Introduction:
The concept of coercive diplomacy has garnered significant attention in academic literature, highlighting its complexities and far-reaching implications in the sphere of international relations. The thorough exploration of coercion within the realm of international law is adeptly articulated by various scholars, who place a strong emphasis on the importance of understanding the inherent limitations of coercion and the pressing necessity of employing alternative strategies. One key argument posited is that coercion often exploits the inherent vulnerabilities of weaker parties, who may lack crucial awareness of their various options (Spain, 2009). This brings forth a compelling case for advocating persuasion as a more constructive and positive approach to influence behavior and settle disputes. Furthermore, the article underscores the pivotal role of mutual-gains negotiation and stresses the importance of information sharing in fostering effective problem-solving processes. It also issues a cautionary note against the potential for persuasion to devolve into coercion, a shift that could ultimately jeopardize the neutrality of mediators involved in the negotiation process and affect the overall outcomes of diplomatic efforts.
Building on this discourse, (Raponi, 2015) challenges the notion that coercive enforcement is a prerequisite for law, particularly in the international context. By refuting the skepticism surrounding international law’s legitimacy, he posits that while coercion may enhance compliance domestically, it is less effective internationally. The article argues for the necessity of general acceptance of international legal norms and the role of authoritative institutions in interpreting these rules, thus framing the discussion of coercion within a broader legal and ethical context. Taking this point of view further, (Pattison, 2015) examines the ethical dimensions of coercive diplomacy, particularly through the lens of diplomatic criticism. He presents a compelling case for using diplomatic means as a preferable alternative to more coercive tactics. By emphasizing the significance of reputational concerns, Pattison illustrates how states may respond to diplomatic criticism to mitigate threats to their legitimacy. This perspective adds a nuanced layer to the understanding of coercive diplomacy, suggesting that non-coercive measures can also yield significant political outcomes.
The intricate relationship between legitimacy and coercion in peacebuilding is explored by (Julia Gippert, 2017), who argues that coercion must be wielded by legitimate institutions to be effective. Drawing on empirical examples from EU missions, she highlights the delicate balance between exercising coercive power and maintaining legitimacy among local populations. This interplay is crucial for understanding how coercion can be integrated into peace-building efforts without undermining the very objectives it seeks to achieve. On the other hand, (Pitra, 2019) shifts the focus to contemporary examples of coercive diplomacy, particularly China’s strategies in the South China Sea. The article delineates various approaches to coercive diplomacy, illustrating how states utilize threats and military presence to influence the behavior of others. Pitra’s analysis underscores the detrimental effects of such practices on international relations, particularly in the context of China’s assertive actions and their implications for regional stability.
Finally, (Michelino, 2022) positions coercive diplomacy within the broader framework of great power rivalry, elucidating its strategic role in international politics. The article articulates how coercive diplomacy serves as a middle ground between peaceful negotiation and armed conflict, relying on deterrence strategies to compel compliance. By reflecting on historical case studies, such as the Cuban missile crisis, Michelino demonstrates the potential for coercive diplomacy to resolve tensions without escalating into warfare. The literature collectively highlights the multifaceted nature of coercive diplomacy, revealing its ethical, legal, and strategic dimensions while prompting critical reflections on its efficacy and consequences in international relations.
Analytical Readings into Diverging Thoughts:
In her article “Using International Dispute Resolution to Address the Compliance Question in International Law,” Spain presents a thorough examination of the dynamics between coercive diplomacy and international dispute resolution (IDR). The article’s central thesis posits that coercion often exploits a weaker party’s lack of knowledge regarding available tactics and options. By empowering parties through IDR, stakeholders can better recognize coercive tactics and hold other participants accountable, which ultimately contributes to a reduction in coercive practices. Hence, Spain emphasizes the importance of understanding the limitations of coercion and advocates for alternatives, particularly persuasion. She defines persuasion as a method of behavior change that operates through the dissemination of information, incentives, and social norms. This perspective highlights a crucial aspect of conflict resolution: the potential for mutual-gains negotiation theory to facilitate cooperation among parties. By promoting information sharing and fostering good relations, IDR can enhance problem-solving efficacy.
