Russia is running rings around our sanction regime
Vigilante hackers and rogue merchant vessels are putting Britain on the back foot, while our opponents run rings around our current sanctions list. A broader legal definition of conflict would give Britain the flexibility to catch these rogue actors and keep Britain secure, says Robert Buckland
Earlier this week, the government released its Strategic Defence Review. It was unambitious, but it highlights something important – the world is getting more dangerous. Our ‘greatest ally’, the USA, is proving increasingly fickle, while our enemies in Russia and Iran develop new ways to undermine us. The law needs to wake up to this. We don’t just need new combat tools, we need new legal tools too.
Conflict is more than guns and bombs. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a wing of the Iranian Army, is cyberattacking British citizens. Russia uses a ‘vast malign online network’ to spread disinformation and undermine Britain’s vital support for Ukraine in their crusade against Russian despotism. Chinese spies have even been found in our corridors of power. These aren’t boots-on-the-ground invasions, but they’re still threats against Britain that need proportionate responses.
Non-warfare conflict is a tale as old as time. Sun Tzu was discussing espionage in 400 BC. And sanctions themselves, the way nations retaliate against these threats, aren’t much older. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes but are usually economic – preventing commerce with actors to deter them from undermining their country. The ancient Athenians banned merchants from belligerent Megara in 432 BC, for example.
Britain invented the boycott
Britain is no stranger to sanctions. The verb ‘to boycott’ is after all a British invention! It originated in 1879 when the tenants of Lord Erne’s estates collectively refused to work with Colonel Boycott on account of his exploitative rent increases. Today, we mandate boycotts on companies acting as fronts for the Iranian government to fund terrorist organisations. We’ve levied hundreds of sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
Over time, sanctions have evolved from trade boycotts to price caps, diplomatic expulsions, and complex supply chain disruptions. However, just as sanctions have evolved, so have our enemies. Russia is undermining our sanctions through a ‘global shadow fleet’. This fleet of over 600 rogue cargo ships uses illegal practices to evade UK trade embargoes and oil price caps. Meanwhile, Iranian organisations are using ‘shadow banking networks’ to use British financial services to fund terrorist groups.
The Government is right to target Russia’s attempts to bypass our sanctions. But without the correct legal tools, we’ll always be one step behind. Updating the legal definition of ‘conflict’ would be a good start to bringing the UK into the 21st century.
No longer do our enemies take just the form of standing armies. They are dispersed, invisible and increasingly digital
Our current legal definition is obsolete, a relic from 1949’s Geneva Convention. No longer do our enemies take just the form of standing armies. They are dispersed, invisible and increasingly digital. They are autonomous ships, sailing under flags of convenience to trade on behalf of our enemies. Expanding the legal definition of conflict to include third party sanction evasion and digital subversion would empower the state to freeze assets and embargo actors that are linked to antagonistic states.
But as we get tougher, we must not forget the rule of law. It’s not enough that those proven innocent and removed from our sanctions list only receive back their frozen assets on an ad hoc basis. We need credible ‘off-ramp’ mechanisms, not just to protect the property rights of citizens but also to incentivise good behaviour. If our sanctions are unfair to genuinely law-abiding citizens, then we can’t expect them to effectively ‘deter, disrupt and demonstrate’. The law needs to keep up with the times to keep us safe, but we mustn’t lose our rule of law in the process.
Vigilante hackers and rogue merchant vessels are putting Britain on the back foot, while our opponents run rings around our current sanctions list. A broader legal definition of conflict would give Britain the flexibility to catch these rogue actors and keep Britain secure in the contemporary theatre of 21st century conflict. Our enemies have gone digital – so too must we.
Robert Buckland is a former lord chancellor and justice secretary