Влияние экономических санкций на политику и экономику России

Муниципальное бюджетное общеобразовательное учреждение «Гимназия г. Навашино»

Окружная научно-практическая конференция обучающихся на иностранных языках «Шекспировские чтения»

Исследовательская работа на тему

«Influence of the Economic Sanctions on the Political Situation in the World»

Влияние экономических санкций на политическую ситуацию в мире

                     Автор: Шишкина Анастасия Дмитриевна                            

                                   9 класс 

Научный руководитель: Малина Ольга Викторовна,

 учитель английского языка

МБОУ  “Гимназия г. Навашино»

2017 г.

Contents

1.    Introduction

ü Aims and goals

ü Research methods

ü Hypothesis

2.    The history of the topic and types of sanctions.

3.    International sanctions against Russia:

ü Reasons

ü Advantages or disadvantages

ü Opinion of the people

ü Relationship between people of sanctioned countries

4.    Conclusion

METHODOLOGOCAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCH.

TOPICALITY:theinterest in this subject came out of the fact that nowadays sanctions have become a popular method to influence the policy of the independent states.

PROBLEM:how much the sanctions could affect the country economically and politically

OBJECT:different types of sanctions against the independent countries

AIM:To find out how much the sanctions influence the relationship between countries

TASKS:

• To explore the history of the use of sanctions
• To know the opinion of some people on the question
• To know whether sanctions have more advantages or disadvantages
• To draw attention of the audience to the importance of living in peace

METHODS: questioning; classification; systematization; analysis; comparison.

Hypothesis :Sanctions do not   lead to any positive effects  in the solution of any question and are often aimed at the countries which are the initiators of them.

The main practical result of the research workisunderstanding of the terrible effects from the application of sanctions not only for the country against which the sanctions are applied, but also against the countries involved in the application of sanctions

Introduction

We live in the 21st century in a fast changing world, the world of new ideas and new technologies. Nowadays trade and economic relations between the countries are very important. Any negative impact on any of the parties, can lead to irreversible consequences. One of the negative impacts on the economy of the countries is sanctions.

In the original sense of the word, a “sanction” is a penalty or punishment provided as a means of enforcing obedience to a law. In international relations, a sanction is an action designed to control the conduct of a group or country. They usually take the form of a threat of possible punitive action against a specific nation for conduct viewed as dangerous.

To define the idea of sanctions in a more detailed way we should say that economic sanctions are any actions taken by one nation or group of nations to harm the economy of another nation or group, often to force a political change.

Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another country (or group of countries). Economic sanctions may include various forms of trade barriers and restrictions on financial transactions. Economic sanctions are not necessarily imposed because of economic circumstances — they may also be imposed for a variety of political and social issues. Economic sanctions are often used as a tool of foreign policy by many governments.

There have been so many discussions about sanctions against Russia after the events in Ukraine that we have decided to do a project work dedicated to the question.

Aims and goals of the work:

ü     To find more information about sanctions

ü  to explore the history of the use of sanctions

ü     To find out whether the sanctions influence the relationship between people

ü     To draw attention of the audience to the importance of living in peace

ü     To know the opinion of  some  people on the question

ü    To know whether sanctions have more advantages or disadvantages

Research methods

ü    The analysis of resources of the Internet

ü  The analysis of publications

Hypothesis

Economic sanctions cannot seriously affect the economy of Russia. They only enhance political disagreements between countries. Sanctions do not lead to any positive effect in the solution of any question and often backfired at the countries which imposed them.

The history of the topic and types of sanctions.

Most people consider sanctions a peaceful and effective means to enforce international law. Under Article 41 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may call on Member States "to apply measures not involving the use of armed force to give effect to its decisions." Typically, sanctions cut off trade and investments, preventing a target country from buying or selling goods in the global marketplace. Sanctions may aim at particular items like arms or oil. They may cut off air traffic, suspend or drastically curtail diplomatic relations, block movement of persons, bar investments, or freeze international bank deposits. Sanctions enjoy a good reputation that many now question. Increasingly, critics charge that sanctions are cruel, unfair and even violent. International law has developed no standards on which sanctions can be based or the destructive impact of sanctions limited. Ironically, then, sanctions are used to enforce law, but themselves are outside acceptable standards of law.

Types

Reasons for sanctioning

Sanctions formulations are designed into three categories. The categories are used to differentiate between the political contexts due to the global nature of the act. First, Sanctions are designed to force cooperation with international Law. This can be seen in the sanctions placed on Iraq in Resolution No. 661 on August 6, 1990 after the initial invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The United Nations placed an Embargo on the nation in an attempt to prevent armed conflict. Resolution 665 and Resolution 670 were further added creating both naval and air blockade on Iraq.  The purpose of the initial sanctions was to coerce Iraq into following international law, which included the recognized sovereignty of Kuwait. The second category of design is those sanctions with the purpose to contain a threat to peace within a geographical boundary. The 2010 Iran nuclear proliferation debate is a contemporary example. The current United Nations Security Council passed on June 9, Resolution 1929 providing restrictions on missile and weaponry materials that could be used for the creation of destructive weapons.  This principle of restriction is to contain the possibility of Iranian aggression with in the neighboring region. The third category involves the United Nations Security Councils condemnation of actions of a specific action or policy of a member/non-member nation.^[5] The white minority declared a declaration of Rhodesian Independence on November 11, 1965. The General assemble and United Nations in a 107 to 2 vote took to condemning Rhodesia on all military economic as well as oil and petroleum products. The international display of disapproval forced sanctions onto the Rhodesian people but without a clear goal as to a remedy for the economic sanctions. The three categories are a blanket explanation on the reasons sanctions are applied to nations but it does not go as far to say that voting members share the same political reasons. It is often the case for many nations to apply self-interests with one or more of the categories when voting whether or not to implement sanctions.

Diplomatic sanctions

Diplomatic sanctions are political measures taken to express disapproval or displeasure at a certain action through diplomatic and political means, rather than affecting economic or military relations. Measures include limitations or cancellations of high-level government visits or expelling or withdrawing diplomatic missions or staff.

Economic sanctions

Economic sanctions can vary from imposing import duties on goods from, or blocking the export of certain goods to the target country, to a full naval blockade of its ports in an effort to verify, and curb or block specified imported goods.

The first known example of the use of economic sanctions was recorded in ancient Greece. In 423 BC, Athens, Hellas dominated banned merchants from Megara to visit their ports and markets. This led to the beginning of the bloody Peloponnesian wars. In the era of empires, the imposition of sanctions due mercantile reasons: powers tried to suppress international trade and accumulate as much money for the Treasury.

Well known examples of economic sanctions include the United Nations sanctions against South Africa, United Nations sanctions against Zimbabwe, United Nations sanctions against Iraq (1990–2003) and the United States embargo against Cuba (1962–present). Since 1993 many countries have imposed trade sanctions on Burma (Myanmar). South Africa is the typical case study used for giving sanctions credibility, though that is a contentious claim itself.

On May 13, 1998, the United States and Japan imposed economic sanctions on India, following its second round of nuclear tests. However, these have since been lifted.

In 2001/2002, the United States imposed economic sanctions against the state of Zimbabwe, through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 or ZDERA, S. 494, restricting access to financing, debt relief and rescheduling, forcing the government to operate on a cash only basis.

Military sanctions

Similarly, military sanctions can range from carefully targeted military strikes to degrade a nation's conventional or non-conventional capabilities, to the less aggressive form of an arms embargo to cut off supplies of arms or dual-use items.

Sport sanctions

Sport sanctions are used as a way of psychological warfare, intended to crush the morale of the general population of the target country. The only instance where sports sanctions were used were the international sanctions against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1992–1995, enacted by UN Security Council by resolution 757. The Gleneagles Agreementapproved by the Commonwealth of Nations in 1977, committed member nations to discourage contact and competition between their sportsmen and sporting organisations, teams or individuals from South Africa. However, it was not binding and unable to stop events such as the 1980 British Lions tour to South Africa or the 1981 South Africa rugby union tour of New Zealand

Sanctions on individuals

The United Nations Security Council can implement sanctions on political leaders or economic individuals. These persons usually find ways of evading their sanction because of political connections within their nation.

Sanctions in international law

Entities favorable to the target of another government's sanctions may claim that sanctions imposed by single countries or by an intergovernmental body like the United Nations are "illegal" or "criminal" due to, in the case of economic sanctions, theRight to development or, in the case of military sanctions, the Right of self-defense.

A 1996 report by International Progress Organization criticized sanctions as "an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly.

Dissolution of sanctions

There are several ways to remove and dissolve sanctions that have been implemented on a nation(s). In some cases such as those implemented on Iraq in 1990, only a reverse resolution can be used to remove the sanctions. This is done when no provision is put in the resolution for the removal of sanctions. This is generally only done if the sanctioned party has shown willingness to adopt certain conditions of the Security Council. Another way sanctions can be removed is when time limits are implemented with the initial sanction. After an extended duration the sanction will eventually be lifted off the nation despite cooperation. Additional sanctions may be placed however if the Security Council deems it necessary. The practice of time limitations has grown over the years and allows for gradual removal of restrictions on nations conforming to at least partial conditions imposed by the Security Council .

The United Nations has the power to impose sanctions against a nation that demonstrates potentially threatening behavior. UN sanctions are binding for all members. Sanctions are usually economic in nature.

International sanctions during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

During the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, a number of governments applied sanctions against individuals and businesses from Russia and Ukraine. Sanctions were approved by the United States, the European Union (EU) and other countries and international organisations. Russia has responded with sanctions against a number of countries, including a total ban on food imports from the EU, United States, Norway, Canada andAustralia.

We asked the question:" How do you identify "economic sanctions"? "It's not a question of what makes the West towards Russia. A person can do to keep in mind sanctions against Iran or North Korea. This means that the spontaneous economic sanctions associated with the confrontation between Russia and the West, and these associations are so intense that 2% of respondents say it is about it.

 Background

In response to the Crimean Crisis and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, some governments, led by the United States and European Union, imposed sanctions on Russian individuals and businesses. As the unrest expanded into other parts of southern and eastern Ukraine, and later escalated into the ongoing war in the Donbass region, the scope of the sanctions increased. The Russian government responded in kind, with sanctions against some Canadian and American individuals and, in August 2014, with a total ban on food imports from the European Union, United States, Norway, Canada and Australia.

Sanctions against Russia

First round of sanctions

The first sanctions issued against Russia during unrest were in March 2014, in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. These were imposed to prevent Russian and Crimean officials and politicians travelling to Canada, the United States, and the European Union. They were the most wide-ranging used on Russia since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union. Japan also announced sanctions against Russia. These included the suspension of talks regarding to military matters, space, investment, and visa requirements.^] In early April, Albania, Iceland andMontenegro, as well as Ukraine, decided to follow the EU and impose the same restrictions and travel bans issued by the EU on 17 March. In response to the sanctions introduced by the US and EU, the State Duma (Russian parliament) unanimously passed a resolution asking for all members of the Duma to be included on the sanctions list. The sanctions were expanded to include prominent Russian businessmen and women a few days later.

Second round of sanctions

On 28 April, the United States imposed a ban on business transactions within its territory on seven Russian officials, including Igor Sechin, and seventeen Russian companies. On the same day, the European Union issued travel bans against a further fifteen individuals. In connection with this, the EU issued a paper stating the aims of the sanctions. The EU states that their "sanctions are not punitive, but designed to bring about a change in policy or activity by the target country, entities or individuals. Measures are therefore always targeted at such policies or activities, the means to conduct them and those responsible for them. At the same time, the EU makes every effort to minimize adverse consequences for the civilian population or for legitimate activities".

Third round of sanctions

In response to the escalating War in Donbass, the United States extended its transactions ban to two major Russian energy firms, Rosneft and Novatek, and two banks, Gazprombank and Vneshekonombank on 17 July. On 25 July, the EU again expanded its sanctions to an additional fifteen individuals and eighteen entities, followed by an additional eight individuals and three entities on 30 July. On 31 July 2014 the EU introduced the third round of sanctions, against certain sectors of Russia's economy. Sanctions included financial sector (all majority government-owned Russian banks), trade restrictions relating to the Russian energy and defence industries, and additional individuals and entities designated under the EU asset freezing provisions.

On 19 March, Australia imposed sanctions on Russia after annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. The Australian Government imposed targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on those who have been instrumental in the Russian threat to Ukraine sovereignty.

On 24 July 2014, Canada announced sanctions targeting Russian arms, energy and financial entities.

On 5 August 2014, Japan decided to freeze the assets of “individuals and groups supporting the separation of Crimea from Ukraine” and restrict imports from Crimea. Japan will additionally freeze funds for new projects in Russia in line with the policy of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

On 8 August 2014 Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, announced that Australia is ‘working towards’ tougher sanctions against Russia, which should be implemented in the coming weeks.

On 12 August 2014 Norway decided to adopt the tougher sanctions against Russia that were imposed by the EU and the US on 12 August 2014. Although Norway is not part of the EU, the Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende said that the country will impose restrictions on Russia of a similar nature to those imposed by the EU on 1 August 2014. Russian state-owned banks will be banned from taking long-term and mid-term loans, arms exports will be banned and supplies of equipment, technology and assistance to the Russian oil sector will be prohibited.

On 14 August 2014 Switzerland expanded sanctions against Russia over its threat to Ukraine's sovereignty. Swiss government added 26 more Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians to the list of sanctioned Russian citizens that was first announced after Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea. On 27 August 2014 Switzerland further expanded their sanctions against Russia. The Swiss government said it is expanding measures to prevent the circumvention of sanctions relating to the situation in Ukraine to include the third round of sanctions imposed by the European Union in July. The Swiss government also said in a statement that five Russian banks (Sberbank, VTB, Vneshekonobank, Gazprombank and Rosselkhoz) will require authorisation to issue long-term financial instruments in Switzerland.

On 14 August 2014 Ukraine passed Law that introduced Ukrainian sanctions against Russia. The Law includes 172 individuals and 65 entities in Russia and other countries for supporting and financing "terrorism" in Ukraine, though actual sanctions would need approval from Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council.

On 28 August 2014 Switzerland amended their sanctions against Russia to include the sanctions imposed by the EU in July.

On 11 September 2014, US President Barack Obama said that the US will join the European Union in imposing tougher sanctions on Russia's financial, energy and defense sectors. On Friday September 12, 2014, the US imposed sanctions on Russia's largest bank (Sberbank), a major arms maker and arctic (Rostec), deepwater and shale exploration by its biggest oil companies (Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Rosneft). Sberbank and Rostec will have limited ability to access the U.S. debt markets. The sanction on the oil companies seek to ban cooperation with Russian oil firms on energy technology and services by companies including Exxon Mobil Corp and BP Plc.

On September 24 2014, Japan imposed additional sanctions against Russia, by banning the issuance of securities by five Russian banks (Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank, Rosselkhozbank and development bank VEB), and also tightened restrictions on defense exports to Russia. 

On 3 October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that "It was America’s leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs."

Sanctions by Russia

Three days after the first sanctions against Russia, on 20 March 2014, the Russian Foreign Ministry published a list of reciprocal sanctions against certain American citizens, which consisted of 10 names, including Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, Senator John McCain, and two advisers to Barack Obama. The ministry said in the statement, "Treating our country in such way, as Washington could have already ascertained, is inappropriate and counterproductive", and reiterated that sanctions against Russia would have a boomerang effect. On 24 March, Russia imposed sanctions on thirteen Canadian officials including members of the Parliament of Canada, banning them from entering the country.

On 6 August 2014, Putin signed a decree "On the use of specific economic measures", which mandated an effective embargo for a one-year period on imports of most of the agricultural products whose country of origin had either "adopted the decision on introduction of economic sanctions in respect of Russian legal and (or) physical entities, or joined same". The next day, the Russian government ordinance was adopted and published with immediate effect, which specified the banned items as well as the countries of provenance: the United States, the European Union, Norway, Canada and Australia, including a ban on fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, milk and dairy imports. Prior to the embargo, food exports from the European Union to Russia were worth around €11.8 billion, or 10% of the total. Food exports from the United States to Russia were worth around €972 million. Food exports from Canada were worth around €385 million. Russia had previously taken a position that it would not engage in "tit-for-tat" sanctions, but, announcing the embargo, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said "There is nothing good in sanctions and it was not an easy decision to take, but we had to do it." He indicated that sanctions relating to the transport manufacturing sector were also being considered. United States Treasury spokesperson David Cohen said that sanctions affecting access to food were "not something that the US and its allies would ever do".

On the same day, Russia announced a ban on the use of its airspace by Ukrainian aircraft.

Countries that have introduced sanctions against Russian or Ukrainian citizens or corporations

People's opinions on sanctions

Are sanctions a useful foreign policy tool?

50% Say Yes

Imposing sanctions is a useful tool when negotiating with another country.

I believe that issuing sanctions against another country is a useful tool when in negotiations with them or their allies. Additionally sanctions can also be useful when attempting to stop a country from committing inhuman acts against its people such as rape, apartheid, human trafficking, and slavery.

Yes, economic sanctions are useful tools when it comes to international relationships, because they are an effective way to fight without using violence.

 Countries should consider economic sanctions as useful tools when dealing with other countries. To ban trades with countries who are causing international waves is a way of fighting with force, but fighting without violence. It will affect the economy in these countries, and demand that the government respond in a manner that works with the countries who are stopping the trade.

I agree sanctions are a useful foreign tool, because it punishes those nations who do not serve the will of its people.

 If a country decides to do something and it is not benefiting the people, sanctions should be placed and used. The goal of any government should be to serve its people and country. If a country is not complying to what its people want, then sanctions are useful. With no aid, and if it is not able to survive on its own, maybe then the sanctions can be uplifted.

We need to stop trade with our enemies.

 We should not support people that are starting wars. This just shows that we support their cause. If we do not support their economy then they will not have as much money for war and lack fire power. In the long runI believe that helping them will just cause World War II .

50% Say No

Sanctions are a horrible foreign policy tool; they only hurt the people and rarely those in charge.

 Sanctions as a disciplinary tool rarely harm the government they are aimed at. Instead it is the people who suffer, as supplies and resources they depended upon run out. While eventually something is done, it usually involves a lot of suffering from the average person. How does inflicting more harm solve the problem?

Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool in producing positive results.

Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool because they are too wide in their application and lack the necessary impact to make a change. A government that is attempting to assert their presence as a world leader can only do so by garnering attention to their cause, and sanctions directed at them can often be a good public relations stunt.

Sanctions are a bad idea.

 When the U.S. sanctions other countries, they can easily become enemies with that country. They can cause wars and inflict suffering on innocent people. When sanctions fail to make an impact on the targeted country, they harm the U.S. instead. It is better to not take the risk of sanctioning a country and causing a war, than sanctioning a country and possibly not affecting it, but the U.S. instead.

Who is to blame..?

 When people suddenly find food, clothing, medicine, and other goods in short supply, when they find themselves a lot poorer and focusing desperately on day-to-day survival, they will take the time to find out who is responsible. And guess what? They do find out. Although governments in embargoed countries like Iran, Iraq, and Cuba strictly control what newspapers, radio, and television report, one piece of information that is sure not to be censored is the role of outside governments in the country’s economic distress.

Question poll

We have made a question poll on the topic: 

1. Do you feel the impact of  Western sanctions on your life?  In which spheres is this manifested?
2.  Did you change the opinion about people who live in the USA or EU countries?
3.  Do you want to stop «war» between the countries?

We included in the polling the views of school students, the opinions of the teachers, the views of Internet users. Here you can see the results:

2.

37% of people believe that their opinion has changed after the introduction of sanctions

3.

People who answered "No", mean that the sanctions on the contrary lead to the development of our country, the increase of its raw materials and products. Russia is  a very  powerful country  can easily be independent.

Some conclusions about the impact of sanctions from other sources of the Internet:

According to the fund "Public Opinion" (FOM), 9% of Russians believe that Western sanctions have touched them personally, not just high-ranking officials and oligarchs. Many citizens are ripe for a new perception of the propaganda line that can prevail in the fall, when they will have to tighten their belts. Russians explain that to blame Western sanctions, which, as it turns out, and sent some were against the people, and not the country's leadership and its economy. However, experts note, today the majority of citizens refers to sanctions with common sense.

While citizens inspire the idea that sanctions for Russia not only not harmful, but even useful - say, finally rise from his knees own economy: agriculture, industry, and science. However, according to a poll by FOM, 42% of respondents believe that the sanctions still affect the economy of our country: 13% think that pretty much 29% - that is weak. A 9% of respondents personally felt the impact of the sanctions. True, not very clear whether the difficulties associated with the people it sanctions.

14% of those who say that the money they did not even have enough food, argue that the impact of economic sanctions notice in their daily lives. Some say that the pay cut, which began three months ago, too, was under the influence of sanctions. There is a direct relationship, speak to Thomas, the worse the economic situation of the person, the easier it is to explain Western sanctions. The ban on the importation of goods from Ukraine, Poland and other European countries hit the pockets of Russians, but even then 10% will blame the West happening.

By the way, when people answer the question: "A more serious sanctions or may not affect the economy of our country?", The very curious distribution of responses: 37% believe that the impact, and 21% - that will not be affected. Supporters of the former view mainly have in mind the fact that Russia is strong, its resources, its beat - it gets stronger 

Relationship between people sanctioned countries

Based on the answers to the second question, we have been able to understand that most Russian people have not changed their opinion about foreigners.  But analyzing the resources of the Internet, we have found another interesting fact. People from other countries that have imposed sanctions against Russia, sharply worsened their opinions about the country, the governments and the people. For example there have been several movements against Russian products.

One of them is called "Do not buy Russian goods!" 

"Do not buy Russian goods!" (Ukrainian: «Не купуй російське!») or «Boycott Russian goods!" (Ukrainian: «Бойкотуй російське!») is a nonviolent resistance campaign to boycott Russian commerce in Ukraine. Theprotest started on August 14, 2013 as a reaction to a Russian Federationtrade embargo against Ukraine. It was organized by Vidsich on social media.^[1]The campaign expanded to mass distribution of leaflets, posters, and stickers in over 45 cities and towns. Having faded by the beginning of the Euromaidandemonstrations in November 2013, it was renewed on March 2, 2014, during the Crimean crisis and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

Causes

According to activists, the campaign began as a response to a series of economic warslaunched by Russia against Ukraine, including the "Meat War", the "Cheese War", and the "Chocolate War." On August 14, 2013, the Federal Customs Service of Russialisted all Ukrainian exporters as companies "at risk", resulting in a blockade of Ukrainian products imported to Russia. A backup developed at customs involving hundreds of truckloads and railcars of Ukrainian goods.

Boycotts

In Ukraine

On August 22, 2013, activists held a protest near the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. The campaign continued with a mass distribution of leaflets, posters and stickers in more than 45 cities and towns in Ukraine. Caricatures of Russian Matryoshka dolls have been used in the campaign. The campaign began to decline with the beginning of Euromaidan.

On March 2, 2014, activists used social networks to announce the renewal of the boycott on any goods and services that benefit Russian companies. The intention was to keep Ukrainian money from going to Russia where it may be used to support the Russian military. The boycott was launched in response to the Crimean crisis and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

In March 2014, activists began organizing flash mobs in supermarkets to urge customers not to buy Russian goods and to boycott Russian gas stations, banks, and concerts. In April 2014, some movie theaters in Kievv, Lvov, and Odessa began shunning Russian films.

In summer of 2014, activists in Kiev began organizing flash mobs and actions in Russian restaurants and coffeehouses.

In the end of August 2014 activists have started a campaign against Russian movies and serials on Ukrainian media space.

By April 2014, some Russian manufacturers changed their barcodes from Russian to Ukrainian. Titled Boycott Invaders, an Android app was developed to identify products from Russia, including those disguising their origin.

International spread

Beginning in March 2014, the boycott has spread to the other countries, particularly  Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Moldova, Georgia, and the Czech Republic.

Results

Sales of Russian goods in Ukraine decreased by 35-50% in the spring of 2014. In May 2014, Ukrainian supermarkets began to abandon the procurement of Russian goods. Delivery of goods from Russia fell by a third.

From January to May 2014, according to Standard & Poor's ratings, banks with Russian capital in Ukraine lost more than 50% of deposits.

    When analyzing the Internet we were struck by the abundance of negative posts of teenagers about Russia, our President and Russian people. In social networks there are a lot of posts with a variety of points of view of ordinary people. The problem lies in the fact that children, who are not fully versed in politics, will be able accidentally to hurt other people. But on the other hand, we found various forums where people express their ideas and proposals about these situations.  Also in social networks there are a lot of posts with a variety of points of view of ordinary people.

    Using the resources of the Internet, we have come up against the terrible images made ​​by people after the imposition of sanctions. This is a clear example of how sanctions might exacerbate relations between people. On the one hand, images show the high interest of people in the political and economic relations between countries. But on the other hand, some images are so cruel, that it can lead to mutual hatred  between people of different countries.

Conclusion

So, our hypothesis is partly right:

Sanctions  only enhance political disagreements between countries. Sanctions do not lead to any positive effect in the solution of any question and often backfired at the countries which imposed them.

But the second part of our hypothesis is not right. Unfortunately, economic sanctions seriously affect the economy of Russia.

The main practical result of the research work is understanding of the terrible effects from the application of sanctions not only for the country against which the sanctions are applied, but also against the countries involved in the application of sanctions

  We believe that any sanctions complicate our lives and do not lead to any positive effect

Bibliography

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/

https://www.google.ru/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SKPC_enRU370RU370&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=sanctions+against+russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-sanctions-a-useful-foreign-policy-tool

http://www.ng.ru/politics/2014-08-07/3_sanktsii.html

•      Chesterman, S., & Pouligny, B. (2003). Are Sanctions Meant to Work? The Politics of Creating and Implementing Sanctions Through the United Nations. Global Governance, 9(4), 503-518. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

•      Conforti. B (1991). Non-Coercive Sanctions in the United Nations Charter: Some Lessons from the Gulf War. The European Journal of International Law, 2(1), 110-113.

•       Chesterman, S., & Pouligny, B. (2003). Are Sanctions Meant to Work? The Politics of Creating and Implementing Sanctions Through the United Nations. Global Governance, 9(4), 503-518. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

•       Should the United Nations Security Council Impose Additional Sanctions on Iran Due to Its Nuclear Program? CONS. (2010). International Debates, 8(9), 41-48. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

•       Chesterman, S., & Pouligny, B. (2003). Are Sanctions Meant to Work? The Politics of Creating and Implementing Sanctions Through the United Nations. Global Governance, 9(4), 503-518. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

•       McDougal, M. & Reismen, M. (1968). Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern. The American Journal of International Law, 62(1), 1-19.

•       McDougal, M. & Reismen, M. (1968). Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern. The American Journal of International Law, 62(1), 1-19.