Text 1: Political scientist Dr. Emily Foster studies international institutions. "International law constrains state behavior," Foster writes. "Treaties create binding obligations. States follow international rules because they accept them."
Text 2: Realist theorist Dr. James Wong challenges institutional power. "States follow international law when it serves their interests," Wong argues. "When interests diverge, powerful states ignore or reinterpret obligations. Power trumps law."
What does Wong suggest about the source of international rule-following?
That treaties are never signed
That state self-interest, not obligation, explains compliance
That international law doesn't exist as a concept
That all states have identical interests
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Foster sees law creating obligation. Wong sees interest creating compliance—law followed when convenient, ignored when not. Different causal mechanism.
- Evidence: Wong: states follow "when it serves their interests."
- Reasoning: Compliance is interest-driven, not norm-driven.
- Conclusion: Self-interest, not obligation, is Wong's explanation.
Choice A is incorrect because Wong discusses treaty interpretation. Choice C is incorrect because Wong analyzes when law is followed. Choice D is incorrect because Wong emphasizes interest divergence.