Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

I will first attack my opponent's case, then reaffirm my own. Please note that any additional sources will again be posted in the comments. VP: Political justification. The social contract states that the people give up certain individual liberties in return for certain benefits from the state. In the context of this debate, it is presumed that the sacrificed liberties involve free trade between imposing and offending countries, and that the benefits involve the promotion of natural rights for both parties. However, it has been shown that these purported benefits are negligible, if they exist at all. VC: Natural rights. My opponent fails to show how the imposition of sanctions promotes the natural rights (life, liberty, property, etc. ) of the imposing or offending nations. C1: The status quo is irrelevant to debate at hand. Claiming that the United Nations is the world's moral conscience is simply an argument from authority and fails to address the resolution, which calls into question whether or not the imposition of sanctions is a duty or moral obligation. It is possible for the UN to wrongly impose sanctions, and it has done so in the past. In the case of Iraq, the imposition of sanctions led to widespread strife and instability, and resulted in violations of natural rights, including loss of life (6). B. The claim that the imposition of sanctions removes "resources needed to continue unjust courses of action and tyranny" is unfounded. Resources are still available through illegitimate means as well as countries that have not imposed sanctions on the offending country. In the case of Iranian sanctions, there have been multiple instances in which banned exports have made their way into Iran via intermediaries or black markets with relative ease (13). C. My opponent fails to provide examples in which well-defined sanctions have succeeded at achieving their objectives. Well-defined sanctions might succeed in the hypothetical, but in reality, the impact of these sanctions on the protection of the natural rights of citizens is questionable. C2: I concur that corrupt leaders infringe upon the natural rights of their constituents, as well as those of citizens of other countries. However, the imposition of sanctions does little to ameliorate the condition of the people, as has been illustrated in the cases of Cuba (1-3), and can exacerbate suffering (6). A. I concur that the people are never the intended target of economic sanctions, but rather the objectionable actions of their leaders. However, the people are the ones affected by sanctions, not their leaders—sanctions fail to affect their target, and thus fail to effect changes in behavior (6). These affected persons also qualify as collateral damage, per the definition "unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action. " B. I concur that citizens are justified in demanding their natural rights. However, because sanctions are ineffective at securing natural rights and often hinder them, they are not a legitimate form of punishment. MY CASE: VC: Justice. Military intervention is an alternative to economic sanctions and has (in certain cases – 14) been proven to most effectively achieve the foreign policy objective(s) in question. Uni- and multilateral talks are also viable alternatives. Criminal charges also more specifically target leaders whose governments are involved in the abridgement of natural rights (15). VP: Government legitimacy. A government is supposed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. Both the imposing and offending nations fail to satisfy the criterion of governmental legitimacy, and it has been shown that the use of economic sanctions does not improve governmental legitimacy in either of the two nations. C1: Well-defined economic sanctions may be effective in the hypothetical; however, my opponent has failed to provide examples in which well-defined sanctions have been actually successful. Even in the face of multilateral sanctions, offending governments have access to resources via black markets. Furthermore, the imposition of multilateral sanctions may strengthen a target's resolve to resist pressure and may be used by governments to inspire popular support in the face of perceived oppression (16, 17). C2: The suffering of the people is a direct result of the imposition of sanctions. While it is true that the actions of their government are reprehensible, punishment of the people is a violation of justice, as the punishment is due not to them, but to their government. Historically, the suffering of the people has not been sufficient to effect a change in leadership in the face of economic sanctions (1-3). Indeed, leaders of offending nations often pass the burden of sanctions onto the people. C3: I would ask my opponent to clarify the meaning of an ideological benefit. I concur that the loss of trade is a consideration before the imposition of sanctions. The intent of the use of sanctions is to promote the welfare of the people, and I have demonstrated that the usage of sanctions confers no benefit in this regard. By sacrificing trade, the implication is that the people will receive some benefit in return (i. e. increased security), but no such event occurs. Conclusion: My opponent has failed to provide evidence that sanctions are an effective means of achieving foreign policy objectives. Sanctions do not stimulate diplomacy, but stifle it (16). Furthermore, more effective alternatives to sanctions exist. Sanctions involve a significant amount of collateral damage while failing to promote government legitimacy. Thank you.