AUTHOR: EVA RISTIĆ
Foreign policy has traditionally employed economic sanctions as a means of pressuring
states to abide by international human rights standards. Sanctions frequently have serious
humanitarian repercussions for civilian populations, notwithstanding their intended deterrent
effect on violations of human rights. The purpose of this work is to investigate if, paradoxically,
economic sanctions that are applied in the name of human rights actually amount to human rights
violations. By analyzing and examining the moral, legal and economic dimensions of sanctions,
we can assess whether they align with or contradict human rights principles.
Human rights violations refer to the denial of fundamental freedoms and protections that
every individual is entitled to. Human rights are fundamental freedoms and entitlements that
belong to every individual, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, language,
religion, or any other characteristic. (1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
was adopted in 1948 by the UN General Assembly in response to the atrocities committed during
World War II, particularly the Holocaust and other large-scale human rights violations.(2) These
violations have existed throughout history, manifesting in various forms across different regions.
A well-known example is the Rwandan Genocide, in which the Hutu ethnic group systematically
targeted and massacred the Tutsi minority, subjecting them to extreme violence and persecution.
A more recent example is the treatment of the Uyghur Muslim minority in China, where
individuals have been detained in so-called “re-education camps,” facing severe human rights
abuses, including forced labor, surveillance, and cultural suppression. Such acts constitute clear
violations of basic human rights. Economic sanctions refer to the withdrawal or restriction of
trade and financial relations between states, typically imposed for foreign policy and
security-related objectives.(3)As a form of soft power, economic sanctions serve as a diplomatic
tool that does not involve direct military action but seeks to influence a nation’s behavior. The
use of economic sanctions dates back centuries and has played a significant role in shaping
global conflicts. For instance, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the European Union
(EU) imposed sanctions on Russia, imposing travel bans and asset freezes on Russian banks,
energy firms, and individuals. (4) Similar to this, since 2006, the UN had imposed a number of
sanctions on North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program, such as limitations on fuel
imports and prohibitions on the export of coal and iron.(5) Following a military takeover in
2021, Mali was sanctioned by the African Union (AU), which suspended its membership and
froze the assets of officials who were responsible for subverting democratic rule in the
country.(6)Another noteworthy instance was the 2011 UN and EU sanctions on Libya, which
included an arms embargo, asset freezes, and travel restrictions on important officials in
retaliation for Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal repression of demonstrators during the Arab Spring.(7)
Sanctions serve as a moral and legal response to violations of human rights are they are often
seen as an alternative to military intervention which allow the international community to exert
pressure without engaging in armed conflict. However, this raises the question of whether, in
attempting to stop human rights violations without resorting to armed conflict, do economic
sanctions themselves constitute a violation of human rights?
Types of Sanctions
According to their scope and target, economic sanctions can be divided into primary,
secondary, selected, and comprehensive categories. Trade embargoes, banking restrictions, asset
freezes, and prohibitions on foreign aid, loans, or investments are examples of primary sanctions
that directly limit a nation’s economic activity. Secondary sanctions, on the other hand, extend
the pressure by penalizing third parties that engage in economic activities with the sanctioned
country, ensuring compliance and preventing circumvention of primary sanctions. (8) Selective
sanctions target specific sectors of a country’s economy, such as banking or energy, to achieve a
desired political or diplomatic outcome. Comprehensive sanctions, on the other hand, impose
broad restrictions that isolate a nation from international trade and financial systems. A notable
example of comprehensive sanctions is the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which prohibited
commercial, economic, and financial exchanges with the country.(9) As an intervention tool,
sanctions serve as a middle ground between diplomacy and military action, but to what extent?
The Purpose and Justification of Economic Sanctions
One of the main justifications for sanctions is that, without using force, they can be used
as a diplomatic instrument to put pressure on governments that violate international law, commit
terrorism, or violate human rights. The goal of penalizing nations’ economic restrictions is to
minimize military escalation and human deaths while pressuring targeted states to adhere to
international standards. The case of South Africa during the apartheid era is a noteworthy
illustration of the rationale behind and effectiveness of economic sanctions. The United States,
the European Community, and the United Nations all imposed international sanctions in the
1980s, including embargoes, trade restrictions, and freezes on financial assets.(10) Due to these
restrictions on access to international trade and investment, South Africa’s economy was severely
harmed. Internal opposition and economic pressure finally forced the government to abolish the
apartheid regime, which resulted in democratic reforms and Nelson Mandela’s release in
1990.(11)
This case serves as an example of how sanctions can support political change and the
advancement of human rights when they are extensively implemented.Economic sanctions have
also had a favourable effect on Iran’s nuclear program negotiations. The US, the EU, and the UN
imposed a number of restrictions on Iran’s oil exports, financial institutions, and access to global
banking networks in response to worries about the country’s possible development of nuclear
weapons. Iran’s economy was negatively affected by these sanctions, which resulted in
significant inflation and currency devaluation. Iran consequently engaged in discussions with
international powers, which resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of
2015 (12), when Iran agreed to limiting its nuclear operations in return for the lifting of
sanctions. This illustrates how economic sanctions can be used as leverage to encourage
non-proliferation efforts and get states to the negotiating table. Nonetheless, even though
economic sanctions may help prevent armed conflicts and encourage diplomatic solutions, they
come with significant limitations that undermine their humanitarian impact. In many cases, these
measures disproportionately harm innocent civilians rather than the targeted regimes, effectively
functioning as a form of collective punishment that raises serious human rights concerns.
Humanitarian Impact
Despite their intended purpose, economic sanctions often lead to severe humanitarian
crises. Targeting entire economies with broad-based sanctions can lead to economic
deterioration, food shortages, and a lack of medical supplies, disproportionately impacting
common people rather than political elites. Prolonged sanctions have had disastrous
socioeconomic effects on nations with accounts of rising rates of poverty, starvation, and
preventable deaths. For instance, August 1990, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait triggered a significant
shift in the United Nations Security Council’s role in global governance. The UN Resolution 661
was passed on August 6, 1990 imposing economic sanctions on Iraq which banned all imports
and exports apart from limited medical supplies.(13) Under Articles 24 and 25 of the UN
Charter, (14) all member states were obligated to comply with Security Council decisions,
“Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this
responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”(15) The sanctions severely hindered
Iraq’s recovery, affecting UN agencies such as UNICEF, the FAO, and WHO, which struggled to
restore essential services like electricity, healthcare, and food security. Shipments of food, water,
sanitation equipment and agricultural supplies were routinely blocked resulting in widespread
malnutrition and deprivation gripped Iraq, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations.
Reports from the World Food Program and FAO in 1993 highlighted severe hunger and
malnutrition, particularly among children, expectant mothers, widows, and the elderly.
“notwithstanding the justification for their imposition, the sanctions have caused persistent
deprivation, severe hunger and malnutrition for a vast majority of the Iraqi population,
particularly the vulnerable groups” (16) By 1997, it was reported that 31% of children under five
suffered from malnutrition, and by 2000, UNICEF noted that 25% of children in south and
central Iraq experienced chronic malnutrition.(17)The long-term effects of these conditions
included irreversible health problems and cognitive deficits, illustrating the devastating
humanitarian toll of prolonged economic sanctions.
Furthermore, The European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and Canada placed
targeted sanctions on Myanmar in response to the military coup that deposed Aung San Suu
Kyi’s administration in 2021.(18) Asset freezes, trade restrictions, and prohibitions on companies
associated with the military were among these measures. The objective was to put pressure on
the military government to halt violations of human rights and restore democracy. However, by
trying to halt violations, innocent civilians suffered tremendously. Myanmar’s economy was
negatively impacted by the sanctions, which raised prices and unemployment. As foreign
companies left, essential services collapsed, making poverty and food insecurity worse.
