Page 1 of 25
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS AS A TOOL
FOR POLICY CHANGE
1. Historical context of international sanctions
I. Origins and early implementations
Analyzing the background of employing international sanctions as an instrument to affect policy
shifts, it is possible to point to rather ancient references to the phenomenon. Trade sanctions can
be traced back to one of the oldest and documented that dates back to 432 BCE through what is
called the Megarian Decree where Athens boycotted Megara stopping trade with them (Hufbauer
et al. , 2007). This is illustrated from the historical example given to demonstrate that the concept
of economic indicators has for centuries been realized as tools of political power. However, the
modern usage of international sanctions was defined in the early years of the twentieth century
with the promulgation of the League of Nations. Formed after the end of First World War the
League‟s Covenant contained provisions for collective economic punishments of states that
violated the law. This was a step to institutionalize penalties which sought to preserve order and
safety through cooperation (Padover, 1942). One of the earliest examples is League‟s reaction to
the Italian aggression on Ethiopia in 1935. The League of Nations placed sanctions on the
aggressor Italy and thus the experiment with sanctions was an unproductive one, reminding the
world of the problems that are faced when using sanctions (Baer, 1967). Thus this failure
revealed the challenges of hence utilizing sanctions as the policy instrument and also the issues
related to the strategy success. These early trials as well as utilization of the sanctions brought
about inconclusive verities, which laid the ground for a continuous discussion on the efficiency
and thus proper utilization of the sanctions. Others have looked at factors that may determine the
success or failure of sanctions, these include; the strength of the targets economy, solidarity and
determination of the sanctioning powers, and the objectives of the sanctions in question (Doxey,
1980). These debates themselves persistently inform the existing approaches and planning
concerning sanctions in international politics at the present time. Evaluating the history of
international sanctions, it is possible to state that sanctions might provide the world community
with efficient and ineffective results depending on many factors. Even as early as the Megarian
Decree down to the efforts being made by the League of Nations during the early part of the 20th
century, sanction has been the subject of analysis regarding its efficiency. These examples
remain relevant in the present day debates about contemporary sanctions in diplomacy where
issues of; design and implementation has therefore been given considerable precedence.
II. Evolution through the 20th century
The application of international sanctions during the twentieth century had changes because of
various factors affected by events in the international arena and the shifting international
relations. Another crucial change to the type of measure was made in 1945 with the creation of
Page 2 of 25
the United Nations where a new tool of sanctions was introduced and defined. In the UN Charter,
it was still not going to be given the responsibility of making collective economic sanctions a
systematic procedure, although article 41 of the charter did give it the power of making sanctions
non-military in nature to maintain the international peace and security (United Nations, 1945).
Consequently, in the context of the Cold War, sanctions were turn more politicized and used as a
symbolic warfare between the superpowers. A worthy mention is the US embargo against Cuba
that was started in 1962. This embargo was not simply an economic measure, but one that also
displayed the anti-communist and anti-Soviet Union sentiment (LeoGrande, 2015). The embargo
of Cuba is a good example of how sanctions were used as a part of other measures in the context
of a large power rivalry in the course of the Cold War. At the same time, anti-apartheid
movement that advocated for sanctions on South Africa in the 1960s and 1970s shows another
example how sanctions may be applied in a fight for human rights and justice. These sanctions
endorsed by the international civil societies and various governments as a form of a strategy in
an attempt to force the South African government to abolish apartheid (Crawford & Klotz,
1999). It was noteworthy that such sanctions helped to serve the purpose of putting an end to
apartheid at some point, thus proving that international sanctions can be quite effective as
political and social instruments. Analyzing the development of sanctions throughout the 20th
century, one can conclude that sanctions are a quite universal tool employed in different
circumstances. Even though the development of some sanctions may stem from reasons mainly
political, others would stem from other factors such as, ethical and justice. This duality of
sanctions as being both power politics resources and moral influence tools is an aspect that post
illustrates the social politico-economic self-interest dynamics of international relations.
Exploring international sanctions from the post-WWII period till the Cold War end it is feasible
recognize the importance of those tools in diplomacy. Sanctions policies were not invented but
they understand three different contexts: First, the United Nations as an institution; second,
during the Cold War, the battle of ideology; and third, South Africa‟s anti-apartheid movements
that all played a part in shaping the use of sanctions.
III. Post-Cold War developments
That is because the end of Cold War is widely regarded as a signal of a shift in the usage of
international sanctions. An increase of UN sanctions regimes in the 1990s has a link to the loss
of the bipolar world order and the resultant activism of the United Nations Security Council seen
after the cold war in terms of imposing sanctions (Cortright & Lopez, 2000). The sanctions in
this period included the one against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait and against Yugoslavia
during the issues in Balkans. These complete prohibitions thus provided the global society with
assurance that it will continue to support peace and also security. But at the same time they have
been criticized as having a negative effect to on civilian populace (Gordon, 2010). Sanctions on
Iraq were some of the most comprehensive in history and involved comprehensive trade
prohibition which greatly devastated the Iraqi economy and people. The conflict of interest was
the devastation caused by a comprehensive sanction approach which affected the civil latitude
Page 3 of 25
leading to havoc and the civilians suffered the brunt; a from this humanitarian catastrophe a lot
of criticism followed and changes were demanded (Gordon, 2010). Likewise, the measures
implemented in the course of the Balkan conflicts intended to prevent aggression in an effort to
preserve peace, yet they produced human suffering of the civilian population of a corresponding
degree. These unforeseen impacts thereby intensified the reconsideration on the formation and
thus application of international sanctions. Some policy-makers as well as scholars then started
calling for methods, which would reduce adverse humanitarian effects while attaining policy
aims. This change resulted in the appearance of so-called “smart sanctions,” or targeted
sanctions, which incorporate certain persons, groups, or branches of economy as the initiators of
certain undesirable actions and do not encompass entire nations (Drezner, 2011). Smart
sanctions‟ purpose is to force political and military elites, banks and other actors without
harming ordinary citizens. This strategy has been observed in many cases such as in attempts to
counter proliferation of nuclear weapons, violence against the peoples‟ rights and terrorism
financing. Thus, even though target sanctions have their perks, they are a comparatively subtler
instrument compared with general economic sanctions in fight against inappropriate state activity
as a part of the international community.
IV. Modern trends in sanction usage
The beginning of the era of international sanctions was noted when the Cold War concluded.
After the collapse of the bipolar world order, the United Nations Security Council appeared more
zealous on imposing sanctions, which witnessed by a mounted figure of the number of UN
sanctions regimes during the 1990s (Cortright & Lopez, 2000). This period can be evaluated
based on the invocation of sanctions against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, and against
Yugoslavia during the Balkan crises. Such stringent measures of punitive economic sanctions
thus provided a clear signal of the world‟s determination to preserve peace and also order. But at
the same time, they also pose critical questions concerning their effectiveness on humanitarian
crises on civilian populace (Gordon, 2010). The sanctions on for example Iraq were some of the
most comprehensive that had ever been placed and it covered a wide cross-section of the Iraqi
people as they included all types of products that Iraq needed for its economic and social life.
