Abstract
This article explores the interplay between morality and legality in the sanctions regime of public international law. It argues that although sanctions are choice international law instrument of action in response to human rights violation and situations considered detrimental to international peace and security, its effectiveness has been compromised by the contestation between morality and legality in the administration of sanction to the extent that sanctions have become mired in controversy. It identified the contestations as arising from the absence of uniformity in mankind’s perception of morality, influence of national interest in sanction administration, unilateral imposition and enforcement of sanctions, absurdity in sanctions administration, derivation of profit from sanction administration, the use of veto powers, and application of self-help. It concluded that sanctions must be positioned as appropriate collective responses to norm violation. And to retain its usefulness, authority to administer sanctions must be centralization and remain the exclusive prerogative of the UN, and not volunteers. In spite of the controversy around the administration of sanctions, sanctions are still preferable to doing nothing in the face of massive human rights abuses and many other threats to international peace and security.