Promotions - Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles 2024 -

After the 2008 global financial crisis, few corporate leaders faced individual criminal prosecution. Even so, the American legal system has still tackled corporate malfeasance. Over the past two decades, US federal prosecutors have generated a "steep rise in the amounts of financial penalties" and "the emergence of deferred or non-prosecution agreements." Woll (Hertie School, Berlin) analyzes both trends while striking four notes of concern. First, these trends demonstrate the extraterritorial reach of US law. Second, they should be understood as "economic lawfare" to advance American interests. Third, US-style "negotiated justice"--the use of penal orders, plea bargains, deferred prosecution, and non-prosecution agreements--has spread to the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, and Brazil. Finally, as a European concerned with holding corporations accountable, Woll notes that non-American companies are far more likely to be fined and to pay larger fines. She also argues that non-prosecution agreements "should simply be abolished." Woll hopes that companies will become more accountable through criminal prosecutions in court. This is a landmark work, concise and clearly written. Recommended for corporate lawyers, curious citizens, and international relations scholars.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

Replete with appendixes, hundreds of references, and a 43-page bibliography, this meticulously documented book is a veritable tour de force, providing a new and critical look at the development of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda within the broader context of global governance and feminism. Kirby (Queen Mary Univ., England) and Shepherd (Univ. of Sydney, Australia) argue that WPS is not a fixed or unified policy, but rather a constantly changing dynamic influenced by various national, international, and local actors, addressing a host of issues that challenge traditional ideas of peace and security. Adopting an ecosystem model, they eschew the view that the WPS agenda is a single consolidated endeavor, but see it as a multifaceted and evolving set of policies and practices. Presaged by a 2021 article, this formidable scholarly work is a thoughtful and provocative analysis that breaks new ground. Densely worded, it can be a challenging read at times, but this does not belie its importance as a major contribution to the literature on WPS. Recommended for collections in international relations and feminist studies, its greatest appeal will be to those well versed on the subject.Summing Up: Essential. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

Quinton-Brown (Singapore Management University) delves into the complex history of intervention in international law, offering a meticulous genealogical analysis that traces its evolution from post-World War II to the present. Through rich historical discussions, he argues for a paradigm shift, asserting the waning influence of liberal interventionism and the resurgence of state sovereignty, particularly in the Global South. Each chapter fosters deeper insight into various intervention types, illuminating the author's central thesis with scholarly rigor. While a challenging read, this book's depth of research provides readers with a comprehensive exploration of the subject. Although it will appeal mainly to the academic community, it is also relevant to practitioners and policy makers. The book is a timely and insightful contribution to the field of international relations; its topicality and scholarly depth make it important reading for anyone interested in understanding how evolving norms, ideologies, and geopolitics have shaped the shifting dynamics of intervention and sovereignty in contemporary global politics.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

In this outstanding and original book, Hwang (Univ. of Seoul, South Korea) analyzes North Korea's nuclear diplomacy under three leaders during the nuclear crises on the Korean peninsula since the early 1990s. He challenges the realist and liberal approaches dominating scholarly and policy discourses and offers an alternative approach based on prospect theory. The book argues that North Korea's leaders are risk-acceptant or risk-averse according to their perception of gains and losses in international and domestic environments. As a result, North Korea has moved between engagement and confrontation with the US when its supreme leader has perceived North Korea's security predicament to be deteriorating. Hwang explains why Kim Il Sung changed North Korea's nuclear policy from confrontation to engagement (risk-aversion), signing the June 1994 Agreed Framework with the US. The second nuclear crisis under Kim Jong Il witnessed a sharp change in nuclear policy from confrontation (withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty) to engagement (Six-Party Talks) back to confrontation. Lastly, Hwang discusses North Korea's nuclear risk-taking attitudes under Kim Jong Un, including the failed summits with the US and the return to a confrontation policy toward the US. A useful addition to Jun Taek Kwon and Weiqi Zhang's Strategies of Survival (CH, Apr'24, 61-2307).Summing Up: Highly recommended. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; practitioners.

Russian foreign policy is of particular interest at the moment, and Ziegler (Univ. of Louisville) adds to our understanding of it. The focus of this study is on Russia's relations with the Pacific, particularly since the late 19th century. The analysis uses both a historical approach and analytical eclecticism, drawing from many different theories. The result is a thorough and wide-ranging description and explanation of Russia's struggles to extend its power into the Pacific region. Ziegler highlights three groups of influential factors: structural factors, path-dependent institutional factors, and agency. These three groups allow the study to consider how the physical geography of Russia, its relative location, the history of its political institutions, its leaders, and ideas have affected the success or failure of Russia's attempts to gain influence in the region. The historical approach accentuates how these factors have behaved similarly or changed over time. The unique methodological approach combined with the depth of the analysis makes this an indispensable book for understanding Russian foreign policy.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

A recurring theme in postwar US foreign policy has been how to optimize burden-sharing within multiple-alliance relationships. This involves complicated and changing calculations, deft diplomacy, and mixtures of inducements and threats. America's mixed record of successes, failures, and foregone opportunities has challenged analysts seeking explanations and patterns--until now. Blankenship (Univ. of Miami) disentangles multiple strands and dimensions of burden-sharing to reveal what determines whether the US explicitly attempts it, and if so, with what results. Briefly, he elaborates an "alliance control theory," in which capabilities (especially military) of the US and its allies, their external threat perceptions, allies' resource limitations, and the preservation of US influence explain variations in US efforts and outcomes. Detailed case studies of West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Iceland support this theory better than alternatives. An outstanding concluding chapter summarizing the findings and discussing wider research and policy implications is a model for monographs. One small caveat: although extensively researched and documented, the book relies on declassified government records and secondary sources, but not interviews with former officials who may still be alive and able to provide unique information and insights. Even so, this outstanding contribution to understanding alliance behavior and US foreign relations is a must read.Summing Up: Essential. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

Some books come and go. This book, however, will have a lasting impact by teaching contemporary and future generations how to think about the growing role of robots and artificial intelligence in warfare. The authors focus on principles rather than review or critique contemporary technology and wisdom. In clear language, they explain that the new artificial intelligence behind military robots enables robots to learn, allowing military commanders to send out scouting robots that react, appraise, and respond intelligently to ambiguous situations. Generals throughout the world embrace robotic technology because machines take the risk and absorb the damage inherent to warfare. This potent and costly new technology will transform the existing world order. As the great powers absorb and wield robots, lesser nations will find their military less capable of protecting and promoting their national interests. The book concludes with some credible projections. First, human intelligence will remain in control of artificial intelligence. Second, because robots tend to make war less painful, ruthless politicians and military commanders will be more inclined to risk military action. As robots supplant the citizen soldier, hopefully democracy will survive. International relations scholars and military practitioners have much to learn from this book.Summing Up: Essential. Undergraduates through faculty; professionals.

Mitton (Dalhousie Univ., Canada) has taken the study of bitter international rivalries and intervention in civil conflicts to a new level. Empirical research shows that rival states with a history of enmity fight each other and inject themselves into civil wars on opposite sides more often than states without rivalries between them. What has been lacking is a theory that explains both dyadic international rivalry and the interventionist behavior of such adversaries. Drawing on the literatures of international relations and comparative politics and examining three cases of intervention--India and Pakistan in Afghanistan, Syria and Israel in Lebanon, and the US and the Soviet Union in Angola--Mitton argues convincingly that leaders of rival states decided to intervene for reasons that had more to do with the perceived negative security consequences of not intervening than with the dynamics of the civil wars in the target states. In short, their actions were defensive and intended to mitigate projected, long-term damage of remaining on the sidelines while their hostile rivals gained at their expense. Mitton's findings have important implications for international theory, understandings of the behavior of geopolitical rivals and states embroiled in civil conflict, and policy makers.Summing Up: Highly recommended. Advanced undergraduates through faculty; professionals.