About Armend Bekaj
Armend Bekaj is a Senior Programme Manager in the Foundation’s Peace and Security team, currently focusing in exploring interlinkages between the Foundation’s work at the UN and globally, and its contribution to peacebuilding in countries in conflict and in transition, such as Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Previously, he has worked with organisations such as International IDEA, OSCE, USAID, or Berghof Foundation.
Bekaj holds a Doctorate in Political Science from the University of Sheffield and a Masters in Conflict Resolution from the University of Bradford. He is also a Researcher at Uppsala University’s Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
In the book ‘International Sanctions Between Wars and Words’ Carina Staibano and Peter Wallensteen argues that in the current polarised climate where the rules-based world order is constantly being undermined there is one international practice that occupies middle space between good neighbourly relations and outright conflict.
Their reference is to the practice of sanctions, which can be political, diplomatic, economic, financial and military. In the spectrum between sustainable peace on one end, and outright violent conflict on the other, sanctions are positioned in the middle. States deploy it as instruments of threat, force or coercion through which the country that is targeted is pushed to accept certain policy outcomes.
In this context, Peter Wallensteen, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research of Uppsala University, shared that there is a plethora of cases of sanctions being used against states in the world today in his presentation at the latest International Training on Dialogue and Mediation (ITDM) alumni webinar that was hosted by the Foundation on in early April this year.
He shared a broad overview of sanctions and gave examples on the impact of sanctions including listing some of the inadvertent effects such as solidifying authoritarian leaders in power, as well as having possible humanitarian consequences. He also indicated that sanctions may be selective in nature but highlighted that empirical evidence still shows that sanctions have historically contributed towards alleviating outright conflict and that it is still potentially less costly than all-out war.
Furthermore, Prof Wallensteen stressed that sanctions are coercive in nature. And it is this coerciveness that may have the counter effect to the one intended. This is perhaps why states may be advised to employ inducements as means to bring the target state to negotiations. These measures are otherwise referred to as ‘positive sanctions’, defined as inducements for the target state, aimed at creating engagement. Their aim is to engage, not enrage, and thus involve, not alienate, the target state.
He lifted the example of Russia being at the receiving end of numerous measures in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Countries such as North Korea or Iran are subjected to long-term sanctions due to their nuclear activity or plans to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions may be unilateral endeavours by one or several states against another one. Other examples are the targeted sanctions used by the United States against Iran, whereas other countries may not employ such measures.
However, for multilateral sanctions to enjoy widespread international backing and legitimacy they need to be mandated by the United Nations. The Organization has taken it a step further by writing it into its A New Agenda for Peace. Acknowledging the importance of UN-mandated sanctions but also underlining that sanctions cannot and should not be an end in themselves. It should rather, be utilised in a targeted manner to seek reaching certain policy objectives.
As the Agenda states,
‘Sanctions regimes established by the Security Council remain an important Charter instrument to address threats to international peace and security. However, they cannot be an end in themselves: they have a durable positive impact only as part of an overarching political process. Improving the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions must include efforts to enhance their legitimacy and a better understanding of their sometimes-deleterious impact on political dialogue and peace processes when applied too early, reactively or broadly.’
We should keep in mind the above reference to international peace and security because it is easy to lose sight of that goal, particularly in times of great social tension and conflict as witnessed currently. Sanctions, too, should be part of measures undertaken with the aim of contributing to peace and security. In addition, it is the UN that gives sanctions legitimacy due to its multilateral character.
Article 41 of the UN Charter gives the Security Council the authority to use a number of measures with the purpose to enforce its decisions. It does this by regularly creating subsidiary organs to implement such measures.
In the ensuing conversation of the seminar, it was clear that the participants had certain reservations when states should resort to employing sanctions as coercive measures, particularly unilateral ones, to resolving conflict. Unilateral sanctions are often a source of controversy and differing interpretations. It may lack international legitimacy and therefore may be seen as unfair political instruments of the powerful against weaker ones.
In his presentation, Ayush Garg ITDM alumni brought forward the example of India which has been in the receiving end of on-and-off unilateral sanctions for decades now. He argued that such sanctions are not conducive to promoting peace and often serve to harm indiscriminately the innocent population.
Indeed, data shows that the grave humanitarian impact is one of the side-effects of particularly unilateral sanctions. He argued that countries such as Venezuela show that long-term sanctions have not led to desired results. Meanwhile, people suffer economically, and great numbers of them may be forced to migrate, too. Precisely because of such dangers coming from coercive sanctions, the emphasis should be placed on multilateral efforts.
This was one of the main messages coming from the above seminar, and more specifically, on exploring inducement strategies that could help supplement sanctions practices. Such a call connects us naturally to the UN’s arguments in the A New Agenda for Peace, as well as Pact for the Future, both of which view sanctions as means to certain aims, not aims in themselves.