Adi Imsirovic
Sanctions Risk Losing Credibility Through Inconsistent Enforcement
Sanctions are only as effective as the rules that govern their enforcement. Recent developments suggest that those rules are becoming less clear, not more.
The boarding of a tanker in the North Atlantic linked to Venezuelan sanctions, and later found to be reflagged to Russia mid-voyage, exposed the growing legal and operational ambiguity surrounding enforcement. When a vessel’s status can change during transit, questions arise not just about jurisdiction, but about where enforcement thresholds actually sit. This is no longer a technical issue; it is a credibility one.
Europe has already paid a high price for sanctions. It no longer imports Russian crude or products and is now tightening restrictions on fuels refined from Russian oil. These measures increase compliance burdens and costs, yet they do little to resolve a central challenge: once oil is blended, refined, and moved across multiple jurisdictions, tracing origin becomes close to impossible. Enforcement increasingly relies on judgment calls rather than clear, repeatable rules.
Sanctions are most effective when applied consistently and backed by coordinated financial pressure. Secondary sanctions have historically been powerful tools, but uneven application creates space for adaptation rather than deterrence. Selective enforcement does not eliminate sanctioned trade, it reshapes it.
Overlaying all of this is uncertainty around policy direction. Enforcement actions appear reactive and situational, making it difficult for markets, governments, and companies to understand what will trigger intervention and what will not. That unpredictability weakens deterrence and raises the risk of miscalculation.
Sanctions do not fail overnight. They erode when rules become discretionary. The real danger is not that enforcement becomes tougher, but that it becomes less coherent, and therefore less credible.