Sanctions without borders?
Henrietta Worthington is a Solicitor and Jaime Rosenberg an Associate, at Vedder Price
Since the introduction in the US of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act in 2016, the EU, UK and US have increasingly used thematic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. This means that sanctions regimes have been established based on themes (ranging from corruption to terrorism) rather than being tied to a specific country.
The intention of these regimes is to establish accountability for prohibited practices as a global principle (such as protecting human rights or fighting corruption), rather than one limited by borders. This shift has several important implications across political, legal, and economic dimensions.
Thematic sanctions allow governments to freeze assets and ban travel for individuals or entities anywhere in the world which they deem to be responsible for violations of the values-based standards that they have set. There are currently ten regimes in effect across the EU, UK and US and new regimes are still emerging based on domestic and foreign policy priorities.
However, the use of these measures has also been subject to pushback from those who claim the sanctioning states are using them as a form of politicised global law enforcement.
Benefits
One of the key benefits of the establishment of thematic sanctions regimes is their flexibility. Allowing sanctioning states to act quickly to apply pressure on individuals or entities makes them extremely adaptable to emerging issues. At the same time, they reduce the potential for diplomatic fallout caused by the targeting of specific countries. Their global nature also strengthens deterrence by signalling that no one is beyond the reach of sanctions, regardless of geography.
The regimes have been used effectively by the various sanctioning states both as a coordinated measure (for example human rights designations), and also to tackle specific concerns in a particular jurisdiction. For example, the US has developed a regime to combat international drug trafficking by targeting narcotics traffickers and their associated organizations.
The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (the Kingpin Act) originated to target and isolate members of the powerful drug cartels in Colombia during the 1980s and 1990s. Under the Kingpin Act, the President of the United States may designate individuals and entities on the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) as “Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers” subjecting them to strict economic sanctions.
Thematic sanctions mark a strategic evolution in coercive diplomacy: more targeted, value-driven, and flexible, but also more legally and politically complex
Meanwhile, in the UK, where illegal migration has become a significant political concern, the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Regulations 20251 (the Regulations) were introduced in July 2025. The Regulations grant the power to designate individuals and entities involved in people-smuggling, trafficking in persons, and the instrumentalisation of migration for destabilising purposes.
The Regulations provide for asset-freezes, travel bans and director disqualifications against designated persons. The first wave of 25 designations were made in July. The extent to which the measures are having any practical effect, such as disrupting finances, or preventing the operations of smuggling networks is not yet known.
However, to bolster the measures, the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions (Overseas Territories) Order 20252 came into effect in October which applies the migration sanctions measures to the UK’s overseas territories.
Challenges
The rise in thematic sanctions has created major compliance challenges for companies, especially multinational organisations operating across jurisdictions. Companies can no longer focus compliance just on ‘high-risk countries’, but rather risk assessments must now address both behavioural risk (what the counterparty does), as well as geographic risk (where they are located).
The rise of these regimes increases the importance of robust due diligence and beneficial ownership tracing. Companies must apply a risk-based approach and ensure that their due diligence measures go beyond name-based checks to thoroughly examine counterparties’ activities, ownership, and affiliations. This should include sufficient scrutiny of ownership structures and identification of the ultimate beneficial owner.
They should also ensure that their policies and procedures are regularly updated, and establish procedures for handling potential matches, including internal training and clear escalation protocols.
In addition to the complex compliance burden, there have been questions over the efficacy of thematic sanctions and whether they will have sufficient ‘bite’. They are more symbolic in purpose: signalling the condemnation of certain behaviours.
However, whether they can serve as an effective coercive economic measure remains to be seen. Further, whilst they can be used to diffuse political fallout, they may also act to strain diplomatic relations with countries whose nationals are targeted, if not used carefully. Additionally, there have been concerns raised about the overuse of sanctions measures (both thematic and geographical) and whether this serves to undermine their value, by pushing companies to use other currencies or other circumvention measures.
One regime that has received pushback is the current US Administration’s sanctions on individuals currently serving on the International Criminal Court (ICC). In February 2025, the Administration issued Executive Order (EO) 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,” which states that, “[t]he ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.”
The EO also states that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, not being signatories to the Rome Statute. In a press release, experts at the United Nations expressed concern regarding the EO stating that, these sanctions “are a direct assault against the independence of the tribunal” and that “[t]he US Government must uphold the rule of law and the independence of judges and prosecutors by rescinding these sanctions.”3
Thematic sanctions mark a strategic evolution in coercive diplomacy: more targeted, value-driven, and flexible, but also more legally and politically complex. Their effectiveness will depend on transparency, international coordination, and whether they produce measurable behavioural change rather than simply symbolic condemnation.
Endnotes
1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/902/introduction/made.
