Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Preview
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World
by
Oona A. Hathaway,
Scott J. Shapiro
4.38 · Rating details · 168 Ratings · 34 Reviews
A bold and provocative history of the men who fought to outlaw war and how an often overlooked treaty signed in 1928 was among the most transformative events in modern history.
On a hot summer afternoon in 1928, the leaders of the world assembled in Paris to outlaw war. Within the year, the treaty signed that day, known as the Peace Pact, had been ratified by nearly every state in the world. War, for the first time in history, had become illegal the world over. But the promise of that summer day was fleeting. Within a decade of its signing, each state that had gathered in Paris to renounce war was at war. And in the century that followed, the Peace Pact was dismissed as an act of folly and an unmistakable failure. This book argues that that understanding is inaccurate, and that the Peace Pact ushered in a sustained march toward peace that lasts to this day.
The Internationalists tells the story of the Peace Pact by placing it in the long history of international law from the seventeenth century through the present, tracing this rich history through a fascinating and diverse array of lawyers, politicians and intellectuals—Hugo Grotius, Nishi Amane, Salmon Levinson, James Shotwell, Sumner Welles, Carl Schmitt, Hersch Lauterpacht, and Sayyid Qutb. It tells of a centuries-long struggle of ideas over the role of war in a just world order. It details the brutal world of conflict the Peace Pact helped extinguish, and the subsequent era where tariffs and sanctions take the place of tanks and gunships.
The Internationalists examines with renewed appreciation an international system that has outlawed wars of aggression and brought unprecedented stability to the world map. Accessible and gripping, this book will change the way we view the history of the twentieth century—and how we must work together to protect the global order the internationalists fought to make possible. (less)
GET A COPY
Kobo
Online Stores ▾
Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 608 pages
Published September 12th 2017 by Simon Schuster
ISBN
1501109863 (ISBN13: 9781501109867)
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
(showing 1-30)
Rating details
Sort: Default
|
Filter
Sep 28, 2017Lord_Humungus rated it really liked it
Recommends it for: fans of history, war, international relations
Recommended to Lord_Humungus by: Steven Pinker
Shelves: biography, e-copy, history, politics, war, diplomacy
Review in English and Spanish (below)
English
“The Internationalists” is a history of international laws on war. Steven Pinker recommended it as “one of the most important books on war”. I think Pinker is too honest an intellectual to say something like that about a book only because he is quoted in it, so I’ve read it.
The book’s provocative thesis is that the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 changed the world. Usually this treaty, also known as the Pact of Paris, is taken as a failed treaty in which the powers renounced to the use of war as a method to resolve disputes, and then, not much later, managed to tangle themselves in the Second World War. However, according to the authors, the Pact laid the seed for a slow revolution in international law, and brought about the change from the Old Order, systematized by Hugo Grotius, in which war was legal; conquest was legitimate; gunboat diplomacy was binding; and “neutrality” meant not to take sides even in commerce; to the New World Order in which we live now, and in which war is illegal; conquests are not recognized; and aggressions are fought with increasingly intelligent economic and trade sanctions. A system that is not perfect, but that works considerably better than the old one, as the authors prove quite convincingly.
Another idea of the book that seems important is that the dilemma is inescapable, and we have to choose. International law is a system. You can’t take a bit from here and a little from there and keep the better rules. War can either be legal or illegal. And each of the two alternatives inexorably leads to a different system, with all its sub-rules. The only alternative to the current system would be a world government, and that too has its risks and would also work imperfectly (although the authors do not dwell on that issue).
Also, the number of sovereign states is increasing, in part because with the New Order that the illegalization of war has brought, states no longer have to be big and powerful to be safe, and, contrary to what one would think, that leads to less INTERstate wars, but more INTRAstate wars (civil wars and secession processes).
The heroes of the story are the internationalists, lawyers and diplomats who acted behind the scenes for a better world, and that until now had kept themselves below my radar, but whom I have come to admire deeply: Salmon Levinson, James T. Shotwell, Sumner Welles, and Hersch Lauterpacht. They attained their objective in successive small steps and, notwithstanding their historical importance, it’s the first time I hear their names. One of the objectives of the authors is to rescue them from oblivion.
The book is very well written and enjoyable. The passages about Carl Schmitt, the nazis and the Nuremberg trials were amazing. At the end there are some statistical graphs about war. There are extensive references and bibliography, but no index.
