The Limits of International Law (Hardcover)

~ (Author), Eric A. Posner (Author) "Political scientists and same international lawyers maintain that the late twentieth century witnessed two novel and related trends: the "legalization" of international relations (Goldstein et..." (more)
Key Phrases: nonlegal agreements, fishing vessel exemption, free goods principle, United States, World War, Soviet Union (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"...a valuable contribution to international relations and a useful book for lawmakers and laymen alike."--The Weekly Standard
"Scholars have long debated why and when states comply with international law; one widely held view is that states do so out of a sense of moral obligation or a desire for legitimacy. This elegantly argued book... offers a simpler and more instrumental explanation: states agree to and follow international law only when it is in their national self-interest."--Foreign Affairs
"Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner boldly and ambitiously set out to answer a host of traditional questions posed by critics and advocates of international law.... As the central theme, the single most distinctive character of the book is the employment of rational choice theory as it relates to international law.... The creativity displayed here should now whet the appetite of other legal scholars to approach the international law and politics relationship from the perpsective of prospect theory, or pursuing policy on the fear of losing an objective."--The Law and Politics Book Review
"How much effect does international law actually have on how nations behave? Goldsmith and Posner ask trenchant questions and offer thought-provoking answers in a pioneering effort to address that question through the prism of rational choice theory. There will be a long and vigorous debate about the utility of their approach. Agree with them or not, their boldness and innovation provide a welcome effort at injecting greater analytic rigor into international law scholarship."--Michael J. Glennon, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University
"At a time of rising interest in the intersection of international law and international relations scholarship, Goldsmith and Posner throw down a gauntlet likely to infuriate many traditional international lawyers. Their insistence that international legal obligations are equal part coincidence and rational state self-interest, nothing more, demands and will certainly get an answer. Equally important is their claim to be the heirs of Kennan and Morgenthau in cautioning against the perils of what they perceive to be a new round of legalism-moralism. They have thus raised the political as much as the methodological stakes in what is likely to be a heated and timely debate."--Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
"Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner have written a compelling study which provides an elegant analytic framework for understanding when international law matters and when it does not. Goldsmith and Posner show that some kinds of international law are very consequential while others are not. After this study it will be difficult for any serious observer to treat customary international law as if it were a constraint on rather than an manifestation of changing state power and preferences."--Stephen D. Krasner, Department of Political Science, Stanford University

Product Description

International law is much debated and discussed, but poorly understood. Does international law matter, or do states regularly violate it with impunity? If international law is of no importance, then why do states devote so much energy to negotiating treaties and providing legal defenses for their actions? In turn, if international law does matter, why does it reflect the interests of powerful states, why does it change so often, and why are violations of international law usually not punished? In this book, Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner argue that international law matters but that it is less powerful and less significant than public officials, legal experts, and the media believe. International law, they contend, is simply a product of states pursuing their interests on the international stage. It does not pull states towards compliance contrary to their interests, and the possibilities for what it can achieve are limited. It follows that many global problems are simply unsolvable. The book has important implications for debates about the role of international law in the foreign policy of the United States and other nations. The authors see international law as an instrument for advancing national policy, but one that is precarious and delicate, constantly changing in unpredictable ways based on non-legal changes in international politics. They believe that efforts to replace international politics with international law rest on unjustified about optimism international law's past accomplishments and present capacities.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (February 3, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195168399
• ISBN-13: 978-0195168396
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.5 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #981,346 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Does international law exist?, October 24, 2005

By	A. Velshi - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

What is international law? Most international lawyers will tell you that there are principles of international legality that are larger than any specific treaty and these principles of legality bind states, sometimes even against their will; there is something called customary international law which is international law that evolved in a decentralized fashion as a matter of custom; and there are human rights norms that are part of customary international law and bind states even if those states never explicitly agreed to them.

In this short, sharp book, Jack Goldmsith and Eric Posner explain why this is nonsense. International law, they argue, is a part of international politics. States enter into treaties and other international legal institutions when doing so serves their interests. Any cooperation among states is a byproduct of that rational act. On the whole, the Goldsmith and Posner are quite convincing.

The theory of the book is, nevertheless, incomplete without a discussion of how nations actually identify and develop their interests in the first place. On this, the authors are silent. Why does Britain feel it is in its interest to sign the Kyoto Protocol? Why do totalitarian regimes sign human rights treaties? Why enter into international agreements at all? This book lacks a theory that explains or predicts the amount of international law. If there is no moral or legal obligation to obey international law, is there even such a thing as international law?

27 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Don't waste your time, September 23, 2005

By	Sean11 "Sean11" (California, USA) - See all my reviews

I was very disappointed with this book. While claiming to be an academic book, the text reads more like a neconservative, ideological condemnation of international law. The authors seem to be denying a substantial body of evidence, and that is not an issue if they had made their arguements using case study or better yet strong empirical study. I actually tend to agree with many of their points, but they are really not the first ones who are making these arguements. A whole school of thought in international relations has made these arguements for decades, and frankly with much more clarity than this book and highly more complex and fine logic.

The authors should have also recognized that this is a contentious issue in international relations and international law. If you come out with strong claims like this, you better back your ideas with fine reasoning (which the book lacks) and evidence. Otherwise, as I believe will be the case with this book, your book will end up in the back stacks of university libraries after a while.

9 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Astonishing that it was ever published, March 27, 2007

By	Ben (New Zealand) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Limits of International Law (Paperback)

Without repeating the many (!) deeply critical reviews at length, suffice it to say that this is a poorly researched, badly written and ideologically blinkered polemic. The authors proceed from a simplistic conception of international law to a series of methodologically flawed case studies to draw unsupported conclusions. In particular, while claiming to advance a more rigorous and empirically-based analytical approach to questions of compliance, the authors barely address any of the substantial empirical compliance literature that has developed over the past decade: readers will, for example, look in vain for any reference to Oran Young, Benedict Kingsbury, Michael Byers or other serious scholars who have actually managed to advance more rigorous approaches.