Global sanctions are more widespread than ever before. Their scope and magnitude should prompt a reconsideration of their rationale, effectiveness, and consequences.
Nick Serpe: There’s been a wave of scholarship on the League of Nations and the interwar period that cuts against the conventional view that the League was a paper tiger and that sanctions were just a “paper weapon.” But what does your research show?
Nicholas Mulder: The conditions for the rise of sanctions came together in a few different moments: first, globalization in the late-19th century; second, the development of the administrative state with its interventions and controls; and third, mass society with its growing demands for greater political participation. All of these developments made it possible for states to exploit the broader forces of international competition and globalization to pressure civilian societies into changing their policies.
Sanctions are more widely imposed today than they were in the 1930s. They also have more powerful economic effects. This is because the broader market integration of today means that sanctions can cause much more damage through trade diversion and evasion, while also being less likely to lead to military escalation.
Additionally, the fact that sanctions have been so omnipresent means that they have shaped contentious politics in new ways. They have created a kind of interest-group politics wherein certain sectors of civil society can combine street mobilization and more formal bargaining to put pressure on governments. This was evident in the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom (WLF) uprising and in the labor protests that accompanied it.