. Two years ago, Liam Fox — then Secretary of State for International Trade — stated there would be public and parliamentary scrutiny of all future trade deals post-Brexit. Negotiating its first trade deals in decades, the UK has a chance to breath fresh life into human rights. That’s the ‘Global Britain’ we should strive for.
Archie McCreath is an undergraduate law student at the University of Bristol, with a keen interest in international law and foreign affairs.
