1. Antagonistic vs. cooperative play at the table of law
2. Provisional strategic concessions in competitive sport, in view of the final outcome
3. …and in civil litigation
4. Game theory as a framework for rationalizing party decisions in response to one another. A natural fit for non-adjudicative ADR; less so for litigation, where the judge’s presence complicates the picture
5. Litigation and sport revisited: judge as referee. How predictive strategy grows more complex once a judge enforces the rules of procedure
6. Continued: the judge as arbiter of substantive rules
7. Strategy beyond the current stage: considering the decision-maker, in appeal
8. Strategy without considering the decision-maker, awaiting the appeal
9. The legislator as sovereign, necessary arbiter. A certain naivety about human nature (the one of parties and the one of the judge) sometimes leaves the dispute to utilitarian calculation
10. Other times not: late incidental appeal and the prisoner’s dilemma. Why Article 334 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure is a rational rule, preventing a dysfunctional excess of strategic rationality
11. Nash equilibrium and justice in the litigation game