Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons.

Economic sanctions include, but are not limited to, tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas. The most famous example of an economic sanction is the fifty-year-old United States embargo against Cuba. Economic sanctions are not always imposed because of economic circumstances. For example, the United States has imposed economic sanctions against Iran for years, on the basis that the Iranian government sponsors groups who work against US interests. The United Nations imposed stringent economic sanctions upon Iraq after the first Gulf War, and these were maintained partly as an attempt to make the Iraqi government cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors' monitoring of Iraq's weapons and weapons programs. These sanctions were unusually stringent in that very little in the way of trade goods were allowed into or out of Iraq during the sanction period (further information about these sanctions and their effects can be found at www.casi.org.uk and at [1]). The sanctions were not lifted until May 2003, after the government of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was overthrown. There is a United Nations sanctions regime imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1267 in 1999 against all Al-Qaida- and Taliban-associated individuals which has undergone years of modification by a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions. The cornerstone of the regime is a consolidated list of persons maintained by the Security Council. All nations are obliged to freeze bank accounts and other financial instruments controlled by, or used for the benefit of, anyone on the list.

Trade sanctions
Trade sanctions are trade penalties imposed by a country or group of countries on another country or group of countries. Typically the sanctions take the form of import tariffs (duties), licensing schemes or other administrative hurdles. They tend to arise in the context of an unresolved trade or policy dispute, such as a disagreement about the fairness of some policy affecting international trade (imports or exports). For instance, one country may conclude that another is unfairly subsidizing exports of one or more products, or unfairly protecting some sector from competition (from imported goods or services). The first country may retaliate by imposing import duties, or some other sanction, on goods or services from the second.

Politics of trade sanctions

Trade sanctions are frequently retaliatory in nature. For example, in 2002 the United States placed import tariffs on steel in an effort to protect its industry from more efficient foreign producers such as China and Russia. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that these tariffs were illegal. The European Union threatened retaliatory tariffs on a range of US goods, forcing the US government to remove the steel tariffs in early 2004.

Economic sanctions frequently result in trade wars. They can be a coercive measure for achieving particular policy goals related to trade or for humanitarian violations; for example the United States sanctions against Brazil over patent law in the late 1980s,[citation needed] or the European Union's sanctions against Burma (Myanmar) based on lack of democracy and human rights infringements.[1]

] Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions are used as a tool of foreign policy by many governments. Economic sanctions are usually imposed by a larger country upon a smaller country for one of the two reasons- either the latter is a threat to the security of the former nation or that country treats its citizens unfairly. By far regime change is the most frequent foreign policy objective of economic sanctions[2].However, there is a controversy over the effectiveness of economic sanctions in their ability to achieve the stated purpose. Haufbauer et al claimed that in their studies 34 percent of the cases were successful [3] but Robert A. Pape disagreed with them by saying that when he reexamined the claimed 40 cases of success, only 5 of them stood out[4].

Cost Benefit Analysis of Economic Sanctions

Under many circumstances, economic sanctions are used as an alternative weapon instead of going to war to achieve the desired outcome. War is expensive but economic sanction is not cheap either. It also affects the economy of the imposing country to some degree. If import restrictions were made, the consumers in the imposing country would have fewer choices of goods. If export restrictions were made or sanction prohibited businesses in the imposing country from doing business with the target country, the imposing country could lose markets and investment opportunities to competing countries[5]. Accurate cost benefit analysis is difficult to make in most of the cases in terms of how the sanctions also affect the economy of the imposing country.

Recent historical examples of trade sanctions

There have been many examples of such disputes and associated sanctions. For example, US steel companies requested, and were at times granted, protection from steel imports that they claimed enjoyed an unfair advantage due to the economic policy of the steel exporting country. At times it was asserted that the exporting company was dumping steel overseas (in the USA) at below cost. See United States steel tariff 2002 Again, as the Asian economies became more and more effective competitors on the international stage, achieved largely via export-led growth, many countries imposed import tariffs and other measures aimed at protecting domestic industries. The intention was not always permanent protection (of the threatened industry) but sometimes an attempt to give the domestic firms time to adjust to a changed competitive context. The disagreements that occur are not only bi-lateral and can be fundamental to the working of the global economy and e.g. to the alleviation of global poverty. As of

September, 2003, World Trade Organization talks in Cancn broke down between the advanced nations and the developing world. Unresolved issues include the advanced nations subsidizing their agricultural sectors to the detriment of the developing world, which might otherwise sell more agricultural produce into e.g. the USA and Europe. In mid-March 2010, Brazil introduced new sanctions against the US. These sanctions were on the basis that the US government was paying cotton farmers for their products; an action not allowed by the WTO. The sanctions cover cotton, as well as other products such as cars, chewing gum, fruit, and vegetable products.[6] The WTO is currently supervising talks between the states to remove the sanctions. North Korea has been the subject of international sanctions since the Korean War, which were eased under the Sunshine Policy and by U.S. President Bill Clinton,[7] but they were tightened again in 2010.[8] Economic Sanctions An economic sanction is any restriction imposed by one country (the sender) on international commerce with another country (the target) in order to persuade the target country's government to change a policy. Economic sanctions include: Limiting exports to the target country; Limiting imports from the target country; Restricting investment in the target country; Prohibiting private financial transactions between a sender country's citizens and the target country's citizens or government; and Restricting the ability of a sender country's government programs, such as the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), to assist trade and investment with the target country. Non-Economic Sanctions A sender country also may apply non-economic sanctions against a target country to persuade its government to change policy. In contrast to economic sanctions, which are intended to penalize a target country financially, non-economic sanctions are aimed at denying legitimacy or prestige. Although the following list is not exhaustive, noneconomic sanctions include: Canceling ministerial and summit meetings with a target country; Denying a target country's government officials visas to enter the sender country; Withdrawing a sender country's ambassador or otherwise downgrading diplomatic and military contacts with a target country; Blocking a target country from joining international organizations; Opposing a target country's bid to host highly visible international events, such as the Olympics; Withholding foreign aid; and Instructing a sender country's directors to vote against new loans to a target country at the World Bank or other international financial institutions.

What is self-determination?
What is most widely implied in the term self-determination is the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence ones future politically, socially and culturally. Self-determination embodies the right for all peoples to determine their own economic, social and cultural development. Self-determination has thus been defined by the International Court of Justice (in the West-Saharan case) as: The need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples. It is important to stress that for indigenous peoples the term self-determination does most often NOT imply secession from the state. The right of self-determination The right of self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle in international law. It is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Common Article 1, paragraph 1 of these Covenants provides that: "All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." The right of self-determination has also been recognized in other international and regional human rights instruments such as Part VII of the Helsinki Final Act 1975 and Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples. It has been endorsed by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right of self- determination has been elaborated upon by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as international jurists and human rights experts.

Self-determination
Self determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, be it independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[2] By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.[3][4]

History
Pre-20th century
Origins Just as colonisation and colonialism have been practiced throughout recorded history, political self-determination, on an individual level, has been documented similarly and cherished highly by collective peoples despite them; ancient Mesopotamia and the later Greek city-states are early examples of its practice.[2] The employment of imperialism, through the expansion of empires, and the concept of political sovereignty, as developed after the Treaty of Westphalia, also explain the emergence of self determination during the Modern Era. During, and after, the Industrial Revolution many groups of people recognized their shared history, geography, language, and customs. Nationalism emerged as a uniting ideology not only between competing powers, but also for groups that felt subordinated or disenfranchised inside larger states, in this situation self determination can be seen as a reaction to imperialism. Such groups often pursued independence and sovereignty over territory, but sometimes a different sense of autonomy has been pursued or achieved. Empires The world possessed several traditional, continental empires such as the Ottoman, Russian, Austrian/Habsburg, and the Qing Empire. Political scientists often define competition in Europe during the Modern Era as a balance of power struggle, which also induced various European states to pursue colonial empires, beginning with the Spanish and Portuguese, and later including the British, French, Dutch, and German. During the early 19th century, competition in Europe produced multiple wars, most notably the Napoleonic Wars. After this conflict, the British Empire became dominant and entered its "imperial century", while nationalism became a powerful political ideology in Europe. Later, after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, "New Imperialism" was unleashed with France and later Germany establishing colonies in Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. Japan also emerged as a new power. Multiple theaters of competition developed across the world:

