|
Since the early 1990s there have been several attempts to develop a methodology to assess the humanitarian impact of sanctions. There have also been attempts to develop techniques for determining the political effectiveness of sanctions and their economic impact on target and thirdparty States.38 The following review focuses on recent efforts to develop or apply a methodology to assess the humanitarian implications of sanctions.
Study commissioned by DHA and IASC in 1995
In 1995 the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA), in conjunction with the InterAgency Standing Committee (IASC), commissioned COMiT, a Berlin-based consulting firm, to conduct a study on the social and humanitarian concerns associated with sanctions, and the impact of UN sanctions on humanitarian assistance activities.39 The authors asserted that it would be:
“. . . futile to seek precise determination of the factor of sanctions among a multitude of factors conspiring towards a situation difficult to reconcile with humanitarian principles”.40
Essentially, the authors believed that in identifying the particular consequences of sanctions (separate from impact due to other causes), “. . . one does not know and from a humanitarian point one does not need to know [the particular impact of sanctions]”. The report went on to make recommendations on various aspects of UN sanctions policy, but essentially did not deal with the issue of assessing the unique humanitarian impacts of sanctions.
Studies commissioned by UNICEF and OCHA in 1998
In 1998 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) commissioned Dr. Eric Hoskins to examine how sanctions could be made more childfriendly.41 One of the main objectives of the study was to develop a methodology to anticipate, assess and monitor the humanitarian impact of sanctions on civilians.
Hoskins proposed a sanctions assessment methodology consisting of three main elements: (i) a list of sanctions indicators (based on a human rights framework); (ii) context analysis (analysis of the impacts of sanctions in light of the prevailing societal and economic conditions); and (iii) trend analysis. These efforts did make some headway in distinguishing the effects of sanctions from effects due to other causes. However, among its shortcomings, the methodology did not explain how to apply the analytical framework proposed under context analysis. Hoskins also provided recommendations to protect civilians in sanctioned States.
The same year, an OCHA-sponsored study conducted by Larry Minear et al. included a sanctions assessment methodology.42 At the outset, the authors asserted that:
“. . . it is not possible to separate the impacts of sanctions from the effects of other
causes of hardship. The best that can be attempted is a modified form of ‘process tracing’
in which the specific impacts of the type of sanctions imposed are assessed . . .
in the context of the other factors”. 43
The authors proposed a multi-step methodology for assessing humanitarian impacts of sanctions, at the core of which was a set of indicators—presented in five sectors—for measurement of baseline conditions or changes in those conditions. The methodology includes the following steps: (i) establishing baseline data; (ii) anticipating vulnerabilities and likely impacts on various social groups; (iii) monitoring change indicators to determine actual impacts; (iv) taking necessary ameliorative action; and (v) monitoring results of action taken and ongoing impacts.
This approach shares some components with the “trend analysis” approach proposed by Hoskins. However, it fails to provide a sufficient basis for determining the various factors responsible for the changes in humanitarian conditions.
Approaches used in recent sanctions assessments
In addition to these studies on developing a sanctions assessment methodology, recent country-specific reports—most of which were requested by the UN Security Council— utilized a variety of techniques to assess the humanitarian impact of sanctions.
• Afghanistan, 2000: A study published in December 2000 drew on the methodology of Minear et al. to assess vulnerability and direct/indirect effects of sanctions. The subsequent assessment report reflected the constraints in the methodology vis-à-vis separating out the unique effects of sanctions.44
• Afghanistan, 2001: UN Security Council resolution 1333 (19 December 2000) included provisions that the United Nations Secretary-General report to the Council on the humanitarian implications of sanctions on a regular basis. Two assessment reports—using a methodology similar to that used in Afghanistan in 2000 (combining vulnerability assessment and causal analysis)—were produced in March and July 2001.45
• Iraq, 2000: In its resolution 1302 (8 June 2000), the United Nations Security Council included provisions for a “comprehensive report and analysis of the humanitarian situation” in Iraq, to be undertaken by independent experts. The resolution did not explicitly request an assessment of the humanitarian implications of sanctions; regardless, the assessment was never carried out due primarily to non-cooperation on the part of the Government of Iraq.
• Liberia, 2001: United Nations Security Council resolution 1343 (7 March 2001) requested “a preliminary assessment of the potential economic, humanitarian and social impact . . . of possible follow-up [sanction measures]” by the Council. The resulting “preassessment” report assessed baseline living conditions against which to measure future changes. It pursued a sector-specific approach to identifying potential direct and indirect impacts of sanctions on timber, rubber, and merchant shipping sectors.46
• Liberia, 2003: In resolution 1478 (6 May 2003) the Security Council renewed existing sanctions on Liberia, imposed an additional time-limited ban on importation of all round logs and timber products originating in Liberia, and requested that the UN Secretariat carry out an assessment of the potential humanitarian and socio-economic impacts of the newly-imposed timber sanctions. The resulting assessment used a number of the elements described in this handbook including causal analysis, and indicators of PROCESS and OUTCOME in several sectors. Additionally, the assessment used a scenario-testing approach.47
Reference documents on humanitarian implications of UN sanctions
In addition to the projects and assessments mentioned above, table 6 provides a listing of UN documents and statements relating to the humanitarian implications of UN sanctions. This listing is updated regularly by the UN Department of Political Affairs.
Table 6
| 
