European Union’s Quest for Digital Sovereignty: Policy Continuations and Strategy Innovations

Vučić, Mihajlo

doi:10.18485/iipe_euchanges.2021.ch5

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like the US, the EU is wary of pursuing Russian sovereign assets. The concerns about the role of the euro as a reserve currency are not as important as in the US with the dollar, but I have noted previously that the EU officials are keen to maintain the moral high ground and avoid distorting international law to fit their foreign-policy objectives the way authoritarian states do (Vučić 2021). Their bottom line is to ensure that any EU legal framework for seizure can withstand a legal challenge by the Russian state.…”

Section: Proposal To Confiscate Russian Sovereign Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illegal Aspects of the Proposed Seizure of Russian Central Bank Assets

Vučić

2024

Global Security and International Relations After the Escalation of the Ukrainian Crisis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conflict in Ukraine has brought about destruction and casualties on an immense scale for this state. Its allies in the western world have identified Russia as the aggressor state and therefore responsible for paying reparations for these damages. The freezing of Russian central bank assets held in western states offers an opportunity to enforce the obligation to pay reparations. This article is focused on the legal issues related to the possible confiscation of frozen assets. It starts from the hypothesis that although international law does not treat the issue of foreign state property directly, it is nevertheless protected from confiscation by the rules on sovereign immunity, investment protection, and non-interference. The author explores the legal arguments and proposals put forward by western officials and doctrinal proponents of confiscation and puts them through the test of these three rules to discern if they are legally viable. The hypothesis is developed through the content analysis of official statements and doctrinal works and deduction from established rules of international law to a specific case of seizure of a foreign central bank. The article concludes that no matter which possible model of confiscation is chosen, they are all confronted with the problem of breaching existing rules of international law. Therefore their application will inevitably result in further erosion of relations between the west and Russia, but also might create a legal basis for future litigation to recover seized assets from Russia in international forums.

show abstract

Section: Proposal To Confiscate Russian Sovereign Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%