Analysis reveals a menu of justifications for sanctions in international relations, suggesting a need for new evaluations.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bohdan Bernatskyi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: