War and other military tactics are, of course, available, but costly. Their advantages: they can be effective in stopping tyrants, and, at least in the modern era, they are normally aimed at military targets, whereas sanctions can be intended to harm civilians. (But see "smart sanctions" for the rebuttal to the latter point.) Their disadvantages: civilians will still suffer or perish; failure is riskier; war is much more costly; the risk of a widening conflict is greater. (I'm sure there are other arguments, too.)
How about non-economic sanctions? Robert P. O'Quinn of the Heritage Foundation details some of the options:
In contrast to economic sanctions, which are intended to penalize a target country financially, non-economic sanctions are aimed at denying legitimacy or prestige. Although the following list is not exhaustive, non-economic sanctions include:Arguably, the last two have an economic impact and thus the Negative might try to claim them as economic sanctions.
* Canceling ministerial and summit meetings with a target country;
* Denying a target country's government officials visas to enter the sender country;
* Withdrawing a sender country's ambassador or otherwise downgrading diplomatic and military contacts with a target country;
* Blocking a target country from joining international organizations;
* Opposing a target country's bid to host highly visible international events, such as the Olympics;
* Withholding foreign aid; and
* Instructing a sender country's directors to vote against new loans to a target country at the World Bank or other international financial institutions.
The rest of O'Quinn's article is well worth a read; he defines terms important to the debate, deconstructs the oft-cited South Africa example, and points out arguments against sanctions' constitutionality. The only weakness of the article is its date: at a decade old, the arguments might be the same, but the evidence has changed, in utility, scope, and relevance.