What do you think?
Rate this book
War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict
International law governing the use of military force has been the subject of intense public debate. Under what conditions is it appropriate, or necessary, for a country to use force when diplomacy has failed? Michael Byers, a widely known world expert on international law, weighs these issues in War Law .
Byers examines the history of armed conflict and international law through a series of case studies of past conflicts, ranging from the 1837 Caroline Incident to the abuse of detainees by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Byers explores the legal controversies that surrounded the 1999 and 2001 interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq; the development of international humanitarian law from the 1859 Battle of Solferino to the present; and the role of war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court. He also considers the unique influence of the United States in the evolution of this extremely controversial area of international law.
War Law is neither a textbook nor a treatise, but a fascinating account of a highly controversial topic that is necessary reading for fans of military history and general readers alike.
Byers examines the history of armed conflict and international law through a series of case studies of past conflicts, ranging from the 1837 Caroline Incident to the abuse of detainees by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Byers explores the legal controversies that surrounded the 1999 and 2001 interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq; the development of international humanitarian law from the 1859 Battle of Solferino to the present; and the role of war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court. He also considers the unique influence of the United States in the evolution of this extremely controversial area of international law.
War Law is neither a textbook nor a treatise, but a fascinating account of a highly controversial topic that is necessary reading for fans of military history and general readers alike.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
21 people are currently reading
175 people want to read
About the author
Michael Byers
6 books2 followersMichael Byers is a Canadian legal scholar and non-fiction author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 5, 2012
This book tries really hard to be Just and Unjust Wars, and is for the most part unsuccessful in that endeavor. It starts out well enough, with concepts introduced and explained with examples. As the chapters pass, though, the narrative gets progressively more judgmental and accusatory, reflecting the authors biases at the expense of doing full justice to the topics being addressed. There are also some questionable assertions about public opinion that, as there are no allusions to studies on the topics, seem wholly unsupported.
January 3, 2020
A good introduction to the law of armed conflict and its nexus with state policy with a good further reading list at the end of the book so readers can do further research into this continuously developing area of law.
A word of warning however! While the themes of this book are very interesting, pretty much right from the get go there's an undertone of bias against the United States which becomes quite overt toward the end. For example, Byers discusses the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by some members of the US military at length. However, he downplays the fact that it was the US media who took a leading role in exposing and denouncing this type of conduct, illustrating the importance of approaching this book critically.
Overall, I still consider it a worthwhile introduction to anyone interested in this branch of international law.
3.5/5 Stars
A word of warning however! While the themes of this book are very interesting, pretty much right from the get go there's an undertone of bias against the United States which becomes quite overt toward the end. For example, Byers discusses the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by some members of the US military at length. However, he downplays the fact that it was the US media who took a leading role in exposing and denouncing this type of conduct, illustrating the importance of approaching this book critically.
Overall, I still consider it a worthwhile introduction to anyone interested in this branch of international law.
3.5/5 Stars
May 2, 2022
The book is a good snapshot of international war law, particularly situated within the past 50 or so years. As it was published in 2005, there are many ways in which certain ideas—particularly Byers’ of the United States as the sole hegemonic military power within the international order—need updating. A few changes include the rise of China, populism (Trump), the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the US pulling out of Afghanistan. Most of the reviews emphasize the anti-American bias; I see where they are coming from, although I do think Byers ultimately argues that the American ethos is not irredeemably imperialist. It seems to me that he argues more that the US has a responsiblity as the foremost power to be more accountable to war law, than he argues that the US has too much power at all—which is an important distinction.
May 4, 2022
If you read this book, you will conclude that the US is the only country to have ever violated international humanitarian law. There is one sentence mentioning the torture and rape of American POWs by Iraq, but page after page about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by the US. There is a brief mention of the various crimes of Saddam, but page after page about how his trial was improperly conducted. According to this book, it was illegal for US planes to shoot at anti-aircraft weapons sited on tops of schools and other building, but perfectly okay for those weapons to be placed on school roofs.
Even if all the allegations against the US are true, and they may well be, other countries are as bad or worse. But you won't hear about those from this book.
Even if all the allegations against the US are true, and they may well be, other countries are as bad or worse. But you won't hear about those from this book.
November 20, 2018
This book is extremely bias against the United States. I do like that the author brings up some of the more controversial points that some foreign nations may argue; however, his opinions are often stated as facts and rarely points out any of the U.S. points of view to counter the exceptionally one sided outlook. It does include the U.N. charter and includes some decent information on customary international law. The author writes well so it is a fairly easy read for such an information dense book.
June 16, 2022
Good overview of late-20th century laws of armed conflict. Somewhat anti-American, and missing material about some of the conflicts of the 21st century (and especially weird conflicts like IS in Syria), and far from comprehensive, but a good introduction.
November 15, 2018
International Law and the ways countries break (and get away with) infringing on human rights during war. Another PoliSci heavy book, but great read
November 20, 2018
I would have given this a better review, but it was SO biased! The information part was good, but the opinion was, at times, an all out rant.
December 25, 2024
interesting but insanely dense and way above my head.
July 27, 2014
Great, readable, and engrossing explanation of the both the rules applicable to the decision to use force internationally against other states, and the rules applicable during war. Jus ad bello applies to when a state can go to war, while jus in bello addressed which actions are legal once war (or, "the use of force") is under way.
Basically, the foundation of all international relations between states is the UN Charter, which expressly forbids the use of force against other member states of the UN system. UN Charter Article 2(4) states that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The UN Charter is so fundamental to international relations that it prevails if or when its terms conflict with other treaties, and the prohibition on force in Art. 2(4) is so well established that it has passed from the realm of merely being a treaty provision, but is now considered jus cogens and therefore, no state may violate it, whether they are party to the UN Charter or not. Jus cogens being "peremptory norms of law which invalidate provisions in agreements between contracting parties that contravene them. Consequently, the prohibition on the use of force between states is final and absolute.
Almost....
There are a few situations where states may legitimately use force. First, through Security Council resolution. Second, for self defense.
The book then explains UN Security Council Authorizations of force, and UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions which seem to give (some states argue) implied use of force.
Part 2 of the book details the right of self defense, which exists in UN Charter Article 51, stating that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member State of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
Additionally, the right of self defense exists outside the UN Charter (note the word “inherent” in Art. 51), as a customary rule of international law, going back to US–British conflict in the mid-nineteenth century. Under customary international law, a state may use force to defend itself when the necessity is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” The use of force in such a circumstance must be “necessary” and “proportionate” to the threat posed. In recent decades, this self-defense justification has been expanded to “pre-emptive” self defense, where states feel justified striking targets in foreign countries who are still plotting their attack.
Two other justifications have been advanced for the use of force internationally: pro-democratic intervention, and humanitarian intervention. However, neither of these have entered the realm of customary international law, as there has been considerable international backlash when states use force in this manner. Lamentable, but true.
The later part of the book discusses international law during armed conflict, include the division between combatants and civilians (“non-combatants”), with non-combatants receiving greater protection during armed conflict. Many issues to discuss here, but it’s worth it to note that “in order to be considered soldiers, individuals should be in the chain of command, wear identifiable insignia, carry their weapons openly, and act in accordance with the laws of war.” Some of those laws including choosing targets which minimize civilian deaths.
Lastly, the book deals with war crimes tribunals such as the International Criminal Court and other specialized courts, and how not just soldiers but commanding officers and even political figures can be held accountable for the violations of the above laws of war.
Very worthwhile book which explains through clear language and concise examples the various aspects of the public international laws of war, though I found a legal qualm with the author’s conception of opinio juris, and a political qualm with the author’s optimism that the UN Security Council might act in the right manner to sanction the use of force to protect international peace and security and otherwise uphold the UN Charter. Also found this decent review here.
