(Part 2) Best international law books according to redditors
We found 122 Reddit comments discussing the best international law books. We ranked the 57 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
The high seas? Are you one of those deviants that are into sea law?
If so...I've got just the thing for you: [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: and Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI] (https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-Convention-Implementation-International/dp/1795567104/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sea+law&qid=1550764444&s=gateway&sr=8-1)
China's space strategy by Stacey Solomone is offers a short, sharp insight into the Chinese plans, what they have done, motivations, and the way they operate. It's quite a useful book for trying to make sense of things, though not very detailed.
Some of the main points were that, contrary to popular belief, China's aerospace industry will soon be innovating independently, rather than copying. In human spaceflight, while they have made few crewed launches (five, 6th this year), they've made big leaps between each.
Overall, China's got a load of plans, which don't receive much coverage. They are working on a number of fronts, including new rockets (Long March 5, debuting in Sep/Oct this year, will be comparable to Delta IV heavy), Earth observation, space science (dark matter probe & 3 more this year), a 60 ton, modular space station (core module scheduled to go up in 2018), lunar exploration (Chang'e-4 as you note and a sample return (Chang'e-5) in 2017) and the Beidou nav/positioning system. These amount to a huge, ambitious commitment, and it will be interesting if they can keep the pace - especially given the current economic wobbles in China.
Regarding policy and direction, in March China will announce its next five year plan (2016-2020), and we should be able to learn about (some) future plans. Following this, a new space white paper will be released near the end of the year, in which priorities will be laid out. The current, from 2011, can be found here if you're really keen. Hope that helps.
----
Foreword:
The following is my opinion predicated upon: theoretical framework (functionalism; neo-functionalism; intergovernmentalism; liberal intergovernmentalism;...), economics (macroeconomics; monetary policy; fiscal policy; bonds; interest rates;...), and history (EU; integration; framework evolution;...). And culminates in tying these factors together to present an overarching case.
----
Integration vs. Separatism
In large part the problems, or perceived problems, derive from the early systemic institutions set up with the directive of federalization - in whatever form that may take. For example the Eurozone: The Eurozone has a combined monetary, but not fiscal policy. In economics we've already seen such a system fail - see: the fall of the gold-standard. That is to say you cannot have a shared monetary policy without a shared fiscal policy - but austerity doesn't work, and that isn't just a passing comment that is economics.
--
The primary fear - other than systemic limitations propagated by fear ending in self-fulfilling prophecy - is the loss of culture. This is simply short-sighted and, yet again, fear driven. In the face of integration we've seen the reassertion of regional cultural cohesion; Catalonia, Scotland, etc. A radical example of the applicability of cultural differences in the face of integration is the United States. The United States still has massively different cultural regions - with conflicting views, values, and ideologies.
--
If anything integration allows for culture to be reasserted not undermined. When you're working together to common ends you needn't unite nationally to propagate nationalist goals - but instead you identify with your culture, no matter how small or large, without having to play the 'lesser-of-two-evils' game.
--
Federalism would've come in ~1954 with the European Defensive Community and European Political Community, if not for France vetoing the acts. They did this in fear of West-Germany rearming - a situation they wanted to prevent. But this proved futile as West-Germany rearmed the next year under NATO.
--
European Integration has proven an odd natural experiment in supranational overtones subsuming international polarity conflicts resulting in inter regional multi-polarity. In political philosophy there are two conflicting views in aims of global peace: Unipolar; Multipolar. Unipolar would led to the term Pax Americana and the interventionist foreign policy of the last 50 years. While in contrast the conflicting views and lack of popular support (in large part due to wide-spread difference in values and ideologies resulting from cultural differences) make it hard to act aggressively on a united front for reasons other than direct self-defense. So fears of being forced into military action as a result of unification could not be more wrong.
--
In conclusion I see integration as the best, and perhaps only solution. A common uniting 'Constitution' which outlays the general tendencies, powers, and limits on government. I would argue for this to be vague and serve as more of a 'Bill of Rights' or 'Common Values' over specific limiting texts. Inter-regional governments could very well split off from others, the need for large 'states' wouldn't be present when defense and politics are supranational. Meaning smaller and smaller regions could form with their own agendas regarding where investment goes, what criminal law is passed, and so on. In essence a limited federal Europe with proportional representation may seem scary but it would really empower each individual region far beyond they are now while assuaging fears of interventionism and national interest conflicts.
----
My Complex Case (Towards Integration)
So, about a year ago, I decided to pen a paper on the future of the European Union. Making my general case -- from the perspective of a post-grad economist, who has penned published work related to the subject. It is by no means meant to serve as a published work. Merely to outline my argument, present my case, and provide substantive evidence.
--
It can be found here (for those wanting deeper exploration)^[NOTE] :
^[Note]: ^Link ^goes ^to ^download ^through ^'mega'.
