Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive foreign policy objectives

This debate is a trial of my new, highly experimental case and might be a total ouright fail. The point is that I will not defend my case, I will enjoy the spectacle of my opponent bashing my case for 2 rounds. Only someone with LD expirience please. 1st round: arguments like a real debate 2nd round: Optional: Critiques and ideas Thank you to whoever accepts this debate Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I affirm the stated resolution Economic Sanctions: Restrictions upon international trade and finance that one country imposes on another for political reasons. A ban on "selling to and buying from" products. Value: Just Efficiency: Justice is composed of two things efficiency and morality. The first ensures that the action is successful. For example, you extend your arms to save a falling child and catch him. The second ensures that in doing that you were morally correct. For example, you are effective in pulling the pin off a suicide grenade, this is not morally correct, therefore you are not just. A man who fails to save a falling child is not the child's hero, because by failing he has done nothing morally correct. It is the same as inaction. A man who is successful in saving the child is correct. Value Criterion: Utilitarianism-Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It is literally the best moral outcome. The resolution does not imply a universal standard of morality, as such the most just or utilitarian standard is compatible. When something ought to be used it is the best option. Contention one: Just Efficiency Economic sanctions have to be both just and effective as outlined by my value. As such I will provide prerequisites for justice and statistics for efficiency. Prerequisite one: Sanction must be multilateral If a country sanctions alone, chances are that the world sees their cause as unjust and not worthy of joining. Decisions made in groups are often more likely to reflect the majority. Take for example a dictatorship versus a democracy. In most dictatorships, the main reason that they are unjust is because the dictator is not limited by others in his selfish decisions whereas in a democracy a larger portion of the population is represented. Prerequisite two: Sanction must be for security reasons. If a sanction is not for security reasons then what justifies a country in pressuring harassing another? Economic sanctions that are not for security reasons are abuse. These sanctions endanger the lives of one country for no reason at all. I will remind the negative that choosing not to trade is not a harmless act rather it severely endangers the populous that depends on foreign products for food and imports that they cannot make themselves. Only 15% of the sanctions have been multilateral and only 7% of sanctions have been for security purposes as well as being multilateral. The vast majority (93%) do not meet the prerequisite. That is according to Navin A. Bapat & Clifton Morgan. As such economic sanctions, considering the massive possibility for abuse, should be eliminated from the repertoire of government war weapons. "We see that 38% of the security sanctions are multilateral, versus only 10% of the non-security cases." "In total, there are 99 cases where sanctions were imposed due to security related disputes, which corresponds to approximately 19% of the cases. In the remaining 423 cases, sanctions were imposed for reasons other than security." [Navin A. Bapat & T. Clifton Morgan. Unilateral versus Multilateral Sanctions Reconsidered. 2009. 99 + 423 = 522 99 / 522 = .189 | .189 * 38% = 7.21% 423/522 = .81 | .810 * 10% = 8.10% 7.21 + 8.10 = 15.31% According to Navin A. Bapat, 80 of all 522 sanctions imposed so far have been multilateral, only 15%. The vast majority of sanctions have been imposed by a single country. A: Just War-1 Security and Mathematical Efficiency Furthermore economic sanctions do not meet Just war standards. Economic sanctions violate Just War principles of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum requires that a belligerent party have valid grounds for engaging in warfare. To engage in warfare at all, the belligerent party must have a just cause. "Just cause" requires "a real and certain danger," such as protecting innocent life, preserving conditions necessary for decent human existence, and securing basic human rights. The argument to be made is that economic sanctions are not necessarily for security. If not for security, then how could they be just? Secondly, under the requirement of proportionality there must be a probability of success. Beyond unilateral economic sanctions: Better alternatives for U.S. foreign policy by Joseph J. Collins found the success rate to be as low as 5%. Clearly, one-twentieth is not a high probability of success. This cross applied to the 7% of just sanctions and there is a one thirty fifth (0.0035) of a percent chance that the sanction meets just efficiency requirements. In other words less than 2 out of 522 sanctions are just and efficient. B: Just War-2 Focus and ineffective targeting Jus in bello requires that the war be fought in accordance with certain standards of conduct. The means used "must respect the immunity of the innocent," where "innocent" refers to "those who are no threat." This encompasses (1) women, children, the aged, infirm; (2) clergy, religious, foreigners; (3) unarmed persons going about their ordinary vocations; and (4) soldiers on leave or who have become prisoners. However, in economic sanctions the most affected portion of the populous is the innocent. While the army is held in high priority to protect the majority of the country, the people are forgotten. In a sanction, "civilians and soldiers are exposed to the same risks. Scarcity and proximity make them equally vulnerable. Or perhaps not equally so: in this kind of war, once combat begins, noncombatants are more likely to be killed. The soldiers fight from protected positions, and the civilians, who don't fight at all, are quickly made over. . . into "useless mouths. Fed last, and only with the army's surplus, they die first." This according to Michael Waltzer- just and unjust wars second edition. This however will not stop every regime, especially if the regime, as it would during unjust occupation, does not care about the people.