Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 569

Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on

Diversified Education and Social Development (DESD 2021)

How Game Theory Impact International Relations

Hongji Zhang*
Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College (UIC), Zhuhai, 519087, China
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
RAND Corporation, a famous American think-tank strategy research institution, started the research on how to better
apply game theory on the analysis of foreign policy as early as in the 1970s, which shows that the United States
attaches great importance to the research on the application of game theory to the field of international relations and
diplomacy [1].

Keywords: Game theory, International relations.

1. INTRODUCTION non-value or value-neutral research is possible; and

advocate the refinement and quantification of theory
Obviously, when it comes to the current state of and a more confirmation orientation. They sharply
domestic research in China, this kind of theoretical topic criticize realism in two main aspects: (1) Realism
is extremely helpful for the study of international overemphasizes the role of power, and wrongly treats it
relations and foreign policy-making. Our study is left as the core of the field of international relations, but
far behind by those developed countries, so it is ignores many other important factors such as ethics,
meaningful to explore the influence of game theory, morality, and law. (2) Realism lacks precision in
especially in the study of international relations in defining concepts such as power, national interest, and
China. parity. Based on the criticism of realism, they actively
applied new scientific methods to study international
2. THE GAME THEORY OF THE ROLE relations, proposed empirical theories, and behavioral
OF THE CONTROVERSY models, and sought to make the study of international
relations clearer, more precise, and more scientific. On
2.1. The Controversy Surrounding the Game the one hand, the traditional school of thought believes
Theory that traditional research methods are still useful and
essential, that philosophy, history, and the law should
In the 1950s, after international relations theory was still be the basis of international relations research. And
undergoing the behaviorist revolution, the whole realist research methods are meticulous, precise, and
process not only introduced game theory into the study logical. On the other hand, they criticize scientific
and application of international relations theory, but also behaviorism for overemphasizing empirical evidence at
caused a fierce debate on the applicability of the game the expense of ignoring philosophical, historical, and
theory in the field of international relations [2]. ethical factors. They argue that the thrust of political
science is different from the thrust of physics; scientific
The behaviorist school of thought has started the
knowledge can be used to study historical facts, while
debate, describes itself as a "scientific" theory, rejecting
understanding, wisdom, and instinct are only applied to
realistic and idealistic historical and philosophical
the study of human relations; they advocate the
normative research methods. What they do is
scientific method often mistakenly treat the method as
advocating empirical or experimental research methods
reality; the scientific method requires a high degree of
- holistic research, including category analysis and
measurability and precision, making it difficult to deal
pattern analysis. Strategic research includes game
with the most volatile situations amid international
analysis and decision analysis, and econometric
politics [3].
research, statistical analysis, mathematical analysis, and
computer analysis. They advocate the exclusion of value
criteria from the research process, arguing that

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press SARL.

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 323
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 569

2.2. Ontological Debate international relations, in which one country usually

responds based on the actions of another country or can
In the field of international relations, many scholars learn about the other's intentions through a third party.
working on international cooperation, arms control, or And the repeated game of the Prisoner's Dilemma is not
conflict studies prefer to publicize their idea consistent with the real world, which is not fully
on"prisoner's dilemma" and "who is the coward". repeatable. Therefore, even a repeatable game model
However, many scholars believe that the game theory does not provide a good overview of international
model is too simple and rigid in the complex affairs.
international environment, and they constantly question
its adaptability, i.e., the forms of activity of the 3. CHINA'S INTERNATIONAL
international system cannot be understood simply by RELATIONS UNDER THE "PRISONER'S
using the framework of game theory analysis. These
DILEMMA" OF THE ROLE OF GAME
scholars believe that the connotations of science are
consistent, both in natural and social sciences, due to
THEORY
they adhere to positivism, which is an important result Taking into account the above arguments on how
of the accumulation of knowledge in the Western game theory plays its role, the value of game theory in
intellectual community; objective facts and values can the field of international relations should be affirmed.
be separated, and that objective facts are independent of The following is an example of the classical game
any theory; there are objective laws in sociology as in theory model applied to the decision-making of China's
natural sciences, and that these laws can be discovered foreign policies, the whole process illustrates the
iii. Accordingly, positivism holds that putting the theory usefulness of game theory for the study of China's
in the application is the only way to test a theory is true international relations [6].
or not. However, I personally believe that some
positivist assumptions are not fully justified. It is 3.1. Analysis of the Role of the “Prisoner's
sometimes impossible to distinguish objective facts
Dilemma”
from subjective values in the study of social sciences,
and it is often impossible to separate the subject of A political scientist at the University of Michigan
research from the object of research, or even to (Robert Axelrod) proposed a strategy scenario in which
determine the objective facts themselves, so these basic he designed a two-person prisoner's dilemma game
assumptions of positivism cannot be applied to the tournament. Game theorists from around the world
social sciences, especially in the field of diplomacy. Just submitted their strategies in the form of a computer
as Reflectivism values and emphasizes the interpretive program. Two people were paired in one group and
nature of theories, the interconstitution of agents and played the Prisoner's Dilemma game 150 times over. All
structures, if you view game theory in their eyes, it is participants have their total score. The winner was
easy to see that international relations cannot be Anatol Rapoport, a mathematics professor at the
observed or studied only from a highly scientific University of Toronto, whose winning strategy was a
parsimonious point of view, because social facts are the "tit for tat", which surprised Axelrod, who conducted
result of social and historical developments, in which it another tournament, this time with more scholars.
is full of contingencies and inevitabilities, combined Rapoport continued to use his "tit for tat" strategy and
with different values [4]. won the highest scores again.