--
'Summary':
^[Note]: ^The ^below ^summary ^is ^a ^mere ^taste ^of ^what ^is ^touched ^on. ^And ^is ^by ^no ^means ^a ^comprehensive ^summary.
--
> The solution to bring about long run stability requires more pronounced federalization, which in turn requires further supranational power and oversight, which in turn requires democratic legitimacy. There are several proposals; including direct elections of the President of the Commission or the entire Commission. But a huge problem right now is due to the European Court of Justice which, now more than ever, has a direct role in arbitration over institutions and laws. Because of the increasing breadth of competency has grown to cover customs unions, competition, monetary policy, commercial policy, international agreements, public health, technology and development, security, social policy, consumer protection and more. All without clear defined institutional roles.
--
> Every step in the direction of cohesive integration has brought about problems, fears, and dissidents clinging to their national identity with atavistic prose. Only for their fears to be quenched and dissents mocked, all until a new concern should arise. The long-term solution is legitimacy, stability, and representation. For the alternatives are collapse, dismay, chaos, and political usurpations. And it is because of that risk, the neofunctionalist ball-and-chain, which further integration will march on in placing the capstone upon federation be it weak or strong. As the problems faced hereto result from opaque institutional authority, lack of legitimacy, and the lack of meaningful cooperation in ensuring regional stability and prosperity. The final viscous cycle that will be broken, the penultimate impetus of need, is the chain between national governments and their people. When people find legitimacy in the European Union any reversion needn’t call upon nationalism for succession.
----
Unipolarity, Multipolarity & Stability
The inter-regional and multi-tiered checks and balances are complex, and for reasons of brevity I will not outlay those here. But it falls under the common theme of what I said above. A broad and common 'Constitution' protecting equal rights, due-process, and privacy similar to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I think it is our only hope for a long-term peace - where today any fall in global peace means our own demise. Nationalism and war are not longer a solution when fluid cultural and values shared through due-process are represented.
----
Readings on Early Visionaries:
^[If ^you ^haven't ^read ^them, ^or ^don't ^know ^of ^them]
> Ventotene Manifesto—A. Spinelli and E. Rossi
>
> The Tragedy of Europe—W.S. Churchill
>
> The Schuman Declaration—R. Schuman
>
> Preambles to the Treaties Establishing the European Communities (The Treaties of Paris and Rome)
>
> A Ferment of Change—J. Monnet
>
> A Concert of European States—C. de Gaulle
>
> Preamble to the Single European Act. A Family of Nations—M. Thatcher
>
> A Necessary Union—J. Delors
>
> Preamble to the Treaty on European Union (The Maastricht Treaty)
>
> February 15, or What Binds Europeans Together—J. Habermas and J. Derrida
>
> * Preambles to the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe and the Treaty of Lisbon
----
Here is an academic collection of related works. Here is an older version; same content simply far cheaper.
Sure! I'm a law student specializing in international law. I've already written papers on the subject, and i would like to make it one of my specialties as a jurist. If you are interested, the ICRC itself has an entire mini site with vulgarized content and brochures that you can browse: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/index.jsp. And if you are really interested to the point of reading a book on the subject the Holy ICRC (really, it's the reference in this topic) has issued a very good 300-pages book for non-jurist: http://www.amazon.com/Constraints-Waging-War-Introduction-International/dp/1107600324/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1406418513&sr=8-7&keywords=international+humanitarian+law
Here's a list of the key books in the field that I'm familiar with (by name and general contents, I've only actually read a few of them). I'm mainly focusing on what is relevant to the study of Twelver Shi'ism; there aren't many English language books on Zaidism, as far as I'm aware, and for Isma'ilism you can start with the works of Farhad Daftary.
I'll start with important works providing an overview of the area, and then give a rough breakdown by "era" (I may be a bit off regarding the era, and many of these books straddle two or more eras, so be warned). This list does not emphasize geographic studies of Shi'ism in various areas and countries, and rather traces the "core narrative" of the development of Shi'i intellectual history, which is typically thought of as happening in what is now modern day Iran, Iraq, and (especially in the post-Mongol/pre-Safavid era) Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in Bahrain. Once you've read the initial works, you should have a good idea about what's going on in each era, and you can pick and choose what to read based on your interests.
If you have no background in general Islamic history, you should first pick up a book on that subject. Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted is an accessible non-academic book on general Islamic history (with an entertaining audiobook read by the author). If you want something heavier and more academic, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's The Venture of Islam is the classic three-volume reference in the field of Islamic studies, although it's a bit dated, especially in the third volume (covering the so-called "Gunpowder Empires"). Note that the standard introductory text on Shi'ism has long been Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism, but this book is now a bit dated. Heinz Halm also has some surveys, but I'm less familiar with these; likewise for the surveys of Farhad Daftary (who is better known for his work on Isma'ilism than general Shi'ism).
Surveys, Background, and Introduction
The Succession and the so-called "Rashidun" Era
The Imams and Early Shi'is in the Ummayid and `Abbasid Eras
The Buyid, Seljuq, and Mongol Eras
The Safavid Era and the Scholars of Jabal Amil
The Iranian Interregnum Era
The Qajar Era
The Contemporary Era / Miscellaneous
All the answers you seek are here, happy reading.
It's being destabilized. People across the Atlantic are also being subjective to new legislation that was unprecedented in the past. IMO I humbly state that globalization will result in two cooperative governments the US and the EU that will work to dominate the resources of the planet. It's just what I think is happening and why so many smaller nations are being resourced and controlled economically so that we can use them as stables or mills for food and resources as the current stock will only last so long. I also have hear an Indian scholar speak on NPR about the prospect of future food wars but cannot recall her book. It was a very interesting session and prompted me to start growing my own vegetables . But look, read this. You can decide: It has great reviews.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Deception-European-Union-Survive/dp/0826480144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243540819&sr=8-1
By M. T. Mcaleer (UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? (Paperback)
Anyone who cares about our system of democracy must read this book. I hope that if David Cameron wins the next election he sends a copy of this book to every MP. He might then appreciate that he should have stuck to his guns with his "cast iron gurantee" for a referendum.
When the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1971, we were assured that aethere is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty. Successive Governments have effectively ceded legislative powers to an unelected bureaucracy, namely, the European Commission. It has been estimated that 75% of new laws, directives etc stem from Brussels. With the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, we are almost at the point of being subsumed into a European superstate. The evidence in this book is both compelling and frightening in terms of how we have collectively been deceived by our politicians.
This one too:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-European-Rip-off-Wasteful/dp/1847945708/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t
In this EU election year, it's time for people across Europe to look at what really goes on in Brussels in our name.
It has been estimated that the EU costs us around £1,000 billion a year - an incredible £2000 for every man, woman and child in Europe. So what do we get for our money? Politicians and administrators selflessly working to bring us efficient government? Well-targeted regulations that promote economic prosperity? A safe and free society? A well-protected environment? Help for people in poorer countries?
Or is our money being squandered by a self-serving euro-elite of unaccountable politicians and incompetent bureaucrats, or else devoured in a feeding frenzy of fraud and corruption where a few lucky insiders become unimaginably rich at our expense? And is the tsunami of regulation pouring out of Brussels in reality strangling industry, destroying jobs, restricting personal freedom, desecrating the environment and further impoverishing the developing world?
Using their extensive network of insider sources, David Craig and Matthew Elliott smash through the secrecy and disinformation that are the Brussels hallmark to reveal what our European rulers are really getting up to. The result is a horrifying story of bureaucracy, hypocrisy and kleptocracy - and how we are all suffering as a result.
Do you mean melt ponds?. That does complicate things but apparently with enough spectral bands it is possible to distinguish them: Melt ponds on Arctic sea ice determined from MODIS satellite data using an artificial neural network.
If you are willing to drop $104 there is an entire book about the topic:
Detection of Melt Ponds on Arctic Sea Ice with Optical Satellite Data.
I'm not sure how it works to specialize your practice, but you might want to pickup the Tallin Manuals: https://smile.amazon.com/Tallinn-Manual-International-Applicable-Warfare/dp/1107613779/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g3905707922?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8
You probably don't need industry certifications to successfully practice law with a focus in cyber, but then again idk how practicing law actually works. Might have more success asking in one of the lawerly subreddits.
Your question is not very specific. Are you talking about Jus Cogens? Human rights norms? International Humanitarian Law? Treaty law? Conflict of laws? Do you just want a primer on international law generally?
Here's a casebook and an E&E on the subject, but that's probably not quite what you're looking for?
I have read this book on his trial. He was indeed interesting and a superb general. There is some evidence he was resented by others in the Japanese Army high command and sidelined after Singapore, before being given the impossible task of defending the Philippines.
A major problem with the Japanese high command was it was composed largely of leaders, like Tojo, with very limited overseas experience. This is how the Japanese so often believed they could beat the USA because 'the Americans are soft and love luxury', it was just wishful thinking based on ignorance a warmongering. Men like Yamashita and the Navy's Yamamoto spoke annoying truths based on actual experience.
Massacres and atrocities were committed during the invasion of Malaya that were ultimately his responsibility (even if there is no evidence he ordered them). But events in Manila were beyond his control, committed by troops not answerable to him and not in his chain of command.
Highly suggest reading this book if you want a great breakdown of the disputes and underlying political tension.
https://www.amazon.ca/Owns-Arctic-Understanding-NorthUnderstanding-International/dp/1553654994
> The WTO (which isn't exactly the most powerful organization) would be powerless to do anything about it.
