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

"Ought is not a hard and fast, written in stone kinda thing, but rather a suggestion. It implies that if better alternatives existed, then they should be used in place of sanctions." Then it seems you should provide some alternative to sanctions to indicate they should not be used. ---------------------------------------- "I'm not sure that I agree a state is illegitimate if it violates it's obligations. That is a powerful accusation to denounce the existence of a nation simply because something wasn't achieved. Whose measuring stick would we be using to determine legitimacy? What state hasn't failed at one point or another in some obligation? Does that make them any more or any less legitimate? Defining government legitimacy in a way that all agree upon could be an arduous undertaking." A states obligations are broad, mainly to do with protecting its people. While a state obviously cannot help it if it sometimes fails, the issue has primarily to do with intent. If the state does not intend to do the best it can, and act as best it can to carry out those intentions, it has failed in its obligations. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but the broad point remains. ----------------------------------- "When a stronger country attacks and defeats another country, then further still imposes their will upon them, they have indeed achieved the same thing that sanctions were meant to achieve. Does it protect human rights or the safety of citizens? Again, we encounter the 2 edged sword. In conflict not only will militants be killed and property be destroyed, but also people will suffer collateral damage. It is unavoidable. Then we have to determine if the ends outweigh the means. In the long term, a corrupt government that would ignore sanctions would be quelched and replaced by a more conducive government. Thus, people from all nations would enjoy safety, human rights, and it would prove to be just in the long term." What would be just in the long term. Military conflict? If that achieves the same thing as sanctions, but with more violence, how is that more just? ------------------------------------------ C-1: How do sanctions put restraints on human rights? What sanctions are restrained. I see no damage to property, life or liberty from a simple refusal of trade. An agenda of personal gain does not mean someones rights have been violated. It requires action to harm rights, and the actions do not harm rights, whatever the motives. While part 2 was incorrectly quoted by me, I do not believe I misrepresented it, and the point remains. The reason for imposing sanctions has nothing to do with their impact on rights. C-2: What you seem to be saying is that people have a human right to force others to trade with them, regardless of whether they want to or not. If that were not true, I hardly see how you could derive harms to human rights from a refusal to trade. No one has the right to force others to trade, without regard for their desires. C-3: I concede that resentment occurs. There remain two things which need to be explained. 1: How is this different from any other international issue. In any situation where people take sides it will cause resentment. 2: Resentment is not a human rights violation. Feeling that your human rights have been violated does not make them violated. I may feel my rights are violated because you refuse to give me money, but that does not make them so. Value: My opponent has not yet explained how we can evaluate whether or not sanctions should be used in terms of sanctions. Because he has not done that, but I have explained how governmental legitimacy can be used to evaluate the the resolution, we should evaluate the round in terms of governmental legitimacy. Value Criterion: My opponent has yet to link human rights to justice or governmental legitimacy. Until he does so, we should evaluate the round based on how well sanctions protect the citizenry of the sanctioning nation. ------------------------------------------------- "Further, to refute my opponent's contention, when sanctions are put in place, the temptation to defy the sanctions becomes stronger. Not only will countries that do not support the sanction continue to freely trade with the country being sanctioned, but also, the country being sanctioned will attempt to obtain the restricted items from the black market." The temptation to deny sanctions cannot exist before they are put in place. While countries can obtain restricted items on the black market, they are harder to obtain, more expensive, and take longer to get. The overall effect remains. Flow of restricted items is reduced. ------------------------------------ In conclusion, I have shown that we need to evaluate the round based on governmental legitimacy and the safety of citizens. I have further demonstrated that sanctions can reduce the flow of weapons, and help defend against unstable or militaristic foreign powers. My opponent has not been able to demonstrate the injustice of sanctions, or provide a better alternative, as he said he should. I await my opponents response.