Our exercise this week is designed to illustrate through experience some of the theories about how nation-states interact in a competitive, anarchic world (one without an overarching authority). Briefly, there are two schools of thought about the basic underlying principles of international relations: nation-state action is seen as being motivated by a competitive struggle for power and influence, leading to a ‘survival’ of the strongest or most powerful nation-states; or nation-state action is seen as governed by commonly observed rules & norms that engender cooperative behavior among nation states. Both schools of thought assume that nation-states are the principle actors, and that they are motivated by a concern for protecting and promoting national interest.

Our simulation this week will entail playing a game of croquet. The croquet game will simulate international relations as a whole. The objective of the game is to drive your ball (representing your nation-state) through a sequence of hoops (challenges), toward the final goal (the stake). Croquet, like most games, is a competitive exercise – you want to get your ball to the stake first. This approximates the common understanding that all nation-states are essentially self-interested actors (each nation-state, like each player, puts its own interests first). The rules of the game are simple, and can approximate for us the constraints and restrictions on nation-state actors. Remember the "ladder" of options available to nation-states as means of influencing others; think of the rules of the game as a way of simulating the relative efficacy of actions such as economic sanctions and military action in solving certain kinds of problem. The rules we will use are the following:

1. Turn-taking: the order of the game will proceed regularly through the taking of turns. Each ball (nation-state) has a unique color. The order of play is determined by the order that stripes of these colors are painted on the stakes at the beginning and end of the game. Turn-taking could be considered to represent the action-response format that much of inter-state relations assumes;
2. The hoops: each ball must be driven through the hoops in the order established at the beginning of the game, and in the direction of play. Each player/team takes one stroke (hits the ball once) each turn. If the ball passes through a hoop, the player may take an additional stroke. Thus, a single "turn" may take on a certain momentum (illustrating the gains possible from successful policy making), or it can be slowed down by others as they take their turns;
3. Hitting other balls: A player may drive his/her ball into a competitor’s ball. This is called a Roquet. A roquet automatically gains the player 2 extra strokes. The player can use these strokes to advance her/his own ball toward the next objective, or the player can use the first of the two additional strokes to drive the opponent’s ball off the field, or away from the opponent’s next objective (this is called a croquet shot). A roquet, and the decision of whether or not to croquet, could be considered as an allegory for a clash of interests internationally, and the setbacks or opportunities this can bring about;
4. Hitting a ball through a hoop (in the correct sequence) erases any bonus shots left from a roquet; the player, of course, then has one extra shot to take for going through a hoop.

Given these rules, any number of patterns of conflict and cooperation among players can emerge during the play of a game. It is the objective of this exercise to observe the patterns of play that emerge, and draw conclusions about the nature of such a game.

There are 28 students in this class. Thus, we will play two games simultaneously, using two complete croquet sets. One set has four balls and mallets; the other has six balls and mallets. We will constitute each game somewhat differently:

1. Each team will "name" its ball, or nation-state.
2. Each team will decide as a group what strategy it wants to take vis-à-vis the other teams (balls) on the field. It is assumed that this strategy will change as the game develops and circumstances dictate, but all actions taken as part of one turn shall be consistent with the ‘strategy’ of the team, determined by consensus.
3. For the six-ball game, we will have six teams of two persons each. Each of these teams will alternate play between the two members of the team: one player will take the first turn, the other player will take the next turn, until the end of the game. (total players: 12)
4. The four-ball game will be made up of four teams of four players each. In this game, each team will decide who on that team will take each stroke; however, the decision as to who will make the stroke for the team must be made unanimously. Players who are not mandated to take the strokes shall be responsible for determining the strategy of play.

All players are responsible for observing the patterns of play that emerge in their game, and the strategies for play that emerge on their teams. This exercise should be fun, but each student is expected to think seriously about the following questions:

• How do the rules of the game structure the way the game is conducted?
• Are "unwritten" rules of play emerging? What are they?
• Under what conditions is cooperation (between teams) emerging, if at all?
• Under what conditions is conflict emerging?
• Which (conflict or cooperation) better describes the overall type of play emerging? Why and how?
• In playing such a game, can one make certain observations (and draw conclusions) about human nature? Is it fair to assume that such observations are also characteristic of behavior (by states) in the international realm?

We will discuss these, and other questions during the follow-up class period. The observations and lessons that emerge from this exercise will provide the basis for your final paper of the semester.