In this weekly update, we summarise the most notable updates in the UK sanctions world. If you have any questions in respect of any of the developments set out below, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our London Global and Government Trade team listed above.above.
1. RUSSIA SANCTIONS
2. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA SANCTIONS
- UK Government updates one entry on the UK sanctions list under the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regime: On March 11, 2024, the UK Government updated the entry for “Ministry of the People’s Armed Forces (MPAF)” on the UK sanctions list. The entry now refers to the “Ministry of National Defence”, which is still subject to an asset freeze. (Notice_Democratic_People_s_Republic_of_Korea_110324.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)).
3. HAITI SANCTIONS
- UK updates Haiti sanctions guidance: On 13 March, 2024, the UK updated its statutory guidance on the Haiti sanctions regime to reflect the coming into force of the Haiti (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which update the arms embargo against Haiti in accordance with UNSCRs 2699 (2023) and 2700 (2023). (Haiti Sanctions: guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)).
4. OTHER SANCTIONS
- UK introduces new export controls on emerging technologies and amends existing export controls: On March 12, 2024, the Export Control Joint Unit (“ECJU”) published a Notice to Exporters announcing updates to the Export Control Order 2008 (“the 2008 Order”) and the Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (“the assimilated Dual-Use Regulation”). Among other things, the updates introduce new controls on semiconductor technologies and certain other “emerging” technologies, with effect from 1 April 2024. (NTE 2024/04: The Export Control (Amendment) Regulations 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)).
- UK Supreme Court hears appeal in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: On 6-7 March, 2024, the UK Supreme Court heard an appeal in RTI Ltd (“the Respondent”) v MUR Shipping BV (“the Appellant”), a case that concerns the reliance of a party on a force majeure clause to suspend its contractual obligations on the basis that US sanctions prevented payments in US Dollars. The force majeure clause in the contract required the party affected by force majeure to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it. An arbitration tribunal who originally heard the issues found that accepting the payments in Euros was a realistic alternative to paying in US Dollars, and so the appellant’s case on force majeure "failed because it could have been overcome by reasonable endeavours from the party affected". The High Court allowed an appeal against the arbitral tribunal and held that accepting payment in Euros rather than US Dollars would not be included within “reasonable endeavours”. The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the High Court’s decision by a majority. The Supreme Court has not yet given judgment in the case. (RTI Ltd (Respondent) v MUR Shipping BV (Appellant) - The Supreme Court).
[View source.]
