Game Theory Cooperation Compliance

\\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\96-4\CRN410.
txt
unknown
Seq: 1
5-MAY-11
9:21
ESSAY
NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Jens David Ohlin
Game theory has been a mainstay in the international relations literature for several decades, but its appearance in the international law literature is of a far more recent vintage. Recent accounts have harnessed game
theorys alleged lessons in service of a new brand of realism about international law. These skeptical accounts conclude that international law loses
its normative force because states that follow international law merely are
participants in a Prisoners Dilemma seeking to achieve self-interested outcomes. Such claims are not just vastly exaggerated; they represent a
profound misunderstanding about the significance of game theory. Properly
conceived, the best way to understand international law is as a Nash Equilibriuma focal point that states gravitate toward as they make rational
decisions regarding strategy in light of strategies selected by other states.
In domains where international law has the greatest purchase, the preferred strategy is reciprocal compliance with international norms. This strategy is consistent with the normativity of law and morality, both of which are
characterized by self-interested actors who accept reciprocal constraints on action to generate Nash Equilibria and, ultimately, a stable social contract.
These agentsconstrained maximizers, as the philosopher David Gauthier
calls themaccept the constraints of a normative system in order to achieve
cooperative benefits. This Essay concludes by explaining that it is also rational for states to comply with these constraints: agents evaluate competing
plans and strategies, select the best course of action, and then stick to their
decision, rather than obsessively reevaluating their chosen strategy at each
moment in time. A state that defects from international law when the opportunity arises may, in the long run, reduce its overall payoff as compared to a
state that selects and adheres to a strategy of constrained maximization.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. THE PRISONERS DILEMMA AND NASH EQUILIBRIUM . . . . . . .
A. Bilateral Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Multilateral Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Law and Self-Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
870
876
877
878
880
For helpful comments and suggestions, I thank Jeff Rachlinski, Claire Finkelstein,
Eyal Benvenisti, Matt Adler, Shai Lavi, Sean Murphy, Edward Swaine, and participants at
the following two conferences: The Foundations of International Law, University of
Pennsylvania Law School, April 2010, and The Future of Legal Theory, Cornell Law
SchoolTel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law, June 2010.
869
R
R
R
R
R
\\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\96-4\CRN410.txt
870
unknown
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
Seq: 2
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
II. SELF-INTEREST AND NORMATIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. Morality and the Prisoners Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Constrained Maximizers and International Law . . . . .
C. Compliance and the Rationality of Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. OBJECTIONS TO THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF STATES . . . . . .
A. Rationality: Normative, Not Descriptive . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Bargaining Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. The Moral Obligation of Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
881
883
885
888
891
891
894
896
899
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
INTRODUCTION
For at least several decades, game theory has played a central role
in the international relations literature. Only recently has it emerged
as a powerful force in the international law literature as well. Political
scientists learned as long ago as the 1960swith the work of Thomas
Schellingthat game theory offered a sophisticated matrix for modeling state relations.1 The econometrics of game theory came with the
promise of predicting behavior: social scientists could not only explain why some states had acted the way they did, but might also predict future behavior under certain conditions.2 The Prisoners
Dilemma provided an answer for problems regarding coordination
and cooperation that had concerned the international relations literature for years.3
The central puzzle of the Prisoners Dilemma literature was the
uncertain and uneasy relationship between a states selfish behavior in
international relations and a states commitment to international legal
norms when those norms proved inconvenient or downright inconsistent with a states self-interest. One school of thought concluded that
states generally act in their self-interest and seek to ignore the prescriptive power of international legal norms when the norms are sufficiently inconvenient.4 A second school of thought concluded that
states are generally more receptive to international norms for a variety
of reasons. For many scholars, receptivity to international legal norms
1
See THOMAS C. SCHELLING, THE STRATEGY OF CONFLICT 320 (2d ed. 1980) (discussing the retarded science of international strategy).
2
Cf. JOEL P. TRACHTMAN, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 45
(2008) (discussing how the social science methodologies of modeling and empirical testing can generate and validate predictions and hypotheses).
3
See SCHELLING, supra note 1, at 7 (noting that [w]hat is impressive is . . . how vague
the concepts still are[ ] and how inelegant the current theory of deterrence is); id. at
21314 (explaining the Prisoners Dilemma); id. at 22526 (using the Prisoners Dilemma
to explain coordination and cooperation regarding warning systems).
4
See, e.g., Kenneth W. Abbott, Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for
International Lawyers, 14 YALE J. INTL L. 335, 33738 (1989); John K. Setear, An Iterative
Perspective on Treaties: A Synthesis of International Relations Theory and International Law, 37
HARV. INTL L.J. 139 (1996).
2011]
unknown
Seq: 3
5-MAY-11
9:21
871
could be explained by future costs associated with noncompliance

(i.e., loss of reputation that might frustrate a states ability to negotiate
future agreements), thus collapsing international law compliance into
low-discount rate, self-interested behavior.5 Or, in the alternative,
some scholars concluded that compliance with international legal
norms was internalized as a value that formed one part of a nations
self-interest.6 In other words, fidelity to national values included, inter alia, compliance with international law, because some countries
view participation in the global legal order (or fidelity to its underlying norms) as an essential part of their identity and constitutive commitments.7 Therefore, compliance with international law was a
national interest to be included with other more egoistic national values. This novel move was simultaneously edifying and deedifying in
the sense that it elevated fidelity to international law to a high national interest (a good thing), yet simultaneously deflated international law compliance by turning it into just another interest in a field
of interests, as opposed to a universal norm that demands compliance
in the face of contrary self-interest. What each school rejected was
what one might call a nave account of international law: that states
comply with international law simply because it is law.
While game theory offered theorists of international relations a
model for explaining state relations, the methodology has had a far
more explosive effect among international lawyers. Recent accounts
have harnessed alleged lessons learned from game theory in service of
a new brand of realism about international law.8 These skeptical ac5
See, e.g., John K. Setear, Responses to Breach of a Treaty and Rationalist International
Relations Theory: The Rules of Release and Remediation in the Law of Treaties and the Law of State
Responsibility, 83 VA. L. REV. 1, 8, 7475 (1997).
6
See, e.g., Peter J. Katzenstein, Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security,
in THE CULTURE OF NATIONAL SECURITY: NORMS AND IDENTITY IN WORLD POLITICS 13, 1726
(Peter J. Katzenstein ed., 1996) (discussing the effects of cultural-institutional context and
political identity in state action); see also ALEXANDER WENDT, SOCIAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 198 (1999) (defining national interest to include physical survival, autonomy, economic well-being, and collective self-esteem).
7
See, e.g., THOMAS M. FRANCK, FAIRNESS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONS
4245 (1995) (suggesting that states may act a certain way because of their beliefs about
what membership in the community of nations entails); THOMAS M. FRANCK, THE POWER OF
LEGITIMACY AMONG NATIONS 25 (1990) (arguing that nations obey rules because they perceive the rules to have a high degree of legitimacy); LOUIS HENKIN, HOW NATIONS BEHAVE:
LAW AND FOREIGN POLICY 4648 (2d ed. 1979) (rejecting the cynical view that state compliance only occurs in cases of rational expected outcomes); Harold Hongju Koh, Why Do
Nations Obey International Law?, 106 YALE L.J. 2599, 260203 (1997) (noting that international law norms now help construct national identities and interests and analyzing the
process of interaction, interpretation, and internalization of international [legal]
norms).
8
See, e.g., JACK L. GOLDSMITH & ERIC A. POSNER, THE LIMITS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
(2005); Eric A. Posner, Do States Have a Moral Obligation to Obey International Law?, 55 STAN.
L. REV. 1901 (2003). The current wave is new because it harkens back to a first wave of
prominent skeptics of international law. See generally HANS J. MORGENTHAU, POLITICS
872
unknown
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
Seq: 4
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
counts conclude that international law loses its normative force because states that follow international law are simply participants in a
Prisoners Dilemma seeking to achieve self-interested outcomes.9 In
short, these arguments can be distilled to the following elements. Effective multilateral agreements are rarely achieved, either in treaty or
customary form.10 Most states consent to international legal norms
through a process of bilateral agreements with specific partners who
in turn have their own set of overlapping bilateral agreements.11
Compliance with these agreements, whether via treaty or customary
law, is usually based on considerations specific to a particular partner
rather than general considerations regarding the content of the legal
norm.12 In other words, states comply with international norms in
specific interactions with a particular state when there are good reasons to believe that the other state will reciprocate such compliance.13
This explains why a state might adhere to a particular legal norm with
one partner but not with another. According to this school of
thought, the vast majority of the content of international law fits this
paradigm as opposed to one that posits general legal obligations to
the entire world community.14 Reducing international law to a series
of overlapping bilateral arrangements facilitates the use of the Prisoners Dilemma as a convincing model, though of course it is not necessary to limit the analysis to bilateral interactions. It is, after all,
possible to have a multiple-player Prisoners Dilemma, though cooper-
AMONG NATIONS: THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER AND PEACE (2d ed. 1954) (updating a first
edition that discussed the obsolescence of the sovereign nation state and warned against
the illusory hopes for the newly established United Nations).
9
GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 184 (concluding that [w]hen states cooperate in their self-interest, they naturally use the moralistic language of obligation rather
than the strategic language of interest. But saying that the former is evidence of moral
motivation is like saying that when states talk of friendship or brotherhood they use these
terms, which are meant to reflect aspirations for closer relations, in a literal sense). Goldsmith and Posner thereby presume that the language of morality and the language of interest are mutually exclusive categoriesa proposition they never explicitly defend. See also
id. at 100 (distinguishing the view that states comply with international law because it is the
right thing to do from the view that states comply when it is in their self-interest).
10
Id. at 3637 (arguing that, in treaty contexts, states may achieve shallow multistate
cooperation and that, in the context of customary international law, genuine multistate
cooperation is unlikely to emerge); see also id. at 87 (asserting skepticism that genuine
multinational collective action problems can be solved by treaty).
11
Id. at 87 (describing how cooperation in pairs creates a multilateral regime).
12
Id. at 88 (describing the strong pattern in international law whereby threats of
retaliation are nearly always the responsibility of the victims of violations and concluding
that the enforcement of multilateral treaty regimes is usually bilateral).
13
See id. at 8788.
14
Id. at 66 (arguing that theorists inflate context-specific and temporally-limited behavioral patterns, coincidences of interest, and situations of coercion into exogenous rules
of customary law).
2011]
unknown
Seq: 5
5-MAY-11
9:21
873
ation becomes more challenging as the number of players increases.15

In any event, the rhetorical advantage to the bilateral claim is clear: it
makes the Prisoners Dilemma that much more intuitive as a model
for international law.
The new realists proceed to argue that compliance in a Prisoners
Dilemma is based on reciprocity that is hard to come by. A state will
prefer to violate the treaty or customary rule while their competitor
adheres to it, though this state of affairs is hard to achieve as all competitors share the exact same preference.16 Thus, in order to avoid
the opposite result (mutual defection), states cooperate in the form of
international agreements to produce the next-best preference: mutual
adherence to the norm. Now comes the theoretical payoff, in the
form of multiple claims: First, cooperation in the form of international agreements only shows up in the very limited situations when
participants in the game have equal or near-equal bargaining power.17
In contrast, most cases of international relations involve unequal bargaining relationships, where a weak state is forced to adhere to the
wishes of the stronger state or face unfavorable consequences.18 This
reduces the scope of international law. Second, even in cases of comparable bargaining power, the application of the norm is based entirely on reciprocal compliance.19 States generally only follow the
norm if their bilateral competitor also follows the norm. Unfortunately, international law has a relative paucity of enforcement mechanisms compared with domestic law, making assured reciprocal
compliance through coercion rare and difficult to achieve. This further reduces the scope of international law. Third, even when both
states in a Prisoners Dilemma follow the norm, they are doing so out
of state self-interest.20 In other words, it is within a states self-interest
to follow an international legal norm if and only if the other player is
also following that same norm. Consequently, international law is really just a matter of self-interested behavior on the part of states, not a
robust system of law that demands compliance even when it conflicts
with a participants self-interest.
Now comes the normative payoff of the argument, in the form of
a fourth claim. Because international law is reducible to self-inter15
Id. at 36 (discussing the costs associated with the multilateral model, including increased costs of monitoring and the risk of undetected free-riding).
16
Id. at 3235 (describing coordination problems).
17
Id. at 60 (recalling that the three-mile territorial sea rule was insisted upon by states
with powerful navies but that even these powerful states were often unable to make credible threats to enforce the rule).
18
For a full resolution of this point, see infra Part III.B.
19
See, e.g., GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 15051 (discussing reciprocal compliance in the context of GATT).
20
See id. at 100.
874
unknown
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
Seq: 6
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
ested behavior, states have no independent obligation to follow international law when it conflicts with their self-interest.21 International
law is based entirely on the Prisoners Dilemma structure of self-interested behavior, thus it has no independent normative force. If states
wish to comply with international law, they may do so when it suits
them. They may also structure international law obligations to their
own benefit, but ought not to be concerned with how these norms
affect humanity as a whole or the global community.22 Indeed, the
claim is not just that states are not required to follow international law
when it conflicts with their self-interest, but in fact that they should
not. A government that follows international law when such law conflicts with the self-interest of the state is breaching its fiduciary duty to
its citizens and placing the welfare of foreigners above the welfare of
its citizens.23 Partiality is not just permitted, but required.24 This Essay takes aim at the validity of the third claim and its normative payoff.
Since the third claim is based on a conceptual error, the supposed
normative payoff is illusory.
Predictably, the new realism about international law sparked a serious counterattack from both the professoriate and the international
bar,25 though such realism already had its adherents in some corners
of the U.S. Department of State (in previous administrations).26 Most
law school professors writing about international law are deeply invested in the claim that international law has normative force and that
states ought to follow it.27 Consequently, scholars have mounted numerous defenses of international law, cataloguing the effectiveness of
human rights treaties and identifying the complex compliance and
enforcement mechanisms that currently exist under international
law.28 Although most of these arguments are undoubtedly correct,
they miss something fundamental and foundational about the new re21
Id. at 185 (arguing that a moral obligation to comply with international law is
illusory).
22
Id. at 20506.
23
Id. at 20915.
24
See also Jack Goldsmith, Liberal Democracy and Cosmopolitan Duty, 55 STAN. L. REV.
1667, 167582 (2003) (discussing the limitations on ascribing strong cosmopolitan sentiments and duties to liberal democratic governments).
25
For a particularly trenchant example, see Robert Hockett, The Limits of Their World,
90 MINN. L. REV. 1720 (2006) (reviewing GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8).
26
See, e.g., Thomas M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Power: International Law in an Age of Power Disequilibrium, 100 AM. J. INTL L. 88, 90 (2006) (Not surprisingly, however, the claim [of laws fecklessness] resonates strongly in the halls of
American governance.).
27
For a classic example, see MARY ELLEN OCONNELL, THE POWER AND PURPOSE OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW: INSIGHTS FROM THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ENFORCEMENT (2008).
28
See, e.g., ANDREW T. GUZMAN, HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW WORKS: A RATIONAL CHOICE
THEORY 13 (2008) (providing an explanation of international laws effectiveness from a
rational choice perspective).
2011]
unknown
Seq: 7
5-MAY-11
9:21
875
alism: the use of game theory as a mechanism for making claims regarding international laws normativitya claim that was largely absent
from the international relations literature on game theory.29 The use
of game theory as an underlying methodology for understanding international law presents unique issues regarding the degree to which a
descriptive methodology can yield normative conclusions regarding
international law.
I argue here that the new realism about international law suffers
from a profound misunderstanding about the significance of game
theory. In short, the new realism misuses the methodology by concluding that self-interested behavior and normativity are mutually exclusive.30 Indeed, that is the conclusion that the new realists draw
from the Prisoners Dilemma. This conclusion is false.
In order to defend this claim, we must engage in some preliminaries. First, Part I of this Essay offers a more nuanced understanding of
the Prisoners Dilemma in international law and explains how the international legal order promotes the creation of Nash Equilibria
among its participants. Part II then explains the compatibility between rational self-interest and the normativity of international law,
invoking the concept of constrained maximization. By invoking the
rationality of plans, Part II also explains why it would be rational for a
29
Although Guzman uses game theory models expertly to demonstrate the effectiveness of international law, id., he does not directly dwell on the issue that I have raised here,
i.e., whether the assumption of self-interest implicit in the Prisoners Dilemma undermines
international laws essential normativity. Guzman has pursued his analysis in a number of
important essays. See, e.g., Andrew T. Guzman, A Compliance-Based Theory of International
Law, 90 CALIF. L. REV. 1823 (2002) [hereinafter Guzman, A Compliance-Based Theory]
(presenting a theory of international law in which compliance occurs in a model of rational, self-interested states); Andrew T. Guzman, Reputation and International Law, 34 GA. J.
INTL & COMP. L. 379 (2006) [hereinafter Guzman, Reputation and International Law]
(describing expected loss of reputation as one mechanism of ensuring compliance); Andrew T. Guzman, Saving Customary International Law, 27 MICH. J. INTL L. 115 (2005) [hereinafter Guzman, Saving Customary International Law] (mapping out a theory of customary
international law based on a model of rational choice); see also Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Joel P.
Trachtman, Economic Analysis of International Law, 24 YALE J. INTL L. 1 (1999) (exploring
the actual and potential application of law and economics to international law).
30
See, e.g., GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 100. Other commentators have
noted the lack of support for this assumption. See, e.g., George Norman & Joel P.
Trachtman, The Customary International Law Game, 99 AM. J. INTL L. 541, 54142 (2005).
The argument presented by Goldsmith and Posner relies on the proposition that customary international law is based on opinio juris and that acting in self-interest precludes acting
out of a sense of legal obligation. See GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 1415. The
answer to this skeptical challenge lies in properly understanding opinio juris as the intent
of states to propose or accept a rule of law that will serve as the focal point of behavior,
implicate an important set of default rules applicable to law but not to other types of social
order, and bring into play an important set of linkages among legal rules. Norman &
Trachtman, supra, at 542; see also Jose E. Alvarez, A BIT on Custom, 42 N.Y.U. J. INTL L. &
POL. 17, 43 (2009) (That states have or may have had economic reasons to conclude a
treaty does not exclude other normative effects produced by these treaties entry into
force, subsequent practice under them, or efforts to enforce them.).
876
unknown
Seq: 8
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
state to follow international law even when it might defect with impunity. Finally, Part III considers several objections, including the naturalistic fallacy, the unequal bargaining power of states, and the alleged
inability of nation-states to bear moral obligations.
I
THE PRISONERS DILEMMA
AND
NASH EQUILIBRIUM
The outline of the Prisoners Dilemma story as told by the new

realists is essentially correct, though at times it borders on unsophisticated and draws the wrong conclusions from the methodology. We
shall start with the unsophisticated nature of the model and then proceed to the second question of the false conclusions drawn from it. As
to the model, Goldsmith and Posner view international cooperation as
a bilateral repeated Prisoners Dilemma.31 While this view is true, the
model can be revised and tweaked. Properly conceived, the best way
to understand international law is as a Nash Equilibriuma focal
point that states gravitate toward as they make rational decisions regarding strategy in light of strategies selected by other states.32 In
game theory, a Nash Equilibrium is defined as a solution in which
each player evaluates the strategies of their competitors and decides
that they gain no advantage by unilaterally changing strategy when all
other players keep their own strategies unchanged.33 A Nash Equilibrium functions as a kind of focal point, where participants in the game
gravitate toward a particular legal norm and choose compliance as
their strategy if and only if the other players in the game are also
choosing compliance as their strategy.34 When a bilateral international agreement works, one state realizes that unilaterally choosing
breach as its strategy would confer no benefit because the costs associated with that shift in strategy are too high. So, the player sticks with
compliance. If one player decides that a shift in strategy (i.e., breach)
31
GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 8788.

Cf. Eyal Benvenisti, Customary International Law as a Judicial Tool for Promoting Efficiency, in THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 85, 9294 (Eyal Benvenisti & Moshe Hirsch eds., 2004) (describing the
use of customary international law for shifting to a new, more efficient equilibrium);
Charles Lipson, Why Are Some International Agreements Informal?, in INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 293, 29798 (Beth A. Simmons & Richard H. Steinberg eds.,
2006) (discussing how tacit understandings and implicit rules may create a Nash
equilibrium).
33
See DOUGLAS G. BAIRD, ROBERT H. GERTNER & RANDAL C. PICKER, GAME THEORY AND
THE LAW 3941 (1994).
34
See KAUSHIK BASU, PRELUDE TO POLITICAL ECONOMY: A STUDY OF THE SOCIAL AND
POLITICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMICS 11416 (2000) (describing the problem of choosing between multiple Nash Equilibria); see also BAIRD ET AL., supra note 33, at 3940 (discussing a classical example of a focal point); SCHELLING, supra note 1, at 11012 (discussing
focal points).
32
R
R
2011]
unknown
Seq: 9
5-MAY-11
9:21
877
is indeed in his or her best interest, then the players fall out of Nash
Equilibrium.35
A. Bilateral Agreements
In domains where international law has the greatest purchase,
the strategy that results in the equilibrium is reciprocal compliance
with international norms.36 Consider a bilateral treaty negotiation regarding extraditions between two countries: State A and State B sign a
treaty promising mutual extradition between the countries and establishing a legal framework governing these extraditions. Suppose that
State A has custody of a suspect and must decide whether to comply
with its obligations under the treaty regime. State A realizes that failure to comply with the regime will not only risk retaliation from State
B in future extradition matters, but will also have numerous collateral
effectsincluding possible retaliation in other bilateral contexts with
State B as well as a loss of reputation in treaty negotiations with other
states, who may now be less willing to sign agreements with State A.37
Consequently, State A decides that compliance with the legal norm is
in its self-interest and that it has no reason to unilaterally change its
strategy. The cost of shifting strategies is just too high. Consequently,
the states in this bilateral treaty regime are in Nash Equilibrium with
each other because neither party has reason to unilaterally change its
strategy. In this case, their compliance with an international treaty
norm can be understood through game theorys lens of self-interested
behavior.38
Of course, one might point out that it may be beneficial for a
state to defy the treaty commitment when it proves inconvenient, thus
effectively transforming the state into a free rider that receives the
benefits of the legal regulation but ignores the costs when they prove
inconvenient.39 This is certainly true, but the whole point of the structure of international law is that this outcome (free ridership) is more
difficult to achieve ceteris paribus. Because states are linked together
through mutual ongoing interactions that are explicitly legal in na35
Cf. Avery Katz, The Strategic Structure of Offer and Acceptance: Game Theory and the Law
of Contract Formation, 89 MICH. L. REV. 215 (1990) (discussing game theory in the context of
contract breach).
36
See Norman & Trachtman, supra note 30, at 542, 571.
37
See, e.g., Guzman, A Compliance-Based Theory, supra note 29 (presenting a theory of
international law in which compliance occurs in a model of rational, self-interested states);
Setear, supra note 5, at 1 (examining the international legal rules that govern responses to
treaty breaches from the perspective of rationalist theories of international relations).
38
However, pace Goldsmith and Posner, the parties self-interested compliance does
not preclude their acting out of opinio juris. See Norman & Trachtman, supra note 30, at
54142; see also Alvarez, supra note 30, at 44.
39
See GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 87 (arguing that the free-rider problem is
worse when an agreement involves large numbers of states).
R
R
R
R
R
R
878
unknown
Seq: 10
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
ture, a state cannot benefit by changing its strategy away from compliance. If it does so, it incurs costs associated with noncompliance that
overwhelm any putative benefits from its defection against the norm.
The whole point of international law is to create a structure whereby
the cost of shifting strategy away from compliance becomes higher
than it would be without legal regulation in that particular area. As a
result, each state in the Nash Equilibrium decides to comply with the
legal norm in question.
It is important to remember that the equilibrium need not be the
most optimal or efficient legal regulation possible.40 It might be the
case that a different legal regime creates cooperation that produces
greater benefits for every state.41 But this kind of Pareto optimality
may be difficult to achieve. For example, it might be more efficient
for the states to set up a bilateral international court to decide all
cases of extradition between the two countries, though each state gravitates towards a Nash Equilibrium that is far below the Pareto optimal
outcome for these two players. There is nothing in international law
that promises that a stable set of legal regulations between competitors will be the most efficient regulations possible.42 Indeed, over
time one hopes that the legal regime might evolve closer to Pareto
optimality as initial cooperation yields greater cooperation. But in
some cases, the particular toolbox of compliance mechanisms in international law might limit the amount of optimality one can achieve in
this context.43 Although international law yields stable Nash Equilibria, it will never yield the kind of Pareto optimality that one finds in a
domestic legal system.
B. Multilateral Agreements
The same analysis would apply in a multilateral context. Consider, for example, the most important area of international legal regulation: the use of force.44 This is also the most contentious area of
international legal regulation, one that the new realists often use as a
poster child for their contention that legal norms will give way to selfinterest when the cost of compliance becomes inconvenient.45 How40
See BASU, supra note 34, at 114 (discussing problem of multiple Nash Equilibria).
See HERBERT GINTIS, GAME THEORY EVOLVING: A PROBLEM-CENTERED INTRODUCTION
TO MODELING STRATEGIC INTERACTION 109 (2d ed. 2009).
42
See, e.g., Andrew T. Guzman, Public Choice and International Regulatory Competition, 90
GEO. L.J. 971, 975 (2002) (discussing how choice of law and issues of public choice affect
the substantive law adopted by states).
43
See id. at 984 (noting that there are problems with international cooperation that
make it inferior to well-functioning domestic systems).
44
See MICHAEL J. GLENNON, LIMITS OF LAW, PREROGATIVES OF POWER: INTERVENTIONISM
AFTER KOSOVO 3 (2001) (It is widely agreed that the most important rules are rules governing use of force . . . .).
45
See id.
41
2011]
unknown
Seq: 11
5-MAY-11
9:21
879
ever, the Nash Equilibrium here is clear. The norm in question is the
legal prohibition on the use of force, in both the UN Charter and
customary law, unless such use of force is authorized by the Security
Councilthe central clearing house for decisions regarding international peace and security.46 Some scholars trace the norm back to the
KelloggBriand Pact, before which aggressive war was simply recognized as inevitable (and therefore not presumptively illegal).47 This is
too simplistic, since it was at the very least implicit in the notion of
Westphalian sovereignty that states were free not just from outside interference in the widest sense, but also from outside attack in the narrowest sense.48 In the current scheme, the prohibition against the use
of force is now coupled with the Security Councils authority to authorize use of force to restore international peace and security.49
Unfortunately, Security Council authorizations for the use of
force are rare, and, since the threat of a veto is always present, states
cannot predict with any reasonable certainly when the Security Council will authorize such use of force.50 Thus, State A complies with the
norm and eschews the use of force. This strategy of compliance is
made with the hope that the other players in the game will also favor
compliance. However, no state can assume that competitors will
adopt the same strategy; the competitors might choose violation as
their strategy and in so doing reserve the right to use force at their
discretion. Why would the second state choose this strategy? Perhaps
because the costs associated with noncompliance are relatively mild.
Although they might be sued before the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) and lose international standing (e.g., reputation), these costs
pale in comparison to foregoing the use of force when your competitors refuse to do the same. This is why the international legal community has not navigated toward a Nash Equilibrium that grants the
Security Council the exclusive authority to authorize military force.
The stakes are too high and the legal prohibitions insufficient to incentivize reciprocal compliance. Simply put, each participant has an
incentive to change its strategy away from compliance regardless of
the strategy chosen by its competitors.
46
See generally id. at 1719 (describing the UN Charter and the Security Councils role
in authorizing the use of force).
47
See YORAM DINSTEIN, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE 83 (4th ed. 2005)
(describing the pact as a watershed moment in the development of jus ad bellum).
48
See MARY ELLEN OCONNELL, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE: CASES AND
MATERIALS 11417 (2005).
49
GLENNON, supra note 44, at 1719.
50
Cf. Jules Lobel & Michael Ratner, Bypassing the Security Council: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime, 93 AM. J. INTL L. 124, 154 (1999)
(discussing Councils impotence and failure to act in this area).
880
unknown
Seq: 12
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
It is precisely for this reason that, at its earliest incarnation, international law gravitated toward a norm regarding the use of force that
allowed unilateral exceptions to the prohibition against the use of
force in cases of self-defense. Nineteenth-century treatises regarding
public international law, in discussing the use of force, made clear
that military force was legal in cases of self-defense or self-preservation.51 This exception to the norm prohibiting the use of force is as
old as the prohibition itself. Although states were unwilling to adopt a
strategy of compliance with a blanket prohibition on military force,
states have been willing to adopt a strategy of compliance with a more
nuanced legal norm that always allows military force in self-defense.52
A state can comply with this norm because even if a competitor in the
game changes strategy, defects from the norm, and engages in aggressive warfare, the first state can still use force in self-defense to protect
itself, consistent with the legal norm. In other words, the cost of compliance with the norm does not require that a state risk its national
security.53
Consequently, states have a reason to stick with the strategy of
compliance even given the uncertainty regarding the strategy of their
competitors in the game. That is why a Nash Equilibrium has developed around a prohibition regarding the use of force unless authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense. Each state benefits
from the legal norma stable world order without aggressive force
and constant warfareand therefore complies with the legal norm
because compliance with the norm is also consistent with purely defensive force when competitors in the game change their strategy.54
So, no state has reason to unilaterally change its strategy in the game.
C. Law and Self-Interest
It is clearly correct, then, that international fidelity to the legal
prohibition regarding the use of force can be described, using game
51
See, e.g., JOHN WESTLAKE, CHAPTERS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 115
(1894); HENRY WHEATON, ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 90 (8th ed. 1866); THEODORE
D. WOOLSEY, INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 184 (5th ed.1879).
52
See OCONNELL, supra note 48, at 240 (discussing the fact that the United Nations
Charter prohibits force generally while leaving a limited exception for self-defense).
53
But see Sean D. Murphy, The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense, 50 VILL. L. REV. 699,
702 (2005) (noting some uncertainty about whether preemptive self-defense is permissible under international law, or whether it is permissible but only under certain
conditions).
54
It is certainly true that not all states comply with the prohibition regarding the use
of force. However, Henkin must surely be right that almost all nations observe almost all
principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time.
See HENKIN, supra note 7, at 47 (emphasis omitted). If there is any doubt regarding the
veracity of the maxim, one need only ask what the world would look like today if the
prohibition regarding the use of force was not followed most of the time.
2011]
unknown
Seq: 13
5-MAY-11
9:21
881
theory, as self-interested behavior on the part of states. However, this

much was already clear in the previous wave of international relations
scholarship twenty-five years ago.55 Although advancements in the
game theory models have only added sophistication to the analysis,
they are hardly new. However, the new realists operating in the international law scholarship take all of this as evidence for a much more
explosive normative claim: since compliance with international law is
based on self-interest, international law has no normative pull.56 The
status of international law as law is seriously called into doubt.
There are many different ways of making this claim. One might
conclude that international law is not law at all, or one might simply
claim that international law is far less important than international
lawyers think.57 Or, one might say that states only comply with international law when doing so furthers their self-interest and reject it
whenever it does not, making international law different not in degree
but in kind from domestic law.58 All of these claims add up to an
assault on international laws normativity.
Of course, I am not the first to object to the new realism and
there is now a wide array of literature providing renewed justifications
for international law in the face of the new realist attack.59 However,
none of the defenses have, to my mind, adequately emphasized the
specific methodological mistakes made by the new realists. Although
game theory allows us to model international law as a game of selfinterest, this picture is entirely consistent, pace Goldsmith and Posner,
with international laws normativity. Simply put, the Prisoners Dilemma also provides a model to explain morality itself (i.e., that of
self-interested actors who accept reciprocal moral constraints on action as a social contract), and this dual nature of the Prisoners Dilemma cannot be taken as a reason to deny moralitys normativity, on
pain of a reductio ad absurdum to complete moral skepticism.
II
SELF-INTEREST
AND
NORMATIVITY
In this Part, I unpack the observation that game theory provides a

model not only to depict international law as a game of self-interest
but also to explain morality itself. In 1986, the moral philosopher
David Gauthier published Morals By Agreement, a novel interpretation
55
Cf. SCHELLING, supra note 1, at 119 (suggesting that game theory can be more extensively used to analyze nonzero-sum games of strategy).
56
See, e.g., GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 184 (arguing that states use moralistic and legalistic rhetoric merely to disguise purely self-interested motives).
57
Id. at 225 (International law is a real phenomenon, but international law scholars
exaggerate its power and significance.).
58
See, e.g., GLENNON, supra note 44; Lobel & Ratner, supra note 50.
59
See, e.g., Hockett, supra note 25; Norman & Trachtman, supra note 30, at 54142.
R
R
R
R
882
unknown
Seq: 14
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
of social contract theory that harnessed the power of game theory to

explain why rational actors would agree to a system that constrained
their behavior.60 Morals By Agreement provided, for the first time, a
fully realized model of rational self-interested individuals agreeing to
a social contract of morality.61 The relationship between reason and
morality has a long pedigree, going back as far as Platos The Republic
and, more explicitly, Kants work on the categorical imperative and
the wave of contractarian theories following Rawls.62 But for
Gauthier, only game theory provided the necessary tools to explain
how individual rationality and moral constraints might be consistent
with each other.63 Indeed, for Gauthier, the claim was even stronger:
the latter could be derived from the former in the sense that one
could demonstrate that rational agents ought to accept moral constraints.64 In pursuing this account, Gauthier did not even resort to a
universalized rational account of morality, i.e., he did not shift the
focus from individual-level rationality to group-level rationality, arguing that a third-person point of view required the individual to recognize, on pain of contradiction, that accepting moral constraints was
best for everyone.65 Gauthier was unimpressed by such sleight-ofhand.66 His vision of morality required that we face the hard question: Is it rational for individuals, considering their self-interest, to accept the normative constraints of morality?67
60
DAVID GAUTHIER, MORALS BY AGREEMENT (1986).

Many moral philosophers have pursued similar themes, but without explicitly invoking game theory as a methodological tool. See, e.g., THOMAS NAGEL, THE POSSIBILITY OF
ALTRUISM (1970); T.M. SCANLON, WHAT WE OWE TO EACH OTHER (1998).
62
See generally JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971) (describing and elaborating
upon the conception of justice that is implicit in the contract tradition).
63
GAUTHIER, supra note 60, at 9 (Morality does not emerge as the rabbit from the
empty hat . . . . [I]t emerges quite simply from the application of the maximizing conception of rationality to certain structures of interaction.); see also Jody S. Kraus & Jules L.
Coleman, Morality and the Theory of Rational Choice, in CONTRACTARIANISM AND RATIONAL
CHOICE: ESSAYS ON DAVID GAUTHIERS Morals By Agreement 254, 255 (Peter Vallentyne ed.,
1991) (arguing that rationality cannot provide the substantive content of morality).
64
GAUTHIER, supra note 60, at 9 (Reason overrides the presumption against
morality.).
65
See id. at 10 (emphasizing that his theoretical focus is on why it is rational for individuals to agree to constraining principles ex ante as well as to comply with such agreed
constraints ex post).
66
This is one way of understanding Hobbess theory: collective rationality and mutual
benefit demands a social contract, but individuals might prefer free riding, thus requiring
the Leviathan to enforce individual compliance. For further discussion of the relationship
of collective rationality to the social contract in Hobbess theory, see PHILIP PETTIT, MADE
WITH WORDS: HOBBES ON LANGUAGE, MIND, AND POLITICS (2008). See generally DAVID P.
GAUTHIER, THE LOGIC OF LEVIATHAN: THE MORAL AND POLITICAL THEORY OF THOMAS HOBBES (1969) (describing, expanding, and critically reflecting upon Hobbess moral and political theory).
67
For more recent projects pursuing the same line, see generally KEN BINMORE, GAME
THEORY AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT II: JUST PLAYING (1998) (using game theory to discuss
morality and social reform).
61
2011]
unknown
Seq: 15
5-MAY-11
9:21
883
A. Morality and the Prisoners Dilemma

The answeralmost a revelation for Gauthierlay in the Prisoners Dilemma.68 Rational agents must make decisions based on the
expected moves of their competitors. Although the best possible outcome for a given player is defection in the face of compliance by all
other competitors in the game, this outcome is also the outcome preferred by ones competitors. If all competitors defect, the resulting
payoff is extremely low, effectively throwing the game back into a state
of nature where no one complies with any moral constraints, thus producing the worst possible outcome. The rational solution to the game
therefore requires acceptance of the objectively second-best (but, rationally, only possible) outcome: acceptance of reciprocal moral constraints on behavior.69 The purchase one gets from game theory is
that this acceptance is itself demanded by self-interested behavior. Rational agents seeking to maximize their own outcomes will choose
moral outcomes as long as morality is a group endeavor.
Of course, this still leaves unresolved the cleavage between the
rational agent at the social bargaining tablewho is rationally compelled to accept reciprocal moral constraintsand the rational agent
who must decide whether or not to comply with the social contract. It
is one thing to demonstrate the rationality of bargaining for moral
constraints and quite another to demonstrate the rationality of ex post
compliance with the results of the social contract.70 For Gauthier,
such a rational agent must be considered a constrained maximizer, or
an agent who enjoy[s] opportunities for co-operation which others
lack, as Gauthier puts it, as opposed to a straightforward maximizer.71
The question is whether the constrained maximizer receives cooperative benefits that outweigh the risks associated with the strategy of constrained maximizationi.e., the risk that competitors in the game will
defect and reject compliance as their strategy.72
How can this be demonstrated? For Hobbes, the answer was simple: the sovereign itself ensures compliance, a fact that provided its
own rationale for Hobbess specific rendering of The Leviathan.73
Once one steps outside the scope of a total sovereign, though, the
68
GAUTHIER, supra note 60, at v (The present enquiry began . . . when, fumbling for
words in which to express the peculiar relationship between morality and advantage, I was
shown the Prisoners Dilemma.).
69
Id. at 177 (arguing that cooperation and constraint by all would yield nearly optimal and fair outcomes).
70
Id. at 1415.
71
Id. at 15.
72
Id. at 17576.
73
See PETTIT, supra note 66, at 108 (Hobbess picture is that as [people] each contract to create a commonwealth, people know that should they later defect, then the sovereign, drawing on the strength of the rest, will be there to punish them.).
884
unknown
Seq: 16
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
picture becomes more complicated. Various social institutions, both

