Skip to content
Articles
Sanctions
Quoted Arguments Covering Both Sides - Updated Nov 24 2023
Get notified about new articles:
The Pros and Cons of ...
"Economic sanctions are an effective and ethical way to influence the behavior of foreign governments"
"Economic sanctions are an effective and ethical way to influence the behavior of foreign governments"
Context
Here are the summaries of the current top 4 quotes that were found and support this claim. See the quote list for the quote text and source URL.
Sanctions are a trade/financial withdrawal responding to political behavior: Economic sanctions are a strategic withdrawal of trade or financial relations, initiated by a governmental entity in response to the political behavior of a target state or organization. [See Quote 1]
Different levels and types of sanctions: Economic sanctions can range from the complete withdrawal of trade and financial relations, known as 'comprehensive' sanctions, to more targeted restrictions on specific imports, exports, or financial services. [See Quote 2]
Sanction usage increased post-Cold War after fall of USSR: The use of economic sanctions significantly increased in the 1990s, following the fall of Communism and a rise in humanitarian interests, with 343 cases compared to only 248 cases from 1914-1990. [See Quote 3]
Shift towards sanctions targeting specific groups or individuals: There has been a recent shift in the approach to economic sanctions, moving from targeting entire states to focusing on specific sub-state groups and individuals, as this method is believed to be more effective and less harmful to innocent people. [See Quote 4]
The above are AI summaries of real quotes from scholarly sources and the web, and have had a quick human review for summarization accuracy. See the full list of quotes for source information.
Context Quotes
A total of 116 quotes were found, the top 9 are shown below:
------Quote Number [1]------
Title: Sanctions are a trade/financial withdrawal responding to political behavior
Main Point: Economic sanctions are a strategic withdrawal of trade or financial relations, initiated by a governmental entity in response to the political behavior of a target state or organization.
Quote: Economic sanctions are the deliberate withdrawal of customary trade or financial relations (Hufbauer et al., 2007), ordered by a state, supra-national or international governmental organisation (the ‘sender’) from any state, sub-state group, organisation or individual (the ‘target’) in response to the political behaviour of that target
------Quote Number [2]------
Title: Different levels and types of sanctions
Main Point: Economic sanctions can range from the complete withdrawal of trade and financial relations, known as 'comprehensive' sanctions, to more targeted restrictions on specific imports, exports, or financial services.
Quote: First, economic sanctions may comprise the withdrawal of customary trade or financial relations in whole or in part. Trade may be restricted in its entirety by refusing all imports and exports. If all imports and exports are refused then the sanctions are known as ‘comprehensive’ sanctions. (Though note that even in the case of comprehensive sanctions humanitarian exemptions are usually made, for example, for food and medicine). In other cases, only some imports or exports are refused—usually commodities like oil and timber—or weapons in the case of arms embargoes. Financial restrictions include measures such as asset freezes, the denial of credit, the denial of banking services, the withdrawal of aid and so on. Again, withdrawal of financial relations may be comprehensive or not
------Quote Number [3]------
Title: Sanction usage increased post-Cold War after fall of USSR
Main Point: The use of economic sanctions significantly increased in the 1990s, following the fall of Communism and a rise in humanitarian interests, with 343 cases compared to only 248 cases from 1914-1990.
Quote: Economic sanctions were seldom used during the Cold War. If the US sanctioned a state, that state would trade with the USSR and vice versa,[1] rendering the act of sanctioning counterproductive. Furthermore, the UN was incapable of imposing any sanctions as the two superpowers used their right of veto to block any such action with the exceptions of South Africa in 1965 and Rhodesia in 1962. [2] This standoff changed in the 1990’s with, firstly, the fall of Communism and, secondly, a wave of Humanitarianism that sought alternatives to the threat of war. [3] In this new climate, the world embraced sanctions. While there were only 248 cases of sanctions from 1914-1990, there were 343 cases in the 1990’s. [4] The sanctions imposed during the 1990’s were pre-eminently ‘comprehensive’ trade embargos which were enforced on states such as Iraq, Yugoslavia and Haiti.
Source: The Effectiveness and Ethics of Economic Sanctions |
------Quote Number [4]------
Title: Shift towards sanctions targeting specific groups or individuals
Main Point: There has been a recent shift in the approach to economic sanctions, moving from targeting entire states to focusing on specific sub-state groups and individuals, as this method is believed to be more effective and less harmful to innocent people.
Quote: Well known examples from the recent past are the sanctions imposed on Serb-controlled areas of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s or the ban on trade in conflict diamonds that targeted sub-state rebel groups in parts of Africa. Economic sanctions can also be imposed on companies, organisations and individuals. For example, the UK regularly freezes the UK-held assets of companies, charities or individuals suspected of funding terrorist activities. For this reason it is perfectly possible for a state to sanction its own citizens. Those on the receiving end of economic sanctions are typically known as the ‘target’. In recent years there has been a shift away from targeting entire states, and towards targeting economic sanctions more narrowly at specific sub-state groups and individuals—those considered responsible for the political behaviour the sanctions are responding to. The reasons for this are two-fold. First, it is expected that such sanctions are more likely to achieve their objectives. Second, it makes it less likely that the harms of sanctions will fall on innocent people. Economic sanctions that are narrowly targeted in this way are known as ‘targeted’ or ‘smart’ sanctions.
------Quote Number [5]------
Title: Sanctions used by US to influence global politics/behavior
Main Point: The United States utilizes sanctions, including economic, political, and military penalties, to influence global behavior and achieve foreign policy objectives such as discouraging weapons proliferation, promoting human rights, and protecting the environment, among others.
Quote: Sanctions—defined as mostly economic but also political and military penalties introduced to alter political and/or military behavior—are employed by the United States to discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, bolster human rights, end terrorism, thwart drug trafficking, discourage armed aggression, promote market access, protect the environment, and replace governments. To accomplish foreign policy ends, sanctions take the form of arms embargoes, foreign assistance reductions and cut-offs, export and import limitations, asset freezes, tariff increases, revocation of most favored nation (MFN) trade status, negative votes in international financial institutions, withdrawal of diplomatic relations, visa denials, cancellation of air links, and prohibitions on credit, financing, and investment.
Source: Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing |
------Quote Number [6]------
Title: Sanctions widespread and debated
Main Point: Economic sanctions are widespread, there is debate over their effectiveness on Iran's nuclear program and potential humanitarian consequences in Afghanistan due to US and UN sanctions.
Quote: Sanctions: What are they Good For? Economic sanctions have become omnipresent. In February 2022 commentators debated the efficacy of sanctions that target Iran’s nuclear program while humanitarians worried that US and UN sanctions on Afghanistan’s Taliban government would contribute to widespread starvation of millions over the winter
Source: The economic weapon: The rise of sanctions as a tool of modern war |
------Quote Number [7]------
Title: Sanctions became a regime-change tool in 1940s America
Quote: As a regime-change tool, then, sanctions did not really come into their own until the United States fully committed to international institutions in the 1940s.
Source: The economic weapon: The rise of sanctions as a tool of modern war |
------Quote Number [8]------
Title: Post-Cold War era enabled effective UN economic sanctions
Quote: Although economic sanctions have long been a feature of international relations, the end of the Cold War in the late 20 th century saw significant proliferation of their use. The sanctions made concerted international action possible where previously any action by the West was countered by the U.S.S.R. and vice-versa. This meant that for the first time the United Nations Security Council could impose economic sanctions that, in theory at least, all member states were required to take part in. With this came the possibility to inflict serious damage
------Quote Number [9]------
Quote: Economic sanctions are an important feature of the modern economic, political and social landscape, lauded as the humanitarian alternative to war, with over 500 cases of sanctions being implemented in the 1990’s alone. They are implemented with the stated intention of altering a targeted state’s behaviour, to elicit conformity with international ethical norms.
Source: The Effectiveness and Ethics of Economic Sanctions |
The number of quotes found is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the argument. It can instead reflect on the availability of the information on the internet that can be picked up by Logipedia's auto-researcher, and the dedication of readers to fill in the gaps. Suggest quotes to help fill in the gaps through our suggestion form or by emailing contact@logipedia.co
👉 ... expand for source data... 👈
Supporting Evidence (Pros) & Opposing Evidence (Cons)
Sanctions are less costly alternative to war
Sanctions can be less costly and risky compared to military interventions or other forms of coercive measures.
👓 ➡ Click for more info!
Sanctions often ineffective
Economic sanctions may not have the desired effect on the behavior of foreign governments and can instead further entrench their positions.
👓 ➡ Click for more info!
Sanctions induce policy changes through hardship
Sanctions can put pressure on a government to change its policies or behavior, as sanctions can lead to economic hardships and instability.
👓 ➡ Click for more info!
Sanctions hurt economies of both countries
Economic sanctions hurt citizens and economies of both the targeted country and the imposing country.
👓 ➡ Click for more info!
Sanctions can tailor consequences to small target groups
Economic sanctions can target specific industries or individuals, allowing for a more tailored approach to influence foreign governments.
👓 ➡ Click for more info!
Sanctions harm current and future diplomacy
Economic sanctions can damage current and future diplomatic relations between countries.
👓 ➡ Click for more info!
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.