Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Deterrence strategies for a small state: Analysis and survey Cover

Deterrence strategies for a small state: Analysis and survey

By: Maria Keinonen  
Open Access
|Nov 2024

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

The median and mode of the quantitative data.
The median and mode of the quantitative data.

Fig. 2:

Suitable and unsuitable deterrence strategies for a small state with enabling and preventive factors based on the analysis.
Suitable and unsuitable deterrence strategies for a small state with enabling and preventive factors based on the analysis.

Deterrence strategies

Deterrence strategyExplanation
Deterrence by punishmentDeterrence by punishment refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that aggression will be met with a countermeasure of at least the same effect. (Freedman 2013; Mazarr 2018)
Deterrence by denialDeterrence by denial refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that aggression will not achieve the desired effects, because, for example, the effect of the aggression will be less than intended or its costs will be higher than planned. (Freedman 2013; Mazarr 2018)
Direct deterrenceDirect deterrence refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that aggression will be repelled. (Mazarr 2018; NATO 2022)
Extended deterrenceExtended deterrence refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that aggression against allies or partners will result in countermeasures by that state. (Morgan 2003; Mazarr 2018; Black and Obradovic 2022; NATO 2022)
General deterrenceGeneral deterrence refers to continuous and systematic measures implemented by the state to respond to aggression under normal conditions. Preparation is not aimed at any specific threat. The state tries to convince the threat actors that they are ready to respond to aggression. (Tor 2017; Mazarr 2018; Monaghan 2022; NATO 2022)
Immediate deterrenceImmediate deterrence refers to actions planned and implemented immediately against a threat that appears during a state crisis. During a crisis, the state tries to convince the threat actor that aggression will be responded to with immediate action. (Tor 2017; Mazarr 2018; Monaghan 2022; NATO 2022)
Narrow deterrenceNarrow deterrence refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that they will be met with military force. (Arreguín-Toft et al. 2009; Mazarr 2018; Mueller 2021)
Broad deterrenceBroad deterrence refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that aggression will be met with versatile measures. These include, e.g., military, political and economic measures and measures enabled by law and the information environment. (Wee 2014; Mazarr 2018; Lindsay and Gartzke 2019; Sweijs and Zilincik 2021)
Positive deterrencePositive deterrence refers to the state’s effort to offer the threat actor opportunities for cooperation and rewards when it refrains from aggression. (Mazarr 2018; Kerttunen 2019; De Spiegeleire et al. 2020; Mueller 2021)
Negative deterrenceNegative deterrence refers to the state’s effort to convince the threat actor that aggression will result in a negative reaction and that the threat actor will lose, among other things, the benefits of cooperation. (De Spiegeleire et al. 2020; Monaghan 2022)

Statistics of the survey

Deterrence typePunishmentDenialDirectExtendedGeneralImmediateNarrowBroadPositiveNegative
N Valid62626262626262626262
Missing0000000000
Median3.004.504.504.005.004.004.004.002.003.00
Mode4554544412
Variance1.3800.4110.6750.9341.0770.9701.1551.1751.1941.564
Percentiles
252.004.004.003.754.003.003.003.001.002.00
503.004.504.504.005.004.004.004.002.003.00
754.005.005.005.005.004.004.255.003.004.00

Prevalence of factors in open-ended answers

Factors Deterrence optionsInternational enabling factorsNational enabling factorsNational preventive factorsInternational preventive factors
NATOEUExisting modelComprehensive securityNational defence and readinessLimited armed forcesLow status as an international actorIntentions of the potential aggressorUncategorised factorsTotal
General (%)6217291546219100
Denial (%)120331418.500616.5100
Direct (%)35.00012.532.510055100
Extended (%)63900096.5210.5100
Broad (%)2620.51.51451.59715.5100
Narrow (%)2152059165019100
Immediate (%)6024618.5249012.5100
Punishment (%)4904002301410100
Negative (%)1190000222830100
Positive (%)009000122257100
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2024-0006 | Journal eISSN: 1799-3350 | Journal ISSN: 2242-3524
Language: English
Page range: 67 - 77
Submitted on: Nov 28, 2023
Accepted on: Aug 9, 2024
Published on: Nov 18, 2024
Published by: National Defense University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2024 Maria Keinonen, published by National Defense University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.