Abstract This article examines the human rights impacts of counter-terrorism sanctions on third parties, with a novel focus on the dependent family members of sanctioned individuals. Employing a comparative analysis of public international law and European Union (EU) law, it highlights an underexplored dimension of sanctions regimes: the individual effects of asset freezes on family members, rather than on the sanctioned individuals themselves. While asset freezes are intended to disrupt terrorist financing, they often exacerbate humanitarian crises and may conflict with international legal norms, as seen in contexts such as Afghanistan and Gaza. In response, both the EU and the United Nations have introduced humanitarian carve-outs to facilitate aid delivery. This article’s original comparative analysis shows that only the EU includes family exemptions, reflecting a unique legal recognition of the specific vulnerabilities faced by relatives of sanctioned individuals. Despite this progress, implementation of these exemptions remains inconsistent across sanctions regimes. Through an in-depth fundamental rights analysis, the article argues for harmonising family-related exemptions in EU sanctions and establishing an independent right for family members to seek the unfreezing of essential funds. By comparing family members with the broader population affected by sanctions, the article emphasises the need to balance security goals with fundamental rights protections. Advocating for individual review procedures, the article highlights how a rights-based approach can mitigate risks of resource diversion while safeguarding humanitarian needs. This research contributes to broader discussions on international sanctions and their social consequences, demonstrating that human rights concerns linked to asset freezes extend to other international security measures.
Wiater et al. (Thu,) studied this question.