By Mohammad Wamiq Anjum - Pakistan
Picture a bold legal thinker who distilled the chaos of law into a single concept: the Grundnorm, or "basic norm." That visionary was Hans Kelsen, a towering figure in 20th-century legal philosophy. Born in Austria, Kelsen sought to explain why laws bind us, whether inscribed in a nation's constitution or embedded in international treaties. His work laid the groundwork for modern legal positivism, highlighting that laws gain their authority not from morality but from their structure within a legal system.
Later in his career, Kelsen shifted his focus to the global arena, proposing that international law should take precedence over national laws. His idea of an international Grundnorm suggests that principles like “pacta sunt servanda” (Kelsen) (agreements must be kept) not only validate treaties but also underpin the legal frameworks of states.
Yet, international law has its quirks. Unlike national law, it lacks a centralized enforcement authority, relying more on collective belief and political will than on strict rules. This gap between theory and practice makes international law—and tools like sanctions—both intriguing and challenging.
Kelsen’s insights are especially relevant when exploring the role of sanctions in international relations. Sanctions embody the complex relationship between legal norms and power dynamics, acting as tools to uphold international obligations while revealing the shortcomings of our fragmented global order. Are they true defenders of law, or just instruments of political pressure? Delving into the philosophy of legal norms is key to unraveling this ongoing debate.
Are Sanctions Effective?
Negative Outcomes
Sanctions emerge as critical instruments wielded in international diplomacy, implemented to address entities—be they nations, organizations, or individuals—that pose threats to global peace and stability. Their primary objective is to influence behavior, restrict capabilities, and undermine positions of power, while also drawing attention to those who jeopardize international security. Positioned as a preventative measure, sanctions aspire to be both fair and contextually relevant, offering a peaceful alternative to military action (Hufbauer). Notable nations such as North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela currently find themselves under the weight of sanctions imposed by other countries and international organizations.
Despite their varied forms and intentions, sanctions have gained a notorious reputation for their inconsistent effectiveness, often inflicting disproportionate suffering upon the very civilian populations they purport to protect, rather than targeting the political and economic elites responsible for the crises. This paradox generates considerable debate, yet the utilization of sanctions continues to gain momentum in global affairs.
The ramifications of sanctions predominantly afflict the most vulnerable segments of society, underscoring a critical ethical dilemma. Sanctions have emerged as one of the most commonly employed foreign policy tools by governments and international organizations in response to the unfolding crisis worldwide. Since the 1990s, there has been a marked increase in the imposition of sanctions by state actors and international entities, such as the United Nations (UN) (Felbermayr). While many sanctions target specific individuals or organizations, there has been a troubling rise in comprehensive restrictions (Meissner). The stringent measures enacted against Russia in February 2022, in response to its military aggression in Ukraine, serve as a striking example of this trend.
However, despite their ubiquity, restrictions—particularly comprehensive sanctions—frequently yield unintended consequences that disproportionately impact civilian populations. Historical instances, such as the sanctions imposed on Haiti between 1993 and 1994, resulted in dire public health crises characterized by widespread malnutrition and epidemics (Farmer). The aftermath saw dramatic rises in unemployment, deepening poverty, plummeting agricultural exports, and soaring import prices (Gibbons). Similarly, populations in Iraq (2003–present) and Iran (2006–present) have endured profound hardships due to sanctions, which have precipitated shortages of essential resources like clean water, food, and medicine, culminating in dire health crises and increased mortality rates (Özdamar).
The imposition of sanctions may unintentionally spur domestic production, as evidenced by Iran (Özdamar), or catalyze the strengthening of trade ties with non-sanctioning nations, a trend observed in the relationship between North Korea (2006–present) and China (Park). Furthermore, scholarly research indicates that the humanitarian situation in Syria deteriorated significantly between 2011 and 2016, exacerbated by sanctions (Andronik). Within these affected societies, the repercussions are often felt most acutely by women, whose rights and wellbeing frequently decline under sanction regimes, as highlighted in the case of Iraq (Özdamar).
The complex relationship between sanctions and their various consequences encourages us to engage in a deeper discussion about effectiveness, ethics, and the pursuit of justice on the global stage.
Positive Outcomes
While the consequences of sanctions can be multifaceted, it is important to recognize the potential positive outcomes as well. Economic sanctions serve as powerful diplomatic tools that allow nations to influence the behavior of others without resorting to military force. Although the success rates of these sanctions can vary greatly, there are several historical instances where they have achieved significant and noteworthy results, demonstrating their capacity to effect change in a peaceful manner.
For instance, in 1921, the League of Nations successfully pressured Yugoslavia to withdraw its troops from Albania, illustrating one of the earliest triumphs of international economic pressure. Similarly, in 1925, Greece complied with demands from the League to pull out of Bulgaria when faced with sanctions. Fast forward to the late 1940s, when Western Allies mounted a counter-blockade against the Soviet Union during the Berlin Blockade, ultimately forcing them to lift their blockade of West Berlin.
