Reviews for Nature of Positive Law

The average rating for Nature of Positive Law based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-06-08 00:00:00 David Rice A political culture from which the idea of international law has largely disappeared places its initiatives in jeopardy Thanks to the Wikipedia, I knew that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a member of the United States Senate from New York for 24 years. Nevertheless, until recently I have never done any serious research about DPM. It all has changed one fall day in Moscow at home while I was searching the C-SPAN website for some interesting Senate videos. I have decided to watch 1992 debate about Freedom Support Act (U.S. Aid to Former Soviet Union). It was short and participants were mostly extraordinary: Claiborne Pell, Dick Lugar, Alan Cranston, and Mitch McConnell (he is not extraordinary at all except for making history with self-filibustering his own proposal last year). Finally, Daniel Patrick Moynihan rose to speak and it was grandiloquent. Firstly, instead of talking about the pros and cons of this bill (financial obligations, opening new markets for American products and etc.) Moynihan told a story about meeting with The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR, which took place in 1990. Secondly, Moynihan style of clothing (bow tie, bookish spectacles) and his look were much more suited for Harvard lecture hall. Thirdly, his voice and patrician style of speaking, which you could hear only in BBC movies about Middle England nowadays. Of course, I have decided to read some of his books… «On the Law of Nations» was published in 1990 at the epochal point of world history. The Cold War has effectively finished and in the United Nations USSR and USA, for the first time since Suez Crisis (1956), found a common ground in punishing aggressor, Saddam Hussein. In addition, the 1990s were proclaimed the «Decade of International Law» by the UN resolution 44/23 of 17 November 1989. Book starts with the quote from The Constitution of the United States (treaties… shall be the supreme law of the land). Then author recounts his talk to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. This talk took place in 1979 and the main theme was the proposition that the US has abandoned the concept that international relations can and should be governed by a regime of public international law. This theme is solidified by numerous violations of international law by the Reagan Administration: death squads in Salvador, the mining of Nicaraguan harbors and Iran-Contra. In addition, regrettably, the intellectual and political thought of the 1980s regarded international law as an illusion or an obstacle to the American interests («Real men did not cite Grotius»). Moynihan makes a thesis that this nihilism and disdain for the international law was not the core part of the American legal theory and practice and he is trying to find out the reasons for it. As he points out, in the 19th century, the US resolved Alabama claims with Britain by the means of arbitration, instead of war. In addition, the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence placed international law as a vital part of the American legal system, and the Founding Fathers respected international law (or as it was called then «the natural law»). The Senator makes a point that after Treaty of Versailles has been killed in the United States Senate international law lost its attractiveness. There was a renaissance during FDR years, starting with joining the International Labor Organisation and build-up of the United Nations. Then, after the beginning of Cold War international law again became declarative, especially international humanitarian and human rights. The 1990’s presents an opportunity for the Renaissance and adherence to international law is the way to insure safe, civilized proper behavior as the US approach the next century. Moynihan see first positive signs with the adoption East-West Code of Conduct, Soviets making case for The Hague Court and European Conventions… Personally, I would like to say that it is a brilliant book and, since Talleyrand by Duff Cooper (1932), I have never read such intellectually compelling book written by a politician. And, sadly, Moynihan dreams hasn’t come true because international law nowadays even more disdained and violated, Iraq War is the perfect example. However, maybe if someone would read this book, he would understand the importance of international law and would follow in Mister Moynihan footsteps. Sadly, the breed of Moynihan-like statesman is gone nowadays and we must bring it back, starting with ourselves, to make the world a better place. And in conclusion, I yield the floor with this review (US Senate word: senator who has been recognized to speak stops when she completes her remarks and terminates her recognition) and I hope that after reading this book someone would take the floor and stress the importance of the international law.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-11-15 00:00:00 Don Dillon This book is a product of its time. It is full of euphoria over the end of the Cold War and an impassioned plea for the restoration of international law as the basis of regulating relations between states. However, the book is also marred by the author's conflict with the Reagan administration and unfortunately ends essentially as a hit piece. Nor does it even contemplate the idea that the evils of the Reagan administration as the author sees it contributed to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc.