By late August 1986, the anti-apartheid movement had pushed a range of governments, institutions and private actors to impose sanctions on the South African government, intensifying the struggle to dismantle the system of racial segregation and minority rule known as apartheid. The measures adopted by various states and organizations combined economic restrictions, diplomatic moves and cultural boycotts, reflecting growing international consensus that Pretoria’s policies were unacceptable. Economic sanctions and financial measures were central. Several Western countries tightened export controls on military and dual-use goods; banks faced pressure to curtail new lending to the South African government and parastatal entities; and governments and pension funds began divesting from companies seen as supporting or profiting from apartheid. These financial steps aimed to raise the cost of maintaining apartheid by restricting access to foreign capital and technology. Trade restrictions and boycotts also played a role. Some states and political bodies enacted bans or restrictions on imports of South African goods, targeted key sectors such as minerals and agricultural products, and discouraged commercial ties that might lend legitimacy to the regime. Multinational corporations and trade unions in various countries participated in consumer and corporate campaigns urging termination of business links with South Africa. Cultural and sporting isolation complemented economic measures. International sporting federations and cultural institutions suspended or boycotted South African participation, depriving the regime of global exposure and signaling moral condemnation. Artists, academics and religious organizations joined broader boycott efforts, amplifying public awareness and solidarity with anti-apartheid activists inside and outside South Africa. Diplomatically, increasing numbers of governments downgraded relations, recalled ambassadors or limited official contacts, while multilateral forums debated and, in some cases, adopted resolutions condemning apartheid and recommending restrictive steps. The United Nations had long been a venue for criticism of apartheid; by the mid-1980s, calls for stronger practical measures gained traction among member states and civil society groups. Domestically within South Africa, the effects of sanctions were complex. Economic pressure exacerbated existing strains from internal resistance, states of emergency and political repression, contributing to fiscal stress and insecurity for the ruling National Party. However, sanctions also had uneven impacts on different communities, and the regime sought ways to blunt their effect through alternative trade partners and internal policy adjustments. The imposition of sanctions in 1986 did not by itself end apartheid, but it formed part of a sustained international campaign that increased the costs for the South African government and bolstered the position of internal opposition forces, including the African National Congress and other groups advocating systemic change. Over subsequent years, a combination of sustained economic pressure, internal resistance, negotiations and shifting international politics would help create conditions that led to reforms, the release of political prisoners, and the eventual transition to majority rule in the early 1990s. Historical assessments of the sanctions’ effectiveness vary. Some scholars and commentators credit sanctions with accelerating the demise of apartheid by amplifying economic and political isolation; others emphasize the importance of internal dynamics and negotiated processes, arguing sanctions were one of several contributing factors. What is clear is that the coordinated global actions of governments, institutions and social movements in the 1980s marked a significant escalation in the world’s response to apartheid and left a lasting imprint on South Africa’s path toward democratic change.