Sanction

Sanction (pronounced sangk-shuhn)

(1) Authoritative permission or approval, as for an action.

(2) Something that serves to support an action, condition, etc.

(3) Something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule of conduct, etc.

(4) In (usually contract) law, a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience.

(5)  A penalty or reward.

(6) In international law, action by one or more states (or a multi-national institution) toward another state, institution or individual(s), calculated to force it compliance with certain obligations.

(7) To authorize, approve, or allow; to ratify or confirm.

1555–1565: From the Latin sānctiōn- (stem of sānctiō (the establishment of an inviolable decree)), genitive sānctiōnis, the construct being sānct(us) (past participle of sancīre (to prescribe by law; to make law by decree) + -iōn (from the Latin suffix -iō (genitive -iōnis), appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action).  The Middle English borrowing came directly from the French sanction and the usual early form in English meant "confirmation or enactment of a law" and was sometimes used interchangeably with the Latin sanctionem (nominative sanctio) (“act of decreeing or ordaining” or “decree, ordinance" the noun of action from the past-participle stem of sancire (to decree, confirm, ratify, make sacred)) which was used especially of ecclesiastical decrees.  The verb form in the sense “confirm by sanction, make valid or binding” dates from 1778 and by 1797 it meant also “authoritatively to permit”, both derived from the noun.  The seemingly contradictory meaning "impose a penalty on" was first used in 1956 but is rooted in an old legalistic sense of the noun and, when deconstructed, the ambiguity dissolves, this use in international diplomacy first documented in 1900 as a plural of the noun sanction in the sense of "part or clause of a law which spells out the penalty for breaking it", a meaning which can be traced back to the 1650s.  From the Latin, influenced by the spread of Roman civil law, derivatives appear in many languages including Catalan (sanció), French (sanction), Galician (sanction), Italian (sanzione), Piedmontese (sansion), Portuguese (sanção), Russian (санкция (sankcija)) and Spanish (sanction).  Sanction & sanctioner are nouns, sanctioned & sanctioning are verbs and sanctionable, sanctionless & sanctionative are adjectives; the noun plural is sanctions.

Sanction busting

Although in some ways a simple language to learn, English has some quirks, notably a massive vocabulary in which one word can have many meanings and multiple words can mean the same thing.  There are also cases where a word can seem simultaneously to sustain two diametrically opposite meanings and these are called auto-antonyms (or contronym or Janus words), the technical term for the phenomenon being enantiosemy ((from the Ancient Greek ἐναντίος (enantíos) (opposite)).  Sanction can convey opposite meanings, depending on context, the Janus-faced nature more evident when used as a noun.  The noun historically referred to the "action of ordaining as inviolable under a penalty" but, in a manner not unfamiliar in English, it evolved in opposite directions, one relating to legal or ethical rules, the other to the penalties imposed for violating these rules.  From the eighteenth to the mid-twentieth century, the verb tended to the positive, the negative meaning "penalize" in general use until the 1950s.  Sanction in this sense is most commonly used in official (though not exclusively governmental) contexts, most often when one government imposes economic measures on another to try to force it to comply with laws or expectations.  The linguistic evolution wasn’t deliberate because that’s not how English usually works; instead it was an adoption of the verbal shorthand of the world of diplomacy.

The Kim Dynasty's new (used) cars

Like his grandfather Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994), and father Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011), Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011), is a great admirer of big Mercedes and the regime is believed still to be the only outfit on earth owning a brace of long-roofed (presidential in collector slang) Mercedes-Benz 600s (W100, 1963-1981) Pullman Landaulets (only twelve of which were built).  The Supreme Leader however must have decided to update and it appears that in 2018, several "special" Mercedes-Benz were shipped from the Dutch Port of Rotterdam, via China and five other countries, to the DPRK.  The cars appear to be from the factory's "Guard" programme and there’s an unconfirmed rumor a toilet is installed in at least one for the Great Leader’s convenience.

The Great Leader's motorcade on the way to meet with Vladimir Putin (b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999), Mercedes Maybach S600 Pullman Guard in front, Mercedes Maybach S62 following, Vladivostok, Russia, April 2019. 

