The American Threat to Sudan and International Law

By Nabil Adeeb

The recent accusation by the United States that Sudan used chemical weapons in the war launched by rebels against the Sudanese state, and its announcement of impending economic sanctions against Sudan, raises an important question: Does the United States have the authority to take such actions? To answer this, we must first understand the international stance on the use of chemical weapons by a state, and the legal means under international law to address such issues.

International Position on Chemical Weapons

A. The International Prohibition on the Use of Chemical Weapons

The global stance on chemical weapons is established by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a multilateral treaty signed in 1993 and effective since 1997. The Convention aims for the complete elimination of chemical weapons and prohibits their development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer, or use by member states. Signatory states are also required to enforce this prohibition within their jurisdictions, including on natural and legal persons.

All member states have agreed to disarmament by destroying their chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities, as well as any chemical weapons left on other member states’ territories. The Convention also establishes a verification regime for specific toxic chemicals and their precursors (listed in Schedules 1, 2, and 3 of the treaty annex) to ensure they are used only for non-prohibited purposes.

A unique feature of the Convention is its provision for “challenge inspections”—urgent inspections requested by a state party when there are doubts about another state party’s compliance. Under this mechanism, any state can request the Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to send an inspection team to the suspected state. States must permit inspections on their territories “at any time, at any place,” without the right to refuse.

Importantly, both Sudan and the United States are parties to the Convention

B. Mechanism for Verifying a State’s Violation

Article VIII of the Convention established the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure implementation and provide a platform for consultation and cooperation. All states parties are members of the OPCW.

Any state party may request clarification from another state regarding ambiguous situations or potential violations:

The request is forwarded by the Director-General to the concerned state within 24 hours.

The responding state must reply within 10 days.

The response is then forwarded back to the requesting state.

If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the requesting state may ask for further clarification.

The Executive Council can assign a team of experts to examine the issue and provide a factual report.

If concerns remain, the requesting state may call for a special session of the Executive Council to recommend appropriate actions.

Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on Human Rights

In May, the U.S. announced it had concluded that the Sudanese military used chemical weapons during the ongoing civil war in the previous year. Based on this, Washington decided to impose sanctions starting the following month (i.e., this month). It is clear from the statement that this conclusion was drawn from a U.S.-led investigation, the details of which—including methodology and procedures—have not been disclosed, nor was Sudan involved in any way.

This American decision constitutes what is known in international law as a “unilateral coercive measure.”

Such measures typically include economic actions taken by one state to pressure another into changing its policies, regardless of whether that change aligns with international law. Examples include trade embargoes, financial and investment restrictions, and the use of “smart sanctions” like asset freezes or travel bans against influential individuals.

These measures harm the populations of targeted countries, depriving them of essential rights such as access to food, healthcare, housing, and social services—rights protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Recognizing these harms, the UN Human Rights Council has issued multiple resolutions condemning unilateral coercive measures. In 2011, it adopted Resolution 21/27, reaffirmed multiple times, most recently in October 2023. The Council emphasized that such measures violate international law, humanitarian law, the UN Charter, and principles governing peaceful international relations.

In response, the Human Rights Council established a mandate for a Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on Human Rights. The current Rapporteur is Professor Alena Douhan from Belarus, who actively campaigns against these measures and advocates for their suspension in affected countries.

Illegality of Unilateral Sanctions Under the UN Charter

The UN Charter is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members. While it does not use the term “sanction,” it allows, in limited circumstances, preventive or punitive measures by UN bodies—but not individual states.

Armed force is only permitted in self-defense against an armed attack, in line with the principle of legitimate self-defense under international law.

The Charter obliges member states in any dispute threatening peace to first seek resolution through peaceful means such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial settlement (Article 33). This excludes measures that escalate rather than resolve disputes—like the actions the U.S. is planning.

To prevent parties from acting unilaterally, the Charter allows any UN member—or even non-members—to alert the Security Council or General Assembly of threats to peace. The Security Council is then empowered to examine the situation, recommend actions, and, where appropriate, refer legal disputes to the International Court of Justice.

It’s crucial to note that the Security Council’s authority stems not from coercion, but from the voluntary consent of member states. Under Article 24, the Council acts on behalf of members in maintaining peace and security.

By contrast, nothing in the Charter authorizes individual states to impose economic sanctions. Such measures, outside the Security Council’s framework, are unlawful under international law. National laws, including U.S. domestic law, do not apply extraterritorially and cannot justify such actions. The UN General Assembly, in Resolution 65/6 (2010), called on states to refrain from enacting laws with extraterritorial impact, which infringe upon other states’ sovereignty or the rights of individuals under their jurisdiction.

In Resolution 65/217, also in 2010, the General Assembly declared that unilateral coercive measures violate international law, humanitarian law, and the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion

The economic sanctions the United States plans to impose on Sudan are unilateral, unlawful, and constitute an act of aggression. Sudan has the right to file a complaint with the United Nations or take legal action against the U.S. before the International Court of Justice.

Source: Asdaa Sudanese