North American Philosophical Publications

On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions Author(s): Eric H. Beversluis Source: Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 15-25 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40435708 . Accessed: 02/07/2013 21:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Affairs Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PublicAffairs Quarterly 1989 Volume 3, Number 2, April,

ON SHUNNING UNDESIRABLE REGIMES: ETHICS AND ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

EricH. Beversluis

I will not forcethe sanctioned IS oftenclear thateconomicsantions is little that South itsways.There for nation tochange likelihood, example, serious world economic eveninthe faceoffairly willgiveupapartheid, Africa thegeneral on sanctions seemsto support literature The economic pressure. andSchott, ofsanctions lackofeffectiveness 1985).Yetintheface (Hufbauer to be calls to imposesuchsantions. continue there of thisknowledge circumstances are(a) tomake for sanctions under these Thereasons given in and to avoid immoral behavior a witness complicity particularly (b) against notes: that behavior. John Galtung onereason andwhen is impossible for oranother, action When doing military then has seen as tantamount to is complicity, something tobe doneto nothing as a clear that that atleast toeveryone serves signal morality, something express do not of.Ifthesanctions has doneis disapproved thereceiving nation what functions. canatleasthaveexpressive Thus instrumental serve they purposes international dramatic as a highly morality, wayof reinforcing (andcostly) ... (Galtung, sancitons economic 1983,pgs.48-49.) maybe useful on "SavingNestle'sSoul" writes: in his reflections Tiemstra AndJohn todowith recalcitrant sinners. usthat weshould have tells nothing Scripture individual sinners this of also one argue, practice avoiding ...Perhaps, might withan Just as we wouldnotwantto associate to corporations. extends also wantto avoid supporting we might individual, by our unrepentant thatis persistently for its lack of notorious any corporation purchases responsibility. 15

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16

PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

is forthebenefit of theones shunning, nottheone being Shunning shunned. Itis a lastresort, when to call has every repentance goneunanswered andthere is no longer that theperson be saved.We anyearthly hope might therefore mustshunin order to avoid beingimplicated in thesin being I doubt committed. that is themajor behind motivation theNestle shunning 1979,p. 4.) boycott. (Tiemstra, Let us adopt Tiemstra's idea of calling this kind of sanctionbehavior We findshunning in thecustoms mostexplicitly of "shunning." developed certain will Mennonite The of this be fundamental groups. question paper whether there is indeed a moral toshun certain becauseoftheir duty regimes I beginwitha formal definition of shunning: immorality. Anindividual A shuns orinstitution individual B when another orinstitution in or refuses to in interaction economic or A, part totally, engage social, political B (avoids with willful immoral andpersistent B) as a witness against flagrant, behavior B. by Note that shunning is distinct fromavoidance behaviormotivated by considerations ofself-interest. Thusa nation is notshunning whenitbansthe sale of strategic materials if he to an enemy, noris an individual shunning refuses toassociate with another outoffear that he willbe "led astray" bythe latter's vices. to theproblem ofwhether there is a duty to shunis the Closelyrelated seemsa form In a sinful ofcomplicity. question whyandhowdoingnothing worldwe musthave cooperative withother sinners. relations Surelythose relations do notmakeus accomplices to all of their sins. Neither nor Tiemstra Galtung explores arguments philosophical regardAndalthough much oftheextensive literature on international ingshunning. and especially on human to ourquestions, morality rights policesis relevant noneof it,to myknowledge, addresses as heredefined. directly "shunning" the analogywithChristian Perhapswe can best beginby exploring as practiced in Mennonite whichis based on certain New shunning groups, Testament which exhort Christians to avoid contact with those who passages havefallen from Christian faith and life. J.C. in The Mennonite away Wenger of Mennonite Encyclopedia givesthissummary shunning: TheNewTestament much stress onthe intimate life offellowship and places which shall characterize the life ofthe members ofthe Christian Church. sharing On sucha premise, when coldin theChristian lifeandfinally anyone grows reverts to a life of it becomes the sin, naturally completely dutyof the to remove such a from the of congregation person fellowship thechurch. Avoidance is the name tothe of nofellowship with such given practice having excommunicated andimpenitent sinners. TheNewTestament instruction is"not toeat"with sucha person, "not tokeepcompany" with him. (I Cor.5:11).The

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ON SHUNNING UNDESIRABLE REGIMES

17

the term"avoidance" is takenfromRom. 16:17 wherethe apostle instructs Paul told believerto "avoid" thosewho workagainstthepeace of thechurch. withthosewho disobeyed theThessalonian Christians to "have no company" his epistle.(II Thess. 3:14). II John10 advisesnotto "receiveintothehouse nottruedoctrine." bid god speed) himthat 1955, p. (Wenger, (neither brings 200) or coldlylegalistic: "...Let suchmoderation Avoidanceis notto be harsh be used thatsuch shunning and reproof and Christian discretion may not be butserviceable to his amendment. For shouldhe be in conductive to his ruin, we are naked,sick,or visitedby some other affliction, need,hungry, thirsty, in duty andhisapostles, tothedoctrine andpractice ofChrist bound,according the to renderhim aid and assistance,as necessitymay require;otherwise to his ruinthanto his amendment of himmight rather be conducive shunning from theDordrecht ofFaith.) Confession (I Thess. 5:14)." (Ibid.; quotation

is to thepurpose ofshunning Threeideas seemto stand outhere.First, and not it as mark to Christian in the special fellowship, protect someway is a person which Second,theshunning granted. may justtakefor something to his amendment." butrather "servicable to his ruin" notto be "conducive topeoplewhoareorwhohavebeenmembers is limited toshun the Third, duty a certain ofirreligious Andithas todo with oftheChristian type fellowship. ofshunning the In fact with than behavior rather question immorality. general areimmoral, ornotthey whether with thefellowship, never associated those is not a dutythatappliestowards does not come up. Christian shunning in general. non-Christians in thatit differs fromChristian Thus "secular"shunning shunning for secular the ofa moral all members involves Likewise, grounds community. a walk but from the Christian a are not flagrant, away falling shunning is to The problem, violation of themoralorder. and willful then, persistent a dutyof individuals, establishby appeal to generalmoral principles Two ornations. toshun other ornations individuals, corporatons, corporations, of the will as withChristian First, purpose just shunning emerge. parallels so oftheChristian is toprotect thespecialness Christian fellowship, shunning of the thespecialness is to protect or moral of secular thepurpose shunning involves thatsecularshunning moralcommunity. Second, to the extent ruin" but his to is be "conductive its not to an punishing offender, purpose to his amendment." "serviceable rather II interests. If we is resolving taskof morality A fundamental conflicting the a basis for bothwantthesamepiece of land,eithics resolving provides I If in want to smash "thine." "mine" and conflict your anger by identifying

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18

PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

is a legitimate interest face'sbeing unsmashed indicates that face,ethics your in interest ofyours which takes over own expressing myrage. precedence my interests conflict. Thusethics whentheir identifies therights of individuals Whose viewofmorality? Buthowcana casefor be madeonthis shunning to well have The shunner interests does may shunning protect? (rights) but trade sacrifice a beneficial his interest, relationship, e.g., by foregoing seemtobe no "rights" there whoserights arethereby In shunning protected? the as we haveseen,does notassumethat that are protected. Forshunning, If economic sanctions will the behavior. cost resulting change disapproved willnothelp willnotbring South Africa toan end,andthus against apartheid to impose such on what itbe a duty theblacksgettheir rights, grounds might sanctions? "level"ofmoral is another We find theanswer whenwe notethat there a he has identified . . . duties. WhenGaltung of morality," speaks "reinforcing The acts of that people's rights. respecting duty goes beyoundspecific of therights in respecting goes like this:Thereis moreinvolved argument a as there is such if For than them one's actions. others notviolating thing by has then one in a a moral unites moral which order, community, surely people with therights ofothers toavoidviolating a duty prima only (atleast facie)not that moralorder. butalso to support one's actions to people's contributes order itself Consider that themoral significantly moral and reinforcing It does so by encouraging rights being respected. Inthis moral andsanctioning behavior. andbydiscouraging immoral behavior and thus moral behavior reinforce each other's community peoplemutually todisintegrate, were raisetheoverall Were this moral order levelofmorality. wouldbe much there each other's moral behavior, peopleto stopreinforcing affects more that behavior the violation ofpeople'srights. Thusto theextent itindirectly this is moralorder, affects And where shunning people'srights. fits in. Certain a direct on themoralorder. of behavior constitute attack types Whentheviolation is and persistent, the of human willful, rights flagrant, offender her at the nose moral is,as itwere, order, thumbing publicly rejecting itas binding herbehavior. suchbehavior, iftolerated will Clearly bysociety, weakenandperhaps undermine the moral order. Let us eventually altogether look briefly at thosethree conditions whichturn immoral behavior intoan attack on themoralorder. An immoralaction is flagrant if it is "extremely or deliberately the word means notorious, conspicuous; shocking." Etymologically "burning" or "blazing." The definition ofshunning therefore that those offenses implies which are shameless or which the makes indiscreet, require shunning person no effort tohideandnogood-faith effort toexcuse.Suchactions "blazeforth" as an attack on themoral order. Buttomerit theaction must also be shunning willful andpersistent. We do notconsider theactions ofthe"backslider," the

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ON SHUNNING UNDESIRABLE REGIMES

19

offender to be challenges to themoral order. It is theone-time weak-willed, the the cold-blooded violator of the repeatoffender, unrepentent sinner, the demands thatothers reaffirm moral whose behavior morality publicly andrepeatedly violates themoral Whensomeone order. willfully, flagrantly, of the moral the members thosewho believe in the moralorder, order, ofthat ina waythat reaffirms thelegitimacy moral must respond community, do this? order. How does shunning oneannounces tohavetodowith sucha person First, byrefusing publicly with and the action. This order backs announcement for the moral up support and to themoral order both oftheshunner reinforces thecommitment action in effect of thecommunity. of StateShultz members of theother (Secretary inhiscall for international sanctions onLibyaintheearly madethis argument daysof 1986.) even on theshunned Further, person, mayhavea moraleffect shunning If the immoral behavior. the is not to if thedirect adequate change impact of the moral of herself as thinks shunned community, shunning part person herself from that she is, in fact, removing maywell makeclearto herthat achieve Thus moral in behavior the by may shunning community by question. be achieved suasionwhatcannot by "force." whose ofmoral be a form ofpunishment, sanction, shunning may Finally, theperson's itwillchange noton whether behavior, depends appropriateness themoralorder. forviolating thepunishement he deserves buton whether themoral of than can be viewedas a wayof maintaining Punishment order, as ancient been made it has after the "unclean," "purifying community" haveputit. communities might that we shun. As noted action immoral Yetnotevery above,we requires that we If theargument Noneofus is perfect. world. livein a fallen implied of a it wouldconsist who is immoral, to do withanyone mayhave nothing to shunhim, to To isolatea person, of shunning. notion reductio of thevery a at strikes is a serious him the "silent treatment," person's Nothing thing. give notevery suchostracism. more than as person Furthermore, directly wellbeing arerepented and which Actions on themoral order. actis an attack immoral but do not attack will of violate weakness out of are done which actions clearly itis defined nature ofshunning, Thusbecauseoftheserious themoral order. buttoattacks on the ofthemoral not as a response order, justtoanyviolation and itself moralorder willful, wrongdoing. persistent through flagrant, circumstances certain canunder failure toshun Wecanalso nowsee why failure shun because have a that we to But it is not duty suggest complicity. an to we have because to do so suggests Rather, obligation shun complicity. ourfailure when we failtodo so others incertain circumstances, mayinterpret and flagrant in thewillful, as tacit immorality. persistent, complicity

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

III In this I address a number with theclaim section ofobjections, beginning that theargument and notto states. onlyappliesto individuals 1. Manymaintain that nations. there areno moral orduties among rights Others hold that nations have a right to self-determination whichobligates canwe other intheir nations nottointerfere internal affairs. On what grounds that as liable nations as well individuals can be to shun and be say obligated to be shunned? As I see it,nations in thesensethat do things that areagents affect they interests"do things" inthesenseinwhich andnot people's peopledo things - forthey in thesensein which thewinddoes things haveboththepowerto affect andtheability to decidewhether ornotto do so. But people'sinterests an in this is a for havingmoral sense sufficient condition being agent And the is for the to shun responsibility. duty general, argument perfectly to all morally Institiutions suchas thestate can applying responsible agents. act in ways whichdirectly attackand undermine the moral order,and individuals and institutions as a witness to the can sanction suchoffenders moralorder. As moralagents to support themoral states are also obligated orderand henceto shunwhenthe situation demands. (For moredetailed of thearguments that see Cohen(1985) analysis morality appliesto nations and Beitz(1979).) Butperhaps in the pragmatic argument against interfering Thompson's affairs of other states rulesoutnational shunning: for a crusading domestic causes toquestion Respect jurisdiction diplomatists tohuman Routine interference intheessential conduct ofthe approach rights. affairs ofonegovernment ofitsrights andduties) is, in itsdefintion (that by is a recipe another for disaster inpolitical Furthermore, relationships. history offers littlesupport forthe assumption thatmoralintervention changes institutions and practices sometimes suchintervention can even elsewhere; make the situation worse. Given the realities ofnational methods sovereignity, suchas quietdiplomacy, theprivate ofincentives andrewards, and offering sustained individual contacts aremore results. toyield is a likely Workability torespect for domestic companion principle jurisdiction. Together they provide the main inhuman for action as inother diplomatists' guidelines rights spheres offoreign 1980,pp. 91-92) policy. (Thompson, As a general caution ourdesire to "do something" whenwe do against notlikethepoliciesof another is country, Thompson's pragmatic approach sound.Butshunning a specialsituation in which, and represents persuasion direct been tried and having theobjective is notto failed, pressure having behavior buttowitness it. has been tried andhas change against "Workability"

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ON SHUNNING UNDESIRABLE REGIMES

21

andwillful violation ofhuman theflagrant, continues failed; persistent, rights and must be confronted publicly. A frequent to "human objection rights" policiesmayalso be raisedto does one nation The imposeitsvalueson another? By whatright shunning: that the reaction of a shunning represents mayproceed by noting argument who its standards in serious to those But, particularly way. community reject since is nosuchmoral itwillcontinue, there nations, community surely among on basic moral standards. there is no world-wide agreement inhislecture these on"Human addresses Jos Rights questions Zalaquett His thesis is that there is a ofInternational Conduct." andMoralDimensions that as is evidenced on basichuman world-wide consensus bythefact rights, theUnited Nations Charter havesigned theworld's nations (Zalaquett, 1983). the formoralobligations Thus besidesgeneralarguments nations, among the of the the nations world duties of certain supports by explicit recognition to be protected. whichought order is a worldmoral there claimthat for whocanbe responsible So, as moral violating people's agents agents, such other as wellas individuals nations (andpresumably institutions, rights, have these cases separtely) we havenotexamined as corporationsalthough andought tobe shunned circumstances certain under toshun a prima facieduty circumstances. under certain violatesthe thatshunning the objection 2. We shouldalso consider the or brother a to to sister, obligation obligation "keeptalking" "wayward" involves that of"moral The kind them off." notot "write shunning banning" individuals more and more order themoral infact byisolating mayundermine we find theobjective from themoral againto Galtung, Turning community. forthe sake of withthatof punishing constrasted behavior of changing punishing: "If in sanction ...it makes policies, engaged goodsensetoaska politician without would outcome which cannot have both, youprefer, punishment you Ifheinsists that without orcompliance punishment punishment?" compliance that he is naive;if he insists then forcompliance, condition is a sufficient in then he is probably forcompliance, condition is a necessary punishment hasbecome inthe sensethat addition punishment punishment-oriented highly This punishmentalso cherished and probably an automatic goal in itself. as applied to the is attitude probably oriented widespread, particularly fairly If sanctions. maintain to and serves international compliance negative system, from there is at leastthegratification is notobtained, (orbelieving) knowing hasbeen criminal that the hisdue, sinner that the 1983, (Galtung, punished. gets p. 20.) onedoesnotshun this tomeeting arerelevant Twopoints First, objection. and and of Therearemany as a first resort. steps personal publicpersuasion human Are not decides on taken before one be that should shunning. pressure

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22

PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

better 1983,pp. (See Zalaquett, rights promoted through "quietdiplomacy"? and flagrancy which of persistency, willfulness, 79-80.) Recall thecriteria must be met that willdrive before oneshuns. Thusshunning is notsomething from themoral butrather a recognition ofthe peopleor nations community, fact that haveremoved from themoral themselves Second, they community. tohave is nota complete ofrelationships, a complete refusal shunning rupture the to do with.Even whileimposing sanctions as a publicwitness against immoral talks the shunee back one can continue to behavior, designed bring tothemoral suchshunning RecalltheMennonite norm "that and community. not be his conducive to his to amendment." but serviceable ruin, reproof may 3. A third is that is hypocritical. How,forexample, objection shunning can theUnited States ingoodconscience shun South Africa, given (a) itsown athomeand(b) itsfailure toapply thesameprinciples totheSoviet injustices Union? stone."This biblical thefirst (a) "Let himwho is without guiltthrow will make before herneighbor's injunction anyonepause judgingpublicly Yet must we not do this on we occasion? Must admitted not, morality. having andshortcomings, ourownfailings best our done our to own house having put inorder, andhaving affirmed tothe ourowncommitment moral order, thereby on occasion publiclydisassociate ourselvesfromthose whose behavior indicates therefusal to do justthat? We maybe wrong; others maysee us as a hypocrites. Butintheendwe must follow inthis as inother ourconsciences matters. can also be that must be hypocritical because (b) The objection shunning nationscannotconsistently shunall humanrights violators. Is therenot in applying different standards to theSovietUnion, is large which hypocrisy and powerful, and to SouthAfrica, whichis relatively small and weak? are offended of liberalsto Certainly manyconservatives by an eagerness condemn South Africa which is not matched tocondemn byanequaleagerness - although theSovietUnion theSovietUnionseemsequally ofwillful, guilty andflagrant violations ofthemoral order. There is no hypocrisy or persistent if there are situations in which a to however, inconsistency, facieduty prima shunis overridden some other by duty. It is possible, ofcourse, to advocate South Africa butto deny shunning evena prima to shun the SovietUnion.One couldarguethat the facie duty forshunning theSovietUnion(treatment of dissidents or purported grounds thewar in Afghanistan) do notconsititute and willful flagrant, persistent, violations of themoralorder. This kindof disagreement aboutshunning is unavoidable. For therewill alwaysbe a strong element of judgment in decisions about evenamong basicmoral shunning, peoplewhoagreeon their The reason is that notions like involve principles. "flagrancy" inescapably ofdegree andjudgments ofmotives which do notadmit ofprecise judgments measurement.

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ON SHUNNING UNDESIRABLE REGIMES

23

toshun there is aprima the Soviet Union. Arethere Butsuppose facieduty override that In Morality and other dutieswhichmight primafacie duty? whathe calls the, monistic Policy, Foreign Thompson (1980) arguesagainst and of American tradition foreign policy withits "searchfor clear-cut anditsrejection of"ambivalence andbalancing moral positions" unequivocal that tradition ofpluralism hesupports the which ofvalues." Instead, recognizes involve values. moral international usually conflicting problems A clearexample theduty toshun? kinds canoverride What ofobligations Iftoshun intown means theonly ofself-preservation. is theobligation grocer the overrides the to shun. On of then tostarve, duty myduty self-preservation essential interests ofthe state havea similar the between states levelofrelations ofa state interests aresuchessential claim.Ifthere (for example, preservation then theduty toprotect thoseinterests andinternal ofborders may security), that United States Anargument toomuch toshun. a duty welloverride pressure wouldundermine therelationship human Union on theSoviet rights regarding forwouldpeace wouldbe of thiskind. thesecountries between necessary a that a nation notto alienate an be Another ought argument might example vital While these a of is the source who arguments import. only trading partner that to shun, to avoidan inconvenient be usedin bad faith duty surely might be anyhypocrisy neednot Thusthere invalid. them render doesnot be,but may order attack on themoral a certain for onenation inshunning orinconsistency attack. foran equallyserious another butnotshunning Shouldwe shuna nation cause injustices. can itself 4. Finally, shunning will fall if theburden of some or all of its citizens therights that violates are Africa South sanctions For victims? on those against example, primarily the blacks South African hurt the will that on thegrounds often they rejected will has. this Yetitis notclearwhat most. shunning argument Certainly weight whichtheoppressive forSouthAfrica, cause economic hardship hardship to theblackpeople.Buttheoppressed peoplemay maywell transer regime their overall as itwere, sinceitmay, that additional welcome burden, lighten as worth their and their burden dignity) human (Wurde, byrecognizing plight on their needed to carry moral them the It maygive encouragement beings. thecriesof theblackpeopleagainst alongwith apartheid, Finally, struggle. arewilling that themselves seemtobe evidence andboycotts, strikes their they theburden In other to fight to makethesacrifices cases,however, apartheid. itself of shunning people.Thenshunning mayin no wayhelptheoppressed be must sanctions notbe done;alternative andshould be unjust wouldclearly members of thesociety. theoffending will affect devisedwhich since the shunning of justicecan also arise within Problems nation, For its citizens. costs on will almostcertainly imposeunequal shunning of certain and stockholders the employees will affect example,sanctions This little. the while problem public affecting general significantly companies not ofeconomic all forms burden canarisewith ofuneven sanctions, justwith

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

when farmers of course.Recall the pain suffered by American shunning, tothe after the invasion President Soviet Union Carter stopped grain shipments Itseemsclearly unfair ofthenation tobear ofAfghanistan. toexpect only part that To theextent thedomestic theburden of thewitness immorality. against be incidence of suchpliciescan be identified, policiesshould compensating of other such as markets, subsidies, divised, government policies opening revenues andthereby etc.which canbe funded outofgeneral spread purchase, theburden overthewholenation. fairly IV We beganwith thequestion whether itis evera nation's to impose duty it other on nation when or economic sanctions another boycotts appears thesanctions can raisethecostof theoffending behavior that unlikely high inthe nation it.Wesawthat toforce the other tochange case ofwillful, enough andflagrant was calledfor violations ofhuman sucha policy persistent, rights as part themoral order We of theduty to protect and themoral community. then a the that examined number does ofproblems for theory, noting morality is a lastresort that that does tonations as wellas toindividuals; apply shunning notruleoutcontinued efforts to workwiththeoffending nota first nation, there thus that can be other duties whichoverride theduty to shun, resort; the or and that of double-standardism; creating appearance hypocrisy steps mustbe takento ensurethattheburden is distributed of shunning fairly, costson theoppressed does notper although imposing people themselves sem't outshunning. Thisessayis an initial ofthemoral ofshunning. Of exploration practice course for howindividuals about andnations remain, many questions example tobe shunned. is the What ofavoidance, oraredifferent ought appropriate type kinds of avoidance appropriate under different conditions? But these must await another occasion. has been saidhere explorations Perhaps enough toputthetopic ofshunning on theethicist's and to start the discussion. agenda AquinasCollege NOTES
and International Relations Beitz,Charles.1979. PoliticalTheory (Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press). and International Relations." In Cohen,Marshall.1985. "Moral Skepticism International Ethics: A Philosophy andPublic ed.byCharles R. Beitz, Reader, Affairs Marshal ThomasScanlon, andA. John Simmons N.J.:Princeton Cohen, (Princeton, University Press),pp. 3-50.

Received November 2, 1988

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REGIMES ON SHUNNING UNDESIRABLE

25

1983."On theEffects ofInternational Economic John. Sanctions: With Galtung, of in Dilemmas the Case Economic from Coercion: Sanctions Rhodesia," of Examples ed.byMiroslav andPeter Nincic inWorld Politics, Wallersteen, pp. 17-60.(NewYork: in World vol. 19, no. 3 (April,1967), pp. Politics, published originally Praeger); 378-416). C. Schott.1985. EconomicSanctions Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey and Current D.C.: Institute forInternaReconsidered: History Policy(Washington, tionalEconomics). W. 1980. Morality andForeign Kenneth Policy(BatonRouge,La: Thompson, LouisianaUniversity Press). P. 1979."SavingNestle's John Vol.29, Soul,"TheReformed Tiemstra, Journal, no. 12 (December, 1979),pp. 3-4. In TheMennonite 4 vols.,ed. J.C. 1955. "Avoidance." Encyclopedia, Wenger, Bender Pa.: The Mennonite S. Harold by (Scottsdale, Publishing House). 1983."Human andthe MoralDimensions ofInternational Jos. Rights Zalaquett, TheJesuit inTheMoralDimensions Conduct: Conduct," ofInternational Community A. Devereux D.C.: Georgetown Lectures 1982,ed. byJames University (Washington, Press), pp. 61-81.

This content downloaded from 160.10.5.11 on Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:16:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions