LNAT Practice Test Essay – Can the use of economic sanctions be justified as a non-violent means of conflict resolution? Discuss.

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Can the use of economic sanctions be justified as a non-violent means of conflict resolution? Discuss.

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

Economic sanctions have long been utilized as a tool of diplomacy and conflict resolution. They are imposed by countries or international organizations to limit or ban trade, investment, and other economic activities with a target state, with the aim of compelling that state to change its behavior, policies, or actions. The use of economic sanctions has sparked a debate about their effectiveness and ethical implications. This essay discusses whether the use of economic sanctions can be justified as a non-violent means of conflict resolution by examining their goals, effectiveness, and unintended consequences.

Goals of Economic Sanctions

The primary goal of economic sanctions is to achieve policy objectives without resorting to military force. Sanctions can be imposed unilaterally or multilaterally, and they aim to change the target state’s behavior by imposing economic costs and limiting its access to resources. Sanctions can serve several purposes, including deterring aggression, signaling disapproval, or coercing a target state to comply with international norms and rules.

Proponents of economic sanctions argue that they can be a viable and moral alternative to military intervention, as they do not entail the loss of human life and physical destruction. Moreover, sanctions can be an effective means of sending a strong message to the international community about the unacceptability of a state’s actions, potentially leading to its isolation and undermining its legitimacy.

Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions

The effectiveness of economic sanctions in achieving their goals is a contentious issue. Some studies suggest that sanctions can be effective in certain circumstances. For example, Hufbauer et al. (2007) found that sanctions were successful in achieving their goals in 34% of the cases analyzed. Moreover, sanctions can work in combination with diplomacy, as was the case with Iran, where economic sanctions played a role in bringing the country to the negotiating table to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

However, critics argue that sanctions often fail to achieve their intended objectives and can even be counterproductive. According to Pape (1997), sanctions are successful in only 5% of the cases studied, with the majority of them failing to coerce the target state into compliance. Furthermore, sanctions can strengthen the regime they aim to weaken, as leaders may rally their population around the idea of national resistance against external pressure. This phenomenon, known as the “rally around the flag” effect, has been observed in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

Unintended Consequences of Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions can also have unintended consequences that undermine their justification as a non-violent means of conflict resolution. Sanctions can disproportionately affect innocent civilians by causing economic hardship, food shortages, and reduced access to essential goods and services. For instance, the UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s led to significant civilian suffering, with estimates of excess child mortality ranging from 100,000 to 500,000 (UNICEF, 1999).

Moreover, sanctions can exacerbate existing inequalities, as the economic elite and politically connected individuals in the target state can often evade or benefit from the restrictions, while the general population bears the brunt of the economic pain. Additionally, sanctions can have spillover effects on neighboring countries and the global economy, causing economic disruption and destabilization in the region.

Conclusion

The use of economic sanctions as a non-violent means of conflict resolution is a complex and controversial issue. On the one hand, sanctions can serve as a viable and moral alternative to military intervention, with the potential to achieve policy objectives and signal disapproval of a state’s actions. On the other hand, their effectiveness is often limited, and they can have significant unintended consequences, affecting innocent civilians and exacerbating economic hardship.

To justify the use of economic sanctions, policymakers must carefully consider the potential benefits and drawbacks in each specific case. Sanctions should be targeted, time-limited, and designed to minimize collateral damage to civilian populations. Moreover, they should be accompanied by diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Multilateral sanctions, imposed by international organizations such as the United Nations, may be more effective and legitimate than unilateral ones, as they demonstrate a broader consensus among the international community. The involvement of regional organizations can also increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of sanctions, as they can better understand the local context and dynamics.

Furthermore, continuous monitoring and evaluation of the impact of sanctions on both the target state and innocent civilians are crucial to ensure that they remain a justifiable means of conflict resolution. In cases where sanctions prove to be ineffective or disproportionately harmful to civilians, they should be lifted or adjusted to minimize their adverse effects.

In conclusion, while the use of economic sanctions can be justified as a non-violent means of conflict resolution in certain situations, it is crucial to approach them with caution and rigorously assess their effectiveness and unintended consequences. Policymakers must strike a delicate balance between achieving policy objectives and minimizing the negative impact on innocent civilians, regional stability, and the global economy.