Examining the legitimacy of the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe regarding international law

The use of sanctions is not a new phenomenon in the discipline of International relations. However, with the disappearance of the Cold War, Western countries increasingly started to adopt sanctions as the means to attain their foreign policy interests. The main objective of this research is to examine the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) in the context of international law. The USA crafted its first batch of sanctions on Zimbabwe in 2001 through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) and the Presidential Executive Order, which derives its legal basis from the USA statutory instrument (International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) in 2003. On the other hand, the EU introduced sanctions on Zimbabwe utilising the Cotonou Agreement as its legal basis. In addition, the EU used the Treaty of European Union, which advocates for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Therefore, the focus of this research lies on highlighting the legitimacy of such sanctions on Zimbabwe, which is a member of the United Nations (UN), and yet the UN did not take any sanction measures to address such grievances as laid down by the EU and the USA. The thesis argued that unilateral sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are illegitimate based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another state, equality of sovereign states and the International Law Commission on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act. The sanctions are negatively affecting Zimbabwe to carry out its duties and obligations as a sovereign state. On the same note, International Law Commission drafts are regarded as non-binding in international law.