tv Scott Shapiro The Internationalists CSPAN March 30, 2018 4:22pm-5:20pm EDT
the 11th annual savannah book festival. the book festival is presented by georgia power, david and nancy cintron, the sheehan family foundation and mark and pat sue egg. many thanks to jack and mary romanos, our sponsors for this glorious venue the trinity united methodist church. would also like to extend thanks to our literati members and individual donors make this saturday free author presentations possible. 90% of our revenue comes from donors just like you. we are very excited to have a savannah book festival app available for your phone. just looking your program for information on downloading it. immediately following the presentation, scott shapiro
will be signing festival purchased copies ofin his book fair square. said if you are planning to stay for the next author presentatio presentation, we just ask that you move forward so the ushers can count the available seats and we can let in the right a lot of people. no flash photography. also, now is a good time to set your phone too do not disturb or turn it off. the question-and-answer portion, please raise your hand and an usher will bring a microphone to you and then you need to wait until the microphone gets to before you ask a question. no one will be able to hear you otherwise. please limit yourself to one question and no long stories, please. scott shapiro is with us today, courtesy of liz and
kent burnett's. he teaches both law and kphilosophy at yale law school where he directs the center for law and philosophy. here and his bachelors and doctorates degrees in philosophy from columbia and then a jd from yellow school. he is the author of legality and editor of the oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law. please give a warm welcome to him. [applause] >> hello everyone. good morning. first of all, i have yankee blood so i brought a jacket, but it's just too hot for me. although, it is snowing in new york so i'm enjoying being
overheated. so our book, the internationalist is the story of the modern international order about the people who helped build the and why, despite it's in a perspective it's crucial that it be defended now more than ever. the central argument of the book is that the origins of the modern world order can be traced to a specific date in history, august 27, 1928 when the world leaders gathered together in paris to outlaw war. now, the treaty that was signed on that date, which goes by the name the kellogg brand pack, it has largely been forgotten. i'm just curious, chopin's,
who has heard of the pact? >> wow. that is a lot of people. that is much more, that's very educated. most people have never heard about it and actually, most law professors have never heard of it. the people who have heard of it think it's among the most ridiculous things that diplomats have ever tried to do. the idea that you could end war by signing a piece of paper strikes many people as the height of foolishness, and to tell you the truth, when my colleague and i taught international yale before we wrote the book, we also treated that way, as a laughingstock and failed experiment in idealism however
, through the course of research on a related topic, though at the time we didn't know is related, a history of economic sanctions, we discovered something we didn't expect that is far from being ridiculous. outlawing war turned out to be transformative. it represented the hinge in history where one world order ended and another began. in short, before 1928, war was the legitimate mechanism. it was the way in which states enforced their rights against one another. this is what we found absolutely astonishing. before 1928, war was legal, but economic stations were illegal. after 1928 that switches and
it switches incredibly quickly. war becomes illegitimate and criminal and economic sanctions are now the routine way in which international law is enforced. now, we describe this tectonic shift in world history narratively in the book through a cast of characters that we call the internationalist. most of these people, we had never heard of, in fact, one of the main heroes of the book will talkk about later did not, before the book have a wikipedia entry which, in the modern world means you don't exist. but, we were really taken by their determination, their bbrilliance, their vision, their doggedness and indeed their candidness in being able to figure out how to take
their ideas and turn them into action. in a time where people are talking and thinking about resistance, their story we found to be inspirational. now, one of the reasons, i think that most people think that war, i turned on my phone just because i realized i didn't know how long things were going and my sister just texted me, i'm watching you. [laughter] hi melissa. that's funny. okay so i think the reason why most people think that outlawing war is ridiculous is because they don't appreciate the vital role that were used
to play before 1928 in an era which we call the old world order. in the old world order, states had the right of war. now today, we think of war as the consummate breakdown of the system. in the old world order, were was the system. if a state had been wronged, and made demands and those demands were ignored, the state who had been injured had the legal right to use force in order to write that wrong. now they have that right not just in cases that we recognizes self-defense and invasion, but any kind of legal wrong whatsoever to collect that's comments recover property, to enforce commercial treaties, any
reason you could go to court you could go to war for. how this may sound like an absolutely crazy thing to do, barbaric to go to war and collect that, but from their perspective it made perfect sense. if someone owes you money, what you do. you go to a lawyer, you sue the person, go to court, if they don't s pay up the sheriff executes the judgment. if yournt estate your sovereign and you don't recognize a higher authority. youu don't have anyone to go too. there's no supreme court of the world. there are no worldt police. states thought the law gave them the right to use force in order to write the wrong. what is critical here is not just that states have the right of war, they had many other rights which gave the right of war value.
now the most important right mpthat they had, which supported the right of war was the right of conquest. we know conquest has happened for millennia, but what many people don't realize is that conquest was a legal right and it wasta a legal right because the law needed to get states a way of actually righting the wrongs that they went to war in order to write. when the united states went to war with mexico in 1846, the official legal justification was that mexico owed the united states $2 million. the united states tried for 220 years to get that money back and decided to go to war in 1846. as compensation for those debts, the name of that
compensation as california, utah, nevada, new mexico, part of oklahoma, and basically 500,000 square miles of mexican territory. this is not the way, when the united states did this, it was not acting as a rogue imperial power, it was acting as what responsible states did that is because the old world order gave them the right of conquest. states had another right. if they had the right to go to work, they had the rate to threaten to go to war. this is incredibly important because it undergoes the practice that we call gunboat diplomacy. as many of you know, in the 19th century, japan was excluded, excuse me was secluded and excluded with the exception of the dutch, twice a year from
trading with japan. the united states and other western powers were very upset, they claimed japanan was violating its obligation to engage in legal commerce and sent matthew pack. and his gunboats into the bay, now tokyo bay, threatening to destroy the port unless they signed a treaty of friendship. the japanese weekly became friends with the united states and the western countries. these treaties were binding in the old world order and to violate them with a been a cause of war. because war was legal, another consequence followed immunity to prosecution.
if war is legal, with waging war cannot be criminal and that is why no head of state or military leader was ever prosecuted for waging an aggressive war. napoleon goes to war with virtually every state in europe. they killed 5 - 7000000 people and what is this punishment? he gets an island in the mediterraneann of which he is the emperor. it is a demotion to go from emperor of france to emperor of about but hardly the punishment you would give somebody who killedat 5 - 7000000 people at the end of world war i the victors in the treaty of her side pledged to indict them for waging an aggressive war. they flee to the netherlands
and the netherlands will not give up him on the theory that he did nothing wrong. that is that it is not legal to prosecute somebody for engaging in illegal activity. finally, because states have the legal right of war, neutral states that weren't in the war were under a strict duty of impartiality. that's what lawyers call that. if they were to favor one side over another, that w would be an act of war. i don't know how many here have seen hamilton or heard the soundtrack of hamilton, the cabinet battle to is all about this duty of neutrality. there the united states did not want to favor france in its war with great britain in
the theoryy that if it favored one side over another and would be an act of war and draw the united states into a war with the european powers which it did not want to get drawn into. i normally give this talk with the powerpoint and it has pictures and diagrams and cool animations. it's very helpful to see how the old world order changes, but they said if you want to be on tv, you couldn't have the powerpoint and so i was thinking that i want to give a good talk and not be on tv or a lousy talk and be on tv. so my mom walked back anyway, what you would have seen is a
slide that has, in the center it says right of war there would've been four circles emanating from the someone would've said right of conquest, the other would've said right of gunboat diplomacy and below you would've seen immunity to prosecution for war, and finally to the duties of impartiality. those duties are really important because that is what prevented neutrals from imposing sanctions on belligerents. things that we do every day were violations of war. that's what you would've seen. okay. now i've been describing this very abstractly but it's called the internationalists and it's really about people. one of the most important people in the book, the guy
who does not have, who did not have its own wikipedia entry is this man named salmon levinson. he was a jewish bankrupt attorney from chicago. he was the son of german immigrants, he became a successful lawyer for sears, with railroad companies,om steel companies and really never thought aboutrn international relations at all until world war i happened in the stock markets shut down for the first time in its history. you also had to fighting age sons andnd he started thinking about the legality of war, thinking how foolish this is that we allow states to resolve their conflicts by essentially getting them to kill each other.
i don't know how many lawyers are out there, but i gets really significant that he was a bankruptcy attorney because bankruptcy attorneys hate litigators. they fight it out, they make a hebad situation worse where's the bankruptcy attorney tries to make a bad situation better , let's get in the room and work it out, let's not fight to the death. also, he's a bankruptcy attorney. he's not an he doesn't really appreciate the fact that this is the way the world has always been. he knows that but it's not like baked into his dna. he imagines a different world and it turns out through his wife, he was close friends with the great american philosopher john dewey and he helped him develop his thoughts on the role of war and how to make law illegal
and he starts to make contact with important politicians and in particular the chair of the foreign relations committee. it's a long story from 1917 until 1928 which we tone the book and i won't go into it now, but through incredible dogged determination, he was able to bootstrap the global social organization which pays off on august 27 when the 15 most powerful nations, united states, germany, italy, they meet in paris to outlaw war.
