The Post-Cold War Order: The Spoils of Peace by Ian ClarkReview by: G. John IkenberryForeign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2002), pp. 206-207Published by: Council on Foreign RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20033017 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 02:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Council on Foreign Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ForeignAffairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:31:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Recent Books

U.N. world conferences have become a dominant vehicle for spreading ideas on population, food, the environment, and women's rights. The authors only scratch the surface of the important interplay between politics, power, insti tutions, and ideas. But they show that the U.N. has provided an institutional space in which long-term policy agendas can be constructed. How these ideas shape national interests and government commitments, however, still needs to be determined.

The Helsinki Effect. International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism. BY DANIEL C. THOMAS.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001, 312 pp. $49.50 (paper, $18.95).

This engaging book argues that human rights norms mattered more than geo political power or economics in ending the Cold War. Conventional views stress the Soviets' inability to keep up

with American military might and reverse economic decline. In contrast,

Thomas contends that communism's weakness resulted from the opposition activity triggered by the Soviet signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. Al though the European Community was a prime mover in putting human rights on the East-West agenda (through the Conference on Security and Coopera tion in Europe), the Soviet ratification of the Helsinki accord was instrumental. Contrary to American neoconservatives who charged that the Helsinki accord was an empty bargain, Thomas argues the Soviets were in fact trapped by it because they desperately needed it to bolster their international legitimacy. Relations with the West were subtly

transformed and a platform was created for social groups to mobilize in both the East and the West and commit their nations to implementing the Helsinki principles. The author's historical analysis nicely illuminates the catalytic role of these norms in undermining communist rule.

The Post-Cold War Order: The Spoils of Peace. BY IAN CLARK. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2001, 260 pp. $24.95 (paper).

Clark describes the post-Cold War order as the outcome of a protracted peace settlement akin to those of 181i, 1919, and 1945, all of which involved both a "distributive" and a "regulatory" settlement. In the former type, the victors make political and territorial adjustments to reflect the new distribution of power; examples include German unifi cation within NATO, the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, and the enlargement of NATo and the European Union. The latter type reformulates the rules and norms of world order, such as the multilateral organization of the global economy and the expansion of cooperative security partnerships. In this context, peacemaking provides a useful frame work for describing global changes since

1991, and the author deems cooperative security-particularly U.S.-led alliances in Europe and Asia-an important pillar of the post-Cold War order that augurs for continued stability. Although Clark does not discern specific rules and norms, he finds multilateral forms of cooperation to be the most useful and legitimate. But he waffles in the end on whether the post-Cold War order reflects American power or deeper

[206] FOREIGN AFFAIRS* Volume8iNo.i

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:31:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Recent Books

structures of cooperation. Hence his view on the future remains clouded.

ImperialEnds: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival ofEmpires. BY ALEXANDER J. MOTYL. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001, 128 pp. $35.00.

The twentieth century was cruel to European empires. But the new century still bears their marks, especially in the case of the still-decaying Soviet empire. Here Motyl brings a fresh eye to the politics of imperial decay and collapse. Empires often follow a predictable course of rise and decline, but Motyl maintains that an organiza tional pathology inherent in these hierarchical systems makes decay inexorable. Motyl is especially intrigued by variations in historical trajectories and the sources of imperial resurgence. Focusing on the Habsburg, Ottoman, Romanov, Wilhelmine, and Soviet experiences, Motyl argues that post imperial revival is most likely when the core state remains strong and the peripheral territories remain weak and divided. In the Soviet case, eastern Europe has largely escaped the reach of Moscow, whereas the former Soviet republics remain precariously positioned between independence and informal empire. Motyl's concluding prediction is gloomy: the collapse of any revived

Russian empire is likely, and instability and conflict in the former Soviet area are virtually certain.

Princeton Principles on UniversalJurisdiction. http://www.princeton.edu/Aapa/new. htm.

In January 2001, a group of scholars and jurists from around the world

gathered in Princeton, New Jersey, to hash out guidelines for what has become an increasingly popular but controversial legal tool: the application of universal juris diction by domestic courts. Universal jurisdiction is the idea, put in practice

most spectacularly during the United Kingdom's 1999 trials of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, that certain crimes are so heinous that they can be tried by the courts of any country regardless of whether the crimes occurred there or whether that nation's citizens

were involved. Universal jurisdiction is a good way to put dictators on trial, even when their own national courts are too weak for the job. But since this approach allows local courts to go after foreigners, it is a doctrine particularly prone to political abuse. Hence the Princeton Principles-an attempt to lay some basic ground rules. This work

manlike set of protocols helps clarify a sometimes confusing and rapidly evolving area of law. With its emphasis on due process and fairness, it proposes some commonsense ways to ensure the doctrine is applied as justly as possible.

The problem is that no paper principles will ever prevent the misap plication of universal jurisdiction for mischievous purposes. Such prevention would require good faith by all the countries involved-a very tall order indeed. Consequently, the concept remains controversial and problematic. Still, these sensible proposals should clear the air somewhat. At the very least, they should make future abuses harder to get away with, since there is now a gold standard with which to compare them.

JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN

F O R E I G N A F FA I R S January/February 2002 [ 207]

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:31:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions