Military Review English Edition July-August 2015 | Page 120

a way of turning away from war” and “were an active
part of the culture of the post-war transition period,
with … unique aspirations for a lasting peace and for
justice.” By turning away from war, rights activists
were rejecting the “nationalization of rights” in favor
of creating “a shared humanist culture.”
This cultural redefinition of rights occurred at
the League of Nations and the International Labour
Office as well as among groups of humanitarian activists. Cabanes examines the actions of five humanitarians. Rene Cassin was a French legal scholar and
disabled combat veteran who defended the rights of
fellow war victims by working with veterans associations and the League of Nations. Albert Thomas
ran the International Labour Office and promoted
international standards of social welfare and workers’ rights—actions, which he saw as necessary to
maintain the postwar peace. Fridtjof Nansen, high
commissioner for refugees at the League of Nations,
revolutionized the rights of stateless persons by
creating a passport for refugees fleeing the turmoil of
the Russian Revolution. Herbert Hoover, American
businessman and future president, organized humanitarian relief for famine- and epidemic-stricken Belgium, Central Europe, and Russia. Finally,
Eglantyne Jebb, British philanthropist, founded the
Save the Children Fund to organize relief for starving German and Austrian children.
Although Cabanes identifies the rights politics of
the 1920s as primarily concerned with protecting the
rights of groups, he detects the seeds of a more radical interpretation of rights—the assertion of universal, individual human rights. In this sense, the “1920s
mark a decisive step in the transition from one basic
understanding of rights to the other.” Cabanes makes
a compelling case that the post-World War I period
contributed significantly to the later emergence of
claims to individual, universal human rights. His
work serves an important function by addressing the
influence that wartime experiences had in shaping the assertion of international rights—be they
humanitarian rights or human rights—during the
twentieth century. It is a thoughtful, scholarly book
that should be read by military historians, international lawyers, and rights activists.
Capt. Brian Drohan, U.S. Army, West Point,
New York
118

THE AMERICAN WAY OF BOMBING: Changing
Ethical and Legal Norms, from Flying Fortresses
to Drones
Edited by Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York,
2014, 328 pages

T

he book The American Way of Bombing
provides an analysis of the American aerial
bombing philosophy since it was introduced
as a means to wage war; it offers a discourse on the
second- and third-order effects that have been created—specifically in the areas of legality, morality,
and the establishment of norms. The author and his
contributors completed extensive research and analysis
on these topics.
The book is arranged in three parts. Part 1 examines the historical and theoretical perspectives of aerial
bombing during World War II, the Korean War, the
Vietnam War, and since 9/11; it goes into detail of
how aerial bombing was used and what targets it was
used against. The editors also lay out the appropriate
international legal frameworks and address the various
aspects of the laws that attempted to create acceptable
norms for bombing during war.
In part 2, Evangelista and Shue attempt to interpret, and to look critically, at the existing laws
governing the use of aerial bombing. They examine
the impact of bombing on the civilian population
and the geographic infrastructure, and they delve
into how the extensive damage done by bombing has
an order of magnitude effect on the population for
years to come. The editors make numerous claims
that the effects of aerial bombing often far outweigh
the military necessity cited as the reason f or the
bombing’s authorization.
In part 3, the editors examine the constructing of
new norms with respect to the use of aerial bombing,
land mines, cluster munitions, and unmanned drones.
Here again, each are measured against existing laws and
scrutinized against their effects on populations versus
the gains of military advantage. Much of the discussion
focuses on the use of drones and their impact on the
ever-evolving legal framework. It also includes a discussion on the development of norms for the use of future
July-August 2015  MILITARY REVIEW