A methodological understanding of the evolution of international legal regimes governing sanctions and countermeasures requires reliance on an interdisciplinary approach that combines a dogmatic analysis of the norms of public international law, an institutional-economic approach, and comparative legal methodology, taking into account the practices of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China as states systematically involved in sanctions interactions. The study is based on a reconstruction of the legal nature of sanctions through the prism of the classical doctrine of state responsibility, as enshrined in the Draft Articles on the International Responsibility of States, where countermeasures are interpreted as lawful temporary derogations from obligations in response to an internationally wrongful act, subject to the principles of proportionality, temporality, and the need to restore the violated right. At the same time, unilateral restrictive measures, widely used in modern practice, require separate methodological analysis, as they often go beyond the classical institution of countermeasures, not relying on an established violation and not undergoing multilateral legitimization procedures.

In this context, the comparative law approach involves a parallel analysis of Russian and Chinese legal frameworks, including Russian laws on special economic measures and counter-sanctions, as well as Chinese legislation on anti-foreign sanctions and mechanisms for blocking the extraterritorial application of foreign regulations. Institutional analysis is applied to identify how national mechanisms for responding to external restrictions are formed and how they are transforming the international legal architecture. Legal modeling is particularly important, allowing us to reconstruct possible scenarios for the development of sanctions regimes in the context of a fragmented global legal order and increasing regionalization.

The functional approach is used to assess the effectiveness of sanctions and countermeasures as instruments of international policy and economic pressure, introducing the concept of «legal effectiveness», which encompasses not only the achievement of political goals but also the sustainability of the target state's legal system. Within the framework of systems analysis, sanctions are considered as an element of the broader structure of international economic relations, where legal norms interact with financial, technological, and institutional factors. The empirical verification method relies on the analysis of specific cases of sanctions against Russian and Chinese entities, including financial restrictions, export controls, and secondary measures. A key element of the methodology is the conceptualization of economic sovereignty as a legal and institutional phenomenon, encompassing the state's ability to develop autonomous mechanisms for regulating and protecting the national economy from external pressure. In this context, elements of the theory of legal pluralism are utilized, allowing for the consideration of the coexistence and competition of various regulatory regimes—international, regional, and national. Additionally, a historical and legal method is employed to trace the transformation of sanctions mechanisms from collective measures sanctioned by international organizations to the predominance of unilateral restrictions.

The methodological framework is complemented by an analysis of various legal sources: international treaties, decisions of international organizations, national legislation, judicial and arbitration practice, as well as the doctrinal positions of leading Russian and Chinese academic schools. The inclusion of Chinese legal doctrine, focused on the concept of a "community of shared destiny for mankind," allows us to expand the theoretical framework and offer an alternative understanding of the legitimacy of sanctions. Meanwhile, the Russian legal school emphasizes the principle of sovereign equality of states and the inadmissibility of interference in internal affairs, which fosters a critical attitude toward unilateral sanctions. The proposed methodology represents a comprehensive analytical system capable of adequately reflecting the complex nature of modern sanctions regimes, identifying their legal contradictions, and identifying areas for developing alternative mechanisms for protecting economic sovereignty, drawing on a synthesis of theoretical and practical approaches developed in Russia and China. Analyzing the evolution of international legal regimes of sanctions and countermeasures inevitably extends the study beyond the classical construct of state responsibility and demonstrates the emergence of a parallel normative order in which unilateral restrictive measures are acquiring the properties of a quasi-legal instrument of global regulation.

Contemporary sanctions practice is characterized by a qualitative shift: from reactive countermeasures aimed at stopping a specific internationally wrongful act to preventive and structural restrictions aimed at long-term transformation of the target state's behavior and its economic model. In this context, the key analytical question is the relationship between the legitimacy and effectiveness of sanctions, as well as the degree to which they comply with the fundamental principles of public international law, primarily the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference, and the good-faith fulfillment of obligations. Analysis shows that unilateral sanctions create an asymmetrical architecture of international economic relations, where the initiating state, possessing significant financial and technological potential, effectively extrapolates its jurisdiction beyond its national territory. The extraterritoriality of sanctions regimes, particularly in the area of financial transactions and currency control, transforms the traditional understanding of jurisdiction, blurring the boundaries between domestic and international law. For the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, this phenomenon is becoming systemic, as their key economic actors are involved in global value chains and financial flows denominated in the currencies of the states initiating the sanctions.

