Collective punishment, embargos, blockades, sanctions...
Collective Punishment
Collective punishment is a form of retaliation whereby a suspected perpetrator's
family members, friends, acquaintances,
sect, neighbors or entire ethnic group is targeted. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the
laws of war and the
Geneva Conventions.
[1] Historically,
occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by
Resistance movements (such as destroying entire towns and villages which were believed to have harboured or aided such resistance movements).
Looking at this definition, actions that Israel has engaged in, such as destroying the homes of the families of terrorists IS collective punishment.
But there is a lack of moral clarity in the use of embargos, blockades, seiges and sanctions. Are they collective punishment?
When do they become collective punishment?
Blockades and sanctions represent a form of "soft" pressure on a state to change some form of behavior. That's better than bombing them. So at some point collective punishment seems to be "ok" - western countries are using it on NK, it was used on Saddam's Iraq, pre-civil war Syria...and it HAS had some positive results - bringing people to the negotiating table for example.
At what point do blockades become morally unacceptable?
