Managing foreign affairs is in no small measure about anticipating the actions (and non-actions) of others, and about taking steps to limit the unexpected—and the undesired. Law has long been recognized as important to these tasks. Nevertheless, standard IR treatments often overlook important properties of law, even when trying to account for international law's effects on behavior. Chief among these overlooked properties is the fact that legal rules are formulated for general use, which means their provisions lack determinate meaning in relation to the full range of facts they may be applied to. Selecting and using legal rules to guide or assess behavior thus requires interpretation. Self-interested actors may differ regarding the applicability, scope, or meaning of individual rules, and still more so where multiple legal rules are in play. In situations where political stakes are high, powerful actors may not be content to leave all options on the table. Instead they may use interpretative tactics to mingle obligations from different agreements and, where needed, to augment relevant legal obligations in efforts to prospectively ensure, in the mode of Riker's heresthetics, that interlocutors feel compelled by legal circumstances to enact the more powerful actor's preferences. I demonstrate how agreement mingling and augmentation function in complex legal environments by reexaming US efforts to insulate its citizens from unwanted exercises of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

中文翻译：

---

国际法律义务的混合和战略性增强

管理外交事务在很大程度上是关于预测他人的行动（和不行动），以及采取措施限制意外和不希望发生的事情。长期以来，法律一直被认为对这些任务很重要。然而，标准的国际关系处理常常忽略法律的重要属性，即使在试图解释国际法对行为的影响时也是如此。在这些被忽视的特性中，最主要的是法律规则是为一般用途而制定的，这意味着它们的规定相对于它们可能适用的全部事实缺乏确定的意义。因此，选择和使用法律规则来指导或评估行为需要解释。自利行为者可能在个别规则的适用性、范围或含义方面存在差异，在多个法律规则发挥作用的情况下更是如此。在政治风险很高的情况下，强大的参与者可能不会满足于将所有选项都摆在桌面上。相反，他们可能会使用解释性策略来混合来自不同协议的义务，并在需要时增加相关的法律义务，以努力以莱克的理论模式前瞻性地确保对话者感到法律环境迫使他们制定更强大的行动者的偏好。我通过重新审视美国为使其公民免受国际刑事法院 (ICC) 不必要的管辖权行使的努力，展示了协议混合和增强如何在复杂的法律环境中发挥作用。相反，他们可能会使用解释性策略来混合来自不同协议的义务，并在需要时增加相关的法律义务，以努力以莱克的理论模式前瞻性地确保对话者感到法律环境迫使他们制定更强大的行动者的偏好。我通过重新审视美国为使其公民免受国际刑事法院 (ICC) 不必要的管辖权行使的努力，展示了协议混合和增强如何在复杂的法律环境中发挥作用。相反，他们可能会使用解释性策略来混合来自不同协议的义务，并在需要时增加相关的法律义务，以努力以莱克的理论模式前瞻性地确保对话者感到法律环境迫使他们制定更强大的行动者的偏好。我通过重新审视美国为使其公民免受国际刑事法院 (ICC) 不必要的管辖权行使的努力，展示了协议混合和增强如何在复杂的法律环境中发挥作用。