26-08-2016, 09:38 AM
core_links.htm (Size: 39.38 KB / Downloads: 6)
Force-based strategies assume that an opponents will quickly submit to demands of opponents thereby providing a quick route to victory. While force may succeed over the short term, it often generates a powerful backlash or retaliation, as people hate to be forced to do things against their will. This is especially true when victims of force believe that the use of force was illegitimate. In this situations, the losing party is likely to try to build up their own forcing power in hopes of challenging the victor at the earliest possible opportunity. The result is likely to be a long-term intensification of the conflict, rather than resolution. more detailed description, including information on Legal Force. Political Force.Violent Force. Non-Violent Direct Action. Economic Force. examples strategies for limiting this problem. closely related problems. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Counter-Threats and Arms Races
Often disputants respond to force-based threats with counter threats rather than submission. Such threats and counter threats can result in intense efforts by both parties to increase their ability to use force against the other. In military situations, this is called an "arms race." Similar dynamics can arise with legal, political, or other types of force as well. more detailed description, including information on Legal Force. Political Force.Violent Force. Non-Violent Direct Action. Economic Force. examples strategies for limiting this problem. closely related problems. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Defiance
The costs of using force-based threats increases dramatically when the opponent responds to a threat with defiance rather than submission. This forces the threatening party to carry out the threat or admit that it was all a meaningless bluff. Carrying out a threat is likely to result in an expensive, destructive, and rapidly escalating confrontation, while withdrawing the threat is likely to undermine a party's ability to use threat and force-based strategies in the future. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Failure of the Disputants to Recognize Their Own Force-based Options
There are many different types of force, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. In order to be assured of the best possible strategy, the disputants need to examine the full range of available options, including non-traditional options (such as non-violent resistance), which are often highly promising, even though they are less frequently used. Non-traditional options can be especially important to disempowered and oppressed groups that may not recognize the powers of force that they have available for protecting their interests. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.