Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the use of economic sanctions as a tool of international policy, focusing specifically on their application to Syria. The study reviews key definitions and types of economic sanctions, highlighting their role in influencing state behaviour while avoiding military intervention. Using a case study methodology, this analysis examines the sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and other international actors since 2011. The paper assesses the economic and humanitarian implications of these measures, including substantial declines in national GDP, disruptions to oil production, inflation, food insecurity, and restricted access to essential medicines. The research also considers the ethical and legal debates surrounding sanctions, emphasising their disproportionate impact on civilian populations rather than political elites. The findings indicate that while sanctions aim to achieve strategic political objectives, their implementation often exacerbates humanitarian crises and undermines human rights. The paper concludes that multilateral coordination and targeted, “smart” sanctions are more effective and ethically justified than broad comprehensive measures. A balanced approach that aligns political goals with humanitarian considerations is necessary for a fair and sustainable application of economic sanctions in international relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".