“Rational Failure” and the Rise Of International Sanctions

The increasing use of sanctions has garnered criticism and speculation over their efficacy and impact.

Today’s world is shaped, in large part, by sanctions. This tool of international relations allows countries to punish other countries for actions they deem wrong. Recently, human rights violations have become the most popular reason for countries to sanction other countries, particularly western countries striking down dictatorships for alleged human rights abuses.

The Global Sanctions Data Base reported a steady increase in the number of sanctions instituted per year, rising from around 225 in 2006 to over 400 sanctions in 2016. This rise is attributed to the increase in primarily financial sanctions, but also a notable increase in travel and trade sanctions.

In Belarus, multiple waves of sanctions instituted by the EU recently angered its leader, leading him to lash back by illegally forcing migrants into Poland. In Iran, speculation over the construction of nuclear weapons has led to continuous sanctions, leading to dire economic conditions, especially throughout the pandemic. These instances have begun to demonstrate the outsized effect that sanctions have on the world, especially given that there is far less public discourse about sanctions than there is about military intervention and broad foreign policy strategy.

Robert J. Ward Jr. is an international trade law attorney and chief compliance officer for an aerospace startup based out of Houston, Texas. In 2018, Ward Jr. gave a Ted Talk urging the public to understand sanctions as they become more commonplace. “[Sanctions] are a growing area, and they are becoming a war chest tool of choice by different [U.S.] administrations,” Ward Jr. said.

This shift was spurred by the Obama administration’s Magnitsky Act, which sought to sanction Russian officials who were responsible for the human rights violations and murder of Sergei Magnitsky while in Russian custody. This legislation became infamous after Russia responded with the Dima Yakovlev Act, which barred Americans from adopting Russian orphans following an adoptee’s death by heatstroke in Virginia.

The legacy of the Magnitsky Act goes further than a simple foreign policy spat. In 2016, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act was enacted by Congress, allowing the U.S. to sanction any foreign officials implicated in human rights abuses. This bipartisan effort has further propelled sanctions to the forefront of American foreign policy strategy.

American sanctions (in particular) have far-reaching consequences. Professor of Government at Wesleyan University, Giulio Gallarotti, notes that “The financial systems are interconnected, so very often [sanctioned entities] have to go through certain banks to get their money. When people trade with America, the money they get paid has to get converted into their currency, and then they can get it back. So when you sanction them financially you prevent them from getting dollars… they can go to other countries to get dollars but they can’t come to you to get dollars and so you can freeze bank accounts.”

Ward Jr. also points out how this influence is unique to America because of how trade is often executed in American dollars. “[Sanctions] present a very effective enforcement tool simply because the US Dollar is a key reserve currency for a lot of foreign transactions and there’s some industries that just can’t do without it.”

(Illustration by Liam Waldman / The Jaguardian)

Sanctions have been Americas’ increasing weapon of choice to punish countries such as Iran.

The increasing use of sanctions has attracted criticism about their efficacy and impact. Generalized and comprehensive sanctions that punish entire countries have specifically garnered attention because of the havoc they wreak on sanctioned countries.

“Sanctions can be overly broad. The downside of the US embargo on Cuba is that it harms the general population when the entire country is subject to a comprehensive embargo. Oftentimes the population suffers as a result, which is very much evident in Syria, very much evident in North Korea,” Ward Jr. said.

The efficacy of sanctions is also questionable. Gallarotti notes that “One thing’s for sure about sanctions, they very often don’t change what leaders do in the short run. They’re not gonna change what leaders are gonna do next week or next month. If anything they’re probably gonna work in the longer run because of all the pressure over years and years.”

“For sanctions to work, other countries have to join in on them. The only reason sanctions haven’t worked in the past is because countries don’t wanna give up business, so they don’t want to cooperate with American sanctions,” Gallarotti explained.

Now, ‘smart sanctions’ seek to punish specific individuals as opposed to entire swaths of governments and organizations. Gallarotti further notes that smart sanctions, however, lack the long-term information that is needed to accurately understand their efficacy and impact.

Recently, countries such as Britain and Australia have adopted the Magnitsky act to ramp up their own sanctioning efforts. Punishing countries for human rights abuses via sanctions is becoming increasingly common, but there is still much debate over their efficacy and unintended impact on the same marginalized communities that the sanctions intend to protect.

Because they are now so commonly used, sanctions play an irreplaceable role in international politics. Gallarotti points out that the constant military intervention and threats that were common in the 20th century have now been replaced by diplomacy. Countries would much rather sanction than intervene militarily, and on the other hand, would much prefer to sanction than do nothing at all.

“There really isn’t much else you can use [instead of sanctions]… I call it rational failure, meaning that you know it’s gonna fail but it’s the only thing you can really do because diplomatically the best you can do is yell at people, and words don’t hurt,” Gallarotti said.

Sanctions are now woven into nearly every single conflict and international dispute. As questions about efficacy and impact arise, there is no denying how this once rarely used tool is now shaping modern diplomacy. Many sanctions don’t work, but countries often justify them by arguing that doing something is preferable to nothing at all.

Sanctions are being used more and more each year, even as governments recognize the need to understand their impact. As smart sanctions begin to replace comprehensive efforts, it’s still worth understanding the motive behind them, which Gallarotti illustrates plainly, “It’s a low success option, but it’s the best they can do.”