In international relations, credibility is the perceived likelihood that a leader or a state follows through on threats and promises that have been made.
[2] Credibility is related to concepts such as reputation (how past behavior shapes perceptions of an actor's tendencies)[3][4] and resolve (the willingness to stand firm while incurring costs).
"[22] Successful coercion frequently revolves around a demonstration of capabilities and resolve, both of which enhance the credibility of attempts to coerce others.
According to Richard Ned Lebow, a credible threat entails:[21] Robert Art identifies 8 prerequisites for a successful compellence strategy:[23] Matthew Fuhrmann and Todd Sechser argue that there are three main components to credibility in coercion:[24] According to Anne Sartori, states rarely seek to obtain goals through bluffing, because doing so undermines their reputation in future crises.
"[26] Credibility (or reputation) refers to the degree to which an actor is expected to uphold their commitments based on past behavior.
[29][17] One of the main problems in coercive diplomacy is that it is hard to credibly signal that compliance will not lead to punishment.
[45][46] The term was popularized in a 1994 academic article by James Fearon where he argued that democracies carry greater audience costs than authoritarian states, which makes them better at signaling their intentions in interstate disputes.