Understanding Economic Sanctions: Coercive Diplomacy Tool

Overview
Economic sanctions have become a cornerstone of modern international diplomacy and statecraft. Countries impose these sanctions in response to a variety of issues, ranging from human rights violations and territorial disputes to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. These sanctions are often viewed as a non-military alternative to diplomacy, designed to exert pressure on a state or group without resorting to armed conflict. However, the effectiveness and ethical implications of sanctions remain subjects of ongoing debate among policymakers, scholars, and international relations experts. This article by Academic Block explores the history, types, impact, and debates surrounding economic sanctions, analyzing their role in shaping global politics.
Understanding Economic Sanctions
Economic sanctions are policy tools used by countries or international organizations to exert pressure on a state or entity, typically to influence its behavior without resorting to military intervention. These measures can take various forms, including trade restrictions, asset freezes, financial penalties, and diplomatic measures. Sanctions are typically imposed in response to actions deemed undesirable, such as violations of international law, human rights abuses, or the pursuit of nuclear weapons programs.
History and Evolution of Economic Sanctions
The use of sanctions as a diplomatic tool dates back centuries, but their widespread use in the modern sense began in the 20th century, particularly after World War I. The establishment of the League of Nations in 1920 marked the first collective international effort to use economic measures against aggressive states. Although the League's attempt to impose sanctions on Italy in 1935 over its invasion of Ethiopia failed, it laid the groundwork for future applications of economic pressure in global diplomacy.
Following the creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945, the use of sanctions became more formalized. The UN Security Council, in particular, was granted the authority to impose sanctions on countries deemed a threat to international peace and security. The Cold War era saw both the United States and the Soviet Union frequently use sanctions as tools to advance their ideological and strategic interests. The 1990s marked a turning point, with the United States and its allies using sanctions in response to global challenges such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and regional conflicts.
Economic sanctions evolved from relatively simple trade restrictions to more sophisticated and targeted measures that seek to affect a country's economy while minimizing collateral damage to civilians. The rise of globalization and interconnected economies also meant that the scope of sanctions expanded, and enforcement became more complex. Sanctions became both a tool for political leverage and a means of shaping international norms and behaviors.
Types of Economic Sanctions
Economic sanctions can take many forms, each designed to target specific aspects of a country's economy, political system, or military capabilities. Broadly, sanctions can be classified into several categories: comprehensive sanctions, targeted sanctions, and sectoral sanctions. Each type has its own objectives, scope, and impact.
-
Comprehensive Sanctions : Comprehensive sanctions are the most extreme form of economic sanctions, often involving the total or near-total cessation of trade, financial transactions, and diplomatic relations. These sanctions aim to isolate the target country economically and politically, with the goal of forcing the government to change its behavior. An example of comprehensive sanctions is the US embargo on Cuba, which was imposed in the 1960s and remains in place in various forms to this day. Comprehensive sanctions can severely damage a country's economy, disrupt daily life for citizens, and lead to widespread suffering, making them highly controversial.
-
Targeted Sanctions : Targeted sanctions, also known as smart or focused sanctions, are designed to minimize the impact on the general population while specifically targeting individuals, organizations, or sectors within a country's economy. These sanctions include asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on specific goods or services. They are often used to pressure government officials, business elites, or military leaders who are deemed responsible for undesirable actions. The United Nations has frequently used targeted sanctions in response to conflicts in regions like Sudan, North Korea, and Iran. While targeted sanctions are considered more humane than comprehensive sanctions, their effectiveness in achieving political objectives remains mixed.
-
Sectoral Sanctions : Sectoral sanctions are designed to target specific sectors of a country's economy, such as its energy, finance, or defense industries. These sanctions aim to undermine the economic base of a nation's power by disrupting critical industries or reducing its access to international markets. The US and the European Union have used sectoral sanctions to pressure countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. For example, sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea in 2014 targeted the country's energy, defense, and banking sectors, aiming to weaken its economy and reduce its ability to engage in further aggressive actions.
The table below summarizes the key characteristics of each type of economic sanction, with examples and potential impacts:
The Mechanisms of Economic Sanctions
The implementation and enforcement of economic sanctions are typically carried out by international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, as well as by individual countries acting unilaterally or in coalitions. Sanctions may also be imposed in response to decisions made by regional organizations like the African Union or the Organization of American States. The process typically begins with the identification of a target state or entity, followed by the establishment of a sanctions regime that defines the specific measures to be taken.
For sanctions to be effective, they must be enforced and monitored. This often requires the collaboration of multiple countries and international bodies to ensure that the sanctions are not circumvented through illegal trade or third-party intermediaries. The UN Security Council has established monitoring bodies to track the effectiveness of sanctions and ensure compliance, but enforcement can be inconsistent, particularly when sanctions involve powerful countries with significant economic or political interests at stake.
Sanctions can be imposed unilaterally, meaning one country takes action on its own, or multilaterally, meaning a coalition of countries or international organizations imposes sanctions collectively. Multilateral sanctions are generally considered more effective, as they send a stronger message and limit opportunities for the target country to find alternative markets or partners. However, obtaining consensus for multilateral sanctions can be difficult, especially when major powers have conflicting interests.
The Role of Technology and Financial Networks in Circumventing Sanctions
The rise of technology and alternative financial systems has significantly complicated the enforcement of economic sanctions. These innovations allow sanctioned countries to bypass traditional financial channels, making it harder for international actors to apply effective economic pressure.
Cryptocurrency as a Tool for Evasion
Cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, operate on decentralized networks, enabling sanctioned entities to conduct cross-border transactions without relying on traditional banking systems. For instance, North Korea and Iran have utilized cryptocurrencies to bypass financial restrictions. North Korea has reportedly used cryptocurrency mining and blockchain technology to raise funds, while Iran has explored using cryptocurrencies to trade oil and goods, avoiding US sanctions. Cryptocurrencies allow sanctioned countries to circumvent asset freezes and capital controls, presenting a significant challenge to sanctions enforcement.
Alternative Financial Systems: SPFS and CIPS
Sanctioned nations have also turned to alternative financial systems to bypass Western-led institutions like SWIFT.
-
Russia’s SPFS : In response to sanctions, Russia developed its own financial messaging system, SPFS, to replace SWIFT. While not as globally integrated, SPFS allows Russian financial institutions to transact securely within Russia and with countries like China, India, and Iran, circumventing Western financial oversight.
-
China’s CIPS : China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) offers an alternative to SWIFT, facilitating transactions in Chinese Yuan (RMB). CIPS has gained importance as China seeks to internationalize its currency and provide sanctioned countries like Iran and Venezuela a means of bypassing US-dominated financial systems.
These alternatives make it harder to enforce sanctions by providing sanctioned states with independent financial networks, thereby reducing the effectiveness of traditional economic pressure.
Examples of Successful Sanctions
While sanctions often face criticism for their limited impact, there are several cases where they played a significant role in achieving political change. Successful sanctions typically result from a combination of international cooperation, strategic design, and the target country's vulnerability.
-
Sanctions on South Africa (1980s) : One of the most cited examples of successful sanctions is the international campaign against South Africa during apartheid. In the 1980s, a coalition of Western countries, led by the U.S. and European nations, imposed comprehensive sanctions, including trade restrictions, investment bans, and arms embargoes. The sanctions severely impacted South Africa’s economy, which was heavily reliant on foreign trade and investment. The economic strain, coupled with domestic unrest and global anti-apartheid activism, pressured the South African government to begin dismantling apartheid. By the early 1990s, negotiations were underway, leading to the end of apartheid in 1994. The success of these sanctions was due to widespread international support and the internal and external pressures on the South African regime.
-
Sanctions on Serbia (1990s) : During the 1990s, the breakup of Yugoslavia and the conflict in Bosnia prompted the United Nations to impose a comprehensive sanctions regime on Serbia. The sanctions, including an arms embargo and trade restrictions, were aimed at halting Serbia’s involvement in the war. While they did not immediately stop the violence, they weakened Serbia's economy, isolated the country, and increased pressure on the government. By the late 1990s, the Serbian economy was in crisis, and the international community's diplomatic pressure led to the 1995 Dayton Agreement, which ended the conflict. Although sanctions were not the sole factor in the resolution, they played a crucial role in pressuring the Serbian government to negotiate.
