The League of Nations covenant and the United Nations charter: An analysis of two international constitutions

The dilemma of informal governance with outside option as solution

“…Thirty years later, World War II drove home the same lesson that neither diplomacy nor US isolationism, consummated in 1919 by the Senate rejection of the League, were credible options. It was also believed that the League's multiple failures, including that of not having been consulted to prevent World War II, could be remedied by redistributing decision-making power to the Great Powers and making their decisions binding (see Sobel 1994).…”

Legal cartels and social contracts

“…This paper discusses the social contract of the SWC (a legal cartel) using some of the principles of constitutional economics. Following Sobel (1994) and Holcombe (1994), such an analysis may provide possible explanations for the existence, success or failure, and particular provisions of the SWC social contract. As Sobel points out regarding the League of Nations formation, social contracts are important in establishing a set of principles and laws intended to promote orderly conduct among nations.…”

“…A model of legal cartels within the NCAA An extension of the graphical model of the constitutional process developed in Holcombe (1994) and extended in Sobel (1994) can help illustrate the gains from the formation of an inter-university social contract or athletic conference. Point I in Figure 1 represents the hypothetical utility levels of two representative agents, one in a great power university (athletic success) and the other in a small power university both under "independent" status (not cartel members).…”

“…Working within constitutional rules also conveys legitimacy to organizations. The following sections contain more Sobel (1994), scholars such as Buchanan (1975Buchanan ( , 1990, Gordon (1976), Nozick (1974, Rawls (1971) and all argue that it is the process by which the social contract is formed which determines its fairness. The legitimacy and fairness of such a social contract stem from the voluntary nature of the agreements.…”

“…These include the intertwining of football and politics in Texas and "cartel cheating" of member institutions regarding both the SWC and NCAA social contracts. Also, the exaggerated equality (following Sobel, 1994) between the major and minor football powers of the SWC, which itself was caused by the existence of the Permanent University Fund and changes in the dispensation of athletic revenues for members made in the early 1990s are important. Some of these topics are discussed next.…”