IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v36y1992i3p395-414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Putting the Other Side “On Notice†Can Induce Compliance in Arms Control

Author

Listed:
  • D. Marc Kilgour

    (Wilfrid Laurier University)

  • Steven J. Brams

    (New York University)

Abstract

Arms-control inspection is modeled by two games, one played simultaneously and one sequentially, between an inspector (O) and an inspectee (E). In each game, E may choose to comply with or violate an arms-control agreement and O may choose to inspect, or not, for a possible violation by E. Besides various costs and benefits, the parameters of the games include the conditional probability that a violation will be detected if there is an inspection, reflecting the uncertainty of inspection. In the simultaneous game, O and E make simultaneous choices. Because none of the three possible equilibria involves certain compliance by E, O is not always able to deter E from violating an agreement. In the sequential game, by contrast, O, by announcing in advance an inspection strategy and credibly committing itself to carrying it out, can, with certainty, deter E from violating, which in general leads to an equilibrium in the sequential form Pareto-superior to that in the simultaneous form. Thus there are evident benefits for both O and E when O “moves†first, given that its detection probability is above a certain threshold. Policy implications of this finding, especially in regional conflicts today, are briefly discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Marc Kilgour & Steven J. Brams, 1992. "Putting the Other Side “On Notice†Can Induce Compliance in Arms Control," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(3), pages 395-414, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:36:y:1992:i:3:p:395-414
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002792036003001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002792036003001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002792036003001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 1986. "Notes on Arms-Control Verification: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," Working Papers 86-08, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    2. Michael Maschler, 1966. "A price leadership method for solving the inspector's non‐constant‐sum game," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 11-33, March.
    3. Michael Maschler, 1967. "The inspector's non‐constant‐sum game: Its dependence on a system of detectors," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 275-290.
    4. Wittman, Donald, 1989. "Arms Control Verification and Other Games Involving Imperfect Detection," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(3), pages 923-945, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Canty, Morton & Marc Kilgour, D. & von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 1996. "Inspection games in arms control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 383-394, May.
    2. Deutsch, Yael & Golany, Boaz & Rothblum, Uriel G., 2011. "Determining all Nash equilibria in a (bi-linear) inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 422-430, December.
    3. Vicki Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat, 2011. "Analytical method to identify the number of containers to inspect at U.S. ports to deter terrorist attacks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 137-158, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berno Buechel & Eike Emrich & Stefanie Pohlkamp, 2016. "Nobody’s Innocent," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(8), pages 767-789, December.
    2. Stefanos Leonardos & Costis Melolidakis, 2018. "On the Commitment Value and Commitment Optimal Strategies in Bimatrix Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    3. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2018. "Confronting an enemy with unknown preferences: Deterrer or provocateur?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-143.
    4. Ederlina Ganatuin‐Nocon & Tyrone Ang, 2020. "Revisiting inspection game and inspector leadership through reaction networks," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(6), pages 438-452, September.
    5. Dong, Xiaoqing & Li, Chaolin & Li, Ji & Wang, Jia & Huang, Wantao, 2010. "A game-theoretic analysis of implementation of cleaner production policies in the Chinese electroplating industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1442-1448.
    6. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2017. "Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 177-189.
    7. Guzmán, Cristóbal & Riffo, Javiera & Telha, Claudio & Van Vyve, Mathieu, 2022. "A sequential Stackelberg game for dynamic inspection problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 727-739.
    8. Deutsch, Yael & Goldberg, Noam & Perlman, Yael, 2019. "Incorporating monitoring technology and on-site inspections into an n-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 627-637.
    9. Ryusuke Hohzaki & Diasuke Kudoh & Toru Komiya, 2006. "An inspection game: Taking account of fulfillment probabilities of players' aims," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(8), pages 761-771, December.
    10. Endre Boros & Noam Goldberg & Paul Kantor & Jonathan Word, 2011. "Optimal sequential inspection policies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 89-119, July.
    11. Roger Bate & Ginger Zhe Jin & Aparna Mathur, 2015. "Falsified or Substandard? Assessing Price and Non‐price Signals of Drug Quality," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 687-711, October.
    12. Iván Marinovic & Martin Szydlowski, 2022. "Monitoring with career concerns," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(2), pages 404-428, June.
    13. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany & Noam Goldberg & Uriel G. Rothblum, 2013. "Inspection games with local and global allocation bounds," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(2), pages 125-140, March.
    14. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour, 1987. "Winding Down if Preemption or Escalation Occurs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(4), pages 547-572, December.
    15. Deutsch, Yael, 2021. "A polynomial-time method to compute all Nash equilibria solutions of a general two-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 1036-1052.
    16. Thomas S. Ferguson & Costis Melolidakis, 1998. "On the inspection game," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 327-334, April.
    17. Michael D. McGinnis, 1992. "Deterrence Theory Discussion: I," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(4), pages 443-457, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:36:y:1992:i:3:p:395-414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.