- Related Topics:
- foreign policy
compellence
-
What is compellence in international relations?
In international relations, compellence is when one country tries to force another to do something, usually by threatening them. Economist Thomas C. Schelling, who won a Nobel Prize, first used the word compellence in his book Arms and Influence (1966). He said it's a direct action that gets an opponent to give up something you want. Compellence is different from deterrence, which tries to stop an opponent from acting by threatening punishment.
There are two main types of compellence: diplomacy and demonstration. Diplomatic compellence uses threats and promises, often backed by the possibility of military action. Demonstrative compellence involves a limited use of force with the threat of more violence if demands aren't met.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How is compellence different from deterrence?
Thomas Schelling coined the term compellence to describe a state's ability to coerce another state into action, usually through threats. Compellence differs from deterrence, which aims to discourage an opponent from acting by threatening punishment.
Compellence requires costly action or a commitment to act. The target of compellence may fear for its reputation if it complies with a threat. There are two forms of compellence: diplomatic (verbal threats and promises) and demonstrative (limited force with the threat of escalating violence if demands aren't met).
5 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What is an example of compellence between countries?
Compellence in international relations is when one country coerces another into a specific action, usually by threatening punishment. Thomas Schelling described compellence as persuading an opponent to give up something that is desired, contrasting it with deterrence, which discourages action through threatened punishment.
An example of compellence is the United States' attempt to use strategic bombing to coerce North Vietnam into abandoning its efforts to reunify South Vietnam. Despite the costs of the bombing, the government of Ho Chi Minh persisted, showing the limitations of compellence when facing strong resolve.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What tools or methods do countries use for compellence?
Countries use various tools and methods for compellence, which is when one state coerces another into action, typically by threatening punishment. These methods include diplomacy, demonstrative compellence, and economic sanctions. Diplomatic compellence involves verbal threats and promises, often backed by the unspoken possibility of military action. Demonstrative compellence uses limited force with threats of escalation if demands aren't met. Economic sanctions, such as trade restrictions, travel bans, and asset freezes, are frequently used to compel changes in behavior, especially when military action is undesirable. Some scholars argue that carefully targeted economic sanctions can influence the behavior of other states.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why might compellence succeed or fail in international conflicts?
Compellence in international conflicts, as defined by Thomas Schelling, involves coercing a state into action through threats. Its success hinges on factors such as the target state's willingness to bear costs, the perceived legitimacy of the coercer's demands, and the clarity of communication.
Compellence may fail when the target state values its reputation over compliance, when the threatened punishment is not credible, or when internal bureaucratic processes hinder a swift response. Additionally, counter-coercive actions by the target can undermine compellence, leading to escalation rather than compliance.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How do leaders decide when to use compellence in foreign policy?
Leaders consider several factors when deciding to use compellence in foreign policy. Compellence, unlike deterrence, involves actively coercing another state into action, often through threats of punishment.
When deciding to implement a compellent strategy, leaders weigh the potential effectiveness of diplomatic, demonstrative, and economic measures against the risk of escalation and the target state's willingness to resist. The perceived vulnerability of the adversary's military forces and the importance of the desired outcome factor into this decision. Additionally, leaders assess whether the target state might view compliance as a threat to its reputation.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
compellence, the ability of one state to coerce another state into action, usually by threatening punishment. American economist Thomas C. Schelling, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2005, coined the word in his book Arms and Influence (1966). Schelling described compellence as a direct action that persuades an opponent to give up something that is desired. He distinguished compellence from deterrence, which is designed to discourage an opponent from action by threatening punishment.
Scholars have long argued about the most effective way to compel action. Schelling’s work, though groundbreaking, is not without its critics. Schelling focused on the threat of escalating violence against civilian targets, but American political scientist Robert Pape contended that compellence depends on making enemies feel that their military forces are vulnerable. Other scholars argue that carefully targeted economic sanctions can influence the behaviour of other states. In these cases, nonmilitary tools of statecraft assist national security objectives.
Compellence and deterrence are both forms of coercion. Many scholars believe that it is more difficult to compel than to deter. First, deterrence is less provocative, because the deterring state need only set the stage for action. It incurs little cost by making the threat. Indeed, costly actions are precisely what deterrence is supposed to prevent. Compellence, on the other hand, requires some form of costly action or a commitment to act. Second, the state that is the target of compellence may fear for its reputation if it complies with a threat. The targets of deterrent threats find it easier to “save face,” because they do not have to act to comply. They can simply stay put and pretend that the deterrent threat had no impact on their behaviour. Third, forcing states to act is difficult, because states are large, complex bureaucracies. They move more slowly than individuals, and slowness may be confused with reluctance to comply.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
There are two basic forms of compellence: diplomacy and demonstration. Diplomatic, or immediate, compellence involves verbal threats and promises. Shows of force also assist this kind of coercion; realist scholars note that most diplomacy is underwritten by the unspoken possibility of military action. Demonstrative compellence involves a limited use of force coupled with the threat of escalating violence (which may also include full-scale war) to come if demands are not met. This kind of compellence is what Schelling referred to as the “diplomacy of violence.” A state does not unleash its full military potential; instead, it wages a limited campaign while instituting pauses to make the adversary consider the consequences if it does not comply.