[1][2][3][4] These decisions principally include the temporary imposition on a target of economic, trade, diplomatic, cultural or other restrictions (sanctions measures) that are lifted when the motivating security concerns no longer apply, or when no new threats have arisen.
[9] According to Thomas G. Weiss, the soar in sanctions can be attributed to the shift in attitudes as a consequence of the end of the Cold War, where there was a "newfound willingness" from UN member nations to "intrude in issues that were once off-limits".
Economic sanctions can range from trade barriers, tariffs, and restrictions on financial transactions to a full naval blockade of the target's ports in an effort to block imported goods.
[10] However, the effectiveness of economic sanctions has been challenged, as their harsh impacts cause more harm to the general population than to the target regimes they are designed to hurt.
Measures include limitations or cancellations of high-level government visits or expelling or withdrawing diplomatic missions or staff.
Although the sanctions and laws regarding the environment are relatively new, recent concerns over environmental issues encouraged individuals and governments to actively cooperate in dealing with the problems.
The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1929 on June 9, which imposed restrictions on missile and weaponry materials that could be used for creating destructive weapons.
[16] The General assemble and United Nations in a 107 to 2 vote took to condemning Rhodesia on all military, economic, as well as oil and petroleum products.
In counterargument, support is argued on the basis that something must be done and democratic peace theory is cited as sound reasoning despite any possible cultural insensitivity.
The practice of time limitations has grown over the years and allows for a gradual removal of restrictions on nations conforming, at least in part, to conditions imposed by sanctioning bodies, such as the U.N. Security Council.
[19] A 1996 report by International Progress Organization criticized sanctions as "an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly".
[25] Vulnerable & sick people suffered the most, and by 1993 most hospitals lacked basic medicines such as antibiotics and functioning equipment such as X-ray devices.
[25] In November 1994, 87 patients died in Belgrade's Institute of Mental Health due to lack of heat, food, or medicine.
[27] At the 50th anniversary of the UN in January 1995, the incumbent UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali highlighted the negative effects of sanctions: "a blunt instrument [that raises] the ethical question of whether suffering inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country is a legitimate means of exerting pressure on political leaders whose behavior is unlikely to be affected by the plight of their subjects.
"[28] Boutros-Ghali also highlighted the UN's duty of care to ensure that vulnerable groups are provided with humanitarian aid during the economic fallout of the sanctions they impose.
In scenarios where the Security Council's permanent members, the P5, with their vetoes prioritize their own interests at the expense of collective action, the UNSC's effectiveness can be significantly hampered.
[30] This is evident in cases like Syria, where Russia's consistent vetoes have shielded the Assad regime from sanctions despite documented war crimes.
While P5 members may argue that their actions are driven by strategic considerations, historical ties, or domestic pressures, the consequences can be felt by the civilian population.
[33] Impunity for human rights abuses breeds further conflict and undermines the UNSC's legitimacy as an impartial arbiter of global affairs.
Ultimately, overcoming the shadow of self-interest within the UNSC is essential for ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in a world increasingly grappling with complex and interconnected challenges.