Basically, the foundation of all international relations between states is the UN Charter, which expressly forbids the use of force against other member states of the UN system. UN Charter Article 2(4) states that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The UN Charter is so fundamental to international relations that it prevails if or when its terms conflict with other treaties, and the prohibition on force in Art. 2(4) is so well established that it has passed from the realm of merely being a treaty provision, but is now considered jus cogens and therefore, no state may violate it, whether they are party to the UN Charter or not. Jus cogens being "peremptory norms of law which invalidate provisions in agreements between contracting parties that contravene them. Consequently, the prohibition on the use of force between states is final and absolute.
Almost....
There are a few situations where states may legitimately use force. First, through Security Council resolution. Second, for self defense.
The book then explains UN Security Council Authorizations of force, and UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions which seem to give (some states argue) implied use of force.
Part 2 of the book details the right of self defense, which exists in UN Charter Article 51, stating that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member State of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
Additionally, the right of self defense exists outside the UN Charter (note the word “inherent” in Art. 51), as a customary rule of international law, going back to US–British conflict in the mid-nineteenth century. Under customary international law, a state may use force to defend itself when the necessity is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” The use of force in such a circumstance must be “necessary” and “proportionate” to the threat posed. In recent decades, this self-defense justification has been expanded to “pre-emptive” self defense, where states feel justified striking targets in foreign countries who are still plotting their attack.
Two other justifications have been advanced for the use of force internationally: pro-democratic intervention, and humanitarian intervention. However, neither of these have entered the realm of customary international law, as there has been considerable international backlash when states use force in this manner. Lamentable, but true.
The later part of the book discusses international law during armed conflict, include the division between combatants and civilians (“non-combatants”), with non-combatants receiving greater protection during armed conflict. Many issues to discuss here, but it’s worth it to note that “in order to be considered soldiers, individuals should be in the chain of command, wear identifiable insignia, carry their weapons openly, and act in accordance with the laws of war.” Some of those laws including choosing targets which minimize civilian deaths.
Lastly, the book deals with war crimes tribunals such as the International Criminal Court and other specialized courts, and how not just soldiers but commanding officers and even political figures can be held accountable for the violations of the above laws of war.
Very worthwhile book which explains through clear language and concise examples the various aspects of the public international laws of war, though I found a legal qualm with the author’s conception of opinio juris, and a political qualm with the author’s optimism that the UN Security Council might act in the right manner to sanction the use of force to protect international peace and security and otherwise uphold the UN Charter. Also found this decent review here.
November 27, 2016
Well...yes you knew what to expect. All too often ethicists and those writing on the law of war do so in such a way as to try and batter the reader over the head and infuse them with the same drivel that they themselves spout.
This is even more annoying when you have been there, done that and know the actual facts. Byers starts off well, and rapidly degenerates into a left winged monologue, seeing himself as a legend in his own mind.
This is all the more disappointing since he started out with facts and then pulled the liberal trump card (pun intended). He criticizes the US Marines and accuses them of war crimes, albeit in a nice little liberal Canadian fashion. I had cited Byers several times in my forthcoming work, but had to put a stop to that since he became unglued and incredibly biased. He goes on to condemn the US for carpet bombing in Vietnam and there no-holds-barred spits out his vitriol by stating, it was a violation of international humanitarian law.
Seriously, there are far better books, which can provide you with content and detail in a much more balanced fashion that this poor and subjective accounting.
here are a few:
- Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against Terror: The burden of American power in a violent world. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
- Baker, Deane-Peter, ed. Military Ethics. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2015.
- Coleman, Stephen. Military Ethics: An introduction with case studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Gross, Michael L. Moral Dilemmas of Modern War. 1st. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
- Hoffmann, R. Joseph, ed. THe Just War and Jihad. Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2006.
- Howard, Michael, George J Andreopoulos, and Mark R Schulman. The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
- Johnson, James Turner. The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
- Nardin, Terry, ed. The Ethics of War and Peace. Princeton, New Jeresey: Princeton University Press, 1996.
- Norman, Richard. Ethics Killing & war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Thirlway, Hugh. The Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Zenko, Micha. Between Threats and War: U.S. discreet military operations in the Post-Cold War World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.