Africa: multiple European states competed for colonies in the "Scramble for Africa"; Central Asia: Russia and Britain competed for domination in the "Great Game" Eastern Asia: colonies and various spheres of influence were established, largely to the detriment of the Qing Empire.

The Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Qing Empire and the new Empire of Japan maintained themselves, often expanding or contracting at the expense of another empire. All ignored notions of self-determination for those governed.[5] Rebellions and Emergence of Nationalism

The revolt of New World British colonists in North America, during the mid-1770s, has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination, because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, as well as the consent of, and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke's enlightened writings of the previous century. Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the Declaration of Independence which inspired Europeans throughout the 19th century.[2] The French Revolution was motivated similarly and legitimatized the ideas of self-determination on that Old World continent.[6][7] Within the New World during the early 19th century, most of the nations of Spanish America achieved independence from Spain. The United States supported that status, as policy in the hemisphere relative to European colonialism, with the Monroe Doctrine. The American public, organized associated groups, and even Congressional resolutions, often supported such movements, particularly the Greek War of Independence (182129) and the demands of Hungarian revolutionaries in 1848. Such support, however, never became official government policy, due to balancing of other national interests. After the American Civil War and with increasing capability, the United States government did not accept self-determination as a basis during its Purchase of Alaska and attempted purchase of the West Indian islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John in 1860s, or its growing influence in the Hawaiian Islands, that led to annexation in 1898. With its victory in the Spanish-American War in 1899 and its growing stature in the world, the United States supported annexation of the former Spanish colonies of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, without the consent of their peoples, and it retained "quasi-suzerainty" over Cuba, as well.[2] Nationalist sentiments emerged inside the traditional empires including: Pan-Slavism in Russia; Ottomanism, Kemalist Ideology and Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire; State Shintoism and Japanese identity in Japan; and Han identity in juxtaposition to the Manchurian ruling class in China. Meanwhile in Europe itself there was a rise of nationalism, with nations such as Greece, Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria seeking or winning their independence. Karl Marx supported such nationalism, believing it might be a "prior condition" to social reform and international alliances.[8] In 1914 Vladmir Lenin wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."[9][ Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individuals behavior is self-motivated and self-determined (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

examples Jammu and Kashmir

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, called for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an alliance of 26 organizations in Kashmir seeks self-determination according to the UN resolution. Some groups have suggested that a third option of Independence be added to the resolutions two options of union with India or union with Pakistan.[

Australia
Recently (2003 onwards), self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aborigines (indigenous Australians). In the 1970s, the Aboriginal community approached the Federal Government and requested the right to administer their own communities. This encompassed basic local government functions, ranging from land dealings and management of community centres to road maintenance and garbage collection, as well as setting education programmes and standards in their local schools.

New Zealand
Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was among the first people to make this call,[71] which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington that year. The South Island Party with a pro-South agenda, fielded candidates in the 1999 General Election and a new South Island Party was formed before the 2008 General Election. Today, the question of South Island Independence remains publicly debated but is not a political issue.

Scotland
Moves towards Scottish Independence from the United Kingdom are being led by the majority Scottish National Party government in the Scottish Parliament, with a plebiscite scheduled for the later half of the current parliamentary term which ends in 2016.