Question

1. Threat credibility assessment

Suppose a state threatens to assassinate another state’s leader if the other state fails to lower trade barriers. Assassinations are not looked upon favorably in the international community and so this threat may not be believed. In the following pairs of options, pick the one that most strengthens the credibility of this threat and gives one sentence explanation for your choice.

A . (a) or (b)? why? [2]

(a) Issuing a secret statement to the other state promising to assassinate the leader
(b) Issuing a public statement directed at the other state promising to assassinate the leader

B . (a) or (b)? why? [2]

(a) Issuing the threat from an anonymous Twitter account
(b) Issuing the threat from a known official at a filmed press conference

C. (a) or (b)? why? [2]

(a) Having no past experience with assassination (b) Being tied to past assassinations

D. (a) or (b)? why? [2]

(a) Having a reputation for taking drastic actions (b) Having a reputation for pacifism

Answer 1

A) Answer: B

Issuing a public statement is like making an official announcement that the state is going to assassinate the leader which is like a threat to life of leader. Thus it garnes huge coverage from media and crticisms from people and chaos in law and order. Thus issuing a public statement strengthens the credibility.

B) Answer: B

Issuing a threat in official and filmed conference means that it is like making an official announcement that the state is going to assassinate the leader which is like a threat to life of leader. Thus it garnes huge coverage from media and crticisms from people and chaos in law and order. Thus issuing a threat in official account strengthens the credibility.

C) Answer: b

Being tide with past assassinations is like that already a black mark on that state or person that he is involved in illegal activites which create a negative influence thus it gains more credibility when a person or state with tied past assassination make a statement.

D) Answer: A

A reputation with drastic actions means that supporting violence and any other forcefull methods to acehive something thus it strengthen the credibility of threat.