Economic sanctions are a global political tool that cut off the financial lifeline of states and entities deemed to be engaging in activities that violate international norms and are deemed a threat to global peace and security. These measures include asset freezes, export bans and travel bans. Sanctions are primarily the responsibility of the UN Security Council and can be imposed by a majority vote, without the use of the five permanent member vetoes.
In theory, if sanctions are sufficiently tough and persistent, they should have the power to coerce governments into changing their ways. Yet, there is much debate about whether the impact of these sanctions is worth the cost. One side argues that sanctions provide an important tool in the arsenal of international policy and should be used if nothing else is available. This argument draws on democratic peace theory and the principle that oppressive regimes are unlikely to reform themselves if not forced to do so.
Another side of the argument focuses on the negative impact that sanctions have on the sanctioner’s own economy, as well as the broader impacts that can occur because of non-compliance. Economic costs can include lower sales of goods, higher imports (in order to replace lost sales) and loss of the wage premium for those who export goods to sanctioned countries.
Moreover, it is important to consider the impact of sanctions on people. For those who are deemed to be close associates of Putin or participate in critical economic sectors, there are no clear incentives for them to change their ways and the current approach appears to leave no opportunity for them to realise assets that are frozen.