Which of the following options can be used as a weapon of war and conflict in the field of international relations?

Introduction / Context:
This question comes from the area of international relations and political vocabulary. It asks which listed economic or diplomatic measure can be used as a weapon of war and conflict. Here, war does not necessarily mean direct military action; it can refer to economic warfare or coercive strategies used by states to pressure or punish other states without firing a shot.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- We are given four options:
- Extreme economic dependence
- Trade sanctions
- Currency manipulation
- Withdrawal of bilateral treaties
- The term weapon of war and conflict suggests a deliberate, offensive tool used to hurt or pressure another country.

Concept / Approach:
The central concept is economic warfare. Trade sanctions are formal restrictions on exports, imports, or financial transactions that one country (or group of countries) imposes on another to punish or coerce it. Sanctions are widely recognised as instruments of economic warfare and are frequently described as weapons in diplomatic conflicts. The other options may be harmful or risky, but they are not as clearly and directly identified in common discourse as formal weapons of war and conflict in the way sanctions are.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Extreme economic dependence is generally seen as a vulnerability, not a weapon. A country that is extremely dependent on others is more likely to suffer harm than to exert power.Step 2: Trade sanctions are intentional, state-imposed restrictions designed to hurt another country’s economy, often in response to political or military behaviour. They are explicitly used as tools of pressure and conflict.Step 3: Currency manipulation can influence trade balances and financial flows, but it is usually discussed as an unfair practice rather than a clear, formal weapon of war.Step 4: Withdrawal of bilateral treaties can signal diplomatic hostility, but in itself it is more of a political gesture; it may precede conflict but is not typically labelled a weapon.Step 5: Among the options, trade sanctions most clearly match the idea of a weapon of war and conflict in modern international relations.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider how media and academic sources speak about these tools. Trade sanctions are often described as economic weapons or economic warfare, used as an alternative to direct military intervention. Headlines frequently refer to sanctions being imposed to punish or deter a country. Currency manipulation and treaty withdrawal, while powerful, are not as systematically framed as weapons; extreme dependence is a weakness, not a deliberate tool. This makes trade sanctions the best match to the wording of the question.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Extreme economic dependence describes a state of vulnerability for a country, not a weapon it can actively wield.
- Currency manipulation can distort markets and trade but is usually treated as unfair policy rather than a defined weapon of war.
- Withdrawal of bilateral treaties is a diplomatic move that may signal tension, but it is not typically named a weapon in the same clear sense as sanctions.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates may be tempted by broad ideas and choose multiple options mentally, but the question asks which is used as a weapon in the most explicit sense. Another mistake is to confuse being vulnerable (extreme dependence) with having a tool of coercion. When answering such questions, think about how often each term is directly paired with words like weapon, warfare or sanctions in news and textbooks. The term trade sanctions consistently appears with these ideas, making it the safest and most accurate choice.

Final Answer:
The option that can be clearly used as a weapon of war and conflict is Trade sanctions.