Attaching an economic cost to bad behavior acts as a disincentive . The economic cost of sanctions can directly improve the problem of dangerous behavior by a foreign government, by limiting that government's capacity to engage in the offending practices. Such was the logic behind President Teddy Roosevelt's decision to discontinue the sale of American scrap metals and fuel oil to Japan. Since Japan was heavily dependent on imported fuel and metals, Roosevelt thought an embargo of those goods could halt the Japanese war effort. Sanctions express commitment to norms of international conduct, human rights, and nonaggression.
Sanctions reinforce such norms by holding the aggressors accountable.
Sanctions go beyond rhetoric and promises, and converts policy into action. A 1992 GAO report strengthens this argument citing that such sanctions are effective by punishing violators or by deterring potential violations by the threat of subsequent penalties. In the post-Cold War era , as leaders are more focused on technological and economic success, sanctions have the potential for even greater impact. Because of the trend toward economic integration and globalization of trade, sanctions are now an even more powerful tool . This is a reality understood, not just by the U.S., but by other countries such as Canada who has used unilateral sanctions against the Abacha regime in Nigeria and has been working on a similar approach to Burma.