“The worst thing you can do is not to try”

On 15 February, the German Bundestag passed a new “Act amending Criminal Offences and Penalties for Violations of European Union Restrictive Measures”, the “Sanctions Act”. Violations of sanctions were previously treated as administrative offences. From now on, at least in Germany, a person who helps a sanctioned person is guilty of an offence. Meanwhile, international protests condemning the entire sanctions regime of the European Union are mounting. The public debate was fuelled by the European Council’s imposition of sanctions on the renowned former Swiss Colonel in the General Staff and intelligence officer Jacques Baud on 15 December 2025. (Current Concerns has reported several times.) However, many other individuals are also affected. (According to its own figures, the EU has sanctioned more than 2,500 individuals and entities, more than 28 billion Euros of private assets frozen in the EU).
    It cannot be emphasised enough: Sanctions without a UN Security Council resolution are illegal. Sanctions against individuals are extra-legal, decided by the EU Council and implemented by the EU Commission. They are an arbitrary act and a stab in the back for freedom of expression, devoid of any rule of law. The consequences for those subject to sanctions: freezing/termination of bank accounts, travel ban within the EU Anyone who does business with sanctioned persons or helps them is liable to prosecution.
    Austrian author and publisher Hannes Hofbauer has just written a new book on the subject:
    “Aller Rechte beraubt – Mit aussergerichtlichen Sanktionen zum autoritären Staat” (Deprived of all rights – Towards an authoritarian state with extrajudicial sanctions). In the foreword, he writes: “The book manuscript was completed in early 2026, when seven Europeans – including two Swiss citizens – were listed: Jozef Hambalek, Alina Lipp, Thomas Röper, Hüsein Doğru, Nathalie Yamb, Xavier Moreau and Jacques Baud. It is to be feared that, in view of the anti-Russian furore among EU European leaders, these will not be the last. […] The personal sanctions imposed without legal proceedings are an expression of a state of emergency that has not yet been officially declared but which exists for the people affected; and they are a first step towards martial law. Preventing this is, in my view, a task for society as a whole.”
    Following numerous protests against the listing, work is now underway to determine the legal, political and civil society options available to put an end to the sanctions regime. Pascal Lottaz, a Swiss researcher on neutrality living in Japan, is one of those who are taking action. In his podcasts, he regularly invites experts to share their insights in order to develop an interdisciplinary picture of the legal situation and the options available for defending oneself against sanctions– in that case – of Jacques Baud. Lottaz deserves great credit for making this preparation process public and thus comprehensible to everyone All the more important considering journalist Florian Warweg’s question at the German Federal Press Conference on 19 December 2025, “Is it really the current position of the federal government to impose comprehensive sanctions on renowned military analysts such as Baud and to massively interfere with their fundamental rights simply because its disagrees with the content of their analyses of the war in Ukraine?”, the spokesperson for the Foreign Office replied: “That is what happened this Monday, it will continue to happen, it has happened in the past, and everyone working in this field must expect that it could happen to them too.” (https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/regierungspressekonferenz-2748626).
    On February 6, Lottaz published a video contribution featuring a panel of experts on the topic of «Sanctions against individuals – What can be done? ». Participants in this panel included Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Dr Alexandra Hofer (a sanctions lawyer) and Roberto Zamora (the lawyer who, in Costa Rica, brought about the country’s withdrawal from the coalition of the willing that waged war against Iraq by successfully suing Costa Rica before the Supreme Court). Both are active in the field of international law and human rights.
    Below, we publish excerpts from this expert panel discussion, which have been edited for clarity. The entire discussion and transcript can be found at: www.youtube.com/watch.

Eva-Maria Föllmer-Müller

Roberto Zamora: […] “I do see these sanctions as illegal – in the sense that there’s a lack of foundation according to EU law. But from a strictly human rights point of view, it’s very concerning. In my view, these sanctions violate quite a number of provisions regarding human rights. They’re also based on a failure to fulfil several obligations that the EU has undertaken. For instance, Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union states that the European Union must accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, something that has not been done. Nevertheless, there is case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union indicating and establishing that the application of human rights is mandatory and binding within the activities of the EU. What I see is the rise of a regime that’s tending toward absolutism – totalitarianism – in very, very concerning ways when it comes to human rights.” 

US-American and EU sanctions

Jeffrey Sachs: “From the US point of view, I think the main thing I’d say is that there’s become an absolute addiction to sanctions – on individuals, designated corporate entities, and governments – over the last 20 years, as if it were a newly discovered tool of statecraft. Especially after 9/11, the U.S. government found that sanctions were a very cheap, quick, flexible way – without any public scrutiny, congressional oversight, or need to explain – to launch economic warfare, and geopolitical warfare in general. So the personal sanctions should be seen in that US context, at least.“ […]
    So we’re in a surreal bubble on all of this, where sanctions are unconstrained tools of power – unchecked by law, unchecked by any kind of legislative oversight, unchecked by public debate. And that’s why they’re so effective, because we’re in a world of executive abuse. And these are good tools for that purpose.“

Jacques Baud

Jeffrey Sachs: “What I’d like to understand, just mechanically, about the Jacques Baud case. He’s a very serious analyst, a very distinguished individual, one of the most experienced people in the world, actually, on the question of the war in Ukraine. This is no wild-eyed bomb-thrower; this is an extraordinarily intelligent individual. […] It’s completely shocking, because Mr Baud is an extremely careful, detailed person. […] He’s Swiss, after all – with all respect. That means he’s meticulous, he’s careful, he presents evidence. So what actually has happened here?“
    […]
    Alexandra Hofer: “[…] It’s the Council of the EU, essentially, that puts them on the list. So it’s the ministers of each member state, and it has to be a unanimous decision. It’s quite possible that one member state in particular didn’t like what Mr Baud had to say – I mean, I’m just speculating. They put him on the list, and then everybody just... nobody said anything. Maybe they don’t necessarily know who Mr. Baud is. It depends, I guess, on the information they follow.” […]
    Pascal Lottaz: “This is the actual listing of Mr Jacques Baud. ‘Jacques Baud, a former Swiss Army colonel and strategic analyst, is a regular guest on pro-Russian television channels and radio programs. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and spreads conspiracy theories – for example, accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO. Therefore, Jacques Baud is considered responsible for implementing or supporting actions or policies attributed to the government of the Russian Federation, which undermine or threaten stability or security in third countries by engaging in information manipulation and interference.’ This is it. […]
    One of the main points is that these listings are executive decisions by the Council, and actually the EU court doesn’t really touch them. It only checks whether this is factually correct or not. But for the reasons the EU gives for putting them there, it defers to the Council, which is responsible for determining threats to the EU. So we are in a national security, foreign policy environment, where foreign policy is being used to go after people the state determines are enemies.”
    Jeffrey Sachs: “Well, it’s police-state tactics. It’s not anything I would have associated with the EU up until this moment, frankly, I’m rather shocked by it. I’m not as shocked by the United States, because I know we have a regime that’s a security state and does whatever it can to crush opposition at the moment. If I understood you correctly, one of the people on the list, at least, is a German citizen. In the United States so far, the sanctioning has been overwhelmingly of non-US citizens. I don’t actually know of a single case where it’s a US citizen – but I’m not standing by that as a point of information; it’s just my limited sense. But in the EU, they’re now targeting European citizens as well for sanctions on speech.”
    I thought there were norms in Europe, that something had been learned and that processes were created – and that, sorry to say it, this wouldn’t happen in Europe. I’m not naive about how bad European foreign policy is; that is very well known. But the idea that you would put people on a list in Europe for speaking out because they don’t accept the European foreign policy point of view, or because they agree with the Russian perspective on something, is amazing to me, frankly. This is not about treason or sedition. This is about speech by analysts. And again, Mr Baud – he’s an analyst. They say he’s implementing something. He’s not implementing anything. I also thought you could appear on a channel, go for an interview, discuss things around the world. I didn’t know, from the EU perspective, that there are places you can speak and places you can’t. That’s also quite amazing to me.”
    Pascal Lottaz: “It is. I mean, these are the things the EU is now – well, the thing is, they’re not criminalising it. Criminalising it would mean going through the parliamentary process and actually making a law about it. They’re just saying these acts are illegal. And even if it is propaganda, there’s no law against propaganda.”
    Jeffrey Sachs: “You’re allowed to do that. It’s like... well, it‘s worse, because this is criminalising the activity without calling it criminal, but it‘s ruining people’s lives – ruining their ability to pay for food, for health care, to move around. It’s absolutely grotesque.[…]”
    Roberto Zamora: “I think it takes a great deal of creativity and deep analysis of the extent and nature of the sanctions, because, as Professor Sachs has said, as Alexandra said in the interview she had with you, and as you’ve expressed, the sanctions limit – beyond the procedural fundamental rights that are being violated – they violate personal freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, the right to property, and freedom of movement. But there’s also one element I’m seeing: there’s no time limitation to the sanctions. I mean, nobody knows how long they’ll last. Every twelve months, as far as I understand, there’s a review process, but they can just keep it going.