The problem with these guys is that their worldview is so jaded and out there in left field that it is tough to get a straight account of the facts,-- the real deal, as it were.
This is even more annoying when you have been there, done that and know the actual facts. Byers starts off well, and rapidly degenerates into a left winged monologue, seeing himself as a legend in his own mind.
This is all the more disappointing since he started out with facts and then pulled the liberal trump card (pun intended). He criticizes the US Marines and accuses them of war crimes, albeit in a nice little liberal Canadian fashion. I had cited Byers several times in my forthcoming work, but had to put a stop to that since he became unglued and incredibly biased. He goes on to condemn the US for carpet bombing in Vietnam and there no-holds-barred spits out his vitriol by stating, it was a violation of international humanitarian law.
Seriously, there are far better books, which can provide you with content and detail in a much more balanced fashion that this poor and subjective accounting.
here are a few:
- Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against Terror: The burden of American power in a violent world. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
- Baker, Deane-Peter, ed. Military Ethics. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2015.
- Coleman, Stephen. Military Ethics: An introduction with case studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Gross, Michael L. Moral Dilemmas of Modern War. 1st. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
- Hoffmann, R. Joseph, ed. THe Just War and Jihad. Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2006.
- Howard, Michael, George J Andreopoulos, and Mark R Schulman. The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
- Johnson, James Turner. The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
- Nardin, Terry, ed. The Ethics of War and Peace. Princeton, New Jeresey: Princeton University Press, 1996.
- Norman, Richard. Ethics Killing & war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Thirlway, Hugh. The Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Zenko, Micha. Between Threats and War: U.S. discreet military operations in the Post-Cold War World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.
The problem with these guys is that their worldview is so jaded and out there in left field that it is tough to get a straight account of the facts,-- the real deal, as it were.
Read
August 3, 2011Rather than have the title read Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict the title could read The Post 9/11 World. Michael Byers explains here how world governments have been bending or even breaking international norms and laws through ambiguous language. Written in a format that anyone can read, this book explores how the world has gone wrong and in particular lays blame at the feet of George W Bush and his Neo-Con cronies. Rather than end with a dire warning he tells the reader that we the world have an obligation to bring the US back to the core values that make it and by extension the rest of the world a great place to live. The book ends on a positive note. No taxation without representation was a refrain that started the War of Independance. The verve of that phrase resonates today when governments take part in illegal wars.
September 23, 2025
Very good introductory text on the international laws of war, with a particular focus on the application of the UN Charter and various treaties (the Geneva and Hague Conventions especially) to the conflicts of the 1990s and early 2000s. Michael Byers also draws on the historical experience that contributed to the development of the laws of war in the late 19th and early to mid 20th Centuries. While events have to some degree over-taken the book, the basic questions still remain even after 20 years: When is it legitimate for states to use armed force? On what basis can states used force in the first instance, in other words: what really counts as "self defense"? How "anticipatory" can self-defense be before it becomes aggression?
December 25, 2015
Very thorough introduction to the issue of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. It's not that the author is an enthusiast of the United Nations, he is just explaining how international law works in the field of war, and the UN Charter plays a great role on it. War was banished of international relations as an instrument of State policy since 1928, with the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and further reaffirmed by the Charter in 1945 (although with two exceptions, being arts. 38 and 51). It would be senseless (and unreasonable) not to put a emphasis on it. The book is very complete, didatic and makes a lot of historical references. Very delightful and short reading.
December 24, 2016
This is, as the blurb says, "neither a textbook nor a treatise." It's essentially an indictment of Bush Administration policy in the "War on Terror." It's well done for what it is, and provides some solid background to its main argument. Nonetheless, it's a polemic.
If you're looking for something actually on International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict, spend the $100 or so and read Gary Solis.
If you're looking for something actually on International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict, spend the $100 or so and read Gary Solis.
June 19, 2015
Ugh, the author has a serious fetish with the UN.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews