On the Law of Nations

by Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Foreign Policy. "In the annals of forgetfulness there is nothing quite to compare with the fading from the American mind of the idea of the law of nations." Grenada. "We might have benefited from a weekend's pause in which we could have considered our interests rather than merely giving in to our impulses." The mining of Nicaraguan harbors. "A practice of deception mutated into a policy of deceit." Iran-Contra. "The idea of international law had faded. But just as important, in the 1980s it had come to be associated with weaknesses in foreign policy. Real men did not cite Grotius." As the era of totalitarianism recedes, the time is at hand to ask by what rules we expect to conduct ourselves, Senator Moynihan writes in this pellucid, and often ironic, examination of international law. Our founding fathers had a firm grasp on the importance and centrality of such law; later presidents affirmed it and tried to establish international institutions based on such high principles; but we lost our way in the fog of the cold war. Moynihan's exploration of American attitudes toward international law--those of presidents, senators, congressmen, public officials, and the public at large--reveals the abiding reverence for a law of nations and the attempts for almost two hundred years to make international law the centerpiece of foreign and strategic policy. Only in the last decade did a shift in values at the highest levels of government change the goals and conduct of the United States. Displaying a firm grasp of history, informed by senatorial insights and investigative data, elegantly written, this book is a triumph of scholarship, interpretation, and insight.

Genres: International Relations, Politics, History, Political Science

211 pages, Hardcover

First published February 1, 1990

About the author

Daniel Patrick “Pat” Moynihan was an American politician and sociologist. A member of the Democratic Party, he was first elected to the United States Senate for New York in 1976, and was re-elected three times (in 1982, 1988, and 1994). He declined to run for re-election in 2000. Prior to his years in the Senate, Moynihan was the United States' ambassador to the United Nations and to India, and was a member of four successive presidential administrations, beginning with the administration of John F. Kennedy, and continuing through Gerald Ford.

Reviews

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book for the most part, but it is somewhat hard to recommend bc it is so niche. I'm working on a book that focuses heavily on MOynihan, so I wanted to read this book to get a better sense of his views of international law and order. It's useful for that, but it's also somewhat disjointed and rambling; he's always an interesting guy to listen to, but the book felt like it was full of tangents and never went through rigorous editing (it is short but takes a decent amount of time to read). DPM also loves to use really large block quotes that are often a slog to get through.

Still, the argument is interesting if somewhat impressionistic rather than systematic. DPM contends that since the start of its existence the United States has put a great amount of emphasis on international law. It obviously has not always bound itself to that law, but many of its leaders have held that international interactions should be governed by law. He focuses particularly on Wilson and FDR as the two great liberal internationalists of the 20th century. Wilson advanced the idea of a League of Nations maintaining collective security and national sovereignty, and FDR revived that idea (with some changes) in the creation of the UN, which he hoped would act as a global policeman. DPM even shows that FDR was willing to give a lot of authority to the UN, including pre-delegated authority to use force to uphold international law.

In the second half of the book, DPM laments the decline of the idea of in'tl law in recent US foreign policy, focusing in particular on the Reagan admin. He rightfully calls them out for stretching the definition of self-defense to including trying to achieve regime change in places like Nicaragua through patently illegal means like mining the harbors there. He shows US leaders lying to the US people and breaking the law during Iran-Contra and other affairs. He makes a great point that it is very hard for us to raise a ruckus about Iran's violation of diplomatic law in taking hostages in 1979 if we are simultaneously supporting actions like the ransacking of diplomatic facilities in Nicaragua. While I somewhat agree with the more realist position that it is effectively impossible to follow int'l law to the letter, especially when competing with a country like the USSR or China that straight up does not respect I-Law, we do undermine our credibility and ultimately weaken our power and legitimacy by ignoring international law.

DPM makes a good case that it should be more central to our foreign policy. This book is also interesting as a reminder that DPM never really became a neocon but rather remained a liberal internationalist, as he spends much of the book arguing (in a friendly way) against people like Jeane Kirkpatrick who were basically saying the US should embrace any means necessary and ignore I-Law in the Cold War.

[Dmitriy · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Greg · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A dull, hard to read montoge by Monihan on how he felt nations should interact. It appears that the author was trying to impress intellectuals.