Simone Lawson
Coercive diplomacy is a common practice in interstate relations, aiming to achieve political objectives and advance national interests without engaging in warfare. It involves the use of threatened or limited force to compel an adversary to change its behaviour. While some argue that it is a viable means to achieve foreign policy goals, others question its effectiveness, especially when employed by a coalition of states rather than a single state. The success of coercive diplomacy depends on various factors, including specific circumstances, the power dynamics between the coercing and coerced states, and the adherence to crisis management principles. This form of diplomacy operates in a grey area between peace and war, where the threat of violence plays a pivotal role in shaping interstate relations and crises.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | "Coercion could be understood as achieving the adversary to act relevantly with one's demands without applying brute force, while the adversary will still retain its capabilities to resist." |
| "Coercive diplomacy is one of the most intriguing and common practices of conducting interstate relations and embodies the essence of the art of diplomacy: achieving political objectives and fostering a state's national interest without waging a war." | |
| Use | Coercive diplomacy has been used by the US in no fewer than eight cases since the end of the Cold War. |
| Coercive diplomacy has been used by UN-led coalitions against failed nation-states or quasi-states (e.g. Bosnia, Haiti). | |
| Advantages | Coercive diplomacy can be a viable instrument to obtain foreign policy objectives under specific circumstances. |
| The use of threats of military force by the United States did produce some concessions on the part of North Korea, which in turn opened up more political operating room for US policymakers. | |
| Disadvantages | Coercive diplomacy is more difficult to carry out when it is employed by a coalition of states rather than by a single state. |
| The 1994 negotiations with North Korea have been described as a failure of coercive diplomacy because the Clinton administration used inducements more than force. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Coercive diplomacy in democratic regimes
Coercive diplomacy is a common practice in conducting inter-state relations, achieving political objectives and fostering a state's national interest without waging a war. It involves the use of threatened force and, at times, the limited use of actual force to induce an adversary to change its behaviour.
In democratic regimes, coercive diplomacy has its own peculiarities. For instance, pairs of democracies are significantly less likely to engage in coercive diplomacy with each other than with other types of regimes. This is because the presence of joint democracy reduces the likelihood that states will blackmail each other. The restraint that prevents democracies from fighting large-scale wars also prevents them from coercing one another.
However, there are historical episodes that challenge the claim that democratic-peace theory operates in the realm of coercive diplomacy. For example, in the Fashoda Crisis between Britain and France in 1898, Britain issued an ultimatum to France, threatening "diplomatic humiliation or military defeat in a war". Critics argue that this runs counter to the expectation that relations between democratic states are governed by mutual respect based on democratic norms and culture.
Despite these exceptions, the empirical "fact of the democratic peace" is widely accepted, even if there is disagreement about the mechanisms through which it operates. Some scholars emphasize the role of liberal norms, values, and culture in preventing democracies from coercing each other. Others argue that democratic transparency and power differentials play a more significant role in averting conflict.
In conclusion, while coercive diplomacy may be employed by democratic regimes, it is less likely to occur between pairs of democracies due to the presence of joint democracy and the adherence to democratic norms and values.
Volunteering for Political Campaigns: Why Do People Do It?
You may want to see also
The role of power in coercion
Coercion is a central concept in the study of deterrence, crisis management, and statecraft in international relations. Coercion involves the use of punitive measures, threats, or actual force to compel an adversary to change its behaviour. This can include economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism, in addition to the threat or use of force. Coercive diplomacy, therefore, embodies the essence of diplomacy by achieving political objectives and fostering a state's national interest without waging war.
The distribution of power between parties can significantly impact the course and conduct of a conflict. When there is a significant power imbalance, the more powerful party may impose settlements on the weaker party. This can be seen in the example of parents physically taking a resistant child to school. Coercive power is most effective when the threat of violence or other punishment is sufficient to get the target to comply.
However, it is important to note that the use of coercive power is not limited to physical violence. As Washington Post editor Bob Woodward writes in his book about Donald Trump, "Fear", true power comes from respect and fear, which can be used to exert influence without resorting to violence. This idea of power through fear is also present in Barack Obama's definition of power, where he states that real power means getting what you want without needing to exert violence.
In the context of coercive diplomacy, the use of power must be carefully calibrated to avoid the escalation of a crisis. This involves understanding the limits of coercive diplomacy and adhering to strict principles of crisis management. While coercive diplomacy can be a viable instrument to achieve foreign policy objectives, it must be used within certain boundaries to be effective.
Political Donations: Why the Employer Question?
You may want to see also
Coercion vs brute force
Coercion and brute force are two distinct strategies employed in conflict, with coercion being a more nuanced and complex approach that involves a bargaining and signalling process. Coercion, as defined by Thomas Schelling, involves the use of threatened force and, at times, the limited use of actual force to induce an adversary to change its behaviour. This is different from brute force, which involves the indiscriminate use of violence to defeat an adversary without trying to convince them.
Coercion is a strategy that aims to modify the behaviour of an opponent, ideally through threats and, at most, the limited and demonstrative use of force. It requires the adversary to make a decision, placing the outcome in their hands. This is what makes coercion difficult and complex, as the line between the application of power and the achievement of a desired outcome is not straightforward. Coercion may also entail economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism.
On the other hand, brute force is concerned with the enemy's relative strength and is measured by relative power. It tries to overcome the enemy's strength and imposes power directly, leaving no choice for the target state. Brute force is often associated with indiscriminate and primal violence, which is not aligned with the institutional identity of modern military professionals.
Coercive diplomacy, which involves the use of coercion, is a common practice in conducting inter-state relations and achieving political objectives without waging war. It has been employed by both individual states and coalitions of states, although its success varies depending on the circumstances. While some argue that coercive diplomacy failed in the 1994 negotiations with North Korea, others claim that the use of threats did produce some concessions and improved the negotiating position.
In conclusion, coercion and brute force are distinct strategies with different approaches to power and the adversary. Coercion involves a more nuanced use of threats and limited force to modify behaviour, while brute force relies on relative strength and the direct imposition of power. Coercive diplomacy, which utilises coercion, is a viable means of achieving foreign policy objectives under specific circumstances, provided that the coercing power adheres to strict principles of crisis management.
Trustee Roles: Political Campaigns or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$14.19 $22.99
Coercive diplomacy in coalition vs unilateral use
Coercive diplomacy is a common practice in interstate relations, aiming to achieve political objectives and foster a state's national interest without waging war. It involves the use of threatened force and, at times, limited actual force to induce an adversary to change its behaviour. The viability of coercive diplomacy depends on various factors, including the balance of power, clarity of objectives, efficient communication, and domestic and international support.
When comparing the coalition versus unilateral use of coercive diplomacy, some analysts argue that it is more challenging to execute this strategy in a coalition setting. George and Simmons contend that the unity of a coalition may be fragile, undermining the credibility of its threats. This view, however, has been contested in the post-Cold War context, where coercive diplomacy has been predominantly employed by UN-led coalitions against failed nation-states or quasi-states, such as in Bosnia and Haiti.
On the one hand, coalition coercive diplomacy can bring together a diverse range of resources and capabilities, enhancing the credibility of threats and increasing the likelihood of the adversary's compliance. Additionally, it can provide legitimacy and reduce the burden on individual states, making it a more sustainable approach.
On the other hand, unilateral coercive diplomacy, employed by a single state, offers advantages in terms of decision-making agility and consistency in messaging. The absence of the need for consensus-building among multiple parties can make it easier to adapt to changing circumstances and convey a unified front to the adversary.
The choice between coalition and unilateral coercive diplomacy depends on the specific context and objectives. Coalition diplomacy may be favoured when addressing issues of common concern among a group of states, especially in situations where international legitimacy and burden-sharing are crucial. In contrast, unilateral diplomacy may be preferred when a state seeks to act swiftly and decisively, particularly if its interests diverge from those of potential coalition partners.
Election Day Campaigns: What's Allowed and What's Not
You may want to see also
Coercive diplomacy in humanitarian crises
Coercive diplomacy is a strategy employed in inter-state relations to achieve political objectives and foster a state's national interest without engaging in warfare. It involves the use or threat of force, economic sanctions, and political measures to compel an adversary to change its behaviour. While it can be an effective tool for crisis management, it is challenging to execute and has a low success rate.
Humanitarian diplomacy, on the other hand, is a nonviolent approach that aims to minimise challenges and ensure the security and well-being of individuals during crises. It focuses on building trust and strengthening relationships between various actors, including state and non-state entities, to facilitate sustainable access to affected populations and the delivery of humanitarian aid.
In the context of humanitarian crises, the application of coercive diplomacy becomes more complex and controversial. While some argue that it can be a necessary tool to address serious international humanitarian crises and human rights abuses, others criticise it as an "undesirable and too blunt tool" for achieving humanitarian goals.
For example, in the 1994 negotiations with North Korea, the Clinton administration's use of inducements and threats of military force was considered a failure of coercive diplomacy by some. In contrast, Robert Gallucci, who worked on the State Department team during these negotiations, argued that the use of threats brought added leverage and improved the US negotiating position, ultimately leading to some concessions by North Korea.
Overall, while coercive diplomacy may have a role in addressing humanitarian crises, it is a delicate and challenging strategy to employ. It requires a deep understanding of the context, skillful diplomacy, and consideration of psychological factors to be successful.
Political Campaigns: For-Profit Organizations' Role?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Coercive diplomacy is a common practice in conducting inter-state relations, which involves achieving political objectives and fostering a state's national interest without waging a war. It involves the use of threatened force, and sometimes limited actual force, to induce an adversary to change its behaviour.
The success of coercive diplomacy depends on the circumstances. While it has been argued that coercive diplomacy is a viable instrument to obtain foreign policy objectives, it is important for the coercing power to be aware of its limits and adhere to strict principles of crisis management to avoid escalation.
One example of coercive diplomacy is the United States' use of diplomacy coupled with military muscle in its negotiations with North Korea in the 1990s. While some argue that it was a failure due to the Clinton administration's reliance on inducements over force, others contend that the threat of military force did produce some concessions from North Korea and improved the US negotiating position.
