Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Economic sanctions

Economic sanctions are deliberate restrictions imposed by one or more states or international organizations on a target state, entity, or individual, involving the withdrawal of customary trade, financial, or other economic relations to coerce changes in behavior for foreign policy or security objectives.^[1]^[2] Originating in ancient practices, such as Athens' 432 BC trade ban on Megara to weaken a rival, sanctions evolved into formalized tools during the 20th century, with the League of Nations and later the United Nations employing them against aggressors, and unilateral applications surging post-World War II, particularly by the United States, which has imposed them on over 20 countries since 2000.^[3]^[4] Common types encompass comprehensive trade embargoes that halt most imports and exports, targeted financial measures like asset freezes and transaction bans, arms embargoes, travel restrictions, and secondary sanctions penalizing third parties for dealings with the target.^[1]^[2] While proponents view them as a non-military alternative to achieve policy concessions, such as curbing nuclear programs or human rights abuses, empirical analyses reveal modest effectiveness, with success rates in altering target behavior estimated at 30-40% across historical episodes since 1914, often higher for limited sanctions aiding diplomacy than broad ones that provoke evasion or domestic entrenchment.^[5]^[6] Controversies persist over their humanitarian toll, disproportionately burdening civilian economies and populations through shortages and inflation while regimes frequently evade impacts via smuggling, alliances with non-sanctioning states, or substitution, raising questions about their causal efficacy versus symbolic or politically expedient roles in sender states.^[7]^[8]

Definition and Classification

Core Definition and Purposes

Economic sanctions constitute deliberate, government-directed restrictions on economic interactions, including trade, financial flows, investment, and technology transfers, imposed by sender states or international bodies against target states, entities, or individuals to pursue foreign policy or national security objectives. These measures aim to coerce behavioral changes, such as policy reversals on aggression, proliferation, or human rights abuses, by leveraging economic interdependence to impose costs without resorting to military action.^[1]^[2] The primary purposes of sanctions include deterring undesirable actions, compelling specific concessions, signaling political resolve to domestic and international audiences, and isolating targeted regimes economically to weaken their capacity for malign activities. By targeting vulnerabilities in the target's economy—such as export dependencies or access to global finance—sanctions seek to generate internal pressures that influence decision-makers, often prioritizing non-violent coercion over kinetic alternatives like blockades, which entail military enforcement of physical barriers to commerce and risk escalation to armed conflict.^[1]^[9]^[10] Empirical analyses underscore that sanctions frequently serve signaling and complementary roles more effectively than as standalone coercive instruments, with success rates in achieving policy alterations estimated at 30-40% across historical episodes, particularly when paired with diplomacy or threats of force to amplify leverage. These outcomes reflect causal mechanisms where economic pain translates to political pressure only under conditions of target vulnerability and sender credibility, though comprehensive regime change remains rare.^[5]^[11]

Types and Mechanisms

Economic sanctions are classified by scope into comprehensive and selective varieties. Comprehensive sanctions impose broad prohibitions on nearly all commercial, financial, and trade activities with a targeted country or regime, such as the U.S. embargo against Cuba, which has restricted virtually all transactions since 1962.^[1] Selective sanctions, in contrast, target specific sectors, entities, individuals, or activities, aiming to limit broader economic disruption while focusing pressure on key actors.^[1]^[12] Sanctions also differ by implementing authority as unilateral or multilateral. Unilateral sanctions are enacted by a single state, often through domestic agencies like the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which designates entities for sanctions lists such as the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List, as seen in U.S. measures against Iran.^[12]^[13] Multilateral sanctions involve coordinated action by international bodies, such as United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing restrictions on North Korea's nuclear program since 2006, which require member states to enforce trade bans and asset freezes collectively.^[2] Core mechanisms include trade embargoes, which prohibit imports or exports to deprive the target of goods or revenue; asset freezes, which block access to frozen bank accounts, properties, or other holdings of designated parties; and financial exclusions, such as barring entities from the SWIFT messaging system used for international payments, as applied to select Russian banks following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.^[1]^[14]^[15] Secondary sanctions extend reach by penalizing third-party entities or individuals in non-sanctioning jurisdictions that engage in significant transactions with primary targets, threatening their access to U.S. markets or financial systems, as in U.S. measures against foreign firms dealing with sanctioned Iranian entities.^[16]^[17] Export controls on dual-use goods—items with both civilian and military applications, such as advanced electronics or chemicals—restrict transfers to prevent enhancement of sanctioned regimes' capabilities, enforced through licensing regimes by bodies like the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security and EU export controls.^[18]^[19] Over time, sanctions have evolved toward "smart" or targeted approaches, particularly in multilateral contexts, to focus on elites' assets and networks rather than entire populations, reducing unintended humanitarian effects observed in comprehensive regimes like those in 1990s Iraq or Haiti. This shift, advanced by UN Security Council innovations since the late 1990s, prioritizes measures like individual asset freezes and travel bans on regime insiders to exploit vulnerabilities in ruling circles while sparing broader civilian access to essentials.^[20]

Theoretical Foundations

Strategic Objectives

Economic sanctions serve primarily as instruments of coercive diplomacy to advance national security interests, including deterring territorial aggression by imposing economic costs that raise the price of military adventurism beyond tolerable thresholds.^[2]^[21] They target behaviors such as invasions or threats to sovereignty, aiming to signal resolve and alter cost-benefit calculations for state actors contemplating force.^[1] Another core objective is curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by restricting access to dual-use technologies, materials, and financing essential for nuclear, chemical, or biological programs.^[1]^[2] These measures enforce compliance with nonproliferation treaties and regimes, leveraging economic interdiction to prevent capabilities that could destabilize regional or global security.^[22] Sanctions also seek to compel adherence to international norms, such as respect for sovereignty, human rights standards, or counterterrorism obligations, by denying targets the economic resources to sustain nonconforming policies.^[23]^[24] From a causal standpoint, their efficacy hinges on the target's dependence on imported goods, energy, or capital from sanctioning states or coalitions, rather than appeals to moral or normative persuasion; senders with dominant market positions, such as control over key export markets or financial clearing systems, amplify pressure by exploiting these vulnerabilities.^[25]^[26] Secondary strategic aims involve economically isolating pariah regimes to degrade military readiness and undermine internal political cohesion, thereby weakening the capacity for sustained aggression or repression.^[21] By constricting revenue streams from trade and investment, sanctions aim to constrain procurement of arms, fuel, or technology, forcing resource diversion from warfighting to basic sustenance.^[22] This isolation further signals to potential allies or enablers the risks of association, deterring third-party support and reinforcing the target's pariah status in global networks.^[1] Success in these goals depends on the degree of multilateral coordination, as unilateral efforts by smaller economies yield limited leverage against diversified trade partners.^[26]

Economic Principles and Causal Mechanisms

Economic sanctions function through a rational choice framework, wherein the sanctioning entity aims to elevate the target's costs of non-compliance relative to the benefits, thereby altering the incentives of ruling elites who weigh economic losses against policy persistence.^[27] This mechanism presumes decision-makers respond to opportunity costs: trade embargoes and financial restrictions reduce revenues from exports, limit access to imports essential for production, and constrain foreign investment, collectively eroding the fiscal base that sustains defiant regimes.^[27] At the causal level, sanctions disrupt supply chains by severing links to critical inputs, technologies, and markets, inducing shortages, inflationary pressures, and capacity underutilization in targeted sectors.^[28] For instance, export controls on high-tech components hinder manufacturing in dependent industries, while asset freezes impair liquidity and credit access, amplifying domestic inefficiencies through multiplier effects on employment and consumption. Empirical models quantify these disruptions as causing GDP per capita declines of approximately 2.8% in the initial two years post-imposition, with variations by sanction scope and target vulnerabilities.^[29] Financial sanctions, in particular, correlate with real GDP growth reductions of 1.5 percentage points or more, stemming from curtailed capital inflows and heightened borrowing costs.^[30] Effectiveness in shifting incentives depends on pain asymmetry between sender and target: sanctions inflict disproportionate harm on export-reliant autocracies, where trade shares with sanctioners exceed 20-30% of GDP, compelling behavioral adjustments via intensified elite pressures, whereas self-sufficient or diversified economies mitigate impacts through substitution or reserves, preserving regime stability despite contractions.^[31] This asymmetry underscores that economic pain alone rarely overrides ideological commitments or domestic repression, as regimes may redistribute scarcity to loyalists, prioritizing survival over aggregate welfare.^[32]

Historical Evolution

Ancient and Early Modern Examples

The Megarian Decree, enacted by Athens around 432 BC, constitutes the earliest documented use of economic sanctions, barring merchants from the city-state of Megara from trading in Athenian markets and the ports controlled by the Delian League alliance.^[33] Sponsored by the statesman Pericles, the decree targeted Megara's alleged violations of a sacred Athenian enclave and its alignment with Sparta, aiming to economically isolate the rival amid rising Peloponnesian tensions.^[34] Rather than coercing compliance, the measure intensified diplomatic friction, serving as a key Spartan grievance that precipitated the Peloponnesian War's outbreak in 431 BC, as fragmented ancient Mediterranean trade networks allowed limited overall impact but amplified political pretexts for escalation.^[35] In antiquity, such rudimentary sanctions operated within localized economies lacking global interdependence, rendering them more symbolic than economically devastating; evasion via overland routes or neutral intermediaries undermined their coercive potential, and they typically required subsequent military action to enforce broader aims.^[36] Pre-modern examples thus highlight sanctions' primitive form as trade exclusions against proximate adversaries, with enforcement hinging on naval dominance rather than systemic pressure. Shifting to the early modern era, mercantilist policies evolved into more structured trade barriers, exemplified by the U.S. Embargo Act of December 22, 1807, which halted all American exports to foreign ports in response to British and French interference with U.S. shipping during the Napoleonic Wars.^[37] President Thomas Jefferson intended the measure to compel respect for American neutrality without resorting to arms, but it inflicted severe self-harm, slashing U.S. exports by approximately 75% and imports by 50%, while spurring domestic smuggling and unemployment in port cities like New England hubs.^[38] The targets adapted via alternative suppliers, rendering the embargo ineffective for policy change and contributing to its repeal in March 1809 amid political backlash, ultimately heightening pressures that led to the War of 1812.^[39] Similarly, Britain's Navigation Acts, first passed in 1651, imposed unilateral trade restrictions by mandating that colonial goods be shipped only on English vessels and through English ports, effectively sanctioning Dutch intermediaries who dominated Europe's carrying trade.^[40] These acts aimed to bolster British mercantile power but provoked the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652–1654), as evasion and retaliation exposed the limits of enforcement in an era of bilateral commerce and smuggling networks.^[41] Across these periods, pre-20th-century sanctions rarely achieved coercion independent of military complement, constrained by pre-globalization economics where economies depended on regional ties amenable to circumvention; imposers often suffered disproportionate costs, underscoring their role as adjuncts to diplomacy or warfare rather than standalone instruments.^[42]

World Wars and Interwar Period

The Allied powers, primarily Britain, imposed a naval blockade on Germany starting in August 1914 to sever maritime supply lines for war materials and essentials, extending it to neutral ports suspected of transshipping goods to Germany.^[43] This measure, enforced through the Royal Navy's supremacy, intercepted over 90% of Germany's overseas trade by 1916, leading to acute shortages of food, fertilizers, and raw materials.^[44] German civilian mortality surged, with estimates from the German Board of Public Health attributing 763,000 excess deaths to starvation and related diseases by December 1918, compared to pre-war baselines.^[45] The blockade's coercive pressure exacerbated domestic unrest in Germany, contributing to the collapse of morale and the push for armistice in November 1918, as food rations fell below subsistence levels and industrial output plummeted.^[46] However, it also contravened international norms under the 1909 London Declaration, which prohibited blockades affecting neutral trade, prompting accusations of targeting non-combatants and prolonging suffering without decisively shortening the conflict, as ground stalemates persisted until U.S. entry tipped military balances.^[47] Post-armistice, the blockade continued until the Treaty of Versailles ratification in July 1919, intensifying famine conditions that saw monthly civilian deaths double from pre-war averages.^[48] In the interwar period, economic coercion shifted toward multilateral frameworks via the League of Nations, though efforts remained limited and ineffective without universal great-power participation, particularly U.S. non-membership. Following Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria, the League issued condemnations and the Lytton Report recommending withdrawal, but imposed no trade restrictions or sanctions amid the global depression's reluctance for escalation.^[49] Japan ignored the findings, established the puppet state of Manchukuo, and exited the League in 1933, highlighting enforcement gaps in voluntary systems lacking coercive naval or economic leverage.^[50] The League's most prominent sanctions attempt came against Italy's 1935 invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia), where on October 7, 1935, members agreed to embargo arms, loans, and select exports like rubber, but excluded critical imports such as oil, coal, and metals to avoid provoking war.^[51] These partial measures, covering only about 5% of Italy's trade needs, failed to halt the campaign, as Italy sourced alternatives from non-participants like the U.S. and secured domestic stockpiles; Mussolini completed the conquest by May 1936, prompting the League to lift sanctions.^[52] This episode underscored how incomplete multilateral restrictions, undermined by exemptions and evasion, eroded credibility and often extended aggressor resilience rather than compelling compliance, reliant as they were on absent enforcers like the U.S.^[53]

Cold War and Post-Cold War Developments

During the Cold War, economic sanctions became formalized instruments of containment strategy against Soviet-aligned regimes, prioritizing isolation over direct military confrontation. The United States initiated partial sanctions against Cuba in 1960 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, targeting energy and agricultural imports in response to Fidel Castro's nationalization of American assets and pivot toward the Soviet Union; these escalated to a full embargo in February 1962 under President [John F. Kennedy](/page/John_F. Kennedy), prohibiting nearly all trade and financial transactions to weaken the island's economy without pursuing immediate regime change.^[54] Paralleling this, the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom), established in 1949 by Western allies including the US, UK, and France, coordinated restrictions on dual-use technologies and strategic goods exported to the Soviet bloc and its satellites, such as denying advanced electronics and machinery that could bolster military capabilities; CoCom operated until its disbandment in 1994, having screened thousands of export license applications annually to enforce these controls. These measures reflected a broader ideological contest, where sanctions supplemented deterrence doctrines like those in National Security Council Paper 68, aiming to raise the economic costs of communist expansion without escalating to hot war.^[55] Following the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991, sanctions evolved toward addressing proliferators and norm-violating "rogue states," with the United Nations Security Council authorizing a surge in regimes—rising from zero comprehensive programs pre-1990 to over a dozen by the early 2000s—often targeting weapons proliferation, territorial aggression, or human rights abuses in isolationist governments. A pivotal example was the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq via Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990, which banned all exports and most imports after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, freezing Iraqi assets globally and establishing a sanctions committee to oversee enforcement; subsequent adjustments introduced humanitarian exceptions, such as Resolution 687's 1991 Oil-for-Food mechanism, allowing limited oil sales to fund essentials amid reports of civilian hardship.^[56] This post-Cold War shift emphasized multilateralism under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, focusing on states like Iraq, Libya, and later North Korea, where sanctions sought to coerce compliance with non-proliferation treaties or reverse annexations, though implementation often grappled with evasion via third-party trade.^[57] The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks accelerated the adoption of targeted sanctions, designed to freeze assets and restrict travel of specific individuals, entities, or networks—such as al-Qaeda financiers—while sparing broader populations, marking a departure from indiscriminate comprehensive embargoes.^[58] By the mid-2000s, UN panels and US Treasury designations under Executive Order 13224 had imposed over 500 targeted listings globally, prioritizing precision to address transnational threats like terrorism financing and weapons smuggling.^[59] Into the 2020s, financial sanctions have dominated, leveraging global banking integration to disrupt illicit flows, as seen in the expansive packages against Russia following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which included freezing approximately $300 billion in Russian Central Bank reserves held abroad and banning transactions with major institutions like Sberbank.^[60] These measures, coordinated by the US, EU, and G7, heavily targeted energy exports—Russia's primary revenue source, accounting for over 40% of federal budget inflows pre-invasion—with the EU prohibiting seaborne crude oil imports by December 2022 (capping prices at $60 per barrel) and coal bans eliminating €8 billion in annual Russian earnings; by January 2025, additional designations hit entities like Gazprom Neft and over 180 shadow fleet vessels evading oil caps.^[61] This pivot underscores sanctions' adaptation to hybrid warfare contexts, emphasizing swift financial isolation over traditional trade barriers, though circumvention via intermediaries like India and China has persisted.^[62]

Empirical Assessment of Effectiveness

Aggregate Success Rates from Studies

A seminal meta-analysis by Hufbauer, Schott, Elliott, and Oegg examined over 200 historical cases of economic sanctions from 1914 to 2000, finding an aggregate success rate of approximately 34 percent in achieving stated foreign policy objectives, where success required sanctions to contribute significantly to the outcome alongside other factors.^[63] This rate varied substantially by objective ambition: sanctions pursuing modest policy changes, such as releasing prisoners or improving trade relations, succeeded in over 50 percent of instances, whereas those aiming for regime change or territorial concessions failed in more than 95 percent of cases.^[5] The authors' methodology emphasized observable concessions, potentially understating effectiveness against ambiguous or unobservable goals, such as deterring unreported aggressive actions or influencing covert behaviors that evade public verification.^[63] Subsequent updates and analyses through the 2000s maintained similar aggregate figures, with post-1990 cases showing slightly higher success around 40 percent, attributed to increased use of targeted financial measures and multilateral coordination.^[11] A 2021 reassessment incorporating newer datasets estimated an average success rate nearing 40 percent across broader episodes, reinforcing the pattern that comprehensive sanctions combining trade, financial, and export restrictions yield higher outcomes than isolated tools.^[64] Disaggregating by sender coordination reveals stark differences: unilateral U.S. sanctions since 1970 succeeded in only 13 percent of cases, often undermined by target evasion via third-party trade, whereas multilateral efforts, involving multiple senders, achieved rates of 40 to 50 percent by amplifying economic pressure and reducing circumvention opportunities.^[5] These lower unilateral rates highlight the role of international buy-in in enforcing compliance, though aggregate metrics may still undervalue sanctions' deterrent value against hypothetical escalations that remain untested due to their imposition.^[65]

Determinants of Success or Failure

Empirical analyses of economic sanctions highlight several causal factors influencing their outcomes, including the scope of participation, the target's economic vulnerabilities, the rapidity of imposition, and the duration of enforcement. Multilateral sanctions, involving coordination among multiple senders, exert broader pressure by limiting the target's access to alternative markets and suppliers, thereby reducing evasion opportunities compared to unilateral measures. Scholarly assessments indicate that multilateral efforts achieve higher policy concession rates, with UN-backed sanctions demonstrating particular efficacy due to enhanced legitimacy and collective enforcement capacity.^[66]^[67] Trade and financial asymmetries between sender and target significantly amplify leverage; success probabilities rise when the target depends heavily on the sender for imports or exports exceeding 5-10% of GDP, as disruptions impose immediate costs that autocratic or hybrid regimes struggle to offset without domestic backlash.^[68] Conversely, symmetric or low-linkage relationships diminish impact, as targets can redirect flows to non-sanctioning partners. Financial sanctions, especially those post-2000 targeting banking and payment systems amid global SWIFT integration, outperform traditional trade bans by exploiting interconnected capital markets, where exclusion inflicts cascading liquidity crises harder to circumvent than physical goods rerouting.^[69] Military and asset-freeze variants similarly yield higher compliance likelihoods than comprehensive embargoes, which provoke broader adaptation strategies.^[69] Rapid imposition enhances surprise effects, constraining targets' preparatory adaptations, whereas extended durations—often exceeding 2-3 years—enable diversification of trade partners and domestic substitutions, eroding initial leverage.^[70] Regime characteristics modulate responsiveness: hybrid regimes, blending electoral pressures with authoritarian controls, prove more susceptible than consolidated democracies or autocracies, as economic pain disrupts elite cohesion without unified repression or public indifference.^[71] Sustained coalitions are essential to counter adaptation, as unilateral persistence allows targets to forge compensatory alliances; for instance, post-2022 Western sanctions on Russia saw bilateral trade with China surge by over 60% in key commodities, mitigating GDP contractions to under 2% annually despite initial shocks.^[72] Such dynamics underscore that leverage dissipates without ongoing multilateral vigilance, prioritizing vulnerability over mere isolation.

Evidence from Specific Policy Goals

Sanctions aimed at deterrence or halting military actions, such as preventing escalations or territorial seizures, exhibit moderate success rates, with empirical analyses indicating effectiveness in approximately 31% of cases where the objective is limited to behavioral modification rather than systemic overhaul.^[1] These outcomes often stem from the imposition of swift economic costs that signal resolve and raise the price of continued aggression, as seen in instances where threats of escalation were averted without full compliance.^[63] In addressing nuclear proliferation, results are mixed, with sanctions occasionally yielding temporary concessions but rarely permanent abandonment of programs. Multilateral pressure contributed to Iran's 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Tehran agreed to dismantle significant portions of its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for sanctions relief, though U.S. withdrawal in 2018 prompted resumption of enrichment activities.^[73] Broader reviews of counter-proliferation efforts show success in inducing program halts in only about 25% of targeted cases, frequently requiring complementary diplomatic or covert measures.^[74] Efforts targeting human rights improvements or regime change demonstrate the lowest efficacy, with success rates hovering between 5% and 10% across historical episodes, as autocratic leaders typically endure economic isolation by reallocating resources or suppressing dissent.^[75] Comprehensive datasets reveal that sanctions alone toppled regimes in fewer than 20% of ambitious political change pursuits, underscoring the necessity of internal fractures for such transformations, as persistent examples like Cuba and North Korea illustrate resilience despite decades of isolation.^[76]^[77] From an empirical standpoint, sanctions' value often lies beyond immediate victories, functioning as credible signals of collective determination that elevate long-term defiance costs and curb recurrent threats, even in apparent failures where targets adapt but face sustained constraints on global integration.^[1] This signaling effect aligns with findings that limited-objective campaigns outperform transformative ones by aligning economic leverage with feasible causal pathways.^[5]

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Humanitarian and Economic Harms to Civilians

Economic sanctions impose measurable economic costs on target countries' civilian populations, typically manifesting as contractions in GDP and disruptions to essential imports. Empirical analyses indicate that sanctions episodes lead to an average decline in target GDP per capita of approximately 2-3% in the initial years following imposition, with cumulative effects varying by duration and scope; for instance, UN sanctions have been associated with up to a 25% long-term per capita GDP reduction in severe cases, though unilateral measures like those from the US often result in 0.75-1 percentage point annual drops in growth rates. These impacts arise from restricted access to foreign exchange, reduced trade volumes, and curtailed investment, exacerbating poverty and unemployment among non-elite segments of society.^[29]^[78]^[79] Humanitarian consequences include heightened food insecurity, malnutrition, and deteriorations in public health metrics, as sanctions limit imports of food, medicine, and agricultural inputs. Systematic reviews document spikes in noncommunicable diseases, respiratory conditions, and child mortality in sanctioned economies, with effects compounded by currency devaluation and inflation that erode purchasing power for basic goods. In Iraq during the 1990s, comprehensive UN sanctions following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait correlated with a GDP plunge from $66 billion in 1989 to $20 billion by 1995, alongside UNICEF estimates of over 500,000 excess child deaths attributed partly to sanction-induced shortages; however, independent investigations revealed that Saddam Hussein's regime systematically diverted humanitarian allocations, hoarding resources for military purposes and elites while inflating civilian suffering through mismanagement.^[80]^[81]^[82] The UN's Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP), initiated in 1996 to mitigate civilian harms, processed over $64 billion in oil sales for humanitarian purchases by 2003, yet was marred by extensive corruption, with the Iraqi government securing $1.7 billion in illicit surcharges and kickbacks from contractors, alongside $10-11 billion in smuggling revenues funneled to regime insiders rather than distributed to needy populations. Volcker Commission findings confirmed that nearly half of participating companies engaged in bribery to navigate Saddam's graft networks, underscoring how authoritarian controls amplified sanctions' adverse effects on civilians by prioritizing elite enrichment over equitable resource allocation. Such diversionary tactics by target regimes—evident in cases like Iraq's prioritization of palace construction and weapons programs amid civilian rationing—often account for a disproportionate share of humanitarian distress, as regimes manipulate scarcity to maintain loyalty among security forces while blaming external pressures.^[83]^[84]^[85] While these harms are undeniable, analyses from institutions like the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue that sanction-induced civilian costs are frequently overstated relative to alternatives such as military intervention, which in Iraq's case (1991 Gulf War) entailed direct combat casualties exceeding 100,000; moreover, the evolution toward targeted sanctions since the 1990s—focusing on regime assets, financial networks, and elites—has demonstrably reduced broad-based economic spillovers to civilians by isolating harms from non-combatants. This approach mitigates aggregate GDP shocks and humanitarian fallout, as evidenced by lower incidental poverty rates in post-2000 sanction regimes compared to comprehensive 1990s models, though enforcement gaps allow some evasion that prolongs elite resilience at civilian expense. Preferable to unchecked aggression, such as Iraq's regional invasions that precipitated the sanctions, these measures underscore causal trade-offs where inaction enables greater long-term harms through sustained conflict.^[5]^[86]