right after that, within the year, virtually every i state in the world signed on to it, renouncing war and it was, at the time, the most subscribed to treaty in history. it was really an amazing achievement that, he avidly didn't work alone, he worked with other characters we discover the book. he got the world to do something momentous. it was so momentous that it was dangerous. why. with the packed it, remember, i just spent the first 12 minutes or so of the stuff this going how the world operated according to the rules that presupposed the legality of war. now all of a sudden will taken out the linchpin, taken up the
center, they had now set t all the rules that you followed which depended on the right of work, you no longer have that right. this caused an enormous problem. the first problem that arises for falls the successor to frank kellogg, secretary of state henry jensen. sein september 1931, japan invades manchuria and eventually conquers them, it's enormous, it's one and half million square kilometers, it's like an enormous piece of the earth. japan had just signed the impact three years later. why they did that is a whole other story which we talk about the book. it's very interesting why they thought theyy were allowed to do that but they did it. that caused an enormous problem for the world which
in that article which was entitled the sanctions of bees, he proposed that now war was illegal, states should no longer have the right of conquest. if the whole idea was to further the right of war, they should no longer have the right ofso conquest. what other states should not do is recognize that state. they should not trade with them or record any sovereign rights to the conqueror. somebody might take a city but that city would no longer be used. he writes the famous stinson note which became the famous stinson doctrine bread it was now the policy of the united states that they would no longer recognize conquest or
treaties that weree coerced. and then the league of nations , all the members of the league of nations also adopt this. this is an unbelievable revolution. within four years of signing this piece of paper, the world announces what hitherto had been one of the most ancient rights of sovereignty which is conquest. the u.s. does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which has not beenof brought about by means of contrary to covenants and obligations of the packed of paris of august 27, 1928. that league of nations agrees
that it means states cannot conquer one another. if you ever wonder why nobody recognizes russia invasion of kenya, it's this. it begins in 1932, and the reason that's given is because of the outlaw rule of war. this not only gets g rid of the right of war but you also can't threaten to go to war to get the agreement you want. the next order of business is this neutrality thing that i talked about. in the run-up to world war ii and when world war ii begins, a big problem facing the united states is how do we aid great britain and not germany
and not commit an act of war. remember, to help one belligerent over another was illegal and that would be committing an act of war, and many isolationists in the united states did not want america drawn into the war. it was then, in the beginning of 1941, six months before pearl harbor, that the united states adopted the position that the packed oft paris changed district duties of neutrality, meaning now, because they still n have the right war, neutral states aren't interfering with the rights by siding with their opponents over them because they're not trampling on the right of war as they don't have the right of war. no one has the right of war anymore except in cases of self-defense. this is incredible, i think because first of all, it's the
beginning of this practice of economic sanctions thatof would just take for granted and it happens now because of the caloric packed, but it also happened six months before pearl harbor. the reason the japanese attacked the united states was because we imposed economic sanctions on them. which, by the old rules would have been a reason to attack the united states. that the united states only changed its mind about what neutral states were allowed to do sixor months before the attack, so really what you have here, what world war ii becomes is a clash over world orders. it's a war over war. now, after the allies win the war, the question becomes what we do about it? what do we do with the nazis
and imperial japan who waged this aggressive work. can we prosecute them? now, the claim became, and it was, it's a long story which we tell in the book, nuremberg is the trial in which the main charges the charge of violating the kallick pact. we think of nürnberg as the trial in which, or trials in which the nazi leaders were convicted, prosecuted and convicted of perpetrating the holocaust. that was not the reason why these trials were put, were, i don't is a stage, but were established. they were established to try nazis for waging aggressive war, and the american officials were able too
shoehorn the charges of the holocaust into nürnberg simply t by saying that the holocaust was related to aggressive war. the crimes against humanity, y,the real legal reason for that is the kellogg contract. what we see in the powerpoint, the intimation would have blown you away. you're just going have to believe me m on this one. [laughter] remember, i hadr said there was this slide we have in the middle of the right of war and in congress and diplomacy, immunity prosecution and new
economic sanctions. then the animation would've gone and you would've seen this new slide which we call the new world order where you have a prohibition on war, no conquest, noat gunboat diplomacy , crime of aggression and then finally the possibility of economic sanctions. what you do is you see an entire international system for on your on a very short time because of this piece of paper signed in 1928. again, it doesn't happen all at once, they really don't know what they are doing. it's like, to give the obamacare analogy, what if congress had repealed obamacare but not replace it.