In Russian practice, sanctions have led to accelerated institutional adaptation, manifested in the creation of counter-sanctions regulation mechanisms, the development of a national payment infrastructure, and the reorientation of foreign economic relations. However, analysis shows that these measures are not only reactive but also transformative: a new model of economic sovereignty is being formed, based on the diversification of external relations, reduced dependence on individual financial centers, and a stronger role for the state in strategic sectors. At the same time, an inherent contradiction arises between the need for integration into the global economy and the desire for autonomy, which requires a flexible legal policy and adaptive regulatory mechanisms. The Chinese legal and economic system demonstrates a different type of response, characterized by the proactive development of a regulatory framework aimed at neutralizing the extraterritorial impact of foreign sanctions. The adoption of legislation on anti-foreign sanctions and the creation of mechanisms to block the enforcement of foreign court decisions and administrative acts indicate a shift toward an institutionalized model of legal resistance. Unlike Russian practice, where a significant portion of measures are developed in response to already imposed restrictions, the Chinese approach is focused on the preemptive creation of a legal shield to protect domestic companies and financial institutions.

From an analytical perspective, the phenomenon of secondary sanctions, which amplify the impact of unilateral measures by involving third countries and transnational corporations, is of particular interest. These mechanisms create a "sanctions multiplier" effect, whereby formally national measures acquire a global impact through the fear of losing access to key markets and financial instruments. As a result, a de facto hierarchy of legal regimes is formed, where international law gives way to economic expediency and political expediency. For Russia and China, this necessitates the development of alternative mechanisms of interaction independent of sanctions-sensitive channels. A thorough analysis also reveals the transformation of the category of countermeasures themselves. While in classical doctrine, countermeasures are aimed at restoring a disrupted legal balance, in modern practice they are acquiring the characteristics of a strategic economic policy instrument aimed at the long-term redistribution of resources and markets. Russian counter-sanctions, including restrictions on the import of certain categories of goods, demonstrate not only a retaliatory but also a protectionist function, stimulating the development of domestic production. Chinese measures, in turn, are aimed at protecting technological sovereignty and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers of key components.

An analytical assessment of the effectiveness of sanctions regimes reveals their dual nature. On the one hand, they can exert significant pressure on the target state's economy, restricting access to technology, financing, and markets. On the other hand, they stimulate processes of domestic mobilization, technological adaptation, and institutional development, which can reduce their impact in the long term. In this context, a paradox of sanctions policy arises: the longer restrictions remain in place, the greater the likelihood of the emergence of sustainable alternative systems that reduce dependence on the sanctioning entity. An important analytical conclusion is the increasing fragmentation of the international legal space. Sanctions regimes are becoming a factor accelerating the transition from a universalist model of international law to a plurality of competing legal orders. In this process, Russia and China are not only the targets of sanctions pressure but also active participants in the formation of alternative norms and institutions, including the development of regional financial mechanisms, the creation of new payment systems, and the strengthening of bilateral legal regimes. This indicates the gradual emergence of a multipolar legal system, where universal norms are giving way to regional and functional agreements. Analysis demonstrates that the evolution of sanctions and countermeasures represents not simply a change in the instruments of international policy, but a fundamental transformation of the legal architecture of the global order, in which Russia and China play a key role both as subjects of pressure and as architects of new mechanisms for protecting economic sovereignty and redistributing legal influence.

International practice of applying sanctions and countermeasures in the context of a transforming legal order demonstrates a persistent trend toward the institutionalization of alternative mechanisms for protecting economic sovereignty, developed outside the traditional Western-centric financial and legal frameworks. The Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, with their distinct economic models and legal traditions, have developed complementary approaches that, taken together, form a new architecture for international economic and legal interaction. A practical analysis of these approaches reveals not only adaptation tools but also the contours of a long-term transformation of the global legal system.

