Economic Sanctions as Instruments of Geopolitical Power and Their Humanitarian Consequences in Contemporary Armed Conflicts
This article critically examines the transformation of economic sanctions into instruments of geopolitical coercion, arguing that their proliferation and inadequate humanitarian safeguards disproportionately harm civilian populations and expose structural inequalities, thereby necessitating a reformed, multilateral framework grounded in international law principles such as proportionality, accountability, and human rights protection.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern world, nations often try to change each other's behavior without firing a single shot. Instead of sending armies across borders, they use economic pressure. This tool, known as sanctions, involves cutting off a country from the global system of trade, money, and technology. For decades, these measures were seen as a collective safety mechanism, a way for the international community to agree on a punishment for aggression. However, the rules of the game have shifted. Today, powerful nations increasingly act alone or in small groups, using their control over banks and supply chains to squeeze rivals. The central question facing legal scholars and policymakers is whether this shift has turned a tool for peace into a weapon that hurts the very people it was meant to protect. When a nation is cut off from the global economy, the government feels the pain, but so do the families who cannot buy food, the hospitals that cannot get medicine, and the workers who lose their jobs. The balance between stopping a bad actor and causing unnecessary suffering has become dangerously tilted.
A new study by researchers Sheikh Inam Ul Mansoor and Rubina Iqbal examines this delicate balance, looking at how economic sanctions have changed from a method of collective security into a sharp instrument of geopolitical power. The authors analyzed the laws that govern these actions, including the United Nations Charter, rules for war, and human rights treaties, alongside real-world examples of recent conflicts. They found that while sanctions were originally designed to be a temporary, collective response to threats, they have evolved into a permanent feature of strategic competition. Major powers now use them not just to stop a specific bad act, but to weaken a rival's long-term ability to function, restricting their access to technology, energy, and money. This transformation has created a system where a few wealthy nations can dictate terms to the rest of the world, often bypassing the United Nations and acting unilaterally.
The researchers discovered that this shift has serious consequences for ordinary citizens in the countries being punished. Because modern sanctions are so complex, they disrupt the entire flow of goods and money, not just the pockets of political leaders. Even when laws say that food and medicine should be allowed through, the reality is often different. Banks and shipping companies, terrified of breaking the rules and facing heavy fines, often refuse to process any transactions related to a sanctioned country. This phenomenon, known as over-compliance, means that humanitarian aid gets stuck in paperwork and red tape. The result is that people in conflict zones face shortages of essential supplies, not because the aid is banned, but because the financial system is too afraid to move it. The study argues that this creates a situation where the punishment is no longer aimed at the government making the decisions, but is instead inflicted on the entire population, including the most vulnerable children and families.
The paper also highlights a deep unfairness in how these measures are applied. The ability to impose these economic blockades depends on who controls the global financial infrastructure. Nations that hold the keys to the world's banking systems and digital payment networks can easily cut off others, while smaller or poorer nations have little power to defend themselves. This creates a structural inequality where the rules of the game are written by the powerful and followed by the weak. The researchers point out that this dynamic is particularly damaging to the Global South, where countries not even involved in a conflict can suffer from rising food prices and disrupted trade simply because they are caught in the crossfire of a dispute between major powers. The study suggests that this lack of fairness undermines the very idea of international law, turning it into a tool for enforcing the will of the strongest rather than a system of justice for all.
To fix these problems, the authors propose a complete overhaul of how sanctions are designed and monitored. They argue that the current system lacks accountability and transparency, leaving those affected with no way to challenge the decisions that ruin their lives. The study calls for a return to multilateralism, where decisions are made together by many nations rather than by one or two acting alone. It suggests that any sanctions regime must include strict, working safeguards to ensure that food, medicine, and energy can reach civilians without obstruction. These safeguards need to be practical, not just written on paper, with clear rules for banks and companies so they know exactly what they can and cannot do. Furthermore, there must be regular checks to see if the sanctions are causing more harm than good, with the power to stop or change them if the suffering becomes too great.
Ultimately, the research concludes that economic sanctions cannot be considered a legitimate tool of international relations unless they are grounded in law, necessity, and proportionality. They must be targeted specifically at those responsible for wrongdoing, not at the general population. The authors warn that if the world continues to rely on unilateral economic coercion without strong legal guardrails, it risks fragmenting the global economy into competing blocs and eroding the principles of human dignity. The path forward requires a system where the pursuit of security does not come at the cost of innocent lives, and where economic power is checked by the same rules that govern all nations. The study serves as a reminder that in an interconnected world, the way we punish a government inevitably touches the lives of its people, and the responsibility lies with the international community to ensure that this touch does not become a crushing weight.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.