The WTO is the single most powerful organization on earth. Along with the Bretton Woods system, it is the entire foundation of the post-war global economy. Please read up on trade law and familiarize yourself on the current state of international affairs. This is a good start.
https://www.amazon.ca/International-Law-Doctrine-Practice-Theory/dp/1552213579/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1536602298&sr=8-2&keywords=International++Law%3A++Doctrine%2C++Practice++and++Theory%2C
I don't think so! It's this one :)
​
International Law Stories seems to highlight the major cases that are covered in most survey public international law courses... https://www.amazon.com/International-Law-Stories-John-Noyes/dp/1599410869
As for copyright, you can get the IP Q&A book to see how well you grasp it
universal declaration of human rights https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1523393726/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_vCyEzbZF493H3
Supposedly the second most published work after the Bible!
Requesting:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/International-Humanitarian-Law-Materials-Commentary/dp/1107462746
I've read great things about Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. It was just released a few months ago so I'm hoping it will help me better understand current events and Obama's presidency.
Also, I thought his book American Empire was interesting, which he published in 2002. Bacevich is, by the way, a conservative. I don't want to misrepresent his ideas, so I encourage you to read the book. But there's an idea I marked that I'll quote.
> When it comes to the fundamentals of U.S. policy...continuities loom large...In practice, Clinton and his advisers drew on basic ideas that Bush (41) and his team had already put in play and that, indeed, formed the received wisdom of American statecraft accumulated across a century or more.
> In that regard, five ideas stand out—each one embraced by Bush, each figuring in Clinton’s rearticulation of U.S. strategy: the identification of interdependence as the dominant reality of international politics; a commitment to advancing the cause of global openness; an emphasis on free trade and investment as central to that strategy and a prerequisite for prosperity at home; a belief in the necessity of American hegemony—while avoiding any actual use of that term; and frequent reference to the bugbear of “isolationism” as a means of disciplining public opinion and maintaining deference to the executive branch in all matters pertaining to foreign relations.
edit: i didn't mention the arab spring, as for that, i recalled a passage from a theory of international terrorism (free pdf can be found online)
> If Islamic political parties were allowed to contest elections, they are feared to win elections on anti-US and anti-Israel platforms.13 In Jordan and Egypt, for example, anti-Israel religious parties would easily sweep freely held general elections. If democratically elected Islamic parties come to power, they would denounce the peace treaties with Israel and adopt anti-US foreign policies. Knowing this, Israelis see an existential threat in democratization of the Muslim world. Since US national interests may diverge from those of Israel, a democratic Muslim world may drive a wedge between Israel and the US. If the US were to sacrifice its own interests for the sake of preserving the US-Israel alliance, a democratic Muslim world would be further estranged from the US. In either case, free democ- racy in the Middle East would pose new challenges to US military, security, and economic interests in the world. To avoid these developments, both the US and Israel support a distorted notion of democracy that suppresses religious parties from contesting elections and assuming power.
>When was the last time a Christian extremist captured, tortured, beheaded someone and then shown it for the whole world to see?
Christians committed all kinds of religion motivated atrocities: Inquisitions, Crusades, protestant-catholic strife and war. And it's not like the violence stopped recently:
"The ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the VRS [mostly compose of Orthodox Serbs] targeted Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery and inhumane treatment of civilians"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Sectarian_attacks_and_alleged_ethnic_cleansing
etc, etc.
I would argue that Islam is just about as violent as any other religion.
Even "meek and mild" Sri-Lankan Buddhists do not shirk massacring Hindu Tamils.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tamil-Genocide-Lanka-International/dp/0932863701
> For the record in the info you provided none of them explicitly blamed the US and UK for "genocidal" (a word you still seem not to grasp) policies.
There is nobody so stupid as a man who doesn't want to be educated. A quick Google search will provide all the evidence you want, but you don't want to educate yourself, you just want to win a stupid internet argument. Fool. I'm done with you. Read this, a review of von Sponeck's book (link just in case you are actually interested in educating yourself and buy the book). Since you probably won't, here are the money shots:
"Sponeck decided that he could not remain associated with the punishing policies against the Iraqi people that he judged were genocidal in nature"
"Courageously, Sponeck acknowledges, in spite of the US main media blather to the contrary, that the Iraqi government was trying its damnedest to alleviate the suffering of the population and was quite efficient at doing so; but its efforts were constantly blocked by the U.S. (90 percent of the time) and its allies (read the U.K.) that repeatedly, month after month, year after year, would forbid (or "block") the importation of necessary items to gear up the infrastructure, the food chain, and even the school system (even the import of pencils for school children was "blocked" because they allegedly could be used in the production of WMDs -- I kid you not). What could that government have done but surrender? Meanwhile, Iraqis kept dying -- malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, lack of medicines...you name it. Over one million...to our eternal shame."
You have no shame though, obviously.