The writer is assistant professor of history at Cornell University and author of ‘The Economic Weapon: the rise of sanctions as a tool of modern war’The western campaign of economic pressure against Russia is broaching a new domain: sovereign asset seizure. By March 2022, the US and EU had frozen roughly $300bn in Russian central bank reserves to retaliate against Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Now G7 countries are debating whether to confiscate this property.
In a recent discussion paper, the US government supports confiscation as a “countermeasure” for states “injured” and “specially affected” by Russia’s war. This claim invokes the international legal doctrine of reprisals: when a state inflicts harm on another, for example by violating its territory, the injured party can undertake proportional countermeasures against the wrongdoer. Reprisals are meant to compel respect with the law.
Continued western aid to Ukraine is morally, legally and strategically urgent. Yet as a justification for confiscating Russian state assets, the reprisals argument has three problems: it lacks compellent effect, it is being invoked by the wrong parties and it undermines the rules-based order western governments claim to defend.