Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: The Internationalists
WORK NOTES: with Scott J. Shapiro
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE: 1972
WEBSITE: http://theinternationalistsbook.com/
CITY: New Haven
STATE: CT
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Oona-A-Hathaway/501540991 * https://law.yale.edu/oona-hathaway * https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/faculty/oona_hathaway_cv_july_2017.pdf
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Born 1972, in Portland, OR; married Jacob S. Hacker; children: two.
EDUCATION:Harvard College, B.A. (summa cum laude), 1994; Yale Law School, J.D., 1997.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Boston University School of Law, Boston, MA, associate professor, 2000-2002; Yale University School of Law, New Haven, CT, associate professor of law, 2002-2008; UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA, professor of law, 2008-2009; U.S. Department of Defense, Special Counsel to the General Counsel, 2014-2015; Yale University, New Haven, CT, professor, 2009—.
Yale Center for International and Area Studies, Research Associate, 2004-2008; Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, Jeremiah Smith Jr. Visiting Associate Professor, 2006; Center for Global Legal Challenges, Director.
MEMBER:American Society of International Law (2000—), Yale University Macmillan Center Executive Committee (2009—), American Political Science Association (2000-2010), US Department of State Advisory Committee on International Law (2005—), Yale Law Journal Committee (board of directors, 2006-2008), Council on Foreign Relations (2010—), American Society of International Law Strategic Planning Task Force (2015-2016), American Society of International Law Strategic Initiatives Committee (2016—).
AWARDS:Harvard University Eugene P. Beard Visiting Graduate Fellow, 1999-2000; Carnegie Scholars Award, 2004; Director’s Award, MacMillan Center, 2004; New American Foundation nonresident fellow, 2006-2007; Yale University senior research fellow, 2006-2008; Yale University Berkeley College fellow, 2009—; Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence, U.S. Department of Defense.
WRITINGS
Contributor to periodicals, including Harvard Law and Policy Review, Newsweek, Yale Law Journal, Washington Post, Politic, New York Times, International Journal of Legal Information, ASIL Insights, Wilson Quarterly, Foreign Policy, Newsday, Huffington Post, Legal Affairs, Guardian, Nation, LA Times, Time Magazine, Slate Magazine, Boston Globe, Financial Times, Daily Beast, and San Francisco Chronicle. Also contributor to the Supreme Court Extra: Think Progress blog and Washington Post Online.
Editorial board member for Journal of International Law & International Relations and Yale Journal of International Law. Yale Law Journal, editor, managing/articles editor, and editor-in-chief.
SIDELIGHTS
Oona A. Hathaway is most well known for her contributions to the field of international law. Prior to launching her professional career, Hathaway attended Yale Law School and Harvard University, obtaining her bachelor’s degree at the latter and her Doctor of Jurisprudence at the former. She has long been professionally aligned with Yale University, where she has served as both a professor and dean counselor. Hathaway is also affiliated with numerous professional organizations, including the United States Department of State’s Legal Adviser’s Advisory Committee on International Law, the Committee on International Affairs at Yale, and the American Society of International Law’s Strategic Initiatives Committee. Hathaway has authored several articles throughout numerous different academic publications.
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World is one of Hathaway’s books. It was written in cooperation with Scott J. Shapiro. The purpose of the book is to investigate the events surrounding the creation of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, as well as the legacy the pact has left behind. The Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact originally came into fruition at the tail end of the First World War, when nations across the globe found themselves reeling with shock at the devastation they had unleashed upon one another. The pact represented their desire to never see such severe violence unfold throughout the world ever again, and to try and end the occurrence of war for all time. Shapiro and Hathaway present the overall argument that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact has changed the landscape of foreign relations for the better. They in fact posit that the establishment of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact has ended the tradition of using warfare to hash out border disputes and similar types of conflict.
In analyzing the legacy of this pact, Shapiro and Hathaway first look at the origins of the pact’s ideology. According to their research, the pact’s anti-war stance can be traced back to Hugo Grotius, a lawyer from the 17th century. Grotius came up with the idea to question the usage of violence to gain land and resources, and whether these plunders can truly be considered as “belonging” to the victor. From there, society seemed to remold their views on ending war entirely to making use of war only when the situation deems it to be absolutely necessary—which, in itself, is a considerable change from the world’s prior policies of using force to meet one’s goals in the face of any conflict. Towards the end of the book, Shapiro and Hathaway turn the scope of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact toward contemporary events—or, more specifically, the legislation of President Donald Trump and his approach to dealing with foreign nations, as well as the ideas of several other foreign leaders. Shapiro and Hathaway argue that the ideologies of Trump and these other leaders are the opposite of what is presented within the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, and that measures must be taken to restore the world back to its formal, more peaceful order.