A good book. Recommended to those who love history and are interested in international relations.
Español:
“The Internationalists” es una historia de las leyes internacionales sobre la guerra. Steven Pinker lo recomendó como “uno de los libros más importantes que se han escrito acerca de la guerra”. Creo que Pinker es un intelectual demasiado honesto como para decir algo así de un libro sólo porque le citen en él, así que me lo he leído.
La provocativa tesis del libro es que el pacto Kellogg-Briand de 1928 cambió el mundo. Habitualmente este tratado, también llamado Pacto de París, se toma como un tratado fallido en el que las potencias renunciaron al uso de la guerra como método para resolver disputas, para poco después meterse en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, según los autores, el Pacto sentó la semilla para una lenta revolución en la legislación internacional, y provocó el cambio desde el Viejo Orden, sistematizado por Hugo Grotius, y en el cual la guerra era legal; la conquista era legítima; la diplomacia de trabuco era vinculante; y la “neutralidad” obligaba a no tomar partido ni siquiera en el comercio; hasta el Nuevo Orden en el que vivimos ahora, y en el que la guerra es ilegal, las conquistas no se reconocen; y las agresiones se combaten mediante sanciones económicas y comerciales cada vez más inteligentes. Un sistema que no es perfecto, pero que funciona considerablemente mejor que el antiguo, como los autores demuestran de manera bastante convincente.
Otra idea del libro que me parece importante es que el dilema es ineludible y hay que elegir. Las leyes internacionales son un sistema. No se puede coger un poco de aquí y un poco de allá y quedarse con lo mejor. O la guerra es legal o es ilegal. Y cada una de las dos alternativas lleva inexorablemente a un sistema distinto, con todas sus subreglas. La única alternativa a lo existente sería un gobierno mundial, y eso también tiene sus riesgos y también funcionaría de forma imperfecta (aunque los autores no se meten más en ese tema).
Además, el número de estados soberanos está aumentando, entre otras cosas porque con el Nuevo Orden que ha resultado de la ilegalización de la guerra, los estados ya no tienen que ser grandes y poderosos para estar a salvo, y, contrariamente a lo que podría pensarse, eso lleva a menos guerras INTERestatales, pero a más guerras INTRAestatales (guerras civiles y procesos de secesión).
Los héroes del relato son los internacionalistas, letrados y diplomáticos que actuaban entre bastidores en pro de un mundo mejor, y que hasta ahora habían permanecido por debajo del alcance de mi radar, pero a los que he acabado admirando profundamente: Salmon Levinson, James T. Shotwell, Sumner Welles, y Hersch Lauterpacht. Consiguieron su objetivo en pequeños pasos sucesivos, y pese a su importancia histórica, es la primera vez que oigo sus nombres. Uno de los objetivos de los autores es rescatarlos del olvido.
El libro está estupendamente escrito y es muy ameno. Los pasajes sobre Carl Schmitt, los nazis y el juicio de Nuremberg son impresionantes. Al final hay unas gráficas estadísticas sobre la guerra. Hay extensas notas y bibliografía, pero no tiene índice.
Un buen libro. Recomendado para aquellos a los que les guste la historia y estén interesados en las relaciones internacionales. (less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jul 03, 2017Ran rated it really liked it
Shelves: 900s, history, read-in-2018
The Internationalists is the work of two Yale Law professors, Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro. So we can make some off-the-bat assumptions here: a) it's dense, b) it's well-researched, c) it's both an intellectual and legal history, and d) it weaves both historical narrative and analysis. This book is a history of the outlawry of war.
In short, their argument posits that nation-states operated in a "might is right" world and waged war on each other to settle disputes prior to the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928. This "Old World Order" is detailed in the first third of the book. After 1928, states operate/d within the international community whereby breaking laws (aggressive war, etc.) found the violator outcasted from the privileges of the community (including what we know colloquially as sanctions, particularly economic). This "Transition" from Old to New is the second third of the book. The "New World Order" preoccupies the last third, detailing on issues such as the Islamic State, Russia's "annexation" of Crimea, and China's claim on islands in the South China Sea.
