Russia, With Uganda’s Help, Backs UN Resolution Calling Unilateral Sanctions Unlawful

Russia and Uganda have helped secure a UN Human Rights Council resolution declaring unilateral coercive measures contrary to international law, giving Moscow another diplomatic argument against sanctions imposed over its invasion of Ukraine.Adopted by 27 votes to 16, with four abstentions, the resolution extends for three years the mandate of the special rapporteur examining the negative human rights effects of such measures. Uganda sponsored the draft on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, alongside Russia.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.Neither sponsor is currently a Human Rights Council member, so neither participated in the vote. Their role nevertheless illustrates how Moscow can influence UN proceedings beyond the Security Council, where it holds a permanent seat and veto. What the resolution says about sanctionsThe resolution’s preamble declares unilateral coercive measures contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter. Its operative provisions renew the rapporteur’s mandate and request continued institutional support.The text does not itself overturn sanctions against Russia or determine the legality of individual restrictions. It sustains a UN mechanism focused on their adverse human rights effects, whose work Moscow can invoke when challenging economic pressure. That broad framing leaves important distinctions between sanctions unresolved. The EU’s restrictions on Russia target military-industrial capacity alongside revenue and other resources supporting the war. They also include exemptions and safeguards for humanitarian needs and essential civilian supplies. Other Topics of Interest ‘I Love the Smell of Russian Gas’: Controversial Polish Politician Backs Nord Stream Grzegorz Braun urged Poland to help revive Nord Stream during an appearance with Germany’s far-right AfD, drawing accusations of “shame and treason.” While those provisions do not eliminate the need to investigate civilian harm, assessing it requires examining the purpose, scope, and implementation of particular restrictions.For Moscow, a general condemnation offers a broader argument against measures adopted outside the Security Council, where Russia can block their authorization.Russia’s veto limits collective actionAs a permanent Security Council member, Russia can veto substantive resolutions, including those authorizing sanctions against it.Moscow demonstrated its willingness to obstruct action concerning its own conduct on Feb. 25, 2022, vetoing a draft resolution that condemned its invasion and demanded the withdrawal of Russian forces. The Human Rights Council resolution does not explicitly declare that only Security Council sanctions are legitimate. However, treating council authorization as a prerequisite would make sanctions against Russia dependent on overcoming Russia’s own veto.Moscow thus benefits from two complementary positions: it can prevent Security Council action while supporting arguments elsewhere in the UN against pressure imposed outside that body.This selective approach also appears in Russia’s broader use of international law. Moscow invokes legal protections when discussing Russian speakers abroad, yet disregarded the International Court of Justice’s March 2022 order to suspend the military operations it began in Ukraine on Feb. 24.Moscow can also block the next UN chiefRussia’s institutional leverage extends to the selection of the secretary-general.As Kyiv Post’s examination of the succession process explains, a successful candidate needs a Security Council recommendation supported by at least nine members and vetoed by none of the five permanent members.That gives Moscow the power to block a candidate to succeed António Guterres. It does not require Russia to vote in favor, since a permanent member’s abstention does not prevent a recommendation, but any candidate must avoid a Russian veto.Changing the underlying rules presents another obstacle. Under Article 108 of the UN Charter, amendments require adoption by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent Security Council members.Russia can therefore obstruct Charter amendments that would remove its privileged position. A change in UN leadership alone would leave that constraint intact. Some backers had also supported UkraineThe sanctions resolution’s supporters have markedly different voting records on Ukraine.Of the 27 governments backing the text, 16 also supported the General Assembly’s February 2023 resolution calling for a just peace and Russia’s withdrawal. They included Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Egypt, Kenya, and the UAE.On the Ukraine-sponsored resolution adopted in February 2025, however, only five of the same countries voted in favor: Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Mauritius, and Thailand. Eighteen abstained, Burundi and Sudan voted against, and Benin, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo did not vote. Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Zambia were among those that moved from supporting the 2023 text to abstaining in 2025. The latter resolution reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity, recalled the demand for Russian withdrawal and called for accountability for crimes committed during the war. These votes concern different texts but they do show that condemnation of Russian aggression does not necessarily translate into support for economic pressure on Moscow.Scrutiny of Russia continuesOther decisions made by the council show the limits of Moscow’s influence.During the same session, members voted 21-5, with 21 abstentions, to renew the special rapporteur’s mandate on human rights inside Russia.Independent scrutiny of Russian abuses therefore continues alongside the sanctions mechanism Moscow supported. Lesia Dubenko is a Ukrainian political scientist and analyst. A graduate of Lund University (MSc in European Affairs), she covers issues relating to international affairs, migration, and disinformation.