This paper sketches out a normal analysis of unilateral sanctions. This consists of three steps: first, whether the sanctions measures are authorised or prohibited or not as unilateral sanctions, or as a course of conduct under a different name; second, whether they may be legitimately couched as another kind of lawful action, almost or apparently as a kind of “defence”; and third, whether unilateral sanctions in any category are prohibited or not collaterally by some special legal regimes. In each step, there is a question of kind as well as a question of degree. The jurisdictional regime may be of importance in the analysis. Sometimes the assertion of the so-called long-arm jurisdiction to justify a measure is so weak and so oppressive at once that it is better called “strong-arm jurisdiction”. In any event, a possible jurisdictional justification does not for this reason alone make a sanctions measure lawful. In each step of the analysis, the real intent behind the measure at issue settles the question of “kind” and should be carefully identified. The particular real intent, which is unique, qualifies that act as a unique international act. This would debunk the argument that the intent involved in a sanctions measure also “could be” the one required for treating it as a lawful measure. If, for the sake of argument, two different kinds of intent are present in a measure so that the measure can be qualified as, for example, a countermeasure by the imposing State and, at the same time, as unlawful intervention in the sovereign affairs of the target State, there may exist a conflict of norms to be resolved. Ultimately, of great importance is the level of scrutiny or standard of review that a decision-maker would apply to the assessment of intent.

中文翻译：

---

单边制裁：种类和程度；长臂和强臂管辖；真实意图和“可能”意图

本文概述了对单边制裁的常规分析。这包括三个步骤：首先，制裁措施是否被授权或禁止作为单方面制裁，或作为不同名称的行为过程；其次，它们是否可以被合法地表述为另一种合法行为，几乎或显然是一种“辩护”；第三，某些特殊法律制度是否禁止任何类别的单边制裁。每一步都有种类问题和程度问题。管辖权制度在分析中可能很重要。有时，为了证明某项措施的正当性而主张所谓的长臂管辖权是如此的软弱和压迫性如此之强，以至于最好将其称为“强臂管辖权”。在任何情况下，仅仅因为这个原因，可能的管辖权理由并不能使制裁措施合法化。在分析的每一步中，相关措施背后的真正意图解决了“善意”的问题，应该仔细识别。独特的特定真实意图使该行为成为独特的国际行为。这将驳斥这样一种论点，即制裁措施所涉及的意图也“可能”是将其视为合法措施所需的意图。如果为了论证的目的，在一项措施中存在两种不同的意图，从而该措施可以被定性为，例如，强加国的反措施，同时又被定性为对主权事务的非法干预目标国，可能存在需要解决的规范冲突。最终，