In Russian practice, a key focus has been the development of an autonomous financial and payment infrastructure, including the development of a national financial messaging system, the expansion of the use of the national currency in foreign trade transactions, and the conclusion of bilateral agreements on mutual settlements in rubles and partner currencies. These measures are complemented by the legislative consolidation of counter-sanctions regulation mechanisms, which include restrictions on transactions with foreign entities' assets, as well as special regimes for fulfilling obligations to unfriendly counterparties. Experience shows that these instruments not only mitigate the short-term negative effects of sanctions but also create the preconditions for economic restructuring aimed at expanding cooperation with countries in Asia, the Middle East, and the Global South. Chinese practice, in turn, is characterized by a more systemic and strategic approach to developing alternative legal mechanisms. Central to this is the development of a cross-border payment system focused on the use of the national currency, as well as the creation of a regulatory framework aimed at protecting Chinese companies from the extraterritorial application of foreign sanctions. Legislation on anti-foreign sanctions and rules blocking the implementation of foreign acts form a legal framework within which national entities have the tools to waive compliance with requirements that conflict with state interests. Furthermore, China is actively developing mechanisms for investment and trade cooperation within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, including the creation of specialized arbitration institutions and financial platforms alternative to traditional Western structures.

Bilateral and multilateral cooperation between Russia and China aimed at reducing sanctions vulnerability is particularly important. The expanded use of national currencies in mutual settlements, the creation of joint investment funds, and the development of logistics and infrastructure projects are creating a stable economic foundation less susceptible to external pressure. Experience shows that such mechanisms not only ensure short-term stability but also facilitate the development of long-term integration ties based on mutual benefit and legal coordination. International experience also demonstrates the growing activity of regional institutions focused on creating alternative financial and legal mechanisms. Within associations involving Russia and China, the practice of using national currencies in settlements, establishing their own rating agencies, and developing independent risk insurance and reinsurance systems is developing. These instruments make it possible to partially mitigate the impact of sanctions restrictions related to access to international financial markets and infrastructure.

Dispute resolution practices under sanctions pressure are also undergoing significant changes. Russian and Chinese courts and arbitration institutions are demonstrating a willingness to take sanctions into account when assessing the parties' good faith and ability to fulfill their obligations. A new doctrine is emerging that views sanctions as circumstances that can influence the distribution of risks and the parties' liability. At the same time, the role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is increasing, including arbitration in neutral jurisdictions and the creation of specialized institutions focused on participants from countries subject to sanctions pressure. Conclusions from the analysis of international practice allow us to formulate a number of key recommendations. First, further institutionalization of alternative financial and legal mechanisms is necessary, including the development of settlement systems independent of sanctions-sensitive infrastructures and the creation of multilateral clearing mechanisms. Second, greater legal coordination is needed between states interested in reducing sanctions vulnerability, including the harmonization of regulations and the creation of joint investment protection mechanisms. Third, national and regional arbitration institutions capable of ensuring effective dispute resolution under sanctions pressure and increasing trust among participants in international economic relations should be developed.

Additionally, it is recommended to strengthen the role of international organizations and forums, which could develop new norms and standards that take into account the interests of states not involved in sanctions policies. An important area is the development of digital financial technologies, including the use of central bank digital currencies, which could become a tool for bypassing traditional financial channels and reducing dependence on existing payment systems. Finally, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive economic sovereignty strategy that includes not only legal and financial measures but also the development of a technological foundation that ensures the long-term sustainability of the national economy.

The international practice of Russia and China demonstrates the emergence of a new model for countering sanctions pressure, based on a combination of legal, institutional, and economic instruments. This model not only facilitates adaptation to existing restrictions but also creates the preconditions for transforming the global legal system toward greater multipolarity and diversification of mechanisms for regulating international economic relations. A complete understanding of the stated problematic requires going beyond the description of existing mechanisms and capturing current trends, as the very logic of the evolution of sanctions regimes points to the emergence of a qualitatively new stage in the development of public international law, in which the center of normative gravity is gradually shifting from universal principles to functional and regionally determined regulatory frameworks. A key circumstance remains unspoken in the preceding analytical layers: sanctions are ceasing to be solely an instrument of foreign policy and are transforming into an independent institution of global governance, functioning at the intersection of law, economics, and geopolitics. This means that the further development of this category will inevitably be accompanied by institutionalization, the formation of its own legitimization procedures, and even elements of codification, albeit outside the framework of traditional international organizations.

