Individual Neutrality and Credible Commitment - A Generative Relational Theory of Self-Legislation

Abstract

A state that undertakes to remain neutral is believed for reasons that have
little to do with its sincerity. It will outlive the government that made the
undertaking, its conduct is recorded and observed by many parties at once, and
it holds sunk institutional investments that defection would destroy. An
individual who undertakes the same thing has none of these. This paper asks how
a private person, holding no office and backed by no sovereign, renders a
commitment to non-capture credible to strangers. Three deficits are identified
in the position of the isolated individual, concerning duration, observability,
and the cost of exit, and the paper argues that the devices by which
individuals address them all work in one way: they recruit other parties into
the enforcement of a rule the individual states. Self-legislation, so
understood, is legislation for a self and enforcement by a field. A trilemma
follows. Among credibility, revisability, and retained authority over the
determination of breach, a commitment device secures at most two: removing the
capacity to defect is credible and unrevisable, declaring a rule one judges
oneself is revisable and unbelieved, and delegating the judgment of breach is
credible and revisable at the cost of the authority. The paper further
distinguishes the registers through which trust is produced, treating symbolic
guarantee, shared ordeal, and identification as distinct mechanisms with
different failure conditions rather than as one process. Four instruments are
compared: the international civil service, judicial recusal together with blind
trusts and auditor independence, and a personal instrument that the author
discloses and evaluates against the other three. The account is then tested
against evidence that its own prescriptions fail, including the finding that
disclosure of a conflict can increase rather than reduce the bias it reports.
Two structural exposures are recorded: a short record makes an individual
reputation both harder to establish and easier to destroy, and the community
recruited to enforce a commitment is itself capturable.

Keywords: credible commitment; self-legislation; trust

Discussion Paper Note

This paper is a preliminary discussion paper intended to share an evolving idea
and invite further dialogue, criticism, revision, and independent development.
Its definitions, distinctions, and constructions remain provisional.
Circulation across scholarly and practical communities is part of the purpose
of releasing the manuscript at this stage.

The author treats the viewpoints, concepts, and lines of reasoning presented
here as contributions to a shared field of inquiry. Similar or related ideas
may have appeared in other intellectual, cultural, and disciplinary traditions.
The manuscript therefore states its known antecedents, separates the
researcher-origin proposal from later formal reconstruction, and leaves
historical priority open pending a systematic originality review.

The arguments should be understood as provisional and historically situated.
Readers are encouraged to question, test, revise, extend, reinterpret, or
independently develop the ideas presented here. Where appropriate,
acknowledgment of this paper as one point of encounter in the development of a
related idea is appreciated. Such acknowledgment records an intellectual route;
the ideas themselves remain available for criticism, revision, and independent
development.

Responsible Use and Rights Reservation

This section separates requested scholarly conduct from the legal permissions
stated on the following page. It records an ethical request for responsible use
and then defines the narrower scope of retained legal rights.

The author encourages good-faith discussion, criticism, independent inquiry,
and responsible use of the material in this work. Separately from the licence’s
terms, the author asks users to consider foreseeable harms when adapting or
applying the proposed framework. This paper describes how commitments are made
believable, and an account of that kind can be read as a manual for appearing
trustworthy rather than for being so. The distinction is argued in the text and
the author asks that it be preserved in any application. This ethical request
leaves the licence’s permissions and legally authorized uses unchanged.

The author retains the rights preserved under CC BY-NC 4.0 and may pursue
remedies to which the author is legally entitled for breach of the licence or
violation of the author’s independently applicable rights. Reuse remains
independent from authorial endorsement. Third-party rights require
authorization from their respective holders where applicable. Copyright
exceptions and limitations, including applicable forms of fair use or fair
dealing, remain fully available.

Notices

This page consolidates the manuscript’s publication status, licence,
development disclosure, research-programme relation, declared interest, and
suggested citation.

Status.
This working draft records an evolving stage of the author’s position and is
circulated for discussion. Definitions, section structure, statements, and
numbering remain subject to revision. Verification of several sources named in
the accompanying literature audit, a systematic review of the philosophical
literature on self-legislation, specialist review of the psychoanalytic
material, empirical work on the demand-side claim, and an originality audit
remain future research stages.

Licence.
Except where otherwise indicated, copyright 2026 Wanhong Huang. This work is
made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Subject to its terms, the licence permits
sharing and adaptation for noncommercial purposes with appropriate attribution,
a link to the licence, an indication of changes, and attribution that preserves
the licensor’s independence from the reuse. Reuse is governed solely by that
licence; the responsible-use request on the preceding page remains separate
from its terms. The licence deed and legal-code link are available at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The licence governs in
case of conflict with this summary. Third-party material remains subject to the
rights held by its respective rights holders.

Statement on the use of language models.
The exploratory discussions and preparation of this paper involved Anthropic’s
Claude. The model supported exploratory dialogue, source discovery followed by
verification against publisher, journal, governmental, and institutional pages,
argumentative criticism, and drafting in . The author selected the
research question, directed and approved the theoretical commitments and the
epistemic status of the claims, and bears sole responsibility for the
manuscript, including its definitions, constructions, taxonomy, arguments,
conclusions, and errors. Authorship credit remains with the human author. The
access level and claim limit for every cited source are recorded in the
accompanying literature audit.

Declared interest.
Section 11.3 examines an instrument of personal independence
constructed by the author. The author therefore has an interest in the
conclusions this paper reaches about instruments of that kind. The instrument
is described in full, is evaluated by the same criteria applied to the other
three cases, and is reported as failing several of them. The disclosure is made
here because a paper arguing that commitments require verifiable disclosure
would be self-undermining without it.

Related research programme.
This paper is project P002 and the second paper in a series on trust,
neutrality, and the transmission of shared experience. Project P001 takes
responsibility for the account of neutrality as the governance of a field of
relational conditions, for the constraint distinguishing the instruments a
custodian may use from the influence it may exercise, and for the state-scale
case. The present paper takes responsibility for the individual-scale
credibility problem, the registers of trust production, the commitment
trilemma, and the fragility analysis.

Suggested citation.
Huang, Wanhong. “Individual Neutrality and Credible Commitment: A Generative
Relational Theory of Self-Legislation.” Working discussion paper, 2026.

1. Introduction

Consider two undertakings with the same content. A state declares that it will
not align with either party to a conflict and will keep its territory,
institutions, and offices available to both. A private individual declares the
same. The declarations are identical in what they promise and unequal in what
they are worth, and the inequality has nothing to do with the sincerity of
either party.

The state will outlive the government that made the undertaking, and it cannot
leave the system in which the undertaking was given. Its conduct is public,
recorded, and observed continuously by many parties who compare what it does
with what it said. And it holds investments that defection would destroy:
hosting arrangements other states rely on, mandates other states have entrusted
to it, a standing that took a century to accumulate and could not be rebuilt
within a generation. None of this requires the state to be honest. It requires
only that defection be expensive and visible.

The individual has none of the three. A person’s undertaking expires with the
person, and may be abandoned at any moment by simply going elsewhere. A
person’s conduct is observed by few and recorded by fewer, so that consistency
maintained over years may leave no trace a stranger can consult. And a person
who abandons an undertaking destroys nothing that anyone else was relying on,
because a person who has made no arrangements that others depend on has
provided nothing that could be withdrawn.

This paper asks what follows. If the credibility of a commitment rests on
duration, observability, and the cost of exit, and if an individual lacks all
three, then either individual commitments to non-capture are not credible, or
they are made credible by some mechanism that supplies what the individual
lacks. The paper argues for the second, and identifies the mechanism as
recruitment: the devices by which individuals render commitments believable all
work by drawing other parties into the enforcement of a rule the individual
states. On this reading self-legislation is a misdescription of what occurs.
The self supplies the rule; a field supplies the sanction; neither operates
alone.

That conclusion generates the paper’s central structural result. If the
enforcement of a self-stated rule must be external, then the ways of arranging
that externality are limited, and each arrangement purchases one property at
the cost of another. Removing the capacity to defect is highly credible and
leaves nothing to revise. Declaring a rule while retaining the judgment of
one’s own breach preserves revisability and persuades nobody. Delegating the
judgment of breach to others is both credible and revisable, and transfers
authority over one’s own conduct to the parties one has recruited. The three
properties of credibility, revisability, and retained authority are jointly
unavailable, and any instrument of individual independence can be located by
which two it has chosen.

The paper also distinguishes what is usually run together. Trust is produced by
more than one mechanism, and the mechanisms have different requirements and
different failure conditions. Trust may rest on a symbolic guarantee, in which
a title, an office, a name, or a form of words is honoured because an order of
signs stands behind it. It may rest on what a shared ordeal has revealed, where
the parties have observed one another in circumstances that no account could
substitute for. It may rest on identification, in which one party recognises
itself in the other. These are not degrees of a single quantity, and an
instrument that secures one supplies little of the others. A custodian who
holds symbolic guarantee and nothing else is believed until the order that
guaranteed it weakens; a custodian who holds only what an ordeal revealed
cannot transfer it to a third party who was not present.

Four instruments are examined. The international civil service manufactures
individual independence by placing it inside an office. Judicial recusal, the
blind trust, and auditor independence manufacture it by removing a capacity or
by requiring a disclosure. And the author has constructed a personal instrument
of the kind this paper theorises, which is described, disclosed, and evaluated
against the same criteria as the other three, with its failures reported.

The account is written to be capable of failing and it partly does. The
evidence that disclosure of a conflict can increase rather than reduce the bias
it reports bears directly against the paper’s own prescription that rules
should generate verifiable artifacts. The evidence that communities of traders,
neighbours, and criminals sustain credible commitments without any sovereign
bears against the premise that the individual position is uniquely
disadvantaged. Both are treated where they arise rather than in a closing
concession, and both narrow the account rather than leaving it intact.

Section 5 supplies the regimes and the vocabulary the
argument presupposes. Section 6 locates the account among
the literatures on trust production, costly signalling, precommitment,
self-legislation, diachronic agency, enforcement without a sovereign, role
morality, and relational ontology, and states what each already establishes.
Section 7 states the method and the conditions of
disconfirmation. Section 8 develops the credibility problem.
Section 9 distinguishes the registers of trust production.
Section 10 develops self-legislation, relational
enforcement, and the trilemma. Section 11 compares the four
instruments. Section 12 treats fragility, entrapment, and
depletion. Section 13 states what the analysis returns to the wider
framework, Section 14 records the limits, and
Section 15 consolidates the position.

2. Background and Preliminaries

This section supplies the material the argument presupposes. It describes the
regimes through which individual independence is currently manufactured,
states what an office holds that a person does not, and defines the vocabulary
carried forward from the preceding paper. Analysis of these materials is
reserved for Section 8 and Section 11.

2.1 Existing Regimes of Individual Independence

Individual independence is already manufactured, in several domains, by
established means. Four are relevant here.

The international civil service supplies the most developed instance. Article
100 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that in the performance of
their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive
instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the
Organization, and shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their
position as international officials responsible only to the Organization; the
second paragraph binds each member state to respect the exclusively
international character of those responsibilities and to refrain from seeking
to influence the staff in discharging them (Nations et al., n.d.). The obligation
is given individual form in the Staff Regulations, under which staff members
are international civil servants whose responsibilities are exclusively
international rather than national, and under which each staff member makes a
written declaration, witnessed by the Secretary-General or an authorized
representative, promising to exercise the entrusted functions in loyalty,
discretion and conscience, to regulate their conduct with the interests of the
Organization only in view, and neither to seek nor to accept instructions from
any government or other external source (Nations, n.d.). The
Regulations further provide that personal views and convictions remain
inviolable while requiring that they not adversely affect official duties
(Nations, n.d.). These provisions are elaborated for staff in a
Secretary-General’s bulletin on status, basic rights and duties
(Secretary-General, 2003).

