Abstract

Drawing from a variety of source documents in the form of books, journals and statutes and other sources of legal authority, this article examines the effectiveness of sanctions and their impact on human rights and constitutionalism with a focus on Zimbabwe as a case study. The imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe by the United States of America (U.S) and the European Union (EU) was aimed at addressing human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe pursuant to the accelerated land reform program which saw the white minority who had acquired land originally belonging to the locals in Zimbabwe during the colonial era when Zimbabwe, then known as Rhodesia, was colonised by the British. The article attempts to draw attention to the ineffectiveness of sanctions and how they worsen the human rights problem they seek to address, thereby undermining Constitutionalism by making it impossible for the government to meet their Constitutional obligations in respect of protecting and promoting the fundamental rights accruing to their citizens. The article notes that the practice of sanctions was adopted by the United Nations Security Council as a tool to enable cooperation among states towards maintaining peace and security on the global scene. Several scholars who have canvased the topic on the effectiveness of sanctions and have highlighted their negative effects on human rights. However there has not been sufficient debate addressing the indirect impact of sanctions on constitutionalism, as well as the misalignment created in the international law discipline in relation to human rights protection as enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the practice of sanctions, as well as the trickling down impact on constitutionalism as a sub-sphere of international law. By highlighting this misalignment in international law and the practice of sanctions, the article proposes or suggests a review of the practice and an amendment of the policy on sanctions.

Keywords