That depends on what you mean by 鈥渨ork.鈥� US officials usually point to Libya as one place where individual sanctions had a major effect. When Libyans rose against strongman Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, the US moved rapidly to freeze foreign assets held by Mr. Qaddafi, his tottering government, and his relatives and cronies. They had unwisely left lots of wealth exposed: One foreign bank alone held $29 billion in Qaddafi-linked cash.
The sanctions appeared to push top Libyans to defect, contributing to Qaddafi鈥檚 eventual overthrow. 鈥淔reezing Libyan assets had a far greater impact than first expected,鈥� , then assistant secretary of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, in a 2012 speech.
Then there is North Korea. The US and its allies first slapped sanctions on luxury goods favored by the state鈥檚 leadership, such as Rolex watches, in 2005. So far, there鈥檚 no evidence this has moderated Pyongyang鈥檚 behavior.
When it comes to economic sanctions, it matters what you鈥檙e trying to do. Targeted approaches have targeted effects.
鈥淚f the goal of sanctions is containment, then a smart sanctions approach might make sense. If the goal is to compel a change in the target鈥檚 behavior, then in the long run comprehensive sanctions might be the more humanitarian approach,鈥� , a professor of international politics at Tufts University, in a 2003 academic paper on the subject.
