ABSTRACT
Less defensible is the use of an expression as "explicit rationality," which does not even have the merit of being a portmanteau term. Since, in the context, the "absence of indicia of specific rationality" simply means a failure to give grounds for a decision, it has to be inferred, or guessed, that "specific rationality" means the process of giving such grounds. The increasing diversity in the various indices of expectations in modern multilateral agreements, as indicated by holdings of the International Court, may serve to encourage litigation even in cases where one of these indices clearly outlines an anticipated solution. As Eric Beckett has pointed out, participants may be induced to present claims, for various reasons of prestige or diplomatic advantage, even in the presence of explicitly communicated anticipations of present contingencies. The call is not for simplicity in the sense of absence of complexity, for interpretation, whether of treaties, contracts, statutes, and conveyances, is a difficult and complex matter.
