UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS: DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INSUFFICIENCY OF UTILITARIAN PERSPECTIVE FOR ITS APPLICATION

Abstract

Placed in an intermediate position between the adoption of armed military intervention and diplomatic
measures, economic sanctions have been a recurring instrument in international relations in the postCold War period. Such measures are usually applied as a tool for the political authorities of the
sanctioned country to change any practices contrary to human rights or that jeopardize peace and
global stability. However, even in the face of the recurrence of these measures in recent periods,
there is no clear theoretical and procedural elaboration for its application, so that its adoption is
ordinarily guided by the compass of cost-benefit analysis. It is, in fact, the inadequacy of this
theoretical justification - eminently utilitarian - that is intended to counter in this work as well to
demonstrate its moral misconceptions and legitimacy. Thus, the article begins presenting a brief
concept about what economic sanctions are, the reasons for its recent popularity and the current
utilitarian justification for its adoption. Then, is introduced Michael Walzer's fair-war theory, seeking
to demonstrate its applicability to economic sanctions and to defend the moral inadequacy and
legitimacy stemming from both the utilitarian reading and Walzer's lessons, emphasizing the need to
consider the formulation of a theoretically corrected analogue for such sanctions. Are also raised
questions about possible injury to international trade rules as a result of economic sanctions’
application. As a conclusion, the article defends the need to elaborates a theory of morality and
procedures for unilateral application of economic sanctions.