Report on the Theme Panel: Economic Sanctions in a Globalized World and their Implications for Sustainable Development

Executive Summary

A panel session was convened to analyze the strategic application and impact of economic sanctions within a globalized framework. The discussion centered on how these measures influence international relations, state behavior, and progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants examined the effectiveness of sanctions as a foreign policy tool, particularly in relation to promoting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), while also considering their unintended consequences on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The panel’s findings provide a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between international security measures and the global development agenda.

Key Findings and Analysis of Presented Research

The panel presented five distinct research papers, each exploring a different facet of economic sanctions. The key findings are summarized below, with an emphasis on their relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Multilateral Cooperation in Maritime Sanctions (Davis and Lim)

   This research highlighted the critical importance of multilateral cooperation for the successful implementation of targeted maritime sanctions. The findings underscore the following SDG-related points:

   • SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The effectiveness of sanctions is heavily dependent on strong international partnerships and coordinated actions, reinforcing the necessity of global cooperation to achieve common objectives.
   • SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Successful maritime sanctions contribute to international peace and security by disrupting illicit activities and pressuring non-compliant states, thereby strengthening global governance.
   • SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The study implicitly addresses the need to minimize disruptions to legitimate global trade and supply chains, which are fundamental to sustainable economic growth.

2. Impact of Sanctions on Military Expenditure (McLean and Yu)

   The research demonstrated that targeted sanctions can compel governments to reallocate resources away from military spending and arms procurement. This has direct implications for sustainable development:

   • SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): A reduction in military spending and arms trade directly supports Target 16.4, which aims to significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows. This contributes to de-escalating conflicts and fostering more peaceful societies.
   • SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The reallocation of state funds from military budgets could potentially increase investment in social programs, poverty reduction, and public health, advancing multiple development goals.

3. Domestic Influences on Trade Restrictions in Authoritarian Contexts (Li)

   Survey evidence from China revealed that firms in authoritarian states are more inclined to support trade and investment restrictions when they are framed as measures to protect national security. This finding is relevant to:

   • SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): It illustrates how domestic political factors can influence economic policies, potentially hindering open trade and investment, which are key drivers of economic growth.
   • SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): The study shows the complex relationship between national security narratives and economic behavior, which can affect international relations and the stability of global institutions.

4. Advancements in Data on Government Restrictions (Peterson, Peksen, and Park)

   This paper introduced a new, comprehensive dataset coding government-imposed restrictions, significantly advancing the empirical study of sanctions.

   • SDG 16 & SDG 17: The availability of robust and comprehensive data is fundamental for evidence-based policymaking. This new dataset enables a more accurate assessment of the impact and effectiveness of sanctions, helping policymakers design measures that better support peace and justice while fostering international cooperation.

5. Sanctions Evasion in the Digital Age (Newman and Oppenheimer)

   Analyzing Russia’s response to sanctions, this research showed how restrictions on data transfers can foster the creation of evasion networks, which may undermine the sanctions’ objectives.

   • SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The study reveals a critical vulnerability in the digital economy, where sanctions can inadvertently spur the development of alternative, non-compliant networks, complicating global technological integration.
   • SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): The emergence of evasion networks undermines the rule of law and the efficacy of sanctions as a tool for promoting peace. It highlights the challenge of enforcing international norms in an increasingly interconnected digital world.

1. SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article on economic sanctions primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The core theme of the article is the use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool to “alter state behavior,” prevent conflict, and respond to aggression, such as “Russia’s response to sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine.” It also touches upon reducing military spending and arms trade, which are central to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article emphasizes the importance of international cooperation in a “globalized world” and an “interconnected global economy.” It explicitly highlights the “critical role of multilateral cooperation in the success of targeted maritime sanctions” and discusses how sanctions impact “international economic relationships” and trade policies, which are key elements of global partnerships.

2. Specific Targets Identified

Based on the article’s content, several specific targets under SDG 16 and SDG 17 can be identified:

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
     
     The article discusses economic sanctions as a tool to advance foreign policy objectives, often used as an alternative to military force to address conflicts like “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” thereby aiming to reduce violence.
   • Target 16.4: By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime.
     
     The article directly connects to this target by stating that research from “McLean and Yu demonstrate how targeted sanctions can pressure governments to reallocate resources, leading to reduced military spending and arms trade.”
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.
     
     The discussion of how sanctions are used to “alter state behavior” and pressure governments implies an effort to influence and strengthen national institutional conduct towards peaceful ends.

2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.10: Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system.
     
     The article explores how sanctions, which are essentially “trade and investment restrictions,” impact the global trading system. It examines how firms react to these restrictions and how sanctions on “data transfers” can reshape international economic connections.
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.
     
     The panel’s purpose is to provide a “nuanced understanding of economic sanctions” by examining the complex interplay of “domestic and international influences” and the various “channels of influence, including shipping, data, and trade policies.” This analysis contributes to creating more coherent policies in a globalized world.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.
     
     This target is directly referenced when the article notes that “Davis and Lim highlight the critical role of multilateral cooperation in the success of targeted maritime sanctions.” This underscores the necessity of partnerships for policy tools like sanctions to be effective.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

The article implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

1. Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

   • Change in military expenditure and arms trade volume: The article mentions that sanctions can lead to “reduced military spending and arms trade.” This suggests that a measurable indicator would be the change in a sanctioned country’s military budget or the volume of its arms imports/exports. This relates to measuring progress for Target 16.4.
   • Changes in state behavior: The article’s focus on the “effectiveness of sanctions in altering state behavior” implies that a key indicator is the observable change in a target state’s policies or actions, such as ceasing aggressive acts, which would measure progress towards Target 16.1.

2. Indicators for SDG 17 Targets

   • Degree of multilateral cooperation: The emphasis on “multilateral cooperation” for successful sanctions suggests an indicator could be the number of countries participating in a given sanctions regime or the level of compliance with it. This would measure the strength of the global partnership under Target 17.16.
   • Volume of restricted trade and data flows: The analysis of “sanctions on data transfers” and “trade and investment restrictions” implies that the volume and value of these flows can be measured to assess the impact on the multilateral trading system (Target 17.10). The emergence of “evasion networks” is also a qualitative indicator of the sanctions’ impact.
   • Comprehensive coding of government restrictions: The article mentions that “Peterson, Peksen, and Park contribute new data through comprehensive coding of government restrictions.” This coding itself represents a new set of indicators developed to systematically study and measure the application and impact of sanctions.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: politicalsciencenow.com