it would been chaos. it would've taken a long time to put it together but this is not just the health system of the united states this is the international system involving all the states of the world. this is a really complex, messy process which is precipitated on that day, august 27, 1928. the last part of the book, we map out the new world order and i'll talk about it very briefly. one of the things we wanted to do was to see whether the change in the rules mattered, like on the ground and so there's a lot of statistical evidence in the book, a lot of quantitative evidence. what we do is we went through all the territorial acquisitions data from the largest and most comprehensive data set involving war and we trackedpr basically the practice
of conquest from 1816 to 2014, and this is what we found. luckily it turned out this way, but we were kinda shocked at the magnitude of the effect both in terms of size and frequency. it turns out that from 1816 to 1 1928, that's just where the data starts that's why we started there, the average state could expect to suffer a conquest once in 40 years. "after words", a state could expect to suffer a conquest once or twice in a thousand years. to put that in human terms, that means if you lived before 1928, the odds that you lived
in a state that would be conquered would be once-in-a-lifetime. now, it's once or twice a millennial. an enormous change in terms of frequency. in terms of what's really striking, the average before 1928. yearr of a territory conquered was 248 square miles. roughly 111 crime yes, if you take crimea and you multiply it by 11, you'll get the average amount conquered. year. now, after 1945, you get roughly one crimea every four years. you've gone from 11. year to one every four years which, the last crimea was crimea. that's why it matters a great deal. if you will, it's the
exception that proves the rule. it's such a rarity now, basically conquest has fallen off in terms of extent, 96% and it needs to stay that way and the way in which it stays that way is the acquisition cannot be recognized. the sanctions cannot be dropped. it is horrible for people of crimea, but it'ss really important for the health of the international system. because states cannot be conquered, we see a proliferation of states to after 1945 years about 60 states another's roughly 193 states and the reason is that states can be small and weak. south sudan broke away from sudan even though it makes it
more vulnerable in one sense, but not vulnerable in another way. it doesn't really have to worry about being conquered and have its oil deposits taken because no one will recognize that conquest. this is wonderful on one hand but it has its downside. there's a downside to the new world order which we s talked about the book which is that if weak states can survive, so can failed states. failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and for insurgencies that don't respect nationalti borders. on one hand, were between states has virtually, not completely, but virtually eliminated intrastate war but it has created pressures toward intrastate wars. the wars we are seeing are
largely civil wars, brought about by the fact that students don't need to be strong in order to survive. amanda conclude by saying, there's a lot of data in the book, there's a lotde of ideas in the book, but at the end, it's a book about people. it's about people we have never heard of, who are courageous, they were ordinary people with extraordinary ideas and they were able to change the world. i hope it's an inspiration for all of us that it's possible for us to have agency in the world as well. thank you. [applause]
[applause] >> that was wonderful. >> thank youou the timing of thisbv, it's obviously striking between world war i and world war ii, but i'm w also curious whether technology, how much it had to do with it. we went from hand to hand combat, soldiers who stab each other one at a time to shooting at each other, and we are, at this point, requiring the ability to wipe thinking and the urgency with which out thousands let me say, so a lot, so sometimes, you know, you think
the outlaw of war was the result of world war i, which if there was, i mean, most wars are stupid, to tell you will just head to tell you the truth. world war iwo was a particularly stupid war. terrible waste of life but it wasn't merely the fact that 70 people died some people died it's how they died. the invention of poison gas. the increase in tonnage. made it more even more ghastly than have been before. the response afterth world war
i. was not too outlaw war. it allows a estates to the states to go to war. it just says if were to go to war. let us then you can go to war. even if you lose.g it is actually amazing to me that after the world war i. let's just head more and wait 60 days.ai which is an enormous failure of imagination but it also shows how deeply ingrained the idea of the right to wage war was among diplomats now, for sure with the failure of the
league of nations this gives energy to antiwar activists to try something else. precisely because with the change in technology the war is getting worse. it wasn't obvious. in one of the things that the book tells and as a way to paid the message for the book. it's an opportunity but a problem. how do we live without war. how do we solve our problems if they don't have the right to use force against each other. the iran nuclear deal. i'm sad to say the current administration seems to be forgetting this lesson. and it is backsliding in the
message of the book is not to back slide. within the context of the pact what was the u.s. justification for the gulf war in the war against iraq and afghanistan.us those are great questions. it is just two paragraphs but it's one operative paragraph. i actually had one of those postcards. it is the high contracting parties with war as a solution of international controversies.
