Last updated

A boycott is an act of nonviolent, voluntary abstention from a product, person, organization, or country as an expression of protest. It is usually for moral, social, political, or environmental reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, usually to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behavior.


The word is named after Captain Charles Boycott, agent of an absentee landlord in Ireland, against whom the tactic was successfully employed after a suggestion by Irish nationalist leader Charles Stewart Parnell and his Irish Land League in 1880.

Sometimes, a boycott can be a form of consumer activism, sometimes called moral purchasing. When a similar practice is legislated by a national government, it is known as a sanction. Frequently, however, the threat of boycotting a business is an empty threat, with no significant effect on sales. [1]


Vanity Fair caricature of Charles C. Boycott Charles Cunningham Boycott (Vanity Fair).jpg
Vanity Fair caricature of Charles C. Boycott
Protesters advocating boycott of KFC due to animal welfare concerns Boycott KFC.jpg
Protesters advocating boycott of KFC due to animal welfare concerns

The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and derives from Captain Charles Boycott, the land agent of an absentee landlord, Lord Erne, who lived in County Mayo, Ireland. Captain Boycott was the target of social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880. As harvests had been poor that year, Lord Erne offered his tenants a ten percent reduction in their rents. In September of that year, protesting tenants demanded a twenty-five percent reduction, which Lord Erne refused. Boycott then attempted to evict eleven tenants from the land. Charles Stewart Parnell, the Irish leader, proposed that when dealing with tenants who take farms where another tenant was evicted, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should shun them. While Parnell's speech did not refer to land agents or landlords, the tactic was first applied to Boycott when the alarm was raised about the evictions. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Boycott soon found himself isolated – his workers stopped work in the fields and stables, as well as in his house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him, and the local postman refused to deliver mail. [2]

The concerted action taken against him meant that Boycott was unable to hire anyone to harvest his crops in his charge. [3] After the harvest, the "boycott" was successfully continued and soon the new word was everywhere. The New-York Tribune reporter, James Redpath, first wrote of the boycott in the international press. The Irish author, George Moore, reported: 'Like a comet the verb 'boycott' appeared.' [4] It was used by The Times in November 1880 as a term for organized isolation. According to an account in the book The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland by Michael Davitt, the term was promoted by Fr. John O'Malley of County Mayo to "signify ostracism applied to a landlord or agent like Boycott". The Times first reported on November 20, 1880: "The people of New Pallas have resolved to 'boycott' them and refused to supply them with food or drink." The Daily News wrote on December 13, 1880: "Already the stoutest-hearted are yielding on every side to the dread of being 'Boycotted'." By January of the following year, the word was being used figuratively: "Dame Nature arose.... She 'Boycotted' London from Kew to Mile End." [5] .


Girlcott, a pun on "boycott", is a boycott intended to focus on the rights or actions of women. The term was coined in 1968 by American Lacey O'Neal during the 1968 Summer Olympics in the context of protests by male African American athletes. The term was later used by retired tennis player Billie Jean King in 1999 in reference to Wimbledon, while discussing equal pay for women players. [6] The term "girlcott" was revived in 2005 by the Women and Girls Foundation in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against Abercrombie & Fitch.

Notable boycotts

The 1976 Montreal, 1980 Moscow, and 1984 Los Angeles Olympic boycotts Olympic boycotts 1976 1980 1984.PNG
The 1976 Montreal, 1980 Moscow, and 1984 Los Angeles Olympic boycotts
Nameplate of Dr. Werner Liebenthal, Notary & Advocate. The plate was hung outside his office on Martin Luther Str, Schoneberg, Berlin. In 1933, following the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service the plate was painted black by the Nazis, who boycotted Jewish owned offices. LiebenthalRechtsanwalt2.jpg
Nameplate of Dr. Werner Liebenthal, Notary & Advocate. The plate was hung outside his office on Martin Luther Str, Schöneberg, Berlin. In 1933, following the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service the plate was painted black by the Nazis, who boycotted Jewish owned offices.

Although the term itself was not coined until 1880, the practice dates back to at least the 1790s, when supporters of the British abolitionists led and supported the free produce movement. [7] Other instances include:

During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab countries enacted a crude oil embargo against the West. Other examples include the US-led boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, the Soviet-led boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and the movement that advocated "disinvestment" in South Africa during the 1980s in opposition to that country's apartheid regime. The first Olympic boycott was in the 1956 Summer Olympics with several countries boycotting the games for different reasons. Iran also has an informal Olympic boycott against participating against Israel, and Iranian athletes typically bow out or claim injuries when pitted against Israelis (see Arash Miresmaeili).

Academic boycotts have been organized against countries—for example, the mid- and late 20th-century academic boycotts of South Africa in protest of apartheid practices and the academic boycotts of Israel in the early 2000s.

Application and uses

Protesters advocating boycott of BP due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill BP Oil Flood Protest Boycott Wheres Cheney.JPG
Protesters advocating boycott of BP due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Boycotts are now much easier to successfully initiate due to the Internet. Examples include the gay and lesbian boycott of advertisers of the Dr. Laura talk show, gun owners' similar boycott of advertisers of Rosie O'Donnell's talk show and (later) magazine, and gun owners' boycott of Smith & Wesson following that company's March 2000 settlement with the Clinton administration. They may be initiated very easily using either websites (the Dr. Laura boycott), newsgroups (the Rosie O'Donnell boycotts), or even mailing lists. Internet-initiated boycotts "snowball" very quickly compared to other forms of organization. Viral Labeling is a new boycott method using the new digital technology proposed by the Multitude Project and applied for the first time against Walt Disney around Christmas time in 2009. [11]

African-Americans in Dallas boycotting a Korean owned Kwik Stop in a mostly black community. Dontstopdontshop.JPG
African-Americans in Dallas boycotting a Korean owned Kwik Stop in a mostly black community.

Some boycotts center on particular businesses, such as recent[ when? ] protests regarding Costco, Walmart, Ford Motor Company, or the diverse products of Philip Morris. Another form of boycott identifies a number of different companies involved in a particular issue, such as the Sudan Divestment campaign, the "Boycott Bush" campaign. The Boycott Bush website was set up by Ethical Consumer after U.S. President George W. Bush failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol – the website identified Bush's corporate funders and the brands and products they produce. Historically boycotts have also targeted individual businesses. During the early decades of the twentieth century hotels in Australia were regularly targeted over the cost of alcohol, accommodation and food, as well as mistreatment of employees. [12]

As a response to consumer boycotts of large-scale and multinational businesses, some companies have marketed brands that do not bear the company's name on the packaging or in advertising. Activists such as Ethical Consumer produce information that reveals which companies own which brands and products so consumers can practice boycotts or moral purchasing more effectively. Another organization,, provides an Internet-based smart-phone application that scans Universal Product Codes and displays corporate relationships to the user. [13]

"Boycotts" may be formally organized by governments as well. In reality, government "boycotts" are just a type of embargo. Notably, the first formal, nationwide act of the Nazi government against German Jews was a national embargo of Jewish businesses on April 1, 1933. [14]

Where the target of a boycott derives all or part of its revenues from other businesses, as a newspaper does, boycott organizers may address the target's commercial customers.

Collective behavior

The sociology of collective behavior is concerned with causes and conditions pertaining to behavior carried out by a collective, as opposed to an individual (e.g., riots, panics, fads/crazes, boycotts). Boycotts have been characterized by some as different from traditional forms of collective behavior in that they appear to be highly rational and dependent on existing norms and structures. Lewis Killian criticizes that characterization, pointing to the Tallahassee bus boycott as one example of a boycott that aligns with traditional collective behavior theory. [15]

Philip Balsiger points out that political consumption (e.g., boycotts) tends to follow dual-purpose action repertoires, or scripts, which are used publicly to pressure boycott targets and to educate and recruit consumers. Balsiger finds one example in Switzerland, documenting activities of the Clean Clothes Campaign, a public NGO-backed campaign, that highlighted and disseminated information about local companies' ethical practices. [16]

Dixon, Martin, and Nau analyzed 31 collective behavior campaigns against corporations that took place during the 1990s and 2000s. Protests considered successful included boycotts and were found to include a third party, either in the capacity of state intervention or of media coverage. State intervention may make boycotts more efficacious when corporation leaders fear the imposition of regulations. Media intervention may be a crucial contributor to a successful boycott because of its potential to damage the reputation of a corporation. Target corporations that were the most visible were found to be the most vulnerable to either market (protest causing economic loss) or mediated (caused by third-party) disruption. Third-party actors (i.e., the state or media) were more influential when a corporation had a high reputation—when third-party activity was low, highly reputable corporations did not make the desired concessions to boycotters; when third-party activity was high, highly reputable corporations satisfied the demands of boycotters. The boycott, a prima facie market-disruptive tactic, often precipitates mediated disruption. The researchers' analysis led them to conclude that when boycott targets are highly visible and directly interact with and depend on local consumers who can easily find substitutes, they are more likely to make concessions. Koku, Akhigbe, and Springer also emphasize the importance of boycotts' threat of reputational damage, finding that boycotts alone pose more of a threat to a corporation's reputation than to its finances directly. [17] [18]

Philippe Delacote points out that a problem contributing to a generally low probability of success for any boycott is the fact that the consumers with the most power to cause market disruption are the least likely to participate; the opposite is true for consumers with the least power. Another collective behavior problem is the difficulty, or impossibility, of direct coordination amongst a dispersed group of boycotters. Yuksel and Mryteza emphasize the collective behavior problem of free riding in consumer boycotts, noting that some individuals may perceive participating to be too great an immediate personal utility sacrifice. They also note that boycotting consumers took the collectivity into account when deciding to participate, that is, consideration of joining a boycott as goal-oriented collective activity increased one's likelihood of participating. A corporation-targeted protest repertoire including boycotts and education of consumers presents the highest likelihood for success. [19] [20]


Protesters calling for a boycott of Israel

Boycotts are generally legal in developed countries. Occasionally, some restrictions may apply; for instance, in the United States, it may be unlawful for a union to engage in "secondary boycotts" (to request that its members boycott companies that supply items to an organization already under a boycott, in the United States); [21] [22] however, the union is free to use its right to speak freely to inform its members of the fact that suppliers of a company are breaking a boycott; its members then may take whatever action they deem appropriate, in consideration of that fact.

United Kingdom

When the boycott first emerged in Ireland, it presented a serious dilemma for Gladstone's government. The individual actions that constituted a boycott were recognized by legislators as essential to a free society. However, overall a boycott amounted to a harsh, extrajudicial punishment. The Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act 1882 made it illegal to use "intimidation" to instigate or enforce a boycott, but not to participate in one. [23]

The conservative jurist James Fitzjames Stephen justified laws against boycotting by claiming that the practice amounted to "usurpation of the functions of government" and ought therefore to be dealt with as "the modern representatives of the old conception of high treason". [24]

United States

"Boycott Xinjiang Genocide Products! Also don't attack our Chinese neighbors. Just say no to xenophobia and racism!" sticker on New York University campus in 2020 "Boycott Xinjiang Genocide Products! Also don't attack our Chinese neighbors. Just say no to xenophobia and racism!" sticker on New York University campus in 2020 (cropped).jpg
"Boycott Xinjiang Genocide Products! Also don't attack our Chinese neighbors. Just say no to xenophobia and racism!" sticker on New York University campus in 2020

Boycotts are legal under common law. The right to engage in commerce, social intercourse, and friendship includes the implied right not to engage in commerce, social intercourse, and friendship. Since a boycott is voluntary and nonviolent, the law cannot stop it. Opponents of boycotts historically have the choice of suffering under it, yielding to its demands, or attempting to suppress it through extralegal means, such as force and coercion.

In the United States, the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons", defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. The antiboycott provisions are intended to prevent United States citizens and companies being used as instrumentalities of a foreign government's foreign policy. The EAR forbids participation in or material support of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, for example, the Arab League boycott of Israel. These persons are subject to the law when their activities relate to the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods or services (including the sale of information) within the United States or between the United States and a foreign country. This covers exports and imports, financing, forwarding and shipping, and certain other transactions that may take place wholly offshore. [25]

However, the EAR only applies to foreign government initiated boycotts: a domestic boycott campaign arising within the United States that has the same object as the foreign-government-initiated boycott appears to be lawful, assuming that it is an independent effort not connected with the foreign government's boycott.

Other legal impediments to certain boycotts remain. One set are refusal to deal laws, which prohibit concerted efforts to eliminate competition by refusal to buy from or to sell to a party. [26] Similarly, boycotts may also run afoul of anti-discrimination laws; for example, New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination prohibits any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, from denying or withholding any accommodation to (i.e., not to engage in commerce with) an individual because of that individual's race (etc.). [27]


A boycott is typically a one-time affair intended to correct an outstanding single wrong. When extended for a long period of time, or as part of an overall program of awareness-raising or reforms to laws or regimes, a boycott is part of moral purchasing, and some prefer those economic or political terms. Most organized consumer boycotts today are focused on long-term change of buying habits, and so fit into part of a larger political program, with many techniques that require a longer structural commitment, e.g. reform to commodity markets, or government commitment to moral purchasing, e.g. the longstanding boycott of South African businesses to protest apartheid already alluded to. These stretch the meaning of a "boycott."

Another form of consumer boycotting is substitution for an equivalent product; for example, Mecca Cola and Qibla Cola have been marketed as substitutes for Coca-Cola among Muslim populations.

A prime target of boycotts is consumerism itself, e.g. "International Buy Nothing Day" celebrated globally on the Friday after Thanksgiving Day in the United States.

Another version of the boycott is targeted divestment, or disinvestment. Targeted divestment involves campaigning for withdrawal of investment, for example the Sudan Divestment campaign involves putting pressure on companies, often through shareholder activism, to withdraw investment that helps the Sudanese government perpetuate genocide in Darfur. Only if a company refuses to change its behavior in response to shareholder engagement does the targeted divestment model call for divestment from that company. Such targeted divestment implicitly excludes companies involved in agriculture, the production and distribution of consumer goods, or the provision of goods and services intended to relieve human suffering or to promote health, religious and spiritual activities, or education.

When students are dissatisfied with a political or academic issue, a common tactic for students' unions is to start a boycott of classes (called a student strike among faculty and students since it is meant to resemble strike action by organized labor) to put pressure on the governing body of the institution, such as a university, vocational college or a school, since such institutions cannot afford to have a cohort miss an entire year.

Sports events

The 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin were held after the Nazis rose to power three years prior. Despite advocacy from numerous officials and activists, no country boycotted the games, although the United States was close to it. In the 1970s and 1980s South Africa became the target of a sports boycott. [28]

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States led a 66-nation boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics much to Soviet chagrin. The USSR then organized an Eastern Bloc boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, which allowed the Americans to win far more medals than expected. [29]

In at least one case, a boycott has been documented due to on-field results of a game; the residents of New Orleans boycotted television broadcasts of Super Bowl LIII after a controversial officiating call led to the hometown New Orleans Saints losing the NFC Championship Game and being denied a trip to the Super Bowl. Viewership of the game dropped in the city by half compared to Super Bowl LII, contributing to a noticeable drop in the overall national ratings, but the boycott failed to achieve any meaningful remedy for the Saints or their fans. [30]

Diplomatic boycott

Nations have from time to time used "diplomatic boycotts" to isolate other governments. Following the May Coup of 1903, Great Britain led the major powers in a diplomatic boycott against Serbia, which was a refusal to recognize the post-coup government of Serbia altogether by withdrawing ambassadors and other diplomatic officials from the country; [31] it ended three years later in 1906, when Great Britain renewed diplomatic relations through a decree signed by King Edward VII. [32]

A diplomatic boycott is when diplomatic participation is withheld from an event such as the Olympics but athletic participation is not limited. [33] In 2021, a number of Western nations, led by the United States, Britain and Canada, protested the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics through a diplomatic boycott, citing China's policies concerning the Uyghur genocide and human rights violations in the country. [34] [35] [36]

See also


  1. Chang, Andrea (2021-05-09). "Patagonia shows corporate activism is simpler than it looks". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-09. Retrieved 2021-05-10.
  2. Marlow, Joyce (1973). Captain Boycott and the Irish. André Deutsch. pp. 133–142. ISBN   978-0-233-96430-0.
  3. Marlow, pp 157–173.
  4. Stanford, Jane, That Irishman: the Life and Times of John O'Connor Power, pp. 95–97.
  5. The Spectator, January 22, 1881.
  6. ON TENNIS; A Potential 'Girl-cott' Imperils Grand Slams - Robin Finn, The New York Times, 29 April 1999
  7. William Fox, An Address to the People of Great Britain, on the Utility of Refraining from the Use of West India Sugar and Rum. 1791
  8. Jonathan H. X. Lee (2015). Chinese Americans: The History and Culture of a People. ABC-CLIO. p. 26. ISBN   9781610695503.
  9. Tutu, Desmond (2014-04-10). "We need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2019-06-05.
  10. Vaughan, Adam (2014-10-08). "Fossil fuel divestment: a brief history". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2019-06-05.
  11. "Effective boycott campaigns – Multitude Project". Outreach. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
  12. McIntyre, Iain (2022-05-02). "Beer Strikes: A History of Hotel Boycotts in Australia, 1900-1920". The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 2022-11-10.
  13. O'Conner, Claire (May 14, 2013). "New App Lets You Boycott Koch Brothers, Monsanto And More By Scanning Your Shopping Cart". Forbes. Retrieved September 3, 2016. Burner figured the average supermarket shopper had no idea that buying Brawny paper towels, Angel Soft toilet paper or Dixie cups meant contributing cash to Koch Industries through its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific.
  14. "U.S. Holocaust Museum and Memorial". Outreach. Archived from the original on October 3, 2006. Retrieved January 2, 2007.
  15. Killian, Lewis M. (1984-01-01). "Organization, Rationality and Spontaneity in the Civil Rights Movement". American Sociological Review. 49 (6): 770–783. doi:10.2307/2095529. JSTOR   2095529.
  16. Balsiger, Philip (2010-08-01). "Making Political Consumers: The Tactical Action Repertoire of a Campaign for Clean Clothes" (PDF). Social Movement Studies. 9 (3): 311–329. doi:10.1080/14742837.2010.493672. ISSN   1474-2837. S2CID   3335524.
  17. Dixon, Marc; Martin, Andrew W.; Nau, Michael (2016-04-12). "Social Protest and Corporate Change: Brand Visibility, Third-Party Influence, and the Responsiveness of Corporations to Activist Campaigns *". Mobilization: An International Quarterly. 21 (1): 65–82. doi:10.17813/1086-671x-21-1-65.
  18. Koku, Paul Sergius; Akhigbe, Aigbe; Springer, Thomas M. (1997-09-01). "The Financial Impact of Boycotts and Threats of Boycott". Journal of Business Research. 40 (1): 15–20. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00279-2.
  19. Delacote, Philippe (2009-09-01). "On the Sources of Consumer Boycotts Ineffectiveness". The Journal of Environment & Development. 18 (3): 306–322. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1177/1070496509338849. ISSN   1070-4965. S2CID   154989034.
  20. Yuksel, Ulku; Mryteza, Victoria (2009-02-01). "An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts". Journal of Business Research. Anti-consumption. 62 (2): 248–259. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.032.
  21. National Labor Relations Act, § 8(e), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(e).
  22. Local 917, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 577 F.3d 70, 75 (C.A.2, 2009).
  23. Laird 2005, p. 34.
  24. Laird 2005, p. 36.
  25. "U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security". Office of Antiboycott Compliance. Archived from the original on March 19, 2006. Retrieved March 20, 2006.
  26. "Business Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2009-02-03. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
  27. New Jersey State official website
  28. Douglas Booth "Hitting apartheid for six? The politics of the South African sports boycott." Journal of Contemporary History 38.3 (2003): 477-493 online.
  29. Joseph Eaton, . "Reconsidering the 1980 Moscow Olympic boycott: American sports diplomacy in East Asian perspective." Diplomatic History 40.5 (2016): 845-864.
  30. Scott, Mike (February 4, 2019). "Super Bowl ratings plummet as Who Dats strike back". New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved February 4, 2019.
  31. David McKenzie, "European powers: the diplomatic boycott against Serbia, 1903–1906" in David McKenzie, Serbs and Russians (East European Monographs, 1996) pp 324–341. "diplomatic+boycott+" online
  32. Slobodan G. Marković. "Kriza u odnosima Kraljevine Srbije i Velike Britanije". NIN. Retrieved 20 July 2010.
  33. Hamilton, Tom (10 December 2021). "What, exactly, is a 'diplomatic boycott' of the Beijing Olympics?". ESPN. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  34. Kirby, Jen (10 December 2021). "What the US's diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Olympics does — and doesn't — mean". Vox. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  35. Roan, Dan (13 December 2021). "How much does the diplomatic boycott of Beijing 2022 matter?". BBC News. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  36. Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany; Baker, Kendall (1 February 2022). "The IOC stays silent on human rights in China". Axios .