Three features of this regime are recorded here and used later. The
undertaking takes the form of a personal declaration. The declaration is
witnessed rather than merely published. And the declarant’s independence is
secured not only by the declaration but by a reciprocal obligation on the
parties who might otherwise seek to capture them.

Judicial recusal supplies a second instance, in which independence is secured
by removing the officeholder from the particular matter rather than by any
undertaking about future conduct. The blind trust supplies a third, in which
the officeholder’s capacity to know their own holdings is removed so that the
holdings cannot influence decisions; the device attracts sustained criticism on
the ground that the officeholder knows what was placed into the trust and that
the arrangement therefore functions as an appearance rather than a constraint
(News, n.d.). Auditor independence supplies a fourth, framed in
professional standards as independence in fact together with independence in
appearance.

2.2 Capacities Held by an Office and Capacities Held by a Person

An office and a person differ in three respects that bear on whether an
undertaking either makes is believed.

An office persists beyond the tenure of any occupant, and it cannot withdraw
from the system in which its undertaking was given. A person’s undertaking
expires with the person and may be abandoned by departure. The relevant
property is duration, and it belongs to the office rather than to the
undertaking.

An office acts on a record. Its decisions are documented, its conduct is
observed by many parties at once, and the parties compare what it does with
what it said. A person’s consistency, however long maintained, may leave no
trace that a stranger can consult. The relevant property is observability.

An office holds arrangements that others rely on and that defection would
destroy. A person who has made no arrangements on which others rely has
nothing whose withdrawal would cost anyone anything. The relevant property is
the cost of exit.

Luhmann’s distinction between personal trust and system trust names the
consequence (Luhmann, 1979; Luhmann, 1988). Trust in an office is trust in a
system, held without the truster reconsidering it at each encounter; trust in a
person is a decision taken in awareness of the alternatives, and taken again.
Section 8 argues that the three properties are held by the
isolated individual and not by the individual as such, and
Section 10 argues that a community can supply all three.

2.3 Vocabulary Carried from the Preceding Paper

The account uses a small vocabulary established in the companion paper and
restated here at the length required to follow the argument.

A relation is an ongoing process between parties rather than a state
obtaining at a moment, and is described by what it produces: shared
undertakings, revisable understandings, and the capacity of each party to raise
a claim the other must answer.

A relational condition is an arrangement whose presence or absence
changes which relations can be formed or continued, without determining which
of them are. Channels, venues, procedures, standing mandates, and the
availability of an intermediary are conditions in this sense.

The field of a set of parties is the set of arrangements consistent with
those conditions, and condition governance is action on the field rather
than on the arrangements within it. A custodian maintains conditions
constituting the field of parties in conflict without directing that
maintenance at any particular arrangement within it.

A power is field-constitutive when its exercise changes the set of
arrangements available to the parties rather than which available arrangement
they select. The companion paper’s constraint holds that a custodian may judge,
testify, publish and persuade, and may do so asymmetrically, and may not employ
field-constitutive powers to secure a substantive outcome. That constraint is
carried into this paper unchanged. What this paper adds is the credibility of
the undertaking, not a further constraint on its content.

Two terms are used here that the companion paper did not require.
Capture is the condition in which an actor’s field-constitutive
decisions come to track one party’s preferences. Non-capture is the
content of the undertaking whose credibility is at issue: an undertaking that
the declarant’s field-constitutive decisions will not come to track any party’s
preferences.

The vocabulary belongs to a wider framework of generative relational analysis
developed across a connected series of papers. The present paper uses the terms
above and leaves the remainder of that framework aside. Its relation to
relational ontology in the social sciences, and to the constructionist account
of relational being, is addressed in
Section 6.8.

3. Literature Review

This section locates the account among the literatures it draws on and states
what each already establishes. Several of the paper’s working claims are
already made, in whole or in part, by work surveyed here; those are conceded
where they arise rather than defended. One result surveyed here contradicts a
prescription the paper makes, and it is recorded as a contradiction.

3.1 Modes of Trust Production

Zucker’s account of how trust was produced in the American economy between 1840
and 1920 supplies the framework this paper depends on (Zucker, 1986). She
distinguishes three modes. Process-based trust rests on a record of past
or expected exchange between the parties. Characteristic-based trust
rests on shared background, such as common origin or membership. And
institution-based trust rests on formal structures external to both
parties, including professional certification, regulation, and intermediaries.
Her historical argument is that immigration, internal migration, and the
instability of firms eroded the first two and forced a shift to the third.

The transposition is direct. A custodian dealing with strangers has no shared
record and is often chosen precisely because it shares no background with
either party, so the first two modes are unavailable to it by construction.
That leaves the third, which is the mode an office has and an isolated
individual does not. The paper’s problem can therefore be stated in Zucker’s
terms: how an individual obtains institution-based trust without an
institution.

Adjacent work supplies the components of an assessment. Mayer, Davis and
Schoorman model perceived trustworthiness as ability, benevolence and
integrity, hold that the truster’s own propensity dominates where information
is absent, and find that integrity weighs most heavily early in a relationship
while benevolence grows in weight over time (Mayer & Davis, 1995). Rousseau, Sitkin,
Burt and Camerer supply the definition this paper uses, treating trust as the
intention to accept vulnerability on the basis of positive expectations of
another’s intentions or conduct (Rousseau et al., 1998).

Two findings bound what may be inferred. The investment game of Berg, Dickhaut
and McCabe establishes that anonymous strangers transfer substantial sums with
no contractual or reputational protection (Berg & Dickhaut, 1995), and the result is
robust across a large replication base with regional variation
(Johnson, 2011; Ortmann & Fitzgerald, 2000). What this establishes is that
trust between strangers occurs; it does not establish that a stated commitment
is believed, which is the present question. Meyerson, Weick and Kramer’s
account of swift trust in temporary groups is nearer, and shows that strangers
who must act together import expectations from roles and categories, proceed as
though trust were present, and calibrate afterwards (Meyerson & Weick, 1996). That
mechanism is available to a custodian who occupies a recognised role, and it is
unavailable to one who does not.

A different line of work states the objection this paper must answer, and it is
recorded here at length because the remainder of the paper proceeds despite it.
Baier holds that trust is reliance on another’s goodwill toward one, and marks
the feature that distinguishes it from mere reliance: trust can be
betrayed and not merely disappointed (Baier, 1986). Jones develops
the account as an attitude of optimism about the trusted party’s goodwill and
competence, such that the trusted party is moved directly and favourably by the
thought that they are being trusted (Jones, 1996), and later examines
trustworthiness in its own right (Jones, 2012). Hawley substitutes a
commitment for goodwill, treating trust as reliance on another to meet a
commitment they have (Hawley, 2014).

On Baier’s and Jones’s accounts, what this paper constructs is not trust. A
party who keeps an undertaking because a third party determines breach and
because breach would be expensive is not moved by the thought of being trusted;
what they supply is reliability, and a counterparty who relies on them is not
exposed to betrayal but only to loss. The objection extends further. If
credibility can be engineered, then the capacity to engineer it is itself
evidence of nothing about goodwill, and a counterparty aware of the machinery
has reason to ask why the machinery was built.

Two replies are available and neither disposes of the objection. The paper
concerns credibility rather than trustworthiness, and says so in its front
matter and in Section 8.1; a counterparty deciding whether to
enter a relation with a custodian may reasonably want reliability and not
goodwill, since the undertaking concerns the administration of conditions
rather than care for either party. And Hawley’s commitment account is
compatible with the construction here, since a commitment can be relied on
without goodwill being ascribed. What survives is the residue that matters
most: an account of how commitments are made believable is available to a party
who intends to defect and is describing, in advance, the appearance they would
need to construct. The paper has no defence against that use and states it in
the front matter as a request rather than as an answer.

Gambetta’s study of criminal communication is the closest empirical literature
to the paper’s problem, because it concerns parties who must convey
trustworthiness precisely where institutions are unavailable and where everyone
has reason to lie (Gambetta, 2009). His finding is that the solutions rest
on signals that are costly and hard to fake, and his companion study of taxi
drivers examines the same assessment made rapidly and with little information
(Gambetta, 2005). The present paper’s condition on declarations,
developed in Section 8.3, is an instance of this and is
conceded as such.

3.2 Costly Signalling and Credible Commitment

Two results establish the mechanism by which a statement about oneself becomes
informative.

Spence’s model of job-market signalling shows that a signal separates types
only where it is sufficiently more costly for the type that would misrepresent
itself; where the cost is equal, every type sends the signal and it conveys
nothing (Spence, 1973). The condition is on the cost structure rather than
on the content of the signal, and it is indifferent to sincerity.

Williamson’s account of credible commitment locates the same structure in
exchange, holding that credible commitments and credible threats appear mainly
in conjunction with irreversible and specialized investments, and treating
hostages, understood as sunk relationship-specific assets, as the device by
which a party makes its own defection expensive (Williamson, 1983).

Taken together these establish that a declaration is believed on the strength
of what it would cost to make falsely, and that the cost must be borne
irreversibly rather than promised. The paper’s claim that a declaration must be
differentially costly adds nothing to this and is conceded to it. What remains
open, and what Section 8 takes up, is which costs are available
to an individual who holds no specialized assets that a counterparty values.

3.3 Precommitment and the Limits of Self-Binding

Elster’s two treatments of precommitment bracket the position this paper must
occupy. The earlier work developed self-binding as a rational response to
anticipated weakness, taking Ulysses at the mast as its figure
(Elster, 1979). The later work substantially retracts the extension of that
figure to collective self-binding (Elster, 2000). Elster there endorses
Seip’s observation that in politics people never try to bind themselves but
only to bind others, and notes that Ulysses did not only bind himself: he also
put wax in the ears of the rowers, so that the arrangement rested on the
control of other parties rather than on self-restraint alone.

This bears directly on the paper’s central claim and largely anticipates it.
Section 10.2 therefore opens with the
concession and confines itself to what the individual, non-capture case adds.

Sunstein and Ullmann-Margalit supply the nearest existing taxonomy of the
devices in question (Sunstein, 1999). They treat agents as adopting
second-order strategies to reduce the burden and the risk of error in
first-order decisions, and enumerate rules, presumptions, standards, delegation
of authority to others, proceeding by small steps, and picking rather than
choosing. They classify these by cost structure, distinguishing strategies that
impose high costs before the decision from those that impose low costs
throughout, and from those that impose low costs before the decision while
exporting the high costs at the time of decision to others.

The overlap with Section 10.3 requires a
statement. Delegation appears in both treatments, and the category of
strategies that export costs to others is adjacent to what this paper calls
ceding authority. The classifying axis differs. Sunstein and Ullmann-Margalit
classify by the cost and error of the agent’s own future decisions, and the
present paper classifies by credibility to an audience that was not party to
the decision. A strategy that is optimal on their axis may be worthless on
this one, since a rule adopted to relieve oneself of deliberation persuades
nobody of anything. The trilemma is therefore not a redescription of their
taxonomy, and it is offered as an addition to it rather than as a replacement.

3.4 Self-Legislation and the Bootstrapping Objection

The philosophical literature on self-legislation states the paper’s central
difficulty in its sharpest form, and does so without reference to credibility
at all.

Korsgaard grounds obligation in practical identity and in the constitutive
standards of agency, and names the difficulty that attends any such grounding
as the paradox of self-constitution: action both expresses and constitutes the
self, so that the agent must already be present in order to choose while also
being made by the choosing (Korsgaard, 1996; Korsgaard, 2009). The vocabulary
of self-constitution is hers, and Section 10.1 uses
a related term for a different object; the difference is stated there.

O’Shea presses the objection this paper must answer. Examining Kantian
constructivism in Korsgaard and O’Neill, he argues that neither succeeds in
defending self-legislation as the fundamental source of normativity without
that legislation collapsing into arbitrariness (O’Shea, 2015). The structure
of the objection is that an agent who authors a law may repeal it, so that
nothing is bound by it. Seeman reaches a related conclusion, holding that the
paradox generates an arbitrariness that undermines the formation of moral laws
(Seeman, 2016).

The objection is the philosophical form of the observation from which this
paper proceeds, that a rule whose breach the rule-maker determines will not be
believed. The paper does not attempt to resolve the moral-philosophical
question of whether self-legislation can ground obligation. It takes the
narrower question of whether a self-stated rule can be made credible to a third
party, and answers it by relocating the determination of breach, which is a
route the moral-philosophical literature has reason not to take, since
relocating the determination of obligation to others is precisely what
autonomy-based accounts exist to avoid.

3.5 Diachronic Agency and the Binding of a Later Self

A self-stated rule is stated at one time and kept at others, and a literature on
the agency of planning creatures addresses what holds it across the interval.

Bratman’s account treats intentions as states that are neither reducible to
desires and beliefs nor readily abandoned, and that exist because agents with
limited cognitive resources must coordinate with their own futures
(Bratman, 1987; Bratman, 2007). Holton develops the case that matters here.
He distinguishes, among intentions, the resolution: an intention formed
in anticipation of contrary inclination, whose function is to hold firm against
it (Holton, 2009). A resolution is on his account an intention not to
reconsider the underlying intention when the anticipated temptation arrives,
and he argues that declining to reconsider can be rational even where the agent
acquires no new information in the interval, which is a stronger claim than
Bratman’s.

The relevance is exact and its limit is equally exact. An undertaking of
non-capture is a resolution in Holton’s sense, since it is formed in
anticipation of pressure and its whole function is to hold when the pressure
arrives, and his account supplies the reason why keeping it may be rational
even at a moment when abandoning it appears best. What the account addresses is
the agent’s own rationality in keeping the resolution. It does not address
whether a party who was not present has reason to expect the agent to keep it,
which is the question this paper takes. The two are related in an unhelpful
direction: an account explaining why a resolute agent is rational supplies no
means by which an observer distinguishes a resolute agent from an irresolute
one.

Parfit’s treatment of personal identity presses a further difficulty
(Parfit, 1984). If what matters in the persistence of a person is
psychological continuity and connectedness, and if these admit of degree, then
the force with which a later self is bound by an earlier self’s undertaking is
itself a matter of degree, and diminishes as the interval lengthens.

This supplies an argument for the paper’s central move that
Section 10 reaches from another direction. If the
binding force of a self-undertaking depends on the continuity between the
undertaking self and the acting self, then self-binding is weakest precisely
where the undertaking is oldest, which is where a counterparty most needs it to
hold. A rule whose determination has been relocated to others is indifferent to
that continuity, since the parties determining breach are not the party whose
identity over time is in question. The relocation therefore addresses a
difficulty in the metaphysics of the committed party as well as a difficulty in
the epistemics of the observing one.

3.6 Enforcement in the Absence of a Sovereign

A body of historical and empirical work establishes that individuals sustain
enforceable commitments where no state enforces them, and it does so in enough
detail to identify the mechanism.

Milgrom, North and Weingast examine the medieval Law Merchant and show that
private judges holding no power to compel nonetheless supported honest trade,
by maintaining and transmitting information about whether a merchant had
satisfied judgments against him (Milgrom & North, 1990). Enforcement was
decentralized: a merchant who ignored a judgment could be identified by any
counterparty who consulted the record, and was thereafter avoided. The
institution supplied not a sanction but the information on which many private
sanctions could be based.

Greif’s studies of the Maghribi traders identify a related structure, in which
a multilateral punishment strategy makes honesty self-enforcing because an
agent who cheats any member of the coalition is thereafter hired by none
(Greif, 1989; Greif, 1993). The historical accuracy of that account is
contested; Edwards and Ogilvie reappraise the evidence and dispute the reading
(Edwards, 2012). The dispute concerns whether the Maghribi case
exhibits the mechanism, and leaves the mechanism itself untouched.

Bernstein documents a modern instance in which participants deliberately opt
out of state enforcement, showing that the diamond industry resolves disputes
through private arbitration, reputation and community sanction rather than
through the courts available to it (Bernstein, 1992). Ellickson documents
the same in a setting with no trade association at all, finding that neighbours
settle disputes by informal norms while remaining substantially ignorant of the
law that governs them (Ellickson, 1991). Ostrom’s analysis of self-governing
communities identifies monitoring and graduated sanctions among the conditions
under which such arrangements endure (Ostrom, 1990).

This literature bears on the paper in two opposite directions and both are
recorded. It supports the claim that enforcement of a stated rule is communal
rather than self-administered, since in none of these cases does the committed
party determine its own breach. And it presses against the premise from which
the paper begins, since these are individuals sustaining credible commitments
without a sovereign. Section 8.2 accordingly states the
three deficits as deficits of the isolated individual rather than of the
individual as such, which is the correction this literature requires.

3.7 Role Morality and Professional Independence

Applbaum’s treatment of professional roles supplies a caution the paper must
observe. He examines the claim that occupying a role makes permissible what
would otherwise be wrong, and argues that institutions ordinarily cannot mint
moral permissions (Applbaum, 1999). The caution applies wherever this paper
grants a custodian latitude that a private person would lack.

The response is that the paper’s claims concern credibility rather than
permission. What makes an undertaking believable is a separate question from
what the undertaking may license, and the constraint on a custodian’s
instruments is inherited from the companion paper rather than generated by the
role. Where the two questions meet, in Section 11, the caution is
applied rather than set aside.

The regimes described in Section 5.1 constitute the
practical literature for this section. Article 100 of the Charter and the
associated Staff Regulations are notable for combining three devices that the
present account treats separately: an individual declaration, an external
witness to it, and a reciprocal obligation on the parties who might otherwise
seek to capture the declarant (Nations et al., n.d.; Nations, n.d.). No
instrument available to a private individual combines all three, and
Section 11.4 takes that as its principal finding.

3.8 Relational Ontology and the Generative Relational Framework

The framework this paper works within treats relations as prior to the parties
they relate, and that commitment has an established literature which must be
distinguished from it.

Emirbayer’s programmatic statement for a relational sociology holds that the
social world consists in dynamic, unfolding relations rather than in static
substances, and distinguishes a transactional view, in which the terms of a
relation derive their meaning from the relation, from an interactional view in
which pre-formed units act upon one another (Emirbayer, 1997). The companion
study of agency develops the same commitment for action (Emirbayer, 1998).
The present framework shares the priority claim and takes it as background
rather than as a contribution.

Two terminological collisions require explicit statement. Gergen’s account of
relational being treats the self as constituted in and through relationship
rather than as a bounded unit that subsequently enters relations
(Gergen, 2009). The name of the present author’s framework stands one word
from the title of that work, and the objects differ: Gergen theorises selfhood
and its social constitution, whereas the framework used here concerns the
governance of the conditions under which relations continue to be generated.
The resemblance of terms is stated so that it is not mistaken for derivation.
Separately, the term generativity carries an established meaning in
developmental psychology, where Erikson uses it for a stage of adult concern
with establishing and guiding the next generation, in a body of work that also
supplies the notion of basic trust on which later trust research draws
(Erikson, 1950). Neither usage is the one intended here, and no continuity
with either is claimed.

3.9 Boundary of the Present Contribution

Table 1 records what each surveyed literature licenses and
where the present contribution begins.

| @P0.24YY@

Literature	Licensed role	P002 boundary
Trust production	Three modes of trust production and the shift to institutional sources
(Zucker, 1986); components of assessment (Mayer & Davis, 1995); trust between
strangers (Berg & Dickhaut, 1995); swift trust from roles (Meyerson & Weick, 1996)	Supplies the problem statement. How an individual obtains institution-based
trust without an institution is left open by it.
Costly signalling	Separation requires differential cost (Spence, 1973); credible commitment
requires irreversible specific investment (Williamson, 1983); signalling
where institutions are absent (Gambetta, 2009)	The condition on declarations is conceded entirely. Which costs are available
to a person holding no valued specific assets is not addressed there.
Precommitment	Self-binding and its collective limits (Elster, 1979; Elster, 2000); the
taxonomy of second-order strategies (Sunstein, 1999)	Classified by decision cost rather than by credibility to an audience; the
trilemma is offered on the second axis.
Self-legislation	The paradox of self-constitution and the arbitrariness objection
(Korsgaard, 2009; O’Shea, 2015; Seeman, 2016)	States the difficulty and declines the remedy this paper adopts, for reasons
internal to autonomy-based accounts.
Diachronic agency	Resolutions as intentions formed against anticipated temptation
(Holton, 2009; Bratman, 1987); degrees of psychological continuity
(Parfit, 1984)	Addresses the agent’s own rationality in keeping a resolution, and supplies
no means by which an observer distinguishes the resolute from the
irresolute.
Private ordering	Communal enforcement without a sovereign
(Milgrom & North, 1990; Greif, 1993; Bernstein, 1992; Ellickson, 1991; Ostrom, 1990)	Establishes the mechanism and corrects the paper’s premise; the individual
outside such a community is not its subject.
Role morality	Institutions ordinarily cannot mint moral permissions (Applbaum, 1999)	Concerns permission; the present claims concern credibility.
Relational ontology	Priority of relations over the parties related
(Emirbayer, 1997; Gergen, 2009)	Taken as background; the object here is the credibility of an undertaking.

Table. Antecedent literatures and contribution boundaries

Four positions are left unoccupied by the literatures surveyed. No treatment
located here distinguishes the registers through which trust is produced in a
way that assigns each a distinct requirement and a distinct failure condition.
No treatment states the joint unavailability of credibility, revisability, and
retained authority as a constraint on commitment devices, though a trilemma of
the same form is established for optimal auctions over entirely different
properties (Akbarpour, 2020) and is conceded in
Section 10.3. None derives, from the length
of an observation record, a difference in the volatility of individual and
institutional reputations, or the design consequence that follows from it. And
none treats the community recruited to enforce a commitment as itself a surface
on which capture occurs. The claim is that these four are unoccupied, not that
their components are unprecedented; the components are conceded above. A
systematic originality audit remains outstanding and is recorded in
Section 14.

4. Method and Case Selection

This section states what the comparison is asked to do, why these four
instruments were chosen, and what would count against the account.

4.1 Comparative Instrument Study

The paper develops a conceptual account and examines four instruments by which
individual independence is or might be manufactured. The instruments are
compared against a common set of questions: what the instrument requires the
committed party to give up, who determines whether the commitment has been
breached, what a stranger can check without the committed party’s cooperation,
and what the instrument leaves revisable.

A comparison of this kind can establish that a distinction has purchase, can
show that instruments differing in domain resolve the same trade-off in
different ways, and can expose an instrument that resolves it badly. It cannot
establish that the instruments work, since none of the four is evaluated here
against evidence of its effects, and it cannot establish that the set is
exhaustive.

Established description is separated from analysis, as in the companion paper.
Section 5.1 records what the regimes provide and
Section 11 records what the account makes of them.

4.2 Selection of the Four Instruments

The four were chosen to vary along the dimension the account identifies rather
than to represent a domain.

The international civil service places the undertaking inside an office and
supplies external enforcement, and it is included because it is the developed
case against which any private instrument must be measured. Judicial recusal
and the blind trust remove a capacity rather than binding a will, and are
included because they occupy a different corner of the trade-off developed in
Section 10.3. Auditor independence relies
substantially on disclosure and appearance, and is included because
Section 10.4 argues that disclosure carries a
specific hazard. And the author’s own instrument is included because the paper
would otherwise theorise a class of device without examining a member of it
that can be described from the inside.

The fourth selection carries an interest, disclosed in the front matter. Its
inclusion is defensible only if it is evaluated by the criteria applied to the
other three and reported as failing where it fails, and
Section 11.3 is written accordingly.

Two absences are recorded. Certification and licensing regimes, by which
individuals borrow credibility from bodies that hold reputations of their own,
belong to the same class and are omitted for reasons of space rather than of
principle. And the private-order communities examined in
Section 6.6 are not treated as instruments here,
because membership of such a community is a condition rather than a device.

4.3 Conditions of Disconfirmation

The account should be narrowed or withdrawn under any of the following
conditions.

First, if the three deficits identified in
Section 8.2 are shown to be consequences of isolation
with no residue attaching to the individual position as such, then the paper’s
problem dissolves into the general problem of belonging to a community.

Second, if an instrument is exhibited that holds credibility, revisability and
retained authority together, the trilemma of
Section 10.3 is false.

Third, if the registers distinguished in Section 9 collapse
into one another under examination, so that securing one reliably supplies the
others, the distinction does no work and should be removed.

Fourth, if reputational volatility is shown to be independent of the length of
the observation record, the fragility asymmetry of
Section 12.1 is false.

Fifth, if the devices this paper recommends are shown to worsen the conduct
they govern, the account is not merely incomplete but harmful.
Section 10.4 treats evidence of exactly this
kind and does not dispose of it.

5. The Credibility Problem for an Individual Custodian

This section states the problem the remainder of the paper addresses. It
specifies what must be made credible, identifies what the individual position
lacks, states the condition a declaration must satisfy, and notes that the
value of satisfying it depends on which market the declarant is addressing.

5.1 The Commitment an Individual Custodian Must Render Credible

The undertaking at issue is narrow and it is worth stating precisely, because
the difficulty of making it credible follows from its content.

A custodian does not undertake to be impartial in judgment, to treat the
parties identically, or to refrain from forming and expressing views. It
undertakes that its field-constitutive decisions will not come to track any
party’s preferences: that access, hosting, procedure, channel and agenda will
be administered without regard to which party benefits. The undertaking is one
of non-capture in the sense defined in
Section 5.3.

Three features of this undertaking make it hard to evidence. It concerns the
grounds of decisions rather than their content, and grounds are not observable.
It concerns a disposition over an indefinite future rather than a discrete act.
And its satisfaction is largely invisible, since a custodian that has not been
captured looks exactly like a custodian that has not yet been approached. What
a stranger can observe is a record of decisions, from which the grounds must be
inferred; and the inference is weak precisely where the custodian has not yet
faced a serious attempt at capture.

5.2 Three Deficits of the Isolated Individual Position

The comparison of Section 5.2 can now be stated as the
paper’s diagnosis. Relative to an office, an individual undertaking lacks
duration, observability, and cost of exit. Each corresponds to something a
counterparty relies on when it credits an institutional undertaking, and each
is absent for reasons independent of the individual’s sincerity.

The literature surveyed in Section 6.6 forces a
qualification on this diagnosis, and the qualification is adopted rather than
resisted. Diamond merchants, ranchers, medieval traders and the participants in
Gambetta’s study sustain credible commitments without any sovereign
(Bernstein, 1992; Ellickson, 1991; Greif, 1993; Gambetta, 2009). They do so because a
community supplies what the individual lacks: it persists beyond any member, it
observes and records conduct, and it can exclude, which makes departure
expensive. The deficits are therefore deficits of the isolated
individual rather than of the individual as such.

That correction does not dissolve the problem and it changes its shape. If the
three properties are supplied by a community rather than by the individual,
then the question is no longer how an individual generates credibility but how
an individual comes to stand within a structure that supplies it, and on what
terms. Two consequences follow and are developed later. The remedy is
necessarily relational, which
Section 10.2 states as a general claim about
commitment devices. And the structure that supplies the properties acquires
authority over the individual who depends on it, which
Section 12.3 treats as an exposure rather than as a
solution.

A residue attaches to the individual position even so. A community supplies
these properties to its members in respect of conduct the community can observe
and cares about. A custodian’s undertaking of non-capture concerns conduct
toward parties who are typically outside any community the custodian belongs
to, and it is not obvious that a professional or local community either
observes or penalises capture by an external party. The deficits are thus
mitigated by membership and not necessarily removed by it.

5.3 Differential Costliness and the Condition of Credibility

The condition a declaration must satisfy is supplied by the literature and is
conceded to it. Spence’s separation result holds that a signal conveys
information only where it is sufficiently more costly for the type that would
misrepresent itself, so that a signal available at equal cost to all types is
sent by all and distinguishes none (Spence, 1973). Williamson locates the
same structure in the commitments parties make to one another, holding that
credibility attaches to irreversible and specialized investment rather than to
statement (Williamson, 1983).

Applied here, a declaration of non-capture is informative only if making and
keeping it is more expensive for a declarant who intends to remain capturable
than for one who does not. A declaration that costs nothing is sent by both
types and separates neither.

The question this leaves is which costs are available. A state posts
territory, institutions and accumulated standing. A merchant posts membership
of a trade whose members can exclude him. An individual custodian who holds no
office, no specialized assets that a counterparty values, and no membership
that can be withdrawn has, at first inspection, nothing to post.

Three candidate costs are available and each has a limitation.
Foreclosure costs are incurred by undertaking not to accept positions
that would be available otherwise, which is expensive in proportion to how
attractive those positions were and is verifiable only by observing that they
were declined. Sunk relational costs are incurred by building
arrangements that others come to rely on, which is the individual analogue of
the accumulation described in the companion paper, and which takes years.
Recruited costs are incurred by placing the determination of one’s own
breach in other hands, which is immediate and which transfers authority.
Section 10 argues that the third is not one option among
three but the structure underlying the other two.

5.4 Demand for Neutrality in Principal-Neutral and Principal-Agent Markets

A property that makes a person valuable in one market may reduce their value in
another, and the undertaking at issue appears to have this character.

Where a role requires acceptability to parties who do not trust one another,
the absence of alignment is the qualification. Mediation, arbitration,
standard-setting, protecting-power work and the international civil service all
select for it, and Article 100 makes the requirement explicit by prohibiting
the acceptance of instruction from any government (Nations et al., n.d.). Call
these principal-neutral markets.

Where a role requires an agent to advance one party’s interest against others,
the same absence reads as a deficiency. Advocacy, litigation, national civil
service and security work select for reliable alignment, and a candidate who
has undertaken never to align is, on the face of it, a candidate who has
undertaken not to perform the role. Call these principal-agent markets.

The conjecture is that an undertaking of non-capture is a positive signal in
the first and a negative signal in the second, and that the same properties
produce both effects.

The criteria applied in one principal-agent market support the second half of
the conjecture, and they do so in terms close to the paper’s own. Eligibility
for access to classified information in the United States is assessed under the
National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, whose factors include allegiance,
whether the individual has conflicting allegiances or divided loyalties, and
vulnerability to pressure or manipulation by a foreign government
(Corporation, 2025). Departmental guidance states the requirement affirmatively:
an individual must demonstrate unquestioned allegiance to the United States and
preference for it over any other country, and where this cannot be established
a clearance is refused (State, n.d.). A demonstrated preference
for one state is thus the qualifying condition in that market, and an
undertaking never to hold such a preference is its negation.

Two qualifications belong with this. The guidelines assess conduct rather than
status, and the same sources record that dual nationality is not in itself
disqualifying and that adjudication proceeds on a whole-person basis
(Corporation, 2025). And the material establishes what the criteria require, not
what happens to candidates. No study of the employment consequences of declared
non-alignment was located in the survey underlying this paper. The conjecture
is therefore supported at the level of stated criteria on the negative side, by
Article 100 on the positive side (Nations et al., n.d.), and by no evidence at
all at the level of outcomes. Section 14 records it accordingly.

6. Registers of Trust Production

Trust is treated in most of the literature surveyed in
Section 6.1 as a single quantity with several sources.
This section proposes instead that trust is produced through distinct
registers, that each carries its own requirement and its own characteristic
failure, and that an instrument securing one supplies little of the others. The
distinction is put to work in Section 11, where the four
instruments are found to operate in different registers.

The three registers are named after Lacan’s division of the psychical field
into symbolic, real, and imaginary orders, and the borrowing requires a
statement of its limits. What is taken is the division and the account of what
each order can and cannot do. What is not taken is the clinical apparatus, the
theory of the subject, or any claim that trust between institutions is
continuous with transference. The registers are used here as a typology of
mechanisms, and the typology stands or falls on whether the three mechanisms
have distinct requirements and distinct failures, which is a question that can
be settled without adjudicating the psychoanalytic theory.

6.1 Trust Produced through the Symbolic Order

In the first register, an undertaking is credited because an order of signs
stands behind it. A title, an office, a form of words, a signature, a
credential: what is trusted is not the person but the position the person
occupies within a system of recognized places, and the system rather than the
person supplies the guarantee.

Lacan’s account of speech supplies the mechanism in its purest form. He
distinguishes empty speech from full speech, the latter being speech in which
the speaker is engaged by what is said, so that the utterance binds in the
manner of a vow or a contract rather than merely reporting
(Lacan, 2006). The founding of a symbolic pact is an act of speech
of this kind, and its force derives from the order within which it is uttered
rather than from the sincerity of the utterer.

Two features of that order matter here. Its guarantee is positional rather than
evidential: the holder of an office is credited without the crediting party
inspecting the holder’s conduct, which is what makes the register efficient.
And the order that guarantees is not itself guaranteed. Fink’s exposition
records the point in Lacan’s terms as the barred status of the Other: the
symbolic order is the position from which meaning is guaranteed, and there is
no further position guaranteeing it (Fink, 1995). Schrans traces the
movement in Lacan’s own development by which the guarantee shifts from
imaginary identification to the symbolic order (Schrans, 2018).

The characteristic failure of the register follows from the second feature. If
the guarantee rests on recognition rather than on evidence, then it fails when
recognition weakens, and it fails all at once rather than by degrees, since
nothing beneath it was carrying weight. Žižek’s account of ideology turns on
the lack in the guaranteeing order and on the forms of belief that persist
around it (, S, 1989), and his discussion of the decline of symbolic
efficiency describes the condition in which the order’s guarantees are no
longer effective even where they are still uttered (, S, 1999).

The register has been examined in the same terms outside psychoanalysis proper.
Work on the psychoanalytic reading of law treats legal authority as resting on
a projected singularity and permanence that masks the plurality beneath it
(Goodrich, 1995), and related work examines how legal orders legitimate
themselves and what their guarantees conceal (Salecl, 1994). These are cited
as evidence that the register’s structure has been analysed for institutions
rather than as endorsements of those analyses.

An individual custodian without an office holds nothing in this register. This
is the precise sense in which Zucker’s institution-based trust
(Zucker, 1986) and Luhmann’s system trust (Luhmann, 1979) are
unavailable to the isolated individual, and it is the deficit that
Section 11.1 finds the international civil service supplying
and Section 11.3 finds a private instrument unable to
supply.

6.2 Trust Produced through Shared Ordeal and the Unsymbolized

In the second register, an undertaking is credited because of what has already
been seen. Parties who have been through something together know things about
one another that no account would have conveyed, and the knowledge is held in
the form of having been present rather than in the form of a statement.

The evidential structure of this register is worth stating precisely, because
its strength has a specific source. What is informative is conduct under
conditions where defection was available and attractive. Compliance where
nothing was at stake conveys almost nothing, which is why duration alone is a
poor proxy: a long relation with no occasion for betrayal supplies few
observations of the relevant kind. This is Spence’s separation condition
(Spence, 1973) restated in the language of experience rather than of
signalling, and it is why Gambetta finds costly and hard-to-fake signals
carrying the weight where institutions are absent (Gambetta, 2009).

The register is the one in which process-based trust in Zucker’s sense is
produced (Zucker, 1986), and it is the strongest of the three for the
parties who hold it. It has two characteristic limitations. It is
slow, because occasions of the relevant kind cannot be scheduled without
manufacturing them, and manufacturing them is a distinct wrong that
Section 14 records. And it is non-transferable: what one
party knows of another through having been present cannot be conveyed to a
third party who was not, and any attempt to convey it converts it into a
statement in the first register, where it is worth what the speaker’s position
is worth rather than what the experience established.

The non-transferability is the structural fact this paper most needs. It
explains why a custodian who has been thoroughly tested by two parties is still
unknown to a third, and why the problem of individual credibility does not
diminish with experience in the way that competence does.

6.3 Trust Produced through Identification and Image

In the third register, an undertaking is credited because the crediting party
recognizes itself in the one who gives it. Shared origin, shared formation,
shared manner, a recognizable resemblance: the party is trusted because it is
read as being of the same kind.

This is characteristic-based trust in Zucker’s sense (Zucker, 1986), and it
is the mode her account describes as eroding under migration and mobility. Its
efficiency is considerable, since it requires neither a record nor an
institution, and Meyerson, Weick and Kramer’s account of swift trust turns
substantially on the categorical expectations it makes available
(Meyerson & Weick, 1996).

Its characteristic failure is that it tracks resemblance rather than conduct.
A party that resembles the truster is credited whether or not it is
trustworthy, and a party that does not is discredited on the same basis, so the
register produces both misplaced confidence and unwarranted exclusion from the
same mechanism. Applied to custodianship the difficulty is acute in a further
way: a custodian is often chosen precisely because it belongs to neither
party’s kind, so a custodian that succeeds in this register with one party has
by that fact given the other a reason for distrust. The register is therefore
not merely weak for a custodian but structurally adverse, which distinguishes
it from the first two.

6.4 Trust Produced across Registers

The three registers are not degrees of one quantity, and the differences can be
stated as a set of contrasts. The first is fast, transferable, positional, and
fails all at once. The second is slow, non-transferable, evidential, and fails
only if the evidence is misread. The third is fast, partially transferable
through shared category membership, resemblance-based, and adverse for a
custodian by construction.

Three consequences follow for the design of an instrument.

Registers substitute poorly. A custodian who holds standing in the first and
nothing in the second is believed until the guaranteeing order weakens, at
which point nothing remains; a custodian who holds the second and nothing in
the first is trusted deeply by a few and unknown to everyone else. Neither
condition is a partial version of the other.

An instrument may convert between registers at a cost. Witnessing converts what
is held in the second register into a statement in the first: a party who was
present attests, and the attestation is thereafter worth what the attesting
party’s position is worth. The conversion is what makes the second register
portable and it is also lossy, and the loss is systematic rather than random,
since what survives conversion is what can be stated in the terms the first
register recognizes.

And the registers fail independently, which is a resource rather than only a
complication. An instrument that stands in more than one register does not fail
when one weakens. Section 11.4 finds this to be the
principal advantage of the international civil service over the alternatives,
since Article 100 and the associated declaration combine a positional guarantee
with a witnessed act and a reciprocal obligation on the parties who might
capture the declarant (Nations et al., n.d.; Nations, n.d.).

6.5 The Registers and the Generative Relational Account

Two points connect this typology to the framework within which the paper
works.

The registers concern what a relation can carry rather than what a person is.
Trust in the second register is not a property of the trusted party but a
product of a history the parties made together, and its non-transferability
follows from that: it is held by the relation rather than by either party, so
neither can take it elsewhere. This is the priority of relations over relata
that relational sociology asserts (Emirbayer, 1997), applied to a particular
object; it is not an additional claim about selfhood of the kind
Gergen develops (Gergen, 2009).

A third connection is to a debate in which neutrality has been examined from
within a relational commitment, and it supplies both support and a caution.
Psychoanalysis maintained an ideal of the neutral analyst and then subjected it
to sustained criticism as relational accounts of the clinical situation
developed (Mitchell, 1988). Greenberg argues that neutrality entered the
clinical setting from a research setting where it belonged and fails in the
clinical one (Greenberg, 1986); Nersessian defends a reconstructed version
against that line of argument (Nersessian, 2007). The debate is not settled
and is cited here for what both sides accept rather than for either’s
conclusion.

What both accept is the position this paper’s companion took: that a party
standing between others is inside the relation rather than outside it, and that
its conduct participates in what it observes. Benjamin’s account of thirdness
develops the consequence, holding that a relation may be mutual and asymmetric
at once, so that recognition runs both ways while role and responsibility do
not (Benjamin, 2004); Aron examines the same tension between mutuality and
asymmetry (Aron, 1996). That combination is exactly the custodian’s
position as the companion paper described it, arrived at in a discipline with
no connection to the study of conflict. The caution is that the discipline
which examined this longest has not resolved whether neutrality is coherent as
an ideal, and this paper’s confinement of the question to credibility rather
than to virtue does not dispose of that difficulty.

And the registers give the companion paper’s conditions a second dimension.
That paper treated relational conditions as arrangements whose presence changes
what relations can be formed. The present typology adds that conditions differ
in the register through which they operate: an accredited venue operates in the
first, a history of joint work in the second, a shared professional formation
in the third. A field composed of conditions in a single register is
correspondingly exposed to that register’s characteristic failure, which is a
consideration in the design of a field that the companion paper did not
identify.

7. Self-Legislation and Relational Enforcement

This section develops the paper’s central result. It distinguishes three things
that are commonly called self-legislation, states what the devices by which
individuals bind themselves have in common, derives the constraint that follows,
and examines a prescription that the evidence contradicts.

7.1 Self-Discipline, Self-Legislation, and Self-Constitutionalization

Three arrangements are distinguished, and they differ in who determines whether
a breach has occurred.

Under self-discipline, a person adopts a rule, observes it, and judges
their own compliance. The arrangement is entirely internal. It may be
efficacious, in the sense that the person does what they resolved, and it
conveys nothing to a third party, because the observation on which any judgment
of compliance rests is available only to the person judged.

Under self-legislation as the term is used here, a person states a rule
publicly, so that its content is fixed and available to others, while the
determination of compliance remains with the person. The statement adds
something to self-discipline, since it makes the rule checkable in principle
where conduct is observable. It does not resolve the difficulty, because a
person who both states the rule and rules on their own conduct under it has
supplied no reason for a stranger to prefer their judgment to any other.

Under self-constitutionalization, a person states a rule and places the
determination of breach elsewhere, so that some party other than the declarant
decides whether the rule has been kept. The difference is not one of stringency
but of who holds the judgment.

Two terminological notes are required. Korsgaard’s self-constitution names a
different object: the constitution of an agent through action, and the
constitutive standards that attend agency as such (Korsgaard, 2009). The
present term concerns an institutional arrangement and carries no claim about
the metaphysics of agency. And self-legislation in the Kantian tradition
concerns the ground of obligation rather than its enforcement, which is why
that tradition faces the arbitrariness objection recorded in
Section 6.4 (O’Shea, 2015). This paper
faces the same objection in its own register: a rule whose breach the rule-maker
determines is a rule whose keeping the rule-maker may redefine.

7.2 Recruitment of Others into Enforcement

The general point of this subsection is already established and the concession
is made first.

Elster’s mature treatment holds, following Seip, that in politics people never
try to bind themselves but only to bind others, and observes that Ulysses did
not only bind himself but also stopped the rowers’ ears, so that even the
paradigm case of self-binding rested on the control of other parties
(Elster, 2000). The private-order literature establishes the same for
enforcement: in the Law Merchant, the register of unsatisfied judgments made
decentralized sanction possible (Milgrom & North, 1990); in the trading coalitions,
exclusion by all members enforced honesty on each (Greif, 1993); in the
diamond trade and in Shasta County, community sanction substituted for the
courts (Bernstein, 1992; Ellickson, 1991); and in Ostrom’s cases, monitoring by
members and graduated sanctions were among the conditions of endurance
(Ostrom, 1990). In none of these does the committed party determine its own
breach.

What the present case adds is the scope of the claim and one consequence. The
scope: the literature above concerns communities enforcing rules on members
whose conduct the community observes and cares about, whereas the undertaking
at issue here concerns conduct toward parties outside any such community, as
Section 8.2 recorded. The consequence is a restatement
of what self-legislation is.

A commitment device renders a self-stated rule credible only by transferring
the determination of breach, in whole or in part, to parties other than the
declarant. The self supplies the rule and a field supplies the determination.
There is accordingly no purely self-imposed credibility, and the term
self-legislation names the origin of a rule rather than the arrangement that
makes it hold.

Claim ? is consistent with capability-removing devices as
well as with delegated ones, and the consistency is worth stating because it
appears otherwise. A person who removes their own capacity to defect has not
retained the determination of breach; they have made the question unnecessary,
and they have done so by an act that others can inspect. The blind trust is
credible because a third party holds the assets and the arrangement is a matter
of record, not because the officeholder has resolved to be impartial
(News, n.d.). Removal is therefore a form of transfer, in which what
is transferred is the occasion for judgment rather than the judgment itself.

7.3 The Commitment Trilemma of Credibility, Revisability, and Retained Authority

Claim ? restricts the space of available devices, and the
restriction has a structure.

Three properties may be wanted of a commitment device. Credibility is
the property that a party who was not present has reason to believe the rule
will be kept. Revisability is the property that the rule can be amended
as circumstances change, which the framework within which this paper works
treats as a requirement rather than a convenience. Retained authority is
the property that the declarant continues to determine what their own conduct
requires.

No commitment device holds credibility, revisability, and retained authority
together. Removing the capacity to defect secures credibility and retains
authority, and forecloses revision. Declaring a rule while judging one’s own
compliance secures revisability and retains authority, and lacks credibility.
Placing the determination of breach with others secures credibility and
revisability, and cedes authority.

The argument is short and follows from Claim ?. Credibility
requires that the determination of breach not rest with the declarant, by
Claim ?. That determination may be made unnecessary, by
removing the capacity, or relocated, by delegation. Removal operates by
foreclosing the conduct and therefore by foreclosing its revision, since a
capacity that can be restored at will has not been removed. Relocation
preserves the capacity and the possibility of revision under whatever procedure
the recipients apply, and transfers to them the authority to say what the rule
requires. Retaining both the capacity and the authority leaves the declarant
judging their own breach, which by Claim ? is the
uncredible case.

A prior result of the same form, and on an adjacent subject, must be conceded
before the relation to other work is stated. Akbarpour and Li prove a trilemma
for optimal single-item auctions in which only the winner pays: no such auction
is simultaneously static, strategy-proof for the bidders, and credible, where a
mechanism is credible when the party running it has no incentive to deviate
from the rules it has announced; and taking the properties two at a time
uniquely characterizes the standard auction formats
(Akbarpour, 2020). The overlap is more than terminological. Their notion
of credibility is the present paper’s problem in a formal setting, since the
question is whether the party who administers a rule can be relied on to
administer it rather than to depart from it undetected.

