Coercion requires a threat to an actor's rights. In the case of nations, these rights can probably be summarized as territorial integrity and political independence. While there are powerful incentives to cooperate, these incentives aren't coercive as they don't intrude upon territory or political independence (including the ability to decide with whom and under which terms one trades).
I think it's a fine thing to criticize the western legal framework of IP and you can argue that the west shouldn't export this legal framework; however, I don't think there's any philosophically consistent way to argue that the export mechanism (mutually beneficial agreements, basically) is "coercive" except perhaps to indict any kind of mutually beneficial agreement.
IP agreements are far more complex and are usually negotiated on top/after the initial agreement.
You think modern trade agreements can't be coercive?
Yes, you’re forcing them to abide by your “rhetorical standards”. The point of debate to help someone see your point of view. Nowhere does it require abiding by a certain process. If so, one could make the argument that only those that have not taken logic and learned the proper way to debate can engage in such things. So yes, you’re forcing people to play by your rules, or you refuse to play. It’s actually quite a bit childish.
Thats a terrible analogie.
To argue that being cut off from the global economy is 'freedom of association' is like arguing that selling cocaine to children is 'just free market' and "honest business"
Countries are not people - if the rest of the world stops trading with UK, 60 milliom people starve. In some countries, people will freese to death without fuel. West imposed moderate sanctions on Russia, and economy is already collapsing.
Ideally Russians would understand that sanctions are a consequence of their government's murderous invasion and that they represent a mild inconvenience compared to the plight of Ukrainians--if a given Russian can't muster the courage to protest (yes, I understand protests are illegal, which makes those who do protest all the more commendable) then I hope he can muster the courage not to complain about sanctions (similarly I hope westerners can muster the courage not to complain about high gas prices and so on).
The threat of cutting off trade is an attempt to 'twist the arm' of a country. In this case its justified, cool. (Although some of them like banning Russian cat breeds, seem questionable)
But then why are posters above pretending that many countries, which signed up this IP regime under threat fo being cutoff from trade, didn't do that under duress?
Because most people reserve "duress" for a threat to one's rights. In the case of nations, these rights are generally territorial integrity (basically, the right not to be invaded or attacked) and political independence (the right to self-govern, including to choose with whom and under which terms a nation engages in trade or other treaties and alliances). While there are certainly powerful incentives for cooperation, it's incoherent to argue that exercising one's right to self-govern is coercive and thus out-of-bounds.
Your suggestion that the west should be required to trade with countries which don't respect western IP policies is actually an imposition insofar as it imposes on western nations' freedoms of association, but allowing countries to determine their own trade provisions isn't an imposition.
I'll hazard an analogy: if I refuse to debate certain people on the Internet who don't adhere to my rhetorical standards, am I "imposing my regime on everyone else" (and thus I should be required to debate everyone who wants to debate me)?
EDIT: significantly revised to (hopefully) improve clarity.