The Sovereignty of Leverage

Abstract

This study examines the 2026 diplomatic crisis surrounding the Islas Malvinas as a critical case for analyzing possible transformations in Western alliance management, through an analytical construct here termed coercive atlanticism: a mode of action in which the sovereign recognition of allied territories may be instrumentalized as leverage to induce military compliance. The study adopts a qualitative, theory-building critical-case design, grounded in an original tripartite model of modern geopolitical friction, and synthesizes official communications, parliamentary records, attributed journalistic reporting, and specialist literature on the Malvinas question to trace intra-alliance coercion across three domains: alliance management, legal-normative contestation, and multipolar opportunism. An internal memorandum from the U.S. Department of War, attributed in subsequent reporting to a senior Pentagon policy adviser, which contemplated revising the US position on Islas Malvinas sovereignty as a pressure instrument in the Iran conflict illustrates how Anglo-American strategic trust can come under strain, while creating political space for Argentina and China to advance anti-colonial narratives. The episode suggests a possible transformation of NATO from bloc discipline toward negotiated participation and indicates that territorial sovereignty within alliances cannot automatically be presumed an immutable normative commitment.