Economic sanctions: what effectiveness?

Résumé du document

Economic sanctions have been an increasingly conspicuous feature of world politics since the end of World War I. This increase owes largely to the decreasing legitimacy of the use of force and the world's growing economic interdependence. With World War I, it became generally recognized that modern war meant the mass destruction of human life and property and the wholesale devastation of nation's cultural heritage. The end of the war brought to an end, the right of states to resort to war. This right was earlier seen as absolute and legitimate. After World War I, the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for economic sanctions against those resorting to war in disregard of the Covenant. These sanctions were automatic, immediate and not graduated. The first economic sanction was in 1933 by the UK against USSR. The almost exclusive role of economic sanctions between the European armistice of 1918 and the renewal of European hostilities in 1939 was the alternative to force.

Extraits

[...] A report has shown that the economic sanctions imposed to Iraq have diminished the access to medicine and then increased the infant death rate, the mortality of children. Finally, the result is that many economic sanctions lead to increase the damages already inflicted to the population by the government. Therefore, all the politics of economic sanctions should be stopped. A preventive weapon above all The frequent use of economic sanctions as a tool of international policy combined with their diminishing effectiveness has led to a reevaluation. [...]

[...] On the one hand, the end of a political project opposed to peace is a good thing but on the other hand, we can't deny the costs associated with the sanctions. An economic sanction can't be called effective if the cost overtakes the diplomatic gain. That's why this cost musts be took into account. Examples: The embargo on cereals imposed by the US to the USSR in the 80's has affected the American farmers, who were destitute of an essential outlet, more than the Soviets who have benefit from substitute trade. [...]

[...] Economic sanctions: what effectiveness? Introduction Economic sanctions have been an increasingly conspicuous feature of world politics since the end of World War I. This increase owes largely to the decreasing legitimacy of the use of force and the world's growing economic interdependence. With World War it became generally recognized that modern war meant the mass destruction of human life and property and the wholesale devastation of nation's cultural heritage. The end of the war brought the end of the right of states to resort to war, which was until then seen as absolute and legitimate. [...]

[...] In addition to this immediate impact, the adverse effects may linger long after sanctions have been lifted. Cost to the civil population Humanitarian ethic = the imposition of sanctions does not lead to change in the target state because it affects the wrong group of people, the masses. This argument takes into account the pain and damages caused to the civil population, which is finally the main victim of these sanctions. In theory, economic sanctions aim at authoritarian governments which are not only disrespectful to peace and international security, but also to the freedoms and rights of their population. [...]

[...] Economic sanctions can be used as a preventive mean to stop repression. Nonetheless, the causal direction of the sanctions-repression relationship is complicated. The aim of sanctions from other countries is to stop repression of a government, but sanctions can also breed repression. By contrast, an authoritarian regime may be able to use the sanctions episode to strengthen its grip on the population and to compel support for its policies. For example, Mussolini in the 30's and Castro in the 90's have rallied popular opinion against the external enemy (the UN or the US). [...]