¹ Grieco, Joseph M., “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² See, e.g., Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 54.Google Scholar

³ For relevant examples of an understanding of the centrality of coordination to international politics, see Young, Oran R., “International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation,” World Politics 32 (April 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein, Arthur A., “Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snidal, Duncan, “Coordination versus Prisoners' Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes,” American Political Science Review 79 (September 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., “Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier,” World Politics 43 (April 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garrett, Geoffrey, “Power Politics and European Integration” (Mimeo, Stanford University, 1992).Google Scholar

⁴ Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979), 107.Google Scholar

⁵ Keohane, Robert O., International Institutions and State Power (Boulder, Colo.: West view Press, 1989), 62Google Scholar. Of course, any such discussion should contend with the difficulties associated with attributing goals to collectivities; see, e.g., Arrow, Kenneth, Social Choice and Individual Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951)Google Scholar. Nevertheless, the concept of the state as a rational unitary decision maker remains a convenient abstraction that allows us to ignore temporarily how international affairs affect domestic politics and how domestic politics transforms the goals of individuals into state actions.

⁶ Taylor, Michael, Anarchy and Cooperation (New York: Wiley, 1976)Google Scholar; Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar; Axelrod, Robert and Keohane, Robert O., “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy,” in Oye, Kenneth A.. ed., Cooperation under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

⁷ Powell, Robert, “Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory,” American Political Science Review 85 (December 1991), 1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Waltz (fn. 4).

⁹ Krasner (fn. 3), 338.

¹⁰ Snidal, Duncan, “International Cooperation among Relative Gains Maximizers,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (December 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Wright, Quincy, A Study of War, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 1493.Google Scholar

¹² Snidal, Duncan, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” American Political Science Review 85 (September 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Krasner (fn. 3), 366.

¹⁴ Ibid, 342.

¹⁵ Powell (fn. 7).

¹⁶ Ibid., 1315.

¹⁷ See, e.g., Stein (fn. 3); Snidal (fn. 3); and Krasner (fn. 3).

¹⁸ Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Myerson, Roger B., Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 113.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid.; and Drew Fudenberg and Tirole, Jean, Game Theory (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991).Google Scholar

²¹ Binmore, Ken, “Game Theory and the Social Contract I: Playing Fair” (Mimeo, University of Michigan, 1992).Google Scholar

²² Brennan, Geoffrey and Buchanan, James M., The Reason of Rules (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

²³ Lewis, David, Convention: A Philosophical Study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Hardin, Russell, “Why a Constitution,” in Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend, eds., The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism (New York: Agathon Press, 1989)Google Scholar; and Ordeshook, Peter C., “Constitutional Stability,” Constitutional Political Economy 3 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Krasner (fn. 3).

²⁵ Krasner, Stephen D., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), 2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ruggie, John G., “International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends,” International Organization 29 (Autumn 1975), 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Young (fn. 3), 337.

²⁸ Stein (fn. 3), 127.

²⁹ Powell (fn. 7); Grieco, Joseph M., Cooperation among Nations: Europe, America, and NonTariff Barriers to Trade (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

³⁰ Garrett (fn. 3).

³¹ Niou, Emerson M. S. and Ordeshook, Peter C., “Stability in Anarchic International Systems,” American Political Science Review 84 (December 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, , “Realism versus Neoliberalism,” American Journal of Political Science 35 (May 1991).Google Scholar

³² To illustrate this game's structure, suppose there are three countries with the initial distribution of resources (120,100,80). Then the sequence of moves is as follows:

Step 1. A country, chosen at random, moves first. Suppose this country is 1 and suppose it can threaten (150,150,0), (150,0,150), or “pass.”

Step 2. If 1 passes, then 2 moves; and if 2 also passes, 3 moves (all moves parallel those of state 1 in the obvious way).

Step 3. If 1 threatens at step 1, its partner must decide whether to participate in the threat. If the partner declines to participate, then 2 moves as in step 2.

Step 4. If l's partner accepts, the threatened state (2 if 1 threatens (150,0,150), 3 if 1 threatens (150,150,0)) must choose between transferring resources to 1 or offering a counterthreat. Counters for 2 are (0,150,150) and (150,150,0) whereas counters for 3 are (150,0,150) and (0,150,150).

Step 5. Suppose that if 2 or 3 proposes a transfer, it transfers to make 1 indifferent between its threat and the transfer. Hence, if 2 transfers, it proposes (150,70,80) whereas 3 proposes (150,100,50). Assume 1 accepts the transfer to avoid any cost of implementing a threat. And suppose that once anyone controls half the resources in the system, the game ends, because any subsequent action gives that country the opportunity to take advantage of conflicts, to become predominant, and to overcome all states in the system.

Step 6. If a threatened country instead proposes a counterthreat, its partner chooses between accepting or rejecting.

Step 7. If the counter is rejected, the original threat is implemented. Step 8. If the counter is accepted, it becomes a new threat, and as in step 2, the threatened player much choose either a new counter or a transfer.

³³ Niou, Emerson M. S. and Ordeshook, Peter C., “Alliance in Anarchic International Systems,” International Studies Quarterly 38 (June 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Krasner (fn. 3).