However, Spain also warns of the fine line between persuasion and coercion. Mediators must exercise caution to maintain their neutrality, as any shift from persuasive tactics to coercive measures can jeopardize the mediation process. This insight is particularly relevant in contexts where the stakes are high, and the balance of power is uneven. The article further illustrates the complexities of coercive diplomacy through the example of the Northern Ireland conflict. Spain notes that attempts to coerce paramilitary groups into decommissioning their arms were largely unsuccessful. This case underscores the necessity of creating processes that allow stakeholders to pursue their interests collaboratively, rather than through pressure tactics.
Furthermore, Spain also introduces the concept of acculturation, suggesting that international human rights organizations can play a significant role in shaping the decision-making processes of parties involved in disputes. By encouraging parties to consider international law and norms, these organizations can foster a more conducive environment for compliance and cooperation. In her article, “Is Coercion Necessary for Law? The Role of Coercion in International and Domestic Law,” Raponi engages with a critical debate surrounding the nature and effectiveness of international law, particularly in relation to coercive enforcement mechanisms. The primary contention addressed by Raponi is the skepticism surrounding international law’s legitimacy due to its perceived lack of a centralized system of coercive sanctions, a viewpoint often articulated by critics who argue that this absence undermines the law’s status as “real” law.
Moreover, Raponi challenges this skepticism by positing that coercive enforcement is not a necessary condition for the existence of law or legal obligations. She emphasizes that while coercion can enhance compliance within domestic legal frameworks, its application in the international sphere is fraught with complications and often proves to be less effective. This assertion invites a reevaluation of the foundational assumptions about the relationship between coercion and law, suggesting that the essence of law transcends mere coercive enforcement. The article further delineates two critical components that define the nature of international law: the necessity for general acceptance of legal obligations among states and the importance of authoritative interpretation and application of legal rules by recognized institutions. Raponi’s argument underscores that the legitimacy of international law stems from its acceptance and adherence by the international community rather than from coercive mechanisms. This perspective aligns with a more nuanced understanding of how international law operates, recognizing the role of norms, agreements, and mutual consent in fostering compliance.
In my own analysis, Raponi’s work is particularly relevant in the context of coercive diplomacy, as it highlights the limitations and challenges of using coercion as a tool for enforcing international legal obligations. By illustrating that coercion may not be the most effective means of achieving compliance, the article invites scholars and practitioners to consider alternative approaches that prioritize dialogue, negotiation, and consensus-building. In “The ethics of diplomatic criticism: The Responsibility to Protect, Just War Theory and Presumptive Last Resort,” Pattison delves into the nuanced role of diplomatic criticism, particularly in the context of coercive diplomacy and its ethical implications. The article critically examines how states employ forms of political sanctions, specifically through the mechanism of ‘naming and shaming’, to influence the behavior of offending agents. Pattison argues that this form of coercive diplomacy can be a viable alternative to more aggressive forms of intervention, aligning with the principles of Just War Theory, particularly the notions of last resort and necessity.
Pattison’s analysis is structured around the premise that diplomatic criticism serves not only as a punitive measure but also as a potentially constructive tool for promoting compliance with international norms. He posits that states are motivated by both the ‘logic of consequences’ and the ‘logic of appropriateness.’ The former refers to the strategic calculations states make to safeguard their interests, while the latter pertains to the adherence to the normative expectations within the international system. This dual framework underlines the complexity of state behavior in response to criticism, suggesting that the threat of reputational damage can compel states to modify their actions.
A significant contribution to Pattison’s work is the exploration of the ethical dimensions surrounding the duty to criticize. He articulates that there exists a moral obligation for states to engage in diplomatic criticism, especially in cases of severe human rights violations or wrongful acts. This duty is grounded in the belief that criticism can lead to positive outcomes, as offending states may seek to mitigate the damage to their reputation by addressing the issues raised. Thus, diplomatic criticism is framed not merely as a punitive action but as a necessary step towards fostering accountability and promoting international standards of behavior. However, while Pattison effectively outlines the potential benefits of diplomatic criticism, the article also invites critical reflection on its limitations. The effectiveness of naming and shaming as a strategy can vary significantly depending on the context and the specific actors involved. For instance, states with less regard for international legitimacy may remain unresponsive to diplomatic criticism, thus raising questions about the overall efficacy of this approach. Additionally, the article could benefit from a deeper exploration of the consequences of such criticism, particularly in cases where it may exacerbate tensions or lead to retaliatory measures.
In “Legitimacy and Coercion in Peacebuilding: A Balancing Act,” Julia Gippert presents a nuanced examination of the interplay between coercion and legitimacy in the context of peacebuilding operations, particularly focusing on the European Union’s missions in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The article posits that for coercion to be effectively employed without descending into despotism, it must be wielded by a legitimate institution. This assertion is critical, as it highlights the dual requirement for any governing body to possess both the authority to enforce compliance and the recognition of that authority as legitimate by the governed. Gippert’s analysis underscores that the monopoly of violence, traditionally associated with a ruler’s power, is insufficient on its own. Rather, legitimacy plays a pivotal role in determining the effectiveness of coercive measures. The article argues that while military might serve to enhance the legitimacy of a particular actor, excessive or unrestrained coercive power can ultimately undermine that legitimacy, leading to further conflict. This relationship is particularly salient in peace-building contexts, where the support of local populations and elites is essential for the success of reform initiatives.
Through empirical data derived from legitimacy surveys and semi-structured interviews with local police and justice personnel, Gippert provides a grounded assessment of how legitimacy perceptions impact the efficacy of peacebuilding missions. The findings suggest that while coercive power can be an instrument of enforcement, its successful application hinges on the cooperative engagement of local actors. This cooperative approach is crucial, as it emphasizes the need for voluntary compliance rather than mere coercion. Moreover, Gippert’s exploration of the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo and the EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina reveals the complexities faced by international missions in balancing coercive power with the need for legitimacy. The article effectively illustrates that peacebuilding is a delicate endeavor where the mismanagement of coercive tools can lead to a deterioration of trust and cooperation among local stakeholders.
The article “CHINA COERCIVE DIPLOMACY THROUGH SOUTH CHINA SEA CONFLICT AND BELT & ROAD INITIATIVES” by Pitra provides a comprehensive examination of coercive diplomacy as employed by China in the context of the South China Sea disputes and its broader Belt and Road Initiative. Pitra defines coercive diplomacy as a strategic approach that utilizes various forms of pressure—including military force, economic sanctions, and asymmetric agreements—to influence the behavior of other states. This definition is crucial as it sets the framework for understanding the specific tactics China employs in its regional engagements.
The article delineates four variants of coercive diplomacy: the “Try and see” approach, the “Gradually turning the screws” approach, the “Classic ultimatum” approach, and the “Tacit ultimatum” approach. Each variant offers insights into the strategic calculations behind China’s actions in the South China Sea. For instance, the “Classic ultimatum” approach may manifest in China’s assertive territorial claims, particularly through the controversial nine-dashed line, which Pitra argues is an illegal diplomatic practice. This claim is significant as it reflects China’s attempt to legitimize its expansive territorial assertions in a region fraught with competing interests. Pitra’s analysis highlights the detrimental effects of China’s coercive tactics on neighboring countries, particularly through the escalation of military presence and intimidation tactics. The deployment of warships, especially the incident involving 95 Chinese vessels around Thitu Island to deter Philippine construction activities, exemplifies the aggressive posture that characterizes China’s strategy. This not only undermines regional stability but also poses challenges for international norms regarding maritime rights and territorial sovereignty.
Furthermore, the article critiques the economic dimensions of China’s coercive diplomacy, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative, which has been perceived to exert influence over developing nations. Pitra argues that while this initiative presents opportunities for infrastructure development, it simultaneously places these countries in precarious positions, potentially leading to economic dependency and compromised sovereignty. In terms of critical evaluation, the article effectively articulates the mechanisms and implications of China’s coercive diplomacy, providing a nuanced understanding of its regional ambitions. However, it could benefit from a more in-depth exploration of the responses from other regional actors, such as the United States and ASEAN countries, to China’s strategies. Additionally, a broader theoretical framework on coercive diplomacy could enhance the analysis, allowing for a comparison with other state actors engaging in similar practices.
