Legal Definitions - special reprisal

A special reprisal refers to a specific, otherwise unlawful act taken by one state against another state that has committed an internationally wrongful act. Unlike general retaliation, a special reprisal is a legally circumscribed countermeasure under international law. For such an action to be considered a legitimate "special reprisal," it must meet strict conditions:

• It must be a direct response to a prior internationally wrongful act by the target state.
• Its purpose must be to induce the target state to cease its wrongful conduct and make reparations, not simply to punish.
• It must be proportionate to the injury suffered by the initiating state.
• It must not involve the use of armed force, which is generally prohibited under international law.
• It should be reversible if possible, and attempts to resolve the dispute through peaceful means must have been exhausted or proven futile.

Here are some examples illustrating the concept of a special reprisal:

• Example 1: Trade Sanctions

  Country A unilaterally imposes tariffs on specific goods from Country B, violating a standing bilateral trade agreement. After Country B attempts to resolve the issue through diplomatic negotiations and appeals to international trade bodies without success, Country B might implement a special reprisal. This could involve temporarily suspending certain trade benefits or imposing equivalent tariffs on a specific category of goods from Country A. These actions would be carefully calibrated to be proportionate to the harm caused by Country A's initial tariffs and would be explicitly stated as a measure intended to compel Country A to comply with the original trade agreement, rather than an act of general economic warfare.

• Example 2: Diplomatic Measures

  Country X unlawfully detains a diplomat from Country Y, violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Despite repeated protests and demands for release, Country X refuses to comply. As a special reprisal, Country Y might then expel a comparable number of non-essential diplomatic staff from Country X, or downgrade the level of diplomatic representation between the two countries. These actions would be presented as a direct, proportionate response to the unlawful detention and would be contingent on Country X releasing the diplomat and adhering to its international obligations.

• Example 3: Asset Freezing

  Country P seizes assets belonging to Country Q's state-owned enterprises located within Country P's territory, in direct violation of a bilateral investment treaty. After exhausting all peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms, Country Q, as a special reprisal, might freeze an equivalent value of Country P's non-diplomatic state assets within its own borders. This action would be precisely calculated to be proportionate to the original seizure and would be intended solely to compel Country P to release Country Q's assets and adhere to the treaty, with the understanding that the frozen assets would be released once Country P rectifies its wrongful act.