Economic sanctions have a lot of promise and possibility for the future of

international relations, in that they have the possibility to become an

effective tool for coercing enemy states to put an end to certain
objectionable behaviors. Carried out successfully, and economic sanctions
can be a means for influencing other states through less costly and less
risky means. An unsuccessful economic sanction, however, can cause just
as much damage as a successful mission can cause harm. As a result,
while economic sanctions are praised for their effectiveness (when they
work) and continue to gain popularity, they are also not without their
criticisms.
There are a wide variety of deficiencies to economic sanctions, not least of
which is the fact that economic sanctions can hurt the people they wish to
protect--one example being the attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein;
while Iraqis suffered and more than 600,000 children died, Hussein was
able to circumvent the UN's embargo and continue exporting oil through
dummy corporations on the black market and continue purchasing
weapons via foreign companies. Other deficiencies to economic sanctions
include the fact that sanctions often contribute to the criminalization of the
state being sanctioned, and unintentionally aid international organized
crime.
Sanctions also interfere with free trade, and it is difficult to garner sustained
and collective cooperation from the international community. Some
governments will frequently continue to support a target state even as they
state their support for sanctioning, and the states imposing the sanctions
tend to have low credibility. Furthermore, sanctions will typically create a
heightened sense of nationalism in the target state, further increasing their
resistance to the economic sanction. Given these deficiencies, it is no
surprise that only "five of thirty-nine" economic sanctions undertaken
between 1970 and 1999 by the United States succeeded, because there is
a great deal to overcome in attempting to carry out a successful sanction.
These deficiencies aside, there are still several reasons for attempting to
impose an economic sanction. First and foremost, the use of sanctions

removes the need for armed force. By using sanctions, armed conflicts are
unnecessary, and the negatives that come with it--the strain on the
government's budget, the loss of life, criticisms at home and abroad, and
the fact that forced coercion can backfire. Given this, economic sanctions
are, as said, less expensive and less risky. Also, as globalization helps
make the world more integrated, economic sanctions have more efficacy,
causing more harm as governments become more dependant upon one
another through trade. "Single-commodity-dependant economies" are
especially vulnerable, where large portions of their export revenue derive
from a single product, and economic sanctions are seen as having more
influence.
How effective economic sanctions are has yet to be fully seems. There
have been failures, such as the United States' 1960 attempt to place a
sanction on Cuba following Fidel Castro's alliance with the Soviet Union,
and there have been successes, such as Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi
turning over two Libyans suspected of having blown up a Pan Am flight over
Scotland. The world is becoming more integrated, and as it does, economic
means to effectively coerce other states will likely become more and more
influential, particularly as the democratic world tends to grow further away
from the idea of using armed conflict. However, economic sanctions
continue to have a lot of weaknesses, and only time will tell whether
economic sanctions can really be used not only successfully, but effectively
and safely as well.