When Silence Speaks: The Doctrine Of Communication By Conduct

Forbes

6 days ago

Majeed Javdani is a Board Member of Mercator Group and an internationally recognized practitioner in law and business.
In a world increasingly saturated with instant messages, press releases and diplomatic declarations, it is tempting to assume that international relations are shaped by what is said. Yet, seasoned observers of geopolitical strategy understand a deeper, subtler truth: What is done often speaks more clearly than what is said. This brings us to a principle that sits quietly at the center of international law and diplomacy—communication by conduct.
This mode of interaction operates beneath the surface of formal negotiation. It bypasses the volatility of words and ideological assertions, relying instead on actions—restrained, repeated or intentionally withheld—to convey strategic intentions. In environments where language has become too loaded or relationships too adversarial for open dialogue, conduct becomes the lingua franca of diplomacy.
The doctrine of communication by conduct is not merely a theoretical construct. It is rooted in the foundational logic of international law itself, specifically in the principle of customary law. Under this doctrine, consistent and general state practice, when coupled with a sense of legal obligation, crystallizes into binding legal norms. This is not just about precedent—it is about how behavior builds legitimacy. States do not need to sign a treaty to show compliance with an international norm; often, they simply need to behave in a way that others interpret as recognition of that norm.
This behavioral logic extends into the diplomatic realm. Silence, when paired with inaction or deliberate moderation, is never neutral in global politics. It is often read, rightly or wrongly, as an intentional message. And it is this interpretive space—where conduct becomes legible as policy—that the doctrine operates most powerfully.
Unlike strategic ambiguity, which aims to obscure intentions to gain leverage, communication by conduct is inherently about clarity—albeit a clarity achieved through implication, not assertion. It creates space for de-escalation, recalibration and quiet coordination, all without triggering the political costs of formal declarations or public alignment. It enables rival actors to feel each other out without committing to an irreversible path. In this respect, it is less of a diplomatic tool and more of a diplomatic environment—an atmosphere in which policy is shaped through restraint, repetition and refusal.
One key reason communication by conduct remains durable in the practice of statecraft is because it transcends language and ideology. It relies not on what a state claims to value, but on what it demonstrably prioritizes. In moments of crisis or strategic recalibration, when explicit engagement may be too risky or politically untenable, conduct becomes the only available channel for credible signaling. The key metric is not volume, but consistency. What matters is whether a pattern of behavior emerges that others can interpret and anticipate.
This raises the question of interpretation. After all, conduct, unlike contractual language, does not define itself. It must be read, and all readings are contextual. In this ambiguity lies both the strength and vulnerability of the doctrine. On one hand, it allows states to test strategic shifts in a deniable format; on the other, it opens the door to misinterpretation, escalation or diplomatic paralysis.
This interpretive complexity is why communication by conduct must be viewed as a layered process, not a one-off signal. One action may be ambiguous; 10 consistent actions begin to look like a message. And when that consistency aligns with a broader policy trend or institutional adjustment, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore its strategic meaning.
In many ways, the doctrine is a counterbalance to the performance of diplomacy. Whereas formal diplomacy operates in the spotlight—with joint statements, red-carpet visits and sound bites—communication by conduct happens in the shadows. It is quiet, cumulative and often retroactively understood. But this does not make it passive. On the contrary, it requires intention, discipline and a long-term strategic view. It is the diplomacy of the serious.
This framework is particularly relevant in an age where the tools of coercion and persuasion are expanding beyond the battlefield and negotiation table. Sanctions, supply chain disruptions, regulatory delays or even the withholding of military or economic support are all actions that speak volumes—whether or not anyone is speaking. And when such conduct is repeated across time, interpreted consistently by observers and unchallenged by the international community, it begins to constitute a normative message.
What this means for business leaders, policymakers and international observers is straightforward: Watching what states do is often more instructive than listening to what they say. This does not mean that words are irrelevant. Rather, it means that conduct supplies the evidentiary base that gives meaning to language. A diplomatic statement, no matter how eloquent, must be supported by action to carry weight. Without such alignment, rhetoric becomes noise.
This understanding also has practical implications for interpreting strategic risk and opportunity. Investors looking at foreign markets, legal advisors evaluating compliance landscapes and analysts tracking geopolitical trends would all benefit from applying the lens of communication by conduct. When a state begins quietly relaxing enforcement on a domestic regulation, or when it abstains from retaliation in the face of provocation, these are not anomalies—they are signals.
Importantly, communication by conduct does not necessarily aim for resolution. It often precedes negotiation, conditions it or exists alongside it. It may mark the beginning of a strategic thaw or simply serve as a stabilizing force in a volatile situation. Either way, it creates room. And in diplomacy, room is everything—room to think, adjust and reposition without losing face or triggering escalation.
The challenge, of course, lies in ensuring that such communication is recognized, interpreted accurately and reciprocated in kind. This requires not only diplomatic literacy but also the institutional memory to track patterns, connect signals and identify when conduct begins to cohere into policy. It also requires restraint: the willingness to allow ambiguity when clarity would be counterproductive.
In a world where overcommunication often leads to confusion and escalation, conduct reminds us that sometimes the most powerful statements are made without words. For those who know how to read them, these statements are never silent.
Forbes Communications Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?