Sudan stand-off will persist beyond Hamdok’s exit

Significance His departure is ostensibly a blow for Sudan’s military leaders and a symbolic victory for Sudanese calling for the military to leave power. However, the stand-off between the two groups remains fundamentally unchanged. Impacts If leaders cannot find enough civilians to form a cabinet, they may offer some posts to serving or retired military. Protests and possible strike action will continue but may have only limited impact, unless rising casualties trigger a new flashpoint. Significant new international sanctions are unlikely to materialise.

China-North Korea merchandise trade and tourism industry relationship in stage 2017-2019 under the impact of International sanctions

Since 2017, the United Nations has strengthened the economic sanctions on North Korea. Many countries have stopped trading with North Korea, causing the economic certain difficulties. China has become a trade and tourism partner that accounting for almost all of the country's foreign currency earning. That had gone on until the beginning of 2020 when North Korea locked its borders to avoid the Covid-19 epidemic. North Korea is essentially famous for having published a quite relatively little information about themselves and being nicknamed “The Hermit Kingdom” due theirs policies. Therefore, the article will analyze mirror data from countries, then compare it with the actual situation of North Korea to assess the reliability of the data. Moreover, providing information on transport routes is major contributor to China-North Korea. Thereby, drawing comments on China-North Korea merchandise trade and tourism industry relationship in that stage and proving North Korean economic adaptation under International sanctions. The author also suggests polices to reach the North Korean development of self-reliance economics.

Lifting of International Sanctions and the Shadow Economy in Iran—A View from Outer Space

With the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2016, Iran experienced a short period without international sanctions which resulted in an annual increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) in the following two years. However, it was not just the formal economy that was affected by the sanctions. Previous studies have shown that sanctions can negatively affect the shadow (or informal) economy and may even have a larger impact on the informal economy than on the formal economy. Nighttime lights (NTL) data allow us to study shadow economy activities that are not reported in the official GDP. This study uses a panel of NTL (the DMSP/OLS and VIIRS/DNB harmonized dataset) from 1992 to 2018 for 31 Iranian provinces to investigate the association between the lifting of sanctions and the growth of the shadow economy. The empirical results suggest an increase in shadow economy activity with the lifting of sanctions while controlling for other drivers of informal activities.

Khaki Capital and Coups in Thailand and Myanmar

Military-run business activities can turn into an unrestrained form of parasitic capitalism, preying on national economies. The militaries of Thailand and Myanmar have evolved as predatory “khaki capitalist” institutions. Thailand’s military, deriving its legitimacy as guardian of the monarchy, has used that role to justify its accumulation of economic resources. Myanmar’s military, in power for most of the decades since independence, has invoked national security to expand its budget and business interests. Both militaries have repeatedly employed coups to consolidate their economic power, most recently in 2014 in Thailand and 2021 in Myanmar. Fragile democratic governments and international sanctions have proved ineffective in restraining them.

Sudan's foreign policy balance will remain fragile

Significance This goal was implicitly a response to the previous three decades of foreign relations under ousted former President Omar al-Bashir, when Sudan struggled under international sanctions, isolation and fluctuating foreign policy fortunes. Impacts Contrasting foreign policy orientations among political factions may be a source of tension within the power-sharing government. Contradictory agreements with other countries will be a liability. Foreign investment inflows will remain muted, at least until economic and political uncertainty fades.

International Sanctions

No authoritative definition of a “sanction” exists in international law, yet the term is frequently used to describe unfriendly measures short of war, particularly those of economic nature. One commonly used definition is the “deliberate, government-inspired withdrawal or threat of withdrawal of customary trade or financial relations” (Hufbauer, et al. 2007, p. 3; cited under Effectiveness of Sanctions). Discussions of sanctions typically focus on economic sanctions, which involve prohibiting economic transactions with sanctioned persons. Reasons for the imposition of sanctions vary, and governments frequently target officials of unfriendly regimes or individuals suspected of involvement in crime or terrorism. Sanctions can also include export/import or investment restrictions and can be directed against a sector of the economy that is deemed to facilitate harmful behavior (e.g., arms industry or research related to weapons of mass destruction) or be a lucrative funding source (e.g., trade in high-value goods such as diamonds, oil or timber). Travel sanctions, which preclude sanctioned individuals from entering the sanctioning state, are also common. In contrast, the original form of international sanctions, i.e., embargo on the totality of trade with another country, is now rarely used due to its far-reaching humanitarian consequences. Purely diplomatic or political measures, such as breaking off diplomatic relations, are not normally viewed as “sanctions” in the sense discussed here; the same applies to military action. The characterization of international sanctions as being “between words and wars” is thus a helpful cliché (Wallensteen and Staibano 2005, cited under General Overviews). Conversations about international sanctions generally concern two sets of issues: their objectives and effectiveness on one side, and their legality and human rights impact on the other side. These are related in that sanctions are at their most potent when applied by powerful states or international organizations, and it is also then that the issues of accountability loom large. Some sanctions, particularly those against suspected terrorists, are adopted by the UN Security Council and are thus binding on all UN members. Others are enacted by individual states or the European Union (EU), a uniquely integrated regional organization with a common foreign policy. Sanctions taken outside the UN framework are known as “unilateral,” and the United States and EU are major economic powers that make active use of unilateral sanctions.