Latest news with #MajeedJavdani
Forbes
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
When Silence Speaks: The Doctrine Of Communication By Conduct
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?
Forbes
01-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The Public-Private Paradox: How Conflicting Mindsets Impact PPPs
Majeed Javdani is a Principal of Mercator Group and an internationally recognized practitioner in law and business. A public-private partnership is a long-term collaborative business relationship between public agencies, meaning those using public budgets are responsible for developing public-inclusive services on one hand and private business organizations on the other. Here, I am going to explore PPP from the perspective of the private sector, the contrasting purposes it has compared to public organizations and the intrinsic risks associated with this business model. When different parties enter into a joint endeavor with a specific purpose, although the purpose of such a partnership is the same for them, what drives each party to enter into this collaborative relationship is different. In the case of a public-private partnership, these driving factors are fundamentally different. The main purpose of public services is inclusion, meaning that governments, through their agencies, are responsible for securing the fundamental rights that their citizens are entitled to, including healthcare, fundamental education, justice and law enforcement, and possibly more, depending on the constitution of each country and its economic situation. When we see words like inclusion, responsibility, constitution and rights, it indicates that securing and maintaining citizens' access to certain services is a mandatory duty of the government. These are services that all citizens are entitled to, regardless of their individual characteristics. The public sector needs both financial resources and technical expertise from the private sector to manage public programs and projects more effectively and efficiently. The conflicting issue arises because, while the public sector seeks the expertise of the private sector to reduce uncertainties in the outcomes of public programs and projects, their governance mindsets are fundamentally contrasting. Governance from the perspective of the private sector consists of business processes designed for optimal performance, while these practices may seem harsh or rigid from the perspective of the public sector. Executives in the private sector are profit-oriented, while directors in the public sector are expense-driven. What is critical and merits thorough consideration in collaborative business relationships like PPP is the mapping and allocation of associated risks. PPP is a form of joint venture where one party in the contract is a public entity. Joint ventures, including PPP, initiate and govern their programs, projects and operations through a special purpose vehicle (SPV). SPVs are legal entities that operate independently of the parties that establish them. An SPV serves as a platform for the joint governance and operations of a PPP. PPP partners delegate their responsibilities to their representatives in the SPV governance body, and these representatives serve as the interface between the SPV and their respective organizations. Risk mapping means that risks associated with the purpose of the PPP are allocated to each party according to the PPP contract that governs the SPV. Notwithstanding the constraints in governance and decision-making, which are intrinsic to the contrasting mindsets of the public and private sectors—and which limit the private sector's ability to implement its best practices for optimal performance—the private sector remains accountable for the risks allocated to it. While in a joint venture between private business organizations the parties' ultimate goal is monetary gain or benefits with the potential for monetization, the goals of the parties forming a PPP are fundamentally different. Balancing these completely different mindsets is what makes PPPs complicated. Let's explore some real-world conflicting issues that most public-private partnerships (PPPs) face. One of the main stakeholders of public services is the citizens, who typically demand improvements in the quality of public services that are accessible and affordable. Therefore, the success of any public-private partnership heavily relies on public satisfaction. Public agencies measure success based on the impact of the PPP's resulting service on the public. On the other hand, private business organizations must also satisfy their own shareholders, as their existence depends on them. One common gap in PPPs arises when the private party's mindset for service pricing is based on free-market principles, such as supply and demand and industry benchmarks, which may result in pricing that is not affordable for service users. In such cases, where the public sector's success factor is measured through inclusion, the appropriate strategy is to allow the PPP SPV to sell its service at the real market price while the government covers the margin up to a capped price as a direct subsidy to the citizens. Another potential conflicting issue in public-private partnerships arises in procurements required to meet the objectives of the SPV. These procurements span across human resources, raw materials, machinery and subcontractors. Public and private organizations have completely different mindsets regarding procurement. While the public sector follows administrative regulations on procurement, these regulations may conflict with the best performance approach of private businesses. These are examples of conflict scenarios that the private sector typically faces in the governance of SPVs when partnering with the public sector. Conflict points are unlimited because the governance mindset in the public sector and private sector exists at opposite ends of the corporate governance continuum. To reduce uncertainties regarding the success of a PPP—meaning satisfying the public as the end users of the resulting service while still maintaining the financial realities of the private businesses—the PPP agreement, as the governing instrument of the PPP and its SPV, must allocate risks to each party in alignment with their respective success measures, ultimately leading to the overall success of the PPP. The critical point is that private businesses, when evaluating a partnership with public entities, must identify potential risks arising from the public administration mindset, which often conflicts with a profit-driven, market-oriented approach. Risk controls should be designed to address these potential conflicts and must be implemented in the PPP agreement, which serves as the governance instrument of the SPV. Almost all PPP-associated risks revolve around governance, so the private sector should focus on the governance structure and map it to the allocated risks for each party. Forbes Communications Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?
