Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Principle Versus Profit: Debating Human Rights Sanctions

  • Published:
Human Rights Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Economic sanctions are a primary tool the US government and international organizations use to promote human rights abroad, yet they have proven to be largely ineffective and harmful to civilians. There is accumulating evidence that this paradox may be explained by the expressive purposes of sanctions and domestic politics. This article further explores these explanations by examining human rights sanction policy debates. Specifically, I analyzed 27 US Congressional hearings on human rights policy toward China (1990–1999). I argue that moral pressure enabled support for human rights sanctions, high costs fueled opposition to them, and discussions of effectiveness were marginal to the debate. The findings contribute to past studies by (1) identifying the psychological and sociological mechanisms by which legislators circumvent arguments of sanction ineffectiveness and harmfulness and (2) delineating the role of business, human rights, and ethnic interest groups in enabling and constraining support for human rights sanctions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This included the suspension of all sales of weapons and exchanges between military leaders, a ban on diplomatic exchanges above the level of assistant secretary, suspending the implementation of the Sino-American agreement on nuclear cooperation, and supporting the postponement of any World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans to China (Baker 2002; Foot 2000).

  2. MFN trade status designates the normal trading terms, including low tariffs, which most countries enjoy with the USA. Under the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, the President is required to certify that countries with non-market economies allow for freedom of emigration in order to renew their MFN status. MFN status was renamed “Normal Trade Relations” in 1998.

  3. This is based on Morgan et al.’s (2014) stricter definition of sanction success of total or partial acquiescence of the target. They also employ a more generous definition of success that includes negotiated settlement with a success rate of 56.3%.

  4. Absolutist reasoning is equivalent to Weber’s (1922/1968) concept of value rationality (wertrational).

  5. Consequentialist reasoning is equivalent to Weber’s (1922/1968) concept of instrumental rationality (zweckrational).

  6. This included all hearings accessible through the LexisNexis Congressional database at my university and another local university and through the online database of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO Access). I excluded all hearings that were issue-specific and informal roundtables. Of the total universe of 56 hearings that fit these criteria, I was able to access electronic versions of 51 of them.

  7. Hearings that were analyzed but not cited in this article are listed in the ‘Further reading’ section.

References

  • Addis A (2003) Economic sanctions and the problem of evil. Hum Rights Q 25:573–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali MM, Shah IH (2000) Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq. Lancet 355:1851–1857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen SH (2005) The determinants of economic sanction success and failure. Int Interact 31:117–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen SH, Lektzian DJ (2013) Economic sanctions: A blunt instrument? J Peace Res 50:121–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2010) Amnesty International criticizes extension of Cuba sanctions; calls on Congress to end ‘misguided embargo.’

  • Anderson PA (1981) Justifications and precedents as constraints in foreign policy-making. Am J Political Sci 25:738–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson C (2010) Does soft power matter?: A comparative analysis of student exchange programs, 1980-2006. Foreign Policy Anal 6:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker P (2002) Human rights, Europe, and the People’s Republic of China. China Q 169:45–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker WE (2008) America the traditional. In: Pettersson T, Esmer Y (eds) Changing values, persisting cultures: Case studies in value change. Brill, Boston, pp 9–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Bapat N, Morgan TC (2009) Multilateral versus unilateral sanctions reconsidered: A test using new data. Int Stud Q 53:1075–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bapat N, Heinrich T, Kobayashi Y, Morgan TC (2013) Determinants of sanctions effectiveness: Sensitivity analysis using new data. Int Interact 39:79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron J, Spranca M (1997) Protected values. Organ Behav and Hum Decis Proces 70:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessette JM (1994) The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Black D (1999) The long and winding road: International norms and domestic political change in South Africa. In: Risse T, Ropp SC, Sikkink K (eds) The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–108

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard JF, Ripsman, NM (1999) Asking the right question: When do economic sanctions work best? Secur Stud 9:219–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutros-Ghali B (1995) Supplement to an agenda for peace, 1995. UN, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brysk A (2009) Global good samaritans. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burgerman S (1998) Mobilizing principles: The role of transnational activists in promoting human rights principles. Hum Rights Q 20:905–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas S (2007) Conflict and compliance: State responses to international human rights pressure. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Political Sci 6:307–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler D (2001) The road to military humanitarianism: How the human rights NGOs shaped a new humanitarian agenda.” Hum Rights Q 23:678–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, AM (1995) Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society. J Int Aff 48:507–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Colonomos A (2004) Civil norms and ‘unjust’ embargoes. J Hum Rights 3:189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrone EA, Fordham BO (2010) Commerce and imagination: The sources of concern about international human rights in the US Congress. Int Stud Q 54:633–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daoudi MS, Dajani, MS (1983) Economic sanctions: Ideals and experience. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Devin J, Dashti-Gibson J (1997) Sanctions in the former Yugoslavia: Convoluted goals and complicated consequences. In: Weiss T, Cortright D, Lopez GA, Minear L (eds) Political gain and civilian pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, pp 149–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, JW (1999) Interest groups and foreign policy: Clinton and the China MFN debates. Pres Stud Q 29:280–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly J (2000) An overview. In: Forsythe DP (ed) Human rights and comparative foreign policy. United Nations Press, New York, pp 310–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Doxey M (1971) Economic sanctions and international enforcement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Drezner DW (2003) The hidden hand of economic coercion. Int Organ 57:643–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner DW (2011) Sanctions sometimes smart: Targeted sanctions in theory and practice. Int Stud Rev 13:96–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drinan, RF, Kuo TT (1992) The 1991 battle for human rights in China. Hum Rights Q 14:21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drury AC, Li Y (2006) U.S. economic sanction threats against China: Failing to leverage better human rights. Foreign Policy Anal 2:307–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumbaugh K (2001) Voting on NTR for China again in 2001, and past Congressional decisions. CRS Report for Congress RS20691. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim E (1893/1984) The division of labor in society. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeland J (1988) Impotent superpower—potent small state: Potentials and limitations of human rights objectives in the foreign policies of the United States and Norway. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Foot R (2000) Rights beyond borders: The global community and the struggle over human rights in China. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freyburg T (2015) Transgovernmental networks as an apprenticeship in democracy? Socialization into democratic governance through cross-national activities. Int Stud Q 59:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung J (1967) On the effects of international economic sanctions: With examples from the case of Rhodesia. World Politics 19:378–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield R, Devin J, Fausey J (1995) The health impact of economic sanctions. Bull N Y Acad Med 72:454–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Gift T, Krcmaric D (2017) Who democratizes? Western-educated leaders and regime transitions. J Confl Resolut 61:671–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J (2011) Smart sanctions revisited. Ethics Int Aff 25:315–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J (2015) The invisibility of human harm: How smart sanctions consumed all the oxygen in the room. Soc Res 82:863–874

    Google Scholar 

  • Gring-Pemble LM (2001) 'Are we going to now govern by anecdote?’: Rhetorical constructions of welfare recipients in Congressional hearings, debates, and legislation, 1992–1996. Q J Speech 87:341–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1975) Legitimation crisis. Beacon Books, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton EM, McNamara HM (2015) America’s international human rights policy: The corporate lobby. University of California, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach. Psychol Rev 108:814–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatipoglu E (2014) A story of institutional misfit: Congress and US economic sanctions. Foreign Policy Anal 10:431–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins DG (2002) International human rights and authoritarian rule in Chile. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins E (1997) The humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions and war in Iraq. In: Weiss T, Cortright D, Lopez G, Minear L (eds) Political gain and civilian pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 91–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones L (2015) Societies under siege: Exploring how international economic sanctions (don’t) work. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keck M, Sikkink K. (1998) Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinley D, Wilson T (2007) Engaging a pariah: Human rights training in Burma/Myanmar. Hum Rights Q 29:368–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz A (1995) Norms reconstituting interests: Global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa. Int Organ 49:451–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr K (1975) The power of nations: The political economy of international relations. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr K (1977) International economic leverage and its uses in economic issues and national security. In: Knorr K, Trager FN (ed) Economic issues and national security. Regents Press of Kansas, Lawrence, pp 99–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Lektzian D, Souva M (2007) An institutional theory of sanction onset and success. J Confl Resolut 51:848–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay JM (1986) Trade sanctions as policy instruments: A re-examination. Int Stud Q 30:153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez GA, Cortright D (1997) Economic sanctions and human rights: Part of the problem or part of the solution? Int J Hum Rights 1:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losman DL (1979) International economic sanctions: The cases of Cuba, Israel, and Rhodesia. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  • Malloy MP (2006) Study of new U.S. unilateral sanctions, 1997–2006. National Foreign Trade Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Marietta M (2008) From my cold, dead hands: Democratic consequences of sacred rhetoric. J Politics 70:767–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy C (1993) Tibet overrun by wheels of progress. The Washington Post, 1993 May 18

  • McLean EV, Roblyer DA (2016) Public support for economic sanctions: An experimental analysis. Foreign Policy Anal 13:233–254

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean EV, Whang T (2014) Designing foreign policy: Voters, special interest groups, and economic sanctions. J Peace Res 51:589–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertus J (2008) Bait and switch: Human rights and U.S. foreign policy. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J (1980) When sanctions worked. Foreign Policy 39:118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney CZ, Lee M (1995) Legislating morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. Am J Political Sci 39:599–627

  • Morgan TC, Bapat N, Kobayashi Y (2014) Threat and imposition of sanctions 1945-2005: Updating the TIES dataset. Confl Manag Peace Sci 31:541–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdie A, Peksen D (2013) The impact of human rights INGO activities on economic sanctions. Rev of Int Organ 8:33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nossal KR (1989) International sanctions as international punishment. Int Organ 43:301–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pape R (1997) Why economic sanctions do not work. Int Secur 22:90–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen MB (2013) How to promote human rights in the world’s most repressive states: Lessons from Myanmar. Aust J Int Aff 67:190–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peksen D (2011) Economic sanctions and human security: The public health effect of economic sanctions. Foreign Policy Anal 7:237–251

  • Peksen D, Drury AC (2009) Economic sanctions and political repression: Assessing the impact of coercive diplomacy on political freedoms. Hum Rights Rev 10:393–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pornpitakpan C (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol 34:243–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan PM (1995) U.S. economic aid and political repression: An empirical evaluation of U.S. foreign policy. Political Res Q 48:613–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick R (1981) Economic sanctions. Harvard University Center for International Affairs, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards DL, Gelleny RD, Sacko DH (2001) Money with a mean streak?: Foreign economic penetration and government respect for human rights in developing countries. Int Stud Q 45:219–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse T, Ropp SC (1999) International human rights norms and domestic change: Conclusions. In: Risse T, Ropp SC, Sikkink K (eds) The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 234–278

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ropp SC, Sikkink K (1999) International norms and domestic politics in Chile and Guatemala. In: Risse T, Ropp SC, Sikkink K (eds) The power of human rights: International norms and domestic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 172–204

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rubenzer T, Redd SB (2010) Ethnic minority groups and US foreign policy: Examining Congressional decision making and economic sanctions. Int Stud Q 54:755–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rytz HM (2013) Ethnic interest groups in US foreign policy-making: A Cuban-American story of success and failure. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Steele CA (2011) Sponsoring democracy: The United States and democracy aid to the developing world, 1988-2001. Int Stud Q 55:47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith T (2000) Foreign attachments: The power of ethnic groups in the making of American foreign policy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P (2005) Why war?: The cultural logic of Iraq, the Gulf War, and Suez. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Sorens J, Ruger W (2012) Does foreign investment really reduce repression? Int Stud Q 56:427–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensland B (2006) Cultural categories and the American welfare state: The case of guaranteed income policy. Am J Sociol 111:1273–1326

  • Strauss AL (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Tama J (2016) Domestic and international drivers of legislative action on sanctions. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock P, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:853–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DF (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annu Rev of Political Sci 11:497–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress (1990a) House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Most-Favored-Nation status for the People’s Republic of China, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 1990 May 16

  • U.S. Congress (1990b) House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Most-Favored-Nation status for the People’s Republic of China, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 1990 May 24

  • U.S. Congress (1990c) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. United States-People’s Republic of China (PRC) trade relations, including Most-Favored-Nation trade status for the PRC, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 1990 June 19

  • U.S. Congress (1991a) House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Most Favored Nation status for the People’s Republic of China, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 1991 May 29

  • U.S. Congress (1991b) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S.-People’s Republic of China trade relations, including Most-Favored-Nation trade status for China, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 1991 June 12

  • U.S. Congress (1991c) Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Sino-American relations: Current policy issues, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 1991 June 13

  • U.S. Congress (1991d) Senate. Committee on Finance. China Most-Favored-Nation status, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 1991 June 19

  • U.S. Congress (1991e) House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Renewal of MFN trading status for the People’s Republic of China, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 1991 June 26

  • U.S. Congress (1992a) House. Committee on Ways and Means. Additional requirements on the extension of China’s Most-Favored-Nation trade status in 1993. 102nd Cong, 2nd sess., 1992 June 29

  • U.S. Congress (1992b) Senate. Committee on Finance. Extending China’s MFN status, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., 1992 July 30

  • U.S. Congress (1993b) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S.-China trade relations, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., 1993 June 8

  • U.S. Congress (1994a) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S.-China trade relations, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1994 February 24

  • U.S. Congress (1994b) House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. China: Human rights and MFN, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1994 March 24

  • U.S. Congress (1995) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S.-China trade relations and renewal of China’s Most-Favored-Nation status, 104th Cong., 1st sess., 1995 May 23

  • U.S. Congress (1996b) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S-China trade relations and renewal of China’s most-favored-nation status, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., 1996 June 11

  • U.S. Congress (1997b) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S.-China trade relations and renewal of China’s most-favored-nation status, 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997 June 17.

  • U.S. Congress (1999) House of Representatives. Committee on International Relations. Human rights in China, 106th Cong., 1st sess., 1999 January 20

  • Walldorf CW (2010) Argument, institutional process, and human rights sanctions in democratic foreign policy. Eur J Int Relat 16:639–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallensteen P (1968) Characteristics of economic sanctions. J Peace Res 5:248–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe PY (1984) Ethnic groups, Congress and American foreign policy: The politics of the Turkish arms embargo. Greenwood, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1922/1968) Basic sociological terms. In Roth G, Wittich C (ed) Economy and society. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Whang T (2011) Playing to the home crowd? Symbolic use of economic sanctions in the United States. Int Stud Q 55:787–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood RM (2008) ‘A hand upon the throat of the nation’: Economic sanctions and state repression, 1976-2001. Int Stud Q 52:489–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie T (2006) Congressional roll call voting on China trade policy. Am Politics Res 34:732–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaidi S (1997) Haiti: Impact of the coup and sanctions on civilians. In: Weiss T, Cortright D, Lopez GA, Minear L (eds) Political gain and civilian pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, pp 189–212

    Google Scholar 

Further reading

  • U.S. Congress (1990d) Senate. Committee on Finance. Extending Most-Favored-Nation status for China, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 1990 June 20

  • U.S. Congress (1990e) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. United States-People’s Republic of China (PRC) trade relations, including Most-Favored-Nation trade status for the PRC, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 1990 June 21

  • U.S. Congress (1993a) House of Representatives. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Future of U.S.-China policy. 103rd Cong., 1st sess., 1993 May 20

  • U.S. Congress (1994c) Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. U.S. policy toward China, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1994 May 4

  • U.S. Congress (1996a) Senate. Committee on Finance. China Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., 1996 June 6

  • U.S. Congress (1996c) House of Representatives. Committee on International Relations. China MFN: Human rights consequences, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., 1996 June 18

  • U.S. Congress (1997a) Senate. Committee on Finance. Renewal of Normal Trade Relations with China, 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997 June 10

  • U.S. Congress (1997c) House of Representatives. Committee on International Relations. U.S./China trade relations and human rights: Is constructive engagement with working?, 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997 October 28

  • U.S. Congress (1998a) House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. U.S.-China trade relations and renewal of China’s Most-Favored-Nation status, 105th Cong., 2nd sess, 1998 June 17

  • U.S. Congress (1998b) Senate. Committee on Finance. President’s renewal of normal trade relations with China, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., 1998 July 9

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Richard Madsen, John Skrentny, John Evans, Dan Hallin, Susan Shirk, Michael Evans, Lisa Nunn, Julie Lee, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this paper.

Funding

The University of California, San Diego Sociology Department and Biola University funded this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Chan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, S. Principle Versus Profit: Debating Human Rights Sanctions. Hum Rights Rev 19, 45–71 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-017-0484-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-017-0484-0

Keywords

Navigation