Keywords
sanctions
reparations
frozen assets
confiscation
sovereign immunity
international responsibility
compensation for losses
How to Cite
Abstract
Russian armed aggression against Ukraine has caused large-scale human, economic and environmental losses, placing the issue of compensation for damages at the center of international legal discourse. One of the key directions in the search for reparations mechanisms is the possibility of confiscating frozen assets of the aggressor state as a source of compensation. The purpose of the study is to clarify the legal nature, prerequisites and limitations of the application of confiscation of state and private assets of the Russian Federation in the context of international law, as well as to analyze the international experience of implementing such sanctions. The work is based on a combination of methods of comparative legal analysis, a systemic approach and international legal interpretation. The source base was the acts of the UN, EU, G7, the legislation of the USA, Canada, Great Britain, judicial practice and analytical materials of international institutions. It is established that asset freezing is a form of coercive financial restriction that blocks the use of the property of the offending state to maintain international law and order. The experience of leading democracies (Canada, the USA, the UK, Italy) demonstrates the effectiveness of sanctions regimes, but reveals systemic problems of coordination between authorities, duplication of procedures and legal conflicts between sanctions and criminal proceedings. The analysis showed that the transition from freezing to full-fledged confiscation is complicated by the principle of sovereign immunity of state assets, high standards of proof of the illegal origin of property, as well as the lack of unified international procedures. It is emphasized that without the creation of a special international compensation mechanism, the direct seizure of Russian assets may entail political and economic risks - in particular, undermining confidence in the global financial system and foreign exchange reserves. At the same time, some states, in particular Canada, have initiated new legal instruments that potentially allow the confiscation of sanctioned property in the interests of Ukraine. Confiscation of frozen assets of the aggressor state is a promising, but legally complex instrument for compensation for losses. Its effectiveness is limited by the validity of international principles of immunity, the fragmentation of legal regulation and risks to global financial stability. For Ukraine, it is advisable to create a single coordination center, adopt special legislation and initiate an international legal mechanism that will combine sanctions, civil law and criminal law instruments. Only a coordinated approach of the international community can ensure fair compensation for the damage caused by aggression and strengthen the system of international legal order.
References
1. Fassbender, B. (2006). Targeted sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and due process rights: A study commissioned by the UN Office of Legal Affairs. United Nations. https://www.un.org/law/counsel/Fassbender_study.pdf
2. Talmon, S. (2003). The duty not to “recognize as lawful” a situation created by the illegal use of force or other serious breaches of a jus cogens obligation: An obligation without real substance? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/52.1.99
3. Rosenfeld, F. (2010). Collective reparation for victims of armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(879), 731–758. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383110000494
4. Brunk, I. W. (2023). Central bank immunity, sanctions, and sovereign wealth funds. The George Washington Law Review, 91(6), 1616–1658. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1401
5. Marxsen, C. (2018). Unpacking the international law on reparation for victims of armed conflict. Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 78(3), 521–540. https://www.zaoerv.de/78_2018/78_2018_3_a_521_540.pdf
6. Hovell, D. (2016). The power of process: The value of due process in Security Council sanctions decision-making. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717676.001.0001
7. Damrosch, L. F. (2011). Changing the international law of sovereign immunity through national decisions. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 44(5), 1185–1218. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3279