Sanctions – a form of torture

In my view, this is a bit like the death row issue, where it’s been argued that some inmates spend years on death row without knowing when they’ll be executed – and that situation has been considered torture. So, when you put all the violations together, and you see that these people actually can’t eat, can’t communicate, can’t move, can’t pay rent, and have to depend on the good faith of neighbours and friends just to survive, well, it sounds to me like degrading treatment or torture. From a human rights perspective, when you put all the pieces together, the EU is torturing them. And when you analyse torture, the prohibition on torture is a rule of jus cogens – it’s at the top tier of the hierarchy of rules in international law.
    The only legal mechanism available for these people to try to challenge and get their lives back is appealing to the Court of Justice of the European Union. What I would do, or what I suggest to their legal advisors – if they have any – is not just to look at the individual infractions of international law, particularly the human rights regime, but to encapsulate them and challenge these sanctions as a form of torture. I think it would be very interesting to see how the European Court of Justice understands the sanctions if they’re framed under such a violation. I’d even suggest they go to the UN bodies in charge – the special rapporteur on torture, for instance – and file a complaint there. I mean, use every single available mechanism that the law provides, with a full understanding of what these sanctions are doing to the lives of these people beyond the specific violations.”
    […]
    Pascal Lottaz: “What kind of bodies could be used to create political pressure? I mean, let’s take the UN Security Council. It’s often ineffective because it’s blocked, but it does discuss things, and those discussions do get broadcast. Can you think of ways to use the United Nations as a means for human rights activists to draw attention to human rights abuses like this one?”

The objection of a single EU Member State is sufficient

Jeffrey Sachs: “I had a different idea that I wanted to raise, which is: if supposedly these are unanimous actions by the Council, why not target one of the 27 states to say, ‘We oppose this’? Would that be sufficient? Because there are a number of governments in Europe that are against the supposed European foreign policy – let’s just say the policy of the European Commission. […] Is that another approach? I can think of, of course, Slovakia, Spain, Hungary, and others that have been ardent opponents of the way the sanctions regime against Russia has unfolded, or the war in Ukraine has unfolded, or the Palestinian issue has unfolded. So could we target one of these governments to say, ‘Why are you complicit in this list?’ Would that work?”
    […]
    Alexandra Hofer: “Yeah, so I think Hungary, for example, sometimes threatens that with regard to the sanctions regime on Russia. So, if one of them withholds their vote, then indeed the listing is not renewed. […] I think, yeah, that might be a possible avenue. It would be more of a political route than a judicial one.”
    Jeffrey Sachs: “You know, unanimity is hard to achieve, especially when you’re doing something rotten, like what the Commission or the Council is doing. So, I would try to break that unanimity within Europe.”
    […]
    Roberto Zamora: “None of the individual members of the European Union can impose sanctions the way the Union is doing it. Because they are members of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and, you know, in their constitutions they have these obligations – that these administrative measures cannot happen without due process. So, are these states, or can this be, the domestic challenge? Are the EU states relying on an organ created by themselves to commit a fraud of law, by doing something they otherwise wouldn’t be allowed to do in their domestic jurisdiction? I mean, since I cannot do it and you cannot do it, let’s create an organisation that can then circumvent the obligations we have, so we can move forward with these illegal measures. And I think it’s a very, very interesting argument to be raised in domestic courts – that states are committing a fraud of international law by creating the EU and by doing, through the EU, things they wouldn’t be able to do domestically.”
    Pascal Lottaz: “[…] German activists I talked to argued that if even one UN member in the General Assembly created a resolution asking for a review by the UN court, the ICJ, of whether the EU’s claim that EU law takes precedence over national law is actually valid, it would have a huge impact on this issue. Do you think it’s reasonable to believe that a UN member could propose such a resolution, which might gain 50 per cent support and then lead the ICJ to review the claim that EU law overrides domestic law?”
    Jeffrey Sachs: “I think if it were narrowly put and focused on this issue, it would be possible. […] It should be possible to interest states in the question of sanctions lists, because most of the world is on the receiving end of US and European sanctions. Every year, the General Assembly votes overwhelmingly to oppose them. In fact, the ones that support sanctions are the U.S. and Europe, and the rest of the world says, ‘No, what you’re doing is wrong.’ So having something that addresses this particular issue in the General Assembly is actually feasible – that these individual sanctions are illegal, that they’re a violation of human rights, that they need to stop. That, I think, is absolutely possible.
    Asking the International Court of Justice about the EU sanctions would be feasible in that way.

