Perfect overview on economic sanctions made by Marian Dent from Pericles including: types of sanctions; percentage of sanctions per country/entity since WW1; chronology of sanctions against USSR/Russia with success score; most common purposes of sanctions; success and economic effects of sanctions; US sanctions theory and primary state agencies involved; sanctions lists; Ukraine related sanctions with chronology from both the US and the EU; current US sanctions; sanctions' basics; current EU sanctions; differences between US & EU sanctions

1. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS INTRODUCTION
1 By Marian Dent, ANO Pericles © 2014

2. TYPES OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
EXPORT CONTROLS
Preferred by U.S.
IMPORT BANS
Preferred by Russia
IMPEDING FINANCIAL FLOWS
Easiest and most effective for US & EU
ASSET FREEZES & SEIZURES
OTHER‐TRAVEL BANS, CULTURAL SANCTIONS,
CUTTING OFF AID 2

3. PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
PER COUNTRY/ENTITY
A i tl Approximately 215 215‐220 220I iti Impositions of
f
Other
Economic Sanctions Since WW1
11%
Arab United Nations
12%
United States
53%
EU
UK (separately from
EU)
3%
League
4%
USSR/Russia
10%
7%
3

4. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST USSR/RUSSIA
Dates * Country Reason Success Score Cost to Sender
1918‐1920 United Kingdom Destabilize the Bolshevik regime 2 4.1
1925‐1931 UK, US, Austria and d ld b k d ????
France
Stopped accepting Soviet gold backed coins. 1933 United Kingdom To gain release of two British citizens held by
Stalin ‐‐ Russian Goods (Import Prohibition)
A t f 1933
12 .02
Act of 1948‐1994 COCOM (US, EU, Japan,
Australia)
Impair military potential 6 .02
1975‐1994 U.S. Freer emigration—Jackson Vanik 8 .01
1978‐1980 U.S. Human Rights-Dissident repression 2 .003
1980‐1981 U.S. Military Adventure Impairment--Invasion of
Afghanistan
2 .04
1981‐1982 U.S. Military Adventure Impairment—Poland 1 .03
1983 U.S. KAL 007 shooting down 2 0
1991 U.S. Communist Coup 8 0
2014 US, EU, Canada Ukraine ??? ???
4
*Chart taken from statistic compiled by the Peterson Institute for International Economics and updated to 20014.

5. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BY USSR/RUSSIA
Dates * Country Reason Success
Score
Cost to Sender
1948‐1955 Yugoslavia Destabilize Tito government 1 ‐2.5
1948‐1949 France, UK, US Berlin blockade 2 .1
1954 Australia Embargo on wool. Repatriate Soviet defector 2 .5
1958‐59 Finland Cease deal with EEC, Adopt pro-USSR policies 16 1.1
1960‐1970 China Military impairment 4 .5
1961‐1965 Albania Destabilize Hoxha 1 .6
1962‐1963 Romania Limit economic independence 2 0
1990 Lithuania Revoke Independence Declaration 6 1.5
1991‐1995 Turkmenistan Human rights for Russians 12 19.8
1992‐1999 Estonia Human rights for Russians 4 1
1992‐1998 Latvia Human rights for Russians 4 1
1993‐1997 Ukraine Control over Black Sea fleet, nuclear weapons 6 7.1
1993‐1996 Kazakhstan Independence issues, energy resources 9 4.6
2006‐2013 Georgia (wine) Abkhasia , S Osetia, & withdrawal from CIS
2009 Byelorus (dairy) Prevent dairy standard deal with EU
2013 Moldova (wine) Prevent free trade deal with EU
2014 EU, US, (agriculture) Retaliation for West’s Ukraine Sanctions ???? ????
5
*Chart taken from statistic compiled by the Peterson Institute for International Economics and updated to 20014.

6. PURPOSES OF SANCTIONS
Purposes of Sanctions Regime Change
5%
Policy Changes (Anti‐drug,
Anti‐terrorist Pro‐HR)
6%
10% 41%
Anti terrorist, Pro Impairing Military Potential
(General Tech, Anti‐Nuke,
16%
Anti‐WMD)
Disrupting Military
"Adventurism"
22% Compensation (torts, anti‐expropriations)
PR Reasons (express moral
outrage, satisfy domestic
constituencies)
6

7. SUCCESS OF SANCTIONS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Unsuccessful
Successful
7

8. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
Amount of World Exports compared to World Exports
Subject to Economic Sanctions
8000
S
6000
4000
2000
illion $ US
0
In Bi
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
World Trade 65 125 300 1880 3330 6375
Sanctions 1.09 1.74 2.44 6.81 28.9 27.21
8

9. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
Amount of Gross World Product compared to World
Exports, compared to World Exports Subject to Economic
Sanctions
US
60000
40000
20000
Billion $ U
0
In B
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
World Trade 65 125 300 1880 3330 6375
Sanctions 1.09 1.74 2.44 6.81 28.9 27.21
GWP 4000 6855 12137 18818 27539 41106
9

10. US SANCTIONS THEORY
EITHER THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS CAN
ENACT SANCTIONS.
PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY UNDER
UNPA (United Nations Participation Act)
1917 TWEA (Trading with the Enemies
Act) (eg: Cuba Sanctions)
1977 IEEPA (International Emergency
Economic Powers Act) (Russia) 50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.
1976 NEA (National Emergencies Act) (re
termination) 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq 10

11. US SANCTIONS THEORY CONT.
Types of
Sanctions Based on
Targeted
Transactions Lists
Blocking Countries
Vesting
11

12. US SANCTIONS THEORY CONT.
JURISDICTION – POSSIBLE TO THE EXTENT OF
MINIMUM CONTACTS.
SCOPE OF A SANCTION
Specified Prohibited Actions
Actions That Cause or Facilitate Prohibited
Actions
• Employers watch out!
• Lawyers and Finance People watch out!
Conspiracies to Commit Prohibited Actions
MENS REA « KNOWING OR SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN » 12

13. PRIMARY AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
31 C.F.R. Chapter V.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
(DDTC)
13

14. THE VARIOUS LISTS
• Specially Designated Nationals (SDN)
• Sectoral Sanctions Identification ( SSI) OFAC )
• Denied Persons List (DPL)
• Entity List (EL)
• Unverified List ( UVL) BIS )
• Uses BIS Lists or functions by country
• Arms Export Control Act
• ITAR (Int’l Trafficking in Arms Regs) DDTS
14

15. THE CURRENT UKRAINE RELATED SANCTIONS ON
RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS & ENTITIES
15

16. FOUR PRONGS
BLOCKING SANCTIONS (OFAC)
Specially Designated Nationals (SDN List)
FINANCIAL/SECTORAL SANCTIONS (OFAC)
SSI List (Credit Restriction Only)
EXPORT CONTROLS (BIS)
Denied Persons List, Entity List, Unverified List
ARMS CONTROLS (DDTS & BIS)
Uses BIS Lists
16

17. Sanctions Chronology
United States European Union
 March 6 E.O. 13660
 March 16 E O 13661
 March 17 Council Decision
2014/145/CFSP & Reg. 269/2014 E.O.  3/21, 4/28, 5/28‐ adds people
 June 23 D 386 , CR 692‐ Cr. goods officials, co s.)
 March 20 E.O. 13662 (SSI)
 April 28 (7 officials 17 co’s )
 July 29 Joint US/EU Ann’cem’t
 July 30‐31 & 2, SSI  May 8, 31 CFR 589
 July 16 Directives 1 2 List
 July 29 Joint US/EU Ann’cem’t
 Aug 13 OFAC Guidance (50%)
 Annex I to CR 428/2009 (dual use)
 CR 833/2014 (finance sanctions)
13‐ / h l )
 Sept 12 Amend Directive 1
 Directives Annex 2 to CR 833/2014 ( shale etc)
 CR 825/2014 (Crimea investment)
3 and 4
 CR 826/2014 (more officials)
 General License 1(a)
 Sept 17 Amend EAR 744.21
 Sept 8 Decision 2014/658‐9/CFSP
&CR 959‐961/2014, & Amendmt
to CR 428/2009
 Coming Soon‐‐Guidance 17

18. CURRENT US SANCTIONS
3 EXECUTIVE ORDERS
REGULATIONS IN TITLE 31 OF THE CFR,
4 OFAC‐DIRECTIVES,
2 OFAC‐GENERAL LICENSES,
46 OFAC‐Q’S & A’S RELATING TO ONE OF THE EOS
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT’S EAR
18

19. REMINDER OF SANCTIONS BASICS
WHO MUST COMPLY?
See definition of US person EO 13660 Sec. 6 (c)
WHO IS A TARGET?
Look at the applicable lists
Worry about the 50% rule
WHAT TRANSACTIONS ARE AFFECTED?
Also look at the applicable lists
+ contrib’’s, funds, goods services by ,to, or for ben. of
+ transaction for purpose of evading
+ conspiracy
19

20. CURRENT EU SANCTIONS
13COUNCIL DECISIONS, 17 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING
REGULATIONS
INDIVIDUAL EU STATES CAN IMPLEMENT THE
SANCTIONS IN SLIGHT DIFFERENT WAYS
EU’S SANCTIONS SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL TO THE
U.S. SANCTIONS
THE SANCTIONS OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE ISSUED ARE
NOT PARALLEL EITHER.
20

21. Some US EU Differences
United States
 Lists differ—Sanctions more
European Union
differ  Sanctions more businessmen & businesses,
and different goods
government
officials and military
 Certain individuals in Crimea
 50% rule differs—
 Entire Crimea is prohibited
 in possession of over 50% or
 owns directly or indirectly.
 50% not OK
p
in position to exercise
dominant influence
 Scope of SDN differs‐‐Must
have a license to collect on
such contracts it’s
 Allow collection from SDNs
of payments on contracts
contracts, although it s t d i t d f d
likely to be granted
 Sunset—under NEA –one
entered into and performed
before sanctions
Sunset  Sunset as stated in year unless continued by Pres
each
Council Decision 21

22. THE END
22