Currently the United Nations (UN) through its Security Council (UNSC) have issued a number of Resolutions that required member states to implement immediately, legislation which places severe restrictions such as assets freezing and travel bans on a number of individuals, groups and other entities who are believed to be involved in or connected to international terrorism, particularly those affiliated with Al Qaida. Those subjected to these sanctions have no ability to seek an independent judicial review or appeal capable of offering just satisfaction of their particular case at either national regional or international level due to the supremacy of the UN charter in international law. The UN itself currently has no judicial review or appeal mechanism capable of hearing complaints by those subjected to this system of ‘targeted’ or ‘smart’ sanctions. In most cases, with one notable exception national and regional Courts have given supremacy to the UN’s decision over human rights concerns due their own obligations under the UN Charter. In particular the right to have an effective method of judicial review has been ignored. This study will concentrate on the inability of those subjected to these measures imposed on them under UN sanctions to have a suitable judicial review mechanism for violations of internationally accepted human right norms. This study will suggest a theoretical solution, which is however grounded in international law, to counter this inherent lack of judicial review at the level of the United Nations. It will contend that the measures currently employed by the UN appear to run counter to internationally accepted human rights norms and the accepted international standards for the rule of law that the UN has through its own rhetoric set for itself and the wider international community
