When the United Nations Charter was adopted in 1945, states established a legal paradigm for regulating the recourse to armed force. In the years since then, however, significant developments have challenged the paradigm's validity, causing a paradigmatic shift. International Law and the Use of Force traces this shift and explores its implications for contemporary international law and practice.
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
This 1993 take on the continued vitality of parts of the UN Charter has been on my Wish List for many years. Upon my finally ordering it, however, I was swiftly disappointed in it. Occasional sweeping statements are just plain wrong; for example, the second half of the twentieth century was not as violent as the first half (as claimed on page 3) just because there were more individual armed conflicts, given that none of them pulled in all the world's major powers. Similarly, the authors claim on page 19 that "Most statesmen (at the Paris Peace Conference) felt that the war was not caused by the aggressive intent of any one state," which makes the punitive aspects of the Treaty of Versailles toward Germany rather confusing. Despite that, it is difficult to refute the argument that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is indeed obsolete as states, and particularly great powers, today get away with using force for any number of reasons, even (in the case of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea) territorial aggrandizement.
The authors anticipate three possible futures of the jus ad bellum: the continuation of what they call the "post-charter self-help paradigm;" the acceptance of what they optimistically termed the "pro-democratic" paradigm; or the rehabilitation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. With the benefit of twenty-four years of hindsight it becomes apparent that the first future came to pass. Given the high sticker price and the various inaccuracies I cannot recommend this book to the person reading this review.
Reviewed in the United States on December 29, 1999
Anthony Clark Arend and Robert Beck have written an intellectually honest piece exploring the use of force under international law. The book begins with a discussion of the development of the law regarding the use of force from ancient times to the writing of the United Nations charter. The book then goes on to fairly examine state behavior since the UN Charter and poses the question: how has custom strayed from the thinking that inspired the Charter and the mechanisms that it set up. They give an objective, balanced overview of the state of law regarding a number of issues from intervention in civil and mixed conflict to rescue of nationals abroad and dealing with terrorists. Though they discuss all sides of the issue, Arend and Beck ultimately conclude that although international law's intentions at the end of World War II were nobel -- and despite the fact that the Charter paradigm still exists on paper -- a realistic assessment of the facts requires the conclusion that the paradigm has been rejected by states through their practices and thereby ceased to be international law.