Michael Glennon's recent work is the best book written on international law and the use of force in the past 40 years. While this may seem to be a bold statement, I make it for three reasons. First, Glennon's conception of international law that forms the basis of his analysis reflects an accurate understanding of the nature of the international system and the realities of international relations. Second, his analytