SANCTIONS: MAGNITSKY LEGISLATION AND TACKLING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
R&C: Could you provide an insight into the major trends in human rights violations around the world? Are there any consistent or increasing themes?
Lee: 2020 has been a tumultuous year for many reasons. On the human rights front, there have been a number of prominent clashes between pro-democracy demonstrators and state police forces. These confrontations appear to be continuing unabated, even in the context of COVID-19, as domestic unrest in several countries has led to widespread violence and government crackdowns. From protests against mainland China’s extradition authorities in Hong Kong to demonstrations over a disputed presidential election in Belarus, these headline-grabbing events have often shut down cities for weeks on end. Interestingly, such conflicts have also occurred on longstanding geopolitical fault lines, leaving the US and its allies to contemplate which foreign policy tools, including sanctions, should be leveraged in response.
R&C: How would you summarise recent developments in Magnitsky legislation to curb human rights abuses? To what extent are such endeavours proving to be effective?
Lee: The Global Magnitsky Act has emerged as a favourite tool of the Trump administration in recent years. In 2019, the White House designated 97 individuals and entities under the Act, almost doubling the 49 designations from the previous year. With the increased volume of such actions has also come an increasingly flexible approach to their use. For example, in 2018, the administration designated several individuals from Saudi Arabia for their role in the killing of journalist Jamaal Kashoggi, while the following year it used the same authority to sanction a Latvian oligarch involved in public corruption, money laundering and abuse of office. Other examples abound involving a range of underlying conduct.
Oct-Dec 2020 Issue
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP