The symbolic purposes of sanctions: Australian and Canadian reactions to Afghanistan

Academic and political debates about international sanctions tend to focus on the instrumental purposes of these measures—their ability to hurt a target state sufficiently to cause it to change its behaviour. By contrast, the symbolic purposes of sanctions are commonly assumed not to be as important. Such assumptions are appropriate for states which have the capabilities necessary to achieve these ends—great powers or regional powers targetting very weak neighbours, for example. But are these assumptions useful in explaining the sanctions policies of non‐great powers, particularly those which impose sanctions against great powers? This paper explores the case of Australian and Canadian sanctions against the USSR after the invasion of Afghanistan and demonstrates the fallacy of such assumptions, and argues that symbolic purposes were much more important than the instrumental utilities normally associated with sanctions theory.