Three differences separate the results. The properties differ entirely, since
theirs are properties of a mechanism’s form and information structure and the
present ones are properties of the arrangement by which a commitment is
enforced. Their result is a theorem within a specified class of mechanisms,
whereas Claim ? is an argument from
Claim ? and is correspondingly weaker. And their credible
mechanisms achieve credibility by removing the administrator’s opportunity to
deviate undetected, which in the present vocabulary is the capability-removing
corner, so their result concerns the trade-offs that remain once that corner is
occupied. The present claim is offered as an analogue in a different domain and
not as an extension of theirs.

The relation to Sunstein and Ullmann-Margalit’s taxonomy of second-order
strategies (Sunstein, 1999) was stated in
Section 6.3 and is repeated in short form here.
Their categories are classified by the cost and error of the agent’s own future
decisions; Claim ? classifies by credibility to a party who
was not present. Delegation appears in both, and their category of strategies
that export costs to others is adjacent to ceding authority, so the overlap is
real and partial. What does not appear there is the impossibility itself.

Three consequences are recorded. A framework that requires revisability, as
this one does, is barred from the capability-removing corner and is therefore
committed to ceding authority; the cession is an entailment rather than a
regrettable cost. An instrument may be located by which corner it occupies, and
Section 11 so locates the four. And a device that appears to hold
all three is either not credible, not revisable, or has ceded authority without
saying so, which supplies a diagnostic that Section 11.3
applies to the author’s own instrument.

7.4 Verifiability, Artifacts, and the Backfire of Disclosure

Claim ? says where the determination of breach must sit. It
says nothing about what the parties holding it can observe, and a determination
that cannot be made cheaply will not be made.

Two design requirements follow directly. A rule must be stated in terms whose
breach is observable, so that a rule against accepting instruction from a
government is checkable in a way that a rule to maintain relational integrity is
not. And the conduct governed should generate durable traces, so that the check
requires the declarant’s cooperation as little as possible. The Law Merchant
supplies the model: what made decentralized sanction possible was a maintained
record of who had satisfied judgments (Milgrom & North, 1990).

The evidence bearing on the second requirement is adverse and this subsection
is written around it.

Cain, Loewenstein and Moore examined the disclosure of conflicts of interest
and found effects running against the intention of the practice
(Cain & Loewenstein, 2005; Cain & Loewenstein, 2011). Recipients of advice discounted biased advice
insufficiently even when the bias was disclosed. And disclosure altered the
conduct of the advisers, who exaggerated further when their interest had been
declared, an effect the authors attribute to moral licensing and to strategic
anticipation of the recipient’s discounting. The disclosure therefore increased
the bias while failing to correct for it.

The blind trust exhibits the same structure in an institutional form. The device
is presented as removing the officeholder’s knowledge of their holdings, and
the standing criticism is that the officeholder knows what was placed into the
trust, so that the arrangement functions as an appearance rather than a
constraint (News, n.d.). What the artifact then supplies is a
publicly citable fact of compliance that does not correspond to a constraint on
conduct.

Two conclusions follow and the first is a retraction. The prescription that
commitment rules should generate artifacts is not sound as stated, because an
artifact that certifies compliance without constraining conduct may improve the
declarant’s standing while worsening what the standing is taken to guarantee.
The prescription survives only in a narrower form.

An artifact contributes to credibility only where it is costly to produce
falsely and verifiable by a party other than the declarant. An artifact that is
cheap to produce and that certifies compliance without exposing conduct to
independent check transfers credibility to the declarant while transferring no
constraint, and may worsen the conduct it reports.

Claim ? is a restriction on Claim ?
rather than an exception to it. The parties recruited must be able to determine
breach; an artifact that reports compliance without permitting that
determination has not recruited them but has instead supplied them with a
substitute for judgment. The distinction is between an artifact that carries
evidence and an artifact that carries a claim, and in the register vocabulary of
Section 9 it is the distinction between a trace that survives
in the second register and an utterance that operates in the first.

8. Case Study: Instruments of Individual Independence

This section examines four instruments against the questions stated in
Section 7.1: what the instrument requires the committed
party to give up, who determines breach, what a stranger can check without the
committed party’s cooperation, and what remains revisable.

8.1 The International Civil Service

The regime described in Section 5.1 combines three
devices that this paper has treated separately, and the combination is its
distinguishing feature.

The rule is stated. Article 100 provides that the Secretary-General and the
staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any
other authority external to the Organization, and shall refrain from action
reflecting on their position as officials responsible only to the Organization
(Nations et al., n.d.). The prohibition is specific enough that its breach is in
principle observable, which satisfies the first requirement of
Section 10.4.

The rule is undertaken individually and witnessed. Each staff member makes a
written declaration, witnessed by the Secretary-General or an authorized
representative, promising to regulate their conduct with the interests of the
Organization only in view and neither to seek nor to accept instructions from
any government or other external source (Nations, n.d.). In the
vocabulary of Section 9.4, the witnessing converts a
private undertaking into an act within the symbolic register, where it carries
the weight of the position of the party who witnessed it.

The parties who might capture the declarant are themselves bound. Article
100’s second paragraph commits each member state to respect the exclusively
international character of the staff’s responsibilities and to refrain from
seeking to influence them (Nations et al., n.d.). This has no counterpart in the
other three instruments and it addresses the problem from the side the others
leave open, since the other three constrain only the party who might be
captured.

Located against Claim ?, the regime occupies the delegated
corner. Breach is determined by the Organization rather than by the staff
member; the arrangement is revisable, since regulations and rules are amended;
and authority over what the undertaking requires rests with the employer. The
cost is exactly the one the trilemma predicts. An international civil servant
who disputes the Organization’s construction of their duty has no independent
standing from which to do so, and the independence secured against states is
purchased by dependence on the institution.

8.2 Recusal, Blind Trusts, and Auditor Independence

Three professional devices resolve the trade-off differently from one another,
which is why they are grouped rather than treated as one.

Recusal operates on the occasion rather than on the disposition. The
officeholder is removed from the particular matter in which an interest arises,
and nothing is asked of their conduct in matters from which they are not
removed. The device is an instance of the maxim that no one should judge in
their own cause, and its economy is considerable: it requires no undertaking
about the future and no assessment of anyone’s state of mind. Its limitation is
that it presupposes the interest can be identified in advance and that the
matters are separable, neither of which holds for a custodian whose undertaking
concerns a standing disposition across an indefinite set of future occasions.

The blind trust operates by removing a capacity, and it is the clearest
instance of the capability-removing corner of Claim ?. Assets
are placed with a trustee so that the officeholder cannot know what they hold
and therefore cannot be influenced by holdings they cannot identify. The device
is credible in the way that removal is credible, and the standing criticism is
that the removal is incomplete: the officeholder knows what was placed into the
trust, so that the arrangement is described by critics as an appearance rather
than a constraint (News, n.d.). The criticism is exactly the
distinction drawn in Claim ?, between an artifact that
carries evidence and one that carries a claim.

Auditor independence operates through a standard rather than through an
occasion or a capacity, and it separates two things this paper has kept
together. Professional frameworks require independence in fact together with
independence in appearance: the first is a state of mind permitting a
conclusion without being affected by influences that compromise professional
judgment, and the second is the avoidance of circumstances that would lead a
reasonable and informed third party to conclude that objectivity had been
compromised (Anon, 2024). The requirement is treated as
fundamental to public confidence (Accountants, 2022), and the frameworks
identify categories of threat, including self-interest, self-review, advocacy,
familiarity, and intimidation, against which safeguards are to be applied.

The two limbs correspond to two of this paper’s concerns and the correspondence
is worth stating. Independence in fact is the undertaking whose credibility
Section 8.1 found hard to evidence, since it concerns
grounds rather than conduct. Independence in appearance is a requirement about
what a third party would conclude, which is a requirement on observables and
therefore checkable. That professional practice separates them, and requires
both, is evidence that the difficulty this paper identifies is recognized in
the field and addressed by requiring the checkable limb alongside the one that
matters.

8.3 A Disclosed Personal Instrument

The author has constructed an instrument of the kind this paper theorises. It
is described here, evaluated by the criteria applied above, and reported as
failing several of them. The interest this creates is declared in the front
matter.

The instrument is a personal declaration of permanent independence from state
authority. Its operative content is four abstentions: from holding a career
civil-service post or political appointment in any state; from joining any
state’s armed forces, intelligence services, or national security apparatus;
from exercising administrative, diplomatic, law-enforcement or other coercive
public authority for any state; and from accepting any position requiring
exclusive political allegiance to a single state. It expressly reserves
international organization work, work with non-governmental and non-profit
bodies, independent research, university and educational work, public policy
research, and peace mediation. Publication was contemplated as a personal page
together with a timestamped record, and in several languages.

Three features favour it. The abstentions are stated as conduct rather than as
disposition, so that their breach is observable in the way
Section 10.4 requires: holding a named post is a
public fact. They are differentially costly in the sense of
Section 8.3, since they foreclose the state-employment and
security career paths, and the foreclosure is expensive in proportion to how
available those paths were. And the reservation clause performs a function the
paper has not previously named, since by stating what the declarant will
continue to do it prevents the abstentions from being read as a withdrawal from
all public activity, which would make the instrument a statement about
inclination rather than about capture.

Four failures are reported.

The instrument occupies the corner Claim ? identifies as
uncredible. The rule is stated publicly and the determination of breach remains
with the declarant, since no party is designated to decide whether an
abstention has been violated, and none is under any obligation to look. By
Claim ? this is the case in which credibility is not
produced, and the instrument as constituted is therefore a statement rather
than a commitment device.

Publication supplies observability of the rule and not of the conduct. A
timestamped record establishes what was undertaken and when, which addresses
one deficit of Section 8.2 and leaves the other two
untouched. Nothing about the instrument makes the declarant’s subsequent
conduct visible, and nothing about it survives the declarant.

The instrument produces no artifact meeting Claim ?. What it
generates is a declaration, which is an utterance in the first register of
Section 9 whose weight is that of the declarant’s own
position. Since the declarant’s position is what the instrument exists to
establish, the artifact certifies its author.

And nothing binds the parties who might capture the declarant. This is the
feature that distinguishes the international civil service regime, and its
absence here is not a defect of drafting but a limit of the private form: a
private person cannot impose obligations on states.

The instrument therefore fails as a commitment device and does something else
which is worth distinguishing. It fixes the content of an undertaking, dates
it, and makes it public, which are the conditions under which a later
determination by others becomes possible. In the terms of
Section 10.1 it is self-legislation and not
self-constitutionalization, and its value lies in what could be built on it
rather than in what it presently accomplishes.

8.4 Findings of the Comparison

Table 2 locates the four instruments.

| @P0.16P0.15YY@

Instrument	Trilemma corner	Determination of breach	Available to a stranger
International civil service	Delegated	The Organization, under staff regulations and rules	The Charter provision, the rule, the fact of the witnessed declaration, and the reciprocal obligation on states
Recusal	Capability removal, occasion by occasion	The court or body, on stated grounds	The fact and the grounds of withdrawal from a named matter
Blind trust	Capability removal	The trustee arrangement, by construction	The existence and terms of the trust, but not what the officeholder recalls placing in it
Auditor independence	Delegated, with a standard	Professional and regulatory bodies applying a threats-and-safeguards framework	Circumstances bearing on independence in appearance
Personal declaration	Bare declaration	The declarant	The content and date of the undertaking, and nothing about conduct under it

Table. Four instruments of individual independence

Three findings follow.

