Customer Reviews

War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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."

There's a crying need for a primer on the law of war to inform public 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 UN's role), the treatment of almost every subject is rushed and superficial. The discussion of jus in bello (the laws regulating combat) is particularly patchy and inadequate.

Even worse, many sections read like editorials in an opinion magazine. These sections jumble legal analysis and political polemics. Bias is pervasive: almost all examples of illegality are drawn from recent American and Israeli history, as if countries like Serbia and Iraq don't also offer a wealth of examples of criminality. 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 is 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.)

The blurb on the back claims that War Law is 'neither a textbook or a treatise', but this statement is only partially correct. It is certainly not a textbook, but while the first three quarters are largely accessible, informative and relatively even-handed, the last quarter is an inaccurate, unbalanced polemic that reflects either the author's limited understanding of key aspects of the issues at hand or a deliberate refusal to engage honestly with complexities surrounding the use of armed force.

The first three quarters of the book are concerned with 'jus ad bellum' issues (or the right of a state to use force), with three chapters each covering the functions of the UN, self-defence and humanitarian intervention. Byers draws on a range of examples and case studies to illustrate relevant International Law (IL) principles and shortcomings in their practical application, and in most cases is fairly even-handed (if not without a strongly held opinion, which is usually critical of the US and/or Israel) in his treatment of the evidence. A less satisfying aspect of this part of the book is the authors tendency to define the 'correct' response to any issue as the response defined by existing IL or precedent without adequately acknowledging significant shortcomings of IL in addressing human security crises - but this at least has the benefit of illustrating a view commonly shared by those involved in IL.

By contrast, the final quarter of the book deals with 'jus in bello' (or conduct by combatants within war) and is in no way a balanced, informative or challenging discussion. In this section, the only combatants worthy of mention are the US (or the occasional coalition partner) and Israel, who are (according to the author) universally in the wrong. This part of the book is marked by resort to unsupported assertions, considerable factual errors and 'straw men', together with a refusal to acknowledge either the challenges involved in dealing with unconventional, non-state actors or the appalling conduct some of these actors are capable of. While it is possible to examine such issues in a measured, informed manner that can engage and challenge western military professionals to adopt a still higher standard of conduct (for example, see almost any report by Human Rights Watch), the author here has not bothered to make the effort.

Unfortunately, not recommended, even though the first three-quarters of the book by themselves would be an accessible (if incomplete) introduction to 'jus ad bellum' - the final quarter of this book is of a considerably lower standard and is a less than accurate or objective discussion of 'jus in bello' and detracts considerably from War Law as a whole.

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.