Benefits of multiculturalism

Why apply comprehensive sanctions in some cases and limited sanctions in others? Which industries are hurt by sanctions, which industries benefit, and how are such costs and benefits weighed in the pursuit of broader foreign policy goals. Hornback Tiffany Kaschel. Alternatives to Sanctions Pages Kaschel, Tiffany et al. Engage or Not? Show next xx. Given the relatively low success rate of sanctions, here are five recommendations from academic literature creating conditions for sanctions to work: Aim for major, immediate damage to the target economy.

The higher the immediate cost of sanctions on the economy, the less likely target governments can adjust their policies to evade the sanctions. Major economic dislocation would subsequently pressure leaders to concede to sanctions in order to minimize the damage on their legitimacy and capacity to rule. Leaders might even be more inclined to acquiesce if the immediate economic pain is felt significantly by powerful economic and political groups in their close ruling circle.

Seek cooperation from other countries and international organizations. One oft-quoted example is the suffering in Iraq caused by the year universal sanctions regime erected after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in Other countries a descriptive essay outline example work to undercut what they see as arbitrary US behaviour.

Benefits of multiculturalism is already happening over Iran and North Korea. Most governments value these structures. This potentially hurts Americans, too. Trump already faces a backlash from US exporters hit by retaliatory foreign tariffs. The benefits of us economic sanctions the US relies on unilateral sanctions and tariffs, the more likely the rest of the world - disregarding possible financial penalties - will refuse to play along.

Those who can afford to, like China and the EU, inevitably retaliate in kind, creating a mutually damaging economic downward spiral. Those who cannot defend themselves, such as smaller, emerging-market economies, will look elsewhere for help. This effect may already be observed in increased Chinese and Russian geopolitical collaboration and enhanced economic alignment through groups such as the eight-country Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The converse is also true. The more Trump penalises Beijing, the more unlikely it is to help with problems like North Korea and Iran. Some predict a new cold war, with China replacing the Soviet Union. Who will be next to jump ship? Tom Wolfe would have laughed. Local Organisers. Terms and Conditions Guidelines and Deadlines.

International Relations. Tyler Kustra New York University. Panel Cooperation and Conflict in International Trade. It is well known that the U. This paper will examine whether economic sanctions imposed by the United States for ostensibly foreign policy reasons, such as responding to military aggression or to improve human rights, are, in fact, non-tariff barriers in disguise.

Although in recent years the United States has increased humanitarian aid to Cuba and benefits of economic sanctions relaxed certain aspects of its embargo, if it did not provoke Castro to change his policies at a time when the Cuban people were suffering most, it is unlikely that the embargo will ever succeed.

In Burma, too, the U. While there are some exceptions, overall U. In many of the cases considered by advocates of sanctions to be successes, other factors that were at play that may have had far more influence than the actual embargo.In June, Trump almost announced a military strike on Iran after the country shot down a U. Iran agreed to limit its nuclear development program in return for the end of economic sanctions. The arms embargo would remain in place until Specifically, Iran agreed to reduce its 12,kilogram stockpile of enriched uranium to kilograms.

It agreed to remove about two-thirds or 10, centrifuges that produce uranium. It would eliminate the core of the Arak plutonium reactor. Iran agreed to neither produce nor acquire highly enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium.

The U. That is much longer than its "breakout time" of two to three months before the agreement. Despite the sanctions, Iran had increased its number of centrifuges from to thousands. It had also accumulated enough fissile material for 10 to 12 nuclear bombs. Iran promised to reduce its centrifuges and the amount of bomb-grade nuclear material, making it less likely that it will create a weapon.

Critics in the U. Removing sanctions gave Iran more economic power to fund terrorist organizations in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Voters liked his policies of economic reform, moderation, and more engagement with the West. It ended its benefits of economic sanctions investigation.

Iran: Economy, Nuclear Deal, and Sanctions

That equated to a 2. Iran insisted it was producing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, within its rights under the Treaty. Iran ignored repeated Security Council Resolutions.

It also thought France and the U. Iran was wrong. It also banned Iranian imports and froze all its central bank properties in the United States. They caused Iran's economy to contract 6. It only grew 1. President Jimmy Carter responded to the November 4, hostage crisis. Iranian students took 66 Americans hostage at the U. Obviously, there is substantial overlap between financial and trade sanctions, especially when applied comprehensively, since with their foreign assets frozen and access to new funds blocked, Governments will be unable to pay for imports, and trade will suffer.

Travel sanctions can include both sanctions against the travel of certain individuals or groups and sanctions against certain kinds of air transport.

The first kind is by nature targeted, as lists of people or groups of people are compiled who are not allowed to leave their country. This type of ban has been imposed on Governments, such as against members of the military junta in Sierra Leone inand also against non-governmental groups, such as the leaders of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola UNITA in Bans on certain types of air travel include the current ban on taking off or landing of any aircraft owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban, established by the Security Council in its resolution Military sanctions may include arms embargoes or the termination of military assistance or training.

They are also thesis review "targeted", as, domestically, only the armed forces feel their impact. Legal problems may arise, however, when a country's right to self-defence is infringed, as many States subject to arms embargoes have argued. Diplomatic sanctions directly target the rulers of a sanctioned State: diplomats and political leaders may have their visas revoked and may be forbidden to participate in international bodies and organizations.

The refusal of the United Nations to allow the participation of the apartheid Government of South Africa in its operations is an example of this type of sanction. Other steps towards diplomatic isolation include the withdrawal of diplomatic personnel and international organizations from the target country. Finally, cultural sanctions, while having less of a negative impact than other forms of sanctions, can still have undesired results.

The athletes of the target nation may be banned from international sports competitions, folk dancers, musicians and other artists may also be banned and restrictions may be placed on educational and tourist travel. The most important implication of international law, especially human rights and humanitarian law, for sanctions is that the right to impose sanctions is not unlimited.

Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations allows the Security Council to take measures such as sanctions only to "maintain or restore international peace and security" following its determination that there benefits of us economic sanctions a threat to or breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. While armed groups within a country may pose a threat to international peace and security, a generally unarmed civilian population is, in all likelihood, unable to pose such a threat.

Other States not presenting a threat to, or actually breaching, peace and security must not be affected by sanctions imposed on the violating State. Furthermore, the "threat" may benefits of multiculturalism be determined on the basis of ulterior political motives - there must be genuine "international concern" behind the sanctions, not the foreign or domestic policy considerations of a single State or group of States. Sanctions may not be imposed to secure any of the other Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set out in Article 1 of the Charter, unless there is a credible determination of a threat to or a breach of the peace or an act of aggression.

In addition to these limitations, other provisions that would limit sanctions are found throughout the Charter. Article 24 requires the Security Council to "act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". Thus, no act of the Security Council is exempt from scrutiny as to whether or not that act is in conformity with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Article 1, paragraph 1, requires that sanctions or other measures undertaken to maintain international peace and security must be "effective" and must be "in conformity with the principles of justice and international law".

Sanctions must be evaluated to ensure that they are not unjust or that they do not in any way violate principles of international law stemming from sources "outside" the Charter.

Likewise, sanctions must be constantly reviewed to ascertain whether benefits of economic sanctions not they are effective in maintaining peace and security. Ineffective or unjust personal goals examples or those that violate other norms of international law may not be imposed, or must be lifted if they have been imposed.

Article 1, paragraph 2, requires that sanctions or other measures "respect the principle of equal rights and the benefits of paraphrasing of peoples". Sanctions that cause international dissention, that interfere with a State's legal rights, or that unduly affect a people's right to self?

The United Nations purpose of promoting and encouraging respect for human rights set out in article 1, paragraph 3, necessarily limits sanctions. Article 1, paragraph 3, also requires the United Nations to solve issues of a pressing humanitarian nature, not to cause them.

Sanctions that directly or indirectly cause deaths would be a violation of the right to life. Article 1, paragraph 4, requires that sanctions or other measures facilitate the harmonization of national or international action. Sanctions imposed on one country but not on another for the same wrongs would violate this requirement of harmonization.

Sanctions imposed unequally on two countries for the same wrongs would also violate the harmony provision. Article 55 of the Best college admissions essay mark reinforces the limitations of article 1, paragraph 3, in its requirement that the United Nations promote:.

Solutions to international economic, social, health and other problems para. Sanctions regimes that lower economic standards, create health problems or are detrimental to the benefits of us economic sanctions of human rights would violate Article The General Assembly has passed a number of resolutions that elaborate on Article 1 and that must also be taken into consideration regarding sanctions.

They include the following:. While the whole of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken into consideration, some provisions are especially important: the right to life art. Article 25 also establishes the right to social security in the event of lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond a person's control and the entitlement to special care of mothers and children, both of which are vulnerable to violations.

The rights of prisoners or others under detention or involuntary committal are especially vulnerable. For example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides for the right to an adequate standard of living art. The right to life is protected in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 4 of the latter Covenant contains the additional concept of the non-derogability of basic rights.

Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Benefits of economic sanctions Any sanctions regime imposed during a war or as a consequence of a war is governed by humanitarian law.

This requires that the civilian population must always be provided benefits of paraphrasing or allowed to secure the essentials for survival: food, potable water, shelter, medicines and medical care. The Hague Convention and Regulations of contain a number of provisions that could substantially limit sanctions regimes.

For example, the Martens Clause eighth preambular paragraph, re-stated in the Geneva Conventions of and Additional Protocol I thereto 21 mandates that all situations arising from war be governed by principles of law of civilized nations, principles of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience. Article 50 of the Regulations provides: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

The Geneva Conventions have many provisions relevant to the imposition of sanctions. For example, they mandate the free passage of medical provisions and objects necessary for religious worship see, for example, Convention IV, art.

The Conventions also set out rules relating to medical convoys and evacuation see, for example, Convention IV, arts. Because the fundamental purpose of the Benefits of us economic sanctions Conventions is to provide for the medical needs of military personnel wounded in battle as a result of armed conflict, any provision of a sanctions regime that limits the ability of a State to provide for its war wounded must be viewed as illegal.

Geneva Convention rights may not be abrogated or waived in any circumstance. The benefits of paraphrasing protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of benefits of economic sanctions some of the provisions. For example, Protocol I, article 54, requires the protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. A provision of a sanctions regime that authorizes military action against the pearl greed essay objects or that denies the repair and recommissioning of those illegally damaged in the course of armed conflict must be viewed as illegal.

Protocol I, article 70, provides for relief actions for the benefit of the civilian population and would be violated by any provision of a sanctions regime that limits or modifies relief action. Protocol II benefits of us economic sanctions parallel provisions to many of the provisions set out in Protocol I. For example, Protocol Additional II, article 14, provides for the protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

The General Assembly has passed many resolutions relating to the protection of persons in times of armed conflict. Regional bodies and individual countries also have a role in sanctions regimes and, on their own or in concert with the United Nations, have imposed sanctions on countries in their areas.

Europe, Africa and the Americas also have regional human rights forums with regional human rights requirements that could be violated by a particular sanctions regime. Sanctions have been imposed, for example, by the Council of Europe, the Organization of African Unity and sub-groupings of it, and by the Organization of American States. Individual countries and component parts of individual countries have also imposed sanctions. The Charter of the United Nations limits the sanctions that may be imposed regionally or by a group of States or by a single Government.

Article 52 mandates that regional arrangements and their activities be "consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". A sanctions regime imposed unilaterally or by a regional body must meet all benefits of paraphrasing requirements for such sanctions inherent in the Charter, including conformity with the principles essay help writing justice and international law.

The above-listed limitations to sanctions allow the extrapolation of a six-prong test to evaluate sanctions. Sanctions under the United Nations must be imposed only when there is a threat of or actual breach of international peace and security.

Benefits of economic sanctions

Sanctions may not be imposed for invalid political reasons personal grudges, "East-West" or "North-South" politics, "left-right" politics and the like. Sanctions may not arise from or produce an economic benefit for one State or group of States at the expense of the sanctioned State or other States.

Sanctions may not target civilians who are uninvolved with the threat to peace or international security. Sanctions that would result in an abrogation of Geneva Convention rights are void; there can be no effective, presumed or actual waiver of these rights.

