International law prohibits states from intervening in the internal and external affairs of other states, but only if the method of intervention is coercive. This Article argues that coercion can be understood in two different ways or models. First, as coercion-as-extortion, a demand coupled with a threat of harm or the infliction of harm, done to extract some kind of concession from the victim state—in other words, an act targeting the victim state's will or decision-making calculus. Second, as coercion-as-control, an action materially depriving the victim state of its ability to control its sovereign choices. This may be done even through acts like cyber operations that the victim state is entirely unaware of. The Article argues that many of the difficulties surrounding the notion of coercion arise as a consequence of failing to distinguish between these two different models.

中文翻译：

---

重新审视作为国际法禁止干预的一个要素的胁迫

国际法禁止国家干预他国的内政和外交，但干预方式必须是强制性的。本文认为，可以用两种不同的方式或模型来理解胁迫。首先，胁迫即勒索，是一种要求加上伤害威胁或施加伤害的行为，目的是从受害国获得某种让步，换句话说，是针对受害国的意愿或决策的行为结石。其次，作为控制的强制，实质上剥夺了受害国控制其主权选择的能力的行为。这甚至可以通过受害者国家完全不知道的网络操作等行为来完成。该文章认为，围绕强制概念的许多困难都是由于未能区分这两种不同的模式而产生的。