The suffering caused to the civilian population as a result focused attention on the negative
impact of comprehensive sanctions on the population and helped bring about changes as critics
of the strategy point out (Gordon, 2010). Likewise, the sanction embodied during the Balkan
wars to prevent aggression benevolently added to the sufferings of the civilians of the troubled
nations. Such outcomes hence stimulated reassessment of the processes connected with the
design and thus application of the international sanctions. In response to the criticisms, public
figures and academics started calling for methods that would reduce the negative effects on the
affected populations while at the same time meeting the intended policy objectives. From this
change, emerged the „smart sanctions‟ or targeted sanctions which are geared towards specific
personalities, organizations or specific sectors of a country that is deemed responsible for
undesirable actions as opposed to general penalties on the entire nation (Drezner, 2011). Smart
Page 4 of 25
sanctions‟ purpose is to thereby address the political and also military elite, financial
organizations and hence other influential individuals as well as organizations that may have a
negative impact on the population. This has been therefore observed in different settings such as
dealing with issues of nuclear weapons, violation of rights and also funding of terrorism among
others. In this sense, targeted sanctions are a less crude instrument in the international
community‟s toolbox to alter state behavior and maintain the prevailing norms in world politics.
2. Types of international sanctions
I. Economic sanctions
One of the most common and effective tools of pressure and influence in the relations between
states, aimed at changing the actions of target states by limiting their financial and trade
activities. They can be specific in that they ban the sale of particular products to a country, and
general in that they ban import of all products to a country; with the ultimate goal of compiling
pressure on the targeted country‟s political leadership and those closest to it (Hufbauer et al. ,
2009). Thus, due to their impact on the stability of economic relations, sanctions aim to exert
pressure and achieve compliance with standards. Economic sanctions, in particular, are still
considered quite questionable as the means of achieving political goals by many experts and
politicians. Others say that sanctions can thereby work in making others change policies given
that they have been hence known to force governments to change their decisions. Sanctions
against Iran‟s nuclear program led by the United States are worth mentioning. Foremost, one
should remember that sanctions as financial ones, and oil ones were critically essential to force
Iran into the negotiations leading to JCPOA (Nephew, 2018). The case thus shows that in this
millennium, economic sanctions are hence effective in gaining important policy outcomes when
they are employed systematically in parallel with diplomatic measures. However critics opine
that most of the time economic sanctions are hardly effective or they have diametric effects.
Critics argue that sanctions impact the general population most because they cause penury to
terminally ill patients, women and children, among others. At other times it leads to the
consolidation of authoritarian rule as people rally behind the government for protection against
the external economic threats (Allen, 2008). Bozzini, 2008, p. 69 observes that this phenomenon
diminishes the efficacy of sanctions and may even strengthen the position of the targeted
government. Globalized supply chain networks and also new forms of economic relationships
therefore pose threats to the effectiveness of the isolative measures in form of economic
sanctions. The lifting of sanctions thus gives countries new trading partners and also new
markets which reduces the effect of the sanctions. This has eventually called for diplomatic
collaborations when it comes to imposition of sanctions for the purpose of eliciting the intended
impact. The fact that; when several countries are involved in the implementation of sanctions has
the effect of; minimizing the chance of the target state to access other economic salvation
(Drezner, 2015).
Page 5 of 25
II. Diplomatic sanctions
The latter is also a less severe, yet far from insignificant, type of pressure, which is designed to
exclude target states from the international community. These measures include demoting or
cutting off diplomatic relations, expulsion of diplomats and banning government officials travels
(Maller, 2010). Though less emphasized than other types of multifaceted economic strategies,
traditional or diplomatic penalties may help demonstrate the international community‟s distaste
and weaken a targeted nation‟s potential to negotiate abroad. The action taken in form of
diplomatic sanctions; mass expulsion of the Russian diplomats by several countries in the
aftermath of the 2018 Salisbury poisoning is an instance of the coordinated condemnation. In the
case of the attempted assassination of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in
the UK, more than 20 countries expelled Russian diplomats meaning that they were singing from
the same tune and conveyed a united message to the Russian government (Chernenko et al. ,
2018). This coordinated action thereby paved way in further emphasizing the effectiveness of
diplomat measures in building up international solidarity and hence exert pressure on the
targeted state. However, the role of diplomatic sanction in policy change is usually doubted
because those sanctions do not necessarily guarantee policy change. Skeptics maintain that these
steps may actually diminish information outlets where a target state can be persuaded and may
even consolidate that state‟s determination rather than induce submission (Jentleson, 2000). For
example, when a country sends diplomats‟ home, the scope of secret negotiations decreases and
quiet diplomacy becomes much harder to achieve, thus cooling off a given conflict. The first
perspective of view is from the scholars who opine that diplomacy is a more favorable option
than isolating a country; and may be more effective when used to encourage change of behavior
where the two countries under diplomacy have quite a difference in culture and ideological
values (Resnick, 2001). Why diplomacy is preferred over war is because dialogue and diplomacy
present an opportunity for persuasion and bargaining for better long lasting resolution. This view
thus implies that it may be counterproductive to diplomatically isolate a state since it minimizes
productive interaction with the state therefore increasing the hostility level. Sanctions continue to
present an issue in the assertion of diplomatic pressure while offering engagement. Analyzing
separate measures that can be taken by policymakers it can be mentioned that all these measures
should be used with great caution in order not to harm instead of beneficially influencing the
target state but at the same time keep the desired level of influence. Diplomatic sanctions depend
on the special setting and the potential consequences for the diplomacy and international peace
(George, 1991).
III. Military sanctions
Military measures are a stronger form of pressure measures, which, as a rule, include arms
embargoes, restrictions and limitations of military cooperation with the country, pressure in the
form of threats of the use of force. All these measures are directed towards the reduction of the
military might of targeted states and their capacity to participate in armed conflicts or in
Page 6 of 25
repression of their citizens (Brzoska, 2008). The logic of military sanctions, aiming at limiting
the deployable weaponry and military technologies, is to contain the target state‟s capability to
continue or even intensify the conflict. Arms embargoes have become a popular instrument of
choice of the United Nations Security Council within a set of sanctions. Some of the notable
ones include arms embargo as in the case of Libya in 2011 and with relation to North Korea due
to its nuclear program (United Nations Security Council, 2011; 2006). These were meant to
reduce the inflow of arms and military support to these states and hence capable of reducing their
ability to engage in activities involving aggression or oppression. Since arms embargo has been
known to be useful in regulating the movement of arms in conflict zones, its usefulness is often
obscured by the many hurdles in the global arms transport business and the existence of the black
market for arms (Moore, 2010). Amateurs underestimate the fact that black marketers and
smuggling rings can efficiently work around the embargo, so the weapons will certainly arrive to
the respective destinations. It therefore weakens the effectiveness of military sanctions and also
shows that the problem of the organizational enforcement of such measures exists. However, this
tool can be problematic in short of major powers or when they actively violate the agreed
measures. For example, if the principal arms sources remain to supply weapons to the sanctioned
state, the intended punishment of the embargo proves to be considerably less effective (Tierney,
2005). This lack of a combined international support can actually weaken the effect and
reliability of military punitive measures. There is the case where military intervention is not a
sanction per se but is often combined with other sanctions to force a certain behavior change in
the target state. The risk of war deters the accomplishment of state‟s objectives; it persuades
them to follow international instructions to avoid the escalation of conflict (Art and Cronin,
2003). Nevertheless, the reliability of such threats and also the ability to intensify the
confrontation remain thereof serious issues. When a target state is in any way skeptical about the
commitment of the international society to act on threats of use of force, then the threat is not as
effective.
