With the end of the Cold War, many believed that a new, more stableinternational legal order would emerge. But an enormous gap in values-most noticeably concerning armed intervention-has prevented that from happening. One group of nations continues to cling to the United Nations Charter's ban against intervention, while another group-led by NATO and the UN Security Council itself-openly violates that prohibition. In fact, the ban has been breached so often that it can no longer be regarded as authoritative. Whether the resulting legal vacuum can be filled is the overriding international...
With the end of the Cold War, many believed that a new, more stableinternational legal order would emerge. But an enormous gap in values-most noticeab...
Challenging those who accept or advocate executive supremacy in American foreign-policy making, Constitutional Diplomacy proposes that we abandon the supine roles often assigned our legislative and judicial branches in that field. This book, by the former Legal Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the first comprehensive analysis of foreign policy and constitutionalism to appear in over fifteen years. In the interval since the last major work on this theme was published, the War Powers Resolution has ignited a heated controversy, several major treaties have aroused...
Challenging those who accept or advocate executive supremacy in American foreign-policy making, Constitutional Diplomacy proposes that we abandon t...
NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was justified. NATO violated the United Nations Charter - but nations have used armed force so often that the ban on non-defensive use of force has been cast into doubt. Dangerous cracks in the international legal order have surfaced - widened, ironically, by the UN Security Council itself, which has ridden roughshod over the Charter's ban on intervention. Yet nations remain hopelessly divided on what the rules should be. An unplanned geopolitical order has thus emerged - posing serious dilemmas for American policy-makers in a world where intervention will be...
NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was justified. NATO violated the United Nations Charter - but nations have used armed force so often that the ban on non-...
When and why are international rules binding? Focusing on questions of state security, The Fog of Law considers the nature of obligation in international law. In so doing, it challenges the prevailing theories of obligation based on natural law or positive law approaches. Michael J. Glennon argues for a pragmatist approach to international law--that international law has force when enough countries honor it. Using elements of rational choice theory, Glennon describes an international "frame of mind" that draws on the fluctuating network of incentives and disincentives surrounding...
When and why are international rules binding? Focusing on questions of state security, The Fog of Law considers the nature of obligation in int...
Why has U.S. security policy scarcely changed from the Bush to the Obama administration? National Security and Double Government offers a disquieting answer. Michael J. Glennon challenges the myth that U.S. security policy is still forged by America's visible, "Madisonian institutions" - the President, Congress, and the courts. Their roles, he argues, have become largely illusory. Presidential control is now nominal, congressional oversight is dysfunctional, and judicial review is negligible. The book details the dramatic shift in power that has occurred from the Madisonian...
Why has U.S. security policy scarcely changed from the Bush to the Obama administration? National Security and Double Government offers a dis...
Challenging the myth that the federal government exercises exclusive control over U.S. foreign-policymaking, Michael J. Glennon and Robert D. Sloane propose that we recognize the prominent role that states and cities now play in that realm. Foreign Affairs Federalism provides the first comprehensive study of the constitutional law and practice of federalism in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. It could hardly be timelier. States and cities recently have limited greenhouse gas emissions, declared nuclear free zones and sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, established...
Challenging the myth that the federal government exercises exclusive control over U.S. foreign-policymaking, Michael J. Glennon and Robert D. Sloane p...
NATO violated the United Nations Charter - but nations have used armed force so often that the ban on non-defensive use of force has been cast into doubt. Dangerous cracks in the international legal order have surfaced - widened, ironically, by the UN Security Council itself, which has ridden roughshod over the Charter's ban on intervention.
NATO violated the United Nations Charter - but nations have used armed force so often that the ban on non-defensive use of force has been cast into do...
