This chapter argues that, on the one hand, the developments that have affected the sanctions regime have strengthened the normative coherence of the UN system of norms and rules, giving it more legitimacy and unity. The new UNSC sanctions regime was indeed greeted as a reconciliation of the UNSC’s main responsibility to safeguard international peace and security with better respect for other pillars of international law and the UN, namely human rights, which include the right to access vital goods such as food or medical care.14 On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether new contradictions have not also spurred from some of the latest developments in the broader ‘sanctions regime’, which not only includes the UNSC sanctions but also multiple domestic sanctions regimes, in particular in the United States and Europe. In contrast to the story of a clear paradigmatic shift characterized by the emergence of a new ‘targeted sanctions’ paradigm, relegating to the dustbin of history all previous forms of comprehensive sanctions that clashed with other UN norms, we explain how, particularly in counter-proliferation sanctions, contradictions persisted in the legal entanglements between targeted and comprehensive logics and in overlapping multilateral and domestic legal sources of sanctions. We further explain why the presence of such contradictions in counter-proliferation regimes has gone largely unnoticed by ‘targeted sanctions’ designers and advocates who do not use the notion of ‘legal entanglement’.