debate - The mechanism of economic sanctions: Changing...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The mechanism of economic sanctions: Changing perceptions and euphemisms Elias Davidsson 20 March 2002 (Rev. November 2003) “Economic sanctions”, a mode of coercion in international relations resuscitated in recent years, has prompted renewed and lively scholarly interest in the subject. Why have such measures become so popular? One answer is that they “constitute a means of exerting international influence that is more powerful than diplomatic mediation but lies below the threshold of military intervention” [1] . Another answer is that “they engage comparatively less internal political resistance than other candidate strategies [. ..]. They do not generate sombre processions of body bags bringing home the mortal remains of the sons and daughters of constituents” [2] , in other words, they cost little to the side imposing the sanctions. The notable predilection by the United States for economic sanctions [3] , suggests that such a tool is particularly useful for economically powerful states that are themselves relatively immune to such measures. This tool of collective economic coercion, with antecedents such as siege warfare and blockade going back to biblical time [ 4 ], was used during most of the 20th Century, particularly in war situations. Although the United Nations Charter, drafted during the later stages of World War II, includes provisions for the imposition of economic sanctions (Article 41), the Security Council - empowered to resort to this tool - only used it twice between 1945 and 1990, against Rhodesia in 1966 and South Africa in 1977. In our discussion we designate economic sanctions as “coordinated restrictions on trade and/or financial transactions intended to impair economic life within a given territory”[ 5 ]. To the extent that measures intend to impair “economic life within a given territory” through restrictions on trade and/or finance, they constitute, for our purposes, economic sanctions. Selective or individualized measures, such as restrictions on specific goods (arms, luxury items, some forms of travel), are therefore not considered as economic sanctions. Symbolic economic deprivations, such as partial withholding of aid, do not amount to economic sanctions if their intended effect is primarily to convey displeasure, rather than to affect the economy. [1] Manfred Kulessa and Dorothee Starck, Peace through sanctions?, Policy Paper 7 of the Development and Peace Foundation, Bonn, Germany, Presented at a Conference in Bonn, January 15, 1998 [2] W. Michael Reisman, Assessing the Lawfulness of Nonmilitary Enforcement: The Case of Economic Sanctions , ASIL Proceedings 1995, p. 354 [3] Robert P. O’Quinn of the Heritage Foundation, writes in A User's Guide to Economic Sanctions (The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1126, 25 June 1997): “Since 1990. .. the United States has been far more willing to employ unilateral economic sanctions to achieve other foreign policy objectives. During President Clinton's first term, U.S. laws and executive actions imposed new
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 12

debate - The mechanism of economic sanctions: Changing...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online