In this context, it is crucial to reconsider the classic dichotomy of "legitimate countermeasures versus unlawful unilateral sanctions," as modern practice demonstrates a more complex gradation, including hybrid forms of restrictions that combine elements of public and private regulation. A significant portion of sanctions pressure is implemented through private law mechanisms—restrictions on access to financial services, termination of contractual relations, technological barriers—that formally do not fall under the traditional categories of international law but, in fact, have a comparable, and often more significant, impact. This leads to a blurring of the boundaries between public and private law, as well as the emergence of a new category—"quasi-obligations"—formed not through international treaties, but through economic dependence and infrastructural connectivity.

The issue of the legitimacy of sanctions in the absence of a universal mechanism for their assessment deserves special attention. Unlike classical institutions of international law, where legitimacy is ensured either by treaty agreement or by decisions of international organizations, sanctions regimes are formed in a normative vacuum, where the criterion of legality is the actual ability to implement them. This creates a dangerous precedent of substituting force for law, which, in the long term, undermines the stability of the entire international legal system. Russian and Chinese legal doctrines, by emphasizing the principles of sovereign equality and the inadmissibility of extraterritorial application of national legislation, effectively form an alternative discourse of legitimacy based on the idea of legal diversity and the need to consider the interests of all participants in the international community.

Another important unresolved issue is the question of the limits of permissibility of countermeasures in the context of economic interdependence. Classical theory assumes the possibility of temporarily limiting obligations without disrupting fundamental economic ties, but modern practice demonstrates that sanctions can lead to systemic disruptions affecting not only the states party to the conflict but also third countries. This requires the development of new criteria of proportionality and an assessment of the side effects of sanctions, including their impact on global supply chains, financial stability, and socioeconomic development. A promising direction for the development of international law in this area is the development of alternative mechanisms for resolving sanctions conflicts. With the declining effectiveness of traditional international institutions, the importance of regional and bilateral mechanisms, as well as specialized arbitration structures capable of addressing the specifics of sanctions pressure, is growing. Russia and China, with their significant economic and political potential, could initiate the creation of such institutions focused on the principles of equality and mutual respect for sovereignty. This, in turn, could become the basis for the emergence of a new type of international legal order, less dependent on the unilateral decisions of individual states.

The conclusion is that the evolution of international legal regimes for sanctions and countermeasures reflects a broader process of transformation of the global legal system, characterized by a shift from a universalist model to a polycentric structure in which various normative regimes coexist and compete. Within this system, Russia and China occupy a special place, simultaneously acting as targets of sanctions pressure and actors in the development of alternative legal mechanisms. Their experience demonstrates that protecting economic sovereignty in modern conditions requires not only legal instruments but also a comprehensive strategy encompassing institutional development, technological independence, and the diversification of international relations.

Thus, it can be concluded that sanctions are ceasing to be a temporary instrument of influence and are becoming a stable element of international interaction, requiring new theoretical understanding and normative regulation. The international community's ability to develop a balanced approach to this category depends not only on the effectiveness of sanctions policy but also on the future of international law as a system based on the principles of justice, equality, and mutual respect for the sovereignty of states.

Case 1: Investment arbitrations against the freezing of Russian assets in the EU as a new wave of ISDS conflicts

Current practice demonstrates an unprecedented expansion of investment disputes directly related to sanctions regimes. As of 2025–2026, at least two dozen cases initiated by Russian investors against EU states in connection with asset freezing have been recorded, including claims against Luxembourg and Belgium under the Euroclear infrastructure. These disputes constitute a fundamentally new type of investment arbitration, in which sanctions are subject to legal assessment through the prism of investment protection standards—fair and equitable treatment, protection from expropriation, and compliance with legitimate expectations. The key legal conflict lies in the fact that EU states justify their actions by citing public interests and international security measures, while investors appeal to violations of bilateral investment agreements. The practical significance of this case lies in the establishment of a precedent where sanctions are systematically tested for compliance with investment law for the first time, which could potentially lead to the emergence of a new category of "sanctions arbitration" and a change in the standards for the permissibility of economic restrictions.

Case 2: US extraterritorial sanctions against Chinese energy companies for operations with Iran
In 2026, the imposition of sanctions against a Chinese oil refinery for purchasing Iranian oil became a striking example of the strengthening of secondary sanctions as a tool of global pressure. The US side justified the measures by citing violations of the sanctions regime against Iran, while China categorized them as illegal and contrary to international law. This case illustrates a fundamental problem: national sanctions regimes acquire de facto universality due to the dominance of the initiating state's financial system. The practical effect is that even companies without direct ties to the sanctioning state's jurisdiction are forced to comply with its requirements due to the risk of losing access to global markets. For the Chinese legal system, this has become an incentive to strengthen legal countermeasures, including the application of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, creating a situation of regulatory conflict between jurisdictions.

Case 3. Inclusion of Chinese companies in EU sanctions packages against Russia and the formation of a "third country" regime
The European Union's decision to add Chinese companies to sanctions lists for allegedly supplying dual-use goods to Russia provoked a sharp reaction from China and became a prime example of the expansion of sanctions jurisdiction to third countries. This case demonstrates the transition from direct sanctions to a "sanctions encirclement" model, where pressure is extended to the target state's partners. A new legal category emerges—responsibility for indirect assistance, which is not enshrined in classical international law. In response, China has declared its readiness to apply countermeasures to protect its companies, reinforcing the trend toward the formation of counter-sanctions regimes. The practical significance of this case lies in its consolidation of the trend toward "sanctions globalization," where neutral states effectively lose the ability to remain uninvolved in sanctions conflicts.

Case 4. The "Shadow Flotilla" and the Legal Crisis of Sanctions Avoidance Control in the Oil Market
Russia's formation and active use of a so-called "shadow fleet" of tankers has become a key example of sanctions evasion, calling into question the effectiveness of traditional control mechanisms. The creation of a network of vessels with an opaque ownership structure, the use of flags of convenience, and alternative insurance schemes has ensured the stability of oil exports despite price restrictions and embargoes. From a legal perspective, this case highlights the limitations of existing instruments of international maritime law and sanctions regulation, which are incapable of effectively suppressing such practices without the risk of escalation. The practical implication is that sanctions in the energy sector stimulate the development of parallel infrastructures that undermine the universality of international trade and navigation rules.

Case 5. The Development of China's Counter-Sanctions Regime and the Conflict of Jurisdictions in International Arbitration
The strengthening of China's anti-foreign sanctions legislation and its implementation in 2025–2026 have created a new type of legal conflict involving the overlapping jurisdictions of national courts and international arbitration. Chinese companies have gained the right to challenge the application of foreign sanctions in national courts, even if the contract includes an arbitration clause. This creates a fundamental conflict between the principle of party autonomy and state intervention to protect national sovereignty. The practical significance of this case lies in the precedent it sets, in which a state effectively restricts the application of private international law to counter sanctions pressure, potentially leading to the fragmentation of the global dispute resolution system.

Case 6. Sanctions against digital financial instruments and the problem of their enforcement.
The sanctioning of decentralized financial instruments, including cryptographic protocols and transaction mixers, has revealed a new area of legal uncertainty. Research shows that the introduction of sanctions against such instruments reduces their use, but does not eliminate them entirely, as the decentralized nature of the technologies complicates oversight. The practices of Russia and China, including the use of digital currencies and alternative financial channels, demonstrate a desire to develop sustainable mechanisms to circumvent sanctions restrictions. This case highlights how traditional legal instruments are proving insufficient in the context of the digitalization of the economy, requiring the development of new approaches to regulation and international cooperation. The combination of these cases allows us to conclude that modern sanctions practice is no longer a set of isolated measures but is becoming a systemic phenomenon shaping a new reality of international law. In this system, Russia and China are not only targets of sanctions pressure but also key drivers of the emergence of alternative legal mechanisms, accelerating the transition to a multipolar architecture of international economic and legal relations.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the current evolution of international legal regimes of sanctions and countermeasures reflects not localized changes in foreign economic policy instruments, but a profound transformation in the very nature of public international law, moving from a normative universalist model to a polycentric system of competing legal orders. Sanctions, having lost their purely auxiliary nature, have become an independent institution for regulating global economic processes, functioning at the intersection of public and private law, national jurisdictions, and transnational economic mechanisms. In this new capacity, they not only influence the behavior of states but also shape the structure of international markets, transform the financial infrastructure, and set the parameters of permissible economic interaction. The legal nature of unilateral restrictive measures, as demonstrated in the analysis, remains controversial and debatable. On the one hand, they appeal to the concept of countermeasures enshrined in international law; on the other, they effectively go beyond its classical criteria, violating the principles of proportionality, targeting, and temporality. This blurs the boundaries between lawful and unlawful behavior of states and creates a situation of normative uncertainty, in which the legitimacy of sanctions is determined less by legal grounds than by the economic and political power of their initiators.

This poses a risk of erosion for the fundamental principles of international law, primarily the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in internal affairs. The practices of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China demonstrate the emergence of an alternative model of legal response based on the concept of economic sovereignty as the state's ability to ensure the stability of the national economy in the face of external pressure. The Russian approach is characterized by the adaptive transformation of the domestic legal and economic space, including the development of national financial instruments, the diversification of foreign economic relations, and the institutionalization of counter-sanctions mechanisms. The Chinese model, in turn, is distinguished by strategic proactivity, expressed in the creation of a regulatory framework aimed at preventing and neutralizing the extraterritorial impact of foreign sanctions, as well as the development of alternative international institutions and platforms for cooperation. The synergy of Russian and Chinese practices forms the basis for the emergence of a new type of international economic and legal interaction, in which bilateral and regional mechanisms, alternative to traditional global institutions, play a key role.

The expanding use of national currencies, the creation of independent payment systems, and the development of domestic arbitration and investment institutions indicate the emergence of a parallel infrastructure for international economic relations that is less vulnerable to sanctions. This process is accompanied by increased legal pluralism and the gradual fragmentation of the global legal space. At the same time, the study identifies a number of systemic limitations and risks. First, the lack of universal criteria for assessing the legality of sanctions and countermeasures creates conditions for the arbitrary application of restrictive measures, undermining the predictability of international relations. Second, the extraterritorial nature of modern sanctions leads to the involvement of third countries and transnational companies, increasing the effect of legal uncertainty and increasing transaction costs in the global economy. Third, the development of alternative mechanisms, while contributing to the strengthening of economic sovereignty, simultaneously reinforces the tendency toward segmentation of the global market and a decrease in the efficiency of the international division of labor.

In this regard, it appears necessary to develop new approaches to regulating sanctions regimes at the international level. A promising approach is the development of multilateral principles for the application of sanctions, including clear criteria for their legality, legitimization procedures, and compliance monitoring mechanisms. An important element could be the creation of specialized international institutions or arbitration mechanisms empowered to consider disputes related to sanctions and ensure a balance between the interests of states and the protection of the rights of participants in international economic relations. The development of norms governing the extraterritorial application of national legislation, with the aim of limiting its negative impact on third countries, could also play a significant role.

The evolution of sanctions and countermeasures signals the emergence of a new stage in the development of international law, in which key issues are the balance between sovereignty and interdependence, legitimacy and effectiveness, and universalism and legal pluralism. Russia and China, as active participants in this process, are not only adapting to existing challenges but also developing alternative legal and institutional solutions that could significantly influence the future of the global legal order. The final conclusion is that the further development of international sanctions regimes will be determined not so much by their quantitative expansion as by a qualitative transformation associated with the search for new forms of legal regulation that ensure the stability and fairness of international economic relations in the face of increasing geopolitical and economic competition.

The methodological design of a study of the legal framework for transnational infrastructure projects in the context of the intersection of the Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian integration requires a synthesis of several complementary approaches to adequately reflect the complex nature of legal regimes emerging at the intersection of national, international public, and private law. The fundamental approach is an institutional and legal one, focused on identifying the architecture of regulatory bodies and mechanisms, including national regulators, interstate coordination structures, and specialized arbitration and quasi-judicial institutions.
READ MORE