The authors discuss the use of irrevocable commitments in nonviolent resistance. For example, by announcing his irrevocable commitment to fast until certain British policies were changed, Gandhi effectively shifted responsibility for the conflict's course onto the British. Once Gandhi's commitment was made, whether he lived or died would depend solely on Britain's actions. Although Gandhi's use of irrevocable commitments was nonviolent, such tactics are still contentious, designed to result in unacceptable consequences unless the opponent takes ameliorative action.
Irrevocable commitments differ from threats.
An irrevocable commitment undertakes some course of action, to which the opponent must then respond.