Political imprisonment as a strategy of deterrence can backfire

Chinese authorities use the deprivation of liberty of individual persons to deter others from challenging the regime. However, the method is not always effective and may, in some cases, have the opposite effect. This is shown in new research published in the European Journal of International Security.

In the study, Karl Gustafsson, Associate Professor at the Swedish Defence University and Professor of International Relations at Stockholm University, analyses how China uses deprivation of liberty as a political tool. The focus is on cases in which foreign academics, publishers and individuals connected to civil society have been detained after engaging in activities perceived by the Chinese authorities as politically sensitive.

The purpose is not only to punish the individual concerned; the deprivation of liberty is also intended to serve as a signal to others about which actions may have serious consequences.

“Deprivation of liberty can be used as a form of deterrence by creating fear about what is permitted and what may happen if one goes too far,” says Karl Gustafsson.

Deterrence directed at individuals

Deterrence has traditionally been studied in a military context, where states threaten one another in order to prevent attacks. Gustafsson’s study shows that deterrence can also be directed at individuals and civilian actors, even outside a military context. When a person is deprived of liberty without clear information about the charges, legal process or timeframe, a strong sense of uncertainty is created. This uncertainty may lead others to become more cautious in their work and to avoid similar forms of engagement.

“It is not only about what happens to the person who is detained, but about how others interpret the event and adjust their behaviour,” says Karl Gustafsson.

Emotions determine whether deterrence works

A central finding of the study is that emotions play a greater role in deterrence than previous research has often acknowledged. Fear is important, but it is not the only decisive factor. Deprivation of liberty can also evoke emotions such as shame, humiliation and anger. These feelings may lead the detained individual, or those around them, to attempt to regain control and agency rather than withdraw.

“Deterrence often rests on the assumption that people become passive out of fear. But in some cases, strong emotions may instead generate resistance,” says Karl Gustafsson.

When the strategy has the opposite effect

The study thus shows that using deprivation of liberty as a strategy of deterrence is difficult to control. Instead of silencing criticism, it may in some cases contribute to increased attention, new narratives of resistance and strengthened engagement among others. This makes the strategy less predictable than traditional military deterrence. The outcome depends not only on the state’s instruments of power, but also on how people interpret and emotionally respond to what occurs.

“Deprivation of liberty can function as deterrence, but it is far from certain that it always does,” says Karl Gustafsson.

A contribution to security studies

By analysing how deprivation of liberty is used against individuals, the study contributes to a broader understanding of the exercise of state power in today’s international system.

“It shows how the boundaries between domestic politics, foreign policy and security are becoming increasingly blurred,” says Karl Gustafsson.

Special issue on political imprisonment

The article is published in a special issue of the European Journal of International Security examining the phenomenon of political imprisonment and its significance for international security.

“Despite the recurring presence of detentions, abductions and hostage diplomacy in world politics, the phenomenon as a whole has received limited academic attention,” says Karl Gustafsson, who edited the special issue together with Richard J. Samuels, Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The contributions to the journal demonstrate that political imprisonment is not merely an instrumental tool of power, but a phenomenon shaped by – and in turn shaping – emotions, identity and security politics.

“By placing emotions at the centre, the special issue contributes to a deeper understanding of how dramas of captivity influence international politics,” says Karl Gustafsson.