You can argue that sanctions are an ethical means of policy because they don't work, there is no justification for them anyway. The historical evidence so far indicates that their success can rarely be expected. The other argument is that even the opposite may occur, that economic damage tends to not actually force a state to change it policy, but often triggers a "rally-round the-flag effect" where leaders in targeted nations use the economic pain brought about from sanctions of foreign nations creates nationalism and political integration rather than disintegration expected. A study of long-term boycotts against Cuba, Israel and Rhodesia shows how even with considerable economic damage, the only political affect was integration. Thus the historical evidence proves sanctions ineffectual does not lead to an ethical policy.

The estimate that one third of the 115 cases they examined were effective, is widely disputed. An observation that in all cases stated as a success, it was also because of other factors, such as military intervention, and that instead only less than 5% of the 115 cases cited brought about political compliance. Thus, the fact that it is widely known before their implementation that they are likely to fail makes the application of sanctions that much more serious a matter, and those who implement them should know better and hold more moral responsibility because they know the consequences of what will happen.

Therefore, because the 'utility calculation' of sanctions is not good, in that the probability of sanctions being effective at stopping military aggression or human rights violations is not high, coupled with the fact that the high probability that sanctions will harm most of the vulnerable population is known proves that sanctions are not a rational, ethical means of policy.

The nature of sanction themselves is unethical because it is an unequal means of policy. Sanctions are tailored to harm nations who have weak economies and are dependent on imports, whilst they are ineffective on large diverse, powerful economies. Because richer states have the resources and money to pay the costs in the short run of not being able to trade, coupled with the ability to make the adjustments in the long run, sanctions are a tool that are only suitable for weak or unstable economies.