-
Sanctions on Libya (1990s-2000s) : Sanctions imposed on Libya in response to its involvement in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other acts of terrorism also serve as an example of successful sanctions. In 1992, the UN imposed an arms embargo, trade restrictions, and asset freezes on Libya. Over time, these sanctions isolated Libya economically, leading the regime to reassess its stance. In 2003, Libya agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs and make reparations to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. This led to the lifting of sanctions and Libya's reintegration into the international community. While other factors contributed to Libya's decision, sanctions played a pivotal role in convincing the government that continued isolation was unsustainable.
Impact and Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions
The impact of economic sanctions is multifaceted and can vary depending on the type of sanctions imposed, the resilience of the target country, and the level of international support for the measures. While sanctions are often intended to cause economic pain and pressure a government to change its policies, their effectiveness in achieving these goals is highly contested.
Economic Impact
The primary objective of most sanctions is to disrupt the target country's economy, with the aim of forcing political change. Sanctions can lead to significant economic contraction, inflation, high unemployment, and shortages of essential goods and services. For instance, sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s after its invasion of Kuwait severely affected the country's economy, leading to widespread hardship among the civilian population. Similarly, sanctions on North Korea have contributed to economic isolation, making it difficult for the country to access international markets and acquire essential goods.
However, the economic impact of sanctions is not always straightforward. In some cases, sanctions may have limited effects on the ruling elite, who can find ways to circumvent the sanctions through smuggling, third-party trade, or illicit financial networks. In these cases, sanctions may hurt ordinary citizens more than the target regime, leading to unintended humanitarian consequences.
Political and Social Impact
The political impact of sanctions is often difficult to measure, as it depends on a variety of factors, including the political system of the target country, the level of resistance from the government, and the presence of alternative sources of support. In some cases, sanctions may prompt the targeted government to change its policies, either due to internal pressure or a desire to re-enter the global community. In other cases, sanctions may have the opposite effect, rallying the population around the government and strengthening its resolve to resist external pressure.
Sanctions can also lead to social unrest, particularly if they cause widespread economic suffering. In countries with weak institutions or fragile economies, sanctions may exacerbate existing social tensions, leading to protests, civil disobedience, or even regime collapse. However, this outcome is rare, and most governments are able to withstand the pressures of sanctions for extended periods.
Humanitarian Consequences
One of the most contentious aspects of economic sanctions is their humanitarian impact. Comprehensive sanctions, in particular, can cause significant harm to civilian populations by disrupting access to food, medicine, and other essential goods. During the 1990s, the UN's sanctions on Iraq were criticized for contributing to the deaths of thousands of children due to malnutrition and lack of medical supplies. Critics argue that sanctions disproportionately affect vulnerable populations while allowing the political elite to maintain their control.
In response to these concerns, there has been a growing call for "smart sanctions" that target only those responsible for the undesirable behavior, without causing widespread harm to the civilian population. While targeted sanctions are generally seen as more humane, they are not without challenges. For instance, asset freezes and travel bans can disrupt the lives of individuals and organizations, and their effectiveness in bringing about political change is not guaranteed.
Case Studies
-
Iraq (1990s) : After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the UN imposed extensive sanctions. While they crippled Iraq's economy, they also led to severe humanitarian consequences, including widespread malnutrition and the deaths of thousands of children.
-
North Korea (2000s-present) : Sanctions targeting North Korea's nuclear weapons program have been imposed by the UN, US, and EU. While they have isolated North Korea economically, they have not led to a significant change in the country's policies.
-
Russia (2014-present) : In response to Russia's annexation of Crimea, the US and EU imposed sanctions targeting Russia’s energy, defense, and finance sectors. While the sanctions have hurt Russia’s economy, they have not altered its territorial ambitions.
Debates and Controversies on Economic Sanctions
The use of economic sanctions remains a highly debated topic in international relations. Proponents argue that sanctions are a valuable tool for promoting international norms and deterring bad behavior, offering an alternative to military action. They also contend that sanctions can be a more cost-effective way of achieving diplomatic goals, especially in situations where armed intervention is not feasible or desirable.
Critics, however, argue that sanctions often fail to achieve their intended goals and may do more harm than good. They point to cases like Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela, where sanctions have been in place for decades with little evidence of significant political change. Some argue that sanctions only exacerbate the suffering of ordinary citizens while allowing authoritarian regimes to consolidate power. Others claim that sanctions can drive target countries to become more self-reliant and adopt more aggressive stances, ultimately increasing tensions in the international system.
