What are Unilateral Economic Sanctions?

Economic sanctions refer to punitive economic measures taken by a country or countries against countries that violate international obligations, treaties and agreements. Often used by economically powerful nations as a means to combat and weaken the political, economic, and military might of other nations.

Economic sanctions

Economic sanctions (Economic Sanctions), which means that one or more countries

Economic sanctions refer to non-forced coercive measures other than severing diplomatic relations. It is generally believed that sanctions in the fields of finance, finance and trade are all economic sanctions. In general, common methods include: implementing a trade embargo, interrupting economic cooperation, cutting off economic or technical assistance, and so on. But economic sanctions are also a double-edged sword, and sanctions countries will also suffer certain economic losses. Broadly speaking, sanctions such as the arms trade also fall into the scope of economic sanctions. In fiscal and financial management, economic sanctions refer to the economic punishment given to units or individuals who violate economic laws and regulations in the macroeconomic and microeconomic operations. ^[1]

I. Implementation of foreign assets in sanctioned countries

The key

The key to economic sanctions is the support of the majority. If only one or two countries refuse to trade with other countries, it is almost impossible to prevent such behavior from happening. Even if the whole world imposes economic sanctions, they may sometimes go up against the current. For example, despite the United Nations' economic sanctions on Iraq, Hussein can still concentrate on gains from black market transactions, and black market transactions have prospered because of sanctions. ^[2]

Main advantages

Compared to military strikes, economic sanctions have several distinct advantages. With the development of science and technology in modern society, countries in the world basically have no "secrets" to keep. At the same time, high-precision weapons have caused unprecedented damage to civilians. As pictures of brutal military strikes spread across the world, the implementing nations faced increasing condemnation and pressure from the international community. This makes the country morally lose a move first. In addition, expensive advanced weapons make military strikes more costly than economic sanctions. To make matters worse, military strikes can easily trigger strong nationalist sentiments in the attacked countries, and then participate in the military confrontation between their own regimes and the attacked countries, which can easily cause the countries to sink into the mire of war. For these reasons, many countries in modern society have discouraged military force and favored the weapon of economic sanctions. ^[3]

main effect

In many cases, sanctions will help dictators or tyrants bring their subjects together against common enemies. In the 1990s, the UN Security Council imposed many sanctions, but most of them did not work well. From Sudan to Iraq, sanctioned countries are hiding, waiting for the sanctions to end.

Unilateral economic sanctions have played a small role in changing a country's behavior. For example, the U.S. trade embargo on Iraq ended with minor changes that hurt American businessmen and Iraqi government policies. Without a common front, trade sanctions can only hurt the countries that impose sanctions: when American Petroleum Corporation withdrew from Iraq, French oil companies took advantage of it and signed lucrative agreements with Iraq.

Trade restrictions can also cause trade obstacles in target countries, ultimately hurting consumers and businesses in both countries. However, when many countries are united for a clear purpose, the threat of counter-retaliation is reduced. For example, United Nations trade sanctions are endorsed by all countries and are therefore more effective. All sanctions are non-binding, so enforcement will not be necessary if there is widespread support in advance. ^[2]

There are disadvantages

Impact of economic sanctions

Economic sanctions cause suffering to the innocent people of the sanctioned countries, and also cause damage to the neighboring countries of the sanctioned countries and the economies of the countries that impose sanctions. Article 50 of the Charter states that countries that have suffered economic losses as a result of the implementation of sanctions "shall have the right to discuss this issue with the Security Council." Many countries have requested economic compensation from the United Nations. By the end of 2002, 21 countries had demanded economic compensation for implementing sanctions against Iraq. ^[4]

Cause Analysis

After the end of the Cold War, economic sanctions in international relations have become more frequent. Economic sanctions and boycotts have a long history. In the contemporary sense, the United States is the country that uses these two methods most frequently. According to the International Economic Research Institute, since 1945, about two-thirds of the sanctions have involved the United States.

The end of the cold war eliminated the political factors restricting sanctions, and the frequency of economic sanctions has increased dramatically. During the Cold War, the UN Security Council imposed only two sanctions; since 1990, the Security Council has imposed at least 12 sanctions. The International Economic Research Institute pointed out that there were more than 50 economic sanctions in the 1990s, an increase of 67% over the previous decade.

What deserves attention is the success rate of sanctions. Success here means that the target of sanctions has accepted at least part of the requirements of the sanctioning country. Basic estimates. The most popular figure is the conclusion of the International Economic Research Institute that the sanctions success rate is 33%. Low-end estimates. According to Robert Pepper of the University of Chicago, the success rate of sanctions is only 5%. In many cases, the targets of sanctions have indeed changed their policies, but not because of the economic pressure of the sanctions countries. For example, if sanctions are compromised because they fear an invasion, they will be mistaken for economic sanctions. High-end estimates. Daniel Dretzner, also from the University of Chicago, believes that the 33% figure underestimates the success rate of sanctions for two reasons. First, many people think that economic sanctions are only used in "high-level politics" areas such as nuclear proliferation And territorial disputes. In fact, economic sanctions are a common tool in "low-level politics", and they have applications in environmental protection issues, labor standards, and anti-money laundering. The success rate in "multi-level politics" is close to 55%. Second, most studies only deal with sanctions that are being imposed. However, in many cases, the target countries quickly made concessions before the threat of sanctions was issued. For example, in the early 1990s, the United States had asked Israel to stop settlement projects in the West Bank, otherwise it would recover a $ 10 billion loan guarantee. Israel conceded before the United States imposed sanctions. ^[2]

Ottawa news on June 29, 2015, Canada is imposing economic sanctions on Russian energy companies as a response to the actions of Russian-backed militants in Ukraine. ^[5]

Prerequisites for economic sanctions

I. Clear and limited goals

In some cases, the purpose of the sanctions State is to gain a favourable position in the conflict, but it is often unsuccessful because of unclear goals or demanding requirements. Conversely, if sanctions states set clear and restrained targets, they will increase their chances of success. Because of this, the success rate of sanctions due to trade or regulatory disputes is high. A comparison of the two sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the United States on Libya and Iraq illustrates this point: The requirements for sanctions on Libya are clear: surrender suspects of terrorist attacks and stop all weapons of mass development programs. Although Gaddafi's attitude is very tough, Libya has actually implemented the United Nations requirements. In contrast, the goal of sanctions against Iraq is less clear. The apparent justification for this sanction is the termination of the country's weapons of mass destruction program, but there is also an unspoken real purpose to overthrow the Saddam regime. The sanctions failed to subvert Saddam's regime, but did prevent research on weapons of mass destruction in the country.

Who will bear the price

For a country to make the threat of economic sanctions credible, it needs to pay a huge price to the target of sanctions, and on the other hand, it must minimize the damage to itself. For example, Iran has threatened sanctions against countries opposed to its nuclear program. However, although Iran s interruption of oil supply can cause considerable pressure on the global economy, it will do more harm to itself than the sanctions target. The threat lacks credibility. For the United States and other countries, the most effective sanctions are reduced aid, not trade sanctions. Any trade sanction will automatically cause damage to both parties. And aid sanctions usually only hit the target of sanctions, and the sanctions countries will hardly be harmed.

Multilateral cooperation

It is easy to imagine that the effect of joint sanctions imposed by several countries is often greater than the effect of sanctions imposed by a single country. In addition, if an international organization such as the United Nations or the Southern Common Market supports a particular sanction, it will be more effective. Without the formal support of international organizations, the temporary sanctions alliance would be very fragile and could easily collapse.

Allies and Enemies

Sanctions against allies are often more effective than sanctions against enemies. For example, it is difficult for governments on either side to give way to countries where conflicts may erupt in the future. Make a concession in time, and the enemy will think you will make concessions in the future. The trade-offs between allies are completely different. Taking sanctions involving nuclear non-proliferation as an example, it is no coincidence that the United States has succeeded in imposing or threatening sanctions on its allies such as South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina, while sanctions on Iran and North Korea have had little effect. This is no coincidence.

Five, aim at the elite

The key to the success of the sanctions is to make the sanctioned governments feel pain. However, the government elites in the countries that are being sanctioned are often able to pass on economic suffering to ordinary citizens, as is the case in Iraq. In contrast, some sanctions can effectively combat elites, such as freezing financial assets or travel bans. ^[2]

Typical examples of economic sanctions

U.S. government sanctions on North Korea

In October 2006, after North Korea s nuclear test, the United States government joined other countries to tighten sanctions on North Korea. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1718 on North Korea s nuclear test. In addition to banning the shipment of war materials to North Korea, there was another item: "Prohibition of exporting luxury goods to North Korea!" Wine, plasma HDTV, Apple MP3, yacht and much more.

Arab League imposes economic sanctions on Syria

Arab League imposed economic sanctions on Syria ^[6]

On November 26, 2011, the Economic and Social Commission of the Arab League held a meeting in Cairo, the Egyptian capital, to decide on economic sanctions against Syria. Sanctions include grounding commercial flights to and from Syria, suspending contacts with the Syrian Central Bank, issuing travel bans to some senior Syrian officials, freezing Syrian government bank accounts, and suspending financial transactions. In order to avoid affecting the Syrian people, the Arab League will suspend commercial trade with the Syrian government except for some strategic materials. In addition, the ministers of finance of the member states of the Arab League called on the country to freeze Syrian officials' assets and withdraw their investments in Syria. The Arab League previously set a "deadline" for Syria's agreement to send an observer mission, but did not receive a response from Syria. The Arab League stated that if Syria fails to sign the agreement within the prescribed time limit, it will face economic sanctions. ^[6]

U.S. economic sanctions on Iran

On May 8, 2018, U.S. President Trump announced at the White House that the United States has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal and will impose the highest level of economic sanctions on Iran. ^[7]