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
Hufbauer and colleagues define economic sanctions as "the deliberate, government-inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of
customary trade or financial relations."
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
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
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
it provides for the clearest division of ground for both debaters since there is ample
literature for comprehensive sanctions on both sides.
Target sanctions don’t incentivize good
research, as I would simply find hyper specific evidence. It promotes a race to the bottom.
should debate about how sanctions are actually used and not in their best or worst instances.
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