Rethinking the Iraqi sanctions regime
In: Jane's Intelligence review: the magazine of IHS Jane's Military and Security Assessments Intelligence centre, Band 13, Heft 7, S. 33-35
ISSN: 1350-6226
1965 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Jane's Intelligence review: the magazine of IHS Jane's Military and Security Assessments Intelligence centre, Band 13, Heft 7, S. 33-35
ISSN: 1350-6226
World Affairs Online
In: United Nations Sanctions and the Rule of Law, S. 247-463
In: Global instituions
This book investigates the selective nature of UN sanctions regimes with a specific focus on the post-Cold War era. Legally binding on all members, UN sanctions are the most effective and legitimate non-violent multilateral tools to respond to international security threats. They are also symbolically more powerful than unilateral or multilateral sanctions because they enjoy global support. However, while dozens of threats to international peace were met with UN sanctions since 1990, many others were not. How can we explain this incoherent approach? With a focus on the selectiveness, rather than effectiveness of UN sanctions the author reflects on the shifting geopolitical tensions between Security Council members and uses a variety of widely used academic datasets to provide a unique overview of what determines sanctions and sanctionable events.
This book investigates the selective nature of UN sanctions regimes with a specific focus on the post-Cold War era. Legally binding on all members UN sanctions are the most effective and legitimate non-violent multilateral tools to respond to international security threats.
In: North Korean Review, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 45-56
In: The Korean journal of defense analysis, Band 26, Heft 3, S. 371-387
ISSN: 1016-3271
In: International Affairs, Band 64, Heft 1, S. 55-63
In: Austrian Review of International and European Law, Band 17
SSRN
In: Mirovaja ėkonomika i meždunarodnye otnošenija: MĖMO, Band 62, Heft 2, S. 28-36
In: Economic policy
ISSN: 1468-0327
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of coalitions on the economic costs of the 2012 Iran and 2014 Russia sanctions. By estimating and simulating a quantitative general equilibrium trade model under different coalition setups, we (1) dissect welfare losses for sanctions senders and target; (2) compare prospective coalition partners; (3) investigate 'optimal' coalitions that maximize payoff from sanctions; (4) provide bounds for sanctions potential, that is, the maximum welfare change attainable when sanctions are scaled vertically up to an embargo, and horizontally up to a global regime. Relative to unilateral action, we find that coalitions magnify welfare losses imposed while their impact on domestic welfare loss incurred depends on the design and sectoral dimension of sanctions. Hypothetical cooperation of large developing economies such as China additionally raises the deterrent force of coalitions. Additionally, we quantify transfers that equalize welfare losses across coalition members to further demonstrate asymmetries in the relative economic burden of sanctions. In all scenarios, we implement a novel Bayesian bootstrap procedure that generates confidence bands for simulation outcomes.
In: Jane's Intelligence review: the magazine of IHS Jane's Military and Security Assessments Intelligence centre, Band 13, Heft 7, S. 40-41
ISSN: 1350-6226
In: DIW Berlin Discussion Paper No. 2021
SSRN
In: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2022_62
SSRN
In: Austrian review of international and European law: ARIEL, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 83-115
ISSN: 1573-6512
In: Human rights law review, Band 9, Heft 2, S. 257-266
ISSN: 1744-1021