War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (Hardcover)

by Michael Byers (Author) "During the lead-up to the Iraq War, on 6 February 2003, BBC Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman asked Prime Minister Tony Blair: 'Will you give an..." (more)
Key Phrases: unilateral humanitarian intervention, opinio juris, trusteeship agreements, United States, United Nations, General Assembly (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
When President Bush insists our military forces have acted in accordance with international law, many other nations disagree. This happens so often that observers may wonder: exactly what laws are they arguing about? To readers willing to put in the work, this dense book provides the answers. According to Byers (The Role of Law in International Politics), laws governing war have existed since the 19th century, but nations freely disregarded them until the adoption of the U.N. Charter in 1945. The charter itself, however, is still subject to interpretation. When Israeli planes bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981, for example, the U.S. insisted that pre-emptive self-defense was not sanctioned. By 2003, America had changed its mind. Byers devotes three chapters to the complicated issue of self-defense, and another three to the equally contentious issue of humanitarian intervention: i.e., whether it's okay to invade a nation to stop it from committing unspeakable acts, such as genocide, or to bring democracy to its people. A final chapter attacks recent U.S. foreign policy, which, Byers argues, places American interests above international law and returns the world to the pre-1945 era when powerful nations routinely threw their weight around the globe, often with terrible consequences. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
International law and Canadian studies scholar Byers was writing about the legalities of politics and power well before events in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay pressed the concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in bello into their twenty-first-century permutations. In this book, he explores the development of the law of war in five categories: UN Security Council authorization, self-defense, preemptive war, humanitarian and pro-democratic intervention, and the protection of civilians and combatants during armed conflict. Beginning with the black-letter law pertinent to each category--UN treaties, mostly--Byers then narrates the often-creative, sometimes-flawed arguments nations have mobilized to justify their actions. For readers used to hearing political justifications for military action, such legal nuance may be a refreshingly concrete respite from familiar logic-of-power arguments. Yet this account is nevertheless about politics--in particular, about the politicizing of particular legal positions--and as such remains consistent with Byers'earlier work, which dealt with the challenge to international harmony posed by the contradiction of legal equality and socioeconomic inequality. Succinct, highly readable, and important. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 224 pages
• Publisher: Grove Press (November 28, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0802118097
• ISBN-13: 978-0802118097
• Product Dimensions: 8.7 x 5.9 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.3 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #482,367 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Useful study of the laws of war in relation to recent conflicts, May 23, 2006

By	William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

In this book, Dr. Michael Byers, who holds a Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, looks at aspects of the international laws of war, particularly in relation to the US-British wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq. In Part 1, he examines the United Nations Security Council's role in matters of recourse to force. Part 2 reviews the claim of self-defence, Part 3 the notion of humanitarian intervention, and Part 4 the laws on the conduct of armed conflict and war crimes courts. An Epilogue discusses current US policies.

As the International Court of Justice stated in 1986 when it found the US state guilty of attacking Nicaragua, "instances of State conduct inconsistent with a given rule should generally be treated as breaches of that rule, not as indications of the recognition of a new rule." So Byers concludes, "The Kosovo war was neither consistent with international law nor effective in changing the law in favour of a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention."

Byers points out that Blair spoke of `community' when he tried to justify attacking Yugoslavia, but in fact his actions obeyed only "the international law of the crusaders and conquistadors - which, in essence, was no law at all." Byers sums up that there is no right to intervene in nations' internal affairs on humanitarian grounds: "pro-democratic intervention remains prohibited under international law."

Nor was the attack on Iraq legal. Byers contradicts those who argue that the UN retrospectively sanctioned the US-British attack on Iraq. "Resolution 1483 on Iraq, adopted in May 2003, was worded very tightly in order to leave little room for arguments that it provided retroactive authorization for the war. The same is true of Resolution 1511, adopted in October 2003 ..."

International law during armed conflict obliges armed forces to protect civilians and prisoners of war. Byers describes as war crimes the US assaults on the city of Fallujah, its refusal to do `body counts' (breaching Article 16 of the First Geneva Convention), and its torture and killings of POWs.

He argues that pre-emptive acts of war are illegal: Bush's `dangerously destabilizing doctrine of pre-emptive war' provokes wars and terrorism rather than preventing them. Byers cites the UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which stated in December 2004, "in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted."

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Too Polemical, Too Topical, June 17, 2008

By	Reader (Arlington, Virginia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (Paperback)

There's a crying need for a primer on the law of war to inform campaigns against the militarism and human rights abuses of the Bush Administration. Alas, this ain't the book. While the writing is uncluttered and some sections are excellent (such as the discussion of the growing role of the UN), the treatment of almost every subject is rushed and superficial. The discussion of jus in bello (the laws regulating methods of combat) is particularly patchy and inadequate.

Even worse, many sections read like editorials in an opinion magazine, jumbling together legal analysis and political polemics. Bias pervades these sections: almost all examples of illegality are drawn from recent American and Israeli history, as if countries like Serbia and Iraq don't offer a wealth of crimes for consideration. Objectivity collapses altogether in the Epilogue, which is little more than a rant about globalization and evil American power. It goes so far as to equate Nazi treatment of Jews with American detention policies. (The Nazis shaved off the beards of Jews. We shaved off the beards of some Islamic detainees. Ergo....)

International law is too important to belong to one political faction, whether of the left or of the right. The author's heart was in the right place, but his book is driven by the issues and passions of the day. It will be ephemeral. (In fact, it's already remaindered.)

10 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars You wouldn't know this was skewed if you didn't already know your history, October 11, 2007

By	James D. Crabtree "Doc Crabtree" (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (Paperback)

OK. First of all, this book BEGINS with the United Nations, the most recent and least binding source of "war law." To give you an idea of the inaccuracies of this book, paragraph one of Chapter One discusses the signing of the United Nations Charter "in the aftermath of Second World War" when in fact the United Nations alliance preceded the end of the war while signing the charter began in June of 1945... AFTER the defeat of Germany but BEFORE the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan ending the war. Despite what the author would have you think, the UN was very much a product of the World War, more specifically of the victorious Allies.

It is well into the book before it discusses the League of Nations and the uselessness of the international organization to prevent or even end war. Despite what the author would have you think, the UN's track record is almost as bad: for every war he discusses there are dozens that took place during the UN's watch and which the UN was either ineffective or was not a factor at all.

I will give credit to the author... it takes him several pages to get to the point where he begins to bash the Coalition effort in Iraq, or as he no doubt thinks of it "The U.S. Occupation." As an example of the illegal targeting of civilians by military forces he uses NOT the bombing of Rotterdam by Germany, NOT the Rape of Nanking, NOT the use of ballistic missiles during the Iran-Iraq War... no, he uses the example of Fallujah in 2004, when Marines went after terrorists AND TOOK FIRE WHILE DOING SO.

This book is all about bashing the United States. There is some discussion of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, almost nothing about the Law of Land Warfare which preceded it nor the basis in Western Civilization for a code of conduct (chivalry) in war. That is because these will not push the agenda of the author.

very disappointing.