Assessing UN Sanctions after the Cold War

Abstract

During the Cold War, the United Nations' role in defending international norms was constrained by U S- Soviet rivalry. On the few occasions when economic sanctions were invoked, they were usually hortatory and relatively weak. With the end ofthe Cold War, UN sanctions initially became more frequent, more likely to be mandated by the security council, and more likely to be broad and painful. After a flurry of comprehensive sanctions, however, concerns were raised about the impact on vulnerable populations within target countries, as well as on neighbouring countries and other trading partners. UN sanctions since the mid-1990s have become both less frequent and narrower, often targeting individuals, and have had more limited economic, and perhaps political, impact.What has been the impact of these shifts on the effectiveness of UN economic sanctions? How is effectiveness measured and how have those assessments changed? The starting point for measuring the effectiveness of sanctions must be the nature ofthe goal sought, but the analysis must also take into account the fact that there are usually secondary objectives and that policymakers' true goals may be hidden behind the public rhetoric. Finally, the potential benefits of sanctions must also be weighed against the political, economic, and social costs of using them, as well as the relative costs and benefits of the other policy tools that are available.1The United Nations was created after World War II with the fundamental goal of promoting the collective security of its members, but its reach was limited to lesser disputes from the beginning because of US-Soviet differences.2 Over the years, and long before the Cold War ended, the United Nations also sought to uphold norms related to human rights within countries. As noted by eminent sanctions scholar Margaret Doxey:[N]ew rationales for sanctions have been provided by the development of new international norms in the second half of the twentieth century which go beyond respect for territorial integrity and political independence to encompass self-determination in colonial situations, racial equality, and a broad spectrum of human rights, including the right to democratic systems of government. If 'just sanctions' - like 'just war' - are the international community's justified response to norm-violation, a wide range of external and internal policies may how be judged to merit such a response.3Thus, one measure of UN sanctions that distinguishes them from other sanctions is the responsibility to ensure that they are just. While not entirely absent during the Cold War, concerns about the impact on individuals were raised to a new level by the humanitarian consequences of comprehensive sanctions, first against Iraq following the first Gulf War and then against Haiti in response to the overthrow of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Thus, most UN sanctions now have more than one explicit goal-to stem conflict or uphold international norms, and to do so without harming innocent civilians. But the response - targeted travel or financial sanctions against individuals - has raised other human rights issues that are just beginning to be addressed.4TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO ASSESSING SANCTIONS EFFECTIVENESSThe effectiveness of any policy tool can only be measured against the goals it is intended to achieve, as well as the costs involved in achieving them. While each case has one or more stated goals specific to that case, such as ending or mitigating conflict, promoting human rights or democracy, or discouraging the spread of weapons of mass destruction, operational objectives fall into three broad and overlapping categories - to signal disapproval, to deny or contain, or to coerce. Different types of sanctions are likely to be relatively more appropriate for some categories than others:* to signal disapproval, punish, or deter: hortatory sanctions that members are exhorted but not required to impose; and travel, financial, or property sanctions targeted at individuals. …