8. Ryngaert, C. (2013). Embassy bank accounts and state immunity from execution: Doing justice to the financial interests of creditors. Leiden Journal of International Law, 26(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000659
9. Hathaway, O. A., Mills, M. M., & Poston, T. M. (2024). War reparations: The case for countermeasures. Stanford Law Review, 76(5), 971–1050. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/war-reparations-the-case-for-countermeasures/
10. Zelmenis, J. (2023). Legal basis of sanctions against Russia and asset confiscation. Socrates, 27(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4548945
11. International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries. United Nations. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf
12. Zadorozhnii, O. V. (2015). Normatyvnyi zmist pryntsypu dobrosovisnoho vykonannia mizhnarodnykh zoboviazan u suchasnomu mizhnarodnomu pravi [Normative content of the principle of good faith in fulfilling international obligations in contemporary international law]. Pravo i Suspilstvo, (4), 13–21. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Pis_2015_4%284%29__5 (in Ukraine)
13. Butkevych, O. V. (2010). Mizhnarodne pravo KhKhI st.: Utverdzhennia kontseptsii “zhyvoho prava” [International law in the 21st century: Establishing the concept of “living law”]. Almanakh Mizhnarodnoho Prava, (2), 37–47. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/amp_2010_2_6 (in Ukraine)
14. Povernennia aktyviv: Mizhnarodne pravo ta dvostoronne spivrobitnytstvo [Asset recovery: International law and bilateral cooperation]. (2023, February 6). Yurydychna Praktyka. https://pravo.ua/povernennia-aktyviv-mizhnarodne-pravo-ta-dvostoronnie-spivrobitnytstvo/ (in Ukraine)
15. Khoma, N. (2025). Zamorozhennia ta konfiskatsiia aktyviv yak instrumenty mizhnarodnoho tysku na derzhavy-ahresory [Freezing and confiscation of assets as instruments of international pressure on aggressor states]. Istoryko-Politychni Problemy Suchasnoho Svitu, (51), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.31861/mhpi2025.51.46-58 (in Ukraine)
16. Zakharov, S. V. (2025). Prymusove vyluchennia aktyviv derzhavy-ahresora: Vid teorii do pravozastosovnoi praktyky [Forced seizure of aggressor state assets: From theory to legal practice]. Ekonomichna Teoriia ta Pravo, 2(61), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.31359/2411-5584-2025-61-2-119 (in Ukraine)
17. Yakovyuk, I. V., & Turenko, A. Y. (2023). Konfiskatsiia rosiiskykh aktyviv dlia vidnovlennia Ukrainy: Pravovi problemy realizatsii [Confiscation of Russian assets for Ukraine’s recovery: Legal challenges of implementation]. Problemy Zakonnosti, (161), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.161.277365 (in Ukraine)
18. Konfiskatsiia rosiiskykh aktyviv: Yurydychni, pravozakhysni ta politychni obmezhennia [Confiscation of Russian assets: Legal, human rights, and political constraints]. (2024, November 3). Ukrinform. https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-economy/4066729-konfiskacia-rosijskih-aktiviv-uridicni-pravozahisni-ta-politicni-obmezenna.html (in Ukraine)
19. Khutor, T., Karnaukh, B., Klymosiuk, A., & Riabchenko, T. (2023). 4 sposoby, yak rosiiski hroshi mozhut posluzhyty vidshkoduvanniu shkody, zavdanoi viinoiu [Four ways Russian funds can be used to compensate for war-related damages]. Institute of Legislative Ideas. https://www.ili.org.ua/news/4-sposoby-yak-rosiyski-groshi-mozhut-posluzhyty-vidshkoduvannyu-shkody-zavdanoyi-viynoyu (in Ukraine)
20. Criddle, E. J. (2013). Humanitarian financial intervention. European Journal of International Law, 24(2), 583–615. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/cht037
21. Hadjiemmanuil, C. (2024). Economic and financial sanctions in international law: Nature, sources, and reviewability. In C. Zilioli, R. Bismuth, & L. Thévenoz (Eds.), International sanctions: Monetary and financial law perspectives (pp. 1–30). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4774929
22. Körtl, C., & Chbib, I. (2024). Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime’s ability to confiscate proceeds of crime. International Review of Law and Economics, (80), 106230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106230
23. Helfer, L. R., Rose, C., & Brewster, R. (2023). Flexible institution building in the international anti-corruption regime: Proposing a transnational asset recovery mechanism. American Journal of International Law, 117(4), 559–600. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2023.32
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Nazarii Pynda