Global sanctions are a key feature of modern international politics, but their use is often accompanied by criticism about their humanitarian impact. In this article, Professor Daniel Drezner examines the history of the humanitarian critique and argues that policymakers should recognize this challenge: They must explain the rationale behind sanctions clearly to their citizens; they must build large coalitions to reduce their burden on world markets; and they must make an exit from coercive measures from the outset. Sanctions should also be calibrated to avoid creating a moral quagmire and should target local companies rather than individuals, and they should ensure that workers are protected from the harms of sanctions by compensating them and allowing them to move to other industries.
The author explains that the conditions that made sanctions thinkable and feasible came together in the interwar period, and include laissez-faire liberalism, global economic integration, a sense of public ownership of government, and a belief that democratic control can help prevent war. These elements, along with the growing political sophistication of many countries, allowed for the emergence of a new form of international conflict — one that involves state interference but does not involve direct military action.
This article uses the first publicly available database to list official sanction objectives and combine them with an assessment of their success score. It also addresses a key question that is not yet widely answered: the effectiveness of sanctions in terms of their impact on third-country economies and the extent to which they disrupt supply chains.