An advisory opinion of the ICJ on the illegality of unilateral sanctions

I do believe the easiest path – if there is an easy path – is to go after the European Union itself. My guess is that very few governments were actively involved in sanctioning Mr. Baud. His name appeared on a list, people didn’t know who he was or what it meant, and that it was a bureaucratic procedure rather than a group of ministers saying, ‘Let’s get this Swiss analyst.’ I just find it hard to believe that this was, in that sense, so well thought out. I do believe it could have been a few people sitting in the Commission saying, ‘We can get this through, let’s do it.’ So knowing that story would be very, very interesting – but also finding a few governments that say, ‘This is not what we stand for,’ to my mind, has some promise to it.”
    Alexandra Hofer: “Every year the UN General Assembly adopts resolutions condemning unilateral sanctions. It’s interesting that there’s never, I don’t know if there’s ever actually been, a push for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on these measures. But if they did it, I think it would be better for them not to focus specifically on the EU, but on unilateral sanctions – or what they call unilateral coercive measures – in general. And then ask about, you know, the human rights impacts of these measures.”
    […]
    Roberto Zamora: “What Alexandra just said is a very wise way to move forward. That’s for the General Assembly to request the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the legality or illegality of unilateral sanctions. […] If the UN is truly a democratic body based on the principle of equality of sovereign states, then the General Assembly should also do something to vindicate that general principle of international law and push for the advisory opinion.”
    Jeffrey Sachs: “I think Alexandra should write the brief for the ICJ, and we should actually work on a resolution in the General Assembly, because the mood is very strongly against these actions – very strongly. That’s why the annual vote is overwhelmingly against unilateral coercive measures. We know they kill people, they kill children, they raise infant and child mortality, and they do terrible damage to real lives.
    Now we have these human rights abuses alongside, so it’s both at the personal level and with the economic sanctions, and the vote is annual. I think trying to move it forward – to make it clearly stated as illegal actions through an ICJ ruling – is very timely. But in the meantime, I want to go to one or more governments in Europe as well and say, ‘What are you doing? Your name is on this list supporting this.” It’s outrageous. And we’ll see how far we get with that as well.’”
    […]
    Roberto Zamora: “There are times when I really believe the worst thing you can do is not try – especially when you’re facing a regime and the full power of authoritarianism, like the people on the sanctions list are facing. I’d give a try to every single opportunity that comes to mind and doesn’t immediately sound crazy. If it makes any sense at all, I’d go for it. And then, the other thing is, yeah, the list of people might now be between 50 and 60, but we’re all under threat. I mean, it could affect Alexandra, it could affect me as a migrant in the European Union, it could affect anyone who says the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong moment – just because an administrative body decided so.” •