In an issue of The Christian Century, Joel H. Rosenthal remarked: “Today’s internationalists would do well to pick up the mantle suggested in this book.” Booklist contributor Jay Freeman wrote: “This hopeful and provocative work will engender debate.” One writer in Kirkus Reviews called the book “rich in implication, particularly in a bellicose time, and of much interest to students of modern history and international relations.” A contributor to Publishers Weekly said: “Hathaway and Shapiro’s conclusion can be debated–but not easily dismissed.” Deborah Pearlstein, a writer in the Washington Post, commented: “The Internationalists provides a great service in illustrating the ways in which law can speak powerfully to individual decision-makers.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Booklist, September 1, 2017, Jay Freeman, review of The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, p. 12.
Christian Century, February 14, 2018, Joel H. Rosenthal, “Depriving war of legitimacy,” review of The Internationalists, p. 38.
Kirkus Reviews, July 1, 2017, review of The Internationalists.
Publishers Weekly, June 12, 2017, review of The Internationalists, p. 54.
Washington Post, September 25, 2017, Deborah Pearlstein, “Book World: War is illegal. Some nations tend to ignore global laws,” review of The Internationalists.
ONLINE
Internationalists Website, http://theinternationalistsbook.com (April 11, 2018), author profile.
Yale Law School Website, https://law.yale.edu/oona-hathaway/ (April 11, 2018), author profile.
Oona A. Hathaway is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and the Director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges. She has published essays and opinion pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and Foreign Policy. She served as the Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense in 2014-2015, for which she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence. She is a member of the Advisory Committee on International Law for the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State and an active member of the US Supreme Court bar. She earned her BA from Harvard College and a JD from Yale Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of The Yale Law Journal. She lives in New Haven, Connecticut.
Oona A. Hathaway is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and Counselor to the Dean at the Yale Law School. She is also Professor of International Law and Area Studies at the Yale University MacMillan Center, on the faculty at the Jackson Institute for International Affairs, and Professor of the Yale University Department of Political Science. She is a member of the Strategic Initiatives Committee of the American Society of International Law, Yale University’s Provost’s Committee on International Affairs, and the Advisory Committee on International Law for the Legal Adviser at the United States Department of State. In 2014-15, she took leave from Yale Law School to serve as Special Counsel to the General Counsel for National Security Law at the U.S. Department of Defense, where she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence. Professor Hathaway earned her B.A. summa cum laude at Harvard University in 1994 and her J.D. at Yale Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal, in 1997. She served as a Law Clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and for D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Wald, held fellowships at Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and Center for the Ethics and the Professions, served as Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, as Associate Professor at Yale Law School, and as Professor of Law at U.C. Berkeley. Her current research focuses on the foundations of modern international law, the intersection of U.S. constitutional law and international law, the enforcement of international law, and the law of armed conflict. She is a principal investigator on a recent grant awarded by Hewlett Foundation to study cyber conflict. She has published more than twenty-five law review articles, and she is the co-author of The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (with Scott Shapiro).
CV: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/faculty/oona_hathaway_cv_july_2017.pdf
Oona A. Hathaway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oona Anne Hathaway
Born 1972 (age 45–46)
Portland, Oregon, U.S.
Nationality American
Occupation Legal scholar, author
Spouse(s) Jacob S. Hacker
Academic background
Alma mater Harvard University (B.A.)
Yale Law School (J.D.)
Academic work
Institutions Yale Law School
Boston University School of Law
UC Berkeley School of Law
Main interests Treaties, international and constitutional law
Notable works The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
Oona Anne Hathaway (born 1972) is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and both founder and director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School. She is also a Professor of International and Area Studies at The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies; Faculty at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs; and Professor (by courtesy) at the Department of Political Science.[1]
Contents
1 Biography
2 Personal life
3 References
4 Works
4.1 Academic publications
4.1.1 Co-Authored Book
4.1.2 Edited Volume
4.1.3 Book Chapters
4.1.4 Peer-Reviewed Articles
4.2 Other articles
5 External links
Biography
Hathaway was born and raised in Portland, Oregon. While in high school, she participated in the We the People and Mock Trial programs as a student at Lincoln High School, where she was also student body president.[2]
She received her B.A. with summa cum laude from Harvard University in 1994 and her J.D. from Yale Law School, where in 1997 she was Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal.[3][4]
After graduation, Hathaway clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1998 Term, and for D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Wald. Following her clerkships, Hathaway held fellowships at Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and Center for the Ethics and the Professions.[5][6] She was an Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law and served as Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law.[7][8][9] She is currently the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and Counselor to the Dean at Yale Law School. [10]
From 2009-2013 and 2010-2014, the last period in which a study was done, Hathaway was one of the ten most cited international law scholars.[11][12] She was both the only woman and also youngest person on both lists. She has published widely and been quoted in the media as an expert on treaties and constitutional law.[13][14][15][16][17] In 2014-15, she served as the Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense, a position for which she received the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence. Her book with Scott J. Shapiro, The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, was published by Simon & Schuster in September 2017 and was launched at an event organized in Washington, D.C., by New America and moderated by its Vice President, Peter Bergen.[18] The Internationalists received wide acclaim by The New Yorker[19], The Financial Times[20], and The Economist[21], among others.
Personal life
Hathaway is married to Jacob S. Hacker, Director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies and Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science at Yale University. They have two children.[22]
Oona A. Hathaway is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and the Director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges. She has published essays and opinion pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and Foreign Policy. She served as the Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense in 2014-2015, for which she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence. She is a member of the Advisory Committee on International Law for the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State and an active member of the US Supreme Court bar. She earned her BA from Harvard College and a JD from Yale Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of The Yale Law Journal. She lives in New Haven, Connecticut.
Depriving war of legitimacy
Joel H. Rosenthal
The Christian Century. 135.4 (Feb. 14, 2018): p38+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2018 The Christian Century Foundation
http://www.christiancentury.org
Full Text:
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
By Oona A. Hathaway and Scott 3. Shapiro Simon & Schuster, 608 pp., $30.00
Almost since the day of its signing on August 27, 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact--formally known as the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy--has been considered a failure. Among students and observers of international affairs it is seen as an oddity and sideshow if not an object of ridicule. As the authors of The Internationalists point out, "three years after the grand pronouncement, Japan invaded China. Four years after that, Italy invaded Ethiopia. Four years later, Germany invaded Poland and most of Europe." In a little more than a decade, the dream of comprehensive peace turned into total war.
What could be more feckless than an effort to outlaw war? Kellogg-Briand, also known as the Paris Peace Pact, rested on sheer assertion. George Kennan, the preeminent historian and analyst of U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century, called it "childish, just childish." Kellogg-Briand became Exhibit A in the realist case against excessive idealism. A mere declaration--no matter how high minded or well intended--could not possibly hold up under the pressure of power politics.
Yale law professors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro turn this case upside down. They argue that not only is Kellogg-Briand misunderstood, it is actually the most profound turning point in international relations in the modern era, hence their subtitle How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Remaking the world is a tall order, and the obscure moment between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II seems an unlikely place to take this stand. But The Internationalists does so with gusto, and the results are an achievement to be reckoned with.
The Internationalists is a manifesto that scales from minute detail to global perspective. Over 400 pages of narrative and analysis are followed by more than 100 pages of footnotes. The story unfolds in novelistic detail, ranging from the origins of international law in the life and work of Hugo Grotius, seen here in his role as corporate lawyer for the Dutch East India Company, to the dramatic scene on the Quai d'Orsay of French foreign minister Aristide Briand (of "long drooping mustache and grizzled face") and U.S. secretary of state Frank Kellogg (with tears running down his cheeks) signing the pact "depriving war of its legitimacy."
Similar drama and detail follow in descriptions of the contributions to this effort by relatively obscure policy advocates such as Salmon Levinson, Nishi Amane, James T. Shotwell, and Sumner Welles. Also featured and fully animated are the great international legal scholars of the mid-20th century Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, and Hersch Lauterpacht. Key moments in the history of international law unfold as a series of interactions between men of great accomplishment who jockey for position in a race toward an unknown and uncertain destination.
