On the first day of the UNSC council, there were discussions on economic sanctions as a possible penalty for the violation of ceasefire agreements. Some nations believed that they would be suitable deterrents for such violations and some others believed that they would achieve the exact opposite effect, hence exacerbating the problem.
The delegate of the USA proposed economic sanctions as a basic guideline before further measures are taken such that it would be “a one size fits all solution”. It was proposed that economic sanctions could deter countries from breaching ceasefire agreements by acting as a potential penalty and by safeguarding the interests of both nations.
However, the delegate of Ethiopia disagreed, reasoning that “different countries have different economic standings”, thus it would be merciless and unfair to enforce these rules on poorer countries who may not have the means to pay these penalties, given that many of these disputes occur specifically due to wealth gaps present in certain areas.
Furthermore, the delegate of Russia raised a point that if countries were aware of the possible penalty, it might deter them from agreeing to a ceasefire in the first place. Should the war rage
on, there would be severe consequences including unrest and instability. Innocent lives will be lost and a downsurge on the quality of life in affected countries would follow.
A possibility was raised pertaining to whether economic sanctions should be made customisable to fit the needs of the specific countries involved. Nevertheless, in order for this to become a reality, delegates in the UNSC will need to come up with guidelines to ensure that the extent of reparations that the country needs to make is indeed proportional to its economic state.
Meanwhile, in order to ensure that ceasefires will remain desirable, further negotiations have yet to be seen in the UNSC council.