Convergent Flexibility: How International Law Keeps Pace with Technological Change - Article

Aug 30, 2026

The article examines how international law can keep pace with technological change despite the absence of a centralized judiciary and despite claims that legal regimes inevitably lag. It argues that minimizing ambiguity, though tied to compliance, may obstruct application to new technologies. Drawing on psycholinguistics, it distinguishes divergent versus convergent flexibility. A randomized controlled trial with 450 trained legal professionals tests how novelty, legal precision, and incentives affect compliance, complemented by research on legal impacts of chemical weapons technologies such as super teargas and novichok.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages44

Reading Time1 h 51 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

The pacing problem and perceived institutional lag

Resilience of legal rules under disruption

Theory and research design

Convergent vs divergent flexibility

Randomized controlled trial of legal professionals

External validity and chemical weapons case research

Findings and implications

28 Aug 2026 at 13:28:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at [https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms](https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms) [https://www.cambridge.org/core](https://www.cambridge.org/core)[ ](https://www.cambridge.org/core)[https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818326101295](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818326101295) | Convergent Flexibility: How International Law Keeps Pace with Technological Change1
Justin Key Canfil
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA Email: [jcanfil@cmu.edu](jcanfil@cmu.edu) | | --- | | Abstract Ifchange is the only constant, how does the lawkeep pacewith technology? Without a centralized judiciary, international law should be especially susceptible to disruption, yet it can be remarkably resilient in practice. I argue that efforts to minimize legal ambiguity, long seen as integral to compliance, can hinder its application to new technologies. Drawing on first principles from psycholinguistics, my theory differentiates between what I call convergent and divergent forms of flexibility. Unlike divergent flexibility, which gives rise to contestation, convergent flexibility tends to promote consensus, even when(1)technology is unprecedented and(2)regulatory interests sharply diverge. To test the theory,450trained legal professionals were commissioned to take part in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that varied technological novelty, legal precision, and political incentives. Participants collectively contributed 280,000 words over 10,000 hours in defense of their professional legal opinions, offering a novel (agent-subjective) measure of compliance. To establish external validity, the experiment is complemented with research into the legal impact of two breakthrough chemical weapons technologies:“super teargas” and novichok. The findings contribute a general theoretical framework for understanding when and why emerging technologies are legally disruptive. | A common refrain in popular discourse is that law is fated to lag behind technological innovation. Politicians and pundits sometimes refer to this as the “pacing problem,”what Wallach defines as “the gap between the introduction of a new technology and the establishment of laws.”2 Rooted in folk wisdom, the pacing problem has long been viewed as a “a simple but unavoidable principle of modern life,” and even a “law of disruption.”3 This perception is not new. Speaking to the National Academy of Sciences in 1963, President Kennedy lamented that “every time you scientists make a major invention, we politicians have to invent a new institution to cope with 1. Preregistration and preanalysis plan submitted to EGAP (now OSF) on 3 July 2020 (20200703AC) . Determined exempt by Columbia University IRB (IRB-AAAT0630) on 2 July 2020 . 2. Wallach 2015, 251 . 3. Downes 2009. International Organization 80, Spring 2026, pp. 237–280 © The Author(s), 2026 . Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The IO Foundation. This isan Open Access article, distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence ([https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. doi:10.1017/S0020818326101295 28 Aug 2026 at 13:28:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at [https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms](https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms) [https://www.cambridge.org/core](https://www.cambridge.org/core)[ ](https://www.cambridge.org/core)[https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818326101295](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818326101295) it.”4 In recent years, however, many have voiced concern that the pacing problem is“breaking” our most cherished international legal institutions,5 sparking debate about whether to a

FAQs

What does the article mean by the “pacing problem” in international law?

The pacing problem is described as the gap between the introduction of a new technology and the establishment of laws, often treated as an unavoidable principle of modern life.

How does the article explain why international law sometimes remains resilient?

It defines resilience as a norm’s ability to recover or retain viability after non-compliance or challenge. When rules are interpreted inclusively downstream, they can withstand technological shocks.

How is the theory tested in the study?

The study uses a randomized controlled trial commissioning 450 trained legal professionals. The trial varies technological novelty, legal precision, and political incentives, measuring compliance through participants’ legal opinions.

Aug 30, 2026

Upload by Quinn Holloway