NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was justified. NATO violated the United Nations Charter - but nations have used armed force so often that the ban on non-defensive use of force has been cast into doubt. Dangerous cracks in the international legal order have surfaced - widened, ironically, by the UN Security Council itself, which has ridden roughshod over the Charter's ban on intervention. Yet nations remain hopelessly divided on what the rules should be. An unplanned geopolitical order has thus emerged - posing serious dilemmas for American policy-makers in a world where intervention will be judged more by wisdom than by law.
NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was justified. NATO violated the United Nations Charter - but nations have used armed force so often that the ban on non-defensive use of force has been cast into doubt. Dangerous cracks in the international legal order have surfaced - widened, ironically, by the UN Security Council itself, which has ridden roughshod over the Charter's ban on intervention. Yet nations remain hopelessly divided on what the rules should be. An unplanned geopolitical order has thus emerged - posing serious dilemmas for American policy-makers in a world where intervention will be judged more by wisdom than by law.
When an economic collapse, natural disaster, epidemic outbreak, terrorist attack, or internal crisis puts a country in dire need, governments must rise to the occasion to protect their citizens, sometimes employing the full scope of their powers. How do political systems that limit government control under normal circumstances allow for the discretionary and potentially unlimited power that such emergencies sometimes seem to require? Constitutional systems aim to regulate government behavior through stable and predictable laws, but when their citizens' freedom, security, and stability are threatened by exigencies, often the government must take extraordinary action regardless of whether it has the legal authority to do so. In Extra-Legal Power and Legitimacy: Perspectives on Prerogative, Clement Fatovic and Benjamin A. Kleinerman examine the costs and benefits associated with different ways that governments have wielded extra-legal powers in times of emergency. They survey distinct models of emergency governments and draw diverse and conflicting approaches by joining influential thinkers into conversation with one another. Chapters by eminent scholars illustrate the earliest frameworks of prerogative, analyze American perspectives on executive discretion and extraordinary power, and explore the implications and importance of deliberating over the limitations and proportionality of prerogative power in contemporary liberal democracy. In doing so, they re-introduce into public debate key questions surrounding executive power in contemporary politics.
Can multilateral treaties succeed in transforming conduct when they are rejected by the most powerful states in the international system? In the past two decades, coalitions of middle-power states and transnational civil society groups have negotiated binding legal agreements in the face of concerted opposition from China, Russia, andmost especiallythe United States. These instances of a so-called 'new diplomacy' reflect a deliberate attempt to use the language of international law to bypass great power objections in establishing new global standards. Yet critics have frequently derided such treaties as utopian and counter productive because they fail to include those states allegedly most capable of effectively managing complex international cooperation. Thus far no study has offered a systematic, comparative study of the promise, and limits, of multilateralism without the great powers. Norms Without the Great Powers addresses this gap through the presentation of a novel theoretical account and detailed empirical evidence regarding the implementation of two archetypal cases, the antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty and International Criminal Court. Both treaties have substantially reshaped expectations and behaviour in their respective domains, but with important variation in the extent and breadth of their impact. These findings provide the impetus for assessing the prospects for similar strategies on other topics of contemporary global concern. This book offers a timely addition to the dynamic and growing literature on the practice and consequences of international governance and should appeal to academics, civil society experts, and foreign policy practitioners working in fields such as security, human rights, and the environment.
"Although there have been some other articles and books on the "Youngstown" case, this book remains definitive. The author handles a variety of materials exceedingly well, and shows great sensitivity not only to the legal issues involved, but to the political ones as well. It is a model case study."--Melvin I. Urofsky, Virginia Commonwealth University
The first months of the Obama administration have led to expectations, both in the United States and abroad, that in the coming years America will increasingly promote the international rule of law—a position that many believe is both ethically necessary and in the nation’s best interests. With The Perils of Global Legalism, Eric A. Posner explains that such views demonstrate a dangerously naive tendency toward legalism—an idealistic belief that law can be effective even in the absence of legitimate institutions of governance. After tracing the historical roots of the concept, Posner carefully lays out the many illusions—such as universalism, sovereign equality, and the possibility of disinterested judgment by politically unaccountable officials—on which the legalistic view is founded. Drawing on such examples as NATO’s invasion of Serbia, attempts to ban the use of land mines, and the free-trade provisions of the WTO, Posner demonstrates throughout that the weaknesses of international law confound legalist ambitions—and that whatever their professed commitments, all nations stand ready to dispense with international agreements when it suits their short- or long-term interests. Provocative and sure to be controversial, The Perils of Global Legalism will serve as a wake-up call for those who view global legalism as a panacea—and a reminder that international relations in a brutal world allow no room for illusions.
