For an international moratorium and the launch of a structured debate on the humanitarian effects of economic sanctions and non-military coercion
Premise
The following reflection is inspired by a discussion that arose in connection with the situation in Venezuela in the aftermath of the earthquake that struck the country, and more generally by the context of political, economic, and social crisis that Venezuela has been experiencing for years.
This is in no way intended to downplay or justify the responsibilities of Chavismo or the deeply problematic and corrupt nature of its power structure, which has contributed significantly to institutional decay and the suffering of the population.
However, precisely because of this awareness, it is necessary to avoid oversimplified interpretations.
The Venezuelan crisis cannot be understood exclusively through the lens of internal responsibility, as it is the result of a multitude of factors: domestic political dynamics, structural economic dependencies, social polarization, and various forms of external intervention.
In this context, it is difficult to ignore how, in an effort to counter the regime and influence its political evolution, measures involving economic pressure and sanctions have also been adopted which, regardless of their stated intentions, have had significant impacts on the civilian population.
It is precisely this tension between political objectives and humanitarian consequences that serves as the starting point for the following reflection, which does not aim to provide definitive answers but rather to question the consistency between stated principles and the tools actually employed in international politics.
The Hypocrisy of Force: Prohibited Weapons, Permitted Suffering
One cannot help but notice the rhetoric surrounding the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, which is often presented as one of the greatest achievements of contemporary international law.
The idea that there are instruments of war so devastating as to be morally and legally unacceptable represents, at least in theory, a cornerstone of global legal civilization.
Yet this narrative crumbles when confronted with other practices in international politics that, while not falling under the category of “weapons”, produce equally profound and sometimes devastating effects on civilian populations.
Among these practices, economic sanctions play a central and controversial role. Frequently presented as a “civilian” alternative to the use of military force, they are employed with the stated aim of exerting pressure on governments deemed responsible for violations of international law or for behavior considered unacceptable.
However, the gap between political intent and actual effects warrants a more careful analysis – one that is less ideological and more grounded in reality.
The Moral Language of International Politics
One of the defining features of the debate on international relations is the constant use of moral language: people speak of “rogue states,” “defending democracy,” “punishment,” or “deterrence.”
This vocabulary suggests a clear distinction between legitimate and illegitimate means, between just and unjust actions, and between necessary and unacceptable violence.
However, this clarity is often more apparent than real. International politics operates in a context where nearly every decision produces unintended consequences, and where the line between strategic objectives and humanitarian consequences is far from clear-cut.
Sanctions are a prime example: designed as tools for targeted pressure, they frequently end up affecting a country’s entire social fabric, influencing access to essential goods, economic stability, and, in some cases, even the availability of medicines and healthcare.
Sanctions: An Alternative to War or War by Other Means?
The idea that sanctions represent a “more humane” form of coercion than war is widespread and intuitive. Avoiding direct armed conflict appears, at first glance, to be a clear moral step forward.
However, the issue is not limited to the war/sanctions dichotomy, because both forms of pressure can cause widespread suffering, albeit in different ways.
Recent history offers numerous examples of sanctions regimes that have had complex and ambivalent effects. In some cases, political elites manage to isolate themselves and maintain control, while the burden of economic restrictions falls primarily on the civilian population.
In other cases, sanctions contribute to processes of political change, but at high social costs that are difficult to quantify morally.
This raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: Is it enough for a tool to be “non-military” to be considered ethically superior? Or should the assessment be based primarily on the concrete effects it has on people’s lives?
The Paradox of Civilian Protection
Contemporary international law is based, at least formally, on the principle of the protection of civilians. The Geneva Conventions and the entire framework of humanitarian law stem from the idea of limiting suffering in armed conflicts and distinguishing between combatants and the civilian population.
However, in practice, this distinction tends to become more tenuous when the focus shifts from direct military means to economic and political ones. Sanctions, while not “weapons” in the strict sense, can produce systemic effects that impact precisely the population that international law aims to protect.
