UN targeted sanctions datasets (1991–2013)

Biersteker, Thomas J.; Eckert, Sue E.; Tourinho, Marcos; Hudáková, Zuzana

doi:10.1177/0022343317752539

Cited by 45 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, it appears that the EU has learned how to adjust its policy choices to policy objectives. The adoption of the concept of episodes allows us to witness how the EU has managed to adjust its policy preferences over time according to changing scenarios; this is consistent with findings in other studies that adopted the concept of episodes as well (Biersteker et al 2018). In the database, the adoption of the concept of episodes enhances the understanding of sanctions by identifying if and when the EU proved able to adjust either the motives (why) or the nature of the restrictive measures (what) to the new situation (Table 5).…”

Section: Discussion Of the Findingssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…"Personal sanctions" in this context refer to the concept of targeting specific people, under which asset freezes and travel bans fall. Related trends largely mirror the activities of the UN, whose sanctions became more targeted over timethe most common combination in use was travel bans, asset freezes and arms embargoes (Biersteker et al 2018). Second, a chronological overview of EU sanctions and their triggering crises confirms that cases of democracy promotion have been behind much of the increase herein since 2009, as shown in Figure 3.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The when, what, where and why of European Union sanctions

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decisions to impose sanctions on Russia and to lift them on Iran, in opposition to the wishes of the United States, contributed to the elevation of the profile of the European Union among the main global actors in international politics. However, the EU imposes sanctions since the spring of 1994, shortly after the entry into force of the Treaty of Maastricht. Even though the EU consequently has 26 years of experience herewith, EU sanctions have been mostly studied only on a case-by-case basis. The aim of this article is to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive overview of the experience of the EU with sanctions. Specifically, it presents the results of a newly constructed database of EU autonomous sanctions constituted by 48 cases of these restrictive measures, which have been subdivided in 85 episodes. The analysis revolves around four questions that we asked in each case: when sanctions were in force, what type(s) were used, where the targets were located and why restrictive measures were imposed. The analysis of the empirical database leads to observations about the EU as an international actor and, more generally, on the trends vis-à-vis the utilisation of sanctions as a foreign policy instrument.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of the Findingssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussion Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 74%

The when, what, where and why of European Union sanctions

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 4. The new database was also checked against the cases listed in the Targeted Sanctions Consortium Database (Biersteker et al, 2016, 2018) and Hazelzet’s (2001) human rights violations dataset. This effort helped us to identify an additional pre-2006 case (EU aid sanctions against Tajikistan from 1997 to 2002). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Cold War sanctioning by the EU, the UN, and the US: Introducing the EUSANCT Dataset

Weber

Schneider

2020

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union, the United Nations, and the United States frequently use economic sanctions. This article introduces the EUSANCT Dataset—which amends, merges, and updates some of the most widely used sanctions databases—to trace the evolution of sanctions after the Cold War. The dataset contains case-level and dyadic information on 326 threatened and imposed sanctions by the EU, the UN, and the US. We show that the usage and overall success of sanctions have not grown from 1989 to 2015 and that while the US is the most active sanctioner, the EU and the UN appear more successful.

show abstract

“…Major and McGann (2005) argue that sanctions must inflict the largest costs on those interest groups whose actions have the greatest marginal effect on the hostile policies of the target country. Biersteker, Eckert, and Tourinho (2016) provide a taxonomy of UN targeted sanctions, their type and their impact, while Biersteker et al (2018) elaborate on the dataset of UN targeted sanctions during the period 1991-2013. The general sanctions discussed in the previous section are targeting the whole economy of Iran, while sanctions against entities are targeting certain key figures in Iran's political and military system.…”

Section: Literature Review and Anecdotal Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Sanctions Imposed by the European Union against Iran on their Bilateral Trade: General versus Targeted Sanctions

Ghodsi

Karamelikli

2021

World Trade Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union (EU) has been using economic sanctions both as a foreign policy tool and as a liberal alternative to military action. Since 2006, it has been implementing general sanctions against the whole economy of Iran, affecting their trade relations, and since 2007, following the imposition of sanctions by the UN Security Council, it has also been using smart sanctions targeting Iranian entities and natural persons associated with the country's military activities. In a nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) model, this paper investigates the impact of general and targeted EU sanctions against Iran on quarterly bilateral trade values between the 19 members of the euro area (EA19) and Iran between the first quarter of 1999 and the fourth quarter of 2018. In a robustness NARDL specification, trade between Iran and the 28 members of the EU is analysed. In addition, a gravity model of bilateral trade between Iran and the EU member states is run in a robustness check. The results indicate that the EU's general sanctions have strongly hampered trade flows between the two trading partners in almost all sectors, except for the primary sectors. Furthermore, our study finds that the impact of smart sanctions targeting Iranian entities and natural persons is much smaller than the impact of general sanctions on total trade values and the trade values of many sectors. Smart sanctions affect the exports of most sectors from the EA19 and the EU28 to Iran, while they are statistically insignificant for the imports of many sectors from Iran. Thus, this paper provides evidence of the motivations behind smart sanctions, which target specific individuals and entities rather than the whole economy, unlike general sanctions, which have a negative impact on ordinary people.

show abstract

UN targeted sanctions datasets (1991–2013)

Cited by 45 publications

References 19 publications

The when, what, where and why of European Union sanctions

The when, what, where and why of European Union sanctions

Post-Cold War sanctioning by the EU, the UN, and the US: Introducing the EUSANCT Dataset

The Impact of Sanctions Imposed by the European Union against Iran on their Bilateral Trade: General versus Targeted Sanctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About