The Sentry, the organization I lead, advocates for the use of targeted network sanctions to pressure those who engage in—or enable—the world’s worst atrocities. Some critics argue that sanctions are overused, and as a general matter, I agree. The Trump administration has degraded the reputation of this policy lever by misusing sanctions to target its perceived enemies. Nevertheless, I believe that carefully administered sanctions can be a vital component of efforts to prevent conflict and mass atrocities.
Sanctions work; I have seen it happen. Sanctions played a role in ending apartheid in South Africa, and in helping bring stability to post-civil war Liberia. As noted by other essays, sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table on its nuclear program, ultimately leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2015. (I was one of the Treasury lawyers who drafted the sanctions executive orders targeting Iran in the lead up to the JCPOA).
There are other “success stories.” The Sentry contributed to a concerted sanctions effort by the U.S. government to deter the then-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo from running for an unconstitutional third term. After multiple rounds of sanctions, the president finally stepped aside. Though the election that followed was deeply flawed, it resulted in the first peaceful transition of power in that country’s history. In South Sudan, sanctions were part of a pressure campaign that helped bring about the 2018 peace agreement, averting a return to full-scale war. In both instances, the sanctions were connected to a clear diplomatic strategy.
However, research also shows that if sanctions are overbroad, clumsily implemented, or disconnected from policy and diplomacy they can hinder efforts at peace.
What differentiates a good sanctions program from a bad one? From The Sentry’s experience, there are eight lessons for making sanctions work:
- Disrupt the financing of conflict. To deter perpetrators of war and help create the conditions for peace, sanctions must focus on how conflict is being financed. Nowhere is this clearer than in Sudan’s civil war, which is significantly financed through conflict gold, and in which perpetrators of genocide are profiting.
- Engage the private sector. The private sector is pivotal when it comes to ensuring sanctions are enforced and disrupt conflict financing. Sharing information with banks and other private sector actors even before sanctions are imposed can result in perpetrators being placed on an internal blacklist, accounts being closed, and transactions being cancelled.
- Multilateralize sanctions. Sanctions are most effective when imposed by multiple jurisdictions and bodies, including the United Nations, European Union and key states like the United Kingdom and U.S. Today, with the U.N. Security Council largely dysfunctional—and the U.S. government retreating from sanctions that advance human rights—it is essential for jurisdictions like the EU and U.K. to fill the void.
- Employ diplomacy and a whole-of-government approach. Sanctions do not work in isolation and should be part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy, strategic communications, technical assistance, and at times even military pressure. Sanctions should also be paired with other tools such as anti-money laundering measures and export controls.
- Have patience. Sanctions can take years to have policy impact. The Liberia sanctions were in place for over a decade before democracy was restored. The Iran pressure campaign was tweaked, recalibrated, and ramped up over many years before achieving the JCPOA.
- Make sanctions less sticky. That said, sanctions are not intended to be permanent. If the raison d’etre for a program no longer holds, as with the Syria sanctions which were primarily focused on the Assad regime, remove them. Similarly, remove sanctions when they become counterproductive. The Zimbabwe sanctions had been in effect for more than 20 years and had come to be seen as a failure, as the ruling party was able to effectively exploit them for propaganda while continuing to steal elections and commit human rights abuses. The wind-down of this sanctions program in 2024 was commendable.
- Anticipate humanitarian impacts. Sanctions can have dire humanitarian consequences, especially in a conflict zone, and can impede humanitarian access and delivery. Although significant strides have been made with broad carve-outs, these risks must be continually mitigated.
- Name and confront the enablers. To return to Sudan as an example, it has become increasingly indefensible that Western jurisdictions continue to tiptoe around the role of the UAE as a key enabler of the war. The Emiratis are both arming the genocidal Rapid Support Forces, and laundering conflict gold that finances both warring parties. If international actors are unwilling to confront, the war crimes they are financing will inevitably continue.
Sanctions are often caricatured as a symbolic but ineffectual way for policymakers to appear to be taking action to address violence and suffering. However, when applied correctly, adhering to the guidelines above, they can be a dynamic and effective tool in the crucial effort to curb human rights abuses, provide some measure of accountability, and support efforts to end wars.
About the Author:
Justyna Gudzowska is the Executive Director of The Sentry, an investigative and policy organization that exposes and disrupts the networks driving conflict, corruption, and natural resource exploitation.
RECOMMENDED CITATION:
Gudzowska, Justyna. “Sanctions Can Stop Human Rights Abusers When Used Correctly.” Peace Policy: Solutions to Violent Conflict, No. 65, (October 2026). https://doi.org/10.7274/34111992
