tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post1924728889348178326..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: sanctions, trade, and private actorsJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-30175164674059313152010-04-11T21:30:21.146-07:002010-04-11T21:30:21.146-07:00could this be used as a negative argument? i have ...could this be used as a negative argument? i have not really looked into the Burma issue, but it seems like, depending on the definition of sanctions, that countries like Burma need to have the right to restrict international trade to prevent human rights abuses. In this sense, could restrictions on trade become a self-defense mechanism? <br /><br />(the international policy objectives could be handled in regard the international trade, and lack thereof)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-51402436247422692342010-02-08T21:03:32.040-08:002010-02-08T21:03:32.040-08:00The free trade affirmative bites directly into a W...The free trade affirmative bites directly into a WTO disad - given that the WTO relies upon economic sanctions to enforce free trade regulations (free trade is only the optimum trade strategy when no one defaults, so the incentives to cheat in certain markets need to be checked by more substantial consequences), in a sanctionless world, free trade faces many more disruptions.<br /><br />For further reading, see Robert Z Lawrence "Crimes and Punishments? Retaliation in the WTO".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02023927639952897194noreply@blogger.com