Parker -Haiti AC

Parker -Haiti AC - HaitiAC Thihan Nyun defines economic...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Haiti AC Thihan Nyun defines economic sanctions. Economic sanctions can be defined, depending on the particular role one would like sanctions to play in international affairs, in two different ways. Economic sanctions can either encompass every measure designed to inflict economic deprivation or include only the most comprehensive of embargoes imposed for well-defined political reasons. A broad definition based solely on the ends would take into consideration only the economic deprivation inflicted upon a target country, and not the means employed to bring about that deprivation. As a result, any measure - economic or military - that disrupts the economic activity of an adversary would qualify as an economic sanction. Conversely, a definition based on the means, which is commonly accepted today, narrows the scope of what constitutes economic sanctions by focusing only on trade-disrupting measures . Hufbauer and colleagues define economic sanctions as "the deliberate, government-inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations." A further synthesis of the literature reveals the following definition, which will be used for this Article: economic sanctions are the actual or threatened withdrawal of normal trade or financial relations , imposed by the sender against the target, for foreign policy purposes. Under this approach, economic sanctions are limited to restrictions on trade, investment, and other cross-border economic activity that reduce[s] the target country's revenues, thereby facilitating the desired change without resorting to military action. Economic sanctions therefore do not entail freezing assets, arms embargoes or smart/target sanctions because they do not affect the entire economy. And, since the resolution never posits what type of economic sanctions we should debate about, we should discuss general sanctions because 1) it provides for the clearest division of ground for both debaters since there is ample literature for comprehensive sanctions on both sides. 2) Target sanctions don’t incentivize good research, as I would simply find hyper specific evidence. It promotes a race to the bottom. 3) we should debate about how sanctions are actually used and not in their best or worst instances. 4) as the affirmative, I should be allowed to define the evaluative terms of the debate as a strategic tradeoff for the clear Aff/Neg time skew absent clear abuse. And, the resolution should be taken as an on-balance burden because reciprocal access to the ballot is key to fairness. Further, on-balance burdens are the most predictable in debate rounds Also, country specific sanctions contain the best debatability because 1) they contain the most literature, which means reciprocal access. 2) There’re a finite number of country specific sanctions, so prepping out all country specific sanctions is completely within reason and predictable. The resolution implicates some form of moral obligation due to the word ought. Thus, the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/09/2011 for the course US 122 taught by Professor Trelawney during the Spring '10 term at Colby-Sawyer.

Page1 / 7

Parker -Haiti AC - HaitiAC Thihan Nyun defines economic...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online