Almost 100 years after the First World War, a new generation of policymakers has begun to use economic sanctions as an instrument of global coercion. But these sanctions have a different character than those of the 1930s. The global economy is much more integrated than in the past, making today’s sanctions shocks more likely to spill over into world markets and to be weakened in new ways through trade diversion and evasion. This raises questions about how far the costs of a sanction can be offset by the benefits, and about the effectiveness of these instruments.
A key reason that states impose sanctions is to prevent terrorist attacks. Sanctions make it harder for terrorist groups to fund themselves by preventing countries from trading with them. This helps to stop these terrorists from committing acts of violence around the world and to protect people in other nations.
The other reason that states impose sanctions is to encourage political change in the targeted country or region. Sanctions are usually imposed when a region or a country is under the control of a dictator or a political system that oppresses its people. This oppression is often enough to convince countries to impose sanctions in the hopes that these will lead to a democratic government and to save their citizens from harm.
However, it is important to understand the limits of sanctions as an instrument for encouraging political change. The success rate of sanctions is only about 31%, and they can also have a demoralizing effect on the target country’s citizens and can reinforce the sense that outsiders are to blame for the country’s problems.
About the Author
