![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quippeThe Blurb On The Back:
Since the end of the Second World War, we have moved from an international system in which war was accepted as the ultimate arbiter of disputes between nations, to one in which it was not. This remarkable book, which combined political, legal and intellectual history, traces the origins and course of one of the great shifts in the modern world.
The pivot was the Paris Peace Pact of 1928, when virtually every nation renounced war as a means of international policy. By 1939, however, that Pact looked like a naive experiment. Hathaway and Shapiro show that it was in fact the critical moment of a new attitude to war, and how it shaped the thinking of those who framed a new world order after 1945.
Though this is a book about the power of ideas and their impact upon history, it is peopled throughout by individuals who brought about these momentous changes. The Internationalists is a significant contribution to understanding international affairs, and how great historical changes come about.
Oona Hathaway is Professor of International Law and Political Science at Yale and Scott Shapiro is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Yale. This is a thorough and engaging look at the legal framework underpinning war as a means of dispute resolution and how the Grotius view of “might is right” was overturned with the 1928 Paris Peace Pact, which changed attitudes to the legitimacy of war and formed the basis of the modern international order.
I picked this up because having grown up with a military historian father, I’ve always been interested in the use of war and its effects and because although I practice law, I know almost nothing about the international framework for resolving conflicts beyond what I read and see in the news. I think that one of the strong points about this book is that although it’s written by two lawyers and does go into legal theory, it is written in a very clear way that is easy to follow - I certainly think it’s accessible enough for non-lawyers to follow the arguments that are being made.
Structurally the book is divided into 3 parts:
- Part I - Old World Order;
- Part II - Transformation;
- Part III - New World Order.
Part I focuses on Grotius, the 17th century Dutch corporate lawyer and all around wunderkind whose ideas on international conflict were driven by the needs of his employer - the Dutch East India Company - which wanted to be able to argue that its seizure of the Portuguese ship Santa Catarina and subsequent sale of its considerable contents was validly done. Grotius came up with a treatise that formed the basis for the subsequent justification by nation states of their use of war to both resolve international disputes and seize territory and - critically - keep and use it. Best phrased as “might is right” it drew on historical precedent with the authors doing a fascinating job of setting out historical war manifestos and justifications for war and also to demonstrate how the argument was used in the US to justify actions taken against indigenous populations.
Part II takes place against the background of the fall out from World War I and here the authors focus heavily on the personalities and biographies of the men (including James Shotwell, and Salmon Levinson - who came together and formulated new ideas for the resolution of conflict without going to war. For me this Part was the most interesting in the book because the authors go deep into the personalities and drivers (both domestic and international) of what became known as the Paris Peace Pact or Kellogg-Briand Pact and how it came to be drafted as it was.
They then go into the factors that went into the failure of the Pact, with a specific focus on Japan, whose invasion of Manchuria was one of the triggers for it falling apart. These sections were also excellent with the authors being careful to show things from the Japanese perspective as they were first forced to open up their country, had rushed to try and understand the international drivers with Nishi Amane studying international law in the Netherlands and being heavily influenced by Grotius and his doctrines, which he brought back to Japan and disseminated via school positions. Japan’s misfortune was to seek to implement these lessons at precisely the same time that the Western powers were moving away from war and occupation as a means of protecting their interests. I would have liked the authors to draw out more some of the hypocrisy at play here on the part of the West, although to be fair they do allude to it.
The authors conclude Part II with a look at the fall out from World War II and the way in which the Allies had regard back to the Peace Pact as the basis for the formulation of the Nuremberg war trials and then the use of wording from the Peace Pact as the basis for the articles underpinning the United Nations. Again, I found this all to be fascinating as the authors again delve into the personalities involved and also the politicking that went on between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin while also drawing out the deep links and reliance placed on the Peace Pact.
Part III then focuses on the New World Order with the role of the United Nations and the use of other means of bringing pressure to bear on rogue countries, notably economic and personal sanctions. Here the authors seek to argue that the ramifications of the Peace Pact mean that war is used significantly less than the past (although they admit to certain difficulties in making a categorical statement here) but the main issue is that this book was published in 2017 so a lot of it has been overtaken by subsequent events. For example, the section on how Iran was dissuaded from its uranium enrichment programme has been overtaken by Trump’s reneging on the deal, the sanctions placed against Russia for annexing Crimea has now been overtaken by its invasion of Ukraine while its section on the formation of ISIS, while interesting, has seen it largely driven out following the overthrow of Assad. That is not to say that it is useless, the authors make interesting points about the ways in which countries can find means of applying pressure should they choose to do so and although I wish that they had discussed the increasing role of the European Union (which has really come into its own where Russia and Ukraine is concerned) and the impact on NATO (which is not factored in at all but should have at least been mentioned as an alternative to the UN). In fact the extent to which this Part has been overtaken by events only serves to demonstrate that it is ripe for a new edition to look at how the international order has attempted to meet these challenges.
All in all I found this a really interesting read and one that both held my attention while leaving me feeling more informed about the subject matter. It’s definitely a book that’s worth a few hours of your time if you are interested in this aspect of international relations and conflict resolution.
The Verdict:
Oona Hathaway is Professor of International Law and Political Science at Yale and Scott Shapiro is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Yale. This is a thorough and engaging look at the legal framework underpinning war as a means of dispute resolution and how the Grotius view of “might is right” was overturned with the 1928 Paris Peace Pact, which changed attitudes to the legitimacy of war and formed the basis of the modern international order.
Thanks to the Amazon Vine Programme for the review copy of this book.