Hathaway and Shapiro argue that 1928 marks a complete shift from an old world order to a new one. Before Kellogg-Briand, all states retained the right of conquest. "War was not a departure from politics; it was civilized politics. Indeed, states could not imagine doing without it." The old order supported the imperial age. The new order would be distinctly modern, based on moral progress and the elimination of 18th- and 19th-century barbarisms such as slavery, dueling, and now war.
After the pact, no longer would it be possible for a leader like President James K. Polk to issue a call to arms like the 1846 Mexican-American War proclamation, justifying war as a legal and entirely proper remedy for the collection of debts and redress of grievances. The new order would be based on the idea that conflicts should be mediated and arbitrated through international institutions. Law would replace force.
After 1928, alternative policies were developed to replace war as an instrument of policy. First among them was the use of sanctions. With the rise of free trade and the growth of self-determination, economic power became ever more important as a lever of policy. Other levers included creating barriers and incentives to hinder or foster the movement of people and capital. "Outcasting" became a new way to exert power, rendering severe penalties to parties that did not observe the law.
There is little doubt that the normative shift described by Hathaway and Shapiro occurred. But major questions loom over it. Did this shift matter in the actual conduct of foreign policy? It is hard to see that the trajectory changed to the degree promised in 1928. The law itself may have developed in a certain direction. But was it accepted fully by those in power?
The authors argue that "the choice between power and law is a false one. Real power--power useful for achieving important and lasting political objectives--does not exist in the absence of law." As they put it, "brute force, like rushing water, must be controlled and channeled."
Indeed, the shift toward delegitimizing the use of force as an instrument of statecraft achieved quite a lot. However, the practice of law has shown serious limits. The United Nations Security Council remains deeply politicized and ineffective; the General Assembly and UN agencies are viewed in similar light. Few would put their fate solely in the hands of these institutions.
The list of current conflicts is sobering: Korea, Iran, South China Sea, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and more. The norms ushered in by the 1928 pact have standing, but they are only as good as the powerful forces that will back them up. Norms not backed by force may have eloquence and moral weight, but they do not yield results on the ground. The paradox here is an old one: there can be no peace without the prospect of force to back it up. It was no accident that the founding of the United Nations was followed by the creation of NATO and additional security arrangements.
The question for today is this: In the absence of a globally recognized legal authority, what is the best way to back the norms of peace, nonaggression, and self-determination? These norms will not survive by benign neglect. They require proactive support inside and outside the formal legal system.
The outlook at the moment is not promising. Centripetal forces appear to be gaining as strongmen are ascendant in Russia, Turkey, and even China, where President Xi Jinping has solidified his position as unrivaled leader. President Donald Trump's posture continues to signal American withdrawal from global commitments. "America first" means reducing funding to the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, exiting the Paris climate agreement, hedging on NATO and the WTO, and passively accepting the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Trump's brand of internationalism does not back any sort of values-based legal order. In fact, Trump suggests a completely different direction when he makes statements about seizing Iraqi oil or unleashing "fire and fury" in North Korea. So far, the challenge is more rhetorical than actual. But it is hard to imagine a more direct threat to the internationalist ethos of Kellogg-Briand and its successors.
Today's internationalists would do well to pick up the mantle suggested in this book. Their challenge is to forge a responsible internationalism that is not based on law and organization alone but also musters the power that is needed to support it. This was the project of a century that is rapidly receding. Without correction, these lessons will need to be learned all over again. The cost could be unimaginable.
Joel H. Rosenthal is the president of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Rosenthal, Joel H. "Depriving war of legitimacy." The Christian Century, 14 Feb. 2018, p. 38+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A528711194/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=3384d50a. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A528711194
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
Jay Freeman
Booklist. 114.1 (Sept. 1, 2017): p12.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 American Library Association
http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/publishing/booklist/
Full Text:
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. By Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro. Sept. 2017.608p. Simon & Schuster, $30 19781501109867). 320.973.
In Paris, on August 27, 1928, the U.S., France, and Germany signed the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy; within a year, 62 nations had signed. The so-called Kellogg-Briand Pact, named after the U.S. secretary of state Frank Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand, was forged by diplomats and politicians haunted by the unprecedented carnage of WWI. Given the global horrors of the ensuing 89 years, one is tempted to say "so what!" But Hathaway and Shapiro, both professors of law, strongly assert that the basic purpose of the treaty, eliminating war between national states, is on the cusp of success. Nations no longer consider war, especially offensive war, as a "civilized option." Of course, some of the worst violence since WWII has been within nations, often augmented by the support of more powerful nation-states. Still, the authors maintain that this unfairly maligned treaty has, at least, established a workable framework that already has limited "war between states." This hopeful and provocative work will engender debate.--Jay Freeman
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Freeman, Jay. "The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World." Booklist, 1 Sept. 2017, p. 12. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A509161437/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=0ab33504. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A509161437
Hathaway, Oona A.: THE INTERNATIONALISTS
Kirkus Reviews. (July 1, 2017):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Full Text:
Hathaway, Oona A. THE INTERNATIONALISTS Simon & Schuster (Adult Nonfiction) $30.00 9, 12 ISBN: 978-1-5011-0986-7
"If law shapes real power, and ideas shape the law, then we control our fate"--a searching analysis of contending views of state violence and warfare.Signed into law in 1928 and ratified by the U.S. Senate with just one no vote, the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy effectively outlawed war. It remains in effect. Of course, the treaty, better known here as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, has not had much force. Yale Law School professors Hathaway and Shapiro (Legality, 2013, etc.) work their way through a vast body of data and centuries to examine how such an "internationalist" view of state relations came to be. They begin with the work of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a "corporate lawyer" in a time when the concept of the corporation was new, who had to tease out some thorny problems--e.g., is loot gotten in war justly gained? And what of piracy, especially when committed in the name of a corporation? (Grotius' conclusion: an "employee of a trading company could wage war on his own authority.") Against this "Old World Order" backdrop, Hathaway and Shapiro chart the development of an internationalist ethic embodied by the United Nations, whose constraints on war are less thoroughgoing than Kellogg-Briand strictly interpreted--for in the place of a no-war stance, a "just war" theory has evolved and is still evolving. Where war was once "the mechanism for solving disagreements between states," as the authors write, it has been increasingly seen as the act of last resort. However, they add, given the new U.S. administration, that assumption may be outmoded: Donald Trump entered office on an "anti-internationalist platform that promised to restrict the movement of goods and people across borders," a platform that risks the idea of peaceful cooperation in favor of "zero-sum military competition." Rich in implication, particularly in a bellicose time, and of much interest to students of modern history and international relations.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Hathaway, Oona A.: THE INTERNATIONALISTS." Kirkus Reviews, 1 July 2017. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A497199565/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=6d80a1d5. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A497199565
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
Publishers Weekly. 264.24 (June 12, 2017): p54.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro. Simon & Schuster, $30 (608p) ISBN 978-15011-0986-7
Yale legal scholars Hathaway and Shapiro adopt a fundamentally revisionist perspective on the oft-dismissed Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, positing that the agreement "marked the beginning of the end" of war between states. The pact inspired the human-rights revolution, the use of economic sanctions, and the creation of international organizations focusing on peace. In the wake of WWI, the Kellogg-Briand Pact stipulated that "military might no longer made legal right." The notion was quickly tested, but despite the legal and academic hairsplitting that culminated in the Nuremberg trials, the authors provocatively argue that, since 1945, conquest "has nearly disappeared" as "an accepted procedure for changing borders." The persistence of conflict is best explained by two factors outside the pact's parameters. One is "uncertain sovereignty," where rightful authority over territory is difficult to determine. The other is violence originating within weak states--whose survival is facilitated by the delegitimizing of "predators in the international eco-system." The work concludes with a discussion of sanctioning rule breakers until they comply; the authors describe "out-casting" as a step in the right direction, as a way to limit war's physical and social destruction. Hathaway and Shapiro's conclusion can be debated--but not easily dismissed. Agent: Elyse Cheney. Elyse Cheney Literary. (Sept.)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World." Publishers Weekly, 12 June 2017, p. 54. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A495720701/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=385372ba. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A495720701
Book World: War is illegal. Some nations tend to ignore global laws
Deborah Pearlstein
The Washington Post. (Sept. 25, 2017): News:
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Full Text:
Byline: Deborah Pearlstein
TheInternationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
By Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro
Simon & Schuster. 581 pp. $30
---
With their volleying threats of mutual destruction in recent weeks, neither Kim Jong Un nor President Trump has seemed much concerned that international law prohibits states from starting wars. From what we know of these two leaders, we should not be terribly surprised. North Korea is a serial violator of United Nations Security Council resolutions aimed at stemming its nuclear and missile tests. Trump was elected to the presidency having called into question the United States' engagements with NATO, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, among others. The crisis on the Korean Peninsula follows a string of controversies that have strained the most basic rules of the international order: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's assertion of sovereignty over its homemade islands in the South China Sea and Syria's use of long-banned chemical weapons.
This seems an especially difficult moment to make a persuasive case that the international move in the last century to outlaw war "has largely, if not perfectly, worked." But it is exactly the argument that Yale Law School professors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro put forward in their new book. "The Internationalists" is partly a rich history of the emergence of the modern international legal order and partly an empirical study of the change in war the authors say the law helped produce.
As a legal history, the book is indispensable. It traces the intellectual origins of today's international legal order to the much-maligned Paris peace pact of 1928 - the agreement in which the United States and 14 other nations renounced "recourse to war" as an "instrument of national policy," only to embark upon the most destructive war in world history scarcely more than a decade later. Indeed, a version of the pact's rule would not be formally codified into law until the 1945 adoption of the U.N. Charter, a treaty to which the United States and every other nation in the world is party today, and which prohibits the threat or use of force "against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." But as Hathaway and Shapiro demonstrate in richly researched detail, the watershed moment in legal thought was contained in the 1928 idea: that it was time to abandon the "old world order" in which war was not only a common but also a lawful means of resolving disputes. When war was legal, non-warring states could not impose economic sanctions on an aggressor state without risking their own status as neutral parties; diplomacy was regularly conducted at the point of a gun; and territory belonged to the side whose weapons were best. The move to outlaw war carried logical - and in time actual - consequences for all of these old customs. States that started wars in the new world were now violating the law and could thus be punished by other states economically or even criminally for their transgressions. Agreements concluded under threat of force could no longer be valid. And while aggressor states, of course, still had the power to conquer territory by force, that territory would no longer be recognized as legally theirs.
Among the greatest strengths of "The Internationalists" is the authors' acute attention to the role of individual thinkers, some long overlooked, and to the impact of happenstance - the ways, for instance, an idealist's memo could land in a pragmatist's hands. So it was, for example, that Salmon Levinson, son of German immigrants and Yale Law School graduate, was able to persuade his former Yale classmate and Secretary of State Henry Stimson to proclaim in 1932 that the United States would no longer recognize any international conquest or agreement "brought about by means contrary to" the peace pact. The United States did not join the League of Nations, but with Stimson's engagement it agreed to work with league members to deny Japan the economic benefit of its conquest of Manchuria. Even in great-power politics, personalities matter.
It is a shame the authors don't focus as strongly on personalities in the book's chapters on how the law changed behavior. Instead, they turn their attention to demonstrating statistically that interstate wars resulting in lasting territorial conquest became dramatically less significant after the 1928 peace pact. This shift was not, the authors stress, because interstate war dropped off dramatically after 1928 - that decline did not begin until after World War II. Rather, they argue, it was because most territory taken in wars after 1928 was later returned to its pre-1928 owners or, if not, was far smaller in area than the vast land conquests of the old world order.
Yet even accepting the finding that the nature of land claims changed after 1928, it remains far from clear that this shift in state behavior came about in some measure because of the prewar revolution in law the authors so ably describe. As they acknowledge, the advent of nuclear weapons and the spread of democracy and trade may also help explain the change in state behavior in the latter half of the 20th century. Without greater insight into, for example, the internal deliberations among officials in the United States, Britain and France after World War II, it is difficult to know for sure whether any decision-maker would point to the pact of 1928 - or the legal developments it prompted - as influencing their decision in 1945 to claim no important new territory for themselves.
Understanding whether law makes a difference in states' behavior is a notoriously difficult problem. Governments are complex organisms, led by individuals who regularly reach decisions after consultation with sometimes warring casts of advisers, each one with his or her own reasons for urging a particular action, reasons that can include strategy, morality and law (or none of these) at the same time. In such circumstances, looking at what states do - whether they follow the law or not - can tell us only a little about why they do it.
"The Internationalists" provides a great service in illustrating the ways in which law can speak powerfully to individual decision-makers. An even greater service would be to show us more about what kind of decision-maker it takes to listen.
---
Pearlstein is a professor of constitutional and international law at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Pearlstein, Deborah. "Book World: War is illegal. Some nations tend to ignore global laws." Washington Post, 25 Sept. 2017. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A506374557/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=57c8e3bd. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A506374557