Coercive Diplomacy §

• Coercive Diplomacy is the act of forcing an actor to pursue diplomacy using coercive tactics such as economic pressue/sanctions and military force.
• Elements of effective coercive diplomacy:
  • limited objectives
  • coercive but limited use of force
  • the possible use of carrots along with sticks

1. Limited objectives §

• Alexander George said coercive diplomacy has defensive rather than offensive obejctives
  • Type A Diplomacy: for opponent to ‘to stop short of the goal’
  • Type B Diplomacy: for opponent to ‘undo the action’
  • Type C Diplomacy: for opponent to ‘cease of hostile behaviors, by changing the existing structure of the government regime of opponent’
    • Stretching what is ‘defensive’
  • Problem: what is defensive is subjective.
    • Preventive actions could seem defensive for the initiator, the further build up of opponent state could be seen by themselves as self protection

2. Coercive but limited means §

• Compellence is different from coercive diplomacy in that
  • Coercive diplomacy seeks to influence, but not deny choice to the target.
  • Compellence is much more dependent on coercive threats to influence an adversary

“The use of whatever amount of force it takes to get the adversary to change its behavior”

3. Sticks and carrots §

• Coercive diplomacy must involve the threat or actual use of force

  1. Degree of emphasis
     • Coercive measures
       • Economic Sanctions: if this exist, but not threat of force, its not coercive diplomacy
       • Military force
  2. Existence of Positive Inducement (Carrot): the incentive and benefit gained for the opponent if they listen to the convincer
     • If carrot is better than the stick, its not coercive diplomacy

• War is not coercive diplomacy

  • When war happens, coercive diplomacy has failed

• Strategic Coercion: focuses more of the use of force than diplomacy

• Coercive Diplomacy vs Deterrence

  • Deterrence is
    • ‘to dissuade an adversary from undertaking a damaging action not yet initiated’
    • More of intimidation than persuation
  • Coercive Diplomacy being ‘a response to an action already taken’
    • Focus more on persuation

Coercive diplomacy fails or succeed because the coercer state strategy and the domestic political economy of the target state §

• Coercion Strategies

References §

1. C37-RHOSS-Routledge handbook of security studies-Routledge (2017)