This book provides a comprehensive, dispassionate empirical analysis and assessment of the discernible impact that the US has had upon the jus ad bellum in the post-Cold War era. The work focuses on the substantive areas of the jus ad bellum with which the US has most often and significantly engaged with through either its actions, justifications for actions, or adopted policies. In doing so, it draws upon the theory of interpretive communities as its framework of analysis in order to gauge any impact upon this fundamental area of international law. The Persistent Advocate and the Use of Force provides a much needed examination of one of the most controversial issues of international law in recent times whilst, on a more general level, offering a timely defence of the robustness of the jus ad bellum to the practice of powerful states.
Table of Contents
Contents: Foreword, Nigel D. White; Preface; Introduction; Assessing impact upon the jus ad bellum; Part I The Use of Force Under the Auspices of the United Nations Security Council: The functioning of the United Nations collective security system: the authorization technique; The unilateral determination of authority to use force under the auspices of the Security Council (I) the revival of authority; The unilateral determination of authority to use force under the auspices of the Security Council (II): enforcing the collective will. Part II The Use of Force in Self-Defence: Self-defence and terrorism: the harbouring standard of attribution; The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence; Conclusion; Postscript; Index.
Christian Henderson, Lecturer in Law, Department of Law, Oxford Brookes University, UK
'Dr. Henderson's book is a testament against those who believe the United States wholly disregards the United Nations and international law. His highly detailed account of action within the Security Council tells a different and more hopeful story about the US and the persistence of law against war.' Mary Ellen O'Connell, University of Notre Dame, USA 'This is a must read for anyone seeking to understand the complex journey international rules on the use of force have taken since the end of the Cold War. Henderson argues that efforts by powerful states to change the rules through their actions will succeed only to the extent that justifications for those actions are accepted by an interpretive community of states and other legal actors. A highly readable and ultimately persuasive account of why international law matters and how it evolves.' Ian Johnstone, Tufts University, USA 'This impressive book makes a genuine contribution to our knowledge of the US impact upon the jus ad bellum. It presents sound arguments and offers illuminating conclusions about the acceptability of unilateral enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions and the use of force in self-defence in the post-Cold War era.' Nigel D. White, University of Nottingham, UK