Customer Reviews

Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules~Philippe Sands

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Before starting, I must say that I do not know much about international law, though I have spent a lot of time observing international affairs. This book sets out what international law is, how it has been made, and how and why America is refusing to follow it. The first chapters deal specifically with the history of international law. Basically, it was essentially begun by America during World War II, with a lot of British help, as a system of protecting individuals from abuse by foreign governments. It expanded to protect individuals from abuse by their own governments as well. The Pinochet case, which the author spends a lot of time on, expanded it further, if controversially, to the idea that a head of state cannot claim immunity from a charge of torture or murder or genocide with the defence that they were official state actions. As far as I can tell, it accurately reflects the view of international law outside of America.

The next few chapters mostly deal with America's modern stance on international law. First off, the author demonstrates that America has no problem with non-Americans being held accountable to international law, including international tribunals over war crimes. He then demonstrates that America also has no problems obeying international economic law. His theory is that this is because economic laws help the US, so it sees no need to ignore and denigrate them - yet. Then comes America's stance on international law. He provides general evidence and specific examples, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the International Criminal Court, of international laws and areas that America has withdrawn itself from.

The last chapters deal mainly with what America has chosen to do with its self-declared freedom from international law and accountability: torture. Specifically, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. He lays out the legal arguments that the people confined there are outside international law, and that this reasoning is based on both misunderstanding of those laws and a simple refusal to accept them. He demonstrates the extent to which torture is a violation of international law. Specifically, it is a crime against humanity for anyone to commit, under any circumstances. During this, he also quotes from the US Army Field Manual, according to which torture is illegal ... and ineffective.

The book ends with a summary of all the preceding sections, and then an explanation of the American justifications for ignoring international law and the legal and other flaws behind their reasoning,. He ends by pointing out that, at the end of the day, America has to operate within the world community, and no amount of power, force and arrogance will allow America simply to give orders and be obeyed. I found this book to be quite well written, easy to read, and with the legal arguments clearly laid out and easy to follow. I would recommend it as an introduction to international law, and for its non-American-centric perspective.

In 1941, prior to Pearl Harbour, the United States broke with a generation typified by "isolationism" from world affairs. Recognising the threat to world stability German and Japanese expansion posed, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt committed their nations to a novel thesis - international cooperation was the foundation for solutions to a variety of problems. The foundation, while recognising military needs, was laid to avoid war. The Atlantic Charter endeavoured to resolve problems in anticipation of conflict. Philippe Sands traces the steps through which international law was conceived and implemented for six decades. Only now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, and by the actions of two national leaders, is that cooperative foundation being seriously eroded.

This important and penetrating study, authored by a man involved in international law at many levels, outlines the path taken in building cooperation among nations. He demonstrates how the often halting and innovative steps have produced results. The Pinochet case, involving Britain, Spain and Chile, show how effective and precedent-setting some of these actions have been. Although there are pre-WWII occurrences of international cooperation resolving individual issues, the grander themes of human rights, environmental concerns and economic liberalisation have come about in the years after the Atlantic Charter. Advances such as the Law of the Sea, the Convention Against Torture, the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the possibilities for extending justice and protecting the environment. One nation, the United States, has either avoided commitment to these instruments, or shelved their provisions when it deemed its own interests were paramount. To Sands, this is a disturbing and dangerous new form of isolationism. Sands sees American "exceptionalism" as leading to global instability. As he points out clearly, its devious methods and clumsy application have proven ineffective wherever it's been applied. Global resentment is clearly manifest today.

The "exceptionalist" theme was forcefully brought into view by the younger Bush's administration. Coming to office with ambitions to control governments in the oil-rich Middle East, the second Bush had targetted the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein from the outset. A nation crippled by UN sanctions after the first "Gulf War", Iraq was vulnerable to outside pressures, Hussein's blustering notwithstanding. Sands outlines the steps taken by George Walker Bush to bring Iraq under US domination. Along the way, he recruited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his cause. Sands is unable to define why Blair found the new arrangement desirable, but once the Labour Party leader had taken it up, he was "in for a penny, in for a pound". Wherever Bush led, Blair would follow - even using the same deceptive methods employed by the US administration. This included arranging for "intelligence" to be moulded to the committed path. "Legal" justification for the Iraq invasion was ignored in the US and ineptly contrived in Britain.

Sands notes a different application of "exceptionalism" of the United States in one area - its role in international trade. After examples set by the formation of the European Union, from small beginnings in cooperation to a fully-fledged economic bloc, the US engaged in its own form of "cooperation" with the establishment of NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Association. This was recently expanded to cover the Western Hemisphere. Based on a string of secretly formulated arrangements launched after WWII, these structures led to the US-dominated World Trade Organisation and International Monetary Fund. These organisations, reflecting the aim of Western domination of the developing world's economies, have guided aims in many nations with an eye to controlling resources and labour while increasing markets and eschewing environmental issues.

The author concludes with the most glaring and unacceptable aspect of the "exceptionalist" policy - torture of prisoners. Although a party to the Convention Against Torture, the US record in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Iraq shows that the Earth's most powerful nation has not only flagrantly violated its provisions, but has sought justification for its acts among its resident legal advisors. Having declared a "war on terror", the Bush administration promptly exempted people captured from the Geneva Convention. Guantanamo thus became a "legal black hole" in Sands' terms. Unable to determine to what lengths the CIA has engaged in while dealing with prisoners, the author excerpts the opinions tendered by senior officials of the Pentagon and the Attorney General's office. The use of torture was not only acceptable but the memos lined out what levels of pain might be inflicted! Note that none of these prisoners have been charged. Their only "crime" was to have been captured in a nation invaded by the United States. It is worth noting that some "prisoners" were in advanced age - hardly combatants and unlikely threats.

Sands' book is a well-written and impeccably researched charge list against the proponents of "exceptionalism" and military adventurism. As an advocate of the rule of law and with experience in international litigation, he supports cooperative effort using instruments agreed upon by many nations. International law, he argues, is the sole foundation for addressing global issues. The UN need not be the sole authority in determining which issues are addressed and how dealt with. That body, however, provides the best administrative methods and the broadest venue for dealing with them. This is a "must-read" book that provides a single, comprehensive overview of how the Bush administration has overturned a half-century of effort to improve multilateral cooperation. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

As A lawyer I approached Phillipe Sands book with some interest. He is a renowned International Lawyer working from Chambers containing some of the leading barristers in the field. I also had misgivings about the legality of Iraq, Guantanamo and the Bush/Blair anti terror crusade without truly understanding the full legal background.

This book was both informative, disturbing and remarkably well written. Sands begins with the Atlantic Charter - the original initiative of Roosevelt and Churchill that set down the foundation for present international standards. He then traces the pioneering work of both the USA and Britain in helping to establish the institutions that monitor and protect such standards.

It is against this background that we then see the apparent disdain with which the administrations of both countires now view international law in the context of the war on terror. What is particularly disturbing is the double standard as as laws are used to enforce international laws against countries that we don't like but which do not apply to us.

In a careful, forensic analysis he completely dismantles any possible arguments that the war on Iraq was lawful or that inmates at Guatantamo are outside the basic protection of the Geneva Conventions. Of particular interest to UK readers is the alarming change of legal advice provided by the Attorney General over a period of mere weeks in 2003 in the build up to war.

He emphasises the important point that if the UK and USA ignore international standards then how much more difficult will it be to complain if other nations fail to apply such rules in their dealings with us.

Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the events of the last few years Sands leaves us in no doubt that whatever we do has to be kept within the legal framework which we ourselves established.

Philippe Sands' book is important, which is why I rated my review at "5," however, if I was to rate the book on the basis of my satisfaction with Amazon, better stated, "dissatisfaction with Amazon," I would rate it zero because Amazon failed to ship the most recent edition. In fact, I have purchased the book twice and both times received the October 2005 edition rather than the edition reported about by BBC World News, et al.

This in-depth analysis of today's new world order through the lens of international law provides great information and research especially on international trade--with really interesting implications related to global warming--and the Iraq war and its 'torturous' aftermath. International law is being thoroughly abused, which is concerning considering it represents a minimum standards of acceptable behavior.

Why should George Bush be impeached? Read this book. If President Bush or Vice President Cheney are complicit or participate in torture, which they are, they could be tried as a criminal under a plethora of international and domestic laws. Why is international law important? Read the global warming chapter.

This is a great book for anyone regardless of ones familiarity or professional interest in law. It would be a great addition to a university's introductory international law course.

Philippe Sands, a Professor of Law at University College London, has written a book that should affect how we vote. How could we vote to re-elect as Prime Minister a man who should be tried and sentenced for the war crime of waging an illegal war of aggression?

Sands opens with a brief introduction to the story of international law since 1945. He then looks at the Pinochet case, the creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998, the Kyoto Protocol, the rules imposing global free trade and protecting overseas investments, `the utter lawlessness at Guantánamo Bay' (as Lord Steyn, the law lord, rightly called it), the illegal attack on Iraq, and the systematic torture carried out under US government orders at Abu Ghraib and other torture chambers.

Sands shows how capitalism uses international law as cover for what it wants to do - invade and threaten other countries, and protect companies' investments by overriding the national independence and sovereignty of countries protecting their industries, services and people. But the UN Charter, with its strong defence of peace between sovereign nations, does not suit capitalism's interests. So the Bush administration is trying to create a new legal regime allowing the US state to do exactly what it wants.

A group of international lawyers, including Professor Sands, wrote to Blair in March 2003 saying, "There is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. ... Neither Security Council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorizes the proposed use of force in the present circumstances."

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's Representative to the UN, stated of 1441, "There is no `automaticity' in this Resolution." Even John Negroponte, the US Representative to the UN, said it contained no `hidden triggers'. Nor did a summation of resolutions 660, 678, 687 and 1441 authorise the attack on Iraq, despite Jack Straw's claims.

Iraq had attacked nobody and threatened nobody. It possessed no WMD, as Bush and Blair knew from what their intelligence services, the UN, the IAEA, Mossad and Iraqi defectors had been telling them for years.

Blair, Straw and Hoon should all be facing trial on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit aggression, not facing the electorate.

I found Sands' book to be a very readable and enlightening work. I do not have any experience with law and knew almost nothing of international law but still found the information in this book to be very accessible and easy to understand. Usually whenever I read anything on law my biggest battle is trying to stay conscious.

The main thing I took away from this work is just how tenuous the rule of international law is in today's volatile world. The amount of influence that the United States wields as the world's only remaining super power is out of proportion with the needs of the world. International laws unsupported by the U.S. are useless, and if the UN and the other mechanisms (such as the ICC) created to impose law, order, human rights and protect the environment continue to be opposed or actively obstructed by the U.S. there will never be any peace based on world consensus. The U.S. must stop seeking to extend its hegemony into further areas and allow its power and influence to recede so that there can be more equality.

The opposition to international law in the U.S. is not confined to one political party or the other because both parties have attempted to extend the U.S. dominance in the world. One nation cannot be above all others if any type of international system is to be affective.

This book is an easy to read eye opener. If you are looking for an accessible guide to what is happening in international law then this is the book for you.

Regarding the reviewer that bemoaned AMAZOM's failure to send him the latest edition, please note that I saw Philippe Sands being interviewed a couple of weeks ago, and he'd mentioned that the latest revision (with latest revelations and insights) was indeed already available in the United Kingdom, but _not_ yet in the USA. If you check Barnes & Noble and Buy.com, they are also still carrying the October 2005 edition. You will want the February 3, 2006 edition (ISBN: 0141017996), which you can order now from the AMAZON.UK website, or wait until it comes out in the USA (which will have therefore a later publication date than Feb. 3rd). Note, if you contact any of the sustomer service reps at these online booksellers, they can promise you the latest edition, but only to the best of their knowledge, and since they rarely have info on future release dates of many books (high-anticipation books like Harry Potter and the latest Stephen King being the exception) they are going to send you the latest edition that they actually have, which in this instance is the October 2005 edition. I face this regularly with one of my favorite authors (Paul Watkins), whose works come out in the U.K. many months prior to their USA releases.

This book explores the changes to international laws from WWII to the War on Terror, focusing primarily on the periods right after WWII, and during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The book argues that the US and UK led the establishment of international law after WWII, and are now leading to its dissolution and replacement with the rule of power. The author delves into the details of the various treaties and international institutions the US helped bring about in the 1940s and 50s, and stayed out of or joined halfheartedly in the 90's and 2000's. Much in between is left out, such as the SALT treaties, and the treaty to ban land mines that the US did not sign to.

The author argues that America's support of international institutions after WWII were due to the threat of international communism and a desire to rebuild the world to prevent the repeat of mistakes that occurred after WWII. The author also argues that America's disavowal of many of these same institutions in the 1990s and 2000s is because America is so strong now, without any rivals, that it does not need international cooperation to legitimatize or support its actions. I believe this is partly right, but the I believe the more accurate answer is the role of businesses. Specifically, many international institutions over the past two decades focus on protecting the environment, upholding labor standards, restricting the trade in precious items, and protecting civil rights. All of these offer numerous roadblocks to corporate profits. Examples include pollution controls on factories, labor laws for shoe factories, and mandatory safety equipment for miners. US elections are decided by money, so it is no wonder that cash-rich corporations help elect leaders that protect their bottom lines by fighting against international agreements and institutions that would put people over profits.

Much of this book's focus is on the US relations with foreign institutions after the 9-11 attacks. For this case, I would point to the works of Webster Griffin Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Edwin Black, Anthony Sutton, Anthony Sampson, and William Engerdahl. Collectively, their works demonstrate the power of American corporations in determining the foreign and domestic policy of the US, in relation to other countries and to international institutions. They also show that US foreign policy has consistently trampled human rights in favor of business profits over the entire course of the 20th century. However, much of this was done covertly via actions of the CIA. A studied reading of the fate of Mossadegh in Iran, Aguinaldo in the Philippines, the rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Salvador Allende in Chile, and the covert support of terrorist groups in Italy and France during the Cold War demonstrate the superficial respect of human rights by successive US administrations. Maybe the best examples was the US propping up decades of one-party rule in South Korea and Japan, essentially dictatorships with a revolving front door. All told, I believe this author relies too much on law treatises, legal documents and press briefings to source his book.

Philippe Sands book is a sort-of introduction to International Law. He definitely has a bias and an agenda, namely to point out America's, particularly the Bush administration's, arbitrary use of International law and its vitriolic disdain for International law. This is shown as especially ironic in light of the fact that America, together with the UK, brought about the modern International legal order, including human rights, trade, environmental, and other stuff that's hated by many in the USA. This book will prove stimulating to both lawyers and non-lawyers. It will make most feel a deep distress over America's current attitute towards international law and international institutions.