Legal/Illegal
Abstract
In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 22 February 2022, the European Union (EU) and states such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America froze assets of the Russian central bank held in their jurisdictions. The sanctions fit in a longer pattern of states freezing assets of foreign central banks, which has been criticized by several states to be incompatible with the law of state immunity. The criticism on these types of sanctions raises the question whether freezing assets of Russia’s central bank complies with the law of state immunity. This article answers this question by investigating whether the law of state immunity is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or if it also applies in the context of executive action. Considering that the law of state immunity also applies to executive action, these sanctioning states (and the EU) violated Russia’s state immunity by freezing assets of Russia’s central bank. These sanctions, however, could be justified as (third party) countermeasures in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.