The instruments differ in which corner they occupy and none occupies more than
one, which is the comparative evidence for Claim ?. The
evidence is weak in the way a four-case comparison is weak, and it would be
defeated by a single instrument holding all three properties.

The international civil service is the only instrument that binds the parties
who might capture the committed individual. The other three constrain the
individual alone, and therefore address the problem from one side. This is the
principal finding of the comparison and it identifies what a private instrument
structurally cannot do, since obligations on states are not within a private
person’s power to create.

And the instruments that work best are the ones that require the least of
anyone’s state of mind. Recusal asks nothing about disposition; the blind trust
asks nothing about resolve; Article 100 asks for a declaration and then relies
on an employer to enforce it. The instrument examined in
Section 11.3 asks the most about disposition and supplies
the least by way of enforcement, which is the same finding stated from the
other end.

9. Fragility, Entrapment, and Depletion

The preceding sections concerned how credibility is produced. This section
concerns how it is lost, and identifies three exposures that attach to the
individual position rather than to any particular instrument.

9.1 The Fragility Asymmetry of a Short Record

Reputation is a belief held by others about a party’s type, revised as conduct
is observed. The formal treatment of reputation in repeated interaction rests
on exactly this structure, in which a small prior probability that a party is
of a committed type sustains behaviour that would otherwise unravel, and in
which observed conduct updates that probability
(Kreps et al., 1982; Kreps, 1982; Milgrom, 1982).

Two consequences follow for a party whose record is short, and they are
consequences of the updating structure rather than of anything about
individuals.

A belief supported by few observations moves further when a new observation
arrives. An institution with a long record of consistent conduct has a belief
about it that a single inconsistent act shifts slightly; an individual with a
short record has a belief that the same act may reverse. The individual’s
reputation is therefore more volatile in both directions, which makes it
quicker to establish and quicker to destroy than the volatility of the belief
alone would suggest.

Volatility is not symmetric in practice, and the second consequence follows
from that. Slovic’s account of trust in risk management states an asymmetry
principle: trust-relevant favourable characteristics are judged to require many
instances to establish and few to lose, and sources conveying trust-destroying
information are judged more credible than sources conveying the reverse
(Slovic, 1993). Combined with the short record, the effect compounds. An
individual custodian’s standing is built slowly by observations that each move
the belief little in the favourable direction, and can be undone by a single
observation that moves it far in the unfavourable one.

An individual custodian’s reputation is both harder to establish and easier to
destroy than that of an institution performing the same function, because the
belief rests on fewer observations and because unfavourable observations are
weighted more heavily than favourable ones.

Claim ? is an inference from the updating structure together
with the asymmetry finding, and is not a result stated in either literature.
The design consequence is the part that matters. An instrument designed for
maximum stringency maximizes the number of ways in which a single observation
can be unfavourable, which is the wrong objective for a party whose belief is
supported by few observations. The correct objective is robustness to single
events: fewer undertakings, each stated in terms whose breach is unambiguous,
with a procedure for contesting an alleged breach before the belief is revised.
The instrument examined in Section 11.3 has the first two
properties and lacks the third.

9.2 Entrapment and the Stringency Trap

A published undertaking supplies a party who wishes to damage the declarant
with a specification of what would constitute damage. The more stringent and
the more numerous the undertakings, the larger the set of circumstances that
can be arranged or represented as a breach.

The exposure has two forms. In the first, a violation is manufactured: the
declarant is placed in circumstances designed to produce conduct falling within
the terms of an abstention, or appearing to. In the second, no arrangement is
necessary and an ambiguous episode is characterized as a breach, which succeeds
where the terms admit interpretation and where, by Claim ?,
the unfavourable characterization is weighted heavily against a short record.

An institution is protected against both by properties an individual lacks. Its
record absorbs a single episode; it has a procedure for contesting a
characterization; and it can survive the interval during which a contested
matter is resolved. A private declarant has no procedure, no interval, and no
reserve of prior observations.

Two design consequences follow and they are in tension with the intuition that
a stronger undertaking is a better one. Undertakings should be few and their
terms unambiguous, since ambiguity is the surface on which the second form
operates. And an instrument should specify in advance how an alleged breach is
to be examined, which is a further reason for the delegated corner of
Claim ?: the party that determines breach is also the party
that can decline to find one.

The practice this describes is documented, though for a different class of
target. Ledeneva’s study of informal practices in post-Soviet politics examines
kompromat, compromising material that may be collected, stored, traded,
or deployed strategically against a public figure, and records that much of its
force lies in its unpublished form, where the threat of release is used to
alter conduct rather than to destroy standing (Ledeneva, 2006). The
practice has received treatment in the literature on media and scandal
(Tumber & Waisbord, n.d.). Two features of it bear on the account. The material
may be genuine or fabricated and operates either way, which is the second form
of the exposure described above. And its unpublished use is coercive rather
than destructive, which identifies a route to capture that the paper has not
otherwise named: a custodian may be induced to concede by the prospect of a
disclosure that has not occurred.

What the literature examines is politicians, officials, and business figures,
and its object is standing in general rather than a published undertaking in
particular. The application here, in which a declarant’s own stated
abstentions supply the specification of what would constitute a breach, is not
found in that literature and is advanced on the argument given above.
Section 14 records the claim as supported in its general form
and unsupported in its specific one.

9.3 Capture of the Enforcement Community

Claim ? holds that credibility requires transferring the
determination of breach to others. Those others thereby acquire authority over
the declarant, and nothing in the arrangement makes them incorruptible.

The exposure is structural rather than incidental. A party that wishes to
capture a custodian has two routes: the custodian, and whoever determines
whether the custodian has been captured. The second is frequently the cheaper,
because a determining body is smaller, is often less visible than the custodian
whose conduct it superintends, and holds an authority whose exercise is not
itself superintended. The remedy for capture therefore reproduces the problem
one level up, and it does so in a form that is harder to observe.

Three observations bound the exposure without removing it. A determining body
whose findings are published exposes its own conduct to the same inference that
the custodian’s conduct is exposed to, which is one reason the artifact
condition of Claim ? matters at this level as well. A
distributed determination, in which several parties must concur, raises the
cost of capture in proportion to the number and independence of the parties,
which is the structure the private-order communities exhibit
(Milgrom & North, 1990; Greif, 1993; Ostrom, 1990). And a determining body that has its
own reputation at stake in the accuracy of its findings has an interest against
capture, which is the mechanism by which certification bodies are supposed to
function and which fails when the body’s reputation is less valuable to it than
the relationship it is asked to protect.

The exposure is not eliminable within the account. A regress of determining
bodies terminates somewhere, and wherever it terminates the terminating party
determines its own breach. What the account can say is that the regress should
terminate as far from the interested parties as the arrangement permits, and
that the termination point should be visible rather than implicit.

9.4 The Custodial Burden and Depletion

A final exposure concerns the cost of occupying the position rather than the
loss of it.

A custodian is asked, repeatedly and by both parties, to demonstrate that it
has not been captured. Each demand is particular, arrives at a moment chosen by
the party making it, and is answered by an act rather than by a rule.
Refusal is legible to the party refused and largely invisible to everyone
else, so the refusals accumulate as costs without accumulating as a record. The
benefit, meanwhile, is diffuse: what is preserved is the field, which no party
holds and for which no party pays.

The structure of the burden differs between an office and a person, and the
difference is the one identified in Section 5.2. A
demand made on an office is answered by the office’s rules, and the answering
costs the officeholder nothing personally because the rule and not the person
is what refuses. A demand made on a person is answered by the person, and is
answered again at the next demand. This is a further respect in which
Claim ?’s delegated corner is favourable: a rule administered
by others converts a relational question, which must be answered each time,
into an institutional one, which is answered once.

The depletion is not merely a matter of effort. A custodian who is worn down
either abandons the position or begins to answer demands by conceding to them,
which is capture arriving through exhaustion rather than through inducement.
The paper records this as an exposure of the individual position and does not
develop it; a fuller treatment of the cost borne by parties who maintain
relational conditions, and of why that cost is not met by those who benefit
from it, is deferred to separate work.

10. Implications for the Generative Relational Framework

This section states what the analysis returns to the wider framework. It is a
discussion section rather than a further exposition, and it records four
results, two of which qualify positions the companion paper took.

10.1 Credibility among the Conditions of Custodianship

The companion paper treated a custodian as an actor that maintains the
conditions constituting a field, and constrained the instruments it may use. It
took for granted that a custodian is accepted as one. The present analysis
shows that acceptance is itself a condition and one that must be produced,
since a party whose undertaking of non-capture is not believed is not used, and
a custodian that is not used maintains nothing.

Credibility therefore belongs among the conditions the framework treats as
requiring governance rather than among the presuppositions of the analysis.
This is a correction to the companion paper’s scope: the maintenance of a field
depends on a further condition, internal to the custodian’s position, that the
companion paper did not identify.

10.2 The Register of a Relational Condition

Section 9.5 recorded that relational conditions differ in
the register through which they operate, and the consequence for the framework
is worth restating here.

A field composed of conditions operating in a single register carries that
register’s characteristic failure as a systemic risk. A field constituted
entirely by accredited venues and recognized offices fails when recognition
weakens, and does so across all its conditions at once. A field constituted
entirely by histories of joint work is robust to that failure and cannot be
extended to parties who share none of those histories. The design implication
is that a field’s resilience depends on the distribution of its conditions
across registers and not only on their number, which is a consideration the
companion paper’s treatment of field maintenance did not contain.

10.3 The Cost of Revisability

The framework treats revisability as a requirement: no arrangement should
become irreversible, and no interpretation should be placed beyond reopening.
Claim ? shows that this requirement is not free.

A commitment device that secures credibility while preserving revisability must
cede the authority to determine what the commitment requires. A framework
committed to revisability is therefore committed to the cession, and cannot
consistently prefer arrangements in which an actor both binds itself credibly
and retains interpretive authority over its own binding. The cession is an
entailment of the framework’s own commitments rather than a concession to
circumstance, and it should be stated as such wherever the framework recommends
revisable arrangements.

A second consequence bears on the framework’s treatment of interpretive
authority more generally. Wherever the framework holds that an interpretation
must remain contestable, it thereby locates the authority to sustain or reject
that interpretation somewhere other than with the party interpreted. The
capture exposure of Section 12.3 attaches to that
location, and the framework has no general account of how the party holding it
is itself constrained.

10.4 Individual and Institutional Scale

The companion paper closed by observing that a state’s custodianship is
exercised through an office and an individual’s through a person. The present
analysis identifies what turns on that difference and what does not.

What does not turn on it: the constraint on field-constitutive instruments
applies unchanged at both scales, and the registers of trust production operate
at both. What turns on it: the properties supporting a belief in the
undertaking, which an office holds by construction and a person must acquire;
the volatility of that belief, which is a function of record length; and the
structure of the burden, which an office answers by rule and a person answers
by act.

A further scale is visible and untreated. An organisation that is neither a
state nor a person occupies an intermediate position, holding duration and some
observability while lacking the reciprocal obligations that bind states in
respect of an international civil service. Whether the account developed here
applies to such bodies without modification is not established, and
Section 14 records it.

11. Limits of the Account

This section records where the account stops. Several limits were found in the
course of the analysis rather than anticipated, and those are marked.

11.1 Conditions of Falsification

Section 7.3 stated five conditions. Their status
after the analysis is as follows.

The claim that the three deficits attach to the individual position was
qualified during the analysis rather than after it.
Section 8.2 concedes that a community supplies duration,
observability and exit cost to its members, and retains only the residue that a
community supplies these in respect of conduct it observes and cares about,
which may not include capture by an external party. The residue is argued and
not evidenced.

