Compellence: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: '''Compellence''' is a set of actions or positions that force an opponent to take some action desired by the initial actor. It is the opposite of deterrence, in which the actions are i...) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
{{TOC-right}} | |||
'''Compellence''' is a set of actions or positions that force an opponent to take some action desired by the initial actor. It is the opposite of [[deterrence]], in which the actions are intended to prevent an opponent from taking some action. | '''Compellence''' is a set of actions or positions that force an opponent to take some action desired by the initial actor. It is the opposite of [[deterrence]], in which the actions are intended to prevent an opponent from taking some action. | ||
Revision as of 19:24, 5 December 2008
Template:TOC-right Compellence is a set of actions or positions that force an opponent to take some action desired by the initial actor. It is the opposite of deterrence, in which the actions are intended to prevent an opponent from taking some action.
The term is often attributed to Thomas Schelling:
There is typically a difference between a threat intended to make an adversary do something and a threat intended to keep him from starting something. The distinction is in the timing in who has to make the firt move, and whose initiative is put to the test.[1]
Legal
As opposed to issuing a restraining order, a court may issue a writ of mandamus, ordering a party to take some actions.
Geostrategic actions
While much of the Vietnam War used variants of deterrence, Operation LINEBACKER II used a compellence model to force the North Vietnamese to return to the Paris Peace Talks.
References
- ↑ Schelling, Thomas (1963), The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, p. 195