coercive force

简明释义

抗磁力

英英释义

例句

1.The government sometimes uses coercive force to maintain order during protests.

政府有时会使用强制力量来维持抗议期间的秩序。

2.Using coercive force in international relations can escalate conflicts.

在国际关系中使用强制力量可能会升级冲突。

3.Some argue that coercive force is sometimes justified in cases of self-defense.

有人认为在自卫的情况下，有时可以合理使用强制力量。

4.The police are authorized to use coercive force when necessary to protect civilians.

警察在必要时被授权使用强制力量来保护平民。

5.In a negotiation, relying on coercive force can lead to long-term resentment.

在谈判中，依赖于强制力量可能会导致长期的不满。

作文

In the realm of international relations, the concept of coercive force plays a pivotal role in understanding how states interact with one another. Coercive force refers to the ability of a state or an entity to compel others to act in a certain way through the use of threats, intimidation, or actual military power. This mechanism is often employed by nations to achieve their political objectives, especially when diplomatic means fail. The use of coercive force can take many forms, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and political pressure, all aimed at influencing the behavior of another state or group.Historically, the use of coercive force has been evident in numerous conflicts and diplomatic negotiations. For instance, during the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union utilized coercive force to assert their dominance over lesser powers. The threat of nuclear warfare served as a deterrent, compelling nations to align with either superpower for fear of retribution. In this context, coercive force was not only about direct military action but also involved psychological tactics that instilled fear and compliance among rival states.Moreover, the implications of coercive force extend beyond mere military might. Economic sanctions, which are a form of coercive force, have become increasingly popular in modern diplomacy. By restricting trade or financial transactions with a country, states aim to pressure regimes into changing their policies or behaviors without resorting to armed conflict. For example, the sanctions imposed on Iran regarding its nuclear program illustrate how coercive force can be wielded to achieve specific diplomatic goals while minimizing the human cost associated with military engagements.However, the effectiveness of coercive force is often debated among scholars and policymakers. While some argue that it can lead to compliance and desired outcomes, others contend that it may provoke resistance and resentment, potentially escalating conflicts rather than resolving them. The case of North Korea serves as a pertinent example; despite extensive sanctions and military posturing from the international community, the regime continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions, demonstrating that coercive force does not always yield the intended results.Furthermore, the ethical implications of employing coercive force cannot be overlooked. The use of military action raises questions about sovereignty, human rights, and the moral responsibilities of powerful nations. Critics often argue that coercive force, particularly when it involves military intervention, can lead to humanitarian crises and long-term instability in the affected regions. Thus, while coercive force may be an effective tool for achieving short-term objectives, its long-term consequences must be carefully considered.In conclusion, coercive force remains a significant aspect of international politics, shaping the dynamics between states and influencing global stability. Its various forms, from military interventions to economic sanctions, reflect the complexities of global interactions. However, the debates surrounding its effectiveness and ethical implications highlight the need for a nuanced understanding of how best to navigate the challenges posed by coercive strategies. As the world continues to face multifaceted conflicts, the discourse on coercive force will undoubtedly evolve, prompting leaders and scholars alike to seek more constructive and peaceful methods of conflict resolution.

在国际关系的领域中，‘coercive force’这一概念在理解国家之间如何互动方面起着关键作用。‘coercive force’指的是一个国家或实体通过威胁、恐吓或实际军事力量强迫他人以某种方式行事的能力。这一机制通常被国家用来实现其政治目标，尤其是在外交手段失败时。‘coercive force’的使用可以采取多种形式，包括经济制裁、军事干预和政治压力，所有这些都是为了影响另一个国家或团体的行为。历史上，‘coercive force’的使用在无数冲突和外交谈判中显而易见。例如，在冷战期间，美国和苏联都利用‘coercive force’来assert他们对较小国家的主导地位。核战争的威胁作为一种威慑，迫使各国为了避免报复而与任一超级大国结盟。在这个背景下，‘coercive force’不仅仅是关于直接军事行动，还涉及到心理战术，这些战术在竞争国家中灌输恐惧和服从。此外，‘coercive force’的影响超越了单纯的军事力量。经济制裁，作为一种‘coercive force’，在现代外交中变得越来越流行。通过限制与一个国家的贸易或金融交易，各国旨在施压政权改变其政策或行为，而不诉诸武装冲突。例如，对伊朗核计划实施的制裁说明了如何运用‘coercive force’来实现特定的外交目标，同时最小化与军事交战相关的人道成本。然而，‘coercive force’的有效性常常在学者和决策者之间引发争论。虽然一些人认为它可以导致遵从和期望的结果，但另一些人则认为它可能引发抵抗和怨恨，可能使冲突升级而不是解决它们。朝鲜的案例就是一个相关的例子；尽管国际社会对其实施了广泛的制裁和军事姿态，该政权仍然继续追求其核雄心，表明‘coercive force’并不总能产生预期的结果。此外，使用‘coercive force’的伦理意义也不容忽视。军事行动的使用引发了有关主权、人权以及强国的道德责任的问题。批评者常常认为，‘coercive force’，特别是当涉及军事干预时，可能导致人道危机和受影响地区的长期不稳定。因此，虽然‘coercive force’可能是实现短期目标的有效工具，但必须仔细考虑其长期后果。总之，‘coercive force’仍然是国际政治中的一个重要方面，塑造国家之间的动态并影响全球稳定。它的各种形式，从军事干预到经济制裁，反映了全球互动的复杂性。然而，围绕其有效性和伦理意义的辩论突显出需要对如何最好地应对强制策略所带来的挑战有更细致的理解。随着世界继续面临多方面的冲突，关于‘coercive force’的讨论无疑会不断发展，促使领导者和学者寻求更具建设性和和平的方法来解决冲突。