I've been reading on here that sanctions are an act of war. I'm curious as to what type of sanctions are considered such.
Are we talking about purely economic sanctions and withdrawing from trade or is this a military blockade?
Printable View
I've been reading on here that sanctions are an act of war. I'm curious as to what type of sanctions are considered such.
Are we talking about purely economic sanctions and withdrawing from trade or is this a military blockade?
Let's say a person came to your house and nailed all the windows and doors shut so you couldn't get anything in/out. Would you be upset? What would you consider the person who did this to you?
"If goods don't cross borders, armies will."
-Bastiat
Sanctions are acts of war when country X uses force to adversely affect trade/commerce going into or out of country Y.
Withdrawing from trade is not an act of war (and is not really a "sanction" in this sense) - it's just a unilateral decision by country X not to engage in trade with country Y.
In this case, no use of force is necessary - between X and Y, that is. Country X might use force to prevent its own citizens from engaging in trade with country Y, but that wouldn't be an act of war against country Y.
Blockades ARE acts of war - they require the aggressive (non-defensive) application of force against some other target country in order to be implemented.
You could use aggressive force to intervene in your own internal affairs, but if you ever tried doing so against another country in any way, you were considered to be committing an act of war. My understanding is that this was more or less the standard view until some time in the not-too-distant past (not exactly sure when, but surely no more than a century - if that).
When we are talking about sanctions on Iran, does anyone know the specifics?
I guess I am trying to justify a defensive war based on sanctions.
Everything the state does is an act of war. Everything.
This describes sanctions against Iran since 1979 and their effects-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
Madelin Allbright admitted that 500,000 Iraqi children died due to sanctions, but stated that it was worth it.
I'd consider causing the death of 1 American child, by another countries actions an act of war. Times that by half a million.
well a very easy one is the banking system.
banks are not allowed to transact with Iranian companies. accounts of companies and individuals are frozen by fiat (government decree).
Government doesn't just sanction countries either. For instance, the same type of sanctions I mentioned above are applied to online gambling, albeit not as severe in the seizing of assets (frozen accounts). Government make it a civil offense and sometimes criminal for banks to transact with companies who conduct certain types of business.
These sanctions are acts of war against a country because the serve to put a country at a tactical and strategic disadvantage that has military implications. Sanctions are aggressive in the sense that they project hostile relations inside the borders of an adversary.
Contrasting sanctions to normal trade relations, sanctions are those economic restrictive acts that occur without formalized relations and occur outside the realm of diplomacy. Tariffs are formalize trade relation consequences that are carried out within a specific set of rules and moderated by by the trade agreements.
Sanctions can be imposed on countries with formal trade relations at the risk of jeopardizing normal trade relations and agreements.
This is my understanding and not an academic lesson. I have no sources or links, but I can scratch the surface if you need citations.
here ya go.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/gordon.htm
think siege warfare.
Tariffs are an act of war as well.
I could see where it may be considered an act of war, but definitely a precursor to war.
dbl post
First, we need to clarify the notions of the rights involved. There is not a "right" to buy anything. If we agree that property rights are a characteristic of the property itself - I have a "right" to sell or use the property I own, but no right to property I do not own. Thus, any infringement on the ability to do commerce is an infringement on the rights of the seller, not the buyer.
In the case of a tariff, applied by a third party, without consent, is an infringement on the seller, making his property less valuable in the market, because it carries a higher price. It is not an act of war, as the owner still retains his property, and is free to sell it to anyone who pays the price. It is just that different potential buyers may face different prices for the same property. Any recourse is the seller's to make, not the potential buyer.
Not an act of war.
If I own an ounce of silver and want to give it to you for a box of ammo, am I the seller or the buyer?
And regardless of which I am, how does some third party attain the right to involve itself in that transaction without our permission and demand that one of us give it something when we make it?
And suppose we do not agree to give that third party its cut and that third party does some act of violence against one of us as a punishment for our insubordination to it, then does it become an act of war?
My field ;)
Short: YES OR NOT ACT OF WAR CAN BE DEBATED BUT IT GAVE IRAN "JUST CAUSE" FOR WAR!!!!
According to "Just war doctrine" sanctions on Iran are not "act of war" but are giving Iran "jus ad bellum"- the right to go to war because they will do this: "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain"... USA sanction will cause lasting, grave, and certain and irreparable damage to the Iranian people and economy.
Diplomatic sanctions-done
Economic sanctions-done( USA declared minimum of two acts of war: 1. against Irans banks and 2. against anyone in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank. ) and more
Military sanctions-dont know
Also LOL what a sweet irony (definition of Terrorism accepted by USA Law schools):
the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of:
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin
If you got any more questions about this feel free to ask. Ill be glad to help if I can.
*I do not support Irans government or take sides on this I just explain legal situation and answer asked question!
Sanctions are actually not an act of war, nor are they an act of aggression in legal terms understood by the international community.
Now, if a country declares in advance that any sanctions imposed on them would be considered an act of war, then they could legitimately declare them to be an act of war once imposed.
Jimmy Carter declared that sanctions on mid east oil would be declared an act of war. The Iranians AFAIK have not declared sanctions on their central bank to be an act of war. Therefore, the US government imposing sanctions on the Iranian central bank are NOT an act of war because it doesn't fit the definition, nor do the Iranians consider it to be.
Blockades on the other hand are indeed an act of war.
In my next post I will give law review articles which discuss this in depth and in legal terms: