Law without Nations?: Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States
By Jeremy A. Rabkin
* Publisher: Princeton University Press
* Number Of Pages: 360
* Publication Date: 2007-01-29
* ISBN-10 / ASIN: 0691130558
* ISBN-13 / EAN: 9780691130552
Product Description:
What authority does international law really have for the United States? When and to what extent should the United States participate in the international legal system? This forcefully argued book by legal scholar Jeremy Rabkin provides an insightful new look at this important and much-debated question.
Americans have long asked whether the United States should join forces with institutions such as the International Criminal Court and sign on to agreements like the Kyoto Protocol. Rabkin argues that the value of international agreements in such circumstances must be weighed against the threat they pose to liberties protected by strong national authority and institutions. He maintains that the protection of these liberties could be fatally weakened if we go too far in ceding authority to international institutions that might not be zealous in protecting the rights Americans deem important. Similarly, any cessation of authority might leave Americans far less attached to the resulting hybrid legal system than they now are to laws they can regard as their own.
Law without Nations? traces the traditional American wariness of international law to the basic principles of American thought and the broader traditions of liberal political thought on which the American Founders drew: only a sovereign state can make and enforce law in a reliable way, so only a sovereign state can reliably protect the rights of its citizens. It then contrasts the American experience with that of the European Union, showing the difficulties that can arise from efforts to merge national legal systems with supranational schemes. In practice, international human rights law generates a cloud of rhetoric that does little to secure human rights, and in fact, is at odds with American principles, Rabkin concludes.
A challenging and important contribution to the current debates about the meaning of multilateralism and international law, Law without Nations? will appeal to a broad cross-section of scholars in both the legal and political science arenas.
Summary: Unfortunate and Unhelpful
Rating: 1
Rabkin confronts us with an important problem. In an increasingly complex and integrated global political economy, how are we to protect the individual liberties commonly associated with constitutional government? Given the seriousness of the issue, it is genuinely unfortunate that Rabkin gets in his own way with nationalistic rhetoric that approaches xenophobia.
But Rabkin's ideological excesses are worse than simply unfortunate. They are an unhelpful reminder to the rest of humanity that the superior self-image of the ugly American is not only alive and well, but comfortably ensconced in the privileged halls of academe.
For someone with a serious interest in globalization and its political implications, Ann-Marie Slaughter's book, New World Order, is a far more useful place to start. The debate about how we can become masters of our own fate is likely to be a dominant theme as America continues to outgrow its national immaturity. If Rabkin wants to be taken seriously as a participant in that debate he will have to refrain from intellectual bluster and bullying.
Summary: "By our own lights"
Rating: 5
This is a thorough analysis of the relationship between trans national ideas and national sovereignty from an American perspective. He holds up current concepts of international affairs to historical and moral philosophical scrutiny.
Rabkin makes a strong case for why America should protect its Constitution and independence and not let its system of government be corrupted and polluted by vague post modernist trans national norms and schemes of global governance. He argues that the ideals of various internationalists are utopian and dangerous. As to their wishful thinking (p. 31): "International organizations will intervene to protect rights - but not by coercion. And advocacy groups will ensure compliance - but not by coercion. And everyone will have rights - but not really."
Rabkin rejects that his scepticism to submitting to various schemes of global governance rests on a "realist" and Hobbesian outlook. The American and classical liberal view is rather the acceptance of the fact that people "do not readily agree on fundamental things and should not have to agree." (p. 270) This is recognized pre-eminently by the American Constitution which was created to protect such pluralism.
This book is an important contribution to a better understanding of why America is and should be sceptic to ineffectual and/or potentially encroaching schemes of global governance.
It does not do Rabkin justice to say he uses sarcasm as substitute for argument, as the previous reviewer claims. This is a highly serious and scholarly work.
Summary: Overshadowed by overwhelming bias
Rating: 1
This author uses sarcasm to avoid confronting the faults of his argument, dismissing anything that he disagrees with as pure absurdity. Although he presents a decent argument for constitutional govt and the inconsistency with international law it is completely overshadowed by his lack of objectivity. This should not be used at a textbook, but rather a ranting of a right-wing extremist attempting to divert attention from his own political flaws.
