Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

If you are going to plagiarize, don't plagiarize Joy Gordon.(1) Thanks for the challenge. Commence debate. -------------------- CON Position -------------------- I negate the "resolved" and agree with the definitions minus the definition of "ought". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ought is "used to indicate duty or correctness." Note that duties are not necessarily moral considerations. (2) The duties of nations are politically rather than ethically grounded because it only makes sense to attribute moral agency to actors capable of choosing rationally between two courses of action, whereas nations behave as they do only through the aggregation of multiple individual's choices. Additionally, since value-laden statements have no empirical referents and moral rules cannot be objectively justified, shared agreement – whether explicitly or implicitly through the establishment of a political community – is a prerequisite for the assignment of duties and obligations. Moral rules are only binding under conditions of reciprocity. While violence may generally be immoral, we accept self-defense because the attacker has disregarded the moral agency of the victim. Similarly, international politics is a self-help world. Because there is no central global authority to create and enforce rules for the behavior of nations, the sole obligation of states is to exploit whatever opportunities are available to secure their survival and thereby uphold their commitment to secure the rights of citizens. Consequently, my standard is the principle that states ought to take whatever actions necessary to promote their security. My position can be understood as two compatible but distinct negations of the resolution: The first is a strict reading of the principle: because states must maximize their relative power while adapting to the flux and flow of the global community, no option – including the use of economic sanctions – ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. In short, there is nothing that governments ought not to do and no tool they ought not to use. The second formulation follows the first with a minor addition: economic sanctions are oftentimes an effective way for states to pursue hegemony. Norrin M. Ripsman writes, "Their optimism is bolstered by high profile cases of apparent sanctions success, such as Western sanctions against the South African apartheid regime. Moreover, as David A. Baldwin argues, sanctions can achieve important political objectives—such as deterring third parties from taking unwelcome actions—even if they fail to achieve their stated purposes "(3) Even if, in the worst case, sanctions prove ineffective most of the time, it is often worth it for states to implement them because they have an extremely low cost and can become "carrots" to achieve other political goals. Sanctions require little or no troop deployment and minimal resource expenditure, making them a valuable option for powers on the brink of being overstretched. Additionally, sanctions are key to power projection even if they don't meet explicit goals. -------------------- Answers to PRO position -------------------- V: "Justice". The idea of justice is only applicable in the case describe if we were talking about an individual agent composed of only one rational mind. (ref. to my arg. regarding "ought"). Hence, the value of Realism is most applicable because it is a theory that clearly articulates the role of a governing body in the international sphere. VC: "Governmental legitimacy". I agree with the first half of a legitimate government and why it will protect its own citizens. However the part after that is err, erroneous. Ask yourself what would happen when the two are in conflict? What happens when a society is in danger? Is it then ok for that society to protect its own interests over that of another nations? Because his interpretation does not allow for us to determine a policy actions when two nations are in conflict, prefer the notion of realism. Remember, realism indicates that a nation ought to act in its own self-interest. The reasons for this are stated in my "position". Thus, there isn't ever any stagnations in policy plans because the idea is not contradictory. Prefer my standard for these reasons. C1: "Economic sanctions do not adequately punish corrupt leaders" 1st: My evidence above indicates that even if the sanctions are always effective, it is it is worth it for the states to implement a low-cost measure to save lives on their side. 2nd: My first argument indicates that no option – including the use of economic sanctions – ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. In short, there is nothing that governments ought not to do and no tool they ought not to use because of the idea of realism. 3rd: My opponent talks about human rights atrocities, however economic sanctions are key to fighting back the human rights violations that are occurring in the target nation. Katherine Hughes writes, "Sanctions would also symbolize international outrage at the perpetration of gross human rights violations, demonstrating that the major powers of the U.N.[...] Such a message would deter other nations from committing similar human rights violations. The U.N.'s growing reliance upon sanctions over the past fifteen years and the lessons learned in the implementation of these programs provide a base of experience for crafting an effective program."(4). C2: "Economic Sanctions have only been effective about 5% of the time". 1st: All of the arguments above regarding the efficacy of the sanction apply here still (ref. arg. 1 & 2). 2nd: My opponent's evidence relies on whether or not the explicit goal was achieved, however, the explicit goal may not be the actual one nor the only one. Norrin M. Ripsman writes, "[P]ublicly stated objectives may amount to no more than a smokescreen concealing the true purposes of sanctions. In his re-examination of British sanctions against Rhodesia, for example, Rowe (1999a, pp. 254-287) indicates that British leaders had not in fact desired to topple Ian Smith's regime with their oil embargo. Instead, they had merely wanted to send a signal of resolve to the African members of the British Commonwealth that would not be so strong as to invite retaliation from South Africa."(same as 3). -------------------- Originality is crutch in this activity. -------------------- I know you guys like to steal crap for your own little debates (as this has happened to me before), but please guys: Be Original. Plus, it's more fun when the arguments are your own. - Protagoras is back (again) Sources: 1) http://www.crosscurrents.org... 2) "Ought." Def. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Print. 3) Nov 2006 Pol. Sci. Dept. Concordia, Ridgeway Ctr, "FALSE DICHOTOMIES: WHY ECONOMICS IS HIGH POLITICS" http://se1.isn.ch...? serviceID=47&fileid=6144E778-87B7-7760-48A3-485BC0B871D3&lng=en JMM 4) [J.D. Candidate, 2008, Fordham University School of Law] "NOTE: OPERATION ‘DRIVE OUT THE TRASH': THE CASE FOR IMPOSING TARGETED UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS AGAINST ZIMBABWEAN OFFICIALS" 76 Fordham L. Rev. 323 (2007) LexisNexis JMM