The Evolution and Challenges of UN Targeted Sanctions

In 1990, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed several economic sanctions on Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. These measures were aimed at restoring international peace and security, but instead created political, economic, and humanitarian crises. This was also the case when sanctions were imposed on Haiti and the former Yugoslavia. As a result, UN authorities have diversified the kinds and targets of sanctions that they impose, to increase the effectiveness of their sanctions while also mitigating collateral damage.

In a recent article titled “Understanding United Nations Targeted Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis,” Francesco Giumelli studies the ways in which the United Nations Security Council’s adoption of sanctions has evolved over the last two decades in response to different forms of international crises. Two broad categories of sanctions exist: comprehensive sanctions that affect an entire state, and targeted sanctions that are imposed on particular individuals, government institutions, and private enterprises. In order to address international conflicts more effectively, the UNSC began imposing targeted sanctions two decades ago; however, UN authorities have found the implementation and design of these sanctions challenging.

Comprehensive sanctions were found to be ineffective. Not only did they fail at achieving their desired outcomes, but they also imposed gargantuan costs on innocent civilians. This was the case in Iraq in 1991, in which the costs of the embargo were estimated to have indirectly led to the death of half a million children. Targeted sanctions thus have appeal as a means of pressuring heads of states, rebels, firms, key individuals, or enterprises without harming the whole of a society.

In addition, targeted sanctions have the advantage of being more flexible, which is a necessary characteristic when dealing with complex multivariable conflicts. This has allowed UN authorities to intervene in a wider range of crises by defining broader objectives, such as peace enforcement, human rights promotion, counterterrorism, and democracy promotion.

Giumelli also sheds light on the limitations of targeted sanctions and offers some suggestions for their improvement. A main hurdle that targeted sanctions face is evasion: people strategically adapt when met with targeted sanctions. Giumelli finds evidence of evasion in 91 percent of the 23 cases that he studies, as many actors adjust their behaviors to the new incentives created by sanctions. Evidence of strategic adjustment is clear when sanctions ban specific goods. When the UNSC bans a certain product—either to put pressure on a specific sector of the economy or to prevent the manufacturing of weapons—there are private entities that can profit from the sanctions by selling the product on the black market. These strategic adjustments decrease the effectiveness of targeted sanctions and highlight the challenges that UN authorities face when designing them.

Currently, the UNSC has been using targeted sanctions to address ongoing political and security crises—particularly in Africa and the Middle East. These measures have included asset freezing, travel bans, and arms embargo on specific groups, individuals, and enterprises. However, looking ahead, the UNSC must continue to work on redesigning and perfecting targeted sanctions, while advocating for more coordination, not only between countries, but, more importantly, with the private sector.

Article Source: Giumelli, Francesco. “Understanding United Nations Targeted Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis.” International Affairs 91(6), 2015.

Featured Photo: cc/(Andrew d’Entremont)