By Jeremy A. Rabkin
* Publisher: Princeton University Press
* Number Of Pages: 360
* Publication Date: 2007-01-29
* ISBN-10 / ASIN: 0691130558
* ISBN-13 / EAN: 9780691130552
Product Description:
What authority does international law really have for the United States? When and to what extent should the United States participate in the international legal system? This forcefully argued book by legal scholar Jeremy Rabkin provides an insightful new look at this important and much-debated question.
Americans have long asked whether the United States should join forces with institutions such as the International Criminal Court and sign on to agreements like the Kyoto Protocol. Rabkin argues that the value of international agreements in such circumstances must be weighed against the threat they pose to liberties protected by strong national authority and institutions. He maintains that the protection of these liberties could be fatally weakened if we go too far in ceding authority to international institutions that might not be zealous in protecting the rights Americans deem important. Similarly, any cessation of authority might leave Americans far less attached to the resulting hybrid legal system than they now are to laws they can regard as their own.
Law without Nations? traces the traditional American wariness of international law to the basic principles of American thought and the broader traditions of liberal political thought on which the American Founders drew: only a sovereign state can make and enforce law in a reliable way, so only a sovereign state can reliably protect the rights of its citizens. It then contrasts the American experience with that of the European Union, showing the difficulties that can arise from efforts to merge national legal systems with supranational schemes. In practice, international human rights law generates a cloud of rhetoric that does little to secure human rights, and in fact, is at odds with American principles, Rabkin concludes.
A challenging and important contribution to the current debates about the meaning of multilateralism and international law, Law without Nations? will appeal to a broad cross-section of scholars in both the legal and political science arenas.
Summary: Unfortunate and Unhelpful
Rating: 1
Rabkin confronts us with an important problem. In an increasingly complex and integrated global political economy, how are we to protect the individual liberties commonly associated with constitutional government? Given the seriousness of the issue, it is genuinely unfortunate that Rabkin gets in his own way with nationalistic rhetoric that approaches xenophobia.
But Rabkin's ideological excesses are worse than simply unfortunate. They are an unhelpful reminder to the rest of humanity that the superior self-image of the ugly American is not only alive and well, but comfortably ensconced in the privileged halls of academe.
For someone with a serious interest in globalization and its political implications, Ann-Marie Slaughter's book, New World Order, is a far more useful place to start. The debate about how we can become masters of our own fate is likely to be a dominant theme as America continues to outgrow its national immaturity. If Rabkin wants to be taken seriously as a participant in that debate he will have to refrain from intellectual bluster and bullying.
Summary: "By our own lights"
Rating: 5
This is a thorough analysis of the relationship between trans national ideas and national sovereignty from an American perspective. He holds up current concepts of international affairs to historical and moral philosophical scrutiny.
Rabkin makes a strong case for why America should protect its Constitution and independence and not let its system of government be corrupted and polluted by vague post modernist trans national norms and schemes of global governance. He argues that the ideals of various internationalists are utopian and dangerous. As to their wishful thinking (p. 31): "International organizations will intervene to protect rights - but not by coercion. And advocacy groups will ensure compliance - but not by coercion. And everyone will have rights - but not really."
Rabkin rejects that his scepticism to submitting to various schemes of global governance rests on a "realist" and Hobbesian outlook. The American and classical liberal view is rather the acceptance of the fact that people "do not readily agree on fundamental things and should not have to agree." (p. 270) This is recognized pre-eminently by the American Constitution which was created to protect such pluralism.
This book is an important contribution to a better understanding of why America is and should be sceptic to ineffectual and/or potentially encroaching schemes of global governance.
It does not do Rabkin justice to say he uses sarcasm as substitute for argument, as the previous reviewer claims. This is a highly serious and scholarly work.
Summary: Overshadowed by overwhelming bias
Rating: 1
This author uses sarcasm to avoid confronting the faults of his argument, dismissing anything that he disagrees with as pure absurdity. Although he presents a decent argument for constitutional govt and the inconsistency with international law it is completely overshadowed by his lack of objectivity. This should not be used at a textbook, but rather a ranting of a right-wing extremist attempting to divert attention from his own political flaws.
.jpg)
Hi,
ReplyDeleteFor best academic study material Visit this website.
http://www.kidsfront.com/
Must try.!!