There has also been much speculation over whether or not economic sanctions are considered a weapon of war. This distinction is an integral part of our discussion because it determines whether or not the rules of the War Convention apply. In much of the rhetoric today, there is a misconception that sanctions are a peaceful alternative to military intervention. On the contrary, the preponderance of evidence proves otherwise. Depending on the severity of the sanctions imposed, the target state can either receive an economic slap on the wrist or be completely devastated as the societal infrastructure slowly collapses.
Sanctions clearly have the capacity to be an offensive weapon.
The just use of economic sanctions, then, must conform to the understood rules of the war convention. I will begin with an examination of the jus in bellum criteria. Although jus ad bello is normally addressed first, I believe that knowing the effects of sanctions and their intended targets is essential to the arguments regarding proportionality and the probability of success. The primary concern of the just war theory is identifying exactly which people are legitimate targets of aggression and which are labeled as innocents. This concept is better known in the military community as the principle of discrimination.