The Paradox of Sanctions Regime in Sudan

Abstract

The utility of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy is most often marred by controversies, misinterpretations and misrepresentation. Underlining the debate is the question of functionality, efficacy and effectiveness which creates a limbo among scholars and policy makers. This predicament has created a perception where debates on sanctions are seen to have little, if any, relevance to policy makers. First, because sanctions are embodied within international laws whose enforceability is pegged on national interests. Second, in the context of sovereign states’ foreign policy, which are premised on an individual country’s national objectives. Furthermore, scholarly debates address different questions substantiated by ideological, theoretical and circumstantial appropriations among realists, liberals and idealists. This article examines the paradox of sanctions in the prism of Sudan under the utilitarian ethical theory. While acknowledging its utility through a conceptual analysis and chronological application it argues that in the broader picture the sanctions against Sudan have profound political, social and economic implications on the state of Sudan, defeating the overall purpose of utility. As such it makes recommendations for their lifting and strengthening of ongoing diplomatic processes.