Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 28
28
Accepted
Apply sanctions to individuals for clear IHL breaches, with sufficient resources and evidence.
Recommendation
The Government must use its power to sanction individuals in response to clear breaches of IHL, such as unlawful killings of aid workers and restrictions on humanitarian aid and assistance. To do this the Government 52 must make sure that the Sanctions Team is sufficiently resourced and that the evidence threshold is set appropriately. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees, stating it already uses its sanctions powers to encourage compliance with IHL, providing examples of recent sanctions. It also notes that the FCDO continues to assess resourcing requirements for the Sanctions Directorate and that the evidential threshold for designations is set appropriately.
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.