The trilemma is supported by a four-instrument comparison in which no
instrument occupies more than one corner. That is weak evidence of the kind a
four-case comparison provides, and it would be defeated by a single instrument
holding credibility, revisability and retained authority together.

The registers were not shown to be independent. Section 9
argues that they have distinct requirements and distinct failures, and supplies
no case in which one was secured and the others demonstrably were not. The
typology is therefore a proposal supported by argument.

The fragility asymmetry is an inference from two literatures rather than a
result stated in either (Kreps et al., 1982; Slovic, 1993), as
Section 12.1 records. No measurement of the relative
volatility of individual and institutional reputations is offered.

The condition that the paper’s prescriptions might worsen conduct is partly
satisfied. Section 10.4 retracts the artifact
prescription in its original form on the strength of evidence that disclosure
increases the bias it reports (Cain & Loewenstein, 2005; Cain & Loewenstein, 2011), and
Claim ? restates it narrowly. Whether the narrowed form
escapes the finding is not established, since the studies concern disclosure of
interest rather than artifacts of the kind the claim requires.

11.2 Claims Advanced Without Support

Three claims are advanced on argument alone and are marked as such.

The demand-side conjecture of Section 8.4, that
non-alignment is a positive signal in one class of market and a negative signal
in another, was not supported by any empirical literature located in the survey
underlying this paper. It is testable and untested.

The entrapment exposure of Section 12.2 likewise
rests on argument. No scholarly treatment of the deliberate manufacture of a
reputational violation against a custodial position was located.

And the residue argument of Section 8.2, that a
community does not observe or penalise capture by an external party, is a
conjecture about what communities attend to, on which no evidence is offered.

11.3 Sources Not Yet Verified

This draft cites only sources verified against a publisher, journal,
governmental or institutional page. Several literatures the argument would
ordinarily draw on are consequently absent, and the absences are substantive
rather than stylistic.

The diachronic-agency literature is represented only in part.
Section 6.5 draws on the accounts of planning
agency and of resolution (Bratman, 1987; Bratman, 2007; Holton, 2009) and on
reductionism about personal identity (Parfit, 1984), and omits the
literature on identification and on the sourcehood conditions of responsibility,
which bears on whether the undertaking is the declarant’s own in the sense that
would make its abandonment a betrayal rather than a change of mind. Schelling on
commitment and self-command, Fearon on audience costs, and the bonding-cost
literature are absent from
Section 6.2, which is accordingly narrower than the
field it reports. Holmes on constitutions as enabling is absent from
Section 6.3. The accounts of trust as reliance on
goodwill are now present (Baier, 1986; Jones, 1996; Jones, 2012; Hawley, 2014) and
Section 6.1 states the objection they support, which
this paper does not answer: that credibility engineered by design is not trust,
and that an account of how commitments are made believable is available to a
party who intends to defect.

11.4 Extensions

Four extensions are identified and none is attempted.

An account of intermediate bodies, neither states nor persons, would establish
whether the analysis transfers to organisations, which is the case most
relevant to practice.

An empirical treatment of the demand-side conjecture would convert
Section 8.4 from a conjecture into a finding or dispose of
it.

A treatment of the cost borne by parties who maintain relational conditions,
and of why that cost is not met by those who benefit from it, is required by
Section 12.4 and deferred from it.

And a design study of instruments occupying the delegated corner, addressing
how a determining body is constituted, how its findings are published, and how
its own capture is guarded against, is what
Section 12.3 shows to be necessary and this paper does
not supply.

12. Conclusion

A state and a person may give the same undertaking and be believed unequally,
for reasons that have nothing to do with either one’s sincerity. The state will
outlive the undertaking, its conduct is recorded, and defection would destroy
arrangements that others rely on. This paper began from the observation that an
individual holds none of these, and asked what follows.

What follows is that the devices by which individuals make commitments
believable all operate in one way. They transfer the determination of breach,
in whole or in part, to parties other than the declarant, either by relocating
the judgment or by removing the occasion for it. There is accordingly no purely
self-imposed credibility, and self-legislation names the origin of a rule
rather than the arrangement by which it holds. The general point is not new,
and the paper concedes it to Elster and to the literature on enforcement
without a sovereign; what is added is the individual case, in which the
undertaking concerns conduct toward parties outside any community that observes
the declarant.

From this a constraint follows. Credibility, revisability, and retained
authority over the determination of one’s own breach are jointly unavailable.
Removing the capacity to defect secures the first two of these and forecloses
revision; declaring a rule one judges oneself preserves revision and authority
and persuades nobody; delegating the determination secures credibility and
revision and cedes the authority. A framework that requires revisability is
thereby committed to ceding authority, which is an entailment rather than a
regrettable cost.

The paper further distinguishes three registers through which trust is
produced, and finds that they substitute poorly for one another. Positional
guarantee is fast and transferable and fails all at once when the guaranteeing
order weakens. What a shared ordeal establishes is strong and cannot be
transferred to a party who was not present, which is why individual
credibility does not accumulate with experience the way competence does. And
trust by identification is structurally adverse to a custodian, since
succeeding at it with one party supplies the other with a reason for distrust.

Four instruments were compared. Only the international civil service binds the
parties who might capture the committed individual, and it does so by a
provision no private instrument can replicate. The instruments that work best
require the least of anyone’s state of mind. And the instrument the author
constructed, examined here and disclosed as an interest, fails as a commitment
device: it states a rule publicly and leaves the determination of breach with
its author, which is the corner in which credibility is not produced. What it
achieves is to fix the content of an undertaking and date it, which are the
conditions under which a determination by others could later be built.

Two exposures attach to the position rather than to any instrument. A short
record makes an individual’s standing both slower to establish and quicker to
lose, which argues for fewer and clearer undertakings rather than more
stringent ones, and which leaves the declarant exposed to a violation that
another party arranges or alleges. And the community recruited to determine
breach is itself capturable, so that the remedy reproduces the problem at a
level that is harder to observe and cannot be regressed away.

The account is a revisable proposal. It supplies a diagnosis, a typology, a
derived constraint, and a comparison; it supplies no measurement of the
volatility it asserts, no evidence for the market conjecture it advances, and
no design for the determining body its own conclusion requires. It also
retracts one of its own prescriptions on the strength of evidence that
disclosure can worsen what it reports. Those are the next requirements, and the
account should be judged by whether they can be met.

Acknowledgments

The present definitions, constructions, arguments, conclusions, and errors
remain the author’s responsibility. The instrument examined in
Section 11.3 was constructed by the author, and the interest
this creates is declared in the front matter.

References

Zucker, L. (1986). Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior.

Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, F. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review.

Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., Camerer, C. (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review.

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior.

Johnson, N., Mislin, A. (2011). Trust Games: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology.

Ortmann, A., Fitzgerald, J., Boeing, C. (2000). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History: A Re-Examination. Experimental Economics.

Gambetta, D. (2009). Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton University Press.

Gambetta, D., Hamill, H. (2005). Streetwise: How Taxi Drivers Establish Their Customers’ Trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K., Kramer, R. (1996). Swift Trust and Temporary Groups. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. John Wiley.

Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations.

Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge University Press.

Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, O. (1983). Credible Commitments: Using Hostages to Support Exchange. American Economic Review.

Milgrom, P., North, D., Weingast, B. (1990). The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Medieval Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs. Economics and Politics.

Greif, A. (1993). Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: The Maghribi Traders’ Coalition. American Economic Review.

Greif, A. (1989). Reputation and Coalitions in Medieval Trade: Evidence on the Maghribi Traders. Journal of Economic History.

Edwards, J., Ogilvie, S. (2012). Contract Enforcement, Institutions, and Social Capital: The Maghribi Traders Reappraised. Economic History Review.

Bernstein, L. (1992). Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry. Journal of Legal Studies.

Ellickson, R. (1991). Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Korsgaard, C. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press.

Korsgaard, C. (2009). Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford University Press.

O’Shea, T. (2015). A Law of One’s Own: Self-Legislation and Radical Kantian Constructivism. European Journal of Philosophy.

Seeman, B. (2016). The “Paradox of Self-Constitution” and Korsgaard’s Two Conceptions of Maxims for Action. Metaphilosophy.

Applbaum, A. (1999). Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life. Princeton University Press.

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology.

Emirbayer, M., Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency?. American Journal of Sociology.

Gergen, K. (2009). Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community. Oxford University Press.

Lacan, J. (2006). The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis. Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English.

Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton University Press.

Schrans, D. (2018). The Individual and the Collective: Sociological Influences on Lacan’s Concept of the Relation Subject–Other. Frontiers in Psychology.

, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. Verso.

, S. (1999). The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. Verso.

Mitchell, S. (1988). Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis: An Integration. Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, J. (2004). Beyond Doer and Done To: An Intersubjective View of Thirdness. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly.

Aron, L. (1996). A Meeting of Minds: Mutuality in Psychoanalysis. The Analytic Press.

Greenberg, J. (1986). The Problem of Analytic Neutrality. Contemporary Psychoanalysis.

Nersessian, E. (2007). Neutrality and Curiosity. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly.

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and Society. W. W. Norton.

Goodrich, P. (1995). Oedipus Lex: Psychoanalysis, History, Law. University of California Press.

Salecl, R. (1994). The Spoils of Freedom: Psychoanalysis and Feminism after the Fall of Socialism. Routledge.

Kreps, D., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., Wilson, R. (1982). Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory.

Kreps, D., Wilson, R. (1982). Reputation and Imperfect Information. Journal of Economic Theory.

Milgrom, P., Roberts, J. (1982). Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence. Journal of Economic Theory.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis.

Cain, D., Loewenstein, G., Moore, D. (2005). The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest. Journal of Legal Studies.

Cain, D., Loewenstein, G., Moore, D. (2011). When Sunlight Fails to Disinfect: Understanding the Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest. Journal of Consumer Research.

News, C. (n.d.). Carney Set up a Blind Trust, Screens to Avoid Conflicts of Interest. Is That Enough?. CBC News.

(n.d.). Charter of the United Nations, Article 100. Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Codification Division, United Nations.

Nations, U. (n.d.). Staff Regulations and Rules: Duties, Obligations and Privileges, Article I, Regulation 1.1. United Nations Policy Portal.

Secretary-General, U. (2003). Status, Basic Rights and Duties of United Nations Staff Members. Secretary-General’s Bulletin ST/SGB/2003/5.

Sunstein, C., Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1999). Second-Order Decisions. Ethics.

Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Accountants, I. (2022). IESBA Addresses Independence Expectations in Group Audits. Ethics Board.

(2024). Professional Independence Resources. The CPA Journal.

Holton, R. (2009). Willing, Wanting, Waiting. Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press.

Bratman, M. (2007). Structures of Agency. Oxford University Press.

Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.

Akbarpour, M., Li, S. (2020). Credible Auctions: A Trilemma. Econometrica.

Baier, A. (1986). Trust and Antitrust. Ethics.

Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an Affective Attitude. Ethics.

Jones, K. (2012). Trustworthiness. Ethics.

Hawley, K. (2014). Trust, Distrust and Commitment. Noûs.

Corporation, R. (2025). Addressing Common Questions and Concerns from Dual or Naturalized Citizens Regarding the Security Clearance Process. RAND Corporation.

State, U. (n.d.). Security Clearance with Dual Citizenship. Bureau of Diplomatic Security, careers.state.gov.

Ledeneva, A. (2006). How Russia Really Works: The Informal Practices That Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business. Cornell University Press.

Tumber, H., Waisbord, S. (n.d.). The Routledge Companion to Media and Scandal. Routledge.