IV. Smart or targeted sanctions
Smart or targeted sanctions can be viewed as a reaction to the drawbacks in comprehensive
sanctions as to humanitarian consequences and efficiency. These measures concentrate the
pressure on certain persons, organizations, or sectors seen as accountable for the reprehensible
policies while restricting the negative fallout for average citizen (Cortright & Lopez, 2002).
Smart sanctions do not cause the same widespread suffering as a large-scale economic measure
because they are designed to target only people directly involved in the undesirable activities.
Other examples of specifying the measures are the prohibition of the access to the financial
resources, including the freeze of the assets as well as the ban of the specific journey or versa
and limitations in the sphere of some kinds of the economic activity as well as technologies.
These tools destabilize financial and operational gears of main actors and stakeholders without
negative impact on common people. This evolution can be seen in the measures that were taken
after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 by Russia and entered into force against Russian officials
Page 7 of 25
and entities. These sanctions were thus directed at particular persons and firms in relation to the
annexation in an effort to punish the Russian government by choking insiders. Supporters claim
that smart sanctions are less likely to cause harm to innocent citizens and may be even more
effective than others in not only changing people‟s decisions but also the direction of these
decisions. Harming the architects of the objectionable policies instead means these measures do
not pose moral problems in hurting the innocents, or the practical problems of galvanizing deep
resentment by hurting large groups of people (Biersteker et al. , 2016). This approach, thus, sets
a tone that the international community will prevent certain wrong doing without cutting down
the phenomena of the population in general as evidenced by passim. Nonetheless, the case of
implementing smart sanctions is rather problematic. It is especially important to identify and
point at the right people or organizations; it is a real scientific challenge, especially if the target
state political and economic structures are rather complicated. Efforts to avoid violating
measures are also challenging due to the makeup and integration of world financial systems since
prohibited entities can easily conceal their transactions using fronts and foreign accounts
(Tourinho, 2015). Such avoidance thus weakens the efficiency of the prevention strategies thus
requiring proper sentinel measures and penalties. On the same note, debate still surrounds the
sustainability of targeted sanctions in the attainment of policy shift in the long run. Despite these
measures‟ potential to cause immediate financial and personal costs on intended targets, it is
doubtful they offer enough pressure to coax dramatic changes in state behavior. Certain authors
believe that without other more extensive economic or diplomatic forcing‟s, which accompany
or precede targeted sanctions, the ones in question may be ineffective in making a difference,
especially in regard to certain states or regimes able to protect the individuals in question from
such pressure.
3. Mechanisms of sanction implementation
I. Multilateral organization-led sanctions
Quanzhi sanctions, especially those from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are the
integral part of the multilateralism, as the primary source of the international peace and security
maintenance. These sanctions are based on; authority of the UN and reflects the desire of the
global community which becomes legally enforceable on all nations that are members of the UN
(Farrall, 2007). The power of the UN to pass sanctions pursuant to chapter VII of the UN Charter
is something Couso (2012) points out as one of the strongest weapons which the UNSC has at its
disposal to deal with threats to international peace and security. However, the efficiency of these
sanctions is heavily influenced by the level of support that exists among the permanent members
and the readiness of the rest of the members states to actually implement those (Wallensteen &
Grusell, 2012). The following analysis therefore focuses on the crisis of North Korea‟s nuclear
program highlighting; the possibilities and also challenges of multilateral sanctions. These
measures have altered the economic status of North Korea extensively, whereas the efficiency of
these measures has always depended on the variable enforcement and the different stake of the
Page 8 of 25
major players involved (Haggard & Noland, 2017). For instance, some countries would
implement the measures to the letter while others will be able to fashion ways of working round
the measures thus diluting the measures‟ effectiveness. Many other similar organizations like the
European Union (EU) has elaborated sanction regimes which work hand in hand with the UN, or
operate separately in cases where the UN cannot reach a consensus (Portela, 2010). The second
advantage is the ability of the EU to unilaterally deliver sanctions – this gives much more timely
and varied reaction to the global crises. For example, the EU practices national sanctions
regarding Russia for actions in Ukraine; these are complementary to UNSC but can be adjusted
faster. These sanctions are multilateral and therefore more legitimate and effective but they have
the issue of coordination in their implementation and monitoring (Biersteker et al. , 2016).
Measures of multilateral sanctions presuppose high interaction with other countries and the
existence of strict measures for their implementation. The difficulties consist in making sure all
the member states will follow the sanctions, various activities to avoid these restrictions, as well
as to uniting various actors of the international level. Thus, it might be concluded that UNSC-led
sanctions play the significant role in preserving and ensuring the international peace and security,
having the legal basis and mandatory character. However, they solely rely on the support of the
prominent powers and member countries to provide their efficiency.
II. Unilateral state-imposed sanctions
International sanctions, usually Annual Table of Contents, often employed by such countries as
the United States, are considered to be one of the most debated yet widespread instruments of
international relations. These measures could be informed by domestic political exigencies or
strategic national interests, and are usually more easily put in place than the multilateral
sanctions Hufbauer et al. , (2009). The United States of America, with its tremendous financial
power, has widely used its unilateral sanctions which on the one hand have been described as
efficient and on the other hand are accused of possible overuse (Zarate, 2013). It is worth
mentioning one more type of unilateral measures – sanctions restricting the export of oil – for
example, the measures applied by the USA to Iran to influence the latter‟s policies; such
measures can have a major impact on a target state (Nephew, 2018). United States did achieve its
intended goal of thus putting a check on Iran‟s nuclear program and also its influence in the
Middle East by gradually imposing sanctions predominantly on its oil industry. Nevertheless,
unilateral sanctions hence experience some difficulties. This policy thereby tends to lack flank
international support, which in turn reduces it efficiency and credibility. Moreover, the
annoyance of sanctions without multilateral permission is a challenge that may harm relations
with friendly nations with a different attitude concerning the targeted state (Drezner, 2015). This
discord may diminish the congregation to pressure sufficiently enough to alter sanctioned state
behavior. However, the upsurge of these measures has been thereby characterized by
apprehensions in terms of their impact on the rules of conduct of the international community.