2.3. Applied Argumentation of Game Theory The idea of the competition is very simple: anyone
who wants to participate in this computer competition
James Dougherty argues that for either the human plays the role of a prisoner in the Prisoner's Dilemma
brain or the world's largest computer, it is too difficult case, and they start playing the Prisoner's Dilemma
to comprehend the extreme complexity of international game, each having to choose between cooperation and
political games. In a tripartite game, in which each party betrayal. The key issue is that they do not just play the
can only takes limited and simple actions to response, or game once, but hundreds of times over, in what is the
uses some mathematical method to analyze. But a so-called "repeated prisoner's dilemma," It is more
triangular relation among America, the Soviet Union, realistically reflects the relational interaction between
and China during the Cold War, cannot be compared to the two. This is another noteworthy condition; the
a three-way game. Nor is it possible to imagine a pure simplest model of the prisoner's dilemma is a one-time
triangle relation that would insulate Western Europe, game, and this is what exacerbates the prisoner's
Eastern Europe, Japan, and other important actors from determination to come clean [7].
the interaction of the three major powers [5]. The results of the test surprised Axelrod, because the
Harrison Wagner points out that the assumptions of strategy adopted by the winner of the competition was
the Prisoner's Dilemma could not accurately model on not difficult at all: it was also called tit for tat. The
Chinese call it "beat someone at their own game". In

324
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 569

fact, the so-called tit for tat strategy is the principle of process. Third, treating other countries toughly rather
the carrot and stick approach. It insists on never than softly should be done on the premise of being kind
betraying the other side in the first place, and believing or beating someone at their own game. This, of course,
everyone is well-intentioned. It will reciprocate its requires people to do it appropriate manner. Sometimes
opponent's previous cooperation in the next round (even it requires extremely strong sensitivity and quick
if this opponent had betrayed it before). In this sense it feedback, for example, what China has done on the
is forgiving. But it will take a betrayal action to punish Taiwan problem makes people feel the Chinese
the opponent for the previous betrayal, and in this sense government is just talking the talk, but never walking
it is tough. As the saying goes, "We will not attack the talk. The problem in the past is that they talk too
unless we are attacked ". Therefore, the analysis shows often but make little progress, all this make Taiwan and
that the country that has the following characteristics the US take those for a grant. The key to retaliation is
will always win: 1. goodwill; 2. tolerance; 3. toughness; that you must make the other side believe that you really
4.having simple and clear intentions. Another want to take strong action and not just talk about it.
explanation is that modern diplomacy differs from the Fourthly, the bottom line of your side in diplomatic
traditional old-style diplomacy, which relied on the issues should be clearly and simply stated. Axelrod's
sophisticated and complex manipulations of politicians, experiment proves that in the game process, overly
so that in the game of modern diplomacy, clear complex strategies make it difficult for the opponent to
intentions often bring the hoped-for results. understand and don’t know what to do, thus making it
difficult to establish a stable cooperative relationship. In
3.2. The "Prisoner's Dilemma" in China's fact, in the complex non-zero-sum game environment of
International Relations Game international relations, "deep and rigid" and "not tired of
deception" are definitely not the best strategy. On the
Just as classical realists argue that it is difficult to contrary, a clear personality, concise style, and honesty
build trust between countries, due to it is a one-time hold the key to victory [9]. To let the other side
game. As in the case of China and the United States understand what you are talking about, do not let the
relations, the game is generally repeated, and extensive other side guess your intention, due to it is very easy to
cooperation on various international issues has been cause misunderstandings. The reason why there is a
conducted after mutual exchange. And then their trust in "China threat theory" is that, in the face of China's rise,
each other will increase to varying degrees, because the outside world does not see clearly what kind of role
they have the opportunity to repeat the game, and there China will become in the future? What does China want?
are countless opportunities to do "beat someone at their Because we have been adhering to Deng Xiaoping's
own game"[8]. principle of keeping a low profile and honoring our
promises, with less empty talk in the international arena.
In the relations between China and other countries,
However, the lack of simplicity and clarity eventually
especially the United States, for example, according to
led to the misunderstanding of the outside world, which
Robert Axelrod's experiments, the victory also always
is why we later had to propose our own "peaceful rise"
goes to countries that are well-meaning, tolerant, tough,
to regain the right to speak. The above example is a
and simple and clear. Conversely, malicious, caustic,
good illustration of the usefulness of game theory. We
weak, and complex countries are doom to lose.
can see that game theory as a basic research tool is
Therefore, the principle of gaining diplomatic victory
indeed beneficial for the study of international relations
game should be:
and foreign policy, and ensures its rationality [10].
First, treat other countries with kindness rather than
malice. This truth is simple and obvious. Second, 4. CONCLUSION
treating other countries with tolerance rather than
harshness. Each country pursues its own national In terms of China's international relations and
interests to the greatest extent possible, so the key to foreign policy-making research, policy continuity,
managing relations with other countries is to be able to political culture, leaders' will, and ideological influence
tolerate each other, and even to tolerate their occasional, undoubtedly provide explanations form the view of the
not very serious injuries. Countries that treat others traditional research methods; however, from a scientific
harshly and refuse to accommodate occasional harm, point of view, the possibility of strategic action provides
like the United States, tend to make too many enemies, another more intuitive and objective explanation. Game
which will eventually lead to a much higher threat to theory has been widely applied to the analysis of
domestic security, several times panic, and eventually international politics and foreign policy decisions in the
suffer serious harm. For major countries who carry United States. But in China, given the different
significant weight in the world economy, it is all the ideological characteristics and research processes in the
more necessary for them to take into full consideration study of international relations, the application of game
the impact of their macroeconomic policies on others theory to the analysis of international relations and
and increase the transparency of their policy-making foreign policy decisions is still relatively rare. For

325
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 569

example, most of the existing studies on China's foreign [3] Shay Kutten, Gopal Pandurangan, David Peleg et
policy decisions are empirical studies and al. Sublinear bounds for randomized leader
post-verification analyses. Such analysis can be learned election[J] Theoretical Computer Science, 2015,
from historical lessons, but it is difficult to propose 561
scientific countermeasures in the face of urgent
real-world problems. Then, on the one hand, we should [4] Guy Louchard, Mark Daniel Ward The truncated
pay attention to the instrumental value of game theory, geometric election algorithm: Duration of the
apply the theory with rigorous logical reasoning to election[J] Statistics and Probability Letters, 2015,
foreign policy-making, and provide another way of 101
thinking for foreign policy-making, so that China's [5] Colin J Davis, Jeffrey S Bowers, Amina Memon
foreign policy-making can be more scientific. On the Social influence in televised election debates: a
other hand, trying not to fall into the deep terminology potential distortion of democracy.[J] PLoS ONE,
and complicated arithmetic of game theory, it is 2017, 6(3)
important to start from the basic principle of game
theory, especially strategic thinking. It is worthwhile to [6] INNS election results[J] Neural Networks, 1997, 10
combine the quantitative research method of behavioral [7] A. El Hibaoui, J.M. Robson, N. Saheb-Djahromi et
science and the traditional qualitative research method
al. Uniform election in trees and polyominoids[J]
of social science. This is how we can better promote the
Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2010, 158(9)
integration of game theory and Chinese international
relations research. [8] Presidentâs report on the election process[J], 1979,
1(4)
REFERENCES [9] AAD election under way[J], 1979, 1(4)
[1] Lindsay T. Hoyt, Katharine H. Zeiders, Natasha [10] Wanggi Jaung, L. Roman Carrasco, Jae Soo Bae
Chaku et al. Young adults’ psychological and Integration of ecosystem services as public values
physiological reactions to the 2016 U.S. within election promises: evidence from the 2018
presidential election[J] Psychoneuroendocrinology, local elections in Korea[J] Ecosystem Services,
2018, 92 2019, 40
[2] Artur Czumaj, Peter Davies Leader election in
multi-hop radio networks[J] Theoretical Computer
Science, 2019, 792

326