The Weaponization of Economic Sanctions: A Tool for Justice or Political Manipulation?

Written by Aadya Tiwari (Winner of the Youth Diplomacy Network's Global Politics Essay Contest, 2025)

Introduction 

Economic sanctions have become tools of statecraft, used to impose norms, deter aggression, and punish human rights violations. But the dual purpose that they serve—as instruments of justice and political weapons—raises important questions of ethics and strategy. Do sanctions legitimately enforce global justice, or do they disproportionately harm vulnerable populations to promote the geostrategic aims of powerful states? Recent global crises like the Russia-Ukraine war have intensified debates over sanctions’ impacts. This essay will explore the difficulties of economic sanctions while analyzing their effectiveness with unintentional consequences and alternative strategies. 

The Power and Purpose of Economic Sanctions 

Sanctions are usually levied to prevent weapons proliferation, retaliate against human rights abuses, deter military aggression, and compel governments to abide by international norms. They have shaped state behavior in the past. Sanctions, for example, in apartheid-era South Africa helped to dismantle racial segregation. Economic restrictions on Iran have similarly pressured negotiations over nuclear accords, demonstrating how certain types of sanctions can become diplomatic tools, not declarations of war. 

Their effectiveness is up for debate. In North Korea and Venezuela, sanctions failed to achieve regime change and worsened economic suffering. A 2023 study by the Brookings Institution concluded that sanctions on Russia pushed back its economy by 2.1% in terms of GDP and reduced imports by 30%, but pushed it closer to China. According to United Nations data, sanctions on Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover have deepened the country's struggles. 

Political Manipulation 

Despite branding them as instruments of justice, sanctions are often applied selectively — geopolitical interests of imposing countries at the fore. The U.S. and E.U. have been criticized for targeting adversaries like Russia and Iran while turning a blind eye to allies with less-than-perfect human rights legacies, like Saudi Arabia. 

This undermines the legitimacy of sanctions for justice. The decades-long U.S. embargo against Cuba, met with international criticism, shows how economic tools can be turned into ideological and geopolitical weapons, rather than protecting human rights. In the aftermath of the 2022 sanctions on Russia, it bolsters the economy of its internal companies and significantly reduces the economic well-being of the Russian people, while causing spikes in energy prices worldwide that typically act to harm developing countries disproportionately. 

Sanctions frequently have unintended repercussions that thwart their announced aims. Rather than weakening authoritarian regimes, economic hardship can strengthen them by concentrating power among ruling elites. U.N. sanctions from the 1990s that devastated the humanitarian situation in Iraq did little to weaken Saddam Hussein’s regime. Likewise, sanctions on Venezuela have deepened economic collapse without promoting democratic change. 

Proposed Solutions 

1. Multilateral and Impartial Sanctions Mechanisms 

For legitimacy, economic sanctions should be imposed through multilateral structures such as the United Nations or regional groupings like the African Union. This would guard against powerful states abusing sanctions as unilateral levers used to coerce predicted political decisions and ensure that the measures are applied according to objective human rights considerations. 

The coordinated expansion of sanctions on Iran demonstrates the success of multilateral efforts. But independence is also needed to ensure such sanctions do not end up being biased; hence an international sanctions review board needs to be established to ensure counterproductive or unethical sanctions are not imposed. International instruments could also try international trade agreements for compliance with UN-sanctioned restrictions so that internationally agreed measures are something states are prepared to sign up for. 

2. Smart Sanctions 

Conventional sanctions frequently inflict disproportionate harm on civilians, resulting in economic misery and humanitarian crises. Instead, they should apply “smart sanctions” on political elites, military officials, and institutions complicit in human rights violations. Sanctions on assets, travel bans, and restrictions on luxury goods can exert pressure on ruling elites while minimizing collateral damage. 

The 2012 Magnitsky Act, allows the U.S. to impose financial penalties on individuals implicated in human rights abuses without sanctioning entire countries. While smart sanctions may be the way to avoid force, intelligence-sharing between significant international agencies has to be enhanced, while advances like blockchain-based tracking would assist in ensuring sanctioned entities are not evading restrictions by moonlighting with cryptocurrency transactions. Implementing smart sanctions also requires careful consideration of the technologies used, such as blockchain, ensuring they uphold privacy rights and avoid unintended surveillance. 

3. Exit Strategies and Measurable Benchmarks

Many sanctions regimes lack an obvious exit strategy: they cause years of economic pain with no clear way out. Setting specific benchmarks, like demonstrated advances on human rights, a fair election, or denuclearization, can help make sanctions more effective in providing targeted governments with incentives to comply. Regular independent assessments are needed to determine whether sanctions accomplish their intended aims or whether they need to be recalibrated. 

Haggling over trade is more effective than confrontation in improving human rights and democracy. The European Union’s Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP) offers economic incentives to developing countries in return for promises to uphold labor rights and democratic governance. Investment-based diplomacy, like the EU’s GSP, can be more effective than punitive sanctions. 

Conclusion 

Economic sanctions have a complicated and controversial place in international relations. A powerful mechanism to advance global justice, but their deployment as vehicles of political coercion calls into question the ethics and strategy of their use. The selective enforcement of sanctions, their catastrophic humanitarian ramifications, and the distinct failure to achieve political ends on the international level despite their widespread application should provide a basis to reassess their use. The international community must ensure that its economic sanctions enforcement acts as a tool for justice and move towards multilateral enforcement, targeted measures, ethical technology use, and diplomatic alternatives.