American University of Beirut
“Sanctioning ISIL”
PSPA 233: International and Regional Organizations
Submitted to: Dr. Roger Achkar
Submitted by: May Makki
Date: March 30th, 2016
Table of Contents
Section | Page Number |
Introduction | 2 |
Historical Background | 2 |
SC Resolution 2253 | 3 |
Explaining ISIL Financing | 4 |
Challenges posed by Sanctions against ISIL | 5 |
Recommendations and Conclusion | 6 |
References | 8 |
It is one of the widely accepted facts today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has become a major threat to global security. A study done by the Pew Research Center (July 14, 2015), showed that ISIL is perceived as the third world major threat, after climate change and economic instability. What is even more striking about this study is that the nations that consider ISIL as global threat number one are not just Middle Eastern countries, or countries directly affected by ISIL, but also Western countries such as Spain, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, etc… Moreover, ISIL has strikingly shown able to rapidly expand horizontally, and conduct terrorist attacks on many different and unexpected fronts.
This shows that it is imperative today to take international measures to counter the ISIL threat, by major international or regional organizations such as the UN and the EU. The current international discussions revolve around either the direct military intervention in ISIL captured territories, or simply imposing sanctions on ISIL in order to cut off its funds. While each of these methods has its challenges, in this paper I will be mainly concerned with the sanctions imposed on ISIS, as part of a broader UN policy to counter terrorism, and the prospects of their improvement. The focus will be mainly on the newest UN resolution in this regard, Resolution 2253, adopted unanimously by the General Assembly at the UN on December 17th, 2015. I will start by a brief history of countering terrorism in the UN, then an explanation of the major sources of funding for ISIL, based on which I analyze resolution 2253 and assess the measures it calls for. Finally, I conclude with some recommendations to further these sanctions and make them more applicable.
Historical Background
The UN economic sanctions on states started long ago, with the fight against apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa. However, it was till 1999 that the UN imposed economic sanctions on a terrorist organization for the first time, under the Security Council Resolution 1267, directed against Taliban in Afghanistan. The sanctions, according to Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1267, included an embargo on Taliban aircraft, and a freeze over funds “derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban” (SCRES 1267, p.4). However, the most important part of this resolution is the establishment of Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee under its sixth paragraph, whose mission is to ensure the implementation of the aforementioned measures, and take care of the listing and delisting processes of individuals and entities related to Al-Qaida (SCRES 1267, p.6). In response to criticisms directed towards the generalization of sanctions, and the harsh listing and delisting processes, the SC established the Office of Ombudsperson and reformed the sanctions to become more “targeted” towards individuals and entities. The Committee is supported by a “Monitoring Team”, established initially under Resolution 1526 (2004).
On December 17, 2015, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2253, which expanded the sanctions and the listing criteria to include the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Security Council Resolution 2253 (2011)
The Security Council Resolution 2253, after expressing concerns regarding ISIL sources of funding, including profits from terrorist and illegal acts, kidnapping ransoms, the abuse of the non-profit sector and communication technology, and trade (particularly trade of oil and cultural property), called for measures to be taken on three different levels: asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo. The asset freeze and travel ban apply to individuals with direct or indirect links with ISIL or Al-Qaida, listed or delisted according to a set procedure. Thus, it calls for cooperation among member states in investigations and information sharing, active participation of member states in listing requests and reporting, adapting member states’ domestic laws and regulations to international resolutions to sanction ISIL and Al-Qaida, construction of effective counter narratives and counter propaganda, cooperation of governments with the private sector, and raising awareness regarding ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions List.