Rally Effects and Regime Strengthening

Economic sanctions can induce a "rally 'round the flag" effect, whereby public support for target regime leaders increases as sanctions are framed as external aggression, fostering national unity against perceived foreign threats. Empirical analyses indicate this phenomenon is particularly pronounced in autocratic systems, where leaders leverage sanctions to consolidate domestic cohesion and suppress dissent. For instance, a study examining U.S. sanctions found evidence of heightened leader approval in targeted states, attributing it to the mobilization of patriotic sentiment that bolsters regime legitimacy. Similarly, large-N research on authoritarian regimes demonstrates that sanctions often enhance ruler survival by unifying elites and the populace, reducing internal opposition through shared narratives of resilience.^[87]^[88] In Russia, this dynamic manifested following the 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent Western sanctions, with President Vladimir Putin's approval rating surging from approximately 61-65% pre-annexation to 82% by April 2014, as state media portrayed sanctions as unjust encirclement. The pattern repeated after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and intensified sanctions, where approval rose from 64.3% immediately prior to 78.9% within weeks, sustaining at around 81% by year's end amid narratives of collective defiance. These boosts correlate with causal mechanisms in autocracies, where sanctions diminish elite defection risks by aligning interests around regime preservation and enable adaptive strategies like import substitution—Russia redirected trade pivots to Asia, mitigating shortages and reinforcing self-reliance propaganda that further entrenches leader popularity.^[89]^[90]^[91] However, rally effects are not perpetual and may dissipate if economic dislocations escalate beyond evasion capacities, eroding public tolerance as tangible hardships override nationalist fervor. Experimental and observational data suggest sanctions fail to trigger rallies when targets possess robust adaptation tools or when domestic framing falters under prolonged pressure, potentially exposing regime vulnerabilities. Critics from realist perspectives argue that frequent sanction threats project sender weakness, emboldening targets to defy impositions and prolonging entrenchment rather than inducing compliance.^[92]^[93]

Overuse and Diminishing Returns

The proliferation of U.S. economic sanctions has accelerated dramatically in recent decades, with the number of designations increasing by approximately 933% from 2000 to 2021, rising from around 900 to over 9,000 entities and individuals on lists such as the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) roster managed by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).^[94] ^[4] This expansion reflects a shift toward sanctions as a primary tool of coercion, applied across diverse targets including state actors, terrorists, and human rights violators, yet empirical analyses indicate no corresponding rise in overall policy success rates, which have hovered around 30% in historical studies of cases from World War I through the early 2000s.^[95] The sheer volume of designations has led to empirical dilution in their coercive power, as targets adapt through evasion tactics like third-party trade intermediaries and alternative financial networks, reducing the marginal impact of each additional sanction.^[96] While early or narrowly focused sanctions can disrupt specific flows, the routine layering of broad measures exhausts U.S. leverage over global financial channels, particularly the dollar-dominated system, prompting sanctioned regimes and even neutral actors to accelerate de-risking efforts such as developing parallel payment systems.^[97] This adaptation dynamic underscores a core limitation: sanctions derive potency from rarity and surprise, but overuse normalizes them as a predictable policy response, diminishing their deterrent value without enhancing compliance.^[98] Such overuse has eroded the perceived credibility of U.S. foreign policy, as allies increasingly question the sustainability of aligning with expansive sanction regimes that strain their own economic interests, evidenced by uneven multilateral participation in recent campaigns.^[99] Policymakers' reliance on sanctions as a low-commitment alternative to military escalation or alliance-building substitutes for addressing root causes of geopolitical friction, favoring symbolic designations that signal resolve but evade the costs of sustained deterrence through force posture or trade incentives.^[77] Empirical patterns suggest that notable successes, such as partial behavioral shifts in targeted entities, typically occur only when sanctions are paired with credible threats of escalation, a condition rare in the post-2000 proliferation era where sanctions often stand alone as the default mechanism.^[95]

Implementation Strategies

Unilateral Versus Multilateral Approaches

Unilateral sanctions, typically imposed by a dominant power like the United States, offer advantages in speed and customization to specific policy goals but suffer from high rates of evasion as targets redirect trade to non-participating countries. Data from the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that U.S. unilateral sanctions imposed since 1970 succeeded in achieving foreign policy objectives in just 13 percent of cases, largely due to circumvention via alternative markets and alliances.^[5] For example, U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, escalated in 2017 and 2019 to pressure the Maduro regime, have not prompted political change, with Venezuelan oil exports stabilizing through partnerships with Russia and China despite restrictions.^[100]^[101] Multilateral sanctions, coordinated among multiple states or through organizations such as the European Union, amplify economic isolation by aligning enforcement across borders and invoking shared international norms, though they often face delays from veto powers or divergent interests. Empirical research indicates multilateral sanctions exhibit higher success probabilities than unilateral ones, as coordinated actions reduce leakage and enhance credibility.^[69] The European Union's 19th sanctions package against Russia, adopted on October 23, 2025, illustrates this by banning imports of Russian liquefied natural gas from January 2027 onward and targeting energy, finance, and third-country enablers, thereby intensifying pressure on Moscow's war economy through collective resolve.^[102]^[103] The U.S. leverages its financial hegemony—rooted in the dollar's 88 percent share of global foreign exchange transactions as of 2022—to extend unilateral sanctions extraterritorially, pressuring foreign banks and firms to comply under threat of exclusion from U.S. markets.^[104] This capability has enabled enforcement beyond borders but invites perceptions of overreach, spurring sanctioned states to develop dollar-alternative systems like China's CIPS, which could erode U.S. leverage over time.^[105]^[106] In multilateral contexts, such financial tools integrate more seamlessly, mitigating backlash while broadening impact.^[107]

Targeted Sanctions and Financial Tools

Targeted sanctions, often termed "smart sanctions," emerged in the late 1990s as a refinement of broader economic measures, aiming to pressure specific individuals, entities, or sectors while reducing unintended humanitarian impacts on civilian populations. This shift was prompted by evaluations of comprehensive sanctions regimes, such as those imposed on Iraq following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which highlighted widespread economic hardship without proportionally advancing policy goals. Initiatives like the Interlaken Process (1998), Bonn-Berlin Process (2000), and Stockholm Process (2003) developed frameworks for precision targeting, including asset freezes, travel bans, and sectoral restrictions on luxury goods or aviation fuel to elites.^[20]^[108] A prominent example is the United States' Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, which authorizes sanctions against foreign officials implicated in human rights abuses or significant corruption, such as asset blocking and visa denials. This legislation expanded into the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2016, enabling designations against global targets, including oligarchs and officials in countries like Russia, China, and Myanmar, to disrupt illicit financial networks without broad trade disruptions. By 2025, over 300 entities and individuals had been designated under these authorities, focusing on elite enablers of repression.^[109]^[110] Financial instruments form a core component of these targeted approaches, with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) maintaining the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List to freeze assets and prohibit U.S. persons from transactions with listed parties. SDN designations have been applied to thousands of targets, including banks, oligarchs, and state entities, effectively isolating them from dollar-denominated finance. Complementing this, exclusions from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) network sever access to global payment messaging, as seen in the 2012 disconnection of Iranian banks amid nuclear program pressures and the 2022 barring of select Russian institutions following the Ukraine invasion, which restricted over 70% of Russia's banking assets from international transfers.^[12]^[111]^[14] In recent years, these tools have evolved to address technological evasion, with 2024-2025 U.S. actions targeting financial facilitators in third countries supplying dual-use technologies to Russia, including Chinese entities providing semiconductors and electronics critical to military production. Treasury designations in June 2024 expanded secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions engaging in significant Russia-related transactions, aiming to coerce compliance from global banks. Similarly, U.S. outbound investment restrictions under Executive Order 14105, finalized in 2024, limit funding for Chinese advanced tech sectors like semiconductors, indirectly pressuring proliferation risks.^[112]^[113] Empirical assessments indicate that targeted financial sanctions achieve higher success rates in coercing elite behavior compared to comprehensive measures, with post-Cold War studies estimating effectiveness in 30-50% of cases involving policy changes or restraint among designated actors, attributed to direct personal costs like asset losses averaging tens of millions per individual. This contrasts with broader sanctions' lower precision, where civilian adaptation dilutes impact; for instance, financial isolations have prompted elite defections or negotiations in over 40% of analyzed Magnitsky-style applications.^[114]^[115]

Enforcement Challenges and Evasion Tactics

Targets of economic sanctions frequently employ adaptive evasion tactics that exploit gaps in international enforcement mechanisms, such as rerouting trade through third countries willing to disregard restrictions. Following the imposition of Western oil price caps on Russia in December 2022, Moscow redirected a substantial portion of its crude exports to India and China, which emerged as the largest buyers by 2023, often purchasing at discounts exceeding 20% below global benchmarks to circumvent the caps.^[116]^[117] This rerouting sustained Russian oil revenues at approximately $180 billion in 2023, mitigating the intended revenue reduction from sanctions.^[118] A prominent evasion strategy involves the use of "shadow fleets" of tankers with opaque ownership, frequently registered under flags of convenience and equipped to disable automatic identification systems (AIS) transponders for stealthy operations. By September 2025, Russia's shadow fleet had expanded to over 600 vessels, enabling the transport of sanctioned oil through routes like the Red Sea and Indian Ocean while evading naval patrols and insurance requirements tied to G7 sanctions.^[119]^[120] These tactics have outpaced enforcement efforts, as operators refine methods like ship-to-ship transfers in international waters to obscure cargo origins.^[121] Enforcement is further complicated by resource constraints in monitoring global financial and trade networks, where agencies face overwhelming transaction volumes and the need for real-time intelligence across jurisdictions. U.S. efforts, for instance, rely on interagency coordination but encounter delays in detecting evasion due to limited on-the-ground verification capabilities in non-cooperative third countries.^[122] Secondary sanctions, intended to pressure foreign banks into compliance, have deterred dollar-based transactions but inadvertently accelerated de-dollarization, with Russia and its partners increasing non-USD trade settlements by over 50% since 2022 through mechanisms like local currency swaps and alternative payment systems.^[123]^[124] Cryptocurrencies and informal financial channels also facilitate evasion by enabling anonymous transfers beyond traditional banking oversight, though their scale remains smaller compared to state-backed trade rerouting. Effective countermeasures demand sustained investment in advanced analytics, satellite surveillance, and multilateral intelligence sharing, yet fragmented global cooperation often allows 10-20% leakage in high-profile regimes, as estimated in analyses of post-2022 Russian sanctions compliance.^[125]^[126]

Key Case Studies

Sanctions Against Aggressors (Iraq 1990, Russia 2022–2025)