Another point of contention is the role of major powers in the imposition of sanctions. In many cases, the effectiveness of sanctions depends on the willingness of key international players, such as the United States, China, or Russia, to cooperate. When these countries have conflicting interests or are unwilling to enforce sanctions, the measures can lose their impact. For instance, Russia's support for the Syrian government during the civil war complicated efforts to impose meaningful sanctions on the regime, limiting the effectiveness of international pressure.
Final Words
Economic sanctions have become a defining feature of international diplomacy, offering countries and international organizations a way to exert pressure on states without resorting to military force. While sanctions can be an effective tool for influencing the behavior of targeted regimes, their success is highly dependent on the nature of the sanctions, the resilience of the target country, and the level of international cooperation.
Despite their widespread use, sanctions remain controversial due to their potential humanitarian consequences, inconsistent enforcement, and mixed results in achieving political change. As global politics continue to evolve, the role of economic sanctions as a tool of diplomacy will likely remain a topic of ongoing debate, with policymakers and scholars continuing to assess their effectiveness, ethics, and long-term consequences. We hope this article by the Academic Block has offered a comprehensive understanding of the role of economic sanctions in global relations. If you have any thoughts or questions, we encourage you to share them in the comments. Thank you for reading!
This Article will answer your questions like:
Economic sanctions are coercive measures imposed by countries or international organizations to influence a nation’s behavior, typically in response to violations of international law or human rights abuses. These sanctions can include trade restrictions, asset freezes, travel bans, and financial prohibitions aimed at exerting pressure without resorting to military force. The intent is to change the targeted state's policies or actions, often addressing issues such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, or aggression against other nations.
The United Nations imposes economic sanctions to maintain or restore international peace and security. These sanctions can include arms embargoes, trade restrictions, asset freezes, and travel bans against specific individuals, groups, or nations. Notable examples include sanctions against North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, sanctions on Iran related to its nuclear activities, and measures against Libya and Sudan for human rights violations. UN sanctions aim to compel compliance with international law and promote diplomatic solutions to conflicts.
The three main types of sanctions are economic, diplomatic, and military. Economic sanctions involve trade restrictions, asset freezes, and financial penalties aimed at altering a target's behavior. Diplomatic sanctions limit or sever diplomatic relations and cooperation, while military sanctions can include arms embargoes or restrictions on military assistance. These sanctions serve different purposes and can be implemented individually or collectively to address specific geopolitical issues or human rights concerns.
Since 2000, the main goals of economic sanctions have included preventing nuclear proliferation, combating terrorism, promoting human rights, and responding to acts of aggression. Sanctions are increasingly used as tools for foreign policy to pressure nations into compliance with international norms. For example, sanctions against North Korea aim to halt its nuclear weapons program, while sanctions on Russia address its aggression in Ukraine. Additionally, sanctions have targeted regimes involved in human rights abuses, aiming to foster accountability and change behavior.
Economic sanctions have profoundly impacted Iran's economy, particularly following the implementation of nuclear-related sanctions. These measures have restricted Iran's access to international financial markets, leading to a significant decline in oil exports and revenue. Consequently, Iran has experienced high inflation, currency devaluation, and reduced foreign investment. The sanctions have also hindered Iran's ability to import essential goods, including medical supplies and technology, exacerbating public health issues and economic hardship for its citizens, leading to widespread discontent.
US sanctions on North Korea have had significant effects, primarily aimed at curtailing its nuclear weapons program and limiting its access to international financial systems. The sanctions have led to economic isolation, reducing trade and foreign investment, which have severely constrained the country's economy. Reports indicate that these measures have contributed to food shortages, increased poverty, and limited access to essential goods and services. Despite these hardships, North Korea has continued its nuclear developments, raising questions about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool for achieving compliance.
European Union (EU) sanctions often differ from US sanctions in their scope, implementation, and underlying legal frameworks. While both aim to influence international behavior, EU sanctions typically emphasize dialogue and diplomacy, seeking to balance economic pressure with opportunities for negotiation. Additionally, the EU generally requires consensus among its member states for imposing sanctions, which can lead to more moderate measures. Conversely, US sanctions tend to be more unilateral and aggressive, with broader extraterritorial implications that can impact third-party countries. This divergence can complicate international relations and global compliance with sanctions.
