Abstract

Leaders often emerge from a face-to-face interaction with an implicit understanding on who is expected to stand firm and, conversely, to back down, on a disputed issue. How is that possible? In this article, I develop a theory of resolve performance. I argue that expressions of resolve are speech acts. To establish resolve, leaders must perform such acts competently, there and then, both verbally and behaviorally. A successful (or what speech act theory calls “felicitous”) performance also depends on the reaction of one’s counterpart. By virtue of the intersubjective belief they share about their respective performances—who has carried the day and who has “blinked”—a “focal point” often arises regarding how they are expected to proceed on the disputed issue. I elaborate on several types of speech acts leaders use to perform resolve (threats, implicatures, assertions, and challenges), and illustrate my theory with an in-depth case study on the two days of meetings between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961. The leaders left the summit with the focal point that Kennedy was irresolute and Khrushchev was emboldened to make a move on Berlin. I discuss how such a focal point led to escalation of tensions between the two superpowers and what can be learned about the causal significance of face-to-face diplomacy in international politics.

摘要

领导者通常从面对面的互动中脱颖而出，对谁应该在有争议的问题上坚定不移，相反地让步有隐含的理解。这怎么可能？在本文中，我提出了解析性能的理论。我认为决心的表达是言语行为。为了建立决心，领导者必须在口头和行为上时时胜任地执行此类行为。成功的（或言语行为理论称之为“恰到好处”的）表演也取决于对方的反应。由于他们对各自的表现分享了主体间的信念——谁承担了这一天，谁“眨了眨眼”——一个“焦点”经常出现在他们应该如何处理有争议的问题上。我详细阐述了领导者用来执行决心（威胁、1961 年 6 月约翰·肯尼迪和尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫在维也纳举行的两天会晤，并通过深入的案例研究来说明我的理论。领导人带着肯尼迪的焦点离开了峰会。犹豫不决，赫鲁晓夫有胆量对柏林采取行动。我讨论了这样一个焦点如何导致两个超级大国之间的紧张局势升级，以及可以了解到面对面外交在国际政治中的因果意义。