That depends on what you mean by “work.” 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’s eventual overthrow. “Freezing Libyan assets had a far greater impact than first expected,” said Jose Fernandez, 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’s leadership, such as Rolex watches, in 2005. So far, there’s no evidence this has moderated Pyongyang’s behavior.
When it comes to economic sanctions, it matters what you’re trying to do. Targeted approaches have targeted effects.
“If 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’s behavior, then in the long run comprehensive sanctions might be the more humanitarian approach,” wrote Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, in a 2003 academic paper on the subject.