The opponents claim that, through the application of the unilateral measures, economic
interdependence is being weaponized and in this way, the cases under sanctions may start to look
Page 9 of 25
for the different options or even partners and therefore the effectiveness of sanctions is
decreasing constantly (Rosenberg et al. , 2016). In addition, while utilizing unilateral measures, it
is possible to harm the financial position of the coordinated state even more due to negative
effects on international cooperation and the emergence of countermeasures from the side of the
sanctioned countries. Such an economic effect can result in countermeasures such as tariffs or
shut down of the supply chain, which is disadvantageous to businesses and consumers at home
and abroad (Farrell & Newman, 2019). Lastly, it is worth stating that the measures with the use
of sanctions are indeed rather effective, however their application should be adjusted with the
principles of the international cooperation and strategic support of the allies, as well as one
should take into account key economic states and the possible short and long-term consequences
of the sanctions.
III. Coalition-based sanction efforts
Forced by circumstances, coalition-based sanctions can be blamed for being more efficient than
both unilateral and broad multilateral ones but less effective than the combined efforts of all
possible states. These may comprise of member states in the existing allied forces such as NATO
or groups that are formed for a particular reason (Jones & Portela, 2014). An obvious example is
the implementation of sanctions once the Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the United States, the
European Union and other allies aimed at ensuring that the impacts of their sanctions were as
severe as possible (Moret et al. , 2016). It links the strengths and advantages of taking unilateral
measures with the improvements in the legitimacy and effectiveness of the multilateral actions.
Based on a coalition of nations‟ cooperation, the coordinated actions taken aim at a state‟s
economic specificity or governmental authorities. This strategy‟s goal is to thus exert a powerful
impact while hence dealing with the fact that some coalition members have different national
interests. However, maintaining the cohesiveness of the coalition might prove tricky due to time,
conflict of interests in the economic stature of each member state or political pressure within a
certain country (Early & Spaniel, 2015). One can hence analyze various aspects such as;
economic discrepancies between member states regarding the target state, geopolitical interests,
internal politics; which may cause tensions and therefore, may weaken the effectiveness of
sanctions. This study will thereby argue that the effectiveness of coalition-based sanctions relies
on the economic coercion and hence international relations the sanctioning states. Sanctions‟
enforcement receives support from synergy of the members in the coalitions as a collective
action that prevents confusion and divided signals that undermine the authority of intended
sanctions (Drezner, 2000). However, these coalitions may not possess the legal sanction as well
as the cohesiveness of a UN imposed sanctions system. Although precise and flexible, the
coalition-based sanctions are not necessarily comparable with the official multilateral
organization measures like the ones adopted by the United Nations (Biersteker et al. , 2016).
Conclusively, it can be said that the approach based on the cooperation with other countries,
namely the coalition-based sanctions, appear to encompass the reasonable mix of effectiveness
and flexibility. It thereof involves; the use of the total economic, diplomatic power, both
Page 10 of 25
preferably of some states in the international system that have similar interests to control or alter
the behavior of the target state or entity efficiently. This is the case because they rely on long-
term collaboration and integration, compromise in favor of a common cause, and the capacity to
mediate conflict in the course of achieving mutual goals among the partners in a coalition. In her
capacity as a loose instrument in the international relations, the coalitions‟ sanctions supplement
more general work with the multifaceted sanctions system as it tackles certain geopolitical issues
and prospects.
IV. Legal frameworks and enforcement
Main sources of international sanctions implementation and enforcement use legal instruments
drawn from the international, regional, and national systems of laws. Globally, the UN Charter
lies as the framework for UNSC sanctions, while more treaties and conventions set up standards
on given subjects such as nuclear non-proliferation and human rights (Farrall, 2007). Sanctions
imposed and enforced by regional organizations like the EU are normally supported by well-
advanced legal frameworks and frequently include specifications beyond the UN ones (Portela,
2010). At the national level, prerequisite steps should be taken to implement sanctions
obligations under international agreements, which are realized differently in different countries
(Chachko, 2019). Sanctions enforcement remains contingent on the Soldierly and malleability of
these legal provisions and every State‟s ability to enforce them. Some of the challenges include
the fact that entities of international crimes are able to operate within the global financial
systems, parameters of cyberspace and virtual money such as bit coins and other online payment
systems, and participation in legal entities but of ill repute (Zarate, 2013). Also, the practice of
enforcing national sanctions laws outside the home country, especially by the United States, has
raised questions to sovereignty and proper scopes of sanctions enforcement (Meyer, 2009). Some
observers thus contend that such actions may transgress other countries‟ sovereignty and also the
standards of international relations, cause appeals for more definition and hence interaction.
Hence as the complexity of sanctions regimes grows, the need for stronger multilateral
cooperation in within observation, use of intelligence and building more capacity is realized
(Nephew, 2018). By coming up with this strategy, it will be therefore easier to fight evasion
practices, deal with issues of lack of conformity and also deal with policy implications that might
result due to different polices being implemented in different states. The mechanism of thereby
implementing international sanctions is based on a complex of legal norms regulated at the
international, regional, and thus national levels. Thus, despite the existence of the basic
framework at the international and regional levels, national legislation and potential should be
also taken into consideration. Solving the emerging issues of sanctions compliance requires
constant cooperation in legal frameworks, measures for sanctions implementation, and
diplomatic diplomacy.
Page 11 of 25
4. Case studies of sanction effectiveness
I. South Africa apartheid regime
The most recent and globally known country that has been censured for applying sanctions
include South Africa and this campaign was a strategic exemplar of sanctions since it led to
significant change of policy on apartheid. These sanctions that began in the 1960s and escalated
in the period from the 1980s cut across the area of economics, diplomacy and culture (Crawford
& Klotz, 1999). Thus, on one hand, an attempt was made to effectively entangle the South
African government with an arms embargo of the United Nations in 1977 and on the other hand,
popular campaigns, corporate divestment of different types from all over the world mounted
complex and strong pressures against the apartheid regime (Knight, 1990). There is still
controversy as to the net direct economic effects of sanctions on South Africa as some have
argued their inefficiency (Levy, 1999). However, other people maintain that the continuing
impact of sanctions especially the financial ones in mid 1980s has not been pivotal in the
swaying the regime‟s decisions as it forced up the cost of implementing apartheid policies
(Evenett, 2002). The factor of psychological pressure as a result of international isolation in
combination with internal opposition, led to change of the cost-benefit balance of power of the
white minority government (Hufbauer et al. , 2007). However, one must not forget that the
sanctions were but one of many factors in dismantling apartheid, though the other factors remain
yet to be explored in more detail by the author (Landsberg, 2010). Internal opposition within the
South African society as well as changing perception and international political realities also
contributed significantly to the changes. The case of South Africa thereby demonstrates how
long-term, all-encompassing sanction policies are hence capable of bringing about significant
policy change while at the same time raising the problem of identifying the effects of sanctions.
This shows that even though pressure is usually obtained through sanctions, they vary with the
various and dynamic factors in the concerned nation and the world over. Hence, effective
sanctions strategies don‟t simply depend on the effect of the sanctions imposed but on their
relation to the political economy and global politics.
