In the last two chapters I have explored the logic of strategic defection, developed a formal theoretical model describing the conditions under which it occurs, and discussed several testable implications that emerge for court-executive relations. The task to which the next several chapters turn is to evaluate how well the model performs empirically by focusing on court-executive relations in Argentina.

To begin to move from a stylized model to an analysis of events in the real world, this chapter focuses specifically on exploring the key assumptions underlying strategic defection. First and foremost, evaluating strategic-based accounts requires establishing ex ante actors' preferences, beliefs, and expectations. In this case, for example, how plausible is it to assume that Argentine judges believed that their fates lay in the hands of incoming governments? Did judges have sufficient information about which government was likely to come to power?