Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
There is the use of force in persuasion, which does not have any scientific theories, except for its use to make demands. The use of force is then a precedent to the failure of less direct means of persuasion. Application of this strategy can be interpreted as a threat since the persuader does not give options to their request. [citation needed]
The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. [1] The UN Charter reads in article 2(4): . All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
It is commonly seen as analytically distinct from persuasion (which may not necessarily involve the imposition of costs), brute force (which may not be intended to shape the adversary's behavior), or full-on war (which involves the use of full military force). [1] [5] [3] Coercion takes the form of either deterrence or compellence.
Compellence is a form of coercion that attempts to get an actor (such as a state) to change its behavior through threats to use force or the actual use of limited force. [1] [2] [3] Compellence can be more clearly described as "a political-diplomatic strategy that aims to influence an adversary's will or incentive structure. It is a strategy ...
As Paul W. Blackstock identifies, the ruling and political elites are the ultimate targets of persuasion because they control the physical instruments of state power. [17] Internal subversion is actions taken by those within a country and can be used as a tool of power. In most cases the use or threat of force is the last step of internal ...
Coercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner through the use of threats, including threats to use force against that party. [1] [2] [need quotation to verify] [3] It involves a set of forceful actions which violate the free will of an individual in order to induce a desired response.
David L. Swanson and Dan Nimmo define political communication as "the strategic use of communication to influence public knowledge, beliefs, and action on political matters." [19] They emphasize the strategic nature of political communication, highlighting the role of persuasion in political discourse. Brian McNair provides a similar definition ...
For the English law on the use of force in crime prevention, see Self-defence in English law.The Australian position on the use of troops for civil policing is set out by Michael Head in Calling Out the Troops: Disturbing Trends and Unanswered Questions; [4] compare "Use of Deadly Force by the South African Police Services Re-visited" [5] by Malebo Keebine-Sibanda and Omphemetse Sibanda.