A B S T R A C T

U.S. sanctions' extraterritorial reach has drawn significant attention in the field of international trade law, impacting diplomatic ties and international business activities. This study examines the effects of US sanctions on organizations and people not subject to US law, evaluating the legal ramifications of such actions within the context of international trade law. The study explores how these penalties penetrate international borders, looking at executive and legislative measures including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) rules. The paper uses case studies of Iran, Russia and China to illustrate how extraterritorial U.S. sanctions impact global trade, corporate behavior, and legal responses. Additionally, quantitative data from global institutions assess their economic effects on trade, investment, and supply chains. The study concludes by exploring the legal tensions between U.S. sanctions and international trade law, offering policy recommendations for balancing sanctions with global legal norms. The analysis focuses on essential case studies where foreign entities, such as financial institutions and multinational enterprises, have been severely harmed by U.S. sanctions, leading to legal and compliance issues in multiple jurisdictions. This article clarifies how these sanctions alter the dynamics of international commerce, impose compliance obligations on multinational corporations, and potentially violate national sovereignty and international trade agreements by looking at significant instances and legal precedents. It also considers the wider ramifications for the stability of the world economy and the changing face of international regulatory cooperation. The results show contradictions between unilateral punitive policies and multilateral trade norms, highlighting a complex interplay between national security objectives and global economic obligations. This research aims to present a thorough grasp of the legal ramifications of extraterritorial U.S. penalties and how they affect international trade law. It adds to the continuing discussions over how to balance national regulatory power and international legal norms by providing insights into the operational and legal difficulties faced by multinational entities. According to the research, to effectively manage the intricacies of a globally interconnected economy, sanctions policy, and international legal harmonization need to be approached with greater nuance.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63471/ilprom24002 @ 2024 International Law Policy Review Organizational Management (ILPROM), C5K Research Publication

1. Introduction 

Sanctions imposed by the United States have a significant impact outside its boundaries, making them an effective tool in international geopolitics. Imposing sanctions outside national borders creates a challenging junction between international trade law and domestic regulatory policies. Throughout history, economic sanctions have become an increasingly potent tool in coercive foreign policy, particularly since World War II (Felbermayr et al., 2020). Because of this, financial penalties are thought to have primarily political motivations and policy objectives (Kirilakha, 2022). More precisely, sanctions have been understood as acts taken by international organizations or sanctioning states to punish, restrain, or generally influencing the conduct of sanctioned states, businesses, and/or influential elites. The US frequently targets entire countries, specific industries, or individuals with sanctions to further its foreign policy objectives. Due to the extraterritorial character of these sanctions, which apply to entities outside of US jurisdiction, there are serious legal issues and difficulties with international trade. US sanctions have been used historically to address a range of topics, from threats to national security to human rights violations, and they have had a growing impact on the state of the world economy (Hufbauer et al., 1990) . These sanctions are enforced by the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which frequently has unexpected repercussions for non-US companies engaged in international trade (Kreps & Das, 2017) .

US sanctions have emerged as a critical component of US foreign policy in the twenty-first century, to apply economic pressure to change international behavior. Since the end of the Cold War, sanctions have been applied in various ways, and their use has dramatically increased since 9/11. The effectiveness of such measures has been disputed by academics, with some contending that they are crucial in accomplishing governmental goals without using military force (Pape, 1997). How targets behave or see risk and how they build expectations will ultimately determine how a threat of punishment is received. Others, however, draw attention to the detrimental impacts on world trade and the possibility that sanctions could jeopardize international economic stability (Baldwin, 1985) . This essay examines critically these aspects, paying special particular attention to how US sanctions relating to international trade law and their extraterritorial effects. Foreign companies are frequently forced to negotiate the contradictory legal requirements of both US and non-US countries due to extraterritorial sanctions (Hufbauer & Jung, 2020) . The European Union's reaction to US sanctions on Iran of exemplifying the intricacy of these legal environments. EU legislation aimed to protect European companies from US penalties, underscoring the conflict between US policies and European legal frameworks (Samar, 2022) . 

The effects of US sanctions on China and Russia highlight the wider geopolitical repercussions, with multinational corporations under pressure to comply with US sanctions or fear being shut out of profitable markets (Giumelli & Ivan, 2013). The imposition of sanctions by the US outside of its border’s calls into question basic notions of sovereignty and national jurisdiction. Economic agents in the target and sender states may act perversely in response to international sanctions, which could have beneficial or harmful effects on global trade (Van Bergeijk, 2014). However, the implementation of economic sanctions is frequently received with strong criticism, which stems from the unfortunate reality that, even though these actions are aimed against governments, the population of the target state is typically the one who shoulders the expenses. It is stated that sanctions have catastrophic effects on the civilian population since they can significantly impact access to clean water, food, medicine, and health care services. They can also negatively impact life expectancy and infant mortality. As US sanctions impact foreign firms working in their own countries or third-party nations, the fundamental tenet of international law, the principle of non-intervention, is put to the test (Drezner, 1999). Due to the globalized nature of commerce and finance, the impact of US sanctions is exacerbated by the influence of US financial institutions and the US dollar's supremacy in international transactions (O'hara & Hall, 2018).

International trade law is significantly affected by the legal and economic ramifications of the U.S. sanctions' extraterritorial reach (Janeba, 2024; Piri & Sohrabi, 2020). This research examines how US sanctions have affected the world, paying particular attention to their extraterritorial reach and the ensuing legal qualifications for international trade law. Although the United States' sanctions are intended to further its foreign policy and national security goals, their implementation frequently violates international law norms and jeopardizes the multilateral economic system (BÉRARD et al., 2021).The study zeroes in on how these sanctions, which can affect entities outside U.S. borders, create complex legal issues for global commerce. By examining a range of case studies and recent developments, the research provides a detailed understanding of the broader effects of U.S. sanctions on the international trading system and the associated legal hurdles. One key aspect of the study is its exploration of how extraterritorial sanctions influence international legal frameworks. This involves analyzing how such sanctions can clash with the laws of other nations and international trade regulations, leading to intricate legal conflicts. The research also addresses the practical implications for multinational corporations. These companies often face significant challenges in complying with U.S. sanctions, including operational disruptions and financial risks, as they navigate the complexities of adhering to diverse legal requirements across different jurisdictions. Additionally, the study looks into the enforcement mechanisms for these sanctions, examining how U.S. authorities apply and implement them globally. It considers the impact on global enforcement practices and the broader implications for international trade governance. In summary, this research aims to illuminate the multifaceted effects of U.S. sanctions on worldwide trade and legal systems, offering insights into how these sanctions shape international commerce and the legal landscape for businesses operating worldwide

2. Literature Review

The global impact of U.S. sanctions, particularly their extraterritorial reach and legal implications for international trade law, is a multifaceted topic that has garnered substantial academic attention. This literature review examines key scholarly contributions to understanding how U.S. sanctions influence global trade dynamics, their legal challenges, and their extraterritorial effects. Economic sanctions have been a primary tool of U.S. foreign policy since the early 20th century. Orakhelashvili (2011) explores the broader concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law, questioning the legitimacy of U.S. sanctions that seek to apply U.S. law beyond its borders (Orakhelashvili, 2011). Scholars like Baldwin and Hufbauer et al. have extensively analyzed their effectiveness. Baldwin's work on economic statecraft argues that sanctions can effectively achieve foreign policy objectives, provided they are well-designed and target essential economic sectors. Hufbauer et al. refines this by distinguishing between comprehensive and targeted sanctions, finding that the latter is generally more effective and less harmful to civilian populations. These works provide a foundation for understanding the intended outcomes of sanctions and set the stage for analyzing their extraterritorial impacts (Baldwin, 1985; Hufbauer & Jung, 2021)

U.S. sanctions are increasingly being applied extraterritorial, impacting organizations and transactions not under U.S. jurisdiction. In his exploration of the idea of "financial statecraft," Drezner emphasizes how U.S. sanctions use the dominance of the US dollar and the financial system worldwide to further their objectives (Drezner, 1999). Understanding this idea is essential to comprehending how US sanctions affect international trade law and world markets. Kreps highlights the difficulties international companies face operating under contradictory legal regimes as she investigates the legal complications and disputes resulting from extraterritorial sanctions. According to Kreps, foreign businesses are subject to demanding compliance requirements due to U.S. sanctions, which frequently result in legal and practical issues (Kreps & Schneider, 2019). This understanding is essential for evaluating the real-world effects of US sanctions on international trade. There is a great deal of conflict between American and nonAmerican legal systems as seen by the reactions of other countries to US extraterritorial sanctions. According to Kinnunen's analysis, the European Union's reaction to the United States' sanctions against Iran highlights the differences in U.S. and EU regulatory policies. One example of how foreign entities try to lessen the impact of extraterritorial measures is the EU's Blocking Statute, which aims to counterbalance the effects of U.S. sanctions. Kinnunen's research offers significant perspectives on other international players' legal strategies to contest US sanctions (Brajesh & Avanish, 2022).

Schott delves more into the U.S. dollar's place in international trade and banking, emphasizing how its strength strengthens U.S. sanctions' impact and presents serious legal and financial obstacles for non-U.S. players (Schott et al., 2015). The global economic system's larger effects of US sanctions are better understood in light of this analysis. Case studies provide useful information about how U.S. sanctions affect particular industries and nations. Giumelli highlighted the effects of sector-specific sanctions on Iran's economy and how they can upset international commerce and economic stability (Giumelli & Ivan, 2013). In a similar vein, Hufbauer & Jung examine how US sanctions affect Russia, highlighting how sanctions may affect global economic linkages and geopolitical dynamics (Hufbauer & Jung, 2020). These case studies offer specific instances of how U.S. sanctions impact foreign trade and the legal difficulties that face multinational corporations. Theoretical viewpoints on the measures and their effects provide additional background for comprehending sanctions' worldwide implications. Pape questions the effectiveness of economic sanctions, claiming that they frequently fall short of goals and sometimes have unexpected effects (Pape, 1997). This analysis is critical to determining US sanctions' overall efficacy and validity.

Weiss delves into more general concerns about international governance and the UN, pertinent to comprehending how international organizations regulate and react to extraterritorial penalties. Weiss's analysis highlights the significance of global collaboration and legal structures in tackling the obstacles presented by U.S. sanctions. The intricate relationship between U.S. sanctions, their extraterritorial reach, and international trade law is highlighted in this literature overview. The success of penalties, the legal issues that result from their extraterritorial application, and the reactions of global players have all been studied by academics. Understanding the worldwide effects of US sanctions and the legal difficulties they create requires knowledge gleaned from this research. The study emphasizes the need for more investigation into how U.S. sanctions affect the dynamics of international trade and the legal structures governing their implementation (Weiss, 2016).

This research paper aims to critically analyze the global impact of US sanctions by examining their extraterritorial reach and assessing their legal implications for international trade law. The study will investigate how US sanctions affect foreign entities and trade activities beyond American borders, analyze conflicts between these sanctions and international trade laws, and evaluate the responses of affected countries and multinational corporations. The research will also propose recommendations for reconciling US sanctions with global trade regulations. Ultimately, it seeks to enhance understanding of the interplay between national sanctions and international trade norms, o

3. Methodology  

This research paper investigates the global impact of U.S. sanctions, focusing on their extraterritorial reach and the resulting legal implications for international trade law. The study employs a multi-method approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative research techniques to provide a comprehensive analysis. This methodology ensures a thorough examination of the topic from various perspectives, including legal analysis, case studies, and quantitative impact assessments. By using a combination of legal analysis, case studies, expert interviews, and economic data, this research will offer a holistic view of how U.S. sanctions impact global trade. It will explore the legal conflicts they create, particularly with international trade law, and examine their broader geopolitical and economic consequences.

4. Research Design

The primary goals of the exploratory and descriptive study approach are to comprehend the complex impacts of US sanctions on international trade and legal systems. The research aims to address multiple essential inquiries:

1. How do U.S. sanctions impact various jurisdictions' international trade and legal practices?
2. What are the extraterritorial implications of these sanctions for multinational corporations and foreign governments?
3. How do different international legal frameworks respond to and manage the conflicts arising from U.S. sanctions? Fig. 1 shows process flow for data collection and analysis 

Flow chart:

Fig. 1. Process Flow for Data Collection and Analysis.

4.1. Data Collection:

In this study, document analysis forms the core of the qualitative research, focusing on key sources such as official sanctions regulations from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), international treaties, and legal case studies addressing the extraterritorial reach of U.S. sanctions. Case studies further explore the real-world impact of U.S. sanctions on Iran, Russia, and China, highlighting their effects on international trade and legal frameworks. Semi-structured interviews with legal experts, multinational corporations, and policy analysts provide additional qualitative insights into the practical challenges and legal dilemmas faced by entities impacted by U.S. sanctions. This multi-method approach aims to offer a comprehensive understanding of the legal and regulatory environment surrounding U.S. sanctions.

4.2. Data Analysis:

Data analysis in this study involves both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative data from document analysis are examined using thematic analysis to identify key themes and patterns regarding the impact of U.S. sanctions on international trade and legal practices. This includes comparing different perspectives and synthesizing insights from case studies to uncover common challenges and responses. Quantitative analysis assesses the economic impact of sanctions by analyzing trade data and financial indicators to gauge their effects on target countries and sectors. Econometric models evaluate correlations between sanctions and changes in trade volumes, foreign direct investment, and economic performance. Statistical software like STATA or SPSS facilitates this rigorous economic-financial analysis.

4.3. Comparative Analysis:

The research features a comparative analysis of how different countries, including Iran, China, and Russia, have responded to U.S. sanctions. It explores how these jurisdictions have modified their legal frameworks to counter the extraterritorial impact of U.S. sanctions, adapting their laws to protect their economic interests. The study also evaluates the effectiveness of these legal adaptations and their influence on international trade. By comparing these responses, the research highlights countries' varying strategies to manage the challenges posed by U.S. sanctions and their broader implications for global commerce.

4.4. Final Observation:

The multi-method approach in this study provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing the global impact of U.S. sanctions, focusing on their extraterritorial reach and legal implications in international trade law. Combining qualitative methods (case studies) with quantitative techniques (econometric modeling of trade data), the research offers insights into both the practical and economic consequences of sanctions. The comparative analysis of responses from countries like Iran, China, and Russia further enriches the understanding of how legal frameworks adapt to mitigate sanctions' effects. Overall, this approach ensures a thorough exploration of the sanctions' global repercussions.

5. Results and Discussion

The study utilized document analysis, case studies and quantitative data to gather comprehensive results. The findings reveal how U.S. sanctions extend beyond national borders, affecting global trade and creating complex legal issues. This research investigates the global effects of U.S. sanctions, particularly their extraterritorial impact and legal ramifications for international trade law. These results are then contextualized within the broader framework of international trade law and geopolitics, illustrating how such sanctions interact with global legal systems and influence international relations.

Fig. 2. Sanctions impositions over the period 2006-2019. 

Source: GLOBAL ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE: SANCTIONS, SUPPLY CHAINS AND SUSTAINABILITY

This Fig. 2 shows the annual count of new sanctions imposed from 2006 to 2019. It visually represents trends and fluctuations in the frequency of sanctions over these years, providing insight into how the intensity and application of sanctions have evolved during this period as mentioned in Table 1.

Details about US and UN Sanctions: The dataset includes all UN and US sanctions imposed between 1976 and 2012. For UN sanctions, data was sourced from the UN website and cross-referenced with Wood's (2008) dataset, which, while outdated, provided an initial framework. The dataset was further enriched with US sanctions data from Hofbauer et al. (2009) and official US Congress webpages to ensure completeness. Each sanction was classified according to Wood's (2008) definitions into three categories: "mild" for less severe measures like diplomatic restrictions, "moderate" for more impactful actions such as trade restrictions, and "severe" for comprehensive measures like economic embargoes. This classification system helps analyze the scope and intensity of sanctions over time and their effects on targeted countries.

Table 1: Sanction category definition

Fig. 3. The progression of the intensity of UN sanctions

Source: Neuenkirch, M., & Neumeier, F. (2015). The impact of UN and US economic sanctions on GDP growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 110-125.

 Fig. 4. The progression of the intensity

Source: Neuenkirch, M., & Neumeier, F. (2015). The impact of UN and US economic sanctions on GDP growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 110-125

Figs. 3 and 4 depict the trends in the frequency and severity of sanctions over time. The data shows that UN sanctions are much less common than US ones. Specifically, UN sanctions appear in only 200 country/year observations, 9.3% of the total, whereas US sanctions are present in 618 observations, making up 28.6%. Furthermore, UN sanctions target just 23 countries, while US sanctions affect 64 countries with at least one instance of non-zero sanctions. On average, US sanctions are also more severe, with 21.8% falling into the most severe category (category 3), compared to only 12% for UN sanctions. This discrepancy is expected given that UN sanctions require approval from the UN Security Council, which includes five vetowielding powers. In contrast, US sanctions need only pass through the US legislative process. Additionally, there was a significant rise in UN sanctions after the Cold War ended, peaking in the 1990s due to events like the First Gulf War, the Yugoslav Wars, and various civil conflicts in Africa.

Impact of US sanctions on Iran’s GDP growth:

Fig. 5. Iranian GDP growth over the period (2017- 2023)

Source: IMF

Fig. 5 shows that: From 2017 to 2023, Iran's economic performance has been significantly shaped by domestic policies and international sanctions. During the period from 2017 to 2019, Iran saw an unstable GDP growth, with an increase of approximately 2.8% in 2017 and a decrease -1.8% in 2018, largely it increase in 2017 due to recovery in the oil sector and the effects of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, the re-imposition of US sanctions in May 2018 marked a dramatic shift following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA. Sanctions targeting Iran's oil exports and financial sector led to a severe economic downturn, with GDP contracting by around -3.1% in 2019, which was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although GDP growth in 2020 was 3.3%.

From 2021 to 2023, Iran tried to stabilize its economy through reforms and seeking alternative trade partnerships, resulting in a partial recovery. GDP growth was about 4.7% in 2021 and showed modest improvement to around 4.7% in 2023. Despite these efforts, persistent sanctions and geopolitical tensions continued to limit Iran’s economic potential, particularly affecting its oil and financial sectors. The impact underscores the complex interplay between international sanctions and national economic performance.

Impact of US sanctions on Russia’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):

Fig. 6. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Russia (2015-2022) 

Fig. 6 shows that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Russia from 2015 to 2022 has been significantly affected by domestic factors and international sanctions. From 2015 to 2019, Russia attracted stable FDI inflows driven by its natural resources and strategic location. Investment peaked in 2018 at around $8.78 billion, with renewed interest in the technology and manufacturing sectors. However, geopolitical uncertainties and domestic challenges dampened investor sentiment by 2019. The imposition of US sanctions, particularly post2014 Crimea annexation and the 2018 Skripal incident, deeply impacted Russia's FDI landscape. These sanctions targeted vital sectors such as finance, energy, and defense, restricting access to international markets and technology. Consequently, FDI declined significantly, further plummeting to $9.48 billion in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite efforts to revive the investment climate through reforms and incentives from 2021 onward, FDI recovery remained modest, reaching around $40.45 billion in 2021, and in 2022, it went negative, which was $-39.8 billion. Persistent sanctions and geopolitical tensions continued to constrain investment, highlighting the complex impact of international relations on Russia's economic performance.

Impact of US sanctions on US annual percentage change in goods trade deficit with China:

Fig. 7. US annual percentage change in goods trade deficit with China. 

Source: US Census Bureau

Fig. 7 shows that the trade relationship between the United States and China, two of the world's largest economies, has been marked by significant fluctuations in the US goods trade deficit from 2018 to 2022, influenced heavily by US sanctions and trade policies. In 2018, the US goods trade deficit with China stood at approximately 12% of total trade, which marked the beginning of heightened trade tensions with the initiation of the US-China trade war. Despite the imposition of tariffs to address trade imbalances and intellectual property issues, the deficit remained high due to continued substantial imports from China. The trend shifted in 2019, with the deficit decreasing to around -18% of total trade, a 30% reduction from 2018. This decline was attributed to the tariffs' impact, which increased costs for American consumers and businesses and reduced imports of some Chinese goods. However, the deficit remained substantial, revealing the limited effectiveness of tariffs in significantly altering trade balances. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted global trade, causing the deficit to fall to about -21% of total trade, a 3% decrease from the previous year. The pandemic led to significant supply chain interruptions and reduced global demand for goods. In 2021, as the global economy began to recover, the deficit rose again to approximately 15% of total trade, driven by increased trade volumes despite ongoing tariffs. By 2022, the deficit hovered around -9% of total trade, reflecting persistent tariffs, trade restrictions, and broader economic uncertainties. US sanctions and trade policies have significantly impacted the trade deficit by affecting import and export dynamics. While tariffs reduced imports of certain Chinese goods, they also increased costs for American consumers and businesses, and retaliatory measures from China further influenced the trade balance. Despite efforts to address trade imbalances, the deficit remained a persistent feature of the US-China economic relationship, highlighting the complexities of using tariffs and sanctions to achieve substantial trade balance improvements.

The research highlights the significant global impact of U.S. sanctions, particularly their extraterritorial reach and the legal challenges they pose for international trade law. The findings underscore the effectiveness of sanctions in achieving foreign policy objectives but also reveal the unintended economic and legal consequences for affected countries and multinational corporations. The findings suggest that while U.S. sanctions can achieve specific foreign policy objectives, they often have unintended economic and legal consequences. For instance, the decline in trade volumes for Iran and FDI in Russia underscores the effectiveness of sanctions in disrupting economic activity. However, these disruptions can also affect global trade stability and economic relations, as seen in the decreased FDI in Russia and the trade decline in Iran. The extraterritorial reach of U.S. sanctions creates significant legal friction for multinational corporations. The European Union's Blocking Statute is an example of how jurisdictions outside the U.S. attempt to mitigate the impact of extraterritorial sanctions.

The limited effectiveness of such measures highlights the challenges of reconciling differing legal frameworks and the substantial compliance costs incurred by companies operating in sanctioned markets. The extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions raises essential questions about the compatibility of national sanctions regimes with international trade law. The dominance of the U.S. dollar and financial system amplifies the impact of U.S. sanctions, creating a de facto extraterritorial reach that affects global trade dynamics. This situation challenges international legal frameworks designed to manage cross-border economic activities and ensure equitable trade practices. The geopolitical implications of U.S. sanctions are evident in the responses of other major economies. For instance, the EU's legislative measures and China’s strategies to counteract U.S. sanctions reflect a broader trend of balancing national interests with international regulatory obligations. These responses illustrate the complex interplay between national sovereignty and global economic governance. The discussion emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of the intersection between national sanctions regimes and international trade law and the importance of considering the broader geopolitical implications of such measures.

6. Conclusion 

This research paper has explored the global impact of U.S. sanctions, emphasizing their extraterritorial reach and the associated legal implications for international trade law. The analysis reveals that while U.S. sanctions are a powerful tool for achieving foreign policy objectives, their application extends far beyond American borders, creating significant repercussions for global trade and legal systems. The results show that trade and economic activity in the targeted nations can be successfully disrupted by U.S. sanctions, as demonstrated by the decrease in trade volumes in Iran and the decrease in foreign direct investment in Russia. However, because the fines are extraterritorial, they can have unintended implications that increase compliance costs for global firms and complicate legal disputes. The report emphasizes the challenges that organizations operating abroad and in sanctioned nations face in navigating competing legal requirements, which can result in significant operational and financial costs. The question of whether U.S. penalties are compliant with international trade law is brought up by their extraterritorial implementation. The impact of these penalties is increased by the dominance of the US dollar and financial system, which has de facto extraterritorial implications that threaten the stability of international trade and economic governance. Other big economies' responses, including China's strategic adjustments and the European Union's Blocking Statute, highlight the continuous battle to strike a balance between national interests and international regulatory frameworks. In conclusion, even though U.S. sanctions are an important tool for foreign policy, their wider effects must be carefully considered in light of how they would affect international trade and legal standards. Future studies should concentrate on investigating ways to balance international trade law and national sanctions regimes in order to lessen their negative effects and improve global economic stability.

References 

Baldwin, D. (1985). Economic Statecraft، Princeton، Princeton University Press. PP189.

BÉRARD, M.-H., FABRY, E., FATAH, F., KNUDSEN, E., LAMY, P., PONS, G., SCHWEITZER, L., & VIMONT, P. (2021). AMERICAN EXTRATERRITORIAL SANCTIONS.

 Brajesh, M., & Avanish, K. (2022). EXPLORING CONNECTEDNESS BETWEEN REGULATORY IDENTITY AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления(6 Special Issue II), 96-121.

Drezner, D. W. (1999). The sanctions paradox: Economic statecraft and international relations. Cambridge University Press

Felbermayr, G., Kirilakha, A., Syropoulos, C., Yalcin, E., & Yotov, Y. V. (2020). The global sanctions data base. European Economic Review, 129, 103561.

Giumelli, F., & Ivan, P. (2013). The effectiveness of EU sanctions. EPC issue paper, 76, 1-43.

Hufbauer, G. C., & Jung, E. (2020). What's new in economic sanctions? European Economic Review, 130, 103572.

Hufbauer, G. C., & Jung, E. (2021). Economic sanctions in the twenty-first century. In Research handbook on economic sanctions (pp. 26-43). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., & Elliott, K. A. (1990). Economic sanctions reconsidered: History and current policy (Vol. 1). Peterson Institute.

Janeba, E. (2024). Extraterritorial trade sanctions: Theory and application to the US–Iran–EU conflict. Review of International Economics, 32(1), 49-71.

Kirilakha, A. (2022). Three Essays on Sanctions Drexel University].

Kreps, S., & Das, D. (2017). Warring from the virtual to the real: Assessing the public’s threshold for war over cyber security. Research & Politics, 4(2), 2053168017715930.

Kreps, S., & Schneider, J. (2019). Escalation firebreaks in the cyber, conventional, and nuclear domains: moving beyond effects-based logics. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), tyz007.

O'hara, K., & Hall, W. (2018). Four internets: The geopolitics of digital governance.

Orakhelashvili, A. (2011). International law, international politics and ideology. In Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pape, R. A. (1997). Why economic sanctions do not work. International security, 22(2), 90-136.

Piri, M., & Sohrabi, R. (2020). The US Extraterritorial Sanctions against Iran and its Compatibility with the World Trade Organization Rules. Public Law Studies Quarterly50 (4).

Samar, O. (2022). Beyond Resettlement: Complementary Pathways to Protection in the EU

Schott, J. J., Miner, S., Kirkegaard, J. F., Hellebrandt, T., Mauro, P., Lawrence, R. Z., Merler, S., & Veron, N. (2015). China's Economic Transformation: Lessons, Impact, and the Path Forward. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Van Bergeijk, P. A. (2014). Economic diplomacy and the geography of international trade. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Weiss, T. G. (2016). Rising powers, global governance, and the United Nations. Rising Powers Quarterly, 1(2), 7-19.