How do states signal resolve and conduct coercive diplomacy differently on land and at sea? This question has important implications for security in the Asia-Pacific, which is predominantly a maritime region. While the field of International Relations has been criticized for exhibiting a Cold War and European bias, this article is based on the observation that the field may suffer from continentalism: a reliance on land-based issues and ideas. We thus examine the potential for incorporating the maritime domain more explicitly into IR to better address the challenges to security in the Asia-Pacific. Specifically, we consider how signaling restraint, costly signals of resolve, and engaging in limited conflicts to conduct violent coercive diplomacy differ on land and at sea. Our findings suggest that addressing the challenges to security in the Asia-Pacific can benefit from a deeper understanding of signaling, coercive diplomacy, and international relations in the maritime domain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chao et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: