Conveners
War & Strategy: Strategic Deterrence under Duress
- Jan Angstrom (Swedish Defence University)
Description
War has returned to Europe. However, European strategic thinking and understanding of war remain underdeveloped, stemming from a long-standing reliance on U.S. security guarantees and the widespread belief that war was a relic of the past. As European actors grapple with this new reality, now is an opportune moment to critically examine existing knowledge on war and strategy, assess its relevance to contemporary contexts, and encourage innovative perspectives. This panel seeks to serve as a platform for advancing a European debate on the use of force for political purposes. It invites papers addressing war and strategy in a broad and inclusive sense, drawing from a variety of disciplines—such as history, political science, and sociology—and engaging with diverse approaches—from fundamental ontological and theoretical questions (such as, what is war and how do we know?) to empirical analyses examining the specifics of military capabilities and their implications for strategy. Submissions may focus on both historical and contemporary topics and explore various factors shaping strategy, including technological, cultural, social, and environmental influences, moral and ethical considerations, and the role of ideas, discourses, and imaginaries of (future) war in shaping today’s thinking. The panel also encourages innovative engagements with key concepts in strategic studies—such as deterrence, escalation, and violence—and contributions that critically but constructively evaluate the current state of the field or the dynamics and outcomes of knowledge production on war.
-
Isabelle Haynes (Charles University)12/06/2026, 16:00War and Strategy 2Paper Abstract (Closed Panels)
The deteriorating European security environment underscores the continuing relevance of NATO’s collective defence commitments. Since NATO is a military alliance comprising 32 electoral democracies, the commitment to defend any member relies on the domestic politics of its members. For these commitments to be credible, the alliance requires domestic political consensus and public support for...
Go to contribution page -
Wendy He (S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU))12/06/2026, 16:10War and Strategy 2Paper Abstract (Closed Panels)
Conventional wisdom holds that states with superior capabilities, clear interests, and strong reputations issue more credible threats, while weaker states struggle to convince. Yet strong states sometimes fail to convince while weaker states occasionally succeed. Why? I argue that credibility is first formed within internal deliberations, shaped by how leaders interact with their advisors...
Go to contribution page -
Mark Rhinard (Stockholm University), Dr Niklas Bremberg12/06/2026, 16:20War and Strategy 2Paper Abstract (Closed Panels)
Recent debates on transatlantic security cooperation widely assume that renewed political tensions -- most notably driven by the Trump II administration -- have undermined cooperation between NATO and the European Union. Such claims typically rest on assessments of strategic alignment at the political level. This paper argues that these assessments risk running ahead of what is currently known...
Go to contribution page -
360. Soft Power as Deterrence: Non-Kinetic Strategy and Alignment Politics in U.S.–China CompetitionMr Joseph Black (Chiang Mai University, King's College London)12/06/2026, 16:30War and Strategy 2Paper Abstract (Closed Panels)
Deterrence is conventionally understood as the prevention of unwanted actions through the threat of military retaliation or economic punishment. This paper argues that such a conception is increasingly insufficient for explaining how influence and restraint operate in contemporary strategic competition. Drawing on debates in deterrence theory, grand strategy, and soft power, the paper advances...
Go to contribution page