Economic sanctions have played a crucial role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, particularly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. The United States, European Union, and other nations imposed extensive sanctions targeting key sectors of the Russian economy, including finance, energy, and defense. These measures aimed to pressure Russia to withdraw its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine and comply with international law. The sanctions have contributed to economic challenges for Russia, including currency devaluation and reduced foreign investment, although the effectiveness of sanctions in changing Russian behavior remains debated.
Sanctions targeting Myanmar, particularly in response to human rights abuses against the Rohingya and political repression following the military coup in 2021, have had mixed effectiveness. While they aim to pressure the military regime and hold perpetrators accountable, their impact on changing state behavior remains limited. The Myanmar military has continued its abuses despite sanctions, partially due to its reliance on domestic resources and support from allies like China. However, sanctions have succeeded in raising international awareness and solidarity with affected communities, fostering advocacy for more robust measures against human rights violations.
Latest innovations in implementing economic sanctions include the use of targeted or "smart" sanctions that focus on specific individuals, entities, or sectors rather than entire economies. This approach minimizes humanitarian impacts while maximizing pressure on decision-makers. Additionally, digital technologies are being leveraged to track financial transactions and enforce compliance. Governments and organizations are also enhancing coordination and information-sharing among allies to ensure sanctions are more effective and comprehensive. Recent sanctions have increasingly included measures against cyber activities and misinformation campaigns, reflecting evolving geopolitical challenges in the digital age.
Recent US trade sanctions have targeted nations like Russia, Iran, and China, reflecting concerns over human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation, and national security threats. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, extensive sanctions were imposed, including prohibiting oil imports and targeting key sectors of the Russian economy. Additionally, the US has restricted trade with Chinese companies over alleged human rights violations in Xinjiang. The sanctions often encompass asset freezes, export controls, and investment prohibitions, aiming to compel compliance with US foreign policy goals and international norms.
Economic and trade sanctions are administered by various governmental bodies, depending on the country and context. In the United States, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the Department of the Treasury is primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing sanctions. In the European Union, the European Council and the European Commission oversee sanctions policy. Internationally, the United Nations Security Council plays a significant role in imposing sanctions through resolutions. These agencies work collaboratively with financial institutions and businesses to ensure compliance and monitor the effectiveness of sanctions.
Controversies Associated with Economic Sanctions
Humanitarian Impact: Economic sanctions can disproportionately affect civilian populations, leading to severe humanitarian consequences. This is particularly evident in countries like Iraq and Venezuela, where sanctions have led to shortages of essential goods, including food and medicine. Critics argue that such measures often exacerbate suffering among ordinary citizens rather than targeting the political elites responsible for the policies in question.
Effectiveness and Goals: The effectiveness of economic sanctions in achieving their intended goals is a major point of contention. For instance, sanctions imposed on North Korea and Iran have not fully curtailed their nuclear programs, raising questions about the overall success of these measures. There is ongoing debate over whether sanctions effectively compel states to alter their behavior or merely entrench existing regimes.
Unintended Consequences: Sanctions can sometimes lead to unintended economic and political consequences. For example, sanctions on Russia following its annexation of Crimea have not only impacted the Russian economy but also strained relations between Russia and Western countries. Additionally, sanctions can inadvertently strengthen the resolve of targeted governments or lead to increased nationalism, making the situation more complex.
Evasion and Circumvention: Targeted states often find ways to evade or circumvent sanctions, undermining their effectiveness. This can be achieved through illicit trade networks, alternative financial systems, or support from allied countries not participating in the sanctions regime. The ability of sanctioned countries to adapt and find alternative means of trade and finance raises questions about the long-term impact of sanctions.
Political Motivations: The imposition of sanctions can be influenced by political motivations and geopolitical interests. Sanctions may sometimes be used as a tool for political leverage rather than purely for achieving policy objectives. The selective application of sanctions based on political alliances or conflicts of interest can undermine their credibility and effectiveness.
Impact on Global Trade and Economics: Economic sanctions can have broader implications for global trade and economic stability. For instance, sanctions on major oil producers can affect global oil prices and disrupt energy markets. The economic ripple effects of sanctions can extend beyond the targeted country, impacting international businesses and economies.
Diplomatic Relations: Sanctions can strain diplomatic relations between countries and affect international cooperation. For example, the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran after the US withdrew from the JCPOA led to heightened tensions between the US and its European allies. The diplomatic fallout from sanctions can complicate efforts to resolve conflicts and address global issues collaboratively.
Facts on Economic Sanctions
Increased Use: Economic sanctions have become a prominent tool of international diplomacy, with increased use by both individual countries and international organizations to address various global issues, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and human rights abuses.
Shift to Targeted Sanctions: There has been a significant shift from comprehensive sanctions, which impact entire economies, to targeted sanctions focused on specific individuals, entities, or sectors. This change aims to minimize humanitarian impact while maximizing pressure on decision-makers.
UN Security Council Sanctions: The UN Security Council has imposed significant sanctions regimes, including those targeting Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear tests. These sanctions include restrictions on trade, financial transactions, and military activities.
Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 was a landmark agreement resulting from sanctions imposed on Iran. The deal aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 led to the re-imposition of sanctions and heightened tensions.
Sanctions on Russia: Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the U.S., EU, and other Western countries imposed comprehensive sanctions targeting Russia’s financial sector, energy industry, and defense sector. These sanctions have significantly affected the Russian economy and strained relations between Russia and Western countries.
North Korea’s Sanctions: North Korea has faced multiple rounds of UN sanctions in response to its nuclear and missile programs. These sanctions have included restrictions on trade, financial transactions, and arms imports. Despite the sanctions, North Korea has continued its nuclear and missile activities.
Venezuela Crisis: The U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions on Venezuela in response to allegations of electoral fraud and human rights abuses under Nicolás Maduro’s regime. These sanctions targeted Venezuela’s oil sector and financial institutions, contributing to a severe economic and humanitarian crisis.
China and Trade Wars: The U.S.-China trade war, initiated in 2018, involved tariffs and trade barriers imposed by the U.S. in response to trade imbalances and intellectual property issues. This trade conflict highlighted the use of economic sanctions in addressing economic competition and global trade practices.
Humanitarian Impact: Economic sanctions, particularly comprehensive ones, have faced criticism for their humanitarian impact. The restrictions can lead to shortages of essential goods and services, adversely affecting civilian populations, as seen in Iraq in the 1990s and Venezuela in recent years.
Evasion and Adaptation: Targeted nations often develop strategies to evade sanctions, such as using third-party countries or illicit financial networks. This adaptation can reduce the effectiveness of sanctions and complicate enforcement efforts.
Academic References on Economic Sanctions
Books
- Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., & Elliot, K. A. (2009). Economic sanctions reconsidered: History and current policy (3rd ed.). Peterson Institute for International Economics.
- Pape, R. A. (2019). Bombing to win: Air power and coercion in war. Cornell University Press.
- Bapat, N. A., & Kwon, J. (2015). Economic sanctions and the future of global politics. Routledge.
- Carnegie, A. M. (2017). Economic sanctions: A theory and history of their application. Routledge.
- Hufbauer, G. C., & Jung, J. K. (2018). The economic sanctions challenge: The impact of sanctions on countries and international business. Columbia University Press.
- Kirshner, J. (2018). The politics of sanctions. Cambridge University Press.
- Schott, J. J., & Wouters, J. (2020). Sanctions and international economic law. Oxford University Press.
- Lektzian, D., & Payne, C. (2019). Economic sanctions in contemporary world politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Journal Articles
- Drezner, D. W. (2011). Sanctions sometimes smart: Targeted sanctions in theory and practice. International Studies Review, 13(1), 1-22.
- Elliott, K. A. (2017). Targeted sanctions and their unintended consequences. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(6), 1467-1493.
- Galtung, J., & Jacobsen, H. K. (2006). Economic sanctions and human rights: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Human Rights, 10(1), 65-84.
- Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., & Elliot, K. A. (2012). Economic sanctions: The case of Iran. Asian Survey, 52(2), 345-365.
- Pape, R. A. (2003). The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. American Political Science Review, 97(3), 343-361.
- Sullivan, J. (2020). Economic sanctions and the changing nature of international relations. Foreign Affairs, 99(3), 100-115.