Sir Geoffrey Vos (First Vice President of ELI; Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice of England and Wales) opened the event by welcoming participants from different jurisdictions and emphasising the topical importance of the project in light of ongoing geopolitical developments, particularly the war in Ukraine. He underlined that the initiative is intended to provide a general legal framework applicable beyond any single conflict, addressing both state-owned and private assets, and clarifying the legal questions that arise at the stages of seizure, immobilisation, and possible confiscation.
Philippa Webb (Co-Reporter; Professor of Public International Law at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford) introduced the project’s structure and conceptual foundations. She stressed that the project seeks to state the law as it is, carefully balancing the gravity of serious breaches of peremptory norms of international law with the constraints imposed by state immunity and other established principles. The draft Guiding Principles address four core aspects: the legal bases for seizure, the distinction between state and private assets, the triggers for action (including determinations by international courts and organisations), and the lawful management and use of assets post-seizure. Webb highlighted that confiscation may only arise in cases of serious breaches of peremptory norms, and that countermeasures must remain proportionate, reversible, and non-punitive. She also examined the limits of immunity from enforcement, including the commercial-use exception and the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign assets.
Burkhard Hess (Co-Reporter; Full Professor of procedural law at the University of Vienna) addressed the treatment of private assets within sanctions regimes. He explained that targeted sanctions since the 1990s increasingly affect individuals closely connected to unlawful state conduct. While criminal conviction provides the clearest legal basis for confiscation, Hess noted that sanctions regimes often operate without such convictions. He discussed relevant case law, including from the European Court of Human Rights, and emphasised that any move from temporary freezing to confiscation must respect rule-of-law guarantees, including judicial review, due process, and proportionality. He also reflected on historical precedents, including post-war reparation regimes, while acknowledging the heightened human rights standards applicable today.
Oxana Gîsca (President of the Conference of the Parties to CETS No 198; Council of Europe) presented the framework of the Council of Europe’s Warsaw Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism. She clarified that the Convention is fundamentally offence-based and requires a predicate criminal offence under domestic law before asset recovery mechanisms can be activated. Gîsca outlined available tools, including provisional measures, confiscation following conviction, international cooperation, and victim compensation. She also introduced the forthcoming Additional Protocol, expected to be adopted later in 2026, which will expand mechanisms through extended confiscation and non-conviction-based confiscation, while maintaining judicial safeguards and respect for fundamental rights.
Reflections were also heard from Representatives of the European Commission.
The discussion addressed complex issues such as the nexus between state wrongdoing and specific assets, the distinction between sovereign assets and those held by state-owned entities, the scope of immunity from enforcement, and the necessity (or limits) of criminal convictions as a precondition for confiscation. Participants also reflected on the broader importance of grounding asset-related measures firmly in international law, particularly in a geopolitical climate where legal constraints are increasingly tested.
In their concluding remarks, the speakers reaffirmed the importance of providing decision-makers with clear, legally grounded guidance. The forthcoming ELI Guiding Principles and accompanying flowchart aim to synthesise public international law, human rights law, EU law, and national law into a structured and practical framework. By doing so, the project seeks to contribute to the rule of law and to support lawful and effective responses to serious breaches of international law.
More information about the project is available here.
