The passing of the National Security (State Threats) Act has been followed by the naming of the first bodies to be designated under it.
Ruxandra Murariu of Rahman Ravelli explains the measures and explains the all-important differences between sanctioning and proscribing.
The landmark National Security (State Threats) Act, which became law on July 8, delivers on the government’s commitment to bring in new proscription-like powers to protect against state threats.
Building on the powers in the National Security Act 2023 (which gave police and intelligence agencies new tools to detect and disrupt hostile activity), this latest legislation gives the Home Secretary new counter-terrorism style powers to target groups working at the behest of, or in the interests of, foreign states to carry out acts which threaten the UK’s security and the safety of communities across the country. Foreign state organisations and state-linked groups involved in this activity can now be designated by the Home Secretary; giving the police and intelligence agencies stronger tools and powers to disrupt and deter those working on their behalf.
Just five days after the National Security (State Threats) Act became law, on 17 July 2026, the government announced that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right (IMCR) – that has been blamed for attacks on Jewish sites in the UK - and Russia’s GRU Volunteer Corps would become the first bodies designated under it.
The move, which was one of the last to be announced by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, comes close to proscribing the groups as terrorist organisations. When the Act is passed, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action against anyone believed to be providing those groups with support. Designating the three organisations makes it a criminal offence to support, assist or receive a benefit from them. Any person conducting espionage or sabotage for them would face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Sanctioned or proscribed? Understanding the key distinctions
The announcement of the three groups being designated under the new Act comes after years of debate over whether the IRGC should be officially proscribed. As the IRGC is part of the apparatus of Iran’s government, any action against it could further damage already difficult relations between the UK and Iran – relations that are currently under major strain due to the US-Iran conflict.
In 2023, the government decided not to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. Instead, it targeted it with extra sanctions so as to avoid the risk of a major diplomatic fall-out that could result from a full proscription. At the time, it was feared that proscribing the IRGC could see the expulsion of the UK ambassador to Tehran, which would mean losing a vital communication channel to the Iranian government.
It is a situation that, for many, will prompt questions about what the precise difference is between being sanctioned and being proscribed. In UK law, it should be emphasised that the terms refer to two distinct legal regimes with different purposes and consequences. This article explains those differences.
The operation of sanctions
Sanctions are restrictive measures imposed by the UK government to force behavioural change, constrain economic activity and communicate a clear political message, usually in response to threats to national security, international peace or human rights. In most cases, they attempt to do this by affecting the economy and altering the power balance of the targeted state. They are a foreign policy and national security tool and are designed to be temporary measures.
The UK’s modern sanctions framework is based on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, administered primarily by HM Treasury and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
When an individual or organisation is sanctioned, the legal effects typically include:
- Freezing funds and economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person
- Prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available to designated persons
- Restrictions on financial services, trade or investment
Sanctions apply to UK persons wherever they are in the world and to anyone conducting activities within the UK. Breaches can result in civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Under sanctions regimes, it is unlawful to make available or deal with funds or economic resources of a designated person, to intentionally participate in activities knowing that they will lead to circumvention of sanctions prohibitions, or to enable or facilitate the contravention of any prohibition.
Importantly, sanctions regimes focus on financial and economic conduct - they do not generally criminalise membership of an organisation, ideological support or expression.
Proscription: a counter-terrorism measure
Proscription remains a counter-terrorism legal mechanism under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 that allows the Home Secretary to designate an organisation as being “concerned in terrorism” (as defined in section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000), based on intelligence and security assessments and taking into account various policy considerations.
Once an organisation is proscribed, it becomes a criminal offence to:
- Be a member of that organisation
- Invite or express support for the organisation
- Arrange or attend meetings in support of the organisation
- Wear, carry, display or publish an item of clothing or article in such a way as to arouse suspicion of membership of the organisation
The Home Office maintains a statutory list of proscribed organisations, which is periodically reviewed and updated.(1) As of December 2025, there are 84 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation.
