Reviews for Justice, Intervention and Force in International Relations: Reassessing Just War Theory in the 21st Century

The average rating for Justice, Intervention and Force in International Relations: Reassessing Just War Theory in the 21st Century based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-04-04 00:00:00 Chris Lyman The idea of this short study - an account of how Churchill's historical works were founded upon and reflected his core beliefs and values - is sound. I can accept this argument, and the way in which the author uses examples from Churchill's books to support it, is well done. My problem with the book is that to style something like this as a study of Churchill's military history, implies an historiographical analysis. This is not provided. There is nothing here about how the books were constructed and in the case of The Second World War and especially the History of the English-Speaking Peoples, how Churchill employed many writers and historians to research and draft the text. The author takes at face value the fact that Churchill wrote these books, whereas his use of almost ghost-writers, was extensive. I was alarmed at the very limited historical research behind the book. For example, Valinuas spends the earlier part of the chapter on Churchill's The Second World War, recounting and criticising A. J. P. Taylor's study of "The Origins". This is a notorious book and not reflective of current scholarship. Yet Valinuas spends too much time regurgitating the old debates, including the rather elderly discussion book about Taylor's work which was published a few years' later. The bibliography behind the whole work is very narrow. The style of the book is generally satisfactory, although I object to the phrase "The French side subsequently gave Clemenceau the bum's rush" (a reference to Clemenceau's failure to be made President of the French Republic after the end of the First World War). There is earlier a clever clogs reference to Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough being "no Lucy Honeychurch or Schlegel sister", without explanation (they are characters in two E. M. Forster novels set in the early twentieth century, two hundred years after Sarah's lifetime). All in all, a fairly decent idea but the book has too many flaws to make it of great value in the study of Winston Churchill and his books. There are many better books on this subject.

Review # 2 was written on 2010-01-31 00:00:00 Katherine Hogoboom Since I was a kid, I've had a fascination with WWII special operations, particularly the Jedburghs. I mean, I have an original Smatchet sitting right here on my desk. But, overall, despite (or perhaps partly due to) the book being a quick read, it was a disappointment. 3 stars only because I have a strong interest in the subject, otherwise I'd give 2. The book is mostly an aggregation of material from other published work, and not a hard research effort based on primary sources. The author pieced together all that material to tell the comprehensive stories of a few select Jedburgh teams, which is not a bad thing, but there's nothing really new here. The efforts of other special ops elements in France, the OSS OGs, SOE, the British and French SAS, are mentioned only in passing with no attempt to clarify operational linkages or strategic planning. And the author, himself a former SF officer, lets a bit of hero-worship and romanticism unduly color the history. I don't need to read how "handsome", "attractive", or "rascally-eyed" individuals are in my military history. In doing so, he also left out most of the unpleasant details of German retaliation against civilians for the actions of the Maquis. But I guess the book is not targeted at those with a deep interest in history. Its written in manner intended to make it digestible for those with little understanding of the military or military history, so in that way, it may be better suited to readers that fit that bill. Its not necessarily a bad book; it was a quick simple read about a subject I'm interested in. Some of you may really enjoy it. But its not up to the writing and research standard from which I've grown used to absorbing my history.