Economic sanctions serve as a foreign policy tool which allows a country or countries to exercise their own political ends on the target country by the time a conflict unfolds. Sanctions mean actual deprivation or threats to deprivation of the target country from access to economic resources in order to create changes to the policies of that country which are principally exercised unilaterally, multilaterally or collectively. After the First World War, the number of 183 rounds of economic sanctions were enforced where as many as 140 rounds of which had been implemented by the United States. Today, explanation of adoption and exercise of most economic sanctions is based on human rights claims. Despite all this, a closer look at the impacts of sanctions and also failure and success of which in fulfilling their goals reveals that sanctions are not appropriate tools for the promotion of human rights and their safeguarding. Sanctions have some adverse impacts that could lead to a degradation of human rights in the target country. This impact mostly emerges due to the dependency of human rights on the income level of the states; because a state must have enough resources so that it can promote education, health, employment and other human rights norms. Through this channel, this research intends via a scientific analysis method and utilization of credible researches with reference to credible evidence and judicial procedures of international authorities to substantiate whether there is a rational relationship between the category of economic sanctions and its relevant legal elements within human rights and international laws. In this analysis by relying on international teachings and based on legal arguments, the legitimacy extent of the U.S. sanctions against Iran and Iraq has been assessed and an overall picture of is presented.
Support the magazine and subscribe to the content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.