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. Opponent's VC = Government legitimacy 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. Opponent's VC = Maximizing the safety of citizens I do not necessarily need to prove that sanctions should never be used, but merely that if better options existed, they should be used to achieve the same end. Due to the historical lack of success of sanctions, what other options have we? The elephant in the room is the 2 edged sword of war. Like a fistfight at school, fighting doesn't necessarily resolve the issue at hand unless the issue is who happened to be handier with their fists on that particular day. 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. Justice is achieved when human rights are realized. Again this statement opens Pandora's box if human rights are not checked. Thomas Jefferson once said the right to swing one's fist stops before the tip of another person's nose. C-1 rebuttal Sanctions damage human rights because they effectively put restraints upon people's human rights. Also, sanctions imposed for reason other than declared imply a hidden agenda that could be used for personal gain. This would violate human rights and be unjust. Part 2 of my C-1 challenge appears to have been typo'd. Please rephrase if you meant Sanctions instead of human rights. No drops. C-2 rebuttal 1. The intended targets of sanctions should not be citizens, but rather the policies of the government. Unfortunately, the citizens are the one's most often affected by sanctions, which would in fact diminish their human rights. An example may be something like this: A country that depends upon the sale of crude oil for it's livelihood has a sanction placed against it barring the sale of crude oil until they comply with a demand to stop mistreating an indigenous ethnic group within it's borders. The build up of unsold oil could cause economic concerns. Further, the available capital would diminish causing a recession. Citizens would not be able to afford basic food staples, medical care, clothing, etc. This would cause suffering and a loss of their human rights which would also be unjust, per my VP/VC. C-3 rebuttal: An example of causing resentment would be the Falkland Islands. The USA was on good terms with both Great Britain and Argentina. GB had control of the Falkland Islands which were off the coast of Argentina, literally thousands of miles away from GB. When the disagreement between AR and GB escalated, they both sought the USA to side with them. Americans of Latin descent would have likely sided with Argentina. Anglo Saxons would have likely sided with GB. Ultimately, the USA sided with GB and Gb won the conflict. To this day there is resentment from Argentina toward the USA. The Argentineans may have wondered why GB insisted upon having control of something so far away that was their own backyard so to speak. They may have felt that their human rights were being violated, which was unjust to them, thus extending my VP/VC. Thanks so much! Surbs My opponent provided some nice examples of protecting people by limiting the flow of weapons. In one sense any country has the right to defend itself, and disallowing the procurement of arms would obviously degrade that capability. When a country cannot defend itself, it becomes more vulnerable, which backs up my VP/VC of protecting human rights. 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. We would like to think that the safety of citizens would be better protected, however, as I illustrated, the threat may not be decreased at all.