The 1960s witnessed significant changes in South Africa, where international sanctions played a crucial role in dismantling the apartheid regime—a transformation highlighted by Archbishop Desmond Tutu's assertion that “sanctions were a key lever in ending the injustices of apartheid.”(Tutu)
In the turbulent years from 1965 to 1979, sanctions targeted Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), paving the way for the end of white minority rule and establishing majority governance.
The Iran Hostage Crisis in the late 1970s also demonstrated the potency of sanctions, as they compelled Iran to release American hostages. In the 1980s, sanctions were instrumental in both Poland, where they bolstered the Solidarity movement and led to significant political reform, and Nicaragua, where U.S. sanctions pressured the Sandinista government towards electoral reforms.
The 1990s marked a pivotal era, especially in Haiti, where sanctions led to the restoration of democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In Libya, sanctions resulted in demands that the nation surrender suspects linked to the Lockerbie bombing and dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program. Sanctions also played a vital role in Yugoslavia, helping to conclude conflicts and steer the country towards the Dayton Accords.
Moving into the 2000s, sanctions contributed to the ousting of Charles Taylor in Liberia and the cessation of civil strife. Even in 2003, sanctions drove Libya to abandon its weapons of mass destruction program, emphasizing their significance in fostering global security.
These examples highlight the idea that when sanctions are thoughtfully designed and supported by international unity, they can be powerful tools for upholding global standards and holding nations accountable. As Michael Mandelbaum points out in ‘The Case for Goliath,’ “Sanctions provide a non-violent means of holding violators accountable,” demonstrating that economic pressure can indeed lead to meaningful change.
Strategic Debate: Strategic Necessity or Ineffective Tool
The effectiveness of sanctions is a matter of ongoing debate. Critics argue that sanctions can be a double-edged sword, particularly when used by Western powers against nations that defy their interests. A notable example is the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, where Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany have refrained from imposing sanctions on Israel. They justify this decision by claiming that Israel's actions are acts of self-defense. This stance has enabled the United States to veto United Nations resolutions calling for a ceasefire, raising questions about the consistency and effectiveness of sanctions as a tool for promoting international accountability.
The inconsistency in sanction application highlights deeper complexities in international relations. U.S. sanctions on Pakistan's missile program illustrate a double standard, as similar actions are not taken against India, despite both nations having comparable missile developments.
Sanctions against countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia often display limited effectiveness. North Korea's intelligence agency, Room 39, successfully launders money for its elite, while Russia maintains economic stability through ties with China and Europe’s reliance on its energy resources. Iran similarly navigates sanctions through a network of organizations, enabling its uranium enrichment activities.
These cases illustrate that while sanctions may pressure targeted governments, they frequently harm civilian populations instead. Thus, policymakers must adopt more balanced approaches that prioritize humanitarian concerns and minimize adverse effects on ordinary citizens. A comprehensive strategy that promotes dialogue and cooperation may lead to more sustainable solutions in global politics.
Conclusion
Sanctions are a crucial yet contentious tool in international relations, relying on careful planning, global unity, and ethical considerations. They have proven effective in compelling nations like South Africa to abolish apartheid and persuading Libya to abandon weapons of mass destruction. However, the collateral damage often inflicted on civilian populations underscores the urgent need for precision and humanitarian focus.
The complexity of sanctions lies in their dual role as both essential strategic tools and potential sources of suffering. Policymakers must balance their use for accountability while mitigating harm. As Hans Kelsen noted, international law demands fairness and collective belief. To make sanctions more ethical, the global community must enhance cooperation and transparency.
Ultimately, sanctions are part of a broader diplomatic landscape. When wielded thoughtfully, they can uphold international norms and promote justice, yet misuse can erode the values they seek to protect. The challenge is to ensure sanctions are both effective and ethical, fostering an international order grounded in shared ideals and justice.
Bibliography
1. Andronik, B. "An Inhumane Response. The Humanitarian Consequences of Sanctions: A Case Study of Syria." 2014.
2. Farmer, P., Smith Fawzi, M. C., & Nevil, P. "Unjust embargo of Aid for Haiti." 2003.
3. Felbermayr, G., Kirilakha, A., Syropoulos, C., Yalcin, E., & Yotov, Y. V. " The Global sanctions data base. ." data list. 2020. Document.
4. Gibbons, E., & Garfield, R. "The impact of economic sanctions on health and human rights in Haiti." 1999.
5. Hufbauer. Effectiveness of Sanctions. 2007.
6. Kelsen, Hans. Hans Kelsen " The Pure Theory of Law". C.H Wilson 1934, 1973.
7. Mandelbaum, Michael. The Case for Goliath. 2005.
8. Meissner, K. " How to sanction international wrongdoing? The design of EU restrictive measures." 2022.
9. Özdamar, Ö, & Shahin, E. "Consequences of economic sanctions: The state of the Art and paths forward." 2021.
10. Park, J. S. " The Key to the North Korean targeted sanctions puzzle. ." 2014.
11. Tutu, Archbishop Desmond. n.d.
Comments