Book Review: International Relations
| Date | 01 September 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2008.00165_8.x |
| Published date | 01 September 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
raises the bar several notches in the study of
ethnic conflicts.
Tim Veen
(University of Nottingham)
We welcome short reviews of books in all
areas of politics and international relations.
For guidelines on submitting reviews, and to
see an up-to-date listing of books avail-
able for review, please visit http://www.
politicalstudiesreview.org/.
International Relations
Escape from Empire: The Developing
World’s Journey through Heaven and Hell
by Alice H. Amsden. Cambridge MA: MIT
Press, 2007. 197pp.,£16.95, ISBN 0 262 01234 0
A remarkable paradox surrounds international
development: the more that scholars, policy
makers and celebrities promote economic devel-
opment efforts, the less progress is realised.
Exploring this phenomenon, Alice Amsden’s
Escape from Empire analyses how the United States
has increased its focus on foreign countries’ eco-
nomic policies and international development
projects over the last 30 years, while much of the
developing world has experienced economic
stagnation and escalating poverty. The author’s
supposition regarding this correlation moves
beyond coincidental evidence, establishing a
substantial causal relationship between foreign
intervention and economic failure. The lack of
economic growth in Latin American and Africa
from the 1970s to the present (referred to by the
author as the ‘hell’ era) is a result of American
insistence that developing countries follow a strict
neoliberal prescription of structural adjustment
programmes with limited state intervention.
Conversely, during the period of unprecedented
global growth following the Second World War
(the ‘heaven’ era),Amsden notes that the US was
mostly indifferent towards the economic policies
of developing countries.
The recent lack of economic gains in the
developing world is well documented and
analysed in scholarly journals and books. Never-
theless,Amsden is able to make notable contribu-
tions to this particular area of international
political economy. Her examination of import-
substitution industrialisation logically questions
why viable alternatives to structural adjustment
programmes were not only lightly disregarded by
the US and international financial institutions at
the end of the heaven era, but have yet to be
seriously revisited since.Also, her insight into the
impact of colonial history on current economic
progress (or retreat) highlights the importance of
examining development factors that extend far
beyond economic models.
While Amsden’s analysis is intriguing,her utili-
sation of the heaven and hell analogy is limited.
The ‘heaven’ label for the post-SecondWorldWar
era implies a benign American empire, ignoring
the subversive activities undertaken by the US in
many developing countries during this time
period (political assassinations, election tamper-
ing, support for despotic rulers). On the other
hand, while the hell era has been marred by eco-
nomic development ineptitude,US foreign policy
has taken a relatively more progressive – though
far from faultless – position towards issues such as
human rights and HIV/AIDS. Despite this limi-
tation,Amsden’s well-written study is still a valu-
able contribution to the appraisal of international
development disappointments, not least because
of the meticulous analysis of American economic
foreign policy in the twentieth century.
Patrick Shea
(Fordham University)
Understanding Global Terror by Chr isto-
pher Ankersen (ed.). Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2007. 244pp., £55.00, £16.99, ISBN
9780745634593, ISBN 9780745634609
Bobbitt’s preface sets the bar high, in terms of
persuasiveness of argument, for the following
chapters. He opens by maintaining that ‘We are
not winning the war on terrorism’ (p. xiii) and
concludes by saying that it is America’s pre-
eminent economic, political and military position
422 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
© 2008The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
Political Studies Review: 2008, 6(3)
which is the root cause of terrorism in the twen-
tieth century (p. xxiv). Crucially, however, these
arguments do not come across as the opening
shots of an ideological rant or mere political pos-
turing; they are reasoned and well-argued points
which have more than a ring of truth about them.
Chris Brown takes up the narrative and dis-
cusses the intrinsic (f)utility of the notion of a war
on terror.This, he maintains,tacitly assumes some
of the recognised attributes of modern warfare:
start dates, end dates, uniforms and Geneva
Conventions. None of these, of course, apply in
this case.Brown then suggests that this issue could
be de-problematised and could gain more utility
as a concept if the war on terror were seen more
as a police action, and if war was not held to its
Clausewitzian understanding.
One issue with Brown’s chapter arises in his
discussion of ‘why they hate us’. Brown suggests
that Islamic fanatics hate the West because of who
we are and what we stand for.Presumably,Brown
is referring to notions such as democracy,women’s
rights, Christianity and others. This explanation
does have some validitybut runs the r isk of excul-
patingWestern policies in the Middle East,past and
present, from any blame for subsequent anti-
Western sentiment. Brown concedes that some
Western policies do contribute to this negative
sentiment, but his example of this (‘the Western
unwillingness to see Israel destroyed’[p.23])shows,
it could be argued,his contempt for this argument.
The other chapters are readable but basic sum-
maries of various situations, be they country spe-
cific (Russia), area specific (East Asia, Africa) or
relating to terrorism in other ways (terrorism and
law or terrorism and international finance).
Yet just as the book starts off with a good
chapter,so it finishes with one too. In this case it is
Friedman’s ruminations on the state of terrorism
against the wider backdrop of globalisation in the
past few decades.It g ives a broad contextual back-
ground which, along with Brown’s chapter, and
indeed the range provided by the others,provides
the reader with an intelligent and rounded book
for those seeking to understand global terror.
David B. Roberts
(University of Durham)
International Law and International Rela-
tions by David Armstrong, Theo Farrell and
Hélène Lambert. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007. 308pp., £14.99, ISBN
978 0 521 60518 2
There has been growing interest in the relation-
ship between law and politics in international
relations.This book provides a welcomeintroduc-
tion to the field. It begins by setting out some of
the main theories that guide the two disciplines
and the relationships between them. Fir st, it
tackles the nature of international law itself,
showing how the‘positivist’ approach to interna-
tional law dovetails with the ‘realist’ approach to
international relations in their understanding of
law as a realm distinct from politics and morality.
An alternative perspective, they argue, is to
acknowledge that states engage in social relations
with one another in an international society
framed by rules and norms, the precise content of
which changes over time.
Having set out the main parameters of debates
about the nature and meaning of international
law, the authors move on to provide a concise
overview of its development since Roman times,
remaining careful to acknowledge the role of law
in non-Western civilisations.The final part of the
theories and concepts section uses realism, liber-
alism and constructivism – three theories of
international relations – as ‘lenses’ to shed light
on different aspects of international law.
Realists share the precepts of legal positivism
and insist that law can only be an effective
influence on behaviour when supported by
enforcement.Given that so little international law
is backed by enforcement,legal considerations do
not weigh heavily on statesmen. Liberals mean-
while hold that states can cooperate for mutual
gain and that such cooperation is guided by rules
and norms. Liberal lawyers argue that interna-
tional law can be used to foster good practices
such as human rights and democracy.Finally,con-
structivists see international law as a structure of
meaning that helps guide argumentation and
shape norms and identities. Although picking out
the strengths and weaknesses of each ‘lens’, the
authors argue that each illuminates a different
BOOK REVIEWS 423
© 2008The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
Political Studies Review: 2008, 6(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial