I'm taking an international diplomacy class and we are currently studying sanctions as a tool of international diplomacy.So far I've come to understand that sanctions are a means of international diplomacy used to influence the policy of sovereign nations. Sancitons lack consistency with many of them providing meager results. They are diplomatic tools that have become increasingly relied upon. Between 1945 and 1990 the U.N. Security Council used multilateral sanctions only twice: a 1966 trade embargo against Southern Rhodesia’s white minority government and a 1977 arms embargo against South African apartheid regime. However, in the 1990’s, sanctions were used in 16 cases, which generated meager results. In the latter half of the decade, weaknesses with the policy instrument were found and widespread dissatisfaction inspired a search for more effective sanctions. Smart sanctions were the product of think tanks, research institutions, U.N. agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and they were supposed to be the answer to the weaknesses of conventional sanctions. Smart sanctions differ from conventional sanctions in two major ways: they more effectively target and penalize-via arms embargoes, financial sanctions, and travel restrictions- the political elite committing violations in the international community, and they protect vulnerable groups such as children, women and the elderly. The only problem with smart sanctions is that they lose their effectiveness because of exemptions that minimize the effects on government leaders. Sanctions are less severe than war and stronger than mere rhetoric, so they do serve a needed purpose. Although they serve a valuable service, we should not rely so heavily on them because they can only do so much.