In “Great power rivalry, power politics and coercion in the 21st century,” Michelino provides a comprehensive analysis of coercive diplomacy and its implications in contemporary international relations. The article posits that the success of coercive diplomacy is significantly influenced by both international support and domestic political harmony. Michelino argues that when an initiating state garners international backing, it amplifies its pressure on the target state, enhancing its legitimacy and providing additional diplomatic tools. This perspective highlights the importance of global solidarity in the effectiveness of coercive measures, suggesting that the absence of such support can undermine the credibility of threats and weaken the initiating state’s position. The article further explores the domestic dimension of coercive diplomacy, emphasizing that strong national opposition can limit a government’s capacity to act decisively. Michelino notes that a consensus within the initiating state strengthens its resolve and enhances the effectiveness of coercive strategies. This dual focus on international and domestic factors presents a nuanced understanding of how coercive diplomacy operates in practice, revealing the intricate balance required for successful implementation.
Michelino also positions coercive diplomacy within a broader spectrum of diplomatic strategies, identifying it as a middle ground between peaceful negotiation and military conflict. This conceptualization underscores the strategic nature of coercive diplomacy, which relies on the threat of force to compel compliance from the target state. The psychological aspect of manipulating the opponent’s perception is particularly salient, as it plays a crucial role in influencing decisions and guiding the target towards desired outcomes. The article’s examination of historical cases, particularly the Cuban Missile Crisis, serves as a compelling illustration of the principles of coercive diplomacy in action. Michelino references Alexander George’s analysis to underscore how President Kennedy’s tactics were pivotal in resolving a highly volatile situation without escalating into armed conflict. This case study not only reinforces the article’s main arguments but also provides valuable lessons for future applications of coercive diplomacy.
Conclusion:
The literature on coercive diplomacy reveals a complex interplay of ethical, legal, and strategic dimensions, emphasizing the necessity for a nuanced understanding of its implications in international relations. The exploration begins with the acknowledgment of coercion’s limitations and the potential for alternative strategies, such as persuasion, to foster cooperation among conflicting parties (Spain, 2009). The argument presented by (Raponi, 2015) further challenges the conventional belief that coercion is essential for law, positing that the legitimacy of international legal norms is rooted in their acceptance rather than coercive enforcement. The ethical dimensions of coercive diplomacy are emphasized by (Pattison, 2015), who advocates for diplomatic criticism as an alternative to coercive tactics, suggesting that reputational concerns can motivate states to alter their behavior. This perspective is complemented by (Julia Gippert, 2017), who highlights the crucial balance between coercion and legitimacy in peacebuilding efforts, asserting that legitimate institutions wield coercive power more effectively.
Contemporary examples, such as China’s coercive diplomacy in the South China Sea, illustrate the practical implications of coercive strategies (Pitra, 2019). This analysis underscores the detrimental effects of coercive tactics on regional stability, raising concerns about the broader impacts of such practices on international relations. Additionally, (Michelino, 2022) contextualizes coercive diplomacy within great power rivalry, advocating for a strategic understanding of its role between negotiation and conflict. Finally, the literature collectively underscores the multifaceted nature of coercive diplomacy, revealing the necessity of balancing coercive measures with ethical considerations and legitimacy. The insights drawn from these articles highlight the importance of dialogue, negotiation, and mutual understanding in fostering effective international relations while cautioning against the potential pitfalls of coercion.
References:
Spain, A. “Using International Dispute Resolution to Address the Compliance Question in International Law.” (2009). [PDF]
Raponi, S. “Is Coercion Necessary for Law? The Role of Coercion in International and Domestic Law.” (2015). [PDF]
Pattison, J. “The ethics of diplomatic criticism: The Responsibility to Protect, Just War Theory and Presumptive Last Resort.” (2015). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Julia Gippert, B. “Legitimacy and Coercion in Peacebuilding: A Balancing Act.” (2017). [PDF]
Pitra, H. “CHINA COERCIVE DIPLOMACY THROUGH SOUTH CHINA SEA CONFLICT AND BELT & ROAD INITIATIVES.” (2019). [PDF]
Michelino, A. “Great power rivalry, power politics and coercion in the 21st century.” (2022). osf.io
* Professor Of International Relations and Diplomacy at Sakarya University, Secretary General of the Arab Thought Forum, Jordan
Friday, April 11, 2025
Amman, Jordan