The End of Conquest chapter details the methodology and data sets that Hathaway and Shapiro used, which found 254 cases of territorial changes as a result of militarized conflict between 1816-2014 and discovered that "Conquest, once common, has nearly disappeared. Even more unexpected, the switch point is that now familiar year when the world came together to outlaw war, 1928." (313)
If you want an overview but not the whole cookie, the Conclusion chapter does a fantastic job of not only summarizing the findings, but placing a call to action to preserve international legal order because current internal and external forces are pressuring the system (rising nationalism, isolationism, etc.). (less)
flag5 likes · Like · comment · see review
Nov 02, 2017Vheissu rated it it was amazing
Shelves: military-and-international-affairs
I can't recommend this book to the general reader, and international legal specialists are already aware of the arguments presented by the authors. Those with an interest in international affairs and diplomatic history, on the other hand, will find the work fascinating and possibly revelatory. As for me, this is probably the most important book that I have read in the last decade.
The authors document the evolution of international affairs from the time of Grotius to today by focusing on the transformation of the laws of war. Simply put, war was legal and central to the relations of states before 1928, but has been "outlawed" thereafter, resulting in unanticipated and unintended changes to the entire body of international law. Before the often maligned and ridiculed Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, war was the basic organizing principle of world affairs and laws were derived therefrom. Conquest, "gunboat diplomacy," lawful mayhem, and the strictures of neutrality were derived from the privilege of states (and sometimes non-states) to use force (p. 97). Once states agreed to abandon the use of force as an instrument of national policy, however, conquest necessarily became illegal, aggression became a crime, coerced agreements were unenforceable, and the strictures of neutrality gave rise to the right to sanction states for illegal actions (p. 304). In other words, strong states were forbidden to prey on weak states, allowing a dramatic increase in the number of sovereign states since World War II.
The rise of new states helped achieve self-determination for billions of previously oppressed people, but it also created a few problems, notably "failed states," which serve as nurseries for transnational insurgencies and conflict (e.g., "terrorists"). It also generated new conflicts within states, even as it reduced conflicts between states. Indeterminate borders left by withdrawing imperialists and the achievement of statehood without authentic nationhood have produced extreme ethnic conflict and atrocities that perplex the world and strain the effectiveness of international organizations like the United Nations.
Part of these problems can be explained by the fact that the full legal implications of the post-Peace Pact world have yet to be understood and codified by the family of nations. It can also be explained by the reluctance of some strong states to honor the legal rights of weak states. In particular, the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council have wielded their veto to protect themselves and their clients, reluctant to forgo their strength in cases where the rights of the weak are at stake, and undermining the purposes of the very institutions that they created in 1945. Although war is illegal, "self-defense" is not, creating a loophole that strong states have abused as a way of masking their lawless behavior (e.g., the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and annexation of Crimea in 2014, China's ongoing seizure of "islands" in the South China Sea).
The post-Peace Pact world also faces existential challenges from Islamism, which rejects the very notion of sovereignty based on the consent of the governed. In response, states have applied force instead of reaffirming and upholding territorial sovereignty as the organizing principle of the modern world. By so doing they have created martyrs and new recruits dedicated to abolishing the rights of individuals under law.
Hathaway and Shapiro ask whether the post-Peace Pact world is worth saving, given that the strong remain determined to trample on the rights of the weak. Donald Trump's "America First" makes no room for international organizations like the U.N., which his supporters view as a means by which the weak handcuff the strong. The framers of the U.N. Charter, fresh from the horror of Nazi Germany's aggression against the weak states in Europe, intended the organization to be a shield for those unable to defend themselves. Conservative complaints about the "failure" of the U.N. are actually complaints about its "successes," few in number and tepid though they may be.
The authors' answer, of course, is "Yes." Readers may come to their own conclusion. I, for one, believe in a world where the weak can flourish alongside the strong. Too many of my fellow Americans, however, clearly believe the answer is "No." What might replace the postwar world order seems beyond their imagination or even contemplation, as long as Trump "Makes America Great Again." (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Nov 25, 2017Adam rated it liked it
Shelves: international-relations, international-affairs
In 'The Internationalists,' Hathaway and Shapiro make an impassioned argument for the institutionalist school of thought on why there has been so little inter-state war since 1928. They argue that the often-overlooked or trivialized 1928 Kellogg-Briand, or 'peace' pact, is responsible for the long period of peace which we now enjoy. To paraphrase, war is now infrequent because we outlawed it.
The book is interesting, but Hathaway and Shapiro make their case a bit too vigorously, taking some aspects of their argument too far, and overlooking significant events during the period that they cover.
The early portions of the book are devoted to Hugo Grotius, who they contend was the forefather of international law in the old world. They also contend that he helped create a legal framework for war, and their scholarship on him really did change the perspective of the Dutch lawyer that I gained from the undergraduate international law. On the other hand, their contention that Grotius somehow 'saved' the legitimacy of war in his age, as opposed to being credited with attempting to circumscribe its bounds, seems somewhat far-fetched. Was war really under any particular threat in 17th century Europe?
Their treatment of WWII in eastern Europe was particularly problematic. Hathaway and Shapiro contend that the signing of the Kellogg-Briand pact in 1928 is more important that more-often cited agreements between the allies in 1944 and 1945 because most of the territory that the Axis seized was returned to the states that held sovereignty in 1928.
They neglect however to explain how this squares with the Soviet Union's participation in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1938 in spite of their acceptance of the Kellogg-Briand pact. Whatismore, their contention that the Soviet Union took few gains from Eastern and Central Europe strains credulity.
Overall, I found this book to be very worth reading because it will likely drive the debate over international conflict for years to come and rightly so. At its best, 'The Internationalists' is an interesting exploration of how power shapes law, and the more novel subject of how law shapes power on the international stage.
(less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Oct 22, 2017John Mosman rated it really liked it
Shelves: history
Such an interesting book, would you believe war was actually outlawed in 1928? Neither would I, yet it happened. The Peace Pact as sign in that year. We we still have war, your might ask, WWII or Vietnam comes to mind. Prior to 1928, war was legal. If one country invaded another, it was legal and both sides, win or lose, were treated the same regardless of who the aggressor nation. The side who won the war gained legal title of the vanquished countries territory, resources and wealth, along with property and the people. After the Peace Pact that all changed. Countries defeating another are not internationally recognized to "own" the defeated country. How? I suggest you read this well researched and well written book.
(less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Oct 14, 2017Daniel rated it it was amazing
The best written book I've read all year. I think it's a great history of the intellectual ideas surrounding interstate conflict between early modern Europe and now. I think its apparently claim that ideas matter more than power is unconvincing, and its analysis of the decline of interstate war is overly simplistic. It's very short discussion of the problems of terrorism doesn't fit well with the rest of the book and is underdeveloped. But it's still a superb read; I enjoyed it so much.
flag3 likes · Like · see review
Jan 03, 2018Molly rated it it was amazing
Shelves: favorites
This book is utterly transformative. The level of detail with which Hathaway and Shapiro approached their task in writing The Internationalists is spellbinding. Not only did they produce a great deal of empirical data, but the book also is sprinkled with asides such as this: "As Nishi Amane would later explain, defending one's borders "is like riding in a third-class train; at first there is adequate space but as more passengers enter there is no space for them to sit."
I learned about how piracy by the Dutch East India Company accidentally led to the modern emergence of international law; how "gunboat diplomacy" wasn't always so metaphorical; how international legal scholars were responsible for many of the political decisions of the twentieth century; how the United Nations Headquarters is located on the former site of a slaughterhouse; and innumerable other curiosities of world history.
This book is not only fascinating in its academic detail, but it itself is a powerful tool for understanding the world in which we live and the international legal order. The authors make no secret of their views on international law and this book may be able to persuade international law sceptics the world over. By the end of The Internationalists, one is encouraged to follow Robert Jackson, a man who served as US Solicitor General, US Attorney General, Associate Justice of the SCOTUS and Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, who declared in 1945 that he was joining those who held an "inveterate belief that international law is an existing and indestructible reality ... in a timely and resolute confession of faith". (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Nov 03, 2017Steven rated it it was amazing
I have studied international law in depth for years, and this book took all of the fun bits and put it together while making a very compelling case for the changing world order since 1928. It is tightly written, interesting, and should be required reading for those who think that international law isn't a thing.
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Nov 01, 2017Avi Grumet rated it really liked it
Most important book about the World Order that I have read.
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 26, 2018Mehrsa rated it it was amazing
What a bold and interesting idea and a new way to view world history. The premise is that there was a law of war before this particular treaty and then a law of war afterwards and that the law actually mattered. There were obviously exceptions and some transition pains (i.e. WWII in which Germany violated the new rules and Japan believed the old rules to still be viable). The book really makes you see modern warfare differently. You can't just seize territory anymore though it is convenient that the two established empires got together after they were done taking land to decree the end of taking land. There is a fascinating coda in which they contextualize the recent Islamic state as a challenge to the established laws of war and describe the clash as not one of power, but of ideas. I am not sure I bought every audacious claim, but it was still fascinating to consider. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Dec 15, 2017Lucas Machado rated it it was amazing
a must read for anyone who wants to understand the world we live in
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Feb 10, 2018Santiago rated it did not like it
This is not a history book. It is a beautiful theory on international law or international relations. Easy to read and beautifully writen too, but untruthful in historic terms.
The main thesis states that the Briand-Kellog Pact of 1928 succeeded in the way war has been considered afterwards. After it, all wars have been considered to be illegal. If we just consider for a moment the 70 million of violent deaths that happened just a decade after and the cruelty of wars such as Korea, Vietnam of Irak in recent years, the whole point of the book does not hold.
It oversimplifies the distinction between the Old World Order (apparently based just on Hugo Grotius) and the New World Order created after the Kellogg-Briand Pact. After the New World Order, for example, wars of conquest have simply dissapeared. The book does not establish a logical casuality between facts and ideas (setting unfulfilled and forgotten laws as a revolutionary change in History). Based in contrafactual story, it denies reality.
Every fact in the book is used with the sole purpose of defending his thesis. But do not let History ruin a good Theory. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Nov 05, 2017trina rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
This book was a fascinating and unique overview of international history, borders, war and peace from a global perspective. It provides great insight into why the borders on our modern day maps look the way they do today and how we arrived at the international laws that we have today. It puts modern politics and 20th century into perspective. Very glad to have read this. Can’t recommend it enough.
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
May 11, 2018Chris Damon rated it really liked it
Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I recall the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact to Outlaw War was almost universally viewed derisively as the ultimate in fanciful wishful thinking undertaken by hopelessly idealistic striped-pants diplomats living in denial of the world’s harsh realities and engaging in a fantasy, of a piece with Neville Chamberlain’s naivete. What more proof is needed of the treaty’s absurdity than that a decade later the most destructive war in human history broke out?
Yet this very interesting and thought-provoking book begs to differ, and seeks to resuscitate the 1928 treaty as a critically important crossroads in international law. I would say that the authors make some compelling arguments, including the treaty’s basis for certain of the war crimes charges after World War II and even some statistical analysis from The Correlates of War project indicating stark differences in pre- and post-1928 international border changes due to conquest.
The book attempts to do a number of things simultaneously. In addition to its effort to rehabilitate the historical importance of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, it also gives a brief survey of international law as it relates to war and its consequences going back to Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), on whom they spend a fair amount of time. The book also delves into the biographies of various of the eponymous “internationalists:” international lawyers and academics who, during the 1910s and 1920s, had a hand in influencing the philosophies underlying the Kellogg-Briand pact, and also some of their intellectual antagonists. The book takes us all the way to the present, including a discussion I found interesting of some of the philosophic views of the Islamic State: basically, they don’t buy-into the modern order of independent nation states but see nations as just arbitrary man-made entities and that instead we should all be under God.
One regret I have with the book is that it does not directly address the continued heavy investment in defense spending by the major nations of the world, particularly the United States. If, thanks in part to the 1928 pact, countries are much less likely now than in the past to be invaded and conquered by a neighbor, then why do so many countries still find it necessary to devote large portions of their budget to military weaponry?(less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Apr 15, 2018Brice Stewart rated it really liked it
4/5 Stars - Really Liked It
The Internationalists is a great read. As I'm currently going through the law school admissions process, I decided to read this book as it's written by two professors from my top choice, Yale Law School. This book is way outside the realm of genres that I normally find myself reading, so I wasn't exactly sure what to expect. The result was that it took me much longer to read than a novel would have, but I'm very pleased with everything I learned from the book about a variety of subjects and can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.
As you've probably gathered, this book is essentially a history of the legality of war. The main premise of the book is that a new legal world order started with the signing of the Paris Peace Pact in 1928, and the way by which countries interact with each other since then is largely a result of that pact. The book is very repetitive, and certain sentences/ideas can be found throughout the entire book, but this is not necessarily a bad thing; it really engrains in your mind what the authors are trying to get across.
The book covers a variety of sub-topics as it progresses more or less chronologically from the 16th century to modern times, including the beginnings of the US, WWII, and modern Islamic terrorism. I found it all very fascinating and educational, and feel to have a better understanding of the how the world has functioned over the last 500 years for having read it.
Initially I found the concept of the book to be slightly ridiculous seeing as the Paris Peace Pact preceded the world's bloodiest recent war (WWII) rather than having prevented it. However, by the end of the book I better understood the function of the PPP and why the authors found it so important. The PPP wasn't meant to immediately stop all wars, but rather, by outlawing war, to start the world down a path whereby countries could begin to find a replacement for it.
I think our country's citizens would be much better off (and likely more politically involved) if they were to read this book. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jun 23, 2018Nathan Thomas rated it really liked it
"If You Want Peace, Prepare for Peace." This book challenges the typical notions of the failure of the 1928 Paris Peace Pact, better known in the US as the Kellogs-Briand Pact. They argue, quite convincingly, that the Pact establish a new norm in which wars of aggression and the transfer of territory through warfare became unacceptable.
The Internationalists remind us just how important Institutions are. International law establishes the norms that have very real effects on how states behave. Thr ...more
flagLike · comment · see review
May 06, 2018Kian Williams rated it really liked it
Contrary to the description, The Internationalists is not primarily about the negotiation of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact, nor only about the movement to ban war; rather, it is a brief history of international law, a description of how such law is formulated and changes, and a discussion on why inter-state war and conquest has been so greatly reduced since the end of WWII. These are fascinating topics I hadn't previously thought to learn about, rich with interesting anecdotes (how early international law was constructed around one lawyer's attempt to justify piracy, for one) and highly relevancy to current events (is our post-war system being strained to the point of rupture). Though obviously related, the themes and topics are not well laid out in the introduction or at transitions, leading the read to be a bit rocky.(less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jun 17, 2018Matthew Rohn rated it it was amazing
This book does does great history, theory work, and contemporary application about international law in regards to war throughout the modern era, centering on the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It's really engaging all the way through and does an amazing job of creating a clear sense of change in the overarching world system in a way that only a very small handful of books I've read have come close to. This would have been an amazing book at any time but is particularly important now given the current administration's efforts, intentional and accidental, to destabilize the liberal international order, quite possibly the most important human achievement of the 20th century (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jun 01, 2018Dylan rated it really liked it
Well written and structured. Their argument that the pact helped shift values, justifications, and international political discourse is overwhelming. However, their attempt to move that that shift in rhetoric and stated values was the largest proximate cause of the decline of interstate warfare after 1928 feels incomplete and reaching. Still, it is a must-read for anyone interested in geopolitics/IR. The book certainly should prevent the pact from being the further object of ridicule as it has been for so long. Not a small feat. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
May 30, 2018John rated it it was amazing
An outstanding book, one of the best I've ever read. Exceptionally well-written and well-edited. A book about ideas and history, it paints a grand historical narrative and supports it with very strong evidence. The individual stories in each chapter are engaging and compelling, making the book a pleasure to read. If you enjoy intellectual history and political history, you really must read this book.
flagLike · comment · see review
Feb 07, 2018David Melbie rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: Anyone and Everyone!
Recommended to David by: Library pick
Amazing. I never knew that war was outlawed internationally in 1928. Anyone who wants to really understand where we are at risk of losing our grip on the New World Order needs to read this book. Very essential. I will not spoil anything by listing the top five outlaws, oh no; I insist that you read this book yourself and be enlightened.
flagLike · comment · see review
Dec 09, 2017Lance rated it it was amazing
An interesting review of history from a perspective I'd never considered before. I'm glad I heard the Lawfare podcast interview with the authors, because it led me to this.
I've read a lot about WWII over the years from several angles, but never from the angle of the legality of the underlying war.
flagLike · comment · see review
Jul 30, 2018Luís Valdenêncio rated it really liked it
this book is an accurate depiction of the world's most important historic events of the last century, it centers the paris agreement of peace as the foundation upon which the current international law is based. The narrative is also incredibly well structured and extremely easy to understand, I'm only rating it one star less due to its western political bias!
flagLike · comment · see review
No comments:
Post a Comment