Given the poor track record of sanctions in achieving their foreign policy goals, the conventional wisdom that civilian pain leads to political gain is being questioned. Many ask whether the costs of sanctions are worth the results. In response to these concerns, practitioners and scholars alike have been seeking for ways to fine-tune sanctions to direct their force against the those in power. Obviously the two concepts overlap. Arms Embargoes, Travel Bans and Asset Freezes Arms embargoes are targeted in the sense that their purpose is to bend military and political leaders by denying them access to weapons and other military equipment, while sparing the civilian population.
Arms embargoes seek to reduce violent conflict by reducing access to weapons.
In addition, arms embargoes help identify and stigmatize those who violate international norms. Since 1990 the UN Security Council has imposed ten arms embargoes in an effort to limit local conflicts. Yet the effectiveness of arms embargoes in ending conflicts remains elusive. Only the use of force convinced the warring factions in Sierra Leone to lay down their arms, and seven years after the Angolan arms embargo, civil war remains in full swing. Weak enforcement, poor monitoring, and dire conditions in bordering countries all work to undermine arms embargoes.