Here a paradox emerges: what is prohibited for extreme moral reasons -such as weapons of mass destruction – coexists with instruments that, while less visible and less immediately destructive, can cause widespread and prolonged suffering.
Between Political Effectiveness and Ethical Responsibility
The issue of sanctions is not merely legal or technical, but deeply ethical. Even when sanctions prove effective in achieving political objectives, the question of the human cost remains.
And this is not a rhetorical question, but a structural tension that runs through all of contemporary international politics: how much weight should be given to the indirect effects of one’s decisions?
In this sense, the main risk is not so much the existence of sanctions in and of themselves, but rather their normalization as a “neutral” or automatically legitimate tool. When a means is perceived as morally harmless simply because it is not military, we lose sight of the complexity of its real consequences.
This tension is not merely theoretical; it emerges clearly from concrete cases in recent international politics.
Concrete Examples: Venezuela and Iraq
The Venezuelan case is a prime example of the complexity of these dynamics. Over the past few years, the country has endured an intertwining of internal crises and external pressures that have overlapped to the point where their effects are difficult to distinguish.
Economic sanctions, introduced with the stated aim of weakening the regime and fostering political change, have contributed to the gradual isolation of the economic system, exacerbating the state’s already fragile capacity to ensure stable access to essential goods, medicines, and basic services.
In a context already marked by internal mismanagement and widespread corruption, the combined effect ultimately fell largely on the civilian population, which bore the most direct brunt of the crisis.
A somewhat similar dynamic, albeit in a profoundly different historical and political context, unfolded in Iraq in the years following the Gulf War.
The sanctions regime imposed in the 1990s, conceived as a tool for containing and exerting pressure on Saddam Hussein’s government, produced widely documented humanitarian consequences, significantly affecting the availability of basic goods, the healthcare system, and the living conditions of the population.
In this case as well, the stated political objective of targeting the highest echelons of power translated, in practice, into a widespread deterioration of social conditions, raising profound questions about the balance between the effectiveness of coercion and the protection of civilians
Conclusion: Beyond Simplifications
The contradiction between the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and the extensive use of economic coercive measures cannot be resolved with slogans or by drawing sharp distinctions between “good” and “bad” means. Rather, it requires a serious engagement with the ambivalent nature of international power.
There are no purely “clean” tools in the management of global conflicts. There are choices, with predictable and unpredictable effects, and with costs that fall unequally on populations, governments, and economic systems.
For this reason, the real question is not merely which tools are legitimate, but with what degree of awareness and responsibility they are used.
And above all, whether we are willing to admit that, in international politics, the line separating justice from suffering almost never coincides with the one separating war from peace
Essential Bibliography
Economic Sanctions and International Coercion
• Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., Elliott, K. A., & Oegg, B. (2009). Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (3rd ed.). Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Drezner, D. W. (2011). The Sanctions Paradox. Cambridge University Press.
• Peksen, D. (2009). “Better or Worse? Effects of Economic Sanctions on Human Rights.” Journal of Peace Research, 46(1), 59–77.
International Law and the Protection of Civilians
• United Nations (1949–1977). Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols.
• Henkin, L. (1995). International Law: Politics and Values. Martinus Nijhoff.
• United Nations Human Rights Council (2019–2023). Reports on Unilateral Coercive Measures and Human Rights.
Venezuela
• UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2019). Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
• Weisbrot, M., & Sachs, J. (2019). Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela. CEPR.
• Corrales, J., & Penfold, M. (2015). Dragon in the Tropics: Venezuela and the Legacy of Hugo Chávez. Brookings Institution Press.
Iraq (sanctions of the 1990s)
• Garfield, R. (1999). “Morbidity and Mortality among Iraqi Children from 1990 to 1998.” The Lancet.
• UNICEF (1999). Iraq Surveys: Child and Maternal Mortality.
• United Nations Security Council (1990–2003). Reports on Sanctions Regime on Iraq.