The “Guard” range of vehicles are produced on a special post-production assembly line to meet the demand from heads of state, royalty, oligarchs and leading figures in organized crime for a vehicle which retains the traditional aura of a limousine while affording the levels of protection associated with the smaller armored personnel carriers (APC) & troop carriers used by the military.  The most expensive in the range is based on the opulent Mercedes-Maybachs and meet VR10 protection standards (defined under Directive BRV 2009 v2.0, only some of the specifications of which publicly are disclosed) but it’s known additional steel-alloy & composite panels are installed between the unibody and outer body panels, overlapped at key points to provide what’s described as “comprehensive ballistic protection”, a similar approach applied to the floor to deflect the blast from explosives (conforming to the ERV 2010 protocol).  The windows are thicker and coated with polycarbonate to prevent splintering with the panes permanently fixed (that approach may have been thought not suitable if the rumors of the toilet are true and the Great Leader's car is the previous version with an opening window).  Although the Guard has a wheelbase eight inches (200 mm) longer than the Standard Mercedes-Maybach platform and weights (presumably much) more, the factory lists the power-train as identical to the base vehicle, the 5.5 litre (365 cubic inch) twin-turbocharged V-12 rated at 523 horsepower and 612 lb-ft of torque.

Because sanctions imposed by the United Nations as punishment for Pyongyang's nuclear weapons development are supposed to bar companies and individuals from selling luxury goods to North Korea, technically, The Supreme Leader shouldn’t have be able to buy them.  It’s however estimated that since 2015, some US$440 million in luxury goods have been imported by the DPRK, sourced from some ninety countries, almost all in violation of UN sanctions.  In response to questions, Daimler, which manufactures Mercedes-Benz, a spokesperson said they had "...no indication on how the mentioned vehicles were delivered and where they come from", later issuing a statement:

"For Daimler, the correct export of products in conformance with the law is a fundamental principle of responsible entrepreneurial activity.  Our company has had no business connections with North Korea for far more than 15 years now and strictly complies with EU and US embargoes.  To prevent deliveries to North Korea and to any of its embassies worldwide, Daimler has implemented a comprehensive export control process. Sales of vehicles by third parties, especially of used vehicles, are beyond our control and responsibility."

Although Daimler seemed to imply The Supreme Leader was now reduced to buying used cars (something never suggested of The Great Leader or The Dear Leader), neither Berlin nor Pyongyang commented on the diplomatic slight.

In the matter of Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018), New York’s highest appellate court dismissed Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V and rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.  Take-Two Interactive Software had requested sanctions be imposed, claiming “Lindsay Lohan complains that her image and persona have been wrongfully used by Take-Two in the video game Grand Theft Auto V, but her claim is so legally meritless that it lacks any good-faith basis and can only have been filed for publicity purposes” and was thus an abuse of process.  Both the trial and appellate judges declined to impose sanctions.

In civil legal proceedings, it's possible in some jurisdictions for a party to request a judge to “sanction” the opposing side by imposing a penalty or punishment for some form of misconduct or violation of the rules of the court.  Typically, sanctions are sought when one party believes the other has engaged in improper behavior, such as failing to comply with discovery obligations, disobeying court orders, or engaging in frivolous or abusive litigation tactics including using the administrative processes of the court to "string out" the length of the hearing, usually in the hope of exhausting an opponent's financial resources, compelling them to discontinue the action.  In most jurisdictions this technically doesn’t extend to “vexatious litigation” (the determination of which remains the preserve of the court) but counsel may raise essentially the same issue as “an abuse of process”.  The mechanism of the sanction is to promote equity of access, fairness of procedure, ensure compliance with court rules, and deter inappropriate conduct during proceedings. The specific sanctions available depend on the jurisdiction and the rules of the court.  Some common types of sanctions include:

(1) Fines may be imposed (payable to the court) or compensation to the other party might be ordered.

(2) Orders may be issued restricting or limiting a party's ability to present certain evidence or arguments related to the issues in the case.  This sanction is invoked where attempts are made to introduce material which is irrelevant, repetitive or in excessive volume.  Pleadings or statements of claim may also be excluded.

(3) In extreme cases of willful or deliberate misconduct, a judge may find the party in contempt of court and this may result in the imposition of fines or even terms of imprisonment.