Are Economic Sanctions a Solution for Unrest?’

If you listen to news broadcasts or you read the papers on a regular basis, you may be familiar with economic sanctions. Sanctions are restrictions, which can be imposed by single or multiple nations to try and deter other countries from breaking laws or harming citizens. Economic sanctions have been around for a long time, but do they actually work and are they the most effective solution for tackling unrest?

Economic sanctions affect a country’s finances, and there are various measures that can be introduced as part of unilateral or multilateral sanctions. Examples include a ban on exports or imports, cessation of military or economic assistance and freezing assets. The most common reasons for sanctions include the protection of human rights, the prevention of illegal arms development and distribution and combating the risk of terrorism.

As you can see from the infographic below, the success rates of economic sanctions vary. There are several case studies and examples outlined in the image, but not all have a happy ending. Attempts to nullify the threat of the former leader of Robert Mugabe were largely unsuccessful in Zimbabwe in 2002, and sanctions have failed to prevent ongoing violence in Somalia over the last 30 years. In Guinea, however, restrictions did prove effective in reducing violence and oppression in 2005-2010.

The type of sanctions and measures imposed seem to make a difference, with moderate policy changes more effective than regime change, military disruption and major policy modifications. The aim is to induce calm and prevent harm without the use of military force, but the infographic highlights the difficulty in achieving results, especially when dealing with dictators. 

Infographic Created By Norwich University

This is a collaborative post.