The Atlantic

When the World Outlawed War

“The postwar consensus is under greater assault today than it has been in seven decades.”
Source: George Rinhart / Getty

In 1928, the leaders of 15 countries committed to renouncing war as a tool for resolving international disputes. They enshrined this commitment in the Kellogg-Briand Pact (sometimes referred to as the Paris Peace Pact) and were later joined by 47 other countries. But war, of course, continued, and the pact is generally remembered as a well-meaning but ineffectual fantasy—when it is remembered at all.  

Now, Yale law professors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, the authors of The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, seek to reinterpret the pact’s historical significance. Their book argues that it’s because war was made illegal in 1928 that nations rarely go to war with each other anymore (though wars within states are another matter).

Critics have with this noting that the pact is far from the only explanation for the decline in wars between states. What about the aversion to conflict brought about by the horrors of World War I and World War II? Or the development of nuclear weapons as a tool of deterrence? Or the rise of the United States as the dominant world power? Or the increasing economic interdependence between

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from The Atlantic

The Atlantic4 min read
Hayao Miyazaki’s Anti-war Fantasia
Once, in a windowless conference room, I got into an argument with a minor Japanese-government official about Hayao Miyazaki. This was in 2017, three years after the director had announced his latest retirement from filmmaking. His final project was
The Atlantic4 min read
When Private Equity Comes for a Public Good
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In some states, public funds are being poured into t
The Atlantic4 min readAmerican Government
How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t
Near the end of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments about whether Colorado could exclude former President Donald Trump from its ballot as an insurrectionist, the attorney representing voters from the state offered a warning to the justices—one evoking

Related