The Responsibilities of the Islamic state in Imposing Sanctions on a Hostile State: A Jurisprudential Analysis

While unilateral and multilateral sanctions remain controversial under international law, political jurisprudence provides a distinct framework for analyzing their legitimacy. This study investigates the status and scope of sanctions in Shi’i political jurisprudence, specifically identifying the principles governing their imposition by an Islamic state. Employing a descriptive-analytical method based on Shi’i jurisprudential sources, the research categorizes sanctions into four types: (a) restrictions on economic relations facilitating foreign domination, (b) arms and military embargoes, © the seizure of hostile state assets as countermeasures, and (d) sanctions on dominance-based political relations. Findings indicate that these measures are not only legitimate but may become a religious obligation under specific conditions. However, their application is strictly conditional upon principles of proportionality, the distinction between combatants and civilians, and the preservation of humanitarian exemptions (e.g., food and medicine). The study concludes that Shi’i political jurisprudence recognizes sanctions as a legitimate foreign policy tool, provided they remain bound by ethical, legal, and humanitarian constraints.