Related Research Articles

Solidarity action is industrial action by a trade union in support of a strike initiated by workers in a separate corporation, but often the same enterprise, group of companies, or connected firm.

Disinvestment refers to the use of a concerted economic boycott to pressure a government, industry, or company towards a change in policy, or in the case of governments, even regime change. The term was first used in the 1980s, most commonly in the United States, to refer to the use of a concerted economic boycott designed to pressure the government of South Africa into abolishing its policy of apartheid. The term has also been applied to actions targeting Iran, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Myanmar, Israel, and China.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jewish Voice for Peace</span> American anti-Zionist activist group

Jewish Voice for Peace is an anti-Zionist left-wing Jewish activist organization in the United States that supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

An anti-boycott, counter-boycott, or buycott is the excess buying of a particular brand or product in an attempt to counter a boycott of the same brand or product. Anti-boycott measures could also be in the form of laws and regulations adopted by a state to prohibit the act of boycott among its citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disinvestment from South Africa</span> Economic boycott against apartheid South Africa

Disinvestmentfrom South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s in protest against South Africa's system of apartheid, but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid-1980s. A disinvestment policy the US adopted in 1986 in response to the disinvestment campaign is credited with playing a role in pressuring the South African government to embark on negotiations that ultimately led to the dismantling of the apartheid system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses</span> Nazis attempted boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in 1933

The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany began on April 1, 1933, and was claimed to be a defensive reaction to the anti-Nazi boycott, which had been initiated in March 1933. It was largely unsuccessful, as the German population continued to use Jewish businesses, but revealed the intent of the Nazis to undermine the viability of Jews in Germany.

Disinvestment from Israel is a campaign conducted by religious and political entities which aims to use disinvestment to pressure the government of Israel to put "an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories captured during the 1967 military campaign." The disinvestment campaign is related to other economic and political boycotts of Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer activism</span> Type of activist behavior

Consumer activism is a process by which activists seek to influence the way in which goods or services are produced or delivered. Kozinets and Handelman define it as any social movement that uses society's drive for consumption to the detriment of business interests. For Eleftheria Lekakis, author of Consumer Activism: Promotional Culture and Resistance, it includes a variety of consumer practices that range from boycotting and ‘buycotting’ to alternative economic practices, lobbying businesses or governments, practising minimal or mindful consumption, or addressing the complicity of advertising in climate change. Consumer activism includes both activism on behalf of consumers for consumer protection and activism by consumers themselves. Consumerism is made up of the behaviors, institutions, and ideologies created from the interaction between people and the materials and services they consume. Consumer activism has several aims:

Foreign relations of South Africa during apartheid refers to the foreign relations of South Africa between 1948 and the early 1990s. South Africa introduced apartheid in 1948, as a systematic extension of pre-existing racial discrimination laws. Initially the regime implemented an offensive foreign policy trying to consolidate South African hegemony over Southern Africa. These attempts had clearly failed by the late 1970s. As a result of its racism, occupation of Namibia and foreign interventionism in Angola, the country became increasingly isolated internationally.

Have You Heard from Johannesburg is a 2010 series of seven documentary films, covering the 45-year struggle of the global anti-apartheid movement against South Africa's apartheid system and its international supporters who considered them an ally in the Cold War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions</span> Palestinian-led movement demanding international sanctions against Israel

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is a nonviolent Palestinian-led movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel. Its objective is to pressure Israel to meet what the BDS movement describes as Israel's obligations under international law, defined as withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and "respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties". The movement is organized and coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adalah-NY</span>

Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel is a New York-based organization that campaigns for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. “Adalah” is the Arabic word for “justice.”

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arab League boycott of Israel</span> Political strategy adopted by the Arab League in 1945

The Arab League boycott of Israel is a strategy adopted by the Arab League and its member states to boycott economic and other relations between Arabs and the Arab states and Israel and specifically stopping all trade with Israel which adds to that country's economic and military strength. A secondary boycott was later imposed, to boycott non-Israeli companies that do business with Israel, and later a tertiary boycott involved the blacklisting of firms that do business with other companies that do business with Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boycotts of Israel</span> Aspect of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Boycotts of Israel are the refusal and calls to refusal of having commercial or social dealings with Israel in order to influence Israel's practices and policies by means of using economic pressure. The specific objective of Israel boycotts varies; the BDS movement calls for boycotts of Israel "until it meets its obligations under international law", and the purpose of the Arab League's boycott of Israel was to prevent Arab states and others to contribute to Israel's economy. Israel believes that boycotts against it are antisemitic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Students for Justice in Palestine</span> Pro-Palestinian BDS activism organization

Students for Justice in Palestine is a pro-Palestinian college student activism organization in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. It has campaigned for boycott and divestment against corporations that deal with Israel and organized events about Israel's human rights violations. In 2011, The New York Times reported that "S.J.P., founded in 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, has become the leading pro-Palestinian voice on campus."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions</span>

Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) refer to the views of international actors on the BDS movement.

With regard to the Arab–Israeli conflict, many supporters of the State of Israel have often advocated or implemented anti-BDS laws, which effectively seek to retaliate against people and organizations engaged in boycotts of Israel-affiliated entities. Most organized boycotts of Israel have been led by Palestinians and other Arabs with support from much of the Muslim world. Since the Second Intifada in particular, these efforts have primarily been coordinated at an international level by the Palestinian-led BDS movement, which seeks to mount as much economic pressure on Israel as possible until the Israeli government allows an independent Palestinian state to be established. Anti-BDS laws are designed to make it difficult for anti-Israel people and organizations to participate in boycotts; anti-BDS legal resolutions are symbolic and non-binding parliamentary condemnations, either of boycotts of Israel or of the BDS movement itself. Generally, such condemnations accuse BDS of closeted antisemitism, charging it with pushing a double standard and lobbying for the de-legitimization of Israeli sovereignty, and are often followed by laws targeting boycotts of Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International sanctions during apartheid</span>

As a response to South Africa's apartheid policies, the international community adopted economic sanctions as condemnation and pressure.

The anti-apartheid movement was a worldwide effort to end South Africa's apartheid regime and its oppressive policies of racial segregation. The movement emerged after the National Party government in South Africa won the election of 1948 and enforced a system of racial segregation through legislation. Opposition to the apartheid system came from both within South Africa and the international community, in particular Great Britain and the United States. The anti-apartheid movement consisted of a series of demonstrations, economic divestment, and boycotts against South Africa. In the United States, anti-apartheid efforts were initiated primarily by nongovernmental human rights organizations. On the other hand, state and federal governments were reluctant to support the call for sanctions against South Africa due to a Cold War alliance with the country and profitable economic ties. The rift between public condemnation of apartheid and the U.S government's continued support of the South African government delayed efforts to negotiate a peaceful transfer to majority rule. Eventually, a congressional override of President Reagan's veto resulted in passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986. However, the extent to which the anti-apartheid movement contributed to the downfall of apartheid in 1994 remains under debate.