Between a diplomatic protest and the use of force lies a wide space, and much of modern foreign policy happens there. Economic sanctions are the most common tool in that space. Governments use them to punish, to deter, to signal disapproval and to bargain. They are also among the most debated instruments in international politics, because their costs are real and their results are uncertain. This guide explains how sanctions work, what history teaches about them and how they are modelled in Geopolitics.

What sanctions are

Sanctions are deliberate restrictions on economic relations with a country, a group or individuals, intended to change behaviour or limit capabilities. They come in several forms:

  • trade restrictions, from bans on specific goods such as weapons or technology to full embargoes;
  • financial measures, such as freezing assets or cutting banks off from payment systems;
  • travel bans and asset freezes targeting named individuals;
  • restrictions on investment in particular sectors, such as energy.

They can be imposed by a single state, by a group of states or by the United Nations. Article 41 of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to decide on measures not involving armed force, including the complete or partial interruption of economic relations.

An old idea with a mixed record

Economic pressure is far older than the term. In 1806 Napoleon declared the Continental System, banning trade between Britain and the parts of Europe he controlled. It hurt Britain, but it also hurt France's allies, encouraged widespread smuggling and became one of the reasons for the break with Russia that led to the invasion of 1812.

The League of Nations imposed sanctions on Italy after its invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. They excluded oil, the one product that might have stopped the war, and the Suez Canal remained open to Italian ships. Italy completed its conquest and the League's credibility suffered. The episode is often cited as an example of sanctions that were too weak and too divided to matter.

Later cases show more variety. Broad sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s are frequently mentioned as one of several pressures that contributed to the end of apartheid. Comprehensive sanctions on Iraq after 1990 caused severe humanitarian hardship, which led to the oil-for-food programme in the mid-1990s and to a broader shift toward targeted, so-called smart sanctions aimed at leaders, elites and specific sectors rather than whole populations.

Why sanctions are hard to make work

Researchers who study sanctions disagree about exact success rates, but several patterns appear again and again.

First, size matters. A sanction hurts the target in proportion to the trade it loses. One small country refusing to trade with a large one barely registers. A coalition of the target's main partners can do real damage.

Second, trade finds new routes. When some partners stop buying, others may step in, sometimes at a discount. Goods can be routed through third countries. That is why governments sometimes add secondary sanctions, penalising foreign firms that keep dealing with the target, which in turn creates friction with those firms' home countries.

Third, sanctions cost the sender too. Exporters lose customers, importers lose suppliers, and prices can rise at home. A government that imposes sanctions must be ready to explain those costs to its own voters.

Fourth, pressure can unite a population behind its leaders. Political scientists call this the rally-round-the-flag effect: an outside threat can strengthen a government's domestic position rather than weaken it, at least in the short term.

Finally, goals matter. Sanctions that aim at a limited, clearly defined change tend to succeed more often than sanctions that demand a complete reversal of policy or a change of government.

Signals as well as pressure

Even when sanctions do not change the target's behaviour, they send messages. They show allies that a government is willing to pay a price for its principles. They raise the expected cost of similar actions in the future. They mark a line that others may hesitate to cross. A strategist should therefore judge sanctions not only by their direct economic effect, but also by what they say and to whom.

The opposite is also true. Sanctions imposed without a clear reason can look like bullying and damage a country's reputation with neutral states.

How sanctions work in Geopolitics

In Geopolitics, sanctions open at the fifth state level, together with the ability to close a strait. You can maintain sanctions against up to three countries at a time. Before you decide, the game shows a quote: how much trade would be cut, how much growth each side would lose and which of your allies would join you.

The trade figures are based on real bilateral goods trade from IMF data. Both sides lose growth in proportion to the trade they lose, measured as a share of their own GDP, and the loss is softened because firms find other markets over time. This reproduces the first lesson of history: a single mid-sized state barely hurts a large economy, but a coalition of its trading partners can.

Allies in a shared defence bloc may follow your lead, especially against an aggressor or a state they already oppose. Imposing sanctions damages your relations with the target. Your reputation falls slightly if the target has not attacked anyone, because the world sees it as pressure without cause, and rises slightly if the target is an aggressor. A coalition of three or more sanctioning states also brings you prestige. Sanctions cannot be lifted during the first 30 days; lifting them later improves relations with the former target.

The world also reacts on its own. A state that starts a war of aggression faces sanctions from the victim's allies and from the group of countries that habitually use sanctions, for as long as the war lasts and for some time after it ends. If that state is you, expect your growth to slow. And a heavily sanctioned country that sits on the shore of a strait may eventually decide to close it, which links sanctions directly to the fuel market.

Lessons for players

  • Read the quote first: who follows you matters more than your own trade.
  • Sanction aggressors rather than rivals if you care about reputation.
  • Count the cost to your own growth before you start.
  • Remember that a cornered target may answer in ways that hurt everyone.

For the military side of collective action, read alliances and deterrence in history. To see how a sanctioned shore state can strike back, read maritime chokepoints: Hormuz, Malacca, Suez and why they matter. Then open the game and decide when economic pressure is worth its price.