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

Thanks to my opponent for competing. SOR: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I negate the stated resolution and will demonstrate that economic sanctions can be effective, if the definition of success is stated prior to outset of said sanctions. Value Premise: Political Justification Value Criterion: Natural rights. An action is politically justified if it is consistent with a given political theory — a theory of the individual, society, and government. The theory most relevant here is one based on natural rights, a state of nature, and a social contract. Many seventeenth and eighteenth century political theorists (e.g., John Locke) adopted this kind of theory, and it dominated the thinking of America's founding fathers (e.g., Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). (source: http://www.economicthinking.org...) C-1: The United Nations, the world's moral conscience, imposes economic sanctions as punishment. a. Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or other sanctions not involving the use of armed force to international military action. The use of mandatory sanctions is intended to apply pressure on a State or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council without resorting to the use of force. Sanctions thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its decisions. The universal character of the United Nations makes it an especially appropriate body to establish and monitor such measures. The Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions. (source: http://www.un.org...) b. Bloodshed is avoided and direct intervention is eschewed. ( source: Pros and cons: a debater's handbook By Trevor Sather) By imposing economic sanctions, corrupt leaders are denied resources needed to continue their unjust courses of action and tyranny. Further, this is accomplish without killing others, and avoiding collateral damage as defined by my opponent. c. As with any endeavor undertaken, economic sanctions should not be employed until success has been defined. (quote from Steven M. Merkel) One can easily generalize that economic sanctions are unsuccessful. They are only unsuccessful if they are not specific or unrealistic. All goals, including economic sanctions must be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. C-2: Natural rights of citizens are selfishly violated by corrupt leaders of governments. This impacts not only the natural rights of citizens from other countries, it also affects the natural rights of their own citizens. a. Citizens of countries oppressed by economic sanctions suffer when intended relief efforts are suppressed by their own government intercepting supplies. The citizens are never the target, but rather the behaviors of corrupt leaders. b. Citizens are justified to demand their natural rights which are being denied to them by the very government which is supposed to protect them. When corrupt leaders give in to decency and cooperate, the sanctions go away. Sanctions are nothing more than a legitimate form of punishment to achieve a defined and acceptable code of behavior. OPPONENT's CASE: So as to not drop any arguments, I will examine my opponent's case in sequence. I accept the definitions provided. VC: Justice. Would justice be better served by war? No, war doesn't actually solve the issue at hand. What other alternatives are there? None have been presented. Therefore, clearly defined economic sanctions are the best form of punishment. VP: Government Legitimacy. Can a government be legitimate when it is the cause of it's own punishment? According to my opponent , a government is supposed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of her citizens. C-1: I concur that cloudy economic sanctions are ineffective, that is why they must be clearly defined. When sanctions are used as a form of punishment, the chief trading partners of the offending country should form a united alliance in order to prevent the flow of the items needed to further the cause of conflict. C-2: The people, who are not the targets, often do suffer. This is a fault of the corrupt government being punished. If sanctions do not produce the intended results, sometimes the people who are suffering will effect a change of leadership. C-3: The imposing nation(s), may not receive a tangible benefit, but rather an ideological one. It is true that the imposing country(ies) may lose trade with the punished nation, however; that is part of the equation prior to imposing sanctions. Conclusion: Sanctions are only ineffective if they are not carefully planned, defined, and executed. They not only stimulate diplomacy, but also are the least invasive means and eliminate the necessity of military action. The U.N. uses and endorses this method. My premise of political justification is backed by the sustainment of individual rights. Thank you.