Home / Summaries / Force and statecraft / diplomacy-coercive-deterrence

Coercive diplomacy

4 important questions on Coercive diplomacy

What is the difference between deterrence and coercive diplomacy?

Coercive diplomacy attempts to reverse actions that are already occurring or have been undertaken by an adversary, whereas deterrence tries to dissuade an opponent from undertaking action that has not yet been initiated. Also, deterrence is basically a defensive strategy whereas coercive diplomacy can be both defensive and offensive. The two are, however, often compared because they both bargain with threats of force

What are some of the dangers of using coercive diplomacy?

Leaders of militarily powerful countries are sometimes arrogantly tempted to believe that they, with little risk to themselves, can issue demands and make threats that easily intimidate weaker opponents. But even a superpower can fail to coerce a weak opponent and find itself drawn into a prolonged conflict. If the opponent refuses to comply and calls the bluff then the power is forced to either back down (loose power and influence) or wage war.

What do we mean with the statement that governments are not unitary actors? Please give examples

The fact that not only governments are targets of coercive diplomacy. Bureaucracies, military branches, and personalities that have different ideas of national interest and honor. Also, there is no way to predict what leaders will do when faced with an ultimatum.

What is the problem of the stress factor in coercive diplomacy?

It shifts attention away from common interests and instead focuses on conflict. It can trigger shock, anger and a sense of desperation that easily can worsen rather than resolve the crisis- triggering behavior we try to avoid. Leaders are pressured by the stress and make other decisions than they may have normally- emotional outbursts.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Force and statecraft | 9780195162493 | Paul Gordon Lauren, et al

View summary