The phrase "acts of coercion" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing forceful or manipulative actions that compel someone to act against their will.
Example: "The investigation revealed several acts of coercion that undermined the integrity of the election process."
Alternatives: "coercive actions" or "instances of coercion".
If there exist such conventions based on natural facts that invest acts of coercion with such meaning, what will guarantee that such conventions only countenance coercion when used against harmful behaviour, not when used against (harmless) immoral or worthless behaviour?
More generally, if as a result of prior acts of coercion by P, an act A is no longer possible for Q (perhaps Q doesn't think about it at all), has P coerced Q into not A-ing?
To put it differently, in the words of Fernando R. Tesón, people are entitled to "defend others who are victim of unjust attacks," and armed humanitarian interventions can be conducted to prevent "the most seriously wrong acts of coercion perpetrated by governments" (Tesón 2014, pp. 65, 67).
And I have doubts about the likelihood of our government never repeating these acts of coercion, even brutality.
When government has been corrupted to this extent, when avenues for seeking the redress of grievances are cut off, when so many are made to suffer with no prospect of relief, the requirement that citizens remain within legal constraints and refrain from acts of coercion no longer applies.
Some shareholders could seek to file lawsuits to block the deal, claiming that the unusual board vote was an act of coercion.
Once you realize that it's all just an act of coercion, that it's your culture trying to turn you into someone you can't really be, you can begin to free yourself from your demands".
But if coercion is necessarily immoral action, then it is hard to explain how an act of coercion could count as justified.[26] Among other implications, this view is in apparent contradiction with the traditional approach to coercion which treats states as paradigmatically, even necessarily users of coercion.
Other sexually explicit representations depict acts of violent coercion: people being whipped, beaten, bound, tortured, mutilated, raped and even killed.
Since this view places no restrictions on the reasons to which an agent might appeal, religious and secular reasons can play exactly the same justificatory role, namely, to defeat what would, in the absence of contrary reasons, be permissible acts of state coercion.
However given that our formative research showed that many men did not think that they had 'raped' when disclosing acts of sexual coercion of women, this is unlikely to be a major consideration [ 31].
