Sanctions are increasingly imposed in response to international crises and military conflicts. Much is known about the aims sanctions seek to achieve, such as coercion, deterrence and signalling, yet the catalysts for their imposition are often overlooked. Despite the existence of a sanctions framework developed for specific international concerns, each sanctions programme has a justification unique to it. In my paper, I present a novel argument that a ‘menu’ of justifications exists for the implementation of international sanctions. This ‘sanctions à la carte’ includes five sets of justifications for imposition: crime-based, value-based, hostile sanctions, countermeasures and war sanctions. Understanding the varied nature of these sanctions frameworks compels us to reconsider the existing models of examining sanctions’ effectiveness, legitimacy and proportionality.
Bohdan Bernatskyi (Tue,) studied this question.