Implementation of Sanctions

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Lebanon
Delegate Name: Reema Al-Taha

The United Nations (UN) Security Council imposes sanctions as a way to non-violently enforce everything from international peace to human rights. The UN Security Council’s employ sanctions ranging from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and use non-military measures to implement them such as financial asset freezes on individuals, entities, or governments to change behavior as well as targeted armed embargoes. Member states are legally obligated to enforce sanctions set by the UN Security Council within their jurisdictions.

Sanctions have evolved from targeted acts against individuals to broader actions targeting corruption. In 2007 to present day the United States of America (the United States) thankfully has Executive Orders in place to target high-level entities along with political figures supporting Hezbollah. United States implemented sanctions are extremely effective in uplifting the Lebanese Republic (Lebanon) economy as some of the sanctions aim to increase compliance from local banks. In the past and hopefully well into the future, United States sanctions have bolstered Lebanese sovereignty. The United States as well as Lebanon recognize certain terrorist groups and hostile states have been causing harm to peaceful states which needs to be stopped.

Lebanon has had many sanctions put on her, most notably by the UN in 2005 that the European Union, United Kingdom and the United States have enforced. Said 2005 sanctions go from travel bans to and asset freezes on individuals suspected of being involved in the tragic bombing of Beirut on February 14,2005. An arms embargo and a ban on related services are a few other welcome sanctions implemented on the Lebanese Republic. Sanctions have helped our country in invaluable ways and we are grateful to have them in times of need, our only wish is that they were implemented onto other countries and entities that harm the greater good of Lebanon.

The Lebanese Republic puts forth three implementation suggestions to help alleviate the internal and external struggles of Countries and to increase the stability and strength of our world as a whole. First, we shift the focus of sanctions towards business people that enable or are involved in financial corruption. Second, more measures are taken to prevent the supply or arms and other related military material into states without explicit permission from the Countries government and the Countries government only. Lastly, implementing travel bans and more against the leaders and members of terrorist organizations to prevent their negative impact on countries. Lebanon is strong and so are her allies and member-states. Lebanon is confident the world will become a better and safer place with the above sanctions implemented and enforced.

Works Cited:
https://euromedrights.org/publication/statement-on-the-ongoing-aggression-of-israel-on-the-state-of-lebanon-and-the-region/#:~:text=Israel%20claims%20its%20actions%20are,international%20justice%20and%20human%20rights.

https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information

https://ezine.eversheds-sutherland.com/global-sanctions-guide/lebanon#:~:text=2.,Nations%2C%20Lebanon%20implements%20UN%20Sanctions.

https://globalsanctions.com/region/lebanon/#:~:text=UN%20sanctions%20on%20Lebanon%20were,UK%20Sanctions

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Sudan
Delegate Name: Molly Brunt

Globally, humanitarian aid crises have expanded exponentially, developing over a vast array of topics. Within Sudan, issues arise especially around the crisis in Darfur and its extension into the present day. Parties committing violence and genocide within this civil confict continue to benefit from a lightly restricted flow of weapons and military support, their institutions benefitting from unfit sanctions. THere is little pressure on the leaders and armed groups responsible for sustaining the conflict to comply with international law, especially including humanitarian and human rights norms. This often has serious implications for how sanctions are implemented and provided, as well as for the policy surrounding them. To combat this issue, the United Nations must adapt its policies to the current state of the world. While other committees focus on preventing crises, the Special Committee on the United Nations Charter must work to combat the effects of such issues after they arise and begin to affect their victims. With that, Sudan recommends a multiple-pronged solution. The first of such is the creation of a universal Ombudsperson mechanism, expanding upon the previous outdated model. This new model must be applicable to all sanctions regimes, assuring a just system of implementation for all beneficiaries. This will improve due process and reduce wrongful listings for those receiving help along with enhancing the legitimacy of the programs utilized. This first solution is highly compatible with the United Nations charter, as it only takes on an advisory role and does not amend Article 41. By strengthening the panel of experts by creating a standing reserve, appointment timelines will be improved. Implementing this alongside a greater cooperation with ICAO, IMO, and WCO, communication struggles will halt as political inference decreases and enforcement outcome and investigation speed increase. Next, by standardizing delisting criteria and improving sanction designs, this committee can solve the great issue of disorganization amongst sanctions and the policies surrounding them. When transparency and compliance are crucial, recommending General Assembly guidelines for clearer benchmarks for reliefs of sanctions and periodic review requirements is necessary. The issue at hand can also be subdued by enhancing reporting and transparency within programs. In order to assure productivity and efficiency of sanctions, Sudan proposes annual public reports on the effectiveness of each sanction’s regime and compliance by Member States. This will also encourage regional organizations’ involvement and participation in programs that benefit from their contributions.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Slovenia
Delegate Name: Cohen Smith

Sanctions have long been used by states as a more peaceful alternative to fighting another state to prove a point. In more recent times, sanctions have been ridiculed for their effectiveness. This controversy stems from the effect of sanctions primarily affecting the common folk of the targeted nation. This has changed over the years as more and more states adopt ideas of more targeted sanctions as opposed to widespread sanctions. Another issue regarding the implementation of sanctions is the power held by the P5 when it comes to the expert panels. These panels are meant to be a way for the sanctions implemented by the UN to be monitored and controlled over time to ensure the safety of civilians and that the sanctions are doing what they were created to do.
Slovenia believes that the unilateral implementation of sanctions should be changed to favor multilateral action, including sanctions. Throughout Slovenia’s time on the UN Security Council, it always “remained firmly committed to multilateralism and international law and upheld respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” affirming its desire for peaceful talks and negotiation over consequential action as well as its desire for states not to perform actions unilaterally (Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs). Slovenia also desires the widespread implementation of smart, or otherwise known as targeted sanctions, that, instead of targeting the state as a whole, target a specific individual and/or group to minimize the damage done to civilians, as well as improving effectiveness of the sanctions (Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs). While Slovenia prefers the use of multilateral targeted sanctions, it also accepts and understands the importance of sanctions on importing and exporting arms (Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs).
When it comes to the capability of the P5 in particular to shut down the expert panels that oversee sanctions, Slovenia wishes to limit this inherent power of the P5. Slovenia has been a staunch supporter of reforming the power in the UN to be more diversified than before, to represent the unique geopolitical climate of today, rather than the geopolitical climate of just after WW2 (“Security Council Reform”). Slovenia has been in support of other states coming to agreements, such as the ACT code of conduct, when it comes to handling the power of vetoes. These agreements would then act as a way to prevent members of the P5 from shutting down key committees that oversee vital components of the UN, such as sanction implementation.

Works Cited
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. “Restrictive Measures.” 14 January 2026, https://www.gov.si/en/topics/restrictive-measures/. Accessed 10 February 2026.
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. “Slovenia on the UN Security Council: two years of responsible, visible and principled engagement.” 31 December 2025. Accessed 10 February 2026.
“Statement on the Reform of the UN Security Council.” 18 November 2025, https://buildingtrust.si/statement/statement-on-the-reform-of-the-un-security-council/. Accessed 10 February 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Austria
Delegate Name: Keegan Troccko

Name: Keegan Troccko
Country: Republic of Austria
School: Grand Haven High School
Committee: SCUNC
Topic: Implementation of Sanctions

Austria is in favor of the use of sanctions on other countries as long as it affects the country that has the sanctions implemented on it more than it would affect the European Union. Austria believes that sanctions are a vital tool to help maintain pressure on aggressive countries as well as help the member states that are being pressured by aggressive countries to negotiate for peace from a position of strength. Sanctions can cause significant economic turbulence, including potential deterioration of asset quality across Europe.
If sanctions had to be imposed on an aggressive country Austria would be in favor of financial restrictions that freeze the countries assets or a terrorist organizations assets, banning travel, and specific trade and export restrictions that would be designed to pressure the leaders of the aggressive country or specific sectors of the country without harming the citizens and general public that live in the aggressive country. The materials that would normally be traded that would be banned include, in particular, dual-use technology and military-related equipment. While maintaining military neutrality, Austria fully supports the European Union’s foreign policy, including the imposition of economic pressure against aggressive states. The travel ban would include no entry into the European Union, and it would only apply to certain individuals, such as politicians or military leaders.
Austria believes that, under the legal framework, if the rules under sanctions are broken, there can be fines of up to 1,000,000 Euros and possible imprisonment for serious rule violations. Austria also ensures that its courts and authorities, such as the DSN (Directorate of State Security and Intelligence), are involved in enforcing these measures. Austria fully supports the European Union-wide sanctions that have been implemented, including recent measures against a country in Eastern Europe, while occasionally navigating specific economic interests such as banking within European Union negotiations.
The Export Control Department of the BMWET (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft, Energie und Tourismus) handles goods-related sanctions in Austria, while Customs and the DSN manage other measures. Austria is for enforcing EU and UN sanctions through national legislation, including strict penalties, freezing assets, and restricting trade, while also strengthening monitoring mechanisms.
In summary, Austria is fully in favor of sanctions put on aggressive countries as long as they do not affect the economy of the entire European Union. Austria believes that sanctions should freeze the aggressive country’s assets, ban trade of materials that can be used to make weapons, and stop travel from the aggressive political or military leader of said aggressive country from entering any state in the European Union.

Works Cited
“Austria to Back EU’s New Russia Sanctions, Clearing Hurdle.” Austria to Back EU’s New Russia Sanctions, Clearing Hurdle, Reuters, 18 October 2025, https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-10-18/austria-to-back-eus-new-russia-sanctions-clearing-hurdle#:~:text=EU%20foreign%20ministers%20are%20due,to%20a%20request%20for%20comment.&text=Copyright%202025%20Thomson%20Reuters. Accessed 10 February 2026.
“Expert Guide to Financial Sanctions Enforcement in Austria.” CMS, 29 May 2025, https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/expert-guide-to-financial-sanctions-enforcement/austria. Accessed 10 February 2026.
“Global Sanctions Guide.” Austria – Global Sanctions Guide, Eversheds Sutherland, https://ezine.eversheds-sutherland.com/global-sanctions-guide/austria#:~:text=1.,freezing%20of%20the%20assets%20of:. Accessed 10 February 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: United Kingdom
Delegate Name: Noah Bossingham

The implementation of sanctions is a very important issue, which can have very big consequenses from it. The UK wishes to make sure that the sanction process works so that all countries can apply them. The UK believes that sanctions work best when all member states follow them, and we seek to make sure that this process gives way to the most important power to come from these sanctions. However, the UK also wishes to make the sanction reversible if a behavioral or policy change comes around.
The UK thinks true is that the ability to reverse any sanction is necessary for the implementation of any multilateral sanction to take hold. The UK wishes for a resolution to help solve any issues regarding this topic. The reason for our belief is that for any punishment to have affect their must be a way out that a sanctioned group can see. We also think this may cause countries to cut sanctions if they don’t see them ending.
The UK pushes for more accountability when it comes to sanctioning other countries and would be willing to go as far as to sanction countries that do not punish others for human rights violations found by the UNSC. We believe this will cause greater accountability and really give power to the sanctions in order to cause greater difference in the world.
The UK will find relief if resolutions are passed that include greater ways to reverse sanctions and ways to find countries accountable, and any solutions to issues that cause sanctions to be less useful than they are, and beleives if this goes to plan, then we may continue to live in a bigger and brighter world.

Work Cited
“UK sanctions.” GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sanctions. Accessed 16 February 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Nigeria
Delegate Name: Aiden Lin

Throughout Nigeria’s history, it has been the target of sanctions. One of these sanctions occurred in 1993, the military overthrew the government of Nigeria and committed several acts of human rights violations, causing the implementation of sanctions by the United States and the European Union (EU). These sanctions placed upon Nigeria included suspension from the Commonwealth and arms sales, bans on visas for the military leaders, and a reduction of developmental aid. Nigeria, though, has also been an implementer of sanctions on other countries. Nigeria, along with other members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), sanctioned Niger, Mali, and Guinea due to a military coup that overthrew the government, contributing to the belief that sanctions may be useful, but only when used in strict and legitimate scenarios.
Currently, Nigeria believes sanctions should only be used as the final option, and before resorting, they encourage others to try more peaceful options first. Any sanctions that are imposed must be approved by the United Nations (UN) charter, and it is other countries’ acting alone in the form of unilateral sanctions that causes ineffectiveness. In addition to unilateral sanctions, Nigeria is also concerned with other countries using concepts, such as sexual orientation and gender, that aren’t clearly defined in international law as a basis to impose sanctions. It makes those sanctions biased and illegitimate. Therefore, due to these issues, Nigeria opposes the creation of any new UN legal responsibilities unless all members agree to it
Within the current process of sanctions, Nigeria believes there is a slight bias in the targets of sanctions. Many existing sanctions are placed on developing countries that are a part of the African Union, G-77- a coalition of developing nations such as Benin, Libya, Liberia, and more- , and the Non-Aligned Movement- countries such as Malaysia, Laos, Lesotho, all with the aim of keeping peace and security. When sanctions do need to be placed, the UN should aim to avoid harming the population and only try to seek compliance from the targeted country with its global responsibilities.
Nigeria, as a strong believer in sovereign equality, advocates for the end of the use of unilateral sanctions. If sanctions are to be placed, it should be multiple countries working together and imposing a multilateral sanction, that also requires approval by the UN Charter before going into place. These sanctions should be in the form of embargoes targeting a specific individual or group, instead of the general public. Furthermore, in order to eliminate any bias or unfairness in sanctions, the UN should require a report stating the reasons and actions for the sanctions. In order to ensure active sanctions are still fulfilling their needs, they should be reviewed periodically, around every 6 months, and updated when needed. By putting these practices into place, Nigeria believes it will lead to further peace, security, and individual sovereignty.

Baba, Stephen M. “Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations.” The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations , 13 Oct. 2016, www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/71/pdfs/statements/charter_committee/nigeria.pdf Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.
Elumoye, Deji. “In the Spirit of Lent, Ramadan, ECOWAS Lifts Economic Sanctions on Niger,
Mali, Guinea.” THISDAY LIVE, 25 Feb. 2024, www.thisdaylive.com/2024/02/25/in-the-spirit-of-lent-ramadan-ecowas-lifts-economic-sanctions-on-niger-mali-guinea/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.

Human Rights Watch. Nigeria: Human Rights Developments in Nigeria (or the specific title of the 1997 report). Human Rights Watch, 1997, www.hrw.org/reports/1997/nigeria/Nigeria-10.htm. Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.

Ringim, Bello. “Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations.” The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations , 22 Oct. 2015, www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/70/pdfs/statements/rule_of_law/nigeria.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Hungary
Delegate Name: Maria Kamatoy

For decades, economic sanctions have long been a primary topic of international scrutiny, intended to exert political pressure while maintaining international peace and security. However, the growing reliance on UN sanctions should be recognized, as concerns regarding their effectiveness, humanitarian consequences, and unintended economic impacts have emerged within the international community. Hungary recognizes the importance of non-military means of exerting pressure; however, it maintains the position that sanctions must be carefully designed, targeted, and reviewed regularly to avoid unintended harm to civilians, economic stability, and sanctioning states themselves. Hungary is mainly affected by sanctions targeting Russia because most of its energy and economic supplies are sourced by Russia. Due to Hungary’s geography, it cannot import oil or gas by ship, making it heavily reliant on pipelines through neighboring countries. Hungary’s energy infrastructure is specifically built to use Russian oil, so switching to other sources would be difficult and expensive. Consequently, Hungary views the European Union’s planned phase-out of Russian energy by 2027 as “physically and economically impossible” without massive infrastructure subsidies. At the 2025 UN General Assembly, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó previously stated that “European Union sanctions against Russia have failed and backfired, causing greater economic harm to Europe than to Moscow.” Other UN Security Council resolutions, like Resolution 2270 (2016) on North Korea, largely emphasize how energy and financial sanctions can have unintended humanitarian and economic consequences. Furthermore NGOs like the International Crisis Group and Oxfam advocate for careful monitoring and evidence-based sanctions to minimize unintended harm to compliant states. Sanctions on Russian energy have had a significant impact on Hungary’s economy and energy security. Hungary imports 74% of its natural gas and 86% of its oil from Russia. Furthermore, European limitations on Russian energy raise energy costs for households and largely threaten Hungary’s energy supply. In response, Hungary has threatened legal action in European courts against plans to phase out Russian gas by 2027 while also blocking or threatening to block European sanctions that could destabilize energy supply. Last year, Hungary got an exemption from U.S. sanctions, meaning that it could continue importing Russian oil and gas while also buying natural gas from the United States. Hungarian studies estimate that bans on Russian gas could increase heating costs for families by 3.5 times. Moreover, studies suggest that energy price pressures from sanctions have contributed to significant inflation and rising household expenses within Hungary. This disproportionately harms Hungary more than the nation that is being sanctioned itself. In general the delegation of Hungary supports sanctions; however, Hungary insists they must be targeted, flexible, and based on facts. Hungary believes that the current sanctions process is only partly effective because while sanctions can target political and military elites, rigid implementation, insufficient exemptions, and limited monitoring often allow the sanctions to negatively impact compliant states and civilians. Minister Péter Szijjártó has emphasized that Hungary will not support sanctions that threaten national supplies or endanger the energy security of compliant states. Moreover, it was stressed that measures that hurt Hungary more than the intended target are “outrageous” and require immediate revision.” UN officials, such as Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo, have acknowledged that sanctions should not “have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian populations”. Additionally, European High Representative Josep Borrell noted that energy sanctions have complex impacts on member states highly dependent on Russian supplies. Thus, Hungary calls for monitoring, and exemptions to protect household energy, industrial stability, the economy, and also national security. The delegation of Hungary is open to any other solutions that other countries are proposing as long as they respect Hungary’s energy security and economic stability. Hungary believes that sanctions should focus on political and military elites rather than energy supply, minimizing harm to civilians and compliant states. Measures should include transparent monitoring and regular impact assessments, with adjustments made as needed. Countries that are dependent on energy should receive exceptions to keep homes heated and industries running. Hungary believes in slowly diversifying its energy sources, like importing gas from other suppliers, in a way that fits its infrastructure. Furthermore, Hungary believes it is important to collaborate with other countries so that sanctions support negotiations instead of replacing them. Overall, Hungary believes that sanctions can be more effective when protecting economic stability, energy security and citizens through careful moderation and targeted restrictions.
Works Cited
Buchan, Russell. “Self-Defence as an Exception to the Principle of Non-Use of Force: Debunking the Myth.” EJIL: Talk!, 29 Nov. 2023, www.ejiltalk.org/self-defence-as-an-exception-to-the-principle-of-non-use-of-force-debu nking-the-myth/.
“Delegates Focus on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Right to Self-Defence as Sixth Committee Takes up Special Charter Committee Report | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” Un.org, 12 Oct. 2018, press.un.org/en/2018/gal3573.doc.htm? Accessed 13 Feb. 2026.
Hindsight, In. “In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council.” Security Council Report, 2025, www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php. ilrdigit. “An International Law Perspective on the U.S.’S Recent Strikes in International Waters – American University International Law Review.” American University International Law Review, 13 Jan. 2026, auilr.org/2026/01/13/an-international-law-perspective-on-the-u-s-s-recent-strikes-in-inter national-waters/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. “Opening 2024 Session of Special Charter Committee, Speakers Diverge on Sanctions, Self-Defence, Working Methods and World Court’s Role | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” Un.org, 20 Feb. 2024, press.un.org/en/2024/l3297.doc.htm. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. Committee: Special Committee on the UN Charter (SCUNC) Country: Hungary Topic: Implementation of Sanctions Delegate: Maria Kamatoy School: Midland High School Tsvety. “The Legal Foundations of NATO.” The Law to Know, 5 Sept. 2025, thelawtoknow.com/2025/09/05/nato/. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. United Nations. “Chapter VII: Article 51 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications.” Un.org, United Nations, 1945, legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Zimbabwe
Delegate Name: Reni Bejko

8 December 2026
Submitted To: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: Republic of Zimbabwe
Topic: Implementation of Sanctions

The Republic of Zimbabwe firmly believes in the ideas listed in the United Nations Charter, specifically the use of sanctions, an important, diplomatic, and peaceful alternative to violent measures as authorized in Article 41 of the Charter. However, Zimbabwe must note the fact that these sanctions must be precise, transparent, and time limited. Zimbabwe’s own historical experience with unilateral and multilateral sanctions proves that when implemented poorly, sanctions can harm the civilian population, undermine development, and further weaken trust in multilateral institutions and international cooperation.
The Republic of Zimbabwe urges the committee to discuss how sanctions impact state sovereignty, economic development, and humanitarian conditions, intentional or not. Zimbabwe urges the committee to discuss whether existing sanctions and the implementation process can adequately distinguish between the individual and the nation as a whole. Zimbabwe is also concerned about and urges the committee to discuss the fact that the sanction implementation process will contain due process, as Zimbabwe has been exposed to sanctions not approved by the UNSC.
The Republic of Zimbabwe supports the reformation of sanctions implementation that also respects state sovereignty and international law. Zimbabwe supports and encourages the creation of clearer safeguards within the UN sanction implementation process, such as standardizing the criteria for listing and delisting individuals and states with review mechanisms put in place as well. Zimbabwe also supports periodic economic and humanitarian assessments to properly ensure that sanctioned individuals do not cause the country’s civilian populations or economic development to be harmed in any way, ensuring that sanctions targeted at individuals or entities do not expand into the punishment of the state as a whole or undermine their economic growth. Zimbabwe believes that sanctions must only be enacted through the UNSC and opposes the bypassing of this procedure. To prevent this misuse, Zimbabwe supports clearer safeguards and guidelines, including stating the justification for listings of sanctions through the UNSC first, as well as standardized timelines for eventual delisting.
Zimbabwe’s position is based on Article 41 of the UN Charter, which gives the authority of imposing sanctions exclusively to the UNSC. Zimbabwe has historically aligned itself with positions in the African Union, UN General Assembly, and the Non-Aligned Movement, which all support that sanctions must be authorized by the UNSC and follow international law. Zimbabwe’s support of clearer due process protections and standardizing reporting procedures are already supported by UNSC sanctions committees, these methods are highly effective when properly implemented. Reports bythe UN Special Rapporteur on Uniliteral Coercive Measures and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have all supported and documented the negative effects of sanctions lacking multilateral oversight, as well as the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe that illegally bypassed UNSC approval.
The Republic of Zimbabwe reaffirms the idea that sanctions must remain a lawful, precise, transparent, and multilateral tool used in accordance with the UN Charter. Zimbabwe therefore calls upon the committee to pursue sanction reforms that protect state sovereignty, prevent economic and humanitarian harm, and firmly reject the illegal normalization of unilateral coercive sanctions to further strengthen the legitimacy and fairness of sanctions globally.

Works Cited:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information
https://www.justsecurity.org/90394/the-united-nations-in-hindsight-un-security-council-sanctions
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/delisting
/

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Venezuela
Delegate Name: Stella Yakima

02/06/2026
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: Venezuela
Delegate Name: Stella Yakima
Topic: Implementation of Sanctions

Intro, overview of topic.
Brief description of country policy. Venezuela strongly believes that sanctions are a threat to national security and sovereignty as well as a violation of human rights towards the people of Venezuela.
To avoid the harsh sanctions placed on Venezuelan oil, there have been shifts in allies and importing nations. Currently, China is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan oil and has invested in the Venezuelan oil industry for the next two decades. This shift in allies has been strategic to avoid sanctions and to protect the economy for the Venezuelan people.
The backbone of Venezuela’s economy is oil. The oil industry has kept Venezuela thriving for over a century. There are currently sanctions on Venezuela’s oil which is causing great harm to the economy. In 2017, the U.S. placed oil sanctions on Venezuela which caused a significant decrease in exports in hopes of pressuring the Venezuelan government enough to give the U.S. complete control over their oil sales and distribution. Since then, the U.S. president has continued to tighten and impose more sanctions while claiming that Venezuela has “stolen oil”.
Venezuela’s main goal in fending off sanctions on oil is to grow their economy. Currently, Venezuela is in a state of economic crisis due to sanctions being placed on oil from big importers. These importers want total control of the Venezuelan economy and country, starting with oil. The sanctions placed on Venezuela are not effective in achieving the job that the U.S. wants to achieve, instead they are hurting the Venezuelan people more.
Solutions

https://www.state.gov/venezuela-related-sanctions
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10715
https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-fuels/why-the-us-attacked-venezuela-oil-sanctions-and-maduro/
https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/china-in-the-u-s-venezuela-dispute-beijing-has-complicated-washingtons-policy-towards-caracas/#:~:text=We%20hope%20that%20the%20United,under%20pressure%20to%20relinquish%20power.
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2026/01/developments-in-venezuela-sanctions-considerations
https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/venezuela-transforms-hydrocarbons-sector-with-new-hydrocarbons-law-amendment

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Saudi Arabia
Delegate Name: Avery Water

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia believes on the subject of the implementation of Sanctions, that all though sanctions are a powerful tool and should not be used as weapons. Sanctions are put in place to support international peace, sovereignty, and security. If sanctions are put in place for the purpose of political pressure, then other states may see it as a threat or may see it as being used for a weapon, which should never be the case. Saudi Arabia believes that when implementing sanctions, they should only be used when attempts of diplomacy are exhausted and not allowing for peaceful resolution.
Saudi Arabia also believes that the act of implementing sanctions on states without authorization from the United Nations Security Council could cause the exposition of UN ideals. Implementing sanctions unauthorized is unnecessary and dangerous for the common security of UN states. Saudi Arabia can and will work with organizations, such as the Arab League, to ensure authorized sanctions on other states.
Saudi Arabia does however support the ideas behind “smart” sanctions. The delegation believes that these “smart” sanctions allow for strategic sanctions that don’t impose on other independent states and can be used to assist the said state. These “smart” sanctions can include actions like bans on travel, freezes on assets, or sanctions on weapons for international threats, such as terrorist organizations. Saudi Arabia would not however support sanctions on imperative actions such as trade bans or financial sanctions that can harm national economies. Saudi Arabia would also like to point out how implementation of sanctions without oversight from the committee or security council can be ineffective or indefinite.
Saudi Arabia also insists that when in discussion on this topic that humanitarian safeguards are mandatory. When implementing these sanctions they should all have humanitarian exemptions, but still protect access to food, water, medicine, and fuel. These sanctions should also allow for humanitarian aid organizations, like WHO or UNICEF, to continue to operate as normal. Human suffering should not be a consequence for international sanctions due to conflict.
Saudi Arabia must also insist that due to recent issues and conflicts, regional security must be protected. Sanctions must avoid disruption within the middle-east, due to their recent complications. Sanctions can also disrupt the production and trade of energy. Energy is an essential market item for all countries, and disruption of this generation can also be a threat to humanitarian interests.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prepared and willing to collaborate with the committee to find an equitable agreement on the implementation of sanctions to ensure national sovereignty, security, and humanitarian interests are not at stake. Saudi Arabia will have interests on voting yes to proposals if they are defined and include precise UNSC and SCUNC approved sanctions that avoid humanitarian disruptions. If too broad or contains political pressures, Saudi Arabia will be voting no.
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/default/files/subsidiary_organs_series_7sep23_.pdf
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/delisting
https://www.justsecurity.org/90394/the-united-nations-in-hindsight-un-security-council-sanctions/
SCUNC Sanctions – GLICA.org
What Are Smart Sanctions In AML Compliance?
Encyclopedia Britannica | Britannica

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Japan
Delegate Name: Jada Wynn

2-8-2026
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: The State of Japan
Delegate name: Jada Wynn
Subject: Implementation of Sanctions

While the main purpose of sanctions is to minimize and prevent further threats within a country, some of the implementations can actually harm the country, such as hurting the country’s economy and possibly raising humanitarian concerns. In an article from the United Nations about sanctions, it expresses concerns about how unilateral sanctions are causing more harm than good, eroding economic, labour, and human rights all at the same time. These sanctions are actually causing more harm than good; implementing further sanctions against a country can lead to the country suffering, economically, and having its people suffer. In another article from the University of Georgia, there was a study made about sanctions, and how sanctions against a country signal to the people that the country is doing poorly, which then leads to violent protests, and further leads to the country’s government silencing its people, usually through violent means. There needs to be a system in place to make sure that many rights are not being violated and that the people in the country are not suffering either.
The State of Japan does, in fact, use sanctions, but never abuses these powers. Japan mainly imposes economic-based sanctions under Japan’s Foreign Exchange and Trade Act, which ensures international transactions are processed normally and maintains peace and security with Japan. Japan has issued sanctions against Russia in response to its ever-increasing aggression against the war with Ukraine. Japan has also used unilateral sanctions against North Korea due to the concern of the country’s nuclear and missile activity. These sanctions are solely used to properly regulate trade within the country, protect the country against potential threats such as North Korea, and respond to a country’s actions, such as Russia. Japan has never abused these powers and never will.
A solution to target the negatives against sanctions would be possibly have a system for potential aid for countries that desperately need it for their people, such as Haiti. While a country’s actions need to be held accountable, the people suffering within the country need to be taken into consideration also because these citizens are also being affected by their country’s actions and need support.
To conclude, Japan hopes to tackle this issue regarding the implementation of sanctions properly with other delegations. Japan strongly advocates to work together and find a system that can give aid to citizens in countries that are in a drastic state, and prevent the possibility of violating any human rights. While sanctions can be a good alternative to violence, these concerns need to be addressed immediately to further prevent harm.

Works Cited
Open Sanctions. “Japan Economic Sanctions and List of Eligible People.” Open Sanctions,
https://www.opensanctions.org/datasets/jp_mof_sanctions/
Global Sanctions and Export Controls Blog. “Japanese Imposed Sanctions Archives.” Global Sanctions and Export Controls Blog, https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/category/sanctions-regimes/other-sanctions/japanese-imposed-sanctions/
We The People: School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia. “Why Sanctions Can Worsen Human Rights Abuses.” We The People: School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of Georgia, https://wethepeople.spia.uga.edu/article/why-sanctions-can-worsen-human-rights-abuses/
Japanese Law Translation. “Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act.” Japanese Law Translation, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4412/en
ICLG. “Sanctions Laws and Regulations Report 2026 Japan.” ICLG, https://iclg.com/practice-areas/sanctions/japan
United Nations. “Rising use of unilateral sanctions raises humanitarian concerns: UN expert | OHCHR.” United Nations, Sept 15, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/rising-use-unilateral-sanctions-raises-humanitarian-concerns-un-expert#:~:text=In%20her%20report%2C%20Douhan%20stressed,an%20adequate%20standard%20of%20living.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: China
Delegate Name: Owen Krueger

11/26/2025
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: China
Subject: Article 51
The People’s Republic of China sits as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and throughout the body’s history has invariably had a major influence on the sanctions backed by the UNSC due to the PRCs veto power. Sanctions imposed by the UNSC serve an important purpose in order to sway individuals to negotiate and stop whatever action they have taken which caused the sanctions. In imposing sanctions the UNSC with the backing of member nations of the UN has successfully sanctioned over 30 regimes in pursuit of peace and upholding the UN Charter. Sanctions have been the main weapon of peaceful coercion by the UNSC and must remain effective.
However some nations have taken sanctioning into their own hands. This form of sanctioning by rogue nations does not assist the global effort for peace among the international community but hinders it as these rogue nations use sanctions as a geopolitical tool to get others to comply with their agenda. The People’s Republic of China is strongly of the opinion that the implementation of sanctions should be under the authority of the United Nations Security Council not under the authority of rogue nations wishing to score geopolitical points and grow their leverage.
Sanctions by the United Nations have also usually been against targeted groups or individuals instead of sweeping unilateral actions against whole countries. The People’s Republic of China is of the belief that these sweeping sanctions are not effective enough to justify the large amounts of economic and social harm that comes from sanctioning a whole nation. When the United Nations sanctions an entire nation instead of just its leaders it takes that nation’s people as collateral which is wholly unnecessary. Oftentimes it is just the leader of a nation who makes a decision which results in getting the nation sanctioned. It is logical to sanction the decision maker not the innocent third party. The global community seizing assents, suspending visas, and enacting travel bans on those who are sanctioned are effective non-violent ways to achieve the change desired in non-violent action.
The People’s Republic of China is extremely interested to see the recommendations this body makes over the span of this committee. China is of the opinion that keeping sanctions targeted to specific individuals and groups as well as the decision to enact sanctions in the hands of the United Nations Security Council is an extremely important step in making sure that sanctions remain an effective tool for upholding the United Nations Charter. These goals for sanctions allows them to be made much more stable as a tool and prevents the United Nations from alienating and causing major harm to a nation and its people for the decision of a handful of individuals. The People’s Republic of China looks forward to discussing these items in committee.
Works Cited
United Nations. “Sanctions | Security Council.” Main.un.org, 2023, main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information.
“Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Fu Cong on the UN Security Council Draft Resolution Adjusting Sanctions Related to Syria_Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN.” China-Mission.gov.cn, 2025, un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/hyyfy/202511/t20251107_11748801.htm.
Holland, Christopher. Chinese Attitudes to International Law: China, the Security Council, Sovereignty, and Intervention.

‌
“Why China Backed the Iran Sanctions | Research | the Tokyo Foundation.” The Tokyo Foundation, 2023, www.tokyofoundation.org/research/detail.php?id=171.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Algeria
Delegate Name: Gwyneth Henry

2/8/2026
Submitted to: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
From: Algeria
Delegate Name:Gwyneth Henry
Subject: Implementation of Sanctions

The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria believes the implementation of sanctions under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter is an effective non-military tool that is available for the Security Council to use. Algeria approaches the use of sanctions through the United Nations supportively, but still with some caution, as there are concerns about how effective they are. Sanction effectiveness relies upon their implementation, transparency, and impact. The idea of United Nations sanctions is a positive one that needs to be built upon and improved.
Historically, sanctions have been broadly applied against countries instead of specific groups or organizations. The impact of this has negatively affected entire regions both economically and humanly, with little political success. Algeria has observed how sanctions have affected developing nations like those in Africa and the Middle East. The changing of sanctions from being so broad to targeted has been integral in fixing these damages and preventing negative outcomes.
Algeria recognizes that in the present day, United Nations sanctions have been improved to target individuals and groups that are threats to peace, but there are still concerns that are seen within them. The concern of the actual implementation of sanctions and oversight of them is a worry, as there are inconsistencies seen within committees, particularly the Security Council. Sanctions have not been able to achieve the meaningful change that is needed in the situations to which they have been applied. Algeria supports the progress made in the sanction process, but still has serious concerns.
In the future, Algeria supports resolutions and reforms to strengthen the effectiveness of sanctions within the United Nations. Algeria supports the expansion of oversight committees for the placement of sanctions and monitoring of them to ensure there are no negative humanitarian impacts. Algeria also suggests that sanctions are to be adjusted and reworked if they fail to meet their objectives, as having ineffective ones in place causes more harm than good.
In conclusion, the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria believes that United Nations sanctions should be implemented in an effective, consistent way that is improved from how they function now. Sanctions are an important tool from Article 41 of the charter, but need improvements in oversight and impact. Algeria believes that as a committee, the problems we are facing can be compromised upon and solved quickly.

Works cited
“The United Nations in Hindsight: UN Security Council Sanctions.” Just Security, 1 Dec. 2023, https://www.justsecurity.org/90394/the-united-nations-in-hindsight-un-security-council-sanctions/.
“Focal Point for De-Listing.” Security Council, https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/delisting.
“Algeria.” Global Sanctions Guide, https://ezine.eversheds-sutherland.com/global-sanctions-guide/algeria.
“A Comprehensive Overview of UN Sanctions.” Global Investigations Review, https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-guide-sanctions/sixth-edition/article/comprehensive-overview-of-un-sanctions.
SCR-SRR-Sanctions-P5d4.Indd. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/special_research_report_sanctions_2013.pdf
“In Hindsight: UN Security Council Sanctions.” Security Council Report, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2023-12/in-hindsight-un-security-council-sanctions.php.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Belarus
Delegate Name: Charlisa Penzak

Special Committee on the United Nations Charter
Implementation of Sanctions
Republic of Belarus
Charlisa Penzak
Groves High School

Currently, the United Nations Security Council enforces fifteen active sanctions regimes for a variety of purposes spanning counter-terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation. Although Belarus does not face sanctions from the UNSC, it is the target of various unilateral sanctions imposed by the European Union, the United States, and several partner states. The UN General Assembly stated, in Resolution 78/135 of December 2023, that unilateral coercive trade measures like sanctions are contrary to the principles of international law, adversely affecting economic development and international cooperation. This logic also extends to the multilateral sanction imposed by the UNSC.

The Republic of Belarus strongly disagrees with the use of sanctions. In fact, Belarussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko explained that “it is in our common interest to speak even louder about this problem and jointly seek the abolition of restrictions on trade, especially on vital commodities.” Economic sanctions are almost the only tool in the West’s foreign policy toolkit, one that leverages their economic leverage and exploits the inequality of the international trade system to coerce smaller countries to their will. As the Belarussian representative to the UN Pavel Evseenko explained, “the goal of sanctions has been stated loud and clear – to achieve a change of power through food riots.”

However, not only are sanctions inconsistent with UN values of equality and economic development, but they are rarely effective. Past sanctions have pushed Belarus and Russia to a path of self-sustainability and regional integration. Instead of encouraging broad economic cooperation, these sanctions marginalize certain nations and draw the targeted “enemy” countries closer together. Sanctions violate sovereignty and often harm innocent civilians the most, who struggle with the economic consequences. For example, sanctions on Belarusian potash fertilizers and agricultural products have contributed to disruptions in global food supply chains, increasing production costs and food prices and hurting the poorest in developing countries. Ironically, these measures recognize the quality of Belarussian goods and instead of fair competition, these nations chose to resort to protective policies. Moreover, sanctions can have adverse consequences for the actor as well. EU energy sanctions on Russia led to significant increases in energy prices in Europe, harming ordinary European citizens. Belarus argues that sanctions produce unintended global consequences that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

Instead, political disputes should be resolved through dialogue. Belarus believes that sanctions should be used only in exceptional circumstances and remain strictly limited to prevent unnecessary harm to civilian populations and national economies. Sanctions should not serve as instruments of geopolitical pressure, as such practices perpetuate inequalities embedded in international law and escalate tensions. Instead, Belarus supports strengthening multilateral diplomacy and cooperation within institutions like the United Nations to promote stability and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Works Cited:
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information
https://www.mfa.gov.by/en/press/news_mfa/c56c5277570a777c.html
https://www.belarus.by/en/press-center/speeches-and-interviews/lukashenko-calls-to-put-up-joint-front-against-western-sanctions_i_162107.html
https://www.mfa.gov.by/en/press/statements/d3e236137ef40de9.html

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Somalia
Delegate Name: Nathan Schreibeis

The United Nations’ main purpose is to promote security and safety among all members. To be able to accomplish this goal effectively, the United Nations typically implements sanctions to address anything that is a “threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression” instead of using direct force. Since 1966, 32 sanction regimes have been established to address these acts. 15 sanction regimes still exist today, with all of the sanctions being placed on countries in Africa or the Middle East, the only exception being North Korea. Yet, these sanctions give varied results, with many sanctions hurting the country it was trying to protect or furthering the divide among members of the United Nations. These implementations can also be ineffective due to each member nation needing to implement the sanction in its own country. Due to these complications, a study from the United Nations finds that sanctions with a coercive aim work around 10 percent of the time, whereas sanctions with the goal of constraining and signaling are effective around 27 percent of the time when implemented. In the 1990s, after the United Nations implemented strict sanctions on Iraq, a humanitarian crisis ensued and ended with the terrorist organization that it targeted to gain $11 billion. These sanctions that have failed typically are economic sanctions or arms embargoes for African countries.
The Federal Republic of Somalia is one country currently affected by sanction regimes in order to combat the threat of the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. The sanctions implemented in Somalia are against anyone who have commited a human rights violation, obstructed any humanitarian aid in Somalia, obstructed peace-keeping in Somalia, misappropriated state funds, illicit export of charcoal from Somalia, or committed acts that threaten the security of Somalia. Penalites of any who have committed these offenses can be charged with a fee of up to $1,000,00 or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both. The sanctions that are focused on the most is related to the illicit exportation of charcoal from Somalia. This sanction is aimed at stopping the main source of revenue of Al-Shabbab, with over 40% of all funding of the group coming from this illegal trade. However, this sanction has done little to combat Al-Shabaab. In the year 2023 alone, over $20 million went to Al-Shabaab’s associated smugglers, traffickers, and leaders. Jamame Brothers Company, a Somalia-based company that has business ties to the UAE, Kenya, Djibouti, China, India, and Pakistan, transferred nearly $1.2 million to finance Al-Shabaab in 2022. However, the executives have seemingly not been prosecuted despite direct ties to this illicit operation. Due to a lack of direct enforcement in any of the countries, these sanctions often fail. The arms embargo previously placed on Somalia was recently lifted, due to Al-Shabaab smuggling weapons into the country, but without allowing any parts of the Somali Armed Forces to have weapons for self-defense. While there are monitoring teams in Somalia, they only report data without directly helping enforce the sanctions, causing many sanctions to not accomplish their goal.
The Federal Republic of Somalia strongly believes that sanctions should be implemented fully across all members of the United Nations. This way, there is a legal standing for all countries involved, which allows for strong prosecution when sanctions are not followed. There should be a prohibition of sanctions that impose arms embargos on the armed forces of countries that are actively involved with non-state terrorist groups or that have enacted Article 51. If sanctions are implemented against any country for reasons of fighting non-state actors, all members should have to provide funding for the state that is being affected by the sanction regime. The delegation of Somalia proposes that there should be an increase of managment groups in each member state with sanction regimes affecting them. Somalia also urges for a designated court overseen by the Security Council to effectively prosecute any groups that have violated sanctions.

Works Cited
ADF. “With Arms Embargo Lifted, Somalia Urged to Secure Ports, Protect Depots.” Africa Defense Forum, 23 Apr. 2024, adf-magazine.com/2024/04/with-arms-embargo-lifted-somalia-urged-to-secure-ports-protect-depots/. Accessed 16 Feb. 2026.
Gordon, Joy. “The Brutal Impact of Sanctions on the Global South – Yale Journal of International Law.” Yale.edu, 18 Apr. 2022, campuspress.yale.edu/yjil/the-brutal-impact-of-sanctions-on-the-global-south/.
OFAC. “Somalia Sanctions Program.” Department of the Treasury, 3 Oct. 2014.
“Security Council Committee pursuant to Resolution 2713 (2023) Concerning Al-Shabaab | Security Council.” Main.un.org, main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/2713.
“The Charcoal Conundrum: Ending the Somali Illegal Charcoal Trade | Global Initiative.” Global Initiative, 11 Apr. 2025, globalinitiative.net/analysis/somalia-charcoal/.
“Treasury Designates Terror Operatives and Illicit Charcoal Smugglers in Somalia.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, 3 May 2024, home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1499.
“UN Documents for Somalia: Sanctions Committee Documents.” Securitycouncilreport.org, 2024, www.securitycouncilreport.org/un_documents_type/sanctions-committee-documents/?ctype=Somalia&cbtype=somalia.
United Nations. “Sanctions | Security Council.” Main.un.org, 2023, main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Russian Federation
Delegate Name: Makenzi Funderburg

Committee: Special Committee on the United Nations Charter (SCUNC)

Topic 2: Implementation of Sanctions

Country: The Russian Federation

———————————————————————————————————————
Topic Background

———————————————————————————————————————

UN Sanctions are a broad range of enforcement options that don’t involve the use of armed force taken by the Security Council. Security Council sanctions can go from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. Sanctions are not punitive as many regimes are designed to support governments and regions working towards peaceful transition. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights, and promote non-proliferation. Sanctions are not isolated from broader geopolitical and economic forces. These tools are more effective for short-term stability than as components of a broader, integrated peace strategy.

Shamefully, the past decade can be described as a “golden age” for sanctions as a foreign policy tool, with the US imposing more than three times as many sanctions annually in 2022–2023 compared to a decade prior. Recently in 2024 – 2025, Russia has been targeted by the new coordinated sanctions carried out by Western powers.

There are typically 10-15 active sanctions regimes, currently there are 15. All the current regimes are focused on supporting political settlement of conflicts, nuclear proliferation and counter-terroism. Each of the 15 current regimes is administered by a sanctions committee chaired by a non-permanent member of the Security Council. There are also ten monitoring groups that support the work of 11 of the 15 sanctions committees.

———————————————————————————————————————
Past International Action
———————————————————————————————————————

The first-ever UN sanctions were economic sanctions imposed in Southern Rhodesia in 1966 following the unilateral declaration of independence by the minority white regime in the state. The first sanction imposed by the UN Security Council was economic but there have been many since that have been designed to support political settlements, deter non-constitutional changes in government, and combat terrorism.

Complete sanctions harm countries instead of upholding, instituting or keeping peace within a state; comprehensive sanctions cause more destabilization. A prime example is the early 1990s. In the early 1990s the UN Security Council effectively imposed all-embracing arms embargoes in Haiti. These arm embargoes were meant to remove the military junta terrorizing Haiti but failed and instead resulted in significant hardship for the civilian population.
———————————————————————————————————————
Country Policy
———————————————————————————————————————

As a permanent UN Security Council member, the Russian Federation implements sanctions but cannot be sanctioned by the UN itself due to its veto power. Nevertheless, Russia has fallen victim to multiple, massive, unprecedented international sanctions from the United States, European Union, and others since 2014. Russia has imposed counter-sanctions on said Western Powers.

In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and later in 2022 acted in a preemptive defense against Ukraine resulting in Russia unfortunately becoming the most targeted country in the world with over 14,000 sanctions including asset freezes, travel bans (import/export bans and exclusion from financial markets). Russia has responded with “counter-sanctions” against “unfriendly” countries including a total ban on food imports from countries like Canada and the USs. All Russian implemented sanctions are authorized under Russian federal law regarding special economic measures and counter-measures. It’s evident world superpowers misuse their status to target countries simply acting in legal self-defense against other states.

Furthermore, the undue restrictions sanctions force upon countries not only fail to keep peace but are simply unsuitable for the target nations such as Russia. Western nations clearly seek to control any world power that could rival them and their fear of competition is threatening the peace of our world.
———————————————————————————————————————
Possible Solutions
———————————————————————————————————————
The Russian Federation suggests three different implementation ideas involving the imposition of sanctions on member and non-member states that would help bring to fruition the UN’s founding goals: peace.

Expanding food and consumer goods embargoes on nations such as the US, UK and EU as the harm they’ve done to peace in Russia in other countries cannot go unchecked.
Broaden existing bans to include critical raw materials and consumer goods from the EU, UK, and US as the supply chains of this region have become too overreaching and the main focus should be decreasing their economic influence.
Impose bans on exporting commodities such as minerals key, non-replaceable commodities (e.g., specific minerals, energy resources) to nations deemed hostile, aimed at hindering their high-tech sectors and military-industrial capacity.

Certain member states have overreached for too long and it’s time to put a stop to it to allow all states a chance to implement their foreign policy goals freely and according to their best interests.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Sources:

https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/un-sanctions-mixed-record

https://www.trade.gov/russia-sanctions-and-export-controls

elfercenter.org/publication/lessons-sanctions-proofing-russia

https://russiaun.ru/en/news/unsc2816_120226

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Peru
Delegate Name: Sarah Abraham

Sarah Abraham
Peru
Implementation Of Sanctions

Sanctions are implemented in order for oppressive governments to reflect and end their ways, through blocking interaction between other nations in a way that makes development unsustainable for the corrupt nation. This is vital for the UN because it ensures that countries that are acting in a way unsuitable will be accounted for their crimes. This has been an impactful strategy but has flaws because of how citizens are also affected by the ban of goods. Sanctions, if held for long enough, limits a nation’s resources which is unfair for the people living in a tainted government because of them having to pay the price. For example, if all oil producing countries agreed to discontinue trading with a country because of its government, citizens will have to live without using oil and it will give a huge disadvantage to their daily lives because of the ban directly impacting them. Since this is not the impact the UN wants for countries, we need to discover a new system to give the governments a consequence but to leave their citizens alone.

Peru has not experienced sanctions from any countries, but as a delegation we can recognize how sanctions on other countries impact their livelihood. For a recent example, the EU and the United States had implemented sanctions on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, which led to their economy shrinking from their GDP declining each year since the sanction from their oil revenue dropping significantly. This has given Russia troubles to fund the conflict between Ukraine. With so many resources going to the war and Russia’s funds constantly decreasing, Russians get impacted by these decisions because of economic decline causing issues with employment and funds for essential things like housing.

On behalf of the Delegation of Peru, the sanctions should go through changes to make it more ideal for the citizens and to keep them protected while mainly the government is the one facing the repercussions. Sanctions should develop a more complex strategy for countries to actually go through change instead of taking the hit from sanctions by communicating with the country involved and giving the country the option to change their ways and if they fail to do this incentive they will be given a sanction which will be called out to the public and citizens of their nation. The country that is targeted should also be provided essential items for their citizens so they can live comfortably and the sanction should not affect the economy as heavily and could shift its decision more heavily on people with elite positions in the government. For citizens , the country should be given a plan on how to lift this sanction so the economy will not be suffering for too long to mark a large negative impact on the people and the plan should be efficient and achievable for the country. To implement this, we could use article 39 because countries being impacted from sanctions typically have been disrupting peace and from using this article we can give incentives for the countries to sort things out for themselves and if this is not completed we can decide what measures can be taken to give consequences to the state.

Works Cited

Team, Enough. “Sanctions Strategies: How to Improve Sanctions Effectiveness with Strategic Planning.” The Enough Project, 22 Nov. 2019,
enoughproject.org/blog/sanctions-strategies-improve-sanctions-effectiveness-strategic-planning.
“Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications.” Legal.un.org, legal.un.org/repertory/art39.shtml.
European Council. “Impact of Sanctions on the Russian Economy.” European Council, European Council, 12 Oct. 2023, www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Ukraine
Delegate Name: Shivani Salwi

The delegation of Ukraine regards the implementation of Sanctions under Article 41 as a crucial non-military mechanism for the Security Council to enforce its decisions and maintain international peace and security. This provision empowers the Council to impose various measures such as economic interruptions and travel bans which have evolved since 2004 to more targeted actions against individuals and groups rather than country-wide restrictions. As of 2023, 14 active sanction regimes address issues in regions including Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Haiti. However, there are low success rates in achieving behavioral change along with other challenges such as understaffed expert panels and unintended humanitarian impacts. These issues prompt Ukraine’s recommendations to the Committee to enhance sanctions’ precision and fairness without formal amendments.

The United Nations has advanced sanctions implementation through resolutions, however there are evident gaps that exist. In 2015, General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/117 confirmed the Committee’s responsibility to examine matters related to peacekeeping, including how sanctions are used. For each sanctions regime, the Security Council creates a committee made up of all fifteen council members. These committees are helped by a Panel of Experts that investigate problems and add suggestions to the sanctions list based on clearly set criteria. To remove one from a sanction list, many regimes use a Focal Point Process, where affected countries can ask for a review. There is also a special Ombudspersons office for the ISIL and Al-Qaedea sanctioned regimes, which has handled several cases fairly. Even with such intensive steps, many recent decisions on sanctions have not been fully agreed upon as some members used vetoes.

Ukraine strongly supports targeted and robust sanctions as a tool to counter aggression and uphold sovereignty, drawing from its experience facing Russia’s invasion. Ukraine has independently imposed many sanctions on Russian individuals and entities for supporting aggression, while also advocating for United National led measures. Ukraine views the current process as somewhat effective in selecting targets but hampered by political influences. Emphasizing necessity, Ukraine opposes overly broad sanctions that increase humanitarian crises and instead supports collective mechanisms to ensure sanctions achieve behavioral change without prolonging or instigating conflict.

To enhance sanctions implementation, Ukraine proposes the Committee expands the Ombudsperson model to all regimes for reducing reliance on the limited Focal Point and addressing disparities such as a lack of specialized review. Criteria for sanctions relief should be realistic as well as standardized and should include pre-assessment visits to evaluate humanitarian impact before imposition. Also, the Committee should foster greater Council unity through transparent reporting and coordination, thereby reinforcing Article 41’s role in collective security.

Works Cited:
United Nations. General Assembly. Resolution 70/117: Maintenance of International Peace and Security. 14 December 2015, https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/117.
United Nations. Security Council. Resolution 1730 (2006). 19 December 2006, https://undocs.org/S/RES/1730(2006).
United Nations. Security Council. Resolution 2664 (2022). 9 December 2022, https://undocs.org/S/RES/2664(2022).
United Nations Security Council. “Subsidiary Organs Factsheet.” September 2023, https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/default/files/subsidiary_organs_series_7sep23_.pdf.
United Nations Security Council. “Focal Point for De-listing.” Accessed February 2026, https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/delisting.
United Nations Security Council. “Sanctions.” Accessed February 2026, https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Denmark
Delegate Name: KenZie Low

Article 41 of the UN Charter outlines sanctions as States having the power to use measures other than force, such as the interruption of economic relations and disruptions of communication and diplomatic relations, to ensure international peace and security. Modern sanctions no longer target an entire State, but rather specific individuals or entities who are responsible. Despite this evolution, there are still concerns that modern sanctions are not effective in deterring poor behavior and are not managed effectively by the UNSC. For example, there is only one Office of Ombudsperson along with the Focal Point for Delisting in the UNSC. States are also concerned about the reliability of the panel of experts used in the UNSC. Sanctions have been seen as a strategic motive or political agenda instead of a policy that changes behavior when China and Russia vetoed DPRK sanctions in 2022, and sanctions were disputed over CAR in 2023. Nonetheless, Denmark disagrees with this notion. Denmark is a strong advocate for the use of sanctions to maintain international peace and security and suggests harsher enforcement and publicity of sanctions to motivate those listed to change their behavior.

While Denmark does not implement any autonomous sanctions currently, the nation has been in full support and has been enforcing UN and EU sanctions. Denmark has been one of the top implementers of the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (GHRSR) adopted by the EU in 2020. This framework has been increasingly active in enforcing sanctions against individuals and entities that are perpetrating humanitarian violence and war crimes, especially Russia. Denmark has also supported the use of horizontal sanctions under the GHRSR. These target a common framework, like humanitarian violence, cybersecurity, or chemical weapons. This means that those who violate these frameworks will be sanctioned, no matter their country of origin or the location of the offense. Denmark has also made public statements condemning certain nations. Along with the EU agenda of sanctioning Russia, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has publicly stated that she would be willing to sanction either the Israel PM or the entire nation of Israel because of unlawful attacks on Gaza. Denmark has also updated its Danish Criminal Code, 110, to increase the imprisonment timeframe from four to eight years for the most serious violations of sanctions. Denmark has ensured that the EU follows these strict sanctions with respect to the listed individuals and entities, as they have the right to request a lifting of sanctions or challenge the Council Decision of the sanctions. The EU also publishes all sanctions swiftly after adpotion on their official journal, and recognizes the fundamental human rights that listed individuals/entities have.

Denmark urges that nations not hinder the strategic and effective use of sanctions used by the UN and EU to maintain peace and security. Denmark respects the right of request for de-listing and challenging sanctions, but does not support increasing de-listing or the relief of sanctions in the UNSC for clear, unlawful international acts. Denmark calls for stricter penalties for those who violate the implemented sanctions to demonstrate the seriousness of the crimes committed by the listed individuals and entities. Denmark also calls for an increased diversity of sanctions, such as horizontal sanctions under the GHRSR. The nation urges that the use of sanctions falls strictly under protecting the ideals stated in the UN Charter, and condemns the strategic use of sanctions for individual State gain. Denmark is a top donor in terms of humanitarian aid and understands that strict sanctions cause concerns of humanitarian suffering. Thus, Denmark believes in a multilateral approach of humanitarian support paired with strict sanctions. Denmark trusts the institutions of the UN and EU in its measures to maintain a peaceful globe; sanctions are a symbol to advocate for human rights in entities that violate them.

Works Cited
2022, January. Foreign and Security Policy Strategy Find the Strategy Online at Www.um.dk. 2022.
“Bill Proposing up to 8 Years’ Imprisonment for Violation.” Kromann Reumert, 12 Mar. 2025, kromannreumert.com/en/news/bill-proposing-up-to-8-years-imprisonment-violation-of-eu-sanctions. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.
“Denmark – Global Sanctions Guide.” Ezine.eversheds-Sutherland.com, ezine.eversheds-sutherland.com/global-sanctions-guide/denmark.
“Denmark | Global Sanctions.” Global Sanctions, 5 Sept. 2025, globalsanctions.com/sanctioning-state/denmark/. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.
European Union. “European Union Sanctions | EEAS Website.” Www.eeas.europa.eu, 7 Oct. 2021, www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/european-union-sanctions_en.
“Focal Point for De-Listing | Security Council.” Un.org, 2020, main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/delisting.
Haaretz. ““Netanyahu Himself Is Now a Problem”: Denmark’s PM Says Country May Sanction Israel over Gaza.” Haaretz, 16 Aug. 2025, www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-16/ty-article/netanyahu-himself-is-now-a-problem-denmarks-pm-says-country-may-sanction-israel/00000198-b306-d5b5-a1dc-bfa6f1340000. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.
“How the EU Adopts and Reviews Sanctions.” Consilium, 2019, www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-adoption-review-procedure/.
Hub, European Democracy. “Sharpening the EU’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime – European Democracy Hub.” European Democracy Hub, 12 Mar. 2024, europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/sharpening-the-eus-global-human-rights-sanctions-regime/.
Olsen, Kim B. “The “Hard Middle Ground”: Denmark’s Positioning Regarding the EU Sanctions against Russia.” Danish Foreign Policy Review, vol. 2023, 20 June 2023, pp. 52–82, research.diis.dk/en/publications/the-hard-middle-ground-denmarks-positioning-regarding-the-eu-sanc/. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.
SUBSIDIARY ORGANS of the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL United Nations Security Council Subsidiary Organs Https://Www.un.org/Securitycouncil/Content/Subsidiary-Bodies.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Gabon
Delegate Name: Madelyn Tolsma

Over the past several years large efforts by the UN to regulate sanction regimes have been implemented The organizations confidence in Sanctions as way to desensitize nations from actions that conflict with the UNs stability goals, there are still issues regarding getting civilians access to humanitarian aid while under strict sanction regime, some have raised questions over whether sanctions are effective at all. The UK Supreme Court has used the powerful term ‘prisoners of the state’ to characterise the plight of those targeted, concluding that the ‘draconian nature of the [sanctions] regime … can hardly be over-stated’.124 The Canadian Federal Court criticised the ‘denial of basic legal remedies’ for targeted individuals as ‘untenable under the principles of international law’.
Despite its controversy the Republic of Gabon does support the implementation of sanction regimes as a means to desensitize corruption and crimes against humanity.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Republic of Korea
Delegate Name: Esther Kim

Since the 1990s, the United Nations has seen a sharp increase in the use of sanctions. Currently applied to 14 nations, these sanctions seek to coerce, pressure, or signal to countries that threaten international peace. However, despite having good intentions, sanctions have also generated several administrative and humanitarian challenges for the international community. Reports have shown that sanctions often fail to achieve their policy goals, which, in part, is due to the lack of transparency when deciding and implementing sanctions. Perhaps more importantly, sanctions have also impeded humanitarian efforts, with peacekeeping missions allegedly undermined in regions such as South Sudan. In Syria and the DPRK, financial sanctions have caused the collapse of humanitarian banking channels, hindering their efforts. Ultimately, these regulations have led to a “chilling effect”, where humanitarian actors self-regulate beyond what is required, further diminishing prospects of external assistance.
Despite these issues, South Korea supports the implementation of sanctions and maintains the perspective that such complications stem from limited oversight and coordination. The fundamental purpose of sanctions lies in the idea of a multi-faceted solution to international disruptions. In other words, sanctions are not meant to fully resolve issues, but rather serve to complement other measures like diplomacy, negotiation, or peace operations.
Particularly, South Korea affirms that sanctions are necessary to curb nuclear proliferation attempts conducted by nations such as the DPRK. Ongoing nuclear development and missile testing in the DPRK have significantly threatened South Korea’s national security and civilian peace. In response to such threats, South Korea finds it crucial that sanctions continue to be implemented against such nations, to ensure that international peace can be protected.
South Korea firmly believes that such sanctions should be accompanied by active communication, namely through existing Panels of Experts that monitor the implementation of sanctions and provide necessary recommendations. However, in 2024, due to a veto by the Russian Federation, the Panel of Experts for the DPRK had been dissolved, limiting oversight and leaving South Korea vulnerable.
In response to such challenges, South Korea reminds nations that accountability and effective reporting mechanisms are crucial to the maintenance of effective sanctions. Specifically, South Korea calls for the restoration of a group of experts that discuss sanctions on the DPRK by establishing a monitoring body mandated by the UNGA to complement existing external bodies such as the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT). This body, along with existing Panels of Experts, should biannually publish final reports that discuss the effectiveness of sanctions and their humanitarian impacts. This body should further provide recommendations for potential adjustments. This would serve to elicit stricter monitoring and reporting of the potential adverse effects on humanitarian aid and the development of more appropriate measures to combat them.
Moreover, fair representation should be considered when implementing and assessing sanctions. The selection of representatives in the Panels of Experts should undergo fair practices that take into account equitable geographic distribution.
Further, South Korea recommends providing guidance to sanctioned nations and humanitarian actors to better facilitate the provision of aid. When necessary, sanctioned nations can receive guidance to obtain necessary exemptions for citizens’ wellbeing. Humanitarian actors should also receive clearer guidance to better process financial transactions and gain clarity regarding relevant standards.
South Korea laments the suffering caused by the lack of oversight in implementing sanctions. However, it emphasizes the continuing global need for such measures and notes that by improving communication, sanctions can become more effective while minimizing adverse effects. South Korea calls upon member states to reaffirm their commitment to transparent sanctions that protect both international security and humanitarian principles.

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: South Africa
Delegate Name: Margrit Rayes

Sanctions are seen as the “last resort” when it comes to addressing mass human right violations, such as human trafficking, mass illegal drug smuggling, and other extreme scenarios. Sanctions impose diplomatic blockers that prevent nations from doing whatever it is that they would like to do. Sanctions shouldn’t be used lightly because they can extremely harm a nation if imposed, which is why it is seen as an extreme punishment. The most notable historical example of this is the infamous American oil sanction of Japan in the 1930s leading towards WW2 and to demise. Notorious examples such as those are why sanctions are not taken lightly, as Japan immediately saw the US sanction as a call to war. When sanctions are imposed leniently and without viable reason, they harm nations and therefore harm the civilians of those nations.

South Africa as a nation has its own sanctions imposed by the UN, such as the TFS act prohibiting weapons of mass destruction to be distributed, in which the punishment of breaking this act is 15 years of jail time. Although South Africa has not been directly harmed by the impacts of sanctions, as a delegation South Africa is aware and left stunned by the impacts that sanctions leave on other nations.

Even if sanctions reach their target, there is no guarantee of a change in behavior by the aggressor due to the sanction. If change doesn’t come in due time, sanctions stop becoming a punishment for the oppressor and turn into a struggle of the oppressed. The most notable example of this is seen in Iraq – The United Nations first sanctioned Iraq in August 1990 due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. As a part of this sanction, the Security Council prohibited Iraq from buying oil or selling other commodities besides agreed upon necessities of life (food and medicine). Without intention to do so, this sanction crippled the Iraqi economy, making it almost impossible for the common man to buy bare necessities. Not only did this ruin Iraq, but Saddam Hussein continued his reign of terror on surrounding nations and his people. In situations like this, the committee has to consider who is being treated like the criminal – the offender, or the common man, who happens to live under the offender?

The committee has already discussed these issues previously, especially in regard to Al-Qaeda, and deduced Resolution 2664 of 2022. This solution ensures that any sanction being held upon a country will never impact the flow of humanitarian aid coming to the civilians by explicitly exempting sanctions having to do with the general economy/population. As the Switzerland representative states, “We must do everything in our power to ensure that aid reaches populations in need, regardless of the context or the authorities controlling their territory”. On behalf of South Africa, Resolution 2664 should be implemented to increase sanction efficiency and to avoid civilian loss.

Works Cited:

Ali, Doa. “How to Kill an Entire Country” tni, 2025

https://www.tni.org/en/article/how-to-kill-an-entire-country#:~:text=line%20(2017).-,The%20United%20Nations%20(of%20America),and%20imports%20declined%20by%2090%25.

“Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.N. Confronts Significant Challenges in Implementing Sanctions against Iraq” gao, 2002.https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-02-625#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20(UN)%20first%20imposed%20sanctions,sales**%20*%20**Changing%20the%20contract%20screening%20process**

Official Cites:

UN News, https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/05/528382-un-sanctions-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-who-uses-them#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20(UNSC)%20uses,economic%20relations%20*%20Severance%20of%20diplomatic%20relations

South African Global Sanctions, https://ezine.eversheds-sutherland.com/global-sanctions-guide/south-africa

UN Meeting Coverage and Press Releases, https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15924.doc.htm

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: France
Delegate Name: Aicha Jaafar

To minimize the use of direct military action or force, sanctions are frequently utilized throughout the United Nations to either condemn and punish a country, group, or actor, or to direct a nation towards becoming more stable. Most commonly, sanctions are utilized to apply economic pressure – whether that be through trade restrictions, travel bans, or blocking of foreign assets. As of 2024, sanctions by the United States had increased by 900% from the past 20 years. However, it is estimated that only 13% of the designed foreign policy goals surrounding these sanctions were reached. In addition to this, some sanctions damage the populations they are constructed to support. Aforementioned economic pressures, while putting stress on prominent state figures or governments, also end up hurting the lower and middle classes. In some cases, sanctions have led to malnutrition, lack of civic liberties, or increased government centralization . In 2024, United States sanctions placed on Venezuela only fueled an ongoing crisis between the citizens and their government, leading to millions of civilians fleeing the country. Although there are cases where sanctions prove to be effective, very often, their vague and difficult-to-enforce nature leads to an evasion of consequences from bad actors and harm towards wider populations.
As a prominent member of both the United Nations and European Union (EU), France plays a key role in imposing sanctions throughout the international community and in various industrial sectors. As a member of the Security Council, France has not only drafted and implemented targeted sanctions, but has worked towards minimizing the veto power of countries to limit corruption in the case of mass atrocities. EU Sectorial sanctions are imposed across industries, with France utilizing these to prohibit or slow the export on sensitive goods or technologies towards certain countries or groups . The nation has a large and complex governing body to maintain and protect the usage of sanctions across both the UN and EU, ensuring any corruption is minimized. France recognizes the immense use and value in sanctions, but is also dedicated towards protecting civilian livelihood.
As the Delegation of France, it is found necessary, to make sanctions properly effective, to begin ensuring the specificity and targeting of sanctions being created. We must put in place a framework to ensure that sanctions are, if possible, targeting the assets and trade of a specific group or network, and causing the designated consequences without civilian harm. To do this, the Delegation of France proposes that, when creating a sanction, a country must show their projected effects on both the actor/group and the general public. If they lack this information or any needed detailing to illustrate the exact assets they wish to target, the sanction will not be allowed by the UN. Additionally, any country proposing or agreeing with a large or widespread economic sanction that ends up harming a population must pledge to provide a percentage of aid (depending on GDP) towards said citizens. Finally, we must continue pushing towards limiting the powers of the veto. If countries are able to continue utilizing it for their own benefit, it is our duty to examine and restrict it if necessary. Sanctions are extremely valuable, but – if we wish to protect the international community – it must be shown that we are not exploiting nor using them carelessly.

Works Cited

A closer look at sanctions in France as developments signal tighter approach at national level. Global Investigations Review. (1969, December 31). https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-guide-sanctions/sixth-edition/article/closer-look-sanctions-in-france-developments-signal-tighter-approach-national-level

Blocking progress: The damaging side effects of economic sanctions. Institute of Economic Affairs. (2018, November 30). https://iea.org.uk/publications/blocking-progress-the-damaging-side-effects-of-economic-sanctions/

Do sanctions actually work? experts evaluate the efficacy of this widely used foreign policy tool | Johns Hopkins in Washington, D.C. (n.d.-a). https://washingtondc.jhu.edu/news/do-sanctions-actually-work-experts-evaluate-the-efficacy-of-this-widely-used-foreign-policy-tool/

Sanctions | security council. (n.d.). https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/information
United Nations. (n.d.). UN sanctions: What they are, how they work, and who uses them | UN News. United Nations. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/05/528382-un-sanctions-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-who-uses-them

Topic: 2026 – Implementation of Sanctions
Country: Iran
Delegate Name: Ella Hood

Sanctions are key aspects to international safety because of how they can alter behavior and punish bad actions to better the security of nations. They thoughtfully allow laws to be properly and effectively reinforced and for illegal behavior to be thoughtfully taken care of. Sanctions can influence the behavior of states and urge actions to be carried out by nations. Key types of sanctions include economic, military, travel and more of the sort (What are Sanctions). These specific kinds can restrict financial transactions such as trade and tell an individual where they can and cannot go. They are also able to freeze bank accounts and suspend investment opportunities for whoever means necessary. Sanctions can also target big groups as opposed to just specific people, which additionally secures countries. Although these positive aspects are important to apply in some cases, In Iran, sanctions are viewed as human rights violations. Sanctions in Iran have impacted towns because of their mass destruction and in all are careless acts for the governments benefit.
Currently, the sanctions process is effective in being specific to individuals and groups. Although this is true, when trying to restore appropriate and legal behavior, studies show that the efforts sometimes fail. The main challenge to success for the international sector of the sanctions process is how most individuals can quickly come back from the effects of the sanctions. They typically will have an alternate mechanism, which makes the effort of the sanction pointless. Specifically in Iran, the sanctions process is viewed as effective in limiting illegal activity, but the improvements are broad and slim. Targeted sanctions in Iran have been more likely to disrupt the financial situations of the general population rather than make actual improvements to Iran’s security. This proves that sanctions more so are only helpful for the government of Iran, as they disturb family life. In all, sanctions in Iran have moderately helped to settle illegal behavior, but no notable policies have been shifted (U.S. Sanctions on Iran). One of the main considerations when trying to better the sanctions process is the things that are holding back the success. Usual flaws include design and management, but any small mess up can impact the way it is executed. Specifically in Iran, the government has come up with ways to prevent common mistakes. The Iranian tactics can help their sanctions process be more successful through the typical problems.
Ultimately, the delegation of Iran believes that the best way to develop a high-quality solution with their national sanctions is to move beyond what is being done internationally. If the Iranian government can come up with unique tactics that are not expected, this will lead to individual success. No preparation can be done if nobody knows what to expect. Additionally, focusing on many sectors of crime as opposed to large groups will help eliminate all types of crime rather than broad illegal activity. Another main issue that needs to be resolved is that sanctions in Iran have been wrongfully impacting the overall population. The delegation of Iran proposes that sanctions be better monitored overall. This wish will help to better ensure that families don’t experience the bad side effects of the sanction process. This conclusively would lead to Iranian trust in sanctions and help the overall process to be upgraded over the upcoming years.

Position papers for SIMUN 2026 will appear above this line, with the newest being at the top.