¿Son efectivas las sanciones comerciales?

Para mí es una pregunta muy interesante. Y referido a ella acaba de publicarse un libro que da una perspectiva histórica (sobre todo del periodo entre las dos guerras mundiales del siglo XX), y que ha sido comentado aquí por un buen profesor de Historia del Comercio Internacional, Douglas Irwin. El libro se titula "The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War", escrito por Nicholas Mulder, de Cornell University. 

Unos extractos de la reseña de Irwin:

(...) Sanctions were used by the strong against the weak, not as a deterrent against the strong. 

(...) sanctions inflicted enormous damage on the weaker countries against which they were aimed. The humanitarian cost was high: Anywhere from 300,000–400,000 died of blockade induced starvation and illness in Central Europe after World War I, and another 500,000 deaths in the Ottoman provinces of the Middle East because of the Anglo-French blockade.

 (...) sanctions may have backfired. ‘Rather than stopping this nationalist tide and the risk of war that it entailed, sanctions reinforced it’.

(...) United States, which was formally neutral during the interwar period, was opposed to sanctions but became a frequent user of the policy after World War II.

(...) Mulder believes that sanctions, with few exceptions, fail to achieve their objective, create collateral damage, and sometimes have perverse consequences.

(...) He is clearly dismayed at the role that sanctions play in the modern era. ‘Today, as the world economy reels from financial crises, nationalism, trade wars, and a global pandemic, sanctions are aggravating existing tensions within globalization … unintended negative consequences can be just as destructive as premeditated harms’.