24 May What Do Philippe Sands and John Yoo Have in Common?
24.05.07
|
6 Comments
Pretty tough question, eh? The answer: both of their recent books on the US and international law post-9/11 have been remaindered — that is, they have been deeply discounted from their list prices (see here and here).
What does this say about the reading public? No ideological explanations available, since they come at it from opposite perspectives. Editorial thoughts aside (and the possibility in Philippe’s case of competing paperback and updated editions, although both of them look pretty cheap, too), could it be that Americans — even high-brow consumers of “serious non-fiction”, in the terms of the trade — still don’t care that much about international law?
As you say, a tough question – Sands being a respected international law practitioner and academic and Yoo an ideological hack complicit in international crimes – isn’t part of the point that Yoo’s polemic has been out for about six months and Sands’ book, in successive editions, for more than two years?
Is Sands really respected as a scholar as opposed to a pundit? I tend to put him in the Ramsey Clark category on his worst day … I can’t really think of a theory or big idea based on Sands work. I can be convinced otherwise, but don’t really see much difference between Sands and Yoo minus ideology.
The NewStream Dream, Please spare us such nonsense: Sands is indeed a respected scholar, as the following from his University of London faculty website clearly attests: He is Professor of Law and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals in the Faculty, and a key member of staff in the Centre for Law and the Environment. His teaching areas include public international law, the settlement of international disputes, and environmental and natural resources law. Philippe has previously held academic positions at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, Kings College London, University of Cambridge and New York University. He was co-founder of FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development), and established the programmes on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. He is a member of the Advisory Boards of the European Journal of International Law and Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (Blackwell Press). As a practicing barrister he has extensive experience litigating cases before the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, and the European Court of Justice. He frequently advises governments, international organisations, NGOs and the… Read more »
Why on earth would anyone want to buy a book by Yoo? His memos were enough to make me scream (though the pain did not approach that of organ failure or death, so what do I have to complain about?). It would appear that the audience for (what is the term, statists, monarchists, tsarists?) is pleasantly limited. His natural audience may be only those at the top of an executive branch (and even they probably aren’t reading his book), the rest of us have to live under it. Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: ‘And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?’
And by the way Mr. O’Donnell, pseudonyms are healthy and historical (though of course they have been used sometimes for ugly causes as well as good). But I must agree with Mr. O’Donnell that lumping anyone in with Ramsey Clark is an ‘unseemly’ characterization.
On the whole, I do not think pseudonyms have been healthy in the blogosphere, although I can certainly understand why, on occasion, one might need to resort to same.
Sorry, I wrote my comment in a hurry and was not as clear as I should have been. I meant to say that I don’t think Sands latest stuff is scholarly, its meant more for the not highly trained crowd. Rather than Ramsey Clark, I think a better comparator is Krugman. Krugman started off doing highly theoritical work, then moved to being a pundit who mainly comments on the Bush administration. Being a pundit is not necessairly bad, but I don’t think Max’s original comparison slamming Yoo is fair.
Say what you want about Yoo and his work with the administration, but his book is an important work. You can disagree with him, but his theory on the division of power in the U.S. as a function of the internal and the external is powerful. I just wish people had the intellectual maturity to appreciate the work, while being able to disagree with it. Frankly, we have lost that in this field.