The End of Sanctions? Rethinking Termination Processes through the Syrian Case

Abstract

Economic sanctions have evolved into the go-to response to challenges of international peace and security. Since the 1990s, the US, EU, and UN have imposed sanctions to address a wide range of issues, including armed conflict, human rights violations, drug trafficking, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. Yet sanctions regimes are often criticized for exhibiting lock-in effects, whereby the political and institutional mechanisms that facilitate their imposition simultaneously constrain their removal. Prominent examples include Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Iraq, all of which have been subject to sanctions for decades and shaped debates on sanctions termination. The difficulty of terminating sanctions, even after their original goals have been overtaken by events, represents a significant obstacle to achieving durable change. The recent experience of Syria offers an empirical case to reassess termination processes. The Syrian case challenges scholarly work that emphasizes the lock-in effects of sanctions by showing that political will among sanctioning states can overcome barriers to sanctions termination, while also demonstrating that sanctions relief does not automatically lead to effective post-sanctions recovery, revealing the need to pay greater attention to the afterlife of sanctions.