BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sanctions are the opposite of free trade and therefore should not be used because free trade has greater benefits.

Free trade does not guarantee democracy and causes bargaining countries to lose leverage. In order to increase their own wealth most dictatorial oligarchies welcome free trade. Once they have been accepted into the free trade arena the West no longer has any leverage on them. It is true, for example, that a sanctions regime against China would be impossible to implement but that does not mean we should concede entirely. We should reinstate MFN as a lever and use it to force China to improve upon its human rights record. To believe that free trade can lead to democratization is naïve. It is far too hopeful to suggest that the wealth produced thereby will be allowed to filter down to the people. For example, pervasive poverty still persists in China[1]. In reality free trade has acted as a mechanism to worsen the living standards of the people in China as profits are concentrated in the business sector, and people are subject to terrible working conditions and low wages[2]. As this continues, China also suppresses the voice of the people and censors the internet[3]. Trade liberalization has clearly not made a China a democracy, and thus cannot be declared a more successful policy option than sanctions. [1] Wall Street Journal (2009), “Facts About Poverty in China Challenge Conventional Wisdom”, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. [2] Roberts, Dexter (2007), “China's Widening Income Gap”, Bloomberg News, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. [3] Ramzy, Austin (2011), “State Stamps Out Small 'Jasmine' Protests in China”, Time Magazine, [Accessed June, 10 2011].
Sanctions are ineffective because they can be counterproductive.

Not all peoples are so easily manipulated by a corrupt government. It is naïve to suggest that the Myanmarese people accept the government’s propaganda without question. After all, many are still reeling from the tragedy that befell them in 1990 when the results of democratic elections were annulled and scores of opposition party supporters were arrested and imprisoned without trial[1]. The popularity of Aung San Suu Kyi, the main opposition leader, and the NLD remain high[2]. Further, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter make propaganda less effective and help disseminate criticism of governments even in times of extreme media censorship[3]. With current internet tools, crushing opposition movements, even with propaganda, is not so easy therefore countering the potential threat of sanctions. [1] BBC (2010), “Burma's leaders annul Suu Kyi's 1990 poll win” [2] BBC (2011), "Burma upholds dissolution of Suu Kyi's NLD party' [3] Shirky, Clay (2011), “The Political Powers of Social Media”, Foreign Affairs   improve this
Sanctions have been an effective long term policy tool in the past.

If sanctions are effective, their use is justified because they ultimately achieve a desired outcome. They cause financial pain to leaders pressuring them to reform. Long term sanctions on South Africa were an effective policy. They caused the living standards in the country to deteriorate, however this ultimately led to the right amount of pressure on the government for apartheid to be ended1. Economic restrictions were first placed on South Africa in 1963 and were ultimately lifted after the end of apartheid almost 30 years later. Nelson Mandela himself has stated that sanctions played a role in forcing the South African government to end apartheid2. The success of sanctions in the past has prevented the international community from taking military action against certain states. Due to prior success in South Africa, sanctions are an appropriate tool to push countries towards reform while preventing military escalation. 1 Foer, Franklin (1996), "Economic Sanctions", Slate.com,, [Accessed June 7, 2011]. 2 Laverty, Alexander (2007), "Impact of Economic and Political Sanctions on Apartheid", The Africa File, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. improve this
Sanctions can block the weapons that are used to perpetrate human rights violations.

Arms embargos are a type of sanction that specifically target types of weapons. If a country is being particularly violent towards its people or at risk of civil war, arms embargos can be used to decrease the weapons available to the government or the people. In 1993-1994 an arms embargo was placed on Haiti by the United Nations after a military coup by the group FaDH (the Forces ArmArmées d’Haiti). Forces were estimated to shrink from 6000 to 1000 by the time the US invaded in 1994 thanks to the arms embargo[1].  Preventing governments from attaining weapons can be the most effective way of stopping  government violence. If they don’t have weapons to arm their military, civil war and genocide become more difficult to perpetrate. Arms embargoes have been successful and when used in conjunction with other policy actions can be an effective way of addressing fears of civil war, ethnic cleansing, government violence, and coups. [1] Bromley, Mark (2007), “United Nations Arms Embargoes: Their Impact on Arms Flows and Target Behaviour. Case study: Haiti, 1993–94”, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,Bromley, Mark (2007), [accessed June 7, 2011].
Sanctions make clear where a country stands.

Sanctions send a strong message to the people of a country that the Western world is on their side and will not just remain compliant by dealing with an oppressive regime as if it has done nothing wrong. Part of what encourages peoples to stand up for their civil liberties is a feeling of support against their regime from outside actors. True reform needs to come from pressure within and outside of the state as it did in South Africa. The only way to incentivize internal pressure is by expressing support for civilian movements. In the case of the repressive government in Myanmar, the lifting of sanctions would be viewed as a betrayal by the Myanmarese and would reverse any progress that sanctions have helped to achieve. The leader of the opposition movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, in Myanmar has called for a continuation of sanctions, and in an act of support the US has complied1. Therefore sanctions can be an important signal of support to a country's people, which makes them more likely to stand up to their government and create the necessary internal pressure for reform. 1 Colvin, Jake and Cox, Simon (2007), "Are Economic Sanctions Good Foreign Policy?", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. improve this
Just the threat of sanctions can be an effective coercive tool.

Most diplomatic negotiations occur behind closed doors, and it has been hypothesized that if sanctions are going to be effective it is the threat of the sanctions that forces the country to concede, not the sanctions themselves1. That said, if sanctions were never followed through, the threat would be meaningless. The use of sanctions builds up the fear of sanction. This fear can bend countries towards the will of the sanctioning nation. To maintain the threat of sanctions as a viable negotiating tool, sanctions need to be implemented on occasion to prevent sanctions from becoming an empty, meaningless threat. 1 Colvin, Jake and Cox, Simon (2007), "Are Economic Sanctions Good Foreign Policy?", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 10, 2011].
Sanctions are ineffective because it is very difficult to unify an adequate number of countries to cripple an economy.

Many countries must employ sanctions for them to be successful, yet due to competing political objectives unifying enough countries is almost impossible. If sanctions are only imposed by a few countries, the sanctioned nation can replace lost trade from those countries with trade from other allies, deflecting the economic consequences of the sanctions. North Korea is so isolated from the international community that sanctions have had little effect, particularly because their most important trade partner, China, has continued to do business with them1. The UK and US sanctions have not been effective in the case of Myanmar given that the country mainly trades with other ASEAN member states, India, China and Japan. The violation of sanctions often has to do with political motives. In the case of ASEAN, the member countries are concerned that China may use Myanmar for military and naval bases, so they are pouring money into the country and breaking US sanctions to promote their own self-interest in the region and counter China2. Considering that every country has their self-interest in mind, it is ultimately too difficult to forge a united front between enough countries to cripple the country they are sanctioning. 1 Noland, Marcus (2009), "The (Non-) Impact of UN Sanctions on North Korea", The National Bureau of Asian Research, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Heritage Foundation (1997), "A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions", , [Accessed June 10, 2011].
Sanctions are ineffective because they hurt ordinary people more than leadership.

Sanctions operate under the assumption that they will hurt leaders of a country so much that they will bend to the will of the sanctioning country. Yet this assumption is false: governments have the tools to insulate themselves thereby preventing sanctions from imposing necessary pressure. By keeping all available resources for themselves, the government ensures that the sanctions impact only the people. Governments that can achieve this deflection have a relatively powerless citizen base that even when they are suffering have difficulty standing up to the government. Punishing innocent people is immoral, because they are suffering for a crime they did not commit. When the US and UK placed sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, although the exact number is contested. Considering that US ultimately invaded Iraq, these children died in vain. In North Korea, it is thought that sanctions have led to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. In both Myanmar and North Korea most of the pain from sanctions is deflected onto the largely helpless population who have little ability to put pressure on their oppressive governments to stop the suffering1. Because this suffering often does not affect the leadership, they can essentially ignore any pressure to reform2. And, many of these governments simply don't have an interest in improving the lives of their people, making sanctions immoral and ineffective3. 1 Carpenter, Ted and Preble, Christopher (2006), "North Korean Sanctions: A Cruel Mirage", The CATO Institute, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2006-2007), "The Impact of Economic Sanctions, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 3 Loyola, Mario (2010), "We Don't Need to 'Get Over the Sanctions Delusion'", National Review,, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. improve this
Sanctions are the opposite of free trade and therefore should not be used because free trade has greater benefits.

Sanctions prevent free trade, which is ultimately more effective for incentivizing reforms. Three mechanisms can be broadly identified through which free trade brings about democratization. Firstly, it permits a flow of information from Western countries. Secondly, it leads to an increase in the wealth of everybody and thirdly it facilitates the growth of a middle class. The middle class is usually the one that calls for political reform, because they no longer have to worry about living from day to day, and are not complacent about their government's corruption and failure to address their concerns1.These three factors together result in internal pressure and consequent political change; economic freedoms lead to political freedoms. This approach was successful in helping to bring about the downfall of communism in the Warsaw pact and is starting to lead to increased freedoms in China. For example, China has been taking a slow path to government reform2. Previous policy directed toward China was to link trading rights, in the form of MFN (most favored nation) status to improvements in human rights. All China ever did was offer fleeting changes whenever necessary to preserve MFN status. It is only with unlimited free trade that we will see deep structural changes in human rights in China. Additionally, economic growth due to increased trade has not only impacted China, but other countries in the region as well, like Taiwan and South Korea. There, new constitutions and managed elections, led over time to a more meaningful democracy3. These success stories show that free trade can be implemented in other countries to produce effective government change over time and is a more viable option than sanctions. 1 Tlili, Moustapha (2011). "Tunisia's Revolution Was Led By Secular Middle Class", Daily Star (Lebanon), (Accessed June 20, 2011) 2 Gilboy, George (2008), "Political and Social Reform in China: Alive and Walking", Washington Quarterly, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 3 Heritage Foundation (1997), "A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions", , [Accessed June
Sanctions are ineffective because they can be counterproductive.

Sanctions often cut off a country from the international community. This blocks the flow of outside information into a country and permits dictators to mercilessly use propaganda to strengthen their own position. It is impossible for the people to believe such propaganda is false when there are no competing external claims1. This propaganda can deflect blame for the economic suffering from the government to the international community. This is called the "rally around the flag effect" characterized by the banding together of opposing factions because of the adverse actions of an outside power2. For example, sanctions in Myanmar will only serve to insulate the SPDC, the ruling party, in power. The SPDC's grip on the national media means that it is able to disseminate propaganda which demonizes the West as the enemy of the Myanmarese, and casts the military junta as their hero. This can make the people more willing to stand up to the Western powers instead of their government. The lifting of sanctions may ensure that ordinary Myanmarese citizens are exposed to Western technology, labor practices and political ideologies which in turn will equip them with the belief and self-determination necessary to engineer change in their own country. The power of media cannot be underestimated, and isolation of sanctioned countries jeopardizes the opposition movements in that country integral to regime change. This threat ultimately outweighs potential benefits of sanctions. 1 Eland, Ivan (2006), "Economic Coercion Is Not an Effective Foreign Policy Tool", Independent Institute, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Chapman, Terrence and Reiter, Dan (2004), "The United Nations Security Council and the Rally Around the Flag Effect", Emory University Political Science Department, [Accessed June 20, 2011]. improve this
Sanctions have been an effective long term policy tool in the past.

Sanctions have also failed in the long term. A recent study found that sanctions were used 116 times between 1914 and 1990, and after 1973 were only effective 24% of the time1. South Africa is not an appropriate example because the US and EU had a cooperative relationship with the country prior to sanctions therefore increasing the impact the trade restrictions had. Sanctions are now mostly used against isolated countries, like North Korea and Myanmar, who do not have a close relationship with international actors, and for whom cutting off trade is not such a detrimental loss. Since the countries sanctions are currently being used against do not fit the profile of South Africa, sanctions are ineffective and success in South Africa is irrelevant. 1 Gilboy, George (2008), "Political and Social Reform in China: Alive and Walking", Washington Quarterly, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. improve this
Sanctions can block the weapons that are used to perpetrate human rights violations.

Because of the size of the global community, and ease of communication and transport, most countries can still attain necessary weapons and tools. As the world has globalized and information can be passed, attained, and hidden, with the click of a button, arms embargos are much more difficult to maintain. The UN placed an arms embargo on the Sudan due to fears of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Janjaweed, yet it was reported that there were violations of the embargo on all sides of the conflict. In fact, there were accusations backed up by pictorial evidence that even after the arms embargo was put into place, China and Russia, both members of the UN security council, were selling weapons to the country1. Arms embargoes often fall short of their goals. 1 BBC (2007), "China, Russia deny weapons breach", [Accessed June 10, 2011]
Sanctions make clear where a country stands.

Sanctions often hurt the people more than they hurt the regimes, rendering it difficult to discern whether the state(s) imposing sanctions truly care about the citizens involved or their own self-interests. Inflicting the pain of poverty and starvation obviously does not show solidarity, but instead can crush any opposition movement in the country. If people are worried about feeding themselves they are less likely to take action against their government. Additionally, sanctions are not the only form of supporting the people of a country. In the most recent Arab Spring, the US did not support protesters solely through sanctions, but instead publicly called for reforms1. Drawing international attention to certain issues can also be an effective means of taking action. Sanctions are therefore not a necessary or effective way of showing support. 1 Sharp, Jeb (2011), "President Obama Calls for Middle East Reform", PRI's The World, [accessed June 10, 2011]. improve this
Just the threat of sanctions can be an effective coercive tool.

Recent sanctions failures can make sanctions a less viable threat. Seeing that Myanmar, Iran and North Korea have successfully been able to deflect the pain and pressure of sanctions onto their people1, the threat of sanctions becomes less powerful because it is less likely to spell the end of a regime2. The failure of sanctions, not the infrequent use, makes them useless. 1 The Economist (2011), "An aye for sanctions", [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Noland, Marcus (2009), "The (Non-) Impact of UN Sanctions on North Korea", The National Bureau of Asian Research, [Accessed June 10, 2011].
Deash has a compelling ideology

Daesh may have an ideology that is compelling to some people, but that number is comparatively tiny, nothing like the millions that were attracted to western ideology during the cold war. Daesh needs a population to consider itself a success and yet the population of Syria have voted with their feet[1] – they have fled to neighbouring countries not IS controlled areas. The United Nations has almost 4.3million registered refugees,[2] when the 7.6million internally displaced are included the numbers are far higher yet these people are not flooding into IS controlled areas.[3] [1] Sky, Emma, ‘Standing idly by while the Middle East unravels is not an option’, The Guardian, 26 November 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/26/middle-east-iraq-syria-isis [2] ‘Registered Syrian Refugees’ Syria Regional Refugee Response, updated 17th November 2015, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php [3] ‘Syria IDP Figures Analysis’, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, July 2015, http://www.internal-displacement.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/figures-analysis
The territory claimed by Daesh extends to Europe

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil. Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries.[1] [1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/would-new-borders-mean-less-conflict-in-the-middle-east-1428680793
Daesh and the Syrian civil war is nurture terrorism for export

Daesh ideology and the possibility of terrorist attacks resulting from it is undeniably a problem. However the flow of fighters is mostly the other way; from Europe to Syria and Iraq, five to six thousand have made this journey.[1] It might therefore be said that Daesh is importing terrorism from the west rather than exporting it. We have no way of knowing how many terrorist attacks these fighters may have committed had they stayed in their home countries. [1] Reuters, ‘Islamic State smuggling terrorists among the migrants? Unlikely, say experts’, EurActive.com, 28 August 2015, http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/islamic-state-smuggling-terrorists-among-migrants-unlikely-say-experts-317160
There are other larger threats.

There may be threats that can cause much greater damage than Daesh but these are neither immediate nor very likely. Nuclear war is undoubtedly a massive threat, but we succeeded in getting through 45 years of cold war without these weapons being used so the probability of the threat happening is low. Climate Change on the other hand is less a security issue than an environmental, economic, and societal one. Daesh on the other hand has already struck at western states with the Paris attacks, and has sucked large numbers of western citizens into a war against their own countries in Syria and Iraq. The threat from Daesh is therefore immediate, almost certain, and large.
Daesh has little impact outside the Middle East

While Daesh may be focused on its war at home it is trying to attack those it is fighting where they are vulnerable. This is illustrated by the bombing of a Russian Metrojet Airliner leaving Sharm el-Sheikh which killed 224 by a Daesh affiliate[1] not long after Russia began bombing the Syrian rebels, and Daesh, in Syria. Such an incident may take place in the Middle East but undoubtedly affects those outside of the region. Daesh’s reach has however extended to the west with the 13th November attacks in Paris which resulted in 130 deaths across the city. [1] AlJazeera, ‘Russia says plane in Egypt's Sinai brought down by bomb’, 17th November 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/russia-plane-sinai-brought-bomb-151117081851335.html
The west is insulated by distance from Daesh

Distance does not matter in today’s world. Refugees from Syria are pouring in to Greece but also enter the EU much further afield through Hungary or Italy. Ideology has its influence regardless of distance meaning resulting terrorist attacks are as likely to happen in Paris as Nicosia and are as likely to be by those who have grown up in western Europe as those arriving from Syria itself. Thinking that distance insulates us from the threat posed by Daesh is as wrong as the belief that what a state does matters only inside its borders.