Since the end of the Second World War, we have moved from an international system in which war was accepted as the ultimate arbiter of disputes between nations, to one in which it was not. This remarkable book, which combined political, legal and intellectual history, traces the origins and course of one of the great shifts in the modern world.
The pivot was the Paris Peace Pact of 1928, when virtually every nation renounced war as a means of international policy. By 1939, however, that Pact looked like a naive experiment. Hathaway and Shapiro show that it was in fact the critical moment of a new attitude to war, and how it shaped the thinking of those who framed a new world order after 1945.
Though this is a book about the power of ideas and their impact upon history, it is peopled throughout by individuals who brought about these momentous changes. The Internationalists is a significant contribution to understanding international affairs, and how great historical changes come about.
Oona Hathaway is Professor of International Law and Political Science at Yale and Scott Shapiro is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Yale. This is a thorough and engaging look at the legal framework underpinning war as a means of dispute resolution and how the Grotius view of “might is right” was overturned with the 1928 Paris Peace Pact, which changed attitudes to the legitimacy of war and formed the basis of the modern international order.
I picked this up because having grown up with a military historian father, I’ve always been interested in the use of war and its effects and because although I practice law, I know almost nothing about the international framework for resolving conflicts beyond what I read and see in the news. I think that one of the strong points about this book is that although it’s written by two lawyers and does go into legal theory, it is written in a very clear way that is easy to follow - I certainly think it’s accessible enough for non-lawyers to follow the arguments that are being made.
Structurally the book is divided into 3 parts:
- Part I - Old World Order;
- Part II - Transformation;
- Part III - New World Order.
Part I focuses on Grotius, the 17th century Dutch corporate lawyer and all around wunderkind whose ideas on international conflict were driven by the needs of his employer - the Dutch East India Company - which wanted to be able to argue that its seizure of the Portuguese ship Santa Catarina and subsequent sale of its considerable contents was validly done. Grotius came up with a treatise that formed the basis for the subsequent justification by nation states of their use of war to both resolve international disputes and seize territory and - critically - keep and use it. Best phrased as “might is right” it drew on historical precedent with the authors doing a fascinating job of setting out historical war manifestos and justifications for war and also to demonstrate how the argument was used in the US to justify actions taken against indigenous populations.
Part II takes place against the background of the fall out from World War I and here the authors focus heavily on the personalities and biographies of the men (including James Shotwell, and Salmon Levinson - who came together and formulated new ideas for the resolution of conflict without going to war. For me this Part was the most interesting in the book because the authors go deep into the personalities and drivers (both domestic and international) of what became known as the Paris Peace Pact or Kellogg-Briand Pact and how it came to be drafted as it was.
They then go into the factors that went into the failure of the Pact, with a specific focus on Japan, whose invasion of Manchuria was one of the triggers for it falling apart. These sections were also excellent with the authors being careful to show things from the Japanese perspective as they were first forced to open up their country, had rushed to try and understand the international drivers with Nishi Amane studying international law in the Netherlands and being heavily influenced by Grotius and his doctrines, which he brought back to Japan and disseminated via school positions. Japan’s misfortune was to seek to implement these lessons at precisely the same time that the Western powers were moving away from war and occupation as a means of protecting their interests. I would have liked the authors to draw out more some of the hypocrisy at play here on the part of the West, although to be fair they do allude to it.
The authors conclude Part II with a look at the fall out from World War II and the way in which the Allies had regard back to the Peace Pact as the basis for the formulation of the Nuremberg war trials and then the use of wording from the Peace Pact as the basis for the articles underpinning the United Nations. Again, I found this all to be fascinating as the authors again delve into the personalities involved and also the politicking that went on between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin while also drawing out the deep links and reliance placed on the Peace Pact.
Part III then focuses on the New World Order with the role of the United Nations and the use of other means of bringing pressure to bear on rogue countries, notably economic and personal sanctions. Here the authors seek to argue that the ramifications of the Peace Pact mean that war is used significantly less than the past (although they admit to certain difficulties in making a categorical statement here) but the main issue is that this book was published in 2017 so a lot of it has been overtaken by subsequent events. For example, the section on how Iran was dissuaded from its uranium enrichment programme has been overtaken by Trump’s reneging on the deal, the sanctions placed against Russia for annexing Crimea has now been overtaken by its invasion of Ukraine while its section on the formation of ISIS, while interesting, has seen it largely driven out following the overthrow of Assad. That is not to say that it is useless, the authors make interesting points about the ways in which countries can find means of applying pressure should they choose to do so and although I wish that they had discussed the increasing role of the European Union (which has really come into its own where Russia and Ukraine is concerned) and the impact on NATO (which is not factored in at all but should have at least been mentioned as an alternative to the UN). In fact the extent to which this Part has been overtaken by events only serves to demonstrate that it is ripe for a new edition to look at how the international order has attempted to meet these challenges.
All in all I found this a really interesting read and one that both held my attention while leaving me feeling more informed about the subject matter. It’s definitely a book that’s worth a few hours of your time if you are interested in this aspect of international relations and conflict resolution.
The Verdict:
Oona Hathaway is Professor of International Law and Political Science at Yale and Scott Shapiro is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Yale. This is a thorough and engaging look at the legal framework underpinning war as a means of dispute resolution and how the Grotius view of “might is right” was overturned with the 1928 Paris Peace Pact, which changed attitudes to the legitimacy of war and formed the basis of the modern international order.
Thanks to the Amazon Vine Programme for the review copy of this book.
