Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Game Theory And Customary International Law: A Response To Professors Goldsmith And Posner, Mark A. Chinen
Game Theory And Customary International Law: A Response To Professors Goldsmith And Posner, Mark A. Chinen
Michigan Journal of International Law
In a pair of recent articles, Professors Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner have used game theoretic principles to challenge the positivist account of customary international law. Their writings join other early attempts to apply game theory to the international law sources. The author has two purposes in this Article. The first is to evaluate game theory's potential for yielding greater insight into customary international law and international law more generally. The second is to respond to the conclusions about customary international law drawn by Professors Goldsmith and Posner.
Further Thoughts On Customary International Law, Jack L. Goldsmith, Eric A. Posner
Further Thoughts On Customary International Law, Jack L. Goldsmith, Eric A. Posner
Michigan Journal of International Law
In two earlier articles, the tools of game theory were used to sketch a positive theoretical account of customary international law ("CIL"). This theory rejected as question-begging the usual explanations of CIL based on legality, morality, opinio juris, and related concepts. It was argued instead that CIL emerges from nations' pursuit of self-interested policies on the international stage. This approach helps explain many overlooked features of CIL, including how CIL originates and changes, why the content of CIL tracks the interest of powerful nations, and why nations change their views of CIL when their interests change. Finally, the practices …
Afterword, Mark A. Chinen
Afterword, Mark A. Chinen
Michigan Journal of International Law
The author prefaces the afterword in the following manner: “Professors Goldsmith and Posner have given an insightful reply to my Article. It has been a pleasure to engage in a discussion of these issues with respected colleagues via this exchange of writings, and I am grateful to the Journal for providing the opportunity to do so. Most of the positions I have taken are already adequately discussed in the body of the Article, and this afterword is not intended to summarize all of the arguments made there. However, I wanted to address some of the points Professors Goldsmith and Posner …