Humanitarian aid was severely restricted, banks feared processing financial transactions due to
sanctions compliance risks, making it difficult for NGOs to provide food and medicine. In order
to legitimize mass arrests and executions and to blame outside forces for economic challenges,
the military utilized the sanctions as a pretext to crack down harder on opposition. In order to
maintain its hold on power, the military pulled resources away from public services, further
depriving people of access to humanitarian aid, healthcare, and education.(19)As humanitarian
organizations tried to function under financial constraints, the Rohingya population—who were
already experiencing genocide and ethnic cleansing—suffered even more. Due to this wave of
brutality, around 750,000 Rohingya, a Muslim minority who were denied citizenship, fled their
homes in search of safety.(20) The Rohingya crisis remains one of the most severe humanitarian
emergencies, with 95% of Rohingya households in Bangladesh reliant on humanitarian aid for
survival. With fewer options for school, employment, and a secure future, children make up over
half of the refugees. Many Rohingya are compelled to risk their lives on dangerous maritime
crossings to Indonesia and Malaysia, which are among the world’s worst migration routes.(21)
The sanctions did not weaken the military; rather, they brought Myanmar closer to Russia and
China, which boosted state violence against civilians and allowed for more arms shipments.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
From a legal standpoint, economic sanctions lay in the middle of international human
rights law. Although the Security Council is empowered by the UN Charter to impose sanctions
in order to preserve global peace and security, there is minimal scrutiny of the measures’
proportionality and humanitarian effects. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes access to food, healthcare, and basic living standards as
fundamental human rights.
If sanctions lead to severe deprivation of these necessities, they may
contradict the very principles they are intended to uphold. Sanctions may go against the same
ideals they are meant to uphold if they result in a significant deprivation of these human rights
necessities. Economic sanctions may present ethical dilemmas. Some contend that rather than
focusing on individual offenders, punishments frequently penalize entire populations. The
morality of sanctions is called into question when civilians suffer from severe economic
hardship, malnourishment, and a lack of access to healthcare. Policies that unintentionally
undermine human rights must be reevaluated if the international community is to adhere to the
notion that these rights are universal and inalienable. Alternative strategies for resolving human
rights abuses should be investigated, including the humanitarian issues raised by economic sanctions. Collateral damage can be reduced by targeted sanctions, which concentrate on freezing assets and limiting travel for particular government leaders rather than enacting general economic restrictions. To guarantee the continuous provision of food, medicine, and other
necessities, sanctions programs should also broaden their humanitarian exemptions. Establishing
oversight procedures assists in maintaining pressure on oppressive governments while averting
unnecessary suffering.
In conclusion, Taking all this into account, a lengthy duration of sanctions as well as an
extensive amount of restrictive measures undermines the goal of preventing abuses of human
rights and resolving conflicts. These actions may worsen the suffering of innocent individuals
who already reside in nations devastated by war and strife, rather than applying pressure to the
accountable authorities. By limiting access to basic necessities, healthcare, and other resources,
such penalties frequently exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe rather than upholding human
rights.When sanctions are not kept to a minimal and targeted level, they inadvertently become a
contributing factor to the very violations they are intended to prevent, further deepening the
hardship faced by vulnerable populations.
In conclusion, Taking all this into account, a lengthy duration of sanctions as well as an
extensive amount of restrictive measures undermines the goal of preventing abuses of human
rights and resolving conflicts. These actions may worsen the suffering of innocent individuals
who already reside in nations devastated by war and strife, rather than applying pressure to the
accountable authorities. By limiting access to basic necessities, healthcare, and other resources,
such penalties frequently exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe rather than upholding human
rights.When sanctions are not kept to a minimal and targeted level, they inadvertently become a
contributing factor to the very violations they are intended to prevent, further deepening the
hardship faced by vulnerable populations.
Bibliography:
(1) United Nations. (n.d.). Human rights. United Nations || Peace, dignity and equality on a
healthy planet.
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Human%20rights%20include
%20the%20right,to%20these%20rights%2C%20without%20discrimination.
(2) Amnesty Interanational. (2023, December 11). Universal declaration of human rights.
Amnesty International.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/#:~:text=T
he%20UDHR%20was%20adopted%20by,for%20freedom%2C%20justice%20and%20pe
ace.
(3) Jonathan Masters. (June 24, 2024). What Are Economic Sanctions?Council on Foreign
Relations.https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-economic-sanctions#chapter-t
itle-0-2
(4) Baker and Mckenzie. (2015, January). EU updates sanctions against Russia and Crimea.
Trade Compliance Germany.
https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2015/01/eu-updates-sa
nctions-against-russia-and-crimea/files/read-publication/fileattachment/al_germany_sanct
ionsrussiacrimea_jan15.pdf
(5) CFR.org Editors. (2022, July 27). What to know about sanctions on North Korea. Council
on Foreign Relations.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-korea-sanctions-un-nuclear-weapons
(6) Al Jazeera. (2021, June 2). Mali suspended from African Union, threatened with
sanctions.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/2/mali-suspended-from-african-union-after-seco
nd-coup-in-9-months
(7) European Union. (2024, September 13). EU restrictive measures in view of the situation
in Libya. EUR-Lex.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-restrictive-measures-in-view-of-t
he-situation-in-libya.html?fromSummary=25
(8) Krulikowski, S. (2024, March). Economic sanctions: An overview . U.S. International
Trade Commission.
https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_economic_sanctions_ov
erview.pdf
(9) U.S Department of State. (n.d.). Cuba Sanctions – United States . U.S. Department of
State. https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/
(10) USA.gov. (2009, January 20). The End of Apartheid. U.S. Department of State.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/98678.htm#:~:text=Apartheid%2C%20the
%20Afrikaans%20name%20given,a%20 democratic%20 government%20 in%201994.
(11) AAM Archives Committee 2000 – 2025. (2025). The anti-apartheid movement in the
1980s. Forward to Freedom. https://www.aamarchives.org/history/1980s.html
(12) Office of Website Management and Bureau of Public Affairs. (2017, January 20).
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. U.S. Department of State.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/jcpoa/#:~:text=On%20July%2014%2C%202
015%2C%20the,program%20will%20be%20exclusively%20peaceful.
(13) UN Security Council. ((1990). Resolution 661: The Situation Between Iraq and
Kuwait. United Nations Digital Libary.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/94221?ln=en&v=pdf#files
(14) United Nations. (n.d.-b). United Nations charter (full text). United Nations || Peace,
dignity and equality on a healthy planet.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
(15) Ibid.
(16) Goncharenko, R. (2022, March 3). Sanctions on russia: Death by a thousand cuts –
dw – 03/02/2022. The Common Good.
https://www.dw.com/en/sanctions-on-russia-death-by-a-thousand-cuts/a-60992232
(17) Woodward, M. (2020, June 15). The enduring lessons of the Iraq sanctions. MERIP.
https://merip.org/2020/06/the-enduring-lessons-of-the-iraq-sanctions/
(18) European Council. (2024, December 4). EU sanctions against MyanmarCouncil
of European Union.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-myanmar/
(19) Foreign, C. & D. O. (2024, October 29). UK, EU and Canada impose new sanctions
targeting Myanmar military regime and its associates. GOV.UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-eu-and-canada-impose-new-sanctions-targeting
-myanmar-military-regime-and-its-associates#:~:text=Press%20release-,UK%2C%20EU
%20and%20Canada%20impose%20new%20sanctions%20targeting%20Myanmar%20mi
litary,military%20material%2C%20equipment%20and%20funds.
(20) Nations, U. (2025, February 18). Myanmar: “many reports of brutal war crimes and
crimes against humanity.” United Nations Western Europe.
https://unric.org/en/myanmar-many-reports-of-brutal-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-hu
manity/
(21) UNHCR. (2024, August 22). Rohingya refugee crisis explained.
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/rohingya-refugee-crisis-explained/