informal and formal, exist to promote cooperation among constrained maximizers: increased trust between cooperators, reputational gains, and community structures only open to cooperators, all
of which have instrumental value for further cooperation.74 Defectors, though they achieve some benefits from their straightforward
maximization, lose all of the benefits of cooperation and suffer the
community penalties for defection.75 Consequently, constrained maximization is rational just so long as the community has the correct
ratio of constrained maximizers to straightforward maximizers.76 In a
world filled with straightforward maximizers, the gains from (putative) cooperation would not outweigh the risks associated with the
compliance strategy. However, in a world with a significant proportion of constrained maximizers, the strategy has a clear salience. Presumably, there is an empirical tipping point at which point the
strategy of constrained maximization becomes rational.77 The strategy becomes a Nash Equilibrium.
One might argue that the concept of constrained maximization is
nothing more complicated than the concept of a long-term interest.
Agents are typically concerned with maximizing their gains in the present and thus ignore strategies that will produce a maximum gain over
a longer time period. Whether one should maximize benefits now or
later depends on what discount rate the agent applies to future benefits. If the discount rate is low (or zero), the agent will consider future
benefits at full value when engaging in decision making. If the discount rate is high, the agent will discount the future benefits and treat
them as less valuable in deciding on a course of action today. Constrained maximizers certainly recognize that both the present and future benefits of cooperation will far outweigh the constraints of their
behavior. But the strategy of constrained maximization is about far
more than simply long-term interests. The benefits of cooperation
may be far in the future or immediate; similarly, the demands of constraint may impose themselves today or tomorrow. The real distin74
The value of reputational gains and the costs associated with reputational losses will
depend on the degree to which reputation is carried over from one legal context to another. See, e.g., GUZMAN, supra note 28, at 10011 (discussing the compartmentalizing of
reputation); George W. Downs & Michael A. Jones, Reputation, Compliance, and International
Law, 31 J. LEGAL STUD. S95 (2002) (outlining empirical and theoretical reasons for believing that the actual effects of reputation are both weaker and more complicated than the
standard view of reputation suggests); see also Edward T. Swaine, Rational Custom, 52 DUKE
L.J. 559, 618 (2002) (noting that states do not, in fact, interact solely with respect to one
rule or the other, and it is also possible to understand their interaction with respect both to
an individual rule and to the system of customary international law).
75
GAUTHIER, supra note 60, at 17677.
76
Id. at 176.
77
See id. at 17475.
2011]
unknown
Seq: 17
5-MAY-11
9:21
885
guishing factor of constrained maximization is a matter of pure

strategy: go it alone and reap the benefits and consequences of such
breach, or accept reciprocal constraints and receive the cooperative
benefits that go along with them.
B. Constrained Maximizers and International Law
One can see how the strategy of constrained maximization is directly applicable to international legal relations.78 When one state decides on a strategy for diplomatic relations, it can choose to be a
straightforward maximizer or a constrained maximizer. However, deciding to be a straightforward maximizeralthough initially an attractive optioncarries severe costs. A state that pursues this strategy will
be branded a rogue nation and deprive itself of the benefits associated
with cooperative constraints. Operating outside of the community of
nations carries enormous costs, as North Korea, Iran, and other isolationist states can no doubt confirm.79 Those who adopt a strategy of
reciprocal commitments to international law live in not only a world
of relative securityfewer military interventions and aggressive acts
but also a world of bilateral treaty arrangements that would otherwise
be unavailable to them. The rub of the argument is that the alleged
dichotomy between fidelity to international law and self-interested behavior turns out to be illusory.80 The fact that states are self-interested
in no way undermines the normativity of international law.
In the end, states cooperate by complying with international legal
norms and this commitment is necessarily grounded by their self-interest. The new realists claim that acting out of self-interest undermines the normativity of the subsequent constraints, especially that of
customary norms built upon opinio juris. However, if this is the lesson
that game theory teaches us for international law, then this must also
be the lesson that game theory provides for morality itself. If the Prisoners Dilemma provides a reason to reject the normativity of international law, then it must also provide a reason to reject the normativity
of morality. Consequently, the position of the new realists implies a
reductio ad absurdum to complete moral skepticism unless the new
78
Gauthier himself published work regarding Hobbess theory of international relations. See, e.g., GAUTHIER, supra note 66, at 20712 (discussing Hobbess views on the state
of nations, and observing that the development of nuclear weapons is bringing the state of
nations nearer to the true Hobbesian state of nature); see also David Gauthier, Deterrence,
Maximization, and Rationality, in THE SECURITY GAMBLE: DETERRENCE DILEMMAS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE 100, 107 (Douglas MacLean ed., 1984) (drawing on Hobbess theories of nature
to defend the rationality of deterrent policies).
79
See, e.g., ABRAM CHAYES & ANTONIA HANDLER CHAYES, THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY: COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AGREEMENTS 70 (1995) (discussing South Africas status as an international pariah in the 1960s).
80
For a similar argument, see Peter J. Spiro, A Negative Proof of International Law, 34
GA. J. INTL & COMP. L. 445, 447 (2006).
886
unknown
Seq: 18
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
realists can provide a salient asymmetry between international law and

morality itself.
In searching for this alleged asymmetry, the new realists frequently resort to their old bailiwick: the lack of international enforcement mechanisms to punish defectors or straightforward
maximizers.81 While it is no doubt true that international enforcement mechanisms are feeble when compared to their domestic analogues, the fact is often repeated to the point of exaggeration.82 It is
certainly not the case that there are no viable mechanisms of enforcement; this point has already been exhaustively detailed in the literature and I shall not rehash the evidence here.83 Further, even if we
accept the proposition that international compliance mechanisms are
comparably feeble, the rest of the argument does not follow. The relative lack of enforcement mechanisms might be a relevant asymmetry
between international law and domestic law, but it is hardly a relevant
asymmetry between international law and morality. Indeed, moral
normsespecially those that do not find their expression codified in
the criminal lawrely on exactly the same kind of inchoate and allegedly nebulous mechanisms that punish defectors and provide most
individuals with a rational reason to choose constrained maximization
as their strategy. If this were not the case, then most individuals would
reject as illusory all moral norms entirely. Both morality and international law create robust systems that reward cooperative behavior.
Why do the new realists resist these arguments? Although the
concept of constrained maximization is nowhere considered in The
Limits of International Law, some clues are offered in Eric Posners
work on social norms.84 In Law and Social Norms, Posner concedes
that rational agents will engage in principled behavior and will reap
the reputational rewards associated with using the rhetoric of principle.85 The language of principle has a signaling effect to potential
associates: this agent can be trusted because he will never betray you.86
81
Cf. GLENNON, supra note 44, at 6064 (discussing desuetude).

See also CHARLES R. BEITZ, POLITICAL THEORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 4749
(1979) (noting that, in the face of considerable empirical evidence to the contrary, people
continue to suggest that international relations resembles a Hobbesian state of nature).
83
See, e.g., CHAYES & CHAYES, supra note 79, at 2228 (proposing different methods of
ensuring compliance); see also DAVID CORTRIGHT & GEORGE A. LOPEZ, THE SANCTIONS DECADE: ASSESSING UN STRATEGIES IN THE 1990S (2000) (analyzing the effectiveness of twelve
cases of UN sanctions).
84
See ERIC A. POSNER, LAW AND SOCIAL NORMS (2000).
85
Id. at 187 (asserting that people rationally use the rhetoric of principle in order to
obtain strategic advantages in their interactions with others).
86
Posner cashes out the idea of an absolute principle as a claim regarding incommensurability. See id. at 19298. In other words, if someone says that no amount of money
will convince them to give up a much-needed vacation with his or her family, that person is
implicitly saying that the value of money and the value of time with his or her family are
incommensurable and cannot be compared. If they could be compared, according to Pos-
82
2011]
unknown
Seq: 19
5-MAY-11
9:21
887
But under Posners view of rational choice, such a blind commitment

to principle is either illusory or insincere.87 At some point, the costs
of adhering to the demands of principle will become too high, and
any rational agent (according to Posner) will defect and violate the
demands of principle.88 But saying: I will follow principle but only if
the costs arent too high will not help one attract collaborators who
are rightly scared away by such conditional language.89 Thus, the result is that people cling to the rhetoric of absolute commitment to
principle, and when self-interest demands defection from the principle, they cheat and try to conceal their opportunism behind casuistry.90 The unprincipled attempt to have their cake and eat it too by
attempting to blend in among a crowd of principled agents.91 This
strategy works because it is very difficult for the public to distinguish
between the principled and the unprincipled.92
The same view apparently underlies Posners attitude about national compliance with international legal norms.93 States will adopt
the language of principled adherence to international law, but when
self-interest demands defection, they canand shouldact out of
self-interest.94 Such a state may very well attempt to conceal its behavior and develop obfuscations in an attempt to explain away the defection.95 The state will attempt to defect and still reap the rewards of
constrained maximization.96
The question is whether a state can successfully adopt the insincere rhetoric of constrained maximization (i.e., fidelity to international law) while at the same time defecting and ignoring
international legal norms. But in this respect, there is a relevant asymmetry between individuals and nations. While the individual can hide
his decision-making process from potential collaborators, most modern nation-states conduct their decision making through various internal actors. These debates are oftenthough not alwayspublic or
semipublic. Disputes with domestic constituencies are laid bare for
ner, there would be a price at which the amount of money would outweigh the value of the
time with the family. Id. at 19394. Posner concludes that incommensurability claims signal to others that one will not cheat. Id. at 197.
87
Id. at 19597.
88
Id. at 190 (asserting, as an example, that a rational person will sacrifice his reputation when the gains are sufficiently high).
89
Id. at 197.
90
Id. at 195.
91
Id. at 19798.
92
Id. at 197.
93
See, e.g., GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 16784 (discussing their theory of
international rhetoric).
94
Id. at 185.
95
Id. at 169 ([S]tates provide legal or moral justifications for their actions, no matter
how transparently self-interested their actions are.).
96
Id. at 172.
888
unknown
Seq: 20
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
the entire world to see.97 If a domestic constituency presses the government to ignore international law out of self-interest, this plea will
be heard not just by its own government but by the world. The ability
to act insincerely is comparatively more difficult in the case of nationstates than it is with individuals. To the extent that some states, such
as North Korea, conduct deliberations in secret, these states appear to
be the least likely to insincerely claim adherence to international legal
norms. Such rogue nations are often the least likely to publicly tout
their adherence to, and participation in, international legal and regulatory regimes.
C. Compliance and the Rationality of Plans
However, this still leaves a theoretical tension between the demands of rationality (occasional defection) and the demands of morality that counsels adherence to principle even in the face of rational
opportunism. For Goldsmith and Posner, there is no moral basis to
tell a state to follow international law when rational self-interest counsels in favor of defection.98 And if indeed there arises a situation
where the gains of defection outweigh the loss of cooperative opportunities at any given moment, rational choice would appear to demand
defection. And since our account of morality is closely linked with
rational choice, there would appear to be no basis to tell a nation to
forego self-interest in favor of principle.
Gauthiers initial answer to this conundrum was to frame his account in terms of dispositions to cooperatedispositions that were
themselves rational (and moral) insofar as one found oneself in a
community with a sufficient number of agents who were similarly disposed.99 In later work, Gauthier pushed beyond the concept of dispositions to cooperate in favor of an account of agency that linked
intentions with plans and strategies that operate over time.100 In
other words, although rational choice theoryincluding Posners versionconsiders an agents all-things-considered judgment at each cardinal point in time, rational human agency operates in a far more
subtle way. Were rational agents to recalculate rational choice at
every cardinal time point, they would be exhausted and weighed down
97
Cf. id. at 17879 (discussing how leaders will address their speech to foreign leaders
but intend their talk for domestic audiences).
98
Id. at 185.
99
See GAUTHIER, supra note 60, at 18284.
100
See, e.g., David Gauthier, Commitment and Choice: An Essay on the Rationality of Plans,
in ETHICS, RATIONALITY, AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOUR 217, 21719 (Francesco Farina et al.
eds., 1996) [hereinafter Gauthier, Commitment and Choice] (arguing that plans serve as a
rational guide for subsequent actions); see also David Gauthier, Intention and Deliberation, in
MODELING RATIONALITY, MORALITY, AND EVOLUTION 41, 53 (Peter A. Danielson ed., 1998)
(discussing why an agent would rationally deliberate about plans).
2011]
unknown
Seq: 21
5-MAY-11
9:21
889
by the process of deliberation to the point of total collapse101literally, paralysis by analysis.

Instead, rational agency should be understood in terms of strategies selected after moments of deliberation, after which the chosen
strategies only come up for reevaluation at certain moments in
time.102 What is missing from Posners account, in other words, is the
concept of plans.103 And plans are sticky in the sense that rational
agents form an intention to follow a plan and do not give up the plan
at the drop of a hat.104 Living life as a rational agent requires the use
of plans; rational agency would be unimaginable without them.105
One might object that the stickiness of plans is irrational.106 In
other words, a truly rational agent should be constantly reevaluating
the rational benefits associated with their plan and all alternate
plans.107 The rational agent should be playing chess like Deep Blue
(reevaluating the benefits of every possible move at each move) and
not like Garry Kasparov (pursuing and committing to a long-term
strategy to win the game). To the extent that human agents are incapable of calculating like Deep Blue, perhaps one should count this
limitation as a failure of rationality.
Gauthier, drawing partially on the work of Bratman and others,
points out that the answer is not so simple.108 Even if defection at any
given moment is rationally beneficial, this is not the right comparison.
Pursuing the strategy of rational choice at each cardinal time point
may turn out to be less effective than choosing an overall strategy or
plan that is rationally justified and then sticking to it.109 Indeed, con101
See Gauthier, Commitment and Choice, supra note 100, at 219 (discussing how agents
who adopt a plan restrict subsequent deliberation for actions that are compatible with that
plan).
102
Id. at 21921 (describing conditions for rational reconsideration).
103
See generally MICHAEL E. BRATMAN, INTENTION, PLANS, AND PRACTICAL REASON (1987)
(providing a more elaborate discussion on the role of plans in understanding the relationship between rationality and action).
104
Id. at 6465 (discussing plan stability in order to explain the rationality of an
agents reconsideration or non-reconsideration of a plan); see also Gauthier, Commitment
and Choice, supra note 100, at 221 ([A] full appreciation of the role that plans play in
deliberation requires revisions in the orthodox view of economic rationality.).
105
BRATMAN, supra note 103, at 23.
106
Compare Gauthier, Commitment and Choice, supra note 100, at 22122 ([F]rom the
standpoint of the economist . . . [a]n agents reasons for an action are adequate just in case
he prefers the expected outcome of that action no less than the expected outcome of any
of its alternatives. The expected outcome of an action is the probability-weighted sum of
the possible outcomes of the action.), with GAUTHIER, supra note 60, at 18485.
107
Gauthier, Commitment and Choice, supra note 100, at 222.
108
See id. at 22223 (discussing how the thesis that human beings are maximizing individuals can be applied to rational planning). For further discussion, see generally EDWARD
F. MCCLENNEN, RATIONALITY AND DYNAMIC CHOICE: FOUNDATIONAL EXPLORATIONS (1990)
(analyzing how to normatively justify principles of rationality).
109
Gauthier, Commitment and Choice, supra note 100, at 228 (challenging the view that
directly maximizing considerations are to be brought to bear on each particular choice).
R
R
R
R
R
890
unknown
Seq: 22
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
sistently pursuing rational choice at each time point may end up being self-defeating in the long run.110 Plans provide stability for agents
to pursue long-term interests and should only be abandoned in favor
of new plans, not in favor of momentary and isolated desires.111 An
agent that is too easily lured from a stable plan by opportunistic defection is a myopic chooser.112 Another way of stating the point is that the
rationality of compliance with the reciprocal constraintfollowing
the rules and resisting the temptation to defectis conditional on the
constraints place within the larger, rationally justified plan.113
The structure of this argument is well known to moral theorists
who debate the relative merits of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.114 Act utilitarians evaluate the consequences of each individual
act and identify the moral thing to do based on this calculation.115 By
contrast, rule utilitarians evaluate general moral rules based on their
guidelines and then identify certain rules as amoral regardless of their
consequences at any individual decisional time point.116 One reason
for supporting rule utilitarianism is that, in the end, it may produce
superior consequences globally, as compliance is better achieved in a
world with sticky moral norms rather than constantly shifting moral
evaluations. Ironically, constant reevaluation of the consequences at
each moment in time may end up being self-defeating.
None of this is new in the moral or political theory literature.
Within the recent debate in the international law literature, the basic
assumptions regarding rational choice among the new realists have
gone relatively unchallenged. Some have questioned the wisdom of
Simply put, commitment to a plan makes planning maximally efficacious in co-ordinating
ones own actions . . . with those of others, so that one may best realize ones objectives.
Id.
110
See id. at 24243.
111
See Michael E. Bratman, Following Through with Ones Plans: Reply to David Gauthier, in
MODELING RATIONALITY, MORALITY, AND EVOLUTION, supra note 100, at 55 (arguing that
rational deliberation and plan stability are linked by the concept of planning). Along with
Gauthier, Bratman believes that deliberation about future actions is justified by appeal to
its expected long-run impacts. See id. at 59. Bratman concludes that reconsideration of a
plan is rationally justified if the agent believes that a specific alternative will better achieve
the very same long-standing, stable and coherent desires and values. Id. at 61; see also
Michael E. Bratman, Planning and Temptation, in MIND AND MORALS: ESSAYS ON COGNITIVE
SCIENCE AND ETHICS 293, 294 (Larry May et al. eds., 1996) (suggesting that coordination is
impossible without stable intentions and plans).
112
For a discussion of myopic choosers, see Edward F. McClennen, Rationality and
Rules, in MODELING RATIONALITY, MORALITY, AND EVOLUTION, supra note 100, at 16. A formal model was first offered by R.H. Strotz in Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility
Maximization, 23 REV. ECON. STUD. 165, 173 (1955).
113
Claire Finkelstein developed a version of this view in her essay, Acting on an Intention, in REASONS AND INTENTIONS 67, 83 (Bruno Verbeek ed., 2008).
114
See, e.g., J.J.C. Smart, Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism, in ETHICAL THEORY 286,
28688 (James Rachels ed., 1998).
115
Id. at 28687.
116
Id. at 287.
2011]
unknown
Seq: 23
5-MAY-11
9:21
891
applying rational choice to international law; others have accepted the

methodology but simply claimed that it yields different results.117 But
what is badly needed is critical reevaluation of the version of rational
choice theory used by the new realists.118
There is strong reason to believe that states are rationally justified
in pursuing a strategy of constrained maximization and sticking to it
even when faced with the temptation of opportunistic defection.
Even if states could masquerade as principleda doubtful propositionconstant defection from international legal norms may produce
negative outcomes over time. It might be more rational for states to
pick the strategy that is rationally justified and stick to it: either try
ones best to engage with international institutions or ignore them.
Although it is unclear if this thesis could be empirically tested, it is
very suggestive that the most successful nations in the world participate in international legal institutions whereas rogue nations on the
periphery often are beset with hunger, famine, and war.
OBJECTIONS
TO THE
III
MORAL OBLIGATION
OF
STATES
At this point, several other objections to my account must be considered. The most worrisome objection, addressed in Part III.A, is
that Gauthiers theory of morality, and our extrapolation of that theory to the domain of international law, has fallen victim to the naturalistic fallacy. A second objection outlined in Part III.B concerns the
unequal bargaining strength of statesone alleged reason for
stronger states to refrain from a strategy of constrained maximization.
The third objection, addressed in Part III.C, is that states are collective
entities that are unable to bear a moral obligation and that only individuals are directly subject to the demands of morality. If this view is
correct, it would be nonsensical to say that a state has a moral duty to
follow international law.
A. Rationality: Normative, Not Descriptive
If the entire project is designed to derive morality from reason,
then it would indeed appear as if we have attempted to jump over the
isought gap. In his later work, Rawls famously distanced himself
from any attempt to derive morality from reason,119 though in his earliest work he described his social contract theory as one piece of a gen117
See, e.g., GUZMAN, supra note 28, at 1522.

