New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

the issue remains unresolved for now. Our view is that EU restrictive measures as such do not impinge on immunity law as there is essentially no connection whatsoever to court proceedings. By contrast, if the assets were to be seized, this would inevitably involve court proceedings, since this is legally required under European human rights law and therefore, immunities must be respected. 550 3. Implications of New Technologies/Digitalization for Sanctions Law In this part, we discuss the implication of digitalization and new technologies for the international legal field. The fast-paced developments of in the technological sphere make it rather difficult to explain all the possible consequences and even the adoption of proper legislative framework is not without difficulties. Nonetheless, several repercussions for the field of sanctions law and international law more generally (we shall focus on the former) could be identified. Let us start with the contention that by and large, sanctions are imposed by more powerful states, having the economic, political, administrative etc. capacity to adopt such measures. That is the reason why sanctions are perceived rather critically in the Global South and by scholars associated with TWAIL or other critical approaches, characterising sanctions as an imperial tool, a tool against the weak. 551 Cyber sanctions, as a reaction to the growing number of malicious cyber-attacks, extend the already mentioned extensive list of sanctions and could further entrench inequalities between states. This is the gist of the argument put forward by Dana Burchardt. Let us discuss it in more detail. First, the establishment of cyber sanctions legal framework is the domain of just a few states with the capacity (technical, administrative, legal, etc.), necessary resources and expertise. Currently, such legislative framework was enacted, for instance by US, EU, UK. Consequently, these states are in a privileged position, being the “norm/standard setters”. This then creates the basis for other imbalances, i. e. these states will have the power to create and shape state practice regarding cyber sanctions. Furthermore, the very same dynamic is pertinent in contentious issues related to sanctions. For instance, in the context of attribution, factual assessments must be made, presupposing sufficient technical capabilities and expertise before any application of legal rules actually comes into consideration. Thus, the development of international rules concerning state responsibility (which is often connected with sanctions since these can be justified as countermeasures) is mostly in the hands of powerful states or group of states, e.g. the EU. 552 Moreover, these possible imbalances/inequalities in regard to technical capabilities and attribution in general also exist among the EU countries as such. 550 Brunk I, ‘Central Bank Immunity, Sanctions, and Sovereign Wealth Funds’ (2023) 91 George Washington Law Review 1616. 551 See e.g., ‘Symposium: Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) & Economic Sanctions’ ( Yale Journal of International Law , 20 September 2020) accessed 31 December 2023. 552 Poli S, Sommario E, ‘The Rationale and the Perils of Failing to Invoke State Responsibility for Cyber Attacks: The Case of the EU Cyber Sanctions‘ (2023) 24 German Law Journal 522.

129