Symposium

• Craven, Matthew

Abstract

Just as economic sanctions appear to have become the coercive instrument of choice for the United Nations in the decade since the Gulf War, there has been increasing concern as to their effect — whether upon the civilian population within target states or upon the economic interests of historic trading partners. Such concerns have now found their way into policy‐making within the United Nations and elsewhere, leading to the development of a new orthodoxy: the future of sanctions lies in their being made ‘smart’, ‘targeted’ and hedged with ‘humanitarian exemptions’. This article seeks to outline the strands of this new policy initiative and evaluate its implications. It is argued that, given the continued uncertainty as to the effectiveness of sanctions as a coercive tool, the argument for smartening sanctions seems to rest primarily upon the claim that they are necessarily more ‘humane’. It seems, furthermore, that the framework within which this idea of ‘humanity’ is to be deployed is that of humanitarian law. This, however, leads to the central problem, namely, that given the broad discretion assumed by the Security Council in the choice of measures to be adopted under Chapter VII, the role of humanitarian arguments will invariably be confined to one of ameliorating adverse consequences, rather than of limiting the capacity to impose those measures in the first place. In such a guise, they act less as a constraint upon the capacity of the Security Council to impose sanctions, and more as a vehicle for justifying their deployment.