Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 27
27
Accepted
Utilise existing sanctions powers to ensure greater respect for international humanitarian law.
Recommendation
In addition to legal mechanisms, the Government must use its powers to make sanctions a tool for ensuring respect for IHL. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 provides the Government with the power to make sanctions for the purpose of promoting compliance with IHL. (Conclusion, Paragraph 58)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees, stating it already uses its extensive sanctions powers to encourage compliance with IHL, citing specific examples of sanctions against individuals in Sudan, South Sudan, and Myanmar in 2025 and 2024.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
Agree 63. The UK Government uses its extensive sanctions powers to encourage compliance with IHL, including in response to serious violations. This includes where there have been unlawful killings of aid workers and restrictions on humanitarian aid and assistance. For example, in March 2025, the UK, in coordination with the US, sanctioned two individuals for their roles in the unlawful targeting of aid workers and civilians in Sudan and South Sudan. In December 2024, the UK also sanctioned five individuals for their involvement in serious human rights violations in connection to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. 64. The UK has a dedicated Sanctions Directorate in the FCDO and works closely with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury to deliver its sanctions policy. The FCDO continues to assess resourcing requirements across its functions. 65. The evidential threshold for sanctions designations is set appropriately, and it is vital that this is met, so that the designations are legally sound and can be robustly defended against legal challenge. It is the responsibility of those proposing designations to ensure they provide all relevant, credible evidence. This means there is no “setting” of the evidential threshold for designations, but rather a consistent requirement that the legal standard is met for each designation.