it doesn't say anything about self-defense.ut it's very vague. the person who wrotete the impact. it also wrote the first draft of the united nations charter.iv in the form of the un charter.r. it lays down three exceptions. two more. one is self-defense due to an armed attack the second thing is the consent the state
allows you to go to war with it. in the security council authorization. it authorizes the use w of force. in the case of afghanistan and the first gulf war there was security council authorization. in the case of the first gulf war that was a contest which the security council was trying to reverse in wasn't successful in reversing. that was a self-defense justification and then it was ratified by the security council. in my own view. there was a justification given by the united states which was in my own view kind of laughable it was an illegal war and i m think that when you think of one of the worst
things that has happened since world war ii is the iraq war. there is an irony here and the sadness that the united states which was so pivotal in constructing the impact and then the united nations and i all of the postwar international organizations that have helped keep the peace. they head in the 21st century we are in the 21st century. you may have ignored everything else that i have said.in the 21st century it's the united states which is underminingst the thing that helped to build.
so what changes do you see what happened in the world order moving forward. i could give you was an animal believably good answer about the 20th century. none of us knows. we don't know what is happening. it could go one of two ways. certainly the rhetoric of the trump administration has been very disheartening.
secretary tillerson has said we will now not only fight in syria but stay in syria. i don't even know what to say about that. what would be the legal justification for that. we fired the cruise missiles last april after a chemical weapons attack which was illegal in in fact the government is not even trying to justify it.t. he has withdrawn from tpt. trying to withdraw from nafta. it had threatened to withdraw from nato. all of these things are certainly worrying. the right wing populism. and then china is a growing by
would like to have what you're having. as a follow-up to that. it's apparent to all of us the scope of what you are writing about can be huge in tremendous. as an author how did you come to a decision point or realization. we used the age-old theoretic metric. no more than hundred 50,000 words. there was so much left on the cutting room floor. it's too bad my colleague here is not here because she is
much more articulate than i am. it would just edit it. i put the cursor at the beginning and then i went in 10,000 words and then i put at the end and hit delete. we have to get those there. the thing is is a paradox in writing. and you have to make hard choices. hundred 50,000 words. hundred 50,310 words. were also lawyers so that's
what they said. we have to give it to them. you just pick that number out of a hat. and him defending his cousin who is a pirate developed the o classical laws of the old world order. we ended up with isis. a lot of stuff recovered and a lot of stuff did it. has we ever been sanctioned for anything and if you want to be an activist now which i do do you have any suggestions about how to do that to make
let's is to make let's just point out that we lost vietnam that was a big distinction in and of itself. vietnam and korea we talk about this in the book. i really tricky cases both in vietnam and korea what have happened was there was a vacuum created after world war ii when the japanese with a journal from these regions and left no sovereign in the place. and really the korean and vietnamese war was a war over who was the new seven. there was no way to establishing the new sovereign was. it was like an abandoned house. nobody have title.
from a strategic point of vieww it was a few --dash mike foolish thing. the united stateses engaged in this activity. as an activist. the state of the antiwar movement is not healthy. there are many organizations and we had worked with them i love them. they are courageous. they are underpopulated. one of the organizations we write about in the book the women's international league for peace and freedom still exist today. they are in a magazine organization. there are all of these organizations to work with
but,il if i want to be really honestut here the midterms. as a short-term goal. both parties they're they are addicted to war. and that is a sled --dash mike sad truth. it's a nonpartisan book. it's not a pox on the republicans house. as the activist. pointing out the real damage. that the forever war was created in the world. to humanity.
toward a new kellogg brand. >> one of the organizations which i greatly admire the world without war run by the great david swanson he has been trying to get other countries to adopt it. my own thought is we don't need something new we just need to pay attention to the thing we arty had because what is happening now is we are
overturning the applecart which million of people died to create and has the world more prosperous of course i want to build on what we have what we really want to preserve the gift of the greatest generation. people do talk about the impact of cyber war. and that something i'm working on my in terms of other things know. [applause]. thank you.