Mark Twain has been quoted as saying, “It is admirable to do good. It is also admirable to tell others to do good—and a lot less trouble.” Twain's perhaps apocryphal aphorism could be adapted to contemporary social science scholarship: It is admirable to articulate and seek to apply new concepts. It is also admirable to tell others what is wrong with their concepts—and a lot less trouble.

Martha Finnemore and Stephen Toope, in their comment on our summer 2000 special issue of IO, “Legalization and World Politics,” seem to be following this adaptation of Twain's advice. They think that our definition of legalization focuses too much on formalized constraints, that it does not relate closely to broader concepts of law, that we are too committed to a rational-strategic approach to politics, and that we do not have a theory of what generates obligation. They do not attempt, in their critique, to produce an alternative conceptualization that attains the breadth they seek without sacrificing conceptual and theoretical coherence. We thought that our own argument was both “dynamic” and “process-oriented,” so we look forward with interest to their attempt to improve on our work. We particularly look forward to a carefully designed research program that will evaluate fairly the many empirical claims that they advance.