(Forthcoming in Journal of Peace Research)

Abstract. This article studies the impact of economic sanctions on the duration and outcome of intrastate conflicts. Sanctions are argued to foster the convergence of beliefs over parties ’ capacity, to reduce the utility of victory and to increase the costs of continuing fighting. Using a sample of 87 wars and new data on sanctions and sanction types, I show that sanctions and their duration are statistically associated with shorter intrastate conflicts. It is also shown that total economic embargoes are the most effectual type of coercive measure in these cases and that sanctions either imposed by international organizations or other actors have similar negative effects on war duration. In the second part of the article, we disaggregate the dependent variable and demonstrate that sanctions imposed by international institutions increase the likelihood of conflict resolution, whereas those sanctions not imposed by such institutions tend to increase the probability of a military victory. Besides, if the targeted state is a member of the international institution imposing sanctions, the effect of such coercion is even greater. Economic embargos are also proven to increase the likelihood of a military as well as a negotiated end, whereas international arms embargos reduce the likelihood of a military victory