On November 7, 2025, the ninth joint workshop of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) and the Federal Foreign Office (AA) was held in Berlin. The event was organised by the Institute's Berlin Office in cooperation with the AA's Legal Department (Division 500), and curated by Alexandra Kemmerer in cooperation with Leon Muthunayake (AA). For the first time, the event was held on the premises of the Federal Foreign Office, with 36 scholars and practitioners gathering in the Rathenau Hall, including representatives from the AA, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV), the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Homeland (BMI), the Federal Ministry of Defense (BMVg), and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).
Co-chaired by Anne Peters (MPIL) and Tania von Uslar, Head of the Legal Department of the Federal Foreign Office and Legal Adviser to the German Government, the workshop addressed key issues relating to the classification of sanctions under international law and their limitations, particularly in the context of the tension between retaliation, countermeasures, and so-called “unilateral coercive measures”.
From the perspective of EU practice, sanctions are generally not considered countermeasures under international law, but rather permissible retaliatory measures. However, this view is questioned in particular by opponents of sanctions in the United Nations, who criticize sanctions as impermissible unilateral coercive measures and as an intervention in the internal affairs of states that violates international law. Against this background, the participants discussed whether and under what conditions the international legal concept of collective countermeasures can be invoked.
After a joint lunch buffet at the International Club at the AA, Anne Peters opened the substantive part of the workshop with a keynote presentation. In her comments, Wiebke Rückert, Director for International Law at the Federal Foreign Office, highlighted the different perspectives and practical challenges involved in dealing with the legal concept of countermeasures.
Valentin von Stosch (MPIL) then presented the first case study, on EU sanctions against Russia, with a particular focus on the European Union's 19th package of sanctions. Monika Meents (AA) commented from the perspective of international law practice. The subsequent discussion focused on the question of when sanctions constitute retaliatory measures that are a priori consistent with international law and when they are to be classified as reprisals or countermeasures in the narrower legal sense that require justification. The admissibility of collective countermeasures and the problem of secondary sanctions, i.e., measures that do not directly affect the sanctioned state but rather third countries or their companies that continue to maintain economic relations with it, were discussed. Another focus was on the question of whether Russian state assets located abroad could not only be frozen but also confiscated or used in other ways. The freezing of the Russian Central Bank's assets blocks the enforcement of its payment claims but does not affect their legal validity. Against this background, it was discussed whether sovereign access to the assets of banks whose balance sheets show the frozen claims of the Russian Central Bank, secured by state or European guarantees, would qualify as a countermeasure under international law, provided that the existence of the payment claims themselves remains unaffected. The political and legal limits of such an approach were discussed, particularly with regard to state immunity, EU fundamental rights, and investment protection law.
In the second part of the workshop, Leonie Brassat (MPIL) opened the discussion on US sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) with a presentation on this second case study, which was commented on by Lukas Wasielewski (AA) from a practical perspective. This was based on the current US sanctions against the ICC, justified by the claim that the Court exceeds its jurisdiction over non-signatory states, for example by issuing arrest warrants against high-ranking officials. The US sanctions in question include the listing of judges, prosecutors, and other persons associated with the ICC. The question discussed was whether these sanctions could be considered permissible countermeasures under international law or whether they exceeded the limits of the exercise of national jurisdiction. Particular consideration was also given to possible chilling effects on the independent exercise of international criminal jurisdiction.
Report: Chiara Rimkus
