compellence

Compellence is a strategic concept in international relations and military strategy that refers to the use of threats or limited force to induce an adversary to take a specific action or to desist from a planned action. Unlike deterrence, which aims to prevent an unwanted act by raising its expected costs, compellence seeks a change in the adversary’s behavior or the status quo through coercive pressure.

Compellence can take several forms. Direct compellence targets the opponent’s decision-making to achieve a specific concession, while extended compellence aims to influence third parties or broader audiences to shape the outcome. It can be immediate, demanding action within a short timeframe, or gradual, with escalating demands and penalties. Both direct and extended compellence rely on credible threats of punishment or coercive measures, yet their success depends on the perceived willingness and capability to carry out those threats.

Mechanics and challenges: The effectiveness of compellence hinges on credibility, resolve, and the proportionality of threats to the desired result. It involves signaling to the adversary that non-compliance will incur costs that outweigh the benefits of resisting. Compellence can involve punitive actions, denial of desired outcomes, or a combination. The approach risks misinterpretation, inadvertent escalation, or solidifying the adversary’s resolve if signals are unclear or poorly timed.

History and scholarship: The concept was developed in modern strategic theory, with Thomas Schelling among its prominent proponents. It has been applied to various crises and coercive diplomacy efforts, including Cold War confrontations, where parties sought to compel concessions through threats of force and limited action.

Limitations: Compellence requires credible capability and commitment, clear objectives, and careful escalation management. When the adversary doubts resolve or misreads intentions, compellence can fail or trigger broader conflict.