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

Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, as common instruments in modern international relations, face numerous theoretical and normative controversies under contemporary international law. Nevertheless, the political jurisprudence offers an independent and distinct framework for analyzing the legitimacy of this instrument. The present study addresses the central question of "the status and scope of sanctions in Shi'i political jurisprudence" and answers this question: What are the principles and criteria governing the imposition of sanctions by the Islamic state?

This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, drawing upon Shi'i jurisprudential sources. The findings indicate that Shi'i political jurisprudence identifies four categories of sanctions: (a) sanctions on economic and commercial relations that facilitate foreign domination, (b) embargoes on arms and military equipment, (c) the permissibility of seizing the assets of hostile states as a countermeasure, and (d) sanctions on dominance-based political relations.

These rulings not only affirm the legitimacy of sanctions but may also render their implementation a religious obligation under certain circumstances. However, the research demonstrates that the application of sanctions within this jurisprudential tradition is conditional upon the observance of principles such as proportionality, the distinction between hostile states and civilian populations, and the preservation of humanitarian exemptions (such as access to food and medicine). The study concludes that Shi'i political jurisprudence, while recognizing sanctions as a legitimate instrument in foreign policy, subjects them to ethical, legal, and humanitarian. By providing a systematic account of how a legal-theological tradition engages with sanctions, this article contributes to the growing literature on religion and international relations.