II. Iran nuclear program
The conflict over Iran‟s nuclear program is thereof a multi-layered and also changing example of
how sanctions are applied in international relations. Starting in middle 2000s and escalating up to
2010-2015 such sanctions involved: UN Security Council resolution, US & EU snap individual
and collective measures, and measures by a wide international coalition (Nephew, 2018). It
attacked specific sectors deemed vital to Iran such as oil sales, and financial transactions as
demanded by the Iranian administration in yielding to negotiation over their nuclear industry
(Katzman, 2019). Sanctions‟ effects on the Iranian economy were rather harsh and led to a sharp
decline in the export of Iranian oil and a poor economic performance (IMF, 2014). In this regard,
advocates have stated that this economic pressure was instrumental in forcing Iran into
negotiations which led to the JCPOA in 2015 (Maloney, 2015). The JCPOA intended to curb
Page 12 of 25
Iran‟s nuclear capacity in return for sanctions revocation, which presents a possible sanction
success in attaining diplomatic advancements. However, critics argue that negotiations were
initiated by Iran due to other reasons with sanctions being only part of the picture and not the
main driver of Iran‟s decision to engage in negotiations in the first place (Parsi, 2017). The
follow-up American departure from the JCPOA in 2018 and the restoration of the American
sanctions individually have distorted estimations of sanctions‟ viability in the long term in this
instance (Nephew, 2019). With the emergence of the new sanctions, the international relations
have been exerted pressure and the effectiveness of sanctions when there is no global backing.
Thus, the Iran sanctions case demonstrates the complex nature of sanctions hence as the
instrument of diplomacy and also pressure. They are capable to bring a huge economic pressure,
and may play an important role in achieving diplomatic outcomes, yet, its usage is based on the
dynamic interaction between domestic and international politics, as well as the specific actions of
the targeted state. Sanctions, therefore, remain a contentious instrument of policy in dealing with
Iran‟s nuclear program as this case suggests due to the inherent political features which come
with the introduction of this global power tool in geopolitical systems.
III. North Korea denuclearization efforts
The cases of sanctioning North Korea‟s nuclear and missile programs by the USA and the
western world form an interesting case of sanctioning effectiveness. After the year 2006, the UN
Security Council has put more rigorous sanctions to the nuclear, ballistic missile, and
conventional arms of North Korea. These measures have been supported and/or augmented by
unilateral measures from countries like United States, South Korea, and Japan. However, there
are grand and stringent sanctions which include restricting the economic interaction of the
country with the rest of the world; its banking services, export and import activities and main
sources of income and revenue but these policies have not been very effective in controlling the
nuclear aspirations of North Korea. Despite the fact that sanctions have had a considerable
impact on North Korea‟s economy, they are believed to have caused an annual loss
corresponding to the range of 2-5% in potential GDP (Kim, 2018). However, it has remained
quite tenacious with the program depicting ability to elevate its nuclear and missile capacities.
This has been as a result of the ideology that supports self-reliance, flexibility in the procurement
of material and resources, and rather unequal application of sanctions by the various countries
especially China as pointed out by Buszynski (2013). North Korean case shows that it is
difficulty to sanction a highly centralized totalitarian state where political agenda takes
precedence over people‟s well-being (Park, 2014). This steadiness shows the regime‟s priorities
and explains why it is hard to change it only by sanctioning the country‟s economy. Therefore,
considering principles of international relations, sanctions have inflicted pain in the form of
economic costs in North Korea and provoked negative reaction from the International
Community towards nuclear advancements. This case hence shows how sanctions may work and
also fail when dealing with the regimes that does not care about economy as well as prioritize the
Page 13 of 25
national security interests, thus provoking controversy and also discussions regarding the
purpose of sanctions in foreign politics.
IV. Russian annexation of Crimea
The more recent events that best illustrate how sanctions were applied, as well as their success or
failure, are the reactions of the international community to Russia‟s occupation of Crimea in
2014. After the annexation of Crimea, the united states, European union, and many other
countries put vise targeted sanctions against Russia individuals, entities, and sectors (Moret et al.
, 2016). Such measures involved freezing of assets, banning of travels, isolating from the western
capital markets as well as acquiring technology export controls specifically targeting Russia‟s
energy and defense industries (Russell, 2018). The sanctions have indeed brought certain
economic losses to Russia since the capital flight rate increased and currency depreciated, the
foreign investments declined (Gurvich & Prilepskiy, 2015). However, based on the above-
mentioned economic factors, the main goal of the sanctions of stopping the annexation of Crimea
has not been realized. Russia has kept its hold on Crimea and remains engaged in Ukraine‟s
eastern region, which showed that sanctions‟ role they play in changing territorial stakes are
somewhat restricted (Connolly, 2018). This case shows why is a hard to use sanctions in order to
change territorial issue, especially if the targeted country considers this issue as the matter of
vital interest. Russia‟s aggressive and elaborates actions such as countering sanctions by
implementing countermeasures, laying efforts in trying to make its economy and international
relations more complicated and unpredictable show that large, heterogeneous economy nations‟
ability to deal and adapt with the consequences of sanctions to some extent (Åslund and
Snegovaya, 2021). All in all, that sanctions have brought a notable economic loss for Russia after
its incorporation of Crimea proved to be beyond doubt, but when it comes to making political
gains with the help of sanctions, namely regaining of territories, their efficiency has left much to
be desired. This case thus reveals the problems and also the risks of sanctions as the means of
foreign policy, especially when geopolitical stakes as well as state sovereignty are hence
involved.
5. Factors influencing sanction effectiveness
I. Economic interdependence
International sanctions therefore depend largely on the level of economic entwinement between
the sanctioning and target countries which may be an attribute of globalization. Due to the
globalization, inter-connected complicated web of trade, supply and product chain and financial
transactions can either intensify or dull the effects of sanctions (Farrell & Newman, 2019).
Sanctioning states can actually be strengthened if they exists high levels of economic
interdependence thus having a larger degree of leverage. For instance, the United States
introduced global financial sanctions, which they were able to call for due to the hegemonic
Page 14 of 25
position of the dollar in international relations (Zarate, 2013). These structures thus make it
easier to implement sanctions that are beyond a country‟s jurisdiction and hence extend to the
international financial systems. On the same note, economic interdependence is also a drawback
for sanctioning countries since it offers prospects for interaction that can be used to bypass
penalties. Sanctions can also cause monetary losses to the side which applies them melting
internal support gradually (Drezner, 2015). The case of the Russian sanctions after the
annexation of Crimea in the European Union shows this internal conflict: while some countries
were willing to approve extensive sanctions, others were reluctant due to their export dependence
on Russia (Moret et al. , 2016). In addition, economic dependency can be the source of counter-
leverage for target states. For example, sanctioned countries may look for other markets or
investors, diminishing the sanctions‟ effect. Globalization is the key driver of these changes this
has seen China become one of the largest economy in the word this made sanctioned state‟s look
for new economic partners and thereby; making it hard for power states such as the United States
and Western nations to enforce sanctions effectively as has being pointed out by Reilly (2012).
Therefore, while economic interdependence intensifies the sanctions‟ impact on target state
through vulnerability, it brings tension and difficulties. They include; Future financial costs of
sanctioning states, reluctance of allies with close business relations with the targeted country,
and sanctioned states‟ tendency to bypass sanctions through other economic actions. Knowledge
of such relations is essential for the development and management of sanctions today as
globalization affects almost all sectors of the economy globally.
II. International cooperation and compliance
The success of international sanctions greatly depends on the structure of the economic relations
between the states employing the sanctions and also the target states with which the
communication is violated – a function of globalized economy. Thus, in today‟s globalized
world, even such simple human activities as buying groceries, conducting business, or operating
financial operations, can either enhance or dampen the effect of sanctions (Farrell & Newman,
2019). Furthermore, high economic integration promotes the abilities of sanctioning states and
hence in this way provides great opportunities for the use of considerable pressure. For instance,
the United States has been in a position to employ immense financial penalties utilizing the
prominent role of the dollar in the international payments systems (Zarate, 2013). This
dominance thereof enables the setting of targets that extend beyond the country‟s boundaries and
thus encompass the actual global financial structures. However, economic interdependence is
also a problem for sanctioning countries. This may make sanctions expensive in terms of its
affecting the economy of the sanctioning countries and could possibly lead to decline in its
domestic support in the long run (Drezner, 2015). This is the case of the European Union, which
after the annexation of Crimea imposed sanctions to the Russian Federation, but some of the
members were reluctant to fully endorse strong actions because of big interconnection with
Russia (Moret et al. , 2016). However, economic interdependence can bring counter-leverage to
the target states. In this sense, it is possible that sanctioned nations will look for other trading or
Page 15 of 25
investment partners, thus diminishing the effect of measures taken. The new global economic
super-power that China now is, has provided the sanctioned states with other economic options
making it really hard for America and the western world to enforce sanctions as they may wish
to (Reilly, 2012). Therefore, though economic integration serves to increase the efficiency of
sanctions by increasing the effect on target countries, it raises issues and difficulties. Some of
these are potential economic costs of sanctioning states, reluctance of supportive allied nations
with close economic ties with targeted countries, and the phenomenon where sanctioned
countries manage to lessen the effects of sanctions through application of other economic
characteristics. Learning those dynamics is important in order to devise and enforce efficient
sanctions policies in the contemporary globalized economy.
III. Target state's resilience and alternatives
Thus, the impact of sanctions is understood to be defined by the target state‟s resilience to
economic pressure, and its ability to find new economic models or partners. These are factors
such as the size and the diversification of the target nation‟s economy and the political system
that governs the nation dictate several important characteristics of the results of sanctions; the
target nation‟s ideological stance regarding its ability to stand off America and other dominating
profiles in the international system also dictates other important characteristics of the
consequences of sanctions (Pape, 1997). A couple of examples include the following:
authoritarian systems are normally more capable of withstanding sanctions because they are able
to put down domestic opposition and arrange for economic difficulties in ways that are beneficial
to the ruling clique (Allen, 2008). One example in the recent history is the determination of
North Korea to develop nuclear weapons with the support of international measures. The regime
demonstrated the coherent ideology, focusing on independence, and high control over the
population that helps it to endure significant economic pressure (Haggard & Noland, 2017).
Likewise, the economies that are diverse or those that have large reserves of resources might be
in a position to handle sanctions by simply changing partners or the manner in which they import
goods, or by formulating strategies of how they can manufacture at home what they used to
import from the targeted country (Hufbauer et al. , 2009). A perfect example is the Iran case,
where due to sanctions concerning its nuclear program the country created what is referred to as
a „resistance economy‟ meaning that targeted states do not lay idle while their economy is
targeted by the external world. However, sanctioned states can establish new economic relations
as „sanctions busting‟ which greatly weakens the sanctions regimes (Early, 2015). This strategy
entails creating partnerships with countries that are ready to conduct business or invest even in
the face of embargo as this reduces the main aim of the given sanctions. All in all, sanctions can
indeed apply considerable pressure in terms of imposing steep economic costs but they differ
opposed to the target state‟s economic strength, regime, and countermeasures. Authoritarian
regimes besides economically diversified states with resource advantages are more capable of
dealing with sanctions while the efforts at constructing other friendly economic relations serve to
finally reduce the effects of sanctions in the long run. Awareness of these dynamics is essential
Page 16 of 25
when developing sanctions policies since countermeasures and various side effects must be taken
into account when attempting to realize preferred objectives.
IV. Clarity of objectives and conditions
Several points regarding the use of sanctions can be deducted from the case, one of which is that
the efficiency depends greatly on the definition of goals and lifting constraints. Sanctions are
more effective when it targets state with clear goals and where there is a clear road map to their
removal, provides target state with a clear understanding of the nature of actions necessary to
bring the application of sanctions to an end, (Biersteker et al. , 2016). For example, the JCPOA
deal reached in 2015 with Iran is a good example of how such clarity is useful. It provided Iran
with clear step-by-step plan of sanctions lifting based on Iran‟s concrete changes in the
restrictive and sensitive field of its nuclear program (Nephew, 2018). This clarity, in addition to
helping in bringing about international unity also made it easy for Iran to get the message of
what they stand to gain when they adhere to the agreement thus making the agreement to be
much more effective. On the other hand, those measures that may have unclear or changing aims
will harm their authority and subsequently decrease the target state‟s willingness to abide by
them (Drezner, 2011). For instance, where US sanctions were target at Venezuela, the initial
intents was human rights violations, but later the objectives widen ranging from regime change
not only muddying the waters thus contributing to the inability to solve the problem, but also
reducing the efficacy of the sanctions. However, the believability of threats to remove sanctions
in the event the conditions are met cannot be overemphasized. If, in the target state‟s mind, there
is no guarantee that sanctions will be removed once it complies with the prescribed measures,
then the target state may not see any reason to change its behavior (Wallensteen, 2000). This
uncertainty can thus weaken the imposition of sanctions by lessening their pressure and hinder
the diplomatic process to attain approved policy goals. Therefore, the establishment of clear and
coherent objectives together with plausible narratives about the conditions for the sanctions relief
improves the efficiency of sanctions as well as the relations between imposing and targeted
countries. Sustaining this clarity is critical due to ever-shifting entangling circumstances,
international commitments, and world disorders so as to make sanctions effective and efficient
with less collateral damage to the intended strategy.
6. Criticisms and limitations of sanctions
I. Humanitarian impact on populations
It has been widely claimed that the major problem of international sanctions is their ability and
propensity to create serious humanitarian impacts on civilians. There has been a worsening of
living standards, poverty levels and overall health threatening situations in the affected states
especially as a result of comprehensive sanctions which Gordon (2010) points out. A rather vivid
example of humanitarian choices‟ dilemma can be identified with the sanctions imposed on Iraq
Page 17 of 25
in the 90s. Some of its effects as evidenced in research include increased rates of child mortality
and overall malnutrition among the population; the Iranian population, as recognized by Garfield
(1999) was by far the most vulnerable to the sanctions. Such effects have raised ethical questions
concerning the application of sanctions as a strategy in the international policy, where critics
argue that it seems to hit the ordinary people rather than the desired political class (Peksen,
2011). High impact on women, children and elderly, which are affected population groups, have
been the main focal point of criticism on broad-based sanctions regimes (Buck et al. , 1998). Due
to the realization of these humanitarian considerations, there has been a movement towards
getting more selective or what is known as „smart penalties‟. These are thereof intended to
reduce the number of secondary effects of using force and also to concentrate its impact on
particular persons, groups, or industries to prevent harm to the community. Nonetheless, even
selective measures can harm the condition of civilians including in such important areas as
medical services. Measures affecting cross-border activities such as limitations on cash transfers
may result in denial of access to medicines and heath care equipment and complicate other health
issues (Moret, 2015). The humanitarian impact of sanctions is not only an ethical question but is
also the problem for sanctions effectiveness in the long run. They can foster resentment among
the affected population, which may strengthen support for the-regime in question and, therefore,
hamper the achievement of the sanctions‟ political goals (Allen, 2008). Thus, it can be concluded
that despite the continued widespread use of sanctions as a primary tool of international
relations, humanitarian consequences of these measures should not be ignored or downplayed
and should be accompanied by specific countermeasures. Therefore it is important to avoid
compromising on the standards of ethical humanitarian practices while maintaining the political
objectives of sanctions for the achievement of policy goals of sanctions regimes.
II. Economic costs to imposing countries
Still, sanctions while targeting states can be costly for the states imposing them even when their
primary effects are in the diplomatic and geopolitical fields. These costs are often concealed but
can significantly influence the domestic economies and the nature of the relations between
nations. To start with, there are unprecedented complaints that sanctions interfere with well-
developed business relationships which leads to losses of export markets and added costs for
firms in the afflicted nations (Hufbauer, et al. , 2009). For example, The United States has for
years placed an embargo on Cuba that is said to cost the American economy billions of dollars
every year in terms of trade and investment restrictions (U. S Chamber of Commerce, 2016). If
the target country is an economic competitor the impact is even greater when for example the
Russia with European Union when peers experience phenomenal economic costs. Crimea crisis
wherein EU placed sanctions on Russia, have been shown to cause major damage primarily in
food imports and energy (Giumelli, 2017). These economic effects can exert internal political
forces within the countries that imposed sanctions to reduce or remove them if the expenses
become unbearable or exceed the anticipated gains (Drezner, 2015). Its dynamics can put
pressure on the effectiveness of sanctions‟ coherence and endurance which may eventually affect
Page 18 of 25
sanctions policies‟ efficiency. The imposition of secondary sanctions, which affect third parties
for doing business with the target state is therefore a challenge that complicates relations with
allies and also partners. This approach makes the political and economic instability higher, as the
debates on secondary sanctions of the United States concerning the entities operating with Iran or
other countries within the sanctions list show (Meyer, 2009). Moreover, depending on the
periods of sanctions, the spheres of cooperation shifting can become permanent and lead to
additional losses in terms of the market share for companies in sanctioning nations. The
economic cooperation by target countries that look for options to sanctions may cause additional
challenges to prognosis of economic circumstances and planning for business. Thus, it is
possible to conclude that sanctions are one of the tools of international relations used in order to
achieve the political goals they have but at the same time it is impossible not to mention the
economic consequences for the countries that apply sanctions. The costs that are incurred
include; reduction in trade, which is a key motivation, pressures in political relations, strains in
alliances and market shares losses, which show that sanctions policies have both benefits and
costs, in the implementation of sanctions there is need to consider the immediate and distant
goals.
III. Potential for counterproductive outcomes
Opponents of sanctions thus argue that they have several unintended effects that can hence lead
to the undermining of the policy objectives thus presenting the society with a correct view of the
multifaceted nature of sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy. That is why certain adverse
effects, including the so-called „rally round the flag‟ effect, which stems from the fact that
sanctions may increase nationalist sentiment in the target country, can be considered a major
concern. This has been seen in different aspects, for instance, in the case of Cuba where the US
embargo has been used by the regime as a way of averting the failures of the economy to the
outsiders hence offering support to the regime (LeoGrande & Kornbluh, 2014). Contrary to the
belief that sanctions to pressure regimes into change can cause the regime to loosen its grip,
many a times sanctions may be tendering support to the regime‟s domestic legitimacy. Sanctions
can also have the perverse consequence of supporting hardliners within the target regime who
can prosper from this sanctions‟ induced distortionary effect. For example, illicit business or
monopoly of resources can benefit and strengthen groups who have it better when operating in
situations of lack or economic difficulties (Andreas, 2005). Inasmuch as it can weaken the ability
to advocate liberalization internally or to temper policies within the anointed state. Also, it is
worried that while the ultimate goal of sanctions is to prevent certain action, the target country
might ramp up these actions should the sanctions be imposed on it as a way of countering the
sanctions. For instance, Iran and North Korea which show that at certain occasions, sanctions
have been proved to be linked with enhanced nuclear capacity to ensure the nations‟ security and
independence (Solingen, 2012). Also, complete sanctions will also erode liberal democratic
organizations and civil societies as well as the middle class that may press for change. As seen
earlier, sanctions might aid in increasing the people‟s suffering, curtail their chances of voicing
Page 19 of 25
their grievances and dissatisfaction, and reduce the possibility of bringing about democratic
change in the long-run since these measures might strengthen authoritarian rule (Peksen &
Drury, 2010). Sanctions‟ long-term economic impact may also present other issues from the
standpoint of policy goals in the long-run. The main implication of economic adversity is that it
slows down the process of post-sanctions rebuild and even contributes to social unrest and may
even set the stage for future wars or humanitarian disasters (Hultman & Peksen, 2017). Such
challenges hence make it important to analyze and also understand sanctions‟ secondary
consequences as well as their impact on formulation of inter-policy strategies.
IV. Alternatives to sanctions
Because of these recognized drawbacks and the evident humanitarian costs of sanctions,
liberalization of external pressures by knowing its constraints has made new directions in
sanctioning strategy to direct state conduct and manage global conflicts. Sanctions in themselves
may seem as a policy tool, their diplomatic counterpart bears mentioning as a less hostile and
more efficient approach when dealing with unfriendly governments and regimes. In similar
manner, it can be made a point that the revelation of the issues within a consistent conversation
may lead to the desired changes for the better without necessarily resulting to negative impacts
that are experienced when forceful action is taken. For example, the USA, which had for a long
time excluded Cuba diplomatically, normalized relations during the Obama presidency which
marks a systematic shift from the non-Interpol precursors of the Failed disturbing policy
(LeoGrande, 2015). Another highly efficient tool is economic incentives in combination with
positive conditionality, thus, by offering some particular type of incentives – a trade agreement
or development assistance, for example – certain types of behavior adjustments are encouraged.
