Customer Reviews
International Law - A Must Read! - By: Saladboxman, 25 Apr 2006 
Books about the workings of International Law are probably not on everyone's 'Must Read' lists.
In Lawless World however, Philippe Sands does a great job of highlighting the relevance & importance of international law in todays modern world. Apart from the headline grabing chapters of the Iraq War & Guantanamo Bay (both excellently presented but not overwhelming) he also introduces the reader to the history of international law, the part it has played in the past (Pinochet) & the role it will continue to play in the future (environment, terrorism, etc).
For example, The 'Kicking Ass in Iraq' chapter details the US & UK Governments role in committing their nations to war & the role in particular of the Attorney General. Throughout the book (but particularly so in this chapter) the reader will be amazed at the audacity of the main protaganists & their ability to complete dismiss or ignore established rules & laws to their own end.
Overalll a throughly worthwhile & interesting read which reallly makes you think about the people we put our faith in.
The Decline of International Law - By: ALAN CHARLES, 17 Mar 2006 
The wide disparity in the reviews for this book are intriguing.
(One cannot help but wonder at the motivations of some reviewers!)
However, I for one, am quite convinced. Here is a highly informative, depressingly accurate account of the increasingly murky world of international law.
Phillipe Sands presents a powerful analysis of the miserable decline in standards & behaviour to the depths that we see daily of the most powerful nations colluding to undermine the flimsy network of law created over the centuries. Re-writing rules for their own blatant interests; heedless,time after time, of the condition & welfare of others!
This powerful text could be better presented, more clearly constructed - but it does contain such a wealth of fact & background, & it is highly readable for the non-legal mind.
A well-thumbed copy should be on every thinking person's book shelves.
The illegality argument will not hold.... - By: Jude Obscure84, 09 Mar 2006 
There has been a sundry set of pamphlets & short essays spinning across the world that negate the legality of the Iraq War, but alll of them have proven to be dead weight as none of them can muster a single plea for swift action(except for maybe fringe left wing & far right wing publications).
For one anyone wishing to reference the Iraq War at alll they should try & buy or check out at the local library; The UN Blue Book Series: The Situtation between Iraq & Kuwait. The then secretary general Boutros-Boutros Ghali stated in his introduction that the resolutions against Iraq passed by the council at the eve of the 1st Gulf War remain valid & authoratative. He even goes so far as to say that he avowed the very first strike against Iraq, upon a material breach of 687, led by the US, UK & France in 1993 as legal & consistent with relevant resolutions including 678.
Legal scholars whose political opinions seem to influence thier legal ones on this issue, advocate that the Iraq War is illegal & the US could not wage war by reviving older resolutions. This is a silly notion because how do they explain away UN Resolution 949? UN Resolution 678 is upheld including the paragraph that indicates that member states must get Iraq to comply with relevent resolution including resolution 660. 660 is a get out of Kuwait & resolve thier differences resolution. The differences were resolved in the matter of 687 which was adopted by the UN & was the constitution to maintain a cease fire between member states & Iraq. 660 was re-fashioned in 687 as stated to bring about the formal cease fire as stated: "1. Affirms alll thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire; " - 687
The Bush/Blair administrations did not need to seek further authority, when authority rested on 687/678. The relavent resolutions were resolutions acted on Article 51 of the UN Charter. So any material breach of 687 was a material breach of 678 & 660. It terminated the formal cease fire leaving it up to a member state to act to uphold international law, not break it. Read the opinions of the Yemeni & Cuban delagations upon the signing of resolution 687. They abstained from voting on it because they feared it gave too much power on a member state to act upon the event of a material breach.
Others do it better - By: , 31 Mar 2005 
This book is a disappointment, especiallly as it is written by a QC. There is hope for me yet! I agree with reviewer Beckwith that it represents a lost opportunity, & that the author gives himself more prominence than he deserves as a marginal player in major issues.
Take the Pinochet chapter for instance. Then read Geoffrey Robertson's treatment of it in Crimes Against Humanity. I think most readers would agree that Robertson gives a more useful account (by the way, what is thing Margaret Thatcher has about having mass murderers & crooked politicians as personal friends?).
In short, don't waste your money. This book is not going to unseat Blair or Bush. It is not even going to raise their blood temperature.
This is a book that will last. Very readable. - By: , 09 Mar 2005 ~Half way through the book, I asked myself: am I reading a politics book or a law book? This book covers the headline international political events as well as the fundamental international law issues behind them: the Iraq war, the war on terrorism, global warming, establishment of the International Criminal Court, the WTO versus the environment & other public interests, & the safety of international investment. It is an obviously sophisticated political commentary, empowered by legal~~ analysis. The legal issues are wonderfully illustrated in paralllel with the development of the political drama, sometimes ending with the scream of law, usuallly in anger & pain at being stamped upon. It is also a very good law book exquisitely & accurately depicting the making, breaching & arguing of international law. This book has managed to give life to international law & give a rationale to politics.
The title of the book is supposed to highlight America. I was impressed with~~ the honesty & fairness of the author, who never hesitates to give America the credit it deserves. Not only was Roosevelt's contribution to international law & the new international order discussed, but also less well known facts, such as Nixon's contribution to international environmental protection & the Clinton administration's push to set up the International Criminal Court, are told in a non-partisan manner. Equallly, Philippe Sands did not show any mercy in pointing out where & how~~ America has breached & damaged international law. While reading the book, I almost forgot it was focused on America, mainly because the topics covered in the book are of such concern & influence to alll of us, whichever nation we belong to. The book is reallly an updated international law & political overview.
The most exciting & significant thing about this book is that Sands has initiated a new approach to international law study & a new style of political criticism. Public~~ international law practice has long been an area monopolized by a smalll elite group, not the business of the public, ironicallly. This book, however, not only brings readers inside the international courts & tribunals where the author has represented cases, but also tirelessly & proudly records the interaction of societies, NGOs, & individuals with some of these cases. International law in this book has been transferred into the public arena, making it an experience of the public as it~~ should have been. The author also pays close attention to materials from public media, including the internet, about international law. In fact, not too many international law books have used images of single individuals on their front covers. Even the language in the book is unpretentiously short & clear, with many questions raised & answered in a documentary style. It is so engaging that you want to look at the photo of the author, who looks in the picture more like Picasso than a~~ professor or barrister. He has applied, if not initiated, a unorthodox approach to international law study, an approach I would calll popular international law.~
