Search

Why do some UN targeted sanctions (or "smart" sanctions) cause collateral damage to the general population, while others minimize it? We suggest the scope and the effectiveness of smart sanctions, as well as the political institutions of target countries, are critical determinants of sanctions' adverse effects on human rights. Leaders targeted by sanctions with a broad scope will have a greater incentive to oppress people to ward off potential support for challengers. The degree to which they can carry out successful oppression, however, hinges upon the effectiveness of the implementation of sanctions. Furthermore, we expect that authoritarian systems are more likely to encourage oppression than other ones. We conduct a quantitative analysis of 56 UN-imposed smart sanction episodes. Our study reveals sanctions with a broad scope that are less effective result in deteriorated human rights conditions, especially in authoritarian countries. However, we find when sanctions with a narrow scope work effectively, they do not hurt innocent citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the clean development mechanism (CDM) in order to overcome the limits that exist in the conventional financing methods for North Korea's development. In examining North Korea's CDM projects implemented thus far, it is found that the use of the CDM as a financing platform for North Korea's development is taking place at a very low level. However, if North Korea applies this framework effectively, it can expect additional financial inflows and technology transfer. Especially with regard to financial inflows, the diverse finances used in the implementation of CDM projects can also be adopted into North Korean CDM projects. Moreover, the adoption methods are expected to be more innovative than the conventional finance for development (FfD) methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to identify aid discourses as applied to the North Korean case, and examines whether or not international assistance has been promptly delivered. The aid discourse on fragile states in accordance with the New Deal, which focuses on strengthening a recipient country's foundation of development by alleviating its fragility, is deemed to be the relevant discourse because the international community considers North Korea to be a fragile state. However, the corresponding norms have not been applied by major international donors in the delivery and disbursement of aid to North Korea, despite its fragile state status and in spite of the fact that its fragility has not declined and is still perceived to be critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]