Cf. GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 710 (addressing the methodology of
rational choice theory, but mostly addressing constructivist challenges).
119
See JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM 52 (expanded ed. 1996) (Justice as fairness . . . . does not try to derive the reasonable from the rational.).
118
R
R
892
unknown
Seq: 24
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
eral theory of rational choice, similar to John Harsanyi.120 Indeed,

the whole project of deriving morality from reason stems from Kant
and his obsession with practical reason and finds its apex in contemporary moral philosophers such as Rawls and Alan Gewirth.121 In his
later work, Rawls took great pains to emphasize the role of reflective
equilibrium in his methodology: not a top-down derivation but rather
a theoretical device for navigating toward a coherent vision of justice
as fairness both in the original position and in defensible principles of
justice.122
Have we fallen victim to the naturalistic fallacy here? The answer
requires an important clarification. In deriving morality from rationality, we are not deriving morality from the fact of rationality. Rather,
we are deriving moral value from rationality as a value.123 Simply put,
constrained maximizers ought to pursue compliance as their strategy
if they are committed to rationality as a value. If they aspire to be
rational, then this is what rationality demands, though there is nothing that requires them to be rational. Moral value turns out to be somewhat parasitic on normative rationalityprecisely the lesson that
game theory has taught both moral philosophers and international
lawyers.
Are individuals committed to rationality as a norm? They certainly are, and undeniably so, insofar as they hope to exercise rational
agency.124 Indeed, even the most elementary forms of agency require
a commitment to rationality in the form of meansend reasoning, the
transitive ordering of preferences, and the law of noncontradiction. It
is very difficultperhaps impossibleto imagine interhuman relations, including language, without this commitment to basic principles of rationality. And the fact that individuals may be imperfectly
rational is entirely irrelevant to the point here. Ones normative commitments may fall well short of perfection, or even large-scale success,
120
Compare RAWLS, supra note 62, at 16 (noting that contract terminology conveys the
idea that principles of justice are principles that would be chosen by rational persons and
that [t]he theory of justice is a part, perhaps the most significant part, of the theory of
rational choice), with John C. Harsanyi, Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour, in
UTILITARIANISM AND BEYOND 39, 39 (Amartya Sen & Bernard Williams eds., 1982) (noting
that his ethical theory, while based on intellectual traditions in moral philosophy, makes
essential use of the modern Bayesian theory of rational behavior).
121
See, e.g., ALAN GEWIRTH, REASON AND MORALITY (1978).
122
See JOHN RAWLS, JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: A RESTATEMENT 29 (Erin Kelly ed., 2001).
123
For a discussion of the structure of the naturalistic problem regarding rationality,
see Ronald de Sousa, Modeling Rationality: A Normative or Descriptive Task?, in MODELING
RATIONALITY, MORALITY, AND EVOLUTION, supra note 100, at 120 (defining normativism as
the claim that within all attempts to model actual reasoning processes there must be an
ineliminable element of normativity).
124
See Christine M. Korsgaard, Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit, 18 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 101, 10915 (1989) (discussing how rational, unified
agents make life plans).
2011]
unknown
Seq: 25
5-MAY-11
9:21
893
but that is not evidence that one is not committed to the value in
question. No one achieves perfect rationality just as no one achieves
perfect morality. But this is trivial; the point is that if individuals are
committed to rationality, then they ought to be committed to a strategy of constrained maximizing in the form of accepting reciprocal
moral constraints. And, as it happens, all individuals are committed
to rationality as a norm because this value commitment is constitutive
of rational agency itself. Committing to rationality is part of what it
means to be a rational agent.125
Can the same thing be said about states? Are they committed to
rationality as a value? The question is best pursued from the opposite
direction: how could we deny that states are committed to rationality
as a norm? States have interests and pursue collective projects on the
international stage in order to maximize those interests.126 Those
projects involve rationality over time and necessarily require basic
principles of rationality such as the transitive ordering of preferences
and fidelity to the principle of noncontradiction.127 The only relevant
difference between states and individuals is the lack of phenomenological unity among the former.128 While each individual typically enjoys a unified phenomenological point of view, states are composed of
many individuals, each of whom represents their own unified phenomenological point of view.129 But the lack of phenomenological
unity of the state does not prevent it from exercising rational agency.
Although the phenomenological unity of the individual certainly facilitates rational integration (viz., self-knowledge and direct epistemic access to ones own thoughts), none of this implies that there cannot
exist external means of displaying a shared commitment to rationality.
This is precisely what a state achieves through government, a system of
representation and deliberation, and diplomatic representation on
the world stage.130 To deny the rational agency of states would be to
deny the foundations of international relations.
125
See ISAAC LEVI, THE COVENANT OF REASON: RATIONALITY AND THE COMMITMENTS OF
THOUGHT 119 (1997).
126
This view is arguably implicit in JOHN RAWLS, THE LAW OF PEOPLES: WITH THE IDEA
OF PUBLIC REASON REVISITED 32 (2001). See also HANS KELSEN, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 154 (1952) (discussing the relationship of a state to the international
community).
127
See also Philip Pettit, Collective Persons and Powers, 8 LEGAL THEORY 443 (2002) (discussing the organization of certain collectives).
128
For more on the irrelevancy of this distinction for purposes of the commitment to
rationality, see CAROL ROVANE, THE BOUNDS OF AGENCY: AN ESSAY IN REVISIONARY METAPHYSICS 132 (1998).
129
Cf. Carol Rovane, What Is an Agent?, 140 SYNTHESE 181 (2004) (discussing group
agents).
130
See ISAAC LEVI, HARD CHOICES: DECISION MAKING UNDER UNRESOLVED CONFLICT 151
(1986) ([E]ven students of market economies attribute beliefs, desires, goals, values and
choices to families, firms and, of course, government agencies . . . .).
894
unknown
Seq: 26
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
B. Bargaining Power
We must now redeem a promissory note and account for the fact
that states bargaining for international legal norms do not stand in a
position of equal bargaining strength.131 Up until this point, we have
assumed that participants in the Prisoners Dilemma are bare self-interested agents, without further consideration of their particular
strengths and weaknesses that might affect their ability or willingness
to defect.132 Indeed, the new realists make much of the unequal bargaining power of states and conclude that stronger states will ignore
international law simply because they can.133 Given that the unequal
bargaining power of states is undeniable (even though it stands in tension with the formal equality of all states under international law), it
would seem that our account is impoverished at best and irrelevant at
worst.134
This anxiety is misplaced. The unequal bargaining power of
states is relevant under our model because it affects the costs of noncompliance and the benefits associated with cooperation. As to the
former, stronger states will face less retaliation for their noncompliance because weaker states might feel that they need to sign agreements with the stronger state even if previous defections alert the
weaker state to the risk that the strong state will again defect. The
unequal bargaining power might bring the weaker state to the table in
spite of this prediction. Second, the benefits associated with cooperation are less significant for stronger states. Their stronger status might
open up avenues of cooperation simply because they are stronger and
because other states therefore need their cooperationcooperation
that is entirely independent of their strategy of constrained
maximization.135
Three points are in order here. First, the difference in bargaining power will be most salient when strong and weak states bargain
against each other, but will be irrelevant when strong states bargain
against each other and weak states do likewise. Second, the difference
in bargaining power does not prevent strong and weak states from
signing agreements; it simply increases the likelihood that the
stronger state might be tempted to defect. In cases where the
stronger state is strong enough to eschew constrained maximization
entirely in favor a strategy of straightforward maximization, the state
131
See generally Franck, supra note 26 (discussing international law in an age of disparities of power).
132
See supra notes 2122 and accompanying text.
133
See, e.g., GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 116 (discussing how weaker states
can be coerced into compliance by more powerful states).
134
For a discussion of this problem, see BEITZ, supra note 82, at 4144, 4748.
135
For a general discussion of how underlying geopolitical realities can preclude establishing effective rules of international law, see GLENNON, supra note 44.
R
R
R
R
R
2011]
unknown
Seq: 27
5-MAY-11
9:21
895
may indeed defect. This is most likely in contexts where international

law has weak enforcement mechanisms. In contexts where the enforcement mechanismshowever diffuse and informalare working
properly, constrained maximization will continue to be viable even for
strong states.
Third and most importantly, the fact that some states will defect
in favor of straightforward maximization in some contexts is completely irrelevant for situations where constrained maximization continues to be most valuable. Indeed, this is the logical error made by
the new realists. They point out the situations where unequal bargaining power and lack of enforcement allows stronger states to ignore
international law with impunity, i.e., to act in their own self-interest.136
In such cases, it is indeed correct to suggest that international law is
ineffective. But the new realists then use this fact as a pivot to say
something about situations when international law is effective, i.e.,
when states agree to follow international law because the value of constrained maximization is high. Since this latter situation is also governed by self-interest, the new realists implicitly conclude that even
these domains of international cooperation have little or no normative pull because there is no sense of legal obligation.137 This is an
error. One should see immediately that the underlying current of
self-interest works differently in each case. In the latter, self-interest
entails constrained maximization and fidelity to international norms;
in the former, self-interest entails defection. The fact that some states
will violate international law when reason counsels defection does not
mean that they are not following international law when reason demands respect for it.
It should come as no surprise both that there are areas where
international law remains ineffective due to insufficient enforcement
mechanisms and that the absence of enforcement is less of a constraint for the most powerful nations. Though this is a pedestrian
point, it does point toward one aspect of the new realist critique that
demands further study: the degree to which power imbalances change
the tipping point at which a state has reason to shift from straightforward maximization to constrained maximization. This question is
136
See, e.g., GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 6675 (discussing patterns of state
complianceand lack thereofwith regards to the customary international law exempting fishing vessels from right of capture during times of war); id. at 11617 (discussing
strategic coercion, often in violation of international law by stronger states to make
weaker states comply with human rights norms when such compliance is in the interest of
the stronger states).
137
Id. at 90 ([W]e have explained the logic of treaties without reference to notions of
legality or pacta sunt servanda or related concepts. As was the case with customary international law, the cooperation and coordination models explain the behaviors associated with
treaties without reliance on these factors, or on what international lawyers sometimes call
normative pull.).
896
unknown
Seq: 28
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
largely empirical and ought to be studied more systematically by scholars with training in empirical legal studies. However, the goal of such
research would not be to undermine the normativity of international
law, but rather to determine with empirical rigor those areas where
international law is least effective and where systems of enforcement
ought to be strengthened.138
C. The Moral Obligation of Groups
This Essay now concludes by briefly rejecting another alleged reason why states need not follow international law: the supposed inability of collective entities to bear moral or legal responsibilities.
According to the new realists, corporate bodies (including states) are
incapable of bearing such obligations.139 Although corporations enjoy legal rights and bear legal responsibilities, they do so because their
constituent partsofficers, directors, employees, and shareholders
all benefit from, and consent to, corporate obligations.140 Shareholders accept the risk of paying for corporate obligations (including unforeseen liabilities) because they also accept the promise of future
dividends based on their equity stake.141 Although states do not
demonstrate the same kind of internal organization, they nonetheless
do organize themselves so that they can act on the world stage, form
alliances and agreements with other states, and enjoy all of the cooperative benefits of constrained maximizers. Although the citizen does
not receive dividends like a shareholder, the citizen certainly enjoys
the cooperative benefits of living in a state that engages in international relations: everything from economic opportunities fueled by
trade to the peace dividends that flow from the prohibition on the
international use of force. Citizens do not consent in the same way as
do shareholders who purchase stock, but their acceptance of the benefits of citizenship certainly functions as tacit consent.142
138
See, e.g., Brett Frischmann, A Dynamic Institutional Theory of International Law, 51
BUFF. L. REV. 679, 681 (2003) (Despite the significant advancements made in the study of
international cooperation, there remains a gap between the types of institutions that traditional game theory predicts should exist and the types of institutions found in reality.);
Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties, 14 EUR. J. INTL
L. 171 (2003) (analyzing a study that aims to quantify the effect of human rights treaty
ratification on human rights violations); Michael P. Scharf, International Law in Crisis: A
Qualitative Empirical Contribution to the Compliance Debate, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 45 (2009)
(using qualitiative empirical data to assess the influence of international law on the formation of U.S. foreign policy in times of crisis).
139
See GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 186.
140
Id. at 18788.
141
Id. at 188 (citing CHRISTOPHER KUTZ, COMPLICITY: ETHICS AND LAW FOR A COLLECTIVE AGE 253 (2000)).
142
See 2 JOHN LOCKE, TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT 11922, at 34749 (Peter
Laslett ed., rev. ed. 1988) (1690).
2011]
unknown
Seq: 29
5-MAY-11
9:21
897
The new realists also claim that states cannot be morally bound
by international law because they are incapable of consenting to their
obligations, a fundamental precondition of international treaties and
customary law.143 Under this view, corporations have the power to
make binding commitments only because doing so increases the autonomy of its individual members: thus, the corporate power to consent to obligations only has instrumental value.144 When the
corporate commitment is too burdensome to the individuals, they demand the corporation change the commitment, whereas citizens of a
state allegedly have no such authority. Once a state accepts a legal
obligation, it remains operative for future generations even after the
original citizens are dead.145 Although international legal obligations
are surely dynamic in nature as states abrogate, amend, supplement,
and revoke treaties constantly, the persistent objector doctrine and jus
cogens may limit a states opportunities for revising customary international law.146
Furthermore, the new realists reject the possibility that the autonomy of states has intrinsic value.147 The warrant for this conclusion is
that states, unlike individuals, have no life plans, and therefore are not
valid subjects of the principles of autonomy that are required for an
agent to realize a life plan.148 This conclusion bears scrutiny.149 If a
state lacks the agency necessary to realize a life plan, it is unclear how
a state has enough agency to exercise supposedly self-interested behavior on the world stage. Implicit in the notion of self-interested
behavior, consistent with the Prisoners Dilemma, is the notion of a
rational agent with enough foresight to have long-term interests
(through subsequent iterations of the game). If the possibility of a
states life plan is rejected, then so is the entire applicability of the
game theory methodology to international law and international relations; one would effectively have to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. A states normative agency inevitably entails the construc143
See GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 189.

See id. at 18788.
145
See id. at 19091.
146
See id. at 189.
147
Id. at 191.
148
Id.
149
The conclusion that the autonomy of states (and nations) has no intrinsic value
can and should be resisted, though a full account is impossible here. See, e.g., CHARLES
TAYLOR, SOURCES OF THE SELF: THE MAKING OF THE MODERN IDENTITY (1989) (presenting a
history of the modern identity); see also WILL KYMLICKA, STATES, NATIONS AND CULTURES
(1997) (arguing that group rights are derived from enlightenment commitment to individual flourishing); Allen Buchanan, Democracy and the Commitment to International Law, 34 GA.
J. INTL & COMP. L. 305, 320 (2006) (discussing how those who embrace a cosmopolitan
moral perspective should regard international law); Avishai Margalit & Joseph Raz, National Self-Determination, 87 J. PHIL. 439, 443 (1990) (discussing the moral justifications for
national self-determination).
144
898
unknown
Seq: 30
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869
tion of long-term interests, which renders the state capable of consenting to (and bearing) legal obligations.
One might respond that there is a difference between a states
capacity for agency and whether this autonomy is intrinsically valuable. On this view, states are capable of exercising collective agency,
though this agency only has instrumental value insofar as it facilitates
or maximizes the autonomy of individual citizens whose life plans may
require organization into collective units (states) that can operate on
the world stage. Something along these lines might be implicit in
Kymlickas account of individual human flourishing within a community.150 That is, the life plan of the state has no independent intrinsic
value.
I reject this view of the collective entity as having no independent
moral value, though I cannot defend fully the claim in this limited
forum.151 Nations, both in the cultural abstract and in their particular
organization as nation-states, contribute to the rich tapestry of human
existence.152 However, merely assuming arguendo that states have no
independent autonomy does not by itself require the conclusion that
states are incapable of bearing moral obligations. There is a missing
proposition in the argument, namely that moral obligations at the collective level evaporate if they fail to maximize the autonomy of
individuals.
This need not be the case. One might coherently argue that
once properly formed from the material of rational individuals, states
become distinct entities whose interrelations are governed by an autonomous sphere of legal relations that are independent of the domestic laws governing their citizens internally. Just as one might call a
corporation a legal or metaphysical fiction (though I do not subscribe
to this view),153 one might just as well dismiss a state with the same
epithet. But the fiction might be sufficiently robust that its own collective agency generates corresponding moral duties even if, at the end
of the day, its moral significance originally emerged from its constituent parts. A state without citizens would not have any value; however,
once a state is composed of individuals and begins to exercise collective rationality in its engagement with other states, it becomes capable
of bearing moral obligations. Indeed, I have tried to demonstrate in
this Essay that a states collective rationality (in the form of con150
See KYMLICKA, supra note 149, at 35.

For a full defense of the value of collectivities, see GEORGE P. FLETCHER & JENS
DAVID OHLIN, DEFENDING HUMANITY: WHEN FORCE IS JUSTIFIED AND WHY (2008).
152
See id. at 13647.
153
See FRIEDRICH KARL VON SAVIGNY, SYSTEM DES HEUTIGEN ROMISCHEN

RECHTS, BAND 2,
236 (1840) (asserting that juridical persons are fictitious but are nevertheless entitled to
rights by extension).
151
2011]
unknown
Seq: 31
5-MAY-11
9:21
899
strained maximization) requires that it follow international legal

obligation.
CONCLUSION
Although the new realists offer an academic argument, it is important to remember that their game-theory-fuelled skepticism codifies a view that extends far beyond the academyit pervaded
American foreign policy for much of the last decade.154 Although
many commentators have exposed the flaws in such reasoning, few of
the criticisms haveas we have done hereexplicitly focused on the
link between national self-interest and fidelity to legal norms as being
essentially the same dynamic underlying normative rationality and
normative morality. This is an ambitious claim; those who reject this
account of morality might also reject its relevance for a theory of international law. For some, the notion of constrained maximization may
leave little room for our folk concept of altruism or for doing whats
right when it requires significant sacrifice. But this account of morality leaves open the possibility that in any one scenario, fidelity to
norms may require significant sacrifice; the account simply insists that,
as an overall and long-term strategy, constrained maximization is rationally justified. For the very same reason, states might still comply
with international law with opinio jurisa sense of obligationknowing that in any one context it might involve a sacrifice but with full
knowledge that in the long term, constrained maximization is in the
nations self-interest. In a way, this is the lesson that was lost in our
foreign policy over the last decade.
154
Cf. JACK GOLDSMITH, THE TERROR PRESIDENCY: LAW AND JUDGMENT INSIDE THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION (2007) (discussing the authors experiences as head of the Office of Legal
Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice from 2003 to 2004).
900
unknown
Seq: 32
CORNELL LAW REVIEW
5-MAY-11
9:21
[Vol. 96:869

Game Theory Cooperation Compliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Game Theory Cooperation Compliance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Game Theory Cooperation Compliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

\\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\96-4\CRN410.

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

II. SELF-INTEREST AND NORMATIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

could be explained by future costs associated with noncompliance

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ation becomes more challenging as the number of players increases.15

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

The outline of the Prisoners Dilemma story as told by the new

GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 8788.

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

theory, as self-interested behavior on the part of states. However, this

In this Part, I unpack the observation that game theory provides a

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

of social contract theory that harnessed the power of game theory to

DAVID GAUTHIER, MORALS BY AGREEMENT (1986).

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Morality and the Prisoners Dilemma

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

picture becomes more complicated. Various social institutions, both

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

guishing factor of constrained maximization is a matter of pure

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

realists can provide a salient asymmetry between international law and

Cf. GLENNON, supra note 44, at 6064 (discussing desuetude).

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

But under Posners view of rational choice, such a blind commitment

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

by the process of deliberation to the point of total collapse101literally, paralysis by analysis.

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

applying rational choice to international law; others have accepted the

See, e.g., GUZMAN, supra note 28, at 1522.

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

eral theory of rational choice, similar to John Harsanyi.120 Indeed,

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

may indeed defect. This is most likely in contexts where international

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

See GOLDSMITH & POSNER, supra note 8, at 189.

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

See KYMLICKA, supra note 149, at 35.

See FRIEDRICH KARL VON SAVIGNY, SYSTEM DES HEUTIGEN ROMISCHEN

NASH EQUILIBRIUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

strained maximization) requires that it follow international legal

CORNELL LAW REVIEW

You might also like