Bridging Research and Practice in Sanctions,ExportControls, and Economic Security 

Sanctions, export controls, and related economic security tools have become central instruments of foreign and security policy. Yet the connection between academic research andpolicy practice remains uneven. Policymakers often need timely, concrete, and actionableanalysis, while academic research tends to move more slowly, focus on long-termdynamics, and emphasize nuance over immediate recommendations. The challenge, therefore, is not only to communicate research more clearly, but also to align research agendas more closelywith the problems governments, firms, and implementation agencies face in practice. 

This brief draws on the Groningen Sanctions and Economic Security Roundtable 2026, whichbrought together scholars, policymakers, think tank experts, and private-sector practitioners for a closed-door discussion on sanctions, export controls, and economic security. In line withthe Chatham House Rule, it synthesizes cross-cutting themes from the discussion without attributing views to individual participants or institutions. The discussion suggests that academic research can contribute in eight main ways. 

First, scholarship can help clarify the long-term strategic objectives behind sanctions andexport controls. Policy debates often focus on immediate decisions: whether to impose, enforce, revise, or lift a measure. Academic research is well placed to ask what theseinstruments are expected to achieve over time. This also requires greater clarity about what economic security encompasses, especially when governments approach it through different institutional, commercial, and security concerns. Clarifying these objectives matters becausedifferent goals require different standards of success and shape how governments and privateactors respond to economic security pressures. 

Second, research can improve policy and impact analysis. Better evidence on howsanctions and export controls operate in practice can support more adaptive regulatory design andamore informed public debate. Academic work on EU and member-state institutions, regulatory politics, and implementation can help clarify how rules move fromstrategicobjectives to practical application, where implementation burdens fall, and where regulatorygaps remain. This includes examining how responsibilities are divided across sanctions, trade, export controls, investment screening, and technology governance, and how these divisions affect coordination and policy coherence. 

Third, researchers should pay closer attention to how economic security measures play out onthe ground. Many debates still focus heavily on tangible goods and trade flows. These remainimportant, but firms and governments increasingly place a premium on protecting intangibles such as advanced technologies, technical expertise, data, and know-how. Research that focuses only on goods risks missing where strategic value increasingly lies. 

Fourth, academics need to recognize the constraints under which policy actors operate. Policymakers often cannot wait for perfect evidence. They need provisional judgments, practical options, and clear assessments of trade-offs. This does not mean abandoning nuance. It means translating research into formats that better support decision-making under uncertainty, moving beyond the identification of problems to assess possible solutions and theconditions under which they may work.

Fifth, there is growing interest in the defensive dimension of economic coercion. Much of theacademic literature approaches sanctions from the sender's perspective: what makes themeffective, how coalitions form, and when targets comply. Policymakers are increasinglyasking a different question: how states can protect themselves against incoming economicpressure. Research that maps sanctions vulnerability, identifies exposure through trade andfinancial dependencies, and evaluates countermeasures can speak directly to this demand. 

Sixth, economic security research needs to draw more systematically on multiple disciplines and forms of expertise. Sanctions and export controls sit at the intersection of security policy, international and EU law, political economy, technology, and business practice. Understanding how these instruments operate requires knowledge not only of governments and institutions, but also of how firms assess risk, organize supply chains, protect technology, and respond to regulatory pressure. Bringing these perspectives together can produce analysis that better captures the trade-offs and implementation constraints faced in practice. 

Seventh, research can help connect the design of economic security measures more closelytocompliance and circumvention. Sanctions and export controls increasingly rely on privateactors to implement public policy. Firms may be expected to monitor suppliers, customers, and end users, while financial institutions, lawyers, notaries, and other gatekeepers also carrysignificant compliance responsibilities. Academic work can assess howfar theseresponsibilities can realistically extend, where the informational and economic burdens fall, and whether public authorities have the capacity to support and enforce them. It can alsoclarify how compliance requirements and foreseeable circumvention risks should beincorporated into the design of measures from the outset, as well as what degree of circumvention policymakers should regard as unavoidable before the effectiveness of ameasure is called into question. 

Eighth, practitioners want more rigorous analysis of EU sanctions compliance andenforcement. The EU has expanded its sanctions architecture considerably since 2022, but implementation remains uneven across member states and sectors. Academic work can helpidentify where enforcement gaps are largest, why they persist, and what institutional or regulatory changes could address them. This remains an underdeveloped area of appliedresearch with direct policy relevance. 

Universities can also contribute by training the next generation of sanctions and export- control experts. Students preparing for careers in this field need not only transferableanalytical skills, but also substantive knowledge of EU institutions, international law, political economy, security politics, and business practice. The research–policy gap is therefore not only about producing more research. It is about asking better questions, studyingimplementation more concretely, and building durable channels between scholars andpractitioners.