Should we use tyhis weapon more or less than today, and does it have any effect? I think the answer is a - cautious -yes to both, at least in some cases. Especially when it comes to "bad behaviour" international relations, were there is often little room for other types of action (of course, sometimes force is an option, but not for the "ordinary citizen", and not for most countries).
An example
ne or more actors (states, big companies, others) are seen as damaging the rest of the world, perhaps by extraordinary pollution or other environmental destructive behaviour(of course you can deny that this can be a problem - then asccept it as premise). Perhaps some sort of boycott would be a "service to mankind". Consumer boycott - or, for the more wealthy, investment or loan boycott or restrictions. The counterargument would be that it harms others - and often innocents, or it does not work (I see no proof the latest boycott against the actor I am part of worked - perhaps the reasons were too hard to accept).
An example
ne or more actors (states, big companies, others) are seen as damaging the rest of the world, perhaps by extraordinary pollution or other environmental destructive behaviour(of course you can deny that this can be a problem - then asccept it as premise). Perhaps some sort of boycott would be a "service to mankind". Consumer boycott - or, for the more wealthy, investment or loan boycott or restrictions. The counterargument would be that it harms others - and often innocents, or it does not work (I see no proof the latest boycott against the actor I am part of worked - perhaps the reasons were too hard to accept).