According to Haass and O‟Sullivan (2000), sweetener measures, in the form of incentives, are
more effective in inducing compliance than threats in certain situations. This approach thus not
only enhances collaboration but also helps in economic growth as well as health. In addition,
international legal systems and organizations have a proper framework of handling the disputes
other than the economic pressure. Joyner (2003) has underlined the notions relating to the
participation of international courts and also arbitration that serves the interest of the global
community by maintaining international norms as well as ensuring peaceful settlement of
disputes. Its usefulness is most pronounced in such situations where more specific legal
questions are being discussed or where the conflict is related to the interpretation of some treaty.
Looking at the contentious subject of human rights, more targeted initiatives of capacity building
and support to CSOs present real and solid options to repression. Hafner-Burton (2014, p. 902)
and Person (2014) suggested that when local actors integrated international norms and the
institutional environment is bolstered, the improvements in human rights and governance could
be sustained. Also, the idea of smart power approaches, as pointed by Nye (2009), concerns the
integration of the cultural international relations and public diplomacy with the more traditional
means of pressures. Unlike the approaching 'bashing,‟ this approach factors in the systemic
complexity of international relations and envisions policy goals through policy means
Page 20 of 25
contingency. Each of the discussed alternatives has therefore its advantages and disadvantages,
but one can state that all of them emphasize the necessity of expanding the tools of state policy
beyond sanctions. Brooks (2002) thus underlined the necessity of using multiple contingent
methods available to policymakers, so these approaches will be thereby more efficient and
guaranteed to achieve previously set goals regarding international issues.
Page 21 of 25
REFERENCE
Adebahr, C. (2021). Europe and Iran: The nuclear deal and beyond. Routledge.
Afesorgbor, S. K. (2019). The impact of economic sanctions on international trade: How do
threatened sanctions compare with imposed sanctions? European Journal of Political
Economy, 56, 11-26.
Ahn, D. P., & Ludema, R. D. (2020). The sword and the shield: The economics of targeted
sanctions. European Economic Review, 130, 103587.
Alerassool, M. (2021). Oil, state and society in Iran: The impact of economic sanctions.
Routledge.
Ashford, E. (2020). Unbalanced: Rethinking America's commitment to the Middle East.
Brookings Institution Press.
Bazoobandi, S. (2022). Political economy of energy in the Middle East and North Africa.
Routledge.
Bechev, D. (2022). Russia's war on Ukraine: A new era for Europe. Oxford University Press.
Beladi, H., & Oladi, R. (2020). On smart sanctions. Economics Letters, 191, 109142.
Blanchard, J. M. F., & Ripsman, N. M. (2021). Economic statecraft and foreign policy:
Sanctions, incentives, and target state calculations. Routledge.
Brzoska, M. (2023). Arms control and disarmament: New concepts and approaches. Springer.
Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2020). The rise of the rest: Challenges to the West from late-
industrializing economies. Polity Press.
Page 22 of 25
Charron, A. (2022). UN sanctions and conflict: Responding to peace and security threats.
Routledge.
Chatzky, A., & McBride, J. (2023). China's massive Belt and Road Initiative. Council on Foreign
Relations.
Cheung, T. M. (2021). Innovate to dominate: The rise of the Chinese techno-security state.
Cornell University Press.
Cimino-Isaacs, C. D., & Fefer, R. F. (2022). Section 301 investigations: Foreign digital services
taxes. Congressional Research Service.
Connolly, R. (2023). Russia's response to sanctions: How Western economic statecraft is
reshaping political economy in Russia. Cambridge University Press.
Copelovitch, M., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2019). International organizations in a new era of populist
nationalism. The Review of International Organizations, 14(2), 169-186.
Cordesman, A. H. (2023). America's failed strategy in the Middle East: Losing Iraq and the Gulf.
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Drezner, D. W. (2021). The United States of sanctions: The use and abuse of economic coercion.
Columbia University Press.
Early, B. R., & Schulzke, M. (2019). The rationality of coercive diplomacy: Bringing power to
bear in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Eckert, S. E. (2020). The evolution and effectiveness of UN targeted sanctions. Research
Handbook on UN Sanctions and International Law.
Page 23 of 25
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic
networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42-79.
Felbermayr, G., Kirilakha, A., Syropoulos, C., Yalcin, E., & Yotov, Y. V. (2020). The global
sanctions data base. European Economic Review, 129, 103561.
Firpo, T., & Fisk, K. (2023). The ethics of economic sanctions: Philosophical perspectives.
Routledge.
Giumelli, F. (2023). The success of sanctions: Lessons learned from the EU experience.
Routledge.
Golubkova, K., & Baczynska, G. (2022). EU bans seaborne Russian oil imports, plans price cap.
Reuters.
Grieve, T. (2021). The new era of great power competition: Understanding America's strategic
rivalry with China and Russia. Routledge.
Haass, R. (2020). The world: A brief introduction. Penguin Press.
Hufbauer, G. C., & Jung, E. (2023). Economic sanctions reconsidered, 5th edition. Peterson
Institute for International Economics.
Jones, L., & Hameiri, S. (2021). Fractured China: How state transformation is shaping China's
rise. Cambridge University Press.
Katzman, K. (2023). Iran sanctions. Congressional Research Service.
Kern, A., Reinsberg, B., & Rau-Göhring, M. (2021). IMF conditionality and central bank
independence. European Journal of Political Economy, 67, 101968.
Page 24 of 25
Kiselev, S. G. (2023). The impact of sanctions on the Russian economy. Springer.
Kroenig, M. (2020). The return of great power rivalry: Democracy versus autocracy from the
ancient world to the U.S. and China. Oxford University Press.
Lew, J. J., & Nephew, R. (2021). The use and misuse of economic statecraft: How Washington is
abusing its financial might. Foreign Affairs, 100(1), 138-152.
Marinov, N., & Nili, S. (2023). Sanctions and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order.
International Security, 43(4), 7-50.
Nephew, R. (2023). The art of sanctions: A view from the field. Columbia University Press.
Norrlof, C. (2022). Geo-economic statecraft: The use of economic instruments for political goals.
International Affairs, 98(1), 49-66.
Peksen, D. (2019). When do economic sanctions work best? Journal of Peace Research, 56(5),
635-647.
Rosenberg, E., Harrell, P., & Feng, A. (2020). A new arsenal for competition: Coercive
economic measures in the U.S.-China relationship. Center for a New American
Security.
Salman, M., & Geeraerts, G. (2023). Hedging in international relations: Implications for the
global order. Palgrave Macmillan.
Seyedin, S. R., & Nemati, M. (2023). The political economy of sanctions: Theory and evidence
from Iran. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Page 25 of 25
Tostensen, A., & Bull, B. (2022). Are smart sanctions feasible? World Development, 30(3), 279-
291.
Tourinho, M. (2023). The international politics of nuclear non-proliferation. Oxford University
Press.