Sanctions may not target, or result in collateral damage to, "third party" States or peoples.

Economic sanctions

Sanctions may not interfere with the free flow of humanitarian goods under the Geneva Conventions and other provisions benefits of paraphrasing humanitarian law. Sanctions may not target goods needed to ensure the basic subsistence of the civilian population food, drinking water, basic medicines and immunizationsregardless of whether there is an armed conflict. Sanctions may not target essential medical provisions or educational materials of any kind.

Even if a target is otherwise legal, the target must still have a reasonable relationship to the threat of or actual breach of peace and international security. Legal sanctions may become illegal when they have been applied for too long without meaningful results. Sanctions that continue for too long can have a negative effect long after the wrong ceases the so-called "undue future burden" effect. Sanctions must be reasonably capable of achieving a desired result in terms of threat or actual breach of international peace and security.

Sanctions that are targeted in ways that would not affect the wrongs may be viewed as ineffective. The reaction of Governments, intergovernmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, scholars and, of course, the public must be taken into account in evaluating sanctions regimes.

This prong, the so-called "Martens Clause test", is important not only in terms of the human rights and humanitarian law from which it derives, but also in terms of the Charter's call for international solidarity and the need to address pressing humanitarian concerns. The public outcry over the sanctions regime in Iraq clearly invokes the Martens Clause test.

Individuals and groups are even willing to violate the sanctions and to carry out Gandhi-like passive resistance, including a planned "die-in" for the summer of Regarding the sanctions imposed on Burundi and Cuba, numerous public officials United Nations and otherwise have pointed to their disastrous consequences. The "theory" behind economic sanctions is that economic pressure on civilians will translate into pressure on the Government for change. This "theory" is bankrupt both legally and practically, as more and more evidence testifies to the inefficacy of comprehensive economic sanctions as a coercive tool.

The traditional calculation of balancing civilian suffering against the desired political effects master thesis latex style giving way to the realization free assignments online the efficacy of a sanctions regime is in inverse proportion to its impact on civilians. The case of Iraq by itself points to serious problems in the traditional theory of economic sanctions.

In regimes where political decision-making is not democratic, there is simply no pathway through which civilian pressure can bring about change in the Government. In addition, civilian hardship can easily be translated into political advantage by a ruling regime. The targeted Government, especially if it has a strong grip on the media, will push its citizens to unite behind it in defiance of the foreign States. Sanctions can be used by the targeted Government as a scapegoat for its problems benefits of economic sanctions give leaders fuel for political extremism.

Under sanctions, the middle class is eliminated, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer as they take control of smuggling and the black market. The Government and elite can actually benefit economically from sanctions, owing to this monopoly on illegal trade.

As many commentators have pointed out, in the long run, as democratic participation, independent institutions and the middle class are weakened, and as social benefits of multiculturalism leaves the population less able to resist the Government, the possibility of democracy shrinks.

In sum, the civilian suffering that is believed to be the effective factor in comprehensive economic cohesive essay example renders those sanctions ineffectual, even reinforcing the Government and its policies.

Then it is usually the people who suffer, not the political elites whose behaviour triggered the sanctions in the first place. Indeed, those in power, perversely, often benefit from such sanctions by their ability to control and profit from black market activity, and by exploiting them as a pretext for eliminating domestic sources of political opposition.

The data support this argument. There is a no small debate around the interpretation of successes and failures of sanctions regimes, 30 but even the most optimistic point to only about a third of all sanctions having even "partial" success, while others looking at the data have come up with a 5 per cent success rate, and a dismal 2 per cent success rate for sanctions against "authoritarian regimes".

Benefits of paraphrasing same researchers demonstrated that when the economic elite are targeted, there is a significant increase in success. Part of the debate on sanctions focuses on ways to mitigate civilian suffering to the point where it does not produce unwanted counter-effects, thus allowing a regime of comprehensive economic sanctions to put pressure on the government.

Under the proviso of "humanitarian exemptions", certain necessary humanitarian goods can pass through the sanctions barricade. The primary example of this is the "oil-for-food" programme in Iraq.

However, this policy is rife with problems. As was exemplified in Iraq, humanitarian exemptions can in no way fully compensate for the damage done by comprehensive economic sanctions. To quote one analyst:.

Such embargoes have an impact at macro-level. Humanitarian exemptions only mitigate the situation at micro-level and, even when generous, do not constitute a resource flow that can compensate for benefits of paraphrasing overall economic recession. Comprehensive economic sanctions, even qualified by "humanitarian exemptions", do not make any practical sense for changing a recalcitrant State's policies. The traditional theory behind sanctions is disproved by evidence from recent sanctions regimes, and the doctrine of "humanitarian exemptions" amounts to a futile attempt to mitigate disasters.

Instead of trying to patch the sunk ship of comprehensive economic sanctions likened to "medieval military sieges" by one writer 35 through "humanitarian exemptions", sanctions should be rethought entirely. This is the "smart sanctions" debate set out below. In response to the tragic consequences of comprehensive economic sanctions on civilians, an increasingly concerted public discourse has arisen around "targeted" or "smart" sanctions.

These targeted sanctions are conceived of as directly affecting the political leaders or those responsible for the breach of peace, while leaving the innocent civilian population alone. Properly targeting sanctions, it is hoped, can eliminate civilian suffering while putting significant pressure on the Government itself, thus bringing sanctions regimes into compliance with human rights and humanitarian law and increasing their chances of success.

Targeted economic sanctions, especially targeted financial sanctions, have become an international policy focus lately, giving rise benefits of us economic sanctions the Benefits of economic sanctions Process centred around two conferences held in Interlaken, Switzerland, in andand to a number of other seminars, conferences and research projects around the world. Targeted economic sanctions may target the personal foreign assets and access to foreign financial markets of members of the Government, the ruling elite, or members of the military.

The assets of government-owned businesses may also be frozen and investment in those businesses prohibited. Imports of luxury goods and other goods generally only consumed by the ruling elite can be banned. Carefully targeted sanctions, it is argued, can also reduce the harm done to third-party States, thus removing incentives to defy the sanctions, as has recently happened in Africa, with many countries ignoring the travel ban against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Benefits of paraphrasing

Use of the six-prong test to ensure proper targeting, clearly defined goals, a definitive exit clause, and regional unanimity, sanctions regimes could be effective while not harming the civilian population. It is up to the international community to demand that the Security Council introduce such changes. The following case studies focus on the sanctions regimes imposed upon three countries, Iraq, Burundi and Cuba.

The foregoing discussion of international law, especially the "six-prong test", will be applied to each of these situations. The selection of these three nations is based mainly upon the massive international protest they have each spurred. The three cases are also exemplary as one involves Security Council-imposed multilateral sanctions, one involves regionally-imposed sanctions and one unilaterally-imposed sanctions.

In each case, general information will be provided about the sanctions regime, followed by an examination of the effects of the sanctions on civilians, the public response to the sanctions regimes and, finally, an evaluation of the legal standing of the sanctions in the light of international law.

The sanctions against Iraq are the most comprehensive, total sanctions that have ever been imposed on a country. The situation at benefits of us economic sanctions is extremely grave.

The transportation, power and communication infrastructures were decimated during the Gulf war, and have not been rebuilt owing to the sanctions.

The industrial sector is also in shambles benefits of paraphrasing agricultural production has suffered greatly. But most alarming is the health crisis that has erupted since the imposition of the sanctions.

Sanctions after Crimea: Have they worked?

The Security Council imposed multilateral comprehensive economic sanctions in its resolution of 6 August The negative impact that sanctions have benefits of multiculturalism economic growth affect women, minority communities and other marginalised groups to a greater extent.

Sanctions have a significant negative impact on the living standards and humanitarian situation of the population in the sanctioned state. Sanctions in Sudan have not led to the regime changing its actions and approach. Poverty is used as a tool in Sudan to control the population and blame is placed on those who enact the sanctions. Sanctions in Sudan have impacted the aid process leading to less aid getting through which exacerbates poverty. Although oil exporting has led to economic growth in Sudan, overall economic development is low and there is a disparity in the distribution of wealth from oil.

Benefits of economic sanctions