This article examines differences in targeted and comprehensive multilateral sanction regimes in the post-Cold War era, and argues that targeted sanctions are more humane and effective than general trade embargoes. Improving the effectiveness of sanction regimes is also addressed. Through four comparative cases - Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Angola, and Sierra Leone - differences in impact and effectiveness are explored. The former two cases are utilised to examine comprehensive sanctions, while the latter two represent targeted sanction regimes. To provide the framework necessary for evaluating sanctions, the article presents an overview of the sanctions literature, which may be particularly useful for non-sanctions experts. Through the comparative case study, the article finds some support for the hypothesis that targeted sanctions are more humane than comprehensive sanction regimes. However, the case of Sierra Leone indicates that even targeted sanctions can have unintended humanitarian consequences and should therefore be applied with extreme caution. The article does not find support for the hypothesis that targeted sanctions are more humane than comprehensive sanctions. However, this does not seem to be due to the targeted nature of the sanctions, but primarily to problems with monitoring and compliance, as both the cases of Angola and Sierra Leone indicate. This suggests that in order to increase effectiveness, further measures are needed to create effective monitoring systems, and that strengthened collaboration between countries and organisations is necessary. Furthermore, there should be careful monitoring of compliance throughout the duration of the sanction regime, and consideration of partial lifting of the sanctions in cases of partial compliance as this may generate further compliance.