Book Reviews : Diplomacy. The Dialogue Between States. Adam Watson. Eyre Methuen. 1982. 239 pp. £9.50
| DOI | 10.1177/004711788200700408 |
| Author | Alan James |
| Date | 01 October 1982 |
| Published date | 01 October 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2242
BOOK
REVIEWS
Law
and
Power
in
International
Relations.
By
James
Fawcett.
Faber
&
Faber,
1982.
140
pp.
£9.50.
At
one
time
the
relationship
between
international
law
and
international
politics
tended
to
attract
American
rather
than
British
writers.
Professor
Fawcett’s
latest
book
is
welcome
evidence of
the
extent
to
which
British
writers
too
are
now
interested
in
this
important
topic.
The
introduction
and
chapter
I
are
wide-ranging,
but
(perhaps
for
that
very
reason)
rather
disjointed.
The
remaining
chapters
are
less
disjointed
and
therefore
of
a
higher
standard.
Chapter
2,
on
power
frontiers,
examines
several
recent
international
disputes,
especially
the
Sino-Soviet
border
dispute,
the
recurrent
crises
over
Berlin
since
1948,
the
Cuban
missiles
crisis
of 1962
and
the
Suez
crisis
of
1956.
Chapter
3,
on
economic
power,
looks
at
the
protection
of
investments
and
GATT.
Chapter
4,
on
human
rights,
is
mainly
concerned
with
the
United
Nations
action
against
the
Smith
regime
in
Rhodesia
from
1965
onwards.
Chapter
5
deals
with
non-intervention.
Professor
Fawcett
concludes
that
&dquo;law
cannot
create
order
in
international
relations,
but
emerges
as
a
fact
of
life
where
there
are
minimum
degrees
of
order,
which
it
may
serve
to
rationalize
and
extend&dquo;
(p. 119).
Unfortunately
there
are
a
number
of
careless
mistakes.
For
instance,
on
p.
58
Professor
Fawcett
says
that
the
Vienna
Convention
on
the
Law ofTreaties
is
not yet
in
force
(in
fact,
it
came
into
force
on
27
January
1980)
and
that
the
Sino-Soviet
border
agreement
of
1924
was
never
ratified
(in fact,
it
came
into
force
when
it
was
signed
on
31
May
1924,
as
provided
in
its
Article
XV).
There
are
also
a
number
of
misprints
or
slips
of
the
pen;
1 particularly
liked
the
reference
to
&dquo;Aristotle’s
telegrams&dquo;
(presumably
a
misprint
for
&dquo;Aristotle’s
epigrams&dquo;)
on
p.
10.
There
is
no
index.
But
this
little
book
contains
many
interesting
ideas.
At
times
it
asks
questions
instead
of
providing
answers,
but
in
a
sense
that
makes
it
all
the
more
stimulating.
Some
passages
are
likely
to
stimulate
a
good
deal
of
controversy,
particularly
Professor
Fawcett’s
suggestion
on
p.
28
that
the
Kellogg-Briand
Pact
and
&dquo;contemporary
declarations
of
a
right
to
self-determination
of
peoples&dquo;
are
statements]
of
political
rather
than
legal
obligations&dquo;.
-Michael
Akehurst
Diplomacy.
The
Dialogue
Between
States.
Adam
Watson.
Eyre
Methuen.
1982.
239
pp.
£9.50.
This
is
an
important
book.
for
two
reasons.
The
first
is
that
in
discussing
the
nature,
context.
and
problems
of diplomacy
the
author
covers
a
large
amount
of
related
ground,
and
makes
illuminating
and
sensible
comments
as
he
passes
by.
Thus
there
is
much
that
is
very
worthwhile
on
such
basic
topics
as
power,
the
changing
role
of
force,
ideology,
national
interest,
the
making
of
foreign
policy.
new
states,
international
organisations.
inter-dependence.
international
law,
and
the
nature
of
the
international
society.
While,
therefore.
not
intended
as
a
general
book
for the heginning
student
of international
relations,
it
could
nonetheless
serve
as
such
and
would
do
so
admirably.
It
is
clearly
written
and
free
of jargon,
and
one
therefore
hopes
that
it
will
be
widely
read
in
universities
and
polytechnics.
The
second
and
much
weightier
reason
for
the
book’s
importance
lies
in
what
it
has
to
say
about
diplomacy.
The
significance
of
this
phenomenon
is
usually
greatly
underrated
by
International
Relations
scholars.
who
tend
to
see
diplomacy
as
just
one
way
of
executing
forcign
policy
and
fail
to
understand
that
it
is
an
essential
condition
for
the
existence
of
regular
and
ordered
relations
between
states.
Mr
Watson
however,
himself
a
former
diplomat,
gets
the
matter
into
true
perspective.
The
very
sub-title
of
his
book-&dquo;the
dialogue
between
states&dquo;-is
an
excellent
start.
And
early
on
he
makes
the
fundamental
point
that
without
diplomacy
the
world
&dquo;would
have
to
resign
itself to
a
condition
of
anarchy
and
isolation,
of
chronic
insecurity
and
war ...
States
would
have
to
live
by
and
tor
themselves&dquo;
(p.
22).
He
recognises
that
resident
embassies
and
professional
diplomatic
services
are
not
the
only
means
by
which
the
dialogue
can
be
conducted.
And
he
accepts
that
the
personal
prestige
of ambassadors
had
declined,
so
that
they
are
now
more
like
their
original
position
as
agents
of
their
heads
of
To continue reading
Request your trial