|
The methodology presented in the preceding chapter was developed in response to the need arising from the ad hoc approach used in the past for undertaking sanctions assessments, by which assessments were often performed without the use of a clearly defined, routine, and validated methodology based on a wellthoughtthrough Terms of Reference (ToR).
This approach contributed to the lack of clarity—especially on the part of political decision makers—on how the findings from such assessments were generated, and about the basis for investigators’ judgements on humanitarian implications. This lack of clarity can cause a sanctions assessment to rapidly become contentious or politicized. For example, an assessment undertaken for the United Nations in Liberia during 2001 was then paraphrased in part by the Government of Liberia, leading to charges that the humanitarian assessment played into the hands of the regime that was the target of sanctions. This example highlights how sanctions assessments can at times be misused to advance the political agendas of key stakeholders, whether by the sanctioned State, corporate entities, or members of the sanctioning body. While this potential will always exist, the use of a clear methodology and associated objective judgements will reduce the possibility for misrepresentation of the assessment findings.
This chapter recommends standards for the planning and undertaking of reliable and credible sanctions assessments and provides draft resolution/directive text for consideration by those mandating sanctions assessments.
| 