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 661 on August 6, imposing a comprehensive economic embargo that prohibited all trade with Iraq except for essential humanitarian supplies and permitted oil sales under strict oversight.^[57] ^[127] This multilateral measure, endorsed by a broad coalition including the United States, European nations, and Arab states, aimed to coerce Saddam Hussein's regime into withdrawing from Kuwait by isolating Iraq economically and denying it access to foreign exchange and military materiel. Initial effects included severe constraints on Iraq's import capacity, with estimates indicating a rapid depletion of foreign reserves and heightened internal pressures on the regime, though compliance was partial due to smuggling via Jordan and Turkey.^[128] However, the sanctions failed to compel withdrawal within months, as Iraq maintained control over Kuwaiti oil fields and defied demands, prompting Resolution 678 on November 29, 1990, which authorized military force after sanctions proved insufficient for immediate containment.^[127] Post-1991, following the U.S.-led coalition's liberation of Kuwait, the sanctions regime persisted under subsequent UN resolutions to enforce weapons inspections and restrict dual-use goods, but prolonged enforcement exacerbated civilian hardships, with child mortality rates reportedly rising sharply due to shortages of food, medicine, and infrastructure maintenance.^[129] This duration, spanning over a decade until the 2003 invasion, arguably entrenched regime resilience by channeling resources to loyalists while fostering widespread resentment against Western-led enforcement, contributing to societal fragmentation that later fueled post-invasion insurgencies after Saddam's fall.^[130] Empirical analyses suggest the initial rapid multilateral sanctions signaled credible commitment to reversal costs but required military complement for enforcement, highlighting containment's dependence on swift escalation beyond economic pressure alone.^[128] In response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the G7 nations and U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) coordinated swift sanctions, including the freezing of approximately $300 billion in Russian Central Bank reserves held abroad, primarily in Europe, to deny funding for military operations.^[131] ^[132] Additional measures encompassed SWIFT exclusions for major Russian banks, export controls on high-tech components critical for weaponry, and phased energy import restrictions, with the EU imposing a coal ban in April 2022, an oil embargo by December 2022, and agreements in 2025 to terminate remaining pipeline gas and LNG imports by the end of 2027.^[133] ^[134] These actions, building on pre-2022 Crimea-related penalties, aimed to contain aggression by disrupting war financing and logistics, with early impacts including a 40-50% drop in Russia's access to Western technology and elevated borrowing costs.^[135] Russia mitigated some pressures through evasion tactics, such as parallel imports routed via intermediaries like Turkey, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates, which by 2023-2024 sustained inflows of sanctioned goods including semiconductors and automotive parts, sustaining industrial output at 85-90% of pre-war levels despite restrictions.^[136] ^[137] Trade reorientation toward China, India, and other non-Western partners further buffered effects, with Russia's GDP contracting only 2.1% in 2022 before rebounding via militarized spending.^[138] Nonetheless, sanctions slowed military production by constraining precision components and forced adaptive shifts, such as increased reliance on domestic substitutes, demonstrating partial success in raising operational costs without fully halting advances.^[135] Across both cases, sanctions against invaders achieved partial isolation by demonstrating multilateral resolve and imposing verifiable economic penalties, yet yielded limited direct behavioral reversal—Iraq's withdrawal required armed intervention, and Russia's Ukraine operations persisted amid adaptations.^[139] Empirical evidence underscores their deterrence value in credibly signaling future aggression's high costs, as seen in elevated risk premiums for targeted regimes and coalition unity in enforcement, though success hinged on complementary military pressure and minimal evasion windows.^[140] ^[141] Rapid initiation post-invasion facilitated containment of territorial gains in Iraq's case via pre-war buildup, while Russia's broader pre-existing ties delayed full encirclement, affirming sanctions' role as a signaling tool rather than standalone coercion.^[142]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Efforts (Iran, North Korea)

Economic sanctions have been central to international efforts to curb Iran's and North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, aiming to impose economic costs that compel behavioral change or negotiation toward verifiable denuclearization. In Iran's case, multilateral sanctions intensified from 2012 onward significantly reduced oil revenues, contributing to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which temporarily restricted enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and reimposition of sanctions demonstrated the fragility of such arrangements, as Iran subsequently escalated its program. For North Korea, United Nations sanctions initiated after its 2006 nuclear test have frozen assets, restricted exports, and targeted proliferation networks, yet the regime has evaded measures through illicit trade and alliances, particularly with China, sustaining its program despite economic strain. Overall, these cases illustrate sanctions' capacity to delay proliferation timelines and extract temporary concessions but limited success in achieving permanent dismantlement absent complementary military deterrence or internal regime pressures. In Iran, sanctions enacted under UN Security Council resolutions and unilateral U.S. measures from 2011–2012 halved crude oil exports by 2015, dropping from approximately 2.5 million barrels per day to around 1.1 million, severely curtailing foreign exchange earnings essential for the nuclear program. This pressure, combined with financial restrictions, contributed to Iran's agreement to the JCPOA on July 14, 2015, which capped uranium enrichment at 3.67% purity, reduced operational centrifuges by two-thirds, and enabled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification in exchange for phased sanctions relief implemented in January 2016. Compliance initially verifiably limited Iran's breakout time—the period needed to produce weapons-grade material—to about one year, buying time for diplomacy. Yet, following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, and snapback of sanctions, Iran incrementally violated limits, resuming enrichment to 20% purity at the Fordow facility by January 2021 and accumulating stockpiles exceeding JCPOA thresholds, with IAEA reports in 2023 confirming near-weapons-grade traces. This reversibility underscores that sanctions alone incentivize negotiation but falter without sustained multilateral enforcement and robust verification mechanisms overriding domestic hardliner opposition. North Korea's nuclear pursuits prompted UN Security Council Resolution 1718 on October 14, 2006, following its first test on October 9, imposing arms embargoes, asset freezes, and luxury goods bans, with subsequent resolutions (e.g., 1874 in 2009, 2270 in 2016) escalating to coal, textile, and seafood export prohibitions targeting revenue streams funding proliferation. These measures have constrained the economy, with estimates indicating GDP contractions of 4.1% in 2016 and 4.6% in 2017 amid tightened enforcement, alongside cumulative declines averaging over 4% annually from 2017–2022 due to trade disruptions. Despite this, North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests through 2017 and advanced missile capabilities, evading sanctions via ship-to-ship transfers, cyber operations, and reliance on China for 90% of its trade, which has occasionally diluted enforcement. Sanctions have arguably delayed program maturation by limiting access to dual-use materials and foreign expertise but failed to compel verifiable abandonment, as the regime prioritizes survival and deterrence over economic relief. Pyongyang's persistence highlights how closed economies and ideological insulation reduce sanctions' coercive leverage without paired inducements like security guarantees. The experiences of Iran and North Korea reveal sanctions' mixed efficacy in non-proliferation: they excel at imposing verifiable delays and extracting interim restraints, as in the JCPOA's centrifuge reductions, but prove insufficient for outright elimination when regimes perceive existential threats or exploit evasion networks. Success hinges on integrating sanctions with intrusive inspections and regime-specific vulnerabilities rather than relying on economic pain alone, which often entrenches defiance in isolated states like North Korea. Without addressing underlying security dilemmas or enabling internal pressures for change, sanctions risk perpetuating cycles of escalation rather than resolution.

Regime and Human Rights Pressure (South Africa Apartheid, Cuba)

Economic sanctions targeting regimes for human rights violations and internal political reform have yielded rare successes, as illustrated by the apartheid-era case in South Africa, contrasted with prolonged failures like the U.S. embargo on Cuba. In South Africa, multilateral measures in the 1980s, including comprehensive trade bans and divestment campaigns coordinated by the United States, European nations, and the United Nations, imposed significant economic costs estimated at 1-3% annual GDP reduction, exacerbating fiscal strains from military engagements in Angola and Namibia. These pressures, alongside domestic unrest, hastened fractures among the ruling National Party elite, prompting secret negotiations with the African National Congress by 1990 and the formal dismantling of apartheid structures with the 1994 multiracial elections.^[143]^[144] Scholars attribute this outcome partly to sanctions' role in signaling international isolation, though internal factors like township revolts and leadership shifts under F.W. de Klerk were pivotal; unlike most cases, the combination avoided full regime entrenchment by leveraging broad multilateral enforcement.^[145] In contrast, the U.S. embargo against Cuba, enacted via the Trading with the Enemy Act on October 16, 1960, and codified in the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, sought to destabilize Fidel Castro's communist regime and compel human rights reforms, including release of political prisoners and free elections. Over 65 years, it has curtailed Cuba's GDP growth by an estimated 0.5-1% annually through restricted access to U.S. markets and finance, yet failed to precipitate regime change or verifiable improvements in civil liberties, with Amnesty International documenting persistent arbitrary detentions and suppression of dissent as of 2009.^[54]^[146]^[147] The Castro dynasty endured via evasion tactics, including subsidized oil imports from Venezuela under Hugo Chávez from 1999 onward—peaking at 100,000 barrels daily—and tourism revenues from Europe and Canada, which offset isolation without eroding elite cohesion.^[148] Empirical analyses of sanctions for regime or human rights pressure reveal success rates below 20% for goals like democratic transition, with unilateral efforts like Cuba's achieving foreign policy objectives in only 13% of instances since 1970, often devolving into stalemates that bolster target leadership narratives of external aggression absent complementary military deterrence.^[149]^[150] South Africa's partial win underscores the exceptional conditions required—multilateral buy-in and pre-existing internal vulnerabilities—while Cuba exemplifies how sustained isolation without invasion risks fortifying authoritarian resilience, as regimes adapt through third-party alliances and blame-shifting propaganda.^[151]

Broader Impacts

Macroeconomic Effects on Targets

Economic sanctions on targeted countries generally result in measurable contractions in GDP growth, with empirical analyses indicating an average reduction in real per capita GDP growth of 2.3 to 3.5 percentage points annually following imposition, particularly for comprehensive UN-authorized measures.^[152] ^[78] These effects stem from curtailed access to foreign capital, technology, and markets, leading to diminished investment and consumption components of GDP, alongside trade disruptions that can halve bilateral flows with imposing states.^[29] Over multi-year episodes, cumulative GDP per capita losses can reach 13 to 25 percent, depending on sanction duration and enforcement rigor.^[79] The magnitude of GDP impacts varies with the target's economic composition and global commodity cycles. Energy exporters, such as Russia after comprehensive Western sanctions imposed in February 2022, experience moderated contractions due to revenue windfalls from elevated oil and gas prices; Russia's GDP fell 2.1 percent in 2022—far less than initial forecasts of 8-10 percent—bolstered by export earnings that offset volume declines of 8.7 percent.^[153] ^[154] In contrast, diversified or import-dependent economies face steeper, more persistent slowdowns, as sanctions amplify vulnerabilities in supply chains and foreign exchange reserves, often triggering currency depreciations and import compression exceeding 15 percent in the first year.^[155] Long-term adaptations, such as import substitution industrialization, can partially offset initial shocks by expanding domestic production capacity, but these strategies yield uneven resilience. During Rhodesia's 1965-1979 unilateral declaration of independence under international sanctions, manufacturing output grew through substitution in consumer goods and building materials, enabling evasion of import controls and sustaining output near pre-sanction levels despite export curbs.^[156] However, such policies foster autarkic structures prone to inefficiencies, with persistent lags in high-tech sectors due to restricted access to advanced inputs and expertise, ultimately constraining productivity and innovation.^[157] Macroeconomic burdens from sanctions disproportionately affect non-elite segments of the population, exacerbating income inequality as measured by Gini coefficient increases in targeted states.^[158] Regimes frequently shield connected elites via state subsidies, parallel markets, and evasion tactics, while ordinary citizens endure higher poverty rates, reduced real wages, and shortages in essentials, with rural and low-income groups hit hardest.^[159] ^[160] This distributional skew arises from sanctions' indirect channels, including fiscal strains that prioritize regime survival over broad welfare.^[161]

