European Union member states recently demonstrated the challenges inherent in their unanimous decision-making process on sanctions, as France’s veto over renewing certain measures highlighted tensions between national interests and collective action within the bloc. The incident occurred last month when France blocked the six-month extension of sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime, a move that effectively subjected the EU’s foreign policy measures to external pressure from Azerbaijan, a Central Asian energy-producing authoritarian state.

Under the EU’s current rules, sanctions require unanimous approval by all 27 member countries. France conditioned its approval on the removal of billionaire Alisher Usmanov from the sanctions list, responding to Azerbaijan’s demand linked to the release of French nationals imprisoned there. Luxembourg subsequently pushed for the removal of another sanctioned oligarch. A compromise reached by EU members allowed the sanctions to be renewed for three years instead of the usual six months, and Azerbaijan released one of the imprisoned French citizens soon after.

This episode is not isolated. Earlier in the year, Greece delayed sanctions renewal to protect a shipping magnate involved in transport of Russian gas outside the EU, and Hungary has repeatedly exercised its veto power for national benefit. However, France’s role marks a significant moment given its stature as a founding and leading member of the EU and its advocacy for greater European “strategic autonomy” from global powers, an objective championed by President Emmanuel Macron.

Observers argue that France’s actions undermine the EU’s geopolitical influence by effectively putting sanctions policy up for negotiation with non-EU states, weakening the bloc’s ability to use sanctions as a credible instrument in international affairs. Strategic sanctions policy, experts say, requires the ability to impose or lift measures based on clear conditions linked to external behavior, but the unanimity rule complicates this because individual member states can prioritize narrower national interests.

Calls have been made to shift sanctions decision-making to qualified majority voting (QMV), a provision allowed under EU treaties but requiring unanimous consent to implement. A coalition of states supporting QMV on sanctions was formed in recent years, with France among them, though its commitment has been questioned. The prospects of such reform currently remain slim but are seen as increasingly necessary amid a changing global landscape marked by geopolitical rivalries and influence struggles, such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East.

Some member states resist QMV out of concern that their vital interests could be compromised. Yet analysts note that the EU has flourished in areas like trade and competition precisely because majority voting prevented individual members from undermining collective benefits. While majority voting alone will not guarantee more effective sanctions or foreign policy, it is widely regarded as an essential step toward a more coherent and influential European position on the international stage. The recent episode is expected to intensify debate on how the EU balances national sovereignty with unified action going forward.