International diplomacy has traditionally used economic penalties as a tactic to penalize or dissuade governments from acting immorally or illegally. However, sanctions create an ethical conundrum when analyzed through the prism of the Just-War Doctrine, a framework that has historically been employed to assess the morality of armed combat. Is economic coercion an illegitimate kind of aggression, or can it be justified under the just war principles? Understanding the Just-War Doctrine: The Just-War Doctrine, deeply rooted in Christian theology and philosophy, particularly in the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, establishes moral criteria for the initiation and conduct of war. These criteria generally include: Just Cause – War must be waged for a morally justified reason, such as self-defense or preventing grave harm. Legitimate Authority – Only a recognized governing body has the right to wage war. Right Intention – The intention must be to secure justice and peace, not for revenge or conquest. Last Resort – All non-violent measures must be exhausted before resorting to force. Proportionality – The harm inflicted must not outweigh the benefits gained. Discrimination – Warfare should distinguish between combatants and non-combatants to avoid unnecessary suffering. While originally applied to military conflict, these principles can be extended to non-military coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Economic Sanctions as a Just-War Alternative: Sanctions are often seen as a non-violent means of achieving diplomatic objectives without direct military intervention. They are imposed to pressure governments into changing policies deemed unjust or harmful. However, they raise several ethical concerns when evaluated under just-war principles: Just Cause and Right Intention: Sanctions are typically imposed to counter human rights abuses, aggression, or nuclear proliferation. However, their effectiveness in achieving these goals is debatable. If sanctions primarily serve the political interests of powerful nations rather than justice, they may fail the test of moral legitimacy. Proportionality: Economic sanctions frequently harm civilians more than the ruling elite. For example, comprehensive sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s led to widespread malnutrition and medical shortages, disproportionately affecting innocent populations. If the suffering inflicted outweighs the intended benefits, sanctions may not be morally justifiable. Discrimination: Unlike military action, which (ideally) targets combatants, economic sanctions often punish entire populations. Civilians bear the brunt of economic hardship, while authoritarian regimes find ways to insulate themselves. This indiscriminate impact challenges the ethical justification of sanctions. Last Resort: While sanctions are often framed as a peaceful alternative to war, they are sometimes imposed without fully exhausting diplomatic channels. In some cases, they become a precursor to war rather than a deterrent. Are Economic Sanctions a Form of Economic Warfare?: Some argue that economic sanctions are a form of warfare by other means. They inflict harm on a nation’s economy, disrupt trade, and degrade living conditions—all without direct military confrontation. If sanctions function as an economic siege that leads to widespread suffering, they may violate just-war principles, particularly proportionality and discrimination. A Path Forward: Ethical Sanctions?: If economic sanctions are to align with just-war ethics, they must be designed with moral considerations in mind: Targeted Sanctions: Focusing on political leaders, military officials, and economic elites rather than imposing blanket restrictions on an entire nation. Humanitarian Exemptions: Ensuring access to food, medicine, and essential goods for civilians. Clear Objectives and Exit Strategies: Establishing measurable goals and timelines to prevent indefinite suffering. Multilateral Oversight: Engaging international bodies like the United Nations to ensure fairness and prevent sanctions from becoming tools of political dominance.