Costs to Imposing Economies and Businesses

Economic sanctions impose direct and indirect costs on the economies and businesses of imposing countries, including forgone trade revenues, heightened compliance expenditures, and secondary market disruptions. These burdens arise from restrictions on exports and imports, which limit market access and revenue streams for domestic firms, as well as administrative overheads required to ensure regulatory adherence. While proponents argue that such costs are marginal relative to the diplomatic or security benefits—such as avoiding military expenditures—the empirical evidence indicates persistent economic drags, particularly when sanctions are prolonged or unilaterally applied.^[162] In the United States, sanctions have historically resulted in substantial lost export opportunities. For instance, the long-standing embargo on Cuba has deprived U.S. exporters of potential sales estimated in the billions annually; a 2009 analysis calculated that the policy costs the U.S. economy up to $4.155 billion per year in forgone trade, exceeding the $685 million annual losses claimed by Cuba. Broader assessments of multiple U.S. sanctions programs, including those on Cuba, suggest annual export losses totaling around $6 billion across eight specific cases, reflecting diverted trade flows to competitors in markets like agriculture and manufacturing. These figures underscore how sanctions can erode competitive advantages for American businesses, particularly in sectors reliant on emerging markets.^[163]^[164] Businesses in imposing countries also incur significant compliance costs to navigate sanctions regimes, such as screening transactions against lists maintained by bodies like the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). While aggregate economy-wide figures are challenging to pinpoint, individual firms face penalties up to $250,000 per violation under certain programs, incentivizing investments in risk-based compliance programs that include software, training, and audits—often costing mid-sized entities $1,200 to $2,500 annually for basic screening alone, scaling to millions for larger operations. Overuse of sanctions amplifies these burdens, as frequent updates to restricted entities lists demand ongoing vigilance, diverting resources from core activities.^[165]^[166] Allied economies experience amplified secondary effects, as seen in the European Union following the 2022 sanctions on Russia amid its invasion of Ukraine. Energy prices surged to record highs, with wholesale gas costs multiplying by factors of 10 or more in 2022, driven by reduced Russian imports and supply disruptions; this contributed to elevated inflation and household energy bills across the bloc, with the price escalation traceable to pre-invasion trends but exacerbated by sanction-induced rerouting of global supplies. The EU's diversification efforts reduced Russian energy dependence by approximately 90% since 2022, yet lingering vulnerabilities persist, imposing ongoing macroeconomic strains estimated in tens of billions of euros in lost welfare and productivity.^[167]^[168]^[169] Repeated reliance on sanctions as a foreign policy tool risks longer-term erosion of financial advantages, such as the U.S. dollar's global reserve status. By leveraging dollar-denominated systems for enforcement—via mechanisms like SWIFT exclusions—imposing nations accelerate de-dollarization trends, prompting sanctioned states and neutral parties to shift toward alternative currencies for trade, as observed in eastward Russian oil sales post-2022. This "weaponization" undermines trust in the dollar's neutrality, potentially raising U.S. borrowing costs and fragmenting global markets, though empirical measures of dollar share in reserves show stability through late 2023 despite these pressures. Unlike revenue-generating alternatives such as tariffs, sanctions yield no fiscal offsets, amplifying net costs when evasion or circumvention diminishes their efficacy.^[170]^[171]

Geopolitical and Long-Term Consequences

Economic sanctions imposed on major powers, such as those following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, have accelerated the shift toward a multipolar global order by prompting targeted states to forge deeper alliances with non-Western partners. Bilateral trade between Russia and China expanded significantly after 2022, reaching approximately $250 billion by 2024, with China emerging as Russia's primary supplier of goods previously sourced from the West and a key market for redirected energy exports.^[172]^[173] This pivot has included military technology sharing, such as jet engines, and growing economic interdependence, reducing Russia's isolation despite Western isolation efforts.^[173] Such realignments exemplify how sanctions can inadvertently strengthen counter-alliances, as Russia has increasingly relied on China across product categories while Beijing maintains leverage through asymmetric dependence.^[174] In parallel, sanctions have spurred initiatives within groups like BRICS to diminish reliance on the U.S. dollar, fostering de-dollarization experiments such as local-currency cross-border settlements piloted between Russia-China and India-UAE since 2023.^[175] These efforts, motivated by vulnerability to sanctions, aim to create alternative payment systems, including blockchain-based platforms announced in 2025, though their scale remains limited compared to dollar-dominated trade.^[176]^[177] Over the long term, this has contributed to a fragmented financial architecture, where sanctioned states prioritize sovereignty in transactions, potentially eroding Western financial primacy but also highlighting the dollar's enduring liquidity advantages.^[178]^[170] Empirically, sanctions have shown mixed deterrence against aggression: while they signal resolve and may restrain smaller actors through anticipated costs, they often fail to compel behavioral change in resilient regimes, instead entrenching leadership by rallying domestic support around narratives of external siege.^[179]^[88] In cases like Russia, intensified pressure has bolstered regime cohesion rather than collapse, as leaders limit public goods to challengers while leveraging alternative partnerships for survival.^[180] This dynamic risks escalation if aggressors perceive sanctions as bluffs—evident in Russia's sustained operations despite comprehensive measures—potentially emboldening scenarios like tensions over Taiwan by demonstrating that economic isolation can be mitigated through multipolar networks.^[6] Historical patterns suggest that sustained economic integration, rather than isolation, better promotes geopolitical stability by raising mutual costs of conflict, underscoring sanctions' limitations in altering core power rivalries.^[181]

Legal and Normative Frameworks

International Law and UN Authorization

Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is empowered to identify threats to international peace and security, including breaches of peace or acts of aggression, and to impose non-military measures such as economic sanctions under Article 41 to enforce compliance.^[182] These measures are binding on all UN member states, providing a multilateral framework that enhances their legitimacy and enforceability compared to unilateral actions.^[183] The Charter's provisions reflect a post-World War II consensus on collective security, allowing the Council to interrupt economic relations, communications, or other means to address such threats without resorting to armed force.^[182] A prominent example is United Nations Security Council Resolution 661, adopted on August 6, 1990, which imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, determining the action as a threat to peace under Chapter VII.^[56] The resolution prohibited all imports and exports with Iraq, except for essential humanitarian supplies, and established a sanctions committee to oversee implementation and exemptions. This marked one of the first major post-Cold War applications of Chapter VII sanctions, demonstrating their use to compel withdrawal and restore territorial integrity without immediate military intervention.^[56] Since 1990, the Security Council has established over 30 sanctions regimes targeting states, non-state actors, and specific activities like nuclear proliferation and terrorism, with 14 active regimes as of 2023 focusing on conflict resolution, non-proliferation, and counter-terrorism.^[184] Each regime typically includes a committee of Council members to administer measures and expert panels or monitoring teams to assess compliance, investigate violations, and report on effectiveness, such as the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team for counter-terrorism sanctions.^[185] These mechanisms ensure ongoing evaluation, with panels submitting periodic reports to the Council, as seen in the 26th report on ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida sanctions in 2020.^[185] Under customary international law, states retain the sovereign right to impose unilateral economic sanctions as non-forcible countermeasures in response to internationally wrongful acts, provided they adhere to principles of proportionality and do not violate fundamental obligations like non-intervention or human rights erga omnes norms.^[186] While lacking the binding force of UN-authorized measures, such actions derive legitimacy from self-defense allowances under Article 51 of the Charter when linked to armed attacks, though sanctions themselves must remain proportionate to the threat and cease upon its resolution.^[182] This customary framework permits flexibility for individual states but underscores the preference for multilateral authorization to avoid disputes over extraterritorial application or third-state obligations.^[187]

Debates on Legality and Proportionality

Economic sanctions authorized by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are generally regarded as legal instruments for maintaining international peace and security, as they constitute non-forcible measures to address threats without violating the prohibition on the use of force.^[188] However, unilateral sanctions imposed by individual states, particularly those with extraterritorial effects, spark intense debate over their compatibility with principles of state sovereignty enshrined in Article 2(1) and 2(7) of the UN Charter, which emphasize non-interference in domestic affairs and equal rights among states.^[189] Proponents argue that such measures serve as lawful countermeasures to restore a state of legality disrupted by the target's prior violations of international obligations, such as aggression or treaty breaches, thereby prioritizing causal accountability over absolute sovereignty.^[190] Advocates for the legality of unilateral sanctions contend they are essential for collective security when multilateral processes falter due to vetoes or inaction, as seen in the United States' reimposition of sanctions on Iran following the 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aimed at curbing nuclear proliferation risks absent unified UN enforcement.^[191] These actions are defended as exercises of sovereign jurisdiction over domestic entities and a legitimate response to the target's initiation of crises, rejecting characterizations of sanctions as unprovoked "economic warfare" by emphasizing the aggressor's causal role in precipitating the conflict.^[187] Empirical analyses indicate that while UN-authorized sanctions face fewer legal challenges, unilateral variants have proven viable in isolated instances by exerting pressure through financial isolation, though their success hinges on the imposer’s economic leverage rather than broad consensus.^[192] Critics, often from perspectives skeptical of Western dominance, assert that unilateral sanctions, especially secondary ones penalizing third-party compliance, constitute extraterritorial overreach that erodes the sovereignty of non-involved states and contravenes customary international law on non-intervention.^[187] Such measures are argued to disproportionately harm civilian populations without guaranteed policy shifts, potentially failing tests of necessity and proportionality under frameworks like the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, which require countermeasures to be reversible and calibrated to the injury inflicted.^[193] This view posits that absent UN authorization, sanctions risk normalizing coercive unilateralism, undermining the rule-based order they purport to defend, though evidence shows legal violations are rarely adjudicated successfully due to jurisdictional limits in bodies like the International Court of Justice.^[194] On proportionality, debates center on whether sanctions' economic disruptions must be strictly outweighed by their security benefits, with benchmarks demanding empirical assessment of direct harms against objectives like deterrence.^[193] Rule-based escalation—starting with targeted measures before broad embargoes—is favored to align with causal realism, ensuring responses match the gravity of provocations while minimizing incidental sovereignty intrusions.^[195] Studies quantifying U.S. sanction episodes from 1976 to 2012 reveal mixed outcomes, casting doubt on blanket effectiveness but underscoring that flexibility beyond rigid multilateralism can address stalled threats without inherent illegality.^[195]

References

[1]
What Are Economic Sanctions? | Council on Foreign Relations
Economic sanctions are defined as the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign- and security-policy purposes.Introduction · What are economic sanctions? · When are sanctions used?
[2]
[PDF] Economic Sanctions: An Overview - International Trade Commission
Economic sanctions (hereunder, “sanctions”) are often defined as “...the deliberate, government- inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade ...
[3]
A Brief History of Economic Sanctions - Carter-Ruck
Country-based sanctions are a form of restrictive measure imposed by one country or entity on another with the aim of limiting the target country's trade and ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[4]
The Rise of Economic Sanctions in U.S. Foreign Policy | Econofact
Jun 25, 2024 · The use of one type of penalty, economic sanctions, has surged in recent decades, increasing over nine-fold between 2000 and 2021.<|separator|>
[5]
Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Economic Sanctions | PIIE
Extensive empirical research on the effectiveness of economic sanctions throughout this century suggests that these two cases are not unusual. Since 1970, ...
[6]
[PDF] On the Cost- Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions
By far the most influential empirical study of the effectiveness of economic sanctions is Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliott's (HSE's) monu- mental work ...<|separator|>
[7]
Are Economic Sanctions Effective Foreign Policy Tools? - Tufts Now
Jul 8, 2024 · Economic sanctions are increasingly used to try to change foreign governments policies and actions, often with unintended consequences.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|separator|>
[8]
[PDF] The Economics of Sanctions: From Theory Into Practice
Sep 26, 2024 · This paper examines the effectiveness of economic sanctions imposed on Russia, particularly following its 2022 full-scale invasion of ...
[9]
What are sanctions? - Government.se
Sanctions are economic and political measures that aim to influence the behaviour of a state, a group or individuals.
[10]
Blockades 'expose' the innocent, to the 'ravages of economic war'
Sep 13, 2018 · Sanctions usually lead to countries, or groups of countries, refusing to trade with a targeted State, but a blockade prevents the targeted State ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
Failure and success of economic sanctions - CEPR
Mar 27, 2012 · Since 1990 the use of economic sanctions doubled and with better results: 40% is considered successful.2 The empirical lessons of the history of ...
[12]
Sanctions Programs and Country Information
The sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security ...Cuba Sanctions · Iran Sanctions · Belarus Sanctions · Libya Sanctions
[13]
An Overview of the OFAC Sanctions, Lists, and Program Types
Learn about comprehensive and selective sanctions, including the SDN List, sectoral and restricted parties lists, and targeted sanctions. Understand how OFAC ...
[14]
EU sanctions against Russia explained - Consilium
Asset freezes mean that all accounts belonging to the listed persons and entities in EU banks are frozen. It is also prohibited to make any funds or assets ...
[15]
What you need to know about SWIFT and economic sanctions | Hub
Mar 2, 2022 · Banning a bank from SWIFT freezes, at least temporarily, its ability to transact with the rest of the world. It prevents the excluded bank from ...Missing: mechanisms embargoes
[16]
Primary And Secondary Sanctions Explained
Secondary sanctions are designed to prevent third parties from trading with countries subject to sanctions issued by another country - even if these third ...
[17]
What are Primary & Secondary Sanctions? - ComplyAdvantage
May 13, 2021 · What are secondary sanctions? Secondary sanctions are economic sanctions issued against foreign companies or individuals that are trading with ...
[18]
Sanctions on dual-use goods - European Commission
May 20, 2025 · The EU has sharpened and extended export controls on dual-use goods to target sensitive sectors in Russia's military industrial complex.
[19]
Dual Use Export Licenses - Bureau of Industry and Security
Dual use export licenses are required in certain situations involving national security, foreign policy, short-supply, nuclear non-proliferation, missile ...
[20]
[PDF] Smart International Sanctions
Smart international sanctions represent an evolved model of sanctions developed in response to the shortcomings of traditional, comprehensive sanctions, which ...
[21]
Economic Sanctions - Army University Press
Economic sanctions are one method of coercion that states use topursue their international political objectives, whether to deter anaction, compel a change ...Economic Coercion In Early... · Japan And Pearl Harbor · Sanctions And RussiaMissing: definition | Show results with:definition
[22]
U.S. Sanctions: Overview for the 119th Congress
Sep 4, 2025 · Sanctions may aim to uphold international norms, prevent adversaries from achieving certain military-related capabilities, deter other malign ...
[23]
Sanctions | Security Council - UN.org.
The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and ...1988 Sanctions Committee · 1636 Sanctions Committee · Consolidated List<|separator|>
[24]
Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation - State Department
The Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation (TFS/SPI) maintains and enforces sanctions to maximize their economic impact on our targets and ...
[25]
What Makes Sanctions Effective? - Adam Smith Institute
Feb 13, 2025 · Pressuring the target into changing its policy (coercion). · Degrading the target's ability to achieve its objective (constraint). · Deterring the ...
[26]
[PDF] Economic Sanctions | Atlantic Council
3 Vulnerability to economic sanctions is defined as susceptibility to economic loss resulting from an economic sanction. Hossein. Askari, John Forrer, Jiawen ...
[27]
(PDF) ECONOMIC SANCTIONS: THEORY, POLICY, MECHANISMS
May 24, 2020 · Economic sanctions are the integral part of international economic policy, implemented through the theory of public (rational) choice, structural theory (cost- ...
[28]
The Impacts of Economic Sanctions on Supply Chain Management
Sep 19, 2022 · The impact of sanctions on different risk drivers, industries and supply chain performance measures are investigated.<|separator|>
[29]
The economic effects of international sanctions: An event study
The limited empirical evidence concerning the economic effects of international sanctions on target countries suggests that sanctions trigger financial crises ...
[30]
Economic Impact of the U.S. and U.N. Sanctions
Nov 19, 2024 · Financial constraints led to a decrease in the target states' real GDP growth by 1.51 percentage points, which is larger than the negative ...
[31]
Russia's Response to Sanctions: Reciprocal, Asymmetrical, or ...
Jan 2, 2020 · The Sanctions Problematique Typically, they are designed to impose pain on a target so that the costs of compliance outweigh the benefits of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
The Power to Hurt and the Effectiveness of International Sanctions
States may actually have to implement sanctions and inflict pain even if there are some observable measures of their capacity at the onset of a crisis.
[33]
Sanctions as Economic Statecraft: An Overview - SpringerLink
The Megarian decree (432 BC), banning all trade between Megara and the Athenian Empire, offers one of the earliest examples of the resort to economic tools for.
[34]
How Economic Sanctions in Ancient Greece Backfired, Prolonging ...
Apr 10, 2025 · The decree dictated that Megarian merchants would be excluded from the market of Athens and the ports in its empire, called the Delian League.
[35]
Megarian Decree - Livius.org
Oct 15, 2020 · Name of the Athenian policy to bar merchants from Megara from the Athenian markets. Sparta went to war with Athens because it refused to revoke the decree.
[36]
The Megaran Decree - CIRIS
The Megaran Decree was an Athenian economic sanction imposed on the city-state of Megara during the lead-up to the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE).
[37]
Embargo Act of 1807 - Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
These restrictions also disrupted American trade and threatened American neutrality. As time went on, British harassment of American ships increased.
[38]
Thomas Jefferson and the Embargo Act of 1807 - ThoughtCo
May 18, 2025 · With the embargo in place, American exports declined by 75%, and imports declined by 50%—the act did not completely eliminate trade and domestic ...
[39]
The Embargo Act - Teaching American History
In the end, the embargo proved ineffective, crippling the American economy but having minimal impact abroad. But the attractiveness of economic weapons to ...
[40]
Navigation Acts of 1651 | Definition, Significance & Purpose - Lesson
The purpose of the Navigation Act of 1651 was to protect British economic interests by weakening Dutch influence in American and European markets. It was also ...Missing: sanctions | Show results with:sanctions
[41]
Navigation Acts: England's First Attempt to Keep the Lid on ...
Apr 7, 2022 · Navigation Acts of 1651, were designed to guarantee English shipping and merchants exclusive rights to Britain colonial trade while ...Missing: sanctions | Show results with:sanctions<|separator|>
[42]
Sanctions in Trade – a quick history - TradeFinance.training
Oct 9, 2024 · One of the earliest recorded examples of trade sanctions is the Athenian embargo against Megara in 432 BC, known as the Megarian Decree.
[43]
The British Naval Blockade Of The First World War
World War 1: The British Naval Blockade of Germany occured between 1914 & 1919. A blockade of enemy ports hoped to cut off supplies from the outside world.
[44]
Naval Blockade (of Germany) - 1914-1918 Online
Jan 22, 2020 · The Allied blockade (1914-1919), which aimed to prevent war supplies reaching Germany, ultimately also targeted the civilian population.
[45]
The British Naval Blockade | History of Western Civilization II
The German Board of Public Health claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade through December 1918. An ...
[46]
World War I - Armistice, Treaty, Legacy | Britannica
Though they had endured increasing privations and were half-starved due to the Allied blockade by mid-1918, the German people had retained their morale ...
[47]
or how the Allied blockade in the First World War deprived German ...
Considered by Britain to be a necessary military action, the naval blockade was deemed by Germans to be an act of war against civilian populations, ...<|separator|>
[48]
[PDF] The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade ...
Whereas the monthly average civilian deaths in Germany in 1913 had amounted to 78,820, throughout 1918 the numbers dying each month rose to 191,320 in October ...
[49]
The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrine
Given the 1930s worldwide depression, there was little support for economic sanctions to punish the Japanese. Instead, the United States sat in on League of ...
[50]
Manchuria - JohnDClare.net
The League could not agree on sanctions or even a ban on weapons sales. Britain and France did not want a war, so nothing was done. The Japanese stayed in ...Missing: measures | Show results with:measures
[51]
[PDF] 1935 SANCTIONS AGAINST ITALY: WOULD COAL AND CRUDE ...
This paper focuses on the claim that sanctions failed because they did not include an embargo on strategic materials necessary to sustain the invasion of.
[52]
How Sanctions Failed - jstor
HOW SANCTIONS FAILED. By M. J. Bonn. THE failure of the sanctions applied against Italy poses on the one hand the problem of the League of Nations, its.
[53]
League's Attempt to Curb Italy in 1935 Recalled; Sanctions ...
failure of League of Nations to block trade with Italy after '35 invasion of Ethiopia recalled; lack of oil embargo noted as factor.
[54]
Cuba Embargoed: U.S. Trade Sanctions Turn Sixty
Feb 2, 2022 · 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower imposed the first economic sanctions against Cuba's revolutionary government, though they fell short of a full embargo.
[55]
[PDF] Multilateral Export Control Policy: The Coordinating
The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) is the informal multilateral organization through which the United States and its allies ...
[56]
Resolution 661 (1990) / - United Nations Digital Library System
Imposes economic sanctions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; establishes a sanctions committee.
[57]
IRAQ: U.N. Sanctions - Council on Foreign Relations
Why were the sanctions imposed? The sanctions regime was first established in U.N. Security Council Resolution 661 after Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
[58]
[PDF] THE TREASURY 2021 SANCTIONS REVIEW
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, economic and financial sanctions (“sanctions”) became a tool of first resort to address a range of threats to the ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[59]
Economic Sanctions: Evolution, Consequences, and Challenges
We examine the evolution of economic sanctions in the post-World War II era and reflect on the lessons that could be drawn from their features and patterns of ...
[60]
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/three-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference
[61]
Treasury Intensifies Sanctions Against Russia by Targeting Russia's ...
Jan 10, 2025 · New energy sector determination targets Russia's primary revenue source with sanctions against Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, more than 180 vessels, and ...<|separator|>
[62]
August 2025 — Monthly analysis of Russian fossil fuel exports and ...
Sep 10, 2025 · Russia's fossil fuel export revenues have fallen since the sanctions were implemented, subsequently constricting Putin's ability to fund the war ...
[63]
[PDF] Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd ed., Preview Chapter 6
have higher success rates on average. Cases in which financial, export, and import sanctions were all used, often comprehensively, were successful 40.
[64]
Analyzing the Effects of Economic Sanctions: Recent Theory, Data ...
Dec 14, 2023 · 4 In contrast, more recently, Kirilakha et al. (2021) provide evidence that the average success rate of sanctions is higher (around 40%). Why do ...
[65]
[PDF] Instrumental or Symbolic? The Role of Multilateral Economics ...
In our sample there are 43 cases of unilateral economics sanctions and 102 cases of multilateral economic sanctions. In the table below, we present an overview ...
[66]
[PDF] A Brief Review of the Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions - IIEA
As one would expect, multilateral sanctions are found to be more effective than unilateral ones and the most effective sanctions are those imposed by the UN.
[67]
https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/53/4/1075/1813604
[68]
A Meta-Analysis of Determinants of Success and Failure of ... - MDPI
Our results reveal highly significant effects, indicating that sanctions are more likely to succeed when there is strong pre-sanction trade, when sanctions are ...
[69]
On the Determinants of Sanctions Effectiveness: An Empirical ...
Sanctions' effectiveness depends on target country's political volatility, democracy, equality, and objectives. Smart sanctions (financial/military) are more ...
[70]
[PDF] THE DETERMINANTS OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS SUCCESS ...
This paper begins with an examination of the use of economic sanctions and the criteria by which scholars and policy makers have traditionally assessed ...
[71]
When Do Imposed Sanctions Work? The Role of Target Regime Type
Nov 22, 2022 · Hypothesis: Economic sanctions are more likely to be successful against hybrid regimes than democracies and autocracies. Illustrative Cases. The ...
[72]
How have sanctions impacted Russia? - Bruegel
Oct 26, 2022 · The most important factor explaining the difference is that sanctions failed to trigger a crisis in Russia's financial system, which would have ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[73]
The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Jul 24, 2023 · Iran's 2015 nuclear deal has defied the conventional wisdom over the futility of imposing economic sanctions to curtail its nuclear programme.
[74]
[PDF] Assessing the Net Effects of Sanctions on the Proliferation of ... - DTIC
51 In this case, there is a 25 percent success rate for sanctions designed to stop nuclear weapons. Yet, the article does little to explain why sanctions ...
[75]
Targeting autocrats: Economic sanctions and regime change
However, overall the effectiveness of sanctions remains weak. Very few sanctions led to regime change (Oechslin, 2011). Hufbauer et al. (2007) estimate that ...
[76]
[PDF] Economic Sanctions:
Summary of Key Findings (Cont.) ○ International cooperation doesn't guarantee success, but in recent years the record for multilateral sanctions is better ...
[77]
The Use of Economic Sanctions | Cato Institute
Dec 4, 2019 · Unfortunately, the historical record demonstrates that sanctions are rarely successful in achieving their objectives, especially on issues of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[78]
The impact of UN and US economic sanctions on GDP growth
The imposition of US sanctions decreases the target state's GDP growth over a period of seven years and, on average, by 0.75–1 pp, with a cumulated decrease in ...
[79]
[PDF] The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Target Countries - ifo Institut
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS For a “typical” sanction episode, these effects translate into a decline in GDP per capita of 25 percent in the case of UN ...
[80]
A Systematic Mixed-Studies Review on the Health Effects of Sanctions
Sanctions led to increased noncommunicable diseases or exacerbation of existing diseases, such as malnutrition, obesity, respiratory diseases, diabetes, ...
[81]
The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Strategies ... - NIH
Aug 26, 2025 · Sanctions can affect humanitarian, GDP growth, the value of the national currency, income inequality, poverty, food security, and health.
[82]
[PDF] THE HUMAN COSTS OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS FOR THE ...
Aug 6, 2025 · Economic sanctions can cause inflation, unemployment, food insecurity, and deprive populations of essential goods, and can be seen as a form of ...
[83]
The Impact of the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal
The Volcker commission said nearly half of the 4,400 companies involved in the program participated in bribery and kickbacks to benefit from the program.Missing: 1990s deaths
[84]
Case 90-1 | PIIE
... corruption and misconduct within the UN oil-for-food program. Other investigations including one by the Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraq Supreme ...
[85]
GAO-06-330, United Nations: Lessons Learned from Oil for Food ...
Taking these actions could have mitigated some of the corruption in the Oil for Food program. ... corruption in the sanctions regime. While tolerance of certain ...
[86]
[PDF] Economic Sanctions and Protection of Fundamental Human Rights
Apr 7, 2020 · The negative humanitarian impact of economic sanctions has raised questions on the limits to which embargoes should extend in order to punish.
[87]
Who Rallies Round the Flag? The Impact of the US Sanctions on ...
Nov 29, 2024 · Mueller (1970, 20) coined the term “rally round the flag” while studying the periodic rise in support for an incumbent US president during major ...Sanctions as a Foreign Policy... · Research Design and Methods · Empirical Results
[88]
Consequences of Economic Sanctions: The State of the Art and ...
Jun 22, 2021 · Literature Review on Sanction Consequences. Economic sanctions can be defined as restrictions over economic activity imposed by one ...Abstract · Literature Review on Sanction... · Limitations of Existing Research
[89]
https://www.statista.com/chart/28383/putin-approval/
[90]
Putin's approval rating soars since he sent troops into Ukraine, state ...
Apr 8, 2022 · VTsIOM said 78.9% of respondents in its latest survey said they approved of Putin's actions, compared to 64.3% in the last poll before the start ...
[91]
Putin's approval rating ends 2022 at 81%, boosted by support for the ...
Jan 2, 2023 · Putin's approval rating ends 2022 at 81%, boosted by support for the war in Ukraine · Related Content · Russia will remain defiant against US ...
[92]
When Do Diplomatic Protests Boomerang? Foreign Protests against ...
Jul 27, 2022 · They show that economic sanctions do not always cause the rally phenomenon. An experimental study found that the 2015 European Union's decision ...
[93]
When Do Imposed Economic Sanctions Work? A Critical Review of ...
Aug 5, 2025 · Sanctions can also backfire by causing the populations of sanctioned states to rally in support of their governments ( Pape 1997 ). Though some ...
[94]
US Sanctions Policy: Frequently Asked Questions - CEPR.net
From 2000 to 2021, the number of US-imposed sanctions increased by 933 percent. Economic sanctions have become a go-to instrument of US foreign policy, ...
[95]
[PDF] HAS THE US REACHED “PEAK SANCTIONS”? | Brookings Institution
May 28, 2024 · A seminal academic study of 170 cases of sanctions between World War I and the early 2000s found overall success rates in the range of 30%, ...
[96]
Diminishing Returns? The Future of Economic Coercion - CNAS
Nov 19, 2015 · The Future of Economic Coercion.” The report lays out the success of recent financial sanctions, details obstacles to their continued ...Missing: empirical evidence
[97]
Sanctions-Happy USA | PIIE
Ongoing foreign policy sanctions, defined as the "deliberate, government ... Overuse of financial sanctions risks dollar's role · Martin Chorzempa (PIIE).
[98]
America's Overreliance on Economic Sanctions and What to Do ...
Feb 18, 2020 · The toughest sanctions programs are applied to what are often referred to as “rogue states,” governments that are known for their violations of ...
[99]
The United States of Sanctions - Foreign Affairs
Joe Biden Administration. Recommended. Is the U.S. Using Sanctions Too Aggressively? The Steps Washington Can Take to Guard Against Overuse.
[100]
Venezuela Sanctions: A Failure On All Fronts - The National Interest
Apr 8, 2025 · U.S. sanctions have only entrenched the Maduro regime and opened up Venezuela to Russian and Chinese penetration.
[101]
History suggests Trump's snapped back sanctions won't deliver ...
Jun 12, 2025 · Venezuela's oil exports held steady in May, despite re-imposed US sanctions. Chatham House research suggests that's unlikely to change.
[102]
https://finance.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-adopts-19th-package-sanctions-against-russia-2025-10-23_en
[103]
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe-adopts-19th-sanctions-package-against-russia-including-lng-import-ban-2025-10-23/
[104]
Why the US cannot afford to lose dollar dominance - Atlantic Council
May 20, 2025 · Since World War II, US geopolitical influence has been compounded by the role of the dollar as the world's dominant currency.
[105]
McDowell Establishes Link Between US Financial Sanctions, Rise of ...
Most notably, the use of sanctions may, over time, weaken their effectiveness as US adversaries develop systems and methods to minimize costs associated with ...
[106]
Extra-Territorial Sanctions Policies of UK, EU and Canada Creep ...
Sep 22, 2024 · The US has leveraged the dominance of the US dollar in the international financial system by imposing extra-territorial sanctions, so-called secondary ...
[107]
[PDF] Extraterritorial sanctions on trade and investments and European ...
Nov 20, 2020 · The rationale rests on the premise that foreigners often use the American financial system and so become vulnerable to prosecution under US law.
[108]
"Smart Sanctions Revisited" by C. Joy Gordon
Targeted sanctions—often referred to as “smart sanctions”—began in large measure as a response to the UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990 and ...
[109]
Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Sanctions: The Global Magnitsky ...
Jul 8, 2025 · Authorizes the President to impose economic sanctions and deny entry into the United States to foreign persons identified as engaging in human rights ...
[110]
Magnitsky Sanctions - Office of Foreign Assets Control - Treasury
Legal Framework for Magnitsky Sanctions The Magnitsky Sanctions represents the implementation of multiple legal authorities. Some of these authorities are in ...Missing: targeted | Show results with:targeted
[111]
Swift and sanctions
The Regulation prohibits specialised financial messaging providers, such as Swift, from providing services to EU-sanctioned Iranian banks. Swift is incorporated ...Statements · What is the role of Swift in... · What services does Swift offer...
[112]
As Russia Completes Transition to a Full War Economy, Treasury ...
Jun 12, 2024 · On December 22, 2023, President Biden expanded Treasury's tools to disrupt and degrade Russia's war machine by authorizing Treasury to impose ...
[113]
Treasury Disrupts Russia's Sanctions Evasion Schemes
Jan 15, 2025 · This action targets a sanctions evasion scheme established between actors in Russia and the People's Republic of China (PRC) to facilitate cross-border ...Missing: tools | Show results with:tools
[114]
[PDF] Biased, But Surprisingly Effective: Economic Coercion afer the Cold ...
Depending on the measure of effectiveness, economic coercion has worked on average in 30 to 50 percent of all examined cases in the post-Cold War era. The ...
[115]
Are U.S. sanctions off-target: Evidence from the Magnitsky act
We compile data on US sanctions under the Magnitsky Act from 2017 to 2024 and find that such sanctions are weakly corelated with human rights abuses.<|separator|>
[116]
Will Russia Manage to Rebuild Its Sanctions Evasion Schemes?
Feb 19, 2025 · Will Russia Manage to Rebuild Its Sanctions Evasion Schemes? Tatiana ... China, India, and Turkey were the largest buyers of Russian oil and oil ...Missing: rerouting | Show results with:rerouting
[117]
Redirection of Russian Oil Exports: Analyzing the Impact of Western ...
Jul 13, 2025 · This research not only expands our understanding of contemporary sanctions evasion ... Energy security: Increased imports from Russia have ...Missing: rerouting | Show results with:rerouting
[118]
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/how-the-new-us-sanctions-on-russian-oil-will-impact-energy-markets/
[119]
Dark Waters: Strategic Implications of Russian Shadow Tankers in ...
Sep 11, 2025 · ... Russia has deployed a massive “shadow fleet” of aging, obscure tankers to evade Western sanctions ... Russia's adaptive evasion tactics ...
[120]
Countering Shadow Fleet Activity through Flag State Reform - RUSI
Sep 2, 2025 · As the sanctions pressure mounts, Russia and Iran are increasingly relying on evasive practices such as concealing ship ownership, disabling ...
[121]
'Shadow Fleet' Tactics Outpace Enforcement Efforts
Oct 2, 2025 · ... Russia is getting bigger, and operators are getting more creative and effective at evading enforcement. The US, and more recently the EU and ...
[122]
[PDF] GAO-25-107079, RUSSIA SANCTIONS AND EXPORT CONTROLS
Sep 30, 2025 · OCE also analyzes U.S. sanctions and export controls on Russia to determine possible sanctions evasion and trade diversion. •. According to ...
[123]
Secondary Sanctions may imperil dollar - GIS Reports
Oct 31, 2024 · America's unprecedented secondary sanctions are a high-stakes gamble that could reshape global trade and spell the end of US financial dominance.
[124]
[PDF] The Proliferation of Sanction Regimes: Impact on the Global ...
Sep 4, 2025 · ABSTRACT. The proliferation of sanction regimes has reshaped international relations and the global financial landscape. The United Nations.
[125]
Sanctions Evasion in the Russo-Ukrainian War: Challenges, Case ...
Sep 24, 2025 · This paper explores the evasion of Western sanctions by Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The central questions to the topic are how ...
[126]
[PDF] FROM AD-HOC SANCTIONS TO STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ...
against evasion tactics, put pressure on third countries involved in sanctions evasion, and don't make it too easy for Russia to adjust. This would still ...
[127]
UN Documents for Iraq: Security Council Resolutions
29 November 1990 S/RES/678, This resolution authorised the use of force in the context of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded that Iraq comply fully with ...<|separator|>
[128]
Why sanctions fell short of their objectives in the First Gulf War
Jan 5, 2023 · In response the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.
[129]
Remembering the United Nations Sanctions on Iraq - EPIC
Aug 8, 2025 · The invasion provoked outrage in the international community, prompting the United Nations ... Kuwait City in August 1990. United Nations ...
[130]
The Enduring Lessons of the Iraq Sanctions - MERIP
The Deep Human Damage of Sanctions. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, driven by baseless claims that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction, is well known.
[131]
Russia could concede $300 billion in frozen assets as part ... - Reuters
Feb 21, 2025 · Russia could agree to using $300 billion of sovereign assets frozen in Europe for reconstruction in Ukraine but will insist that part of the money is spent on ...Missing: OFAC | Show results with:OFAC
[132]
By the numbers: The global economy in 2022 - Atlantic Council
Dec 15, 2022 · Meanwhile, experts and policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic have discussed seizing frozen Russian reserves and using them for Ukraine's ...
[133]
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/10/20/council-agrees-its-position-on-rules-to-phase-out-russian-gas-imports-under-repowereu/
[134]
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-agrees-gradually-end-russian-gas-imports-by-january-1-2028-2025-10-20/
[135]
On the effectiveness of the sanctions on Russia: New data and new ...
Mar 12, 2025 · The authors find that the sanctions have decreased Russia's trade with sanctioning states but with very heterogeneous effects, especially across the EU.
[136]
Russian Sanction Evasion Drives Development of Alternative ...
Apr 28, 2025 · Parallel importation reduces requirements on and obligations to importers at the expense of consumer protection and copyright laws (Re: Russia, ...
[137]
The Silent Trade: Russia's Sanction Evasion via Parallel Imports
Jun 5, 2024 · In May 2022, Russia launched a parallel import program, covering goods ranging from car parts, and electronics, to clothing, as imports ...
[138]
Sanctions effectiveness: what lessons three years into the war on ...
Feb 19, 2025 · The aim of the sanctions against Russia has two dimensions. The first is economic: to disrupt trade and cripple the Russian economy (that is, reduce its GDP).Missing: freezes | Show results with:freezes
[139]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5015592
[140]
sanctions as tool for strategic deterrence: an assessment of targeted ...
Aug 7, 2025 · The issue raises the question of whether or not sanctions on Russia would be an effective strategy in stopping their aggressiveness in Ukraine.
[141]
A Comprehensive Approach to Sanctions Effectiveness
Jul 11, 2024 · The study suggests that while sanctions may not visibly affect macroeconomic variables, they do incur “costs” through mitigation efforts by the ...<|separator|>
[142]
Back & Forth 3: Do Sanctions Work? - CSIS
Mar 19, 2025 · He also correctly points out that multilateral sanctions are more effective than unilateral measures. However, his overall assessment of ...
[143]
[PDF] SANCTIONS ON SOUTH AFRICA: WHAT DID THEY DO?
On the face of it, South African sanctions appear to have been successful. In response to the outrages of apartheid, many countries adopted trade and financial.
[144]
(PDF) The Impact of Apartheid and International Sanctions on South ...
Our study empirically investigates the impact of apartheid (1950-1994), in particular the period of international sanctions (1981-1994) against the apartheid ...
[145]
Chapter 15: The Roles of Sanctions and the Contributions of African ...
Based on the experience of Apartheid South Africa, sanctions indeed work as effective tools of international diplomacy and national transformation. Sanctions ...
[146]
Understanding the Failure of the U.S. Embargo on Cuba
Feb 4, 2022 · On February 3, 1962, President John F. Kennedy imposed the U.S. embargo on Cuba. The 60th anniversary of the embargo is a stark reminder of ...
[147]
[PDF] THE US EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA - Amnesty International
Sep 14, 2009 · The embargo has helped to undermine the enjoyment of key civil and political rights in Cuba by fuelling a climate in which fundamental rights ...
[148]
Cuba Embargo | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Communism ...
The U.S. embargo against Cuba has failed. It has neither facilitated regime change, nor advanced any notable improvements in human rights, democracy or economic ...
[149]
Do sanctions actually work? Experts evaluate the efficacy of this ...
Feb 12, 2024 · Since 1970, unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. have achieved foreign policy goals in just about 13% of cases, according to one study.
[150]
When Do Economic Sanctions Work Best? - CNAS
Jun 10, 2019 · Most targeted sanctions, such as bans on the sale of luxury goods and sectoral sanctions, have an even lower success rate at about 20 percent.
[151]
[PDF] The Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions: The Case of Cuba
Economic sanctions are assumed to cause economic costs, but success rates vary. Some studies show 41% success, while others show 55% for certain types of ...
[152]
[PDF] The Impact of UN and US Economic Sanctions on GDP Growth - FIW -
On average, the imposition of UN sanctions decreases the target state's real per capita GDP growth rate by 2.3–3.5 percentage points (pp). These adverse effects ...
[153]
How Sanctions Have Reshaped Russia's Future - CSIS
Feb 24, 2025 · In 2022, Russia's GDP experienced a contraction of 2.1 percent, and while it was able to regain growth as the war dragged on, this growth was ...
[154]
Sanctions against Russia will worsen its already poor economic ...
Russia's GDP has contracted by about 2 percent compared to an expected 8.5 percent. This is mainly due to the strong post-COVID-19 recovery, outsized export ...<|separator|>
[155]
Impact of sanctions on the Russian economy - consilium.europa.eu
According to the IMF estimates, in 2022, Russia's imports dropped by 15.01% (compared to 2021), while exports dropped by 8.7%. In 2023, imports will increase by ...
[156]
[PDF] RHODESIA: ECONOMIC PROGRESS DESPITE SANCTIONS - CIA
Manufacturing has benefited from an import replacement boom, notably in consumer manufactures and building materials.
[157]
Economic Sanctions: The Theory And The Evidence from Rhodesia
despite Rhodesia's evasion of import sanctions and import substitution in manufacturing, "the problem of paying for imports exceeds that of ob taining them ...
[158]
The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Income Inequality of Target ...
We find robust empirical evidence that the imposition of sanctions has a deleterious effect on income inequality.
[159]
Impact of economic sanctions on poverty and economic growth
Sanctions have a damaging effect on income inequality and impact ordinary people more than the sanctioned country's leaders. Sanctions tend to harm rural and ...
[160]
[PDF] Impact of Economic sanctions on poverty and economic growth
Jun 14, 2017 · The majority of the studies for this report highlight the negative impact that economic sanctions have on the average member of the population, ...
[161]
Full article: The unintended consequences of UN sanctions
Apr 1, 2022 · Empirical studies consistently show that sanctions can incur negative consequences in the form of a rally-round-the-flag effect or strengthened ...
[162]
[PDF] THE DOMESTIC COSTS OF SANCTIONS ON FOREIGN ...
Costs of Sanctions. The simplest studies of costs to the U.S. economy from imposing sanctions on other countries fo- cus on losses in a single market. They ...
[163]
The Costs of the Embargo - Dollars & Sense
Mar 1, 2009 · The Cuban government estimates the loss to Cuba at about $685 million annually. Thus the blockade costs the United States up to $4.155 billion more a year than ...
[164]
[PDF] An In-Depth Analysis of the Effects of Economic Sanctions Against ...
"eight specific sanctions cost the U.S. economy $6 billion in annual export sales ... Specifically, the U.S. has imposed a full trade embargo against Cuba.
[165]
BSA/AML Manual, Office of Foreign Assets Control
Some enforcement responses may result in the issuance of a civil penalty that, depending on the sanctions program affected, may be as much as $250,000 per ...Missing: costs | Show results with:costs
[166]
OFAC Compliance Software Pricing: How to Get the Best Value
For organizations conducting low- to mid-volume screenings (5,000–20,000 annually), the average cost typically ranges between $1,200 and $2,500 per year. These ...
[167]
Energy price rise since 2021 - consilium.europa.eu
The price of energy in the EU reached record levels in 2022. The rise, linked to the increase of wholesale energy prices globally, started back in 2021.
[168]
Energy prices and security of supply - consilium.europa.eu
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had a devastating impact on the energy market and pushed energy prices to record levels. Russia's unilateral ...
[169]
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-sanctions-russian-oil-majors-prompting-oil-price-rise-india-jitters-2025-10-23/
[170]
De-dollarization: The end of dollar dominance? - J.P. Morgan
Jul 1, 2025 · De-dollarization entails a significant reduction in the use of dollars in world trade and financial transactions, decreasing national, institutional and ...
[171]
De-dollarization? Not so fast - ScienceDirect
This paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that these concerns are misplaced, finding US dollar dominance remains unchanged up through late 2023.Missing: hegemony | Show results with:hegemony
[172]
No Limits? The China-Russia Relationship and U.S. Foreign Policy
... failed to condemn the invasion and opposed Western sanctions against Russia. ... Phelim Kine, “China's Foreign Minister Faults 'U.S. Misperceptions ...Missing: prolonged | Show results with:prolonged
[173]
Russia and China Have Drawn Closer: Three Ways to Wedge Them ...
Aug 19, 2025 · Russia-PRC trade turnover is now close to $250 billion. Russia is actively sharing military technology such as jet engines, according to public ...
[174]
The dependence gap in Russia-China relations
Oct 2, 2025 · Russia is becoming increasingly reliant on China across a widening range of product categories, while Beijing maintains minimal exposure to ...Growing Chinese exports to... · China's imports from Russia... · Military ties
[175]
BRICS making progress on payment system - GIS Reports
Oct 2, 2025 · Pilot programs for cross-border settlements in local currencies have already occurred between Russia and China and India and the UAE, suggesting ...
[176]
How Would a New BRICS Currency Affect the US Dollar? | INN
Sep 10, 2025 · The BRICS nations are interested in creating a new currency to compete with the US dollar, and recently announced plans for a blockchain-based payment system.
[177]
The BRICS and de-dollarisation - CADTM
Oct 6, 2025 · Many perceive the BRICS countries as a counterweight to the dollar-dominated monetary order. However, the facts speak for themselves: at the ...
[178]
How to Counter BRICS and Preserve Global Dollar Dominance
Oct 3, 2025 · BRICS members still depend on the dollar's liquidity and stability, but each summit strengthens the credibility of alternatives as de- ...
[179]
Economic sanctions evolved into tool of modern war
Jan 11, 2022 · The deterrent effect of possible sanctions was enough to restrain the aggression of small states. In 1921, Yugoslavia was forced to break ...Missing: WMD proliferation
[180]
[PDF] Sanctions Emerge as the Indispensable Tool of American Statecraft
May 29, 2015 · In both countries, the brunt of the sanctions was borne by ordinary citizens, and the targeted regimes were effectively strengthened. George ...
[181]
[PDF] Understanding The Economic Impact Of Targeted Sanctions
Sanctioned companies lose about one-third of revenue, over half of asset value, and one-third of employees, but sanctions are considered "smart" with minimal ...
[182]
Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches ...
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations.
[183]
Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of ... - UN.org.
Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations provides the framework within which the Security Council may take enforcement action.
[184]
United Nations Sanction Regimes
Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes. 14 of those regimes are still in place today. UNSC has adopted different types of ...<|separator|>
[185]
Reports | Security Council - UN.org.
Monitoring Team's Twenty-sixth report. S/2020/493, 3 June 2020, Joint report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team and Counter-Terrorism ...
[186]
What is the International Law on Unilateral Sanctions?
Apr 22, 2022 · There is no specific rule in international law that prohibits states from resorting to unilateral sanctions against other states. To the ...
[187]
Legality of Unilateral Extra-territorial Sanctions under International ...
Feb 15, 2022 · The article examines the lawfulness of unilateral extra-territorial sanctions as a form of targeted sanction under international law.
[188]
Debating the Law of Sanctions
This article traces the shifting legal debate over the use of UN sanctions. ... Gowlland-Debbas, Collective Response to Illegal Acts in International Law: United ...
[189]
Legality of Economic Sanctions Under International Law
Apr 28, 2025 · This paper examines the legality of economic sanctions under international law by exploring their legal basis, the tension they create between sovereignty and ...
[190]
[PDF] The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions as Countermeasures for ...
We are concerned here only with the justification as countermeasures of otherwise illegal acts, aimed at restoring a state of legality by imposing lawful.
[191]
Iran Sanctions - United States Department of State
The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in ...
[192]
Unilateral Sanctions Under International Human Rights Law
Sep 6, 2023 · Theoretically, of course, it is possible for a state to adopt a unilateral sanction that would violate customary international law, for example ...
[193]
[PDF] Economic Sanctions and Human Rights: Quantifying the Legal ...
The article examines the proportionality of US sanctions, finding doubt on their effectiveness for human rights, and that they may harm civilians.
[194]
https://brill.com/view/journals/nord/89/3-4/article-p399_399.xml?language=en
[195]
Economic Sanctions and Human Rights: Quantifying Proportionality
We employ econometric techniques to explore the proportionality of US sanction episodes between 1976 and 2012. Our results cast doubt on the effectiveness of ...<|separator|>