The traditional proscription regime was not designed to deal with foreign state bodies and their proxies, however the gap has now been addressed by the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026, building on and amending the National Security Act 2023. In particular, it inserts section 33A into the 2023 Act, enabling the Home Secretary to designate a body where they reasonably believe it is, or has been, involved in foreign power threat activity and consider that designation is necessary to protect the safety and interest of the UK.
Designated bodies are listed in a new Schedule 6A of the National Security Act 2023.(2)
The new regime is expressly described in the government guidance as “equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, but tailored to state threats and additional to existing measures such as sanctions. It introduced three principal “designation offences”, as set out in sections 17A – 17C of the National Security Act 2023, namely:
- Supporting a designated body (including inviting support or expressing supportive opinions for a prohibited purpose);
- Assisting a designated body through conduct that is intended, or reasonably known, to materially assist its UK-related activities; and
- Obtaining, accepting or retaining material benefits from a designated body.
These offences carry maximum penalties of up to 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine and apply extraterritorially to UK persons or is employed by or holds office under the Crown.
Different purposes, different thresholds
One of the most important distinctions between sanctions and proscription lies in their primary purpose.
Sanctions are designed to apply pressure to governments, entities or individuals to change behaviour by imposing certain restrictions. They function as a deterrent and as a tool to disrupt activity that is condemned, signalling political disapproval in relation to issues such as breaches of international law, human rights violations or threats to international security.
It is also useful to note the evolution of this type of measures. Historically, sanctions have been used in the context of conflict between two states as an alternative or a complementary tool to weaken or punish a target – often in the form of an embargo or maritime blockade. They were subsequently codified in the United Nations Charter and recognised as a non-military tool for maintaining or restoring international peace and security in cases of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, as set out in Articles 39, 40 and 41 of the United Nations Charter. Today, they are used as a foreign policy and national security instrument. Their effectiveness is heavily dependent on international cooperation and coordination of similar efforts. They often target states, state-linked actors and individuals, even where criminal prosecution is not feasible.
Proscription is intended to criminalise participation in terrorism, enable law enforcement action against supporters and disrupt domestic networks and recruitment. Because proscription criminalises membership, support and expression, it directly engages fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, including freedom of expression (Article 10), freedom of association (Article 11) and freedom of belief (Article 9). For that reason, it attracts a higher legal and evidential threshold and is subject to enhanced democratic and judicial safeguards. A decision to proscribe an organisation is taken by the Home Secretary following cross-government consultation and is implemented by statutory order, which must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. An affected organisation may apply to the Home Secretary for de-proscription and, if refused, appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), which applies judicial review principles and provides a mechanism for challenging the proscription.
By contrast, the designation and delisting of persons under UK sanctions regimes is an executive and regulatory process focused primarily on restricting travel, financial activity or economic conduct rather than criminalising affiliation or belief. Sanctions designations often engage property and private life rights; while the human rights impact can still be serious, it is generally considered less intrusive. Individual listings are made by the Secretary of State under powers conferred by sanctions regulations and do not require parliamentary approval in each case. Those designated may seek an administrative reassessment and may challenge the decision in the High Court by way of judicial review. This procedural framework reflects the preventive and policy-driven nature of sanctions, as distinct from the criminal law consequences and constitutional issues that attach to proscription.
In addition, sanctions frequently apply to individuals, even where the wider organisation or movement is not designated, whereas proscription applies only to organisations. And while UK sanctions law extends restrictions to entities owned or controlled by designated persons, this concept does not exist in proscription law.
Why the distinction matters
Understanding the difference between sanctions and proscription is essential for:
- Compliance professionals assessing legal risk
- Financial institutions managing exposure
- Policymakers evaluating available legal tools
- Journalists and commentators reporting accurately
Sanctions and proscription are often discussed together, but they serve different functions within the UK’s legal framework. Both tools are powerful, but they are not interchangeable. Understanding where one ends and the other begins is essential to any serious discussion of national security, sanctions policy and the rule of law in the UK.
Source
