EU Sanctions and the Gender Equality Paradox
A new study provides the first comprehensive review of the gender effects of sanctions.
By Anna Cervi
At the heart of the European Union’s foreign policy lies a commitment to promoting and defending gender equality and the full enjoyment of rights by all women and girls. EU policymakers view sanctions as one of the tools to advance this commitment, imposing sanctions when human rights violations or threats to international security occur. The EU’s overarching objective is to introduce targeted restrictions, seeking to minimize adverse effects on the civilian populations.
A recently completed research project, conducted by A World of Sanctions and funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs examines how these EU ambitions are reflected in policy. Using literature reviews, expert interviews, and novel quantitative analysis of data related to EU, UN, UK, US, and Australian sanctions regimes, the study maps the first comprehensive picture of gender in sanctions. It examines general sanctions, targeted measures affecting women, and sanctions aimed at protecting women’s rights in countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Syria.
The study shows that sanctions often amplify harm to women and vulnerable groups, that motivations for sanctioning women remain underexplored, and that gender perspectives are rarely integrated – even in regimes intended to defend women’s rights. Under this umbrella, Anna Cervi conducted an in-depth analysis of the links between gender and sanctions. Her research highlights a paradox: while European sanctions aim to uphold human rights, their cumulative effects can deepen existing inequalities faced by women and girls, especially in fragile and unstable contexts.
Rethinking Causality Between Gender and Sanctions
Demonstrating direct and definitive causality between sanctions and outcomes for women and girls is complex. It requires structured and in-depth causal analysis, which remains limited to date. However, the literature suggests three main recurring causal relationships between sanctions and gender. Women faced increased financial isolation, fewer opportunities in the formal labor market, and diminished access to basic public services. These three dimensions profoundly affect women’s quality of life at multiple levels, thereby constraining their capacity to continue being socially and politically active.
First, international sanctions tend to trigger a process of “de-banking” that severely disrupts financial systems, cutting off access to international transactions, banking services, and the SWIFT circuit. The resulting financial isolation deepens gender inequalities and weakens women’s capacity to organize and advocate for their rights. For example, in Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Syria, financial isolation has limited women’s and women-led organisations’ access to international funding, obstructed transnational collaboration, threatened the continuity of vital services – like victim support and shelter – and hindered the sustainability of long-term women’s rights movements, such as the Iranian Women, Life, Freedom movement. Systemic banking failures have also restricted women’s independent access to financial resources, increasing their vulnerability and dependence on male counterparts.
Women faced increased financial isolation, fewer opportunities in the formal labor market, and diminished access to basic public services. These three dimensions profoundly affect women’s quality of life at multiple levels, thereby constraining their capacity to continue being socially and politically active.
Second, the impact of sanctions on businesses makes the labour market uncertain and unstable, particularly during severe economic crises. For example, Iran, Syria, and Russia have witnessed a progressive “informalization” of the female labor market. Women’s actual employment has moved to the informal market, remaining statistically invisible, socially unrecognized, and fragmented. This process is often associated with a corresponding increase in inequalities, economic dependence on men within the family, “economic gender-based violence,” and other forms of gender-based violence.
Finally, sanctions frequently target government structures or those controlling them, as in Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Syria. This directly impacts the delivery of essential and affordable services, including healthcare, education, electricity, water, social policies, transport, and social safety nets. Sanctions aim to raise costs or limit resources, to prevent repression or conflict escalation. However, governments or armed groups often rely on these resources for survival. This diverts funds from public and welfare services, hitting women the hardest.
Resolving the Paradox
The EU’s ambition to more effectively address global gender inequalities risks remaining symbolic unless it is supported by gender-focused reassessments of sanctions. This also requires a clear political backing. Three complementary trajectories could help reduce tensions in the interplay between gender and sanctions.
First, the EU should acknowledge the existence of causal links between sanctions and gender dynamics to actively qualify, quantify, and monitor these effects and mitigate negative impacts. Policy frameworks lack systematic assessments of pre-existing social structures, gender inequalities, and baseline metrics for ongoing impact evaluation of sanctions on women and girls. Analysis could benefit from formal, systematic consultations with practitioners, academia, gender experts, and local grassroots organizations before the EU formulates or revises sanctions. Further, sanctions design and revisions could refer to checklists developed by experts, which also include parameters related to gender issues to pre-empt unintended negative impacts. Gender-sensitive actions could also include embedding gender expertise within the EU and member states’ sanctions teams and mandating comprehensive training programmes for policymakers. These steps could promote a stronger gender-aware culture in sanction environments, which to date remain predominantly gender-blind.
Second, it is essential to integrate targeted sanctions with other European foreign policy instruments. For example, the EU could strengthen policy coherence by applying a more joined-up and complementary use of humanitarian, development, and stabilization instruments to address gender inequalities. The effectiveness of these and other efforts hinges on diplomatic engagement with local authorities and civil society – even those that are controversial or restricted actors (e.g. sanctioned authorities, armed groups, or entities linked to terrorism). Often, international diplomatic isolation has reinforced existing power structures, further exposing women to discrimination. Developing effective methods of interaction can foster support for gender equality and promote progress on gender rights that adheres to the aspirations of local populations.
Finally, civil society organisations, sectoral experts, and academia should adapt their advocacy strategies to recent transformations in the EU sanctions environment. Throughout the past five years, EU decision-making shifted towards emergency-driven processes that prioritize security and economic considerations. In practice, the European Commission now often drafts sanctions regimes at the initiative of member states, and the Council subsequently endorses them. This process leaves limited room for early-stage advocacy. As a result, gender-related considerations are frequently marginalized, since several member states do not view them as equally urgent as security or economic concerns. Addressing the causal links between gender and sanctions therefore requires advocacy efforts to focus on influencing member states prior to the consolidation of sanctions proposals at the EU level. This necessitates a willingness on the part of civil society organisations, NGOs, and academic experts to engage in shared lobbying space with competing actors – particularly from the private sector – whose interests are often regarded as more immediately aligned with prevailing European priorities in the areas of security and defense.
Gender-blind sanctions can entrench the very inequalities they seek to challenge. By examining Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Syria, the AWOS study finds that sanctions amplify pre-existing gender disparities. They increase financial isolation, reduce access to essential services, and marginalize women in the labor market. The findings also reveal systemic gaps in European decision-making, where social and gender impacts are often overlooked in favor of security, economic, or geopolitical priorities. Integrating these findings into EU policymaking is urgent and requires sustained engagement by civil society organizations, NGOs, and academic experts. Beyond gender dynamics, these insights underscore the need for comprehensive impact assessments of sanctions on vulnerable groups and closer alignment between EU foreign policy and the Union’s human rights commitments. This would ensure that sanctions advance human rights without undermining the populations they aim to protect.
Anna Cervi is the co-founder of the Italian Initiative on International Mediation (3IM) and a member of the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network (MWMN).This article is based on the author’s contribution to the AWOS study “Prospettiva di genere e impatto delle sanzioni sulle donne, i minori e altri gruppi vulnerabili”, published by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation in September 2025. The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of AWOS, the MWMN, or the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.
Photo: EEAS