3- Alliances, Coercion, Diplomacy Flashcards
are asymmetric alliances more stable?
YES
are asymmetric alliances more stable?
YES
diff btw assymetric & symmetric
in asymmetric- some gain security, some gain autonomy
in symmetric- allies gain on the same dimension
chain-ganging
when a state is dragged into war in order to save allies
buck-passing
when a state shifts the burden of dealing with a problem onto other states.
- states paying less to nato
- country a doesn’t confront the rising power directly, but oersuades others to take action.
theories of alliance formation (3)
- balance of power
- balance of threat
- domestic affinity
theories of alliance formation- balance of power
when states are facing another powerful state, they can either ally against it.
theories of alliance formation- balance of threat
states form alliances based on perceived level of threat posed by other states.
- We shouldn’t just think about raw power, not all states are threats to each other.
- Just because a state has power doesn’t mean it causes a problem !!!
theories of alliance formation- domestic affinity
states form alliances with other states that share political institutions, values, and ideologies
threats & power aren’t the main driving force!
what does the longevity of an alliance depend on?
- changes in threats
- regime types of member states
- stability of public preferences
- continuity of national leadership
how does socialization strengthen alliances?
the creation of a sense of community among elites and the publics of member states, can also help to strengthen alliances.
- This can be achieved through regular summits and conferences, formal cooperation between personnel from member governments, and the creation of shared cultural and political institutions.
difference between deterrence and compellence
deterrence aims to persuade an opponent to not initiate an action- preserving
compliance aims to persuade an opponent to change its behavior- changing
punishment as a coercion strategy example
economic sanctions, military strikes
denial as a coercion strategy example
destroying infrastrcuture, disrupting supply chains
punishment as a coercion strategy
imposing costs on target to discourage them from taking a particular action
denial as coercion strategy
taking actions that make it impossible for the target to succesfully undertake a certain action.
what’s the difference between punishment and denial?
punishment is imposing costs to discourage a state
denial is making it impossible for a state to carry out a behavior.
soft power
a state’s ability to influence others to do what it wants through persuasion- rather than coercion.
how can soft power be achieved?
cultural attraction, political values, foreign policies, and international institutions
why do states form alliances? 4
- to balance out a common threat
- to increase their relative power
- to enhance their security by dettering agressors
- to gain access to their resources/ markets
- to spread values/ ideology
the credibility of a threat is determined by… 5
- capability
- perceived willingness
- perceived benefits
- past behavior
- domestic political consideratoins
Does a state’s ability to apply coercion against a challenger depend on whether that challenger is another state versus a non-state actor?
coercion is often more difficult to apply to non-state actors due:
- lack of clear target
- potential for unintended consequences
overall, you can’t trust non-state actors because they’re not dependent on the state systems, and have different motives.
coercive diplomacy is…
the use of threats & incentives to influence the behaviors of an opponent in negotiations.
how can alliances be used as a tool for coercive diplomacy?
- alliances provide a way for states to signal their commitment. (an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us)
- alliances can be used to mobilize resources for the purpose of coercion (when you join an alliance you’ll have more coercive leverage)
