Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis reveals red lines as ambiguous liminal spaces in geopolitical conflict, highlighting how strategic uncertainty enables coercive diplomacy.
This article offers a multidimensional analytical framework for the concept of the ‘red line’ in geopolitics. Drawing on critical border studies, coercive diplomacy theory, radical cartography, and discourse analysis, it argues that the red line is not a strict or definitive limit but a malleable border: It is a space that is both conceptual and physical, deliberately open to interpretation, and derives its effectiveness precisely from its ambiguous nature. The article identifies three ontologically entangled dimensions of the red line: as a cartographic practice producing finality; as a discursive act of coercive diplomacy; and as a performative border-making process. It argues that red lines function both as a tool for conflict management and as a manifestation of the fragmented landscape of global governance. This article offers a theoretical analysis of the red line, conceptualised as a liminal space that encompasses not only what is drawn and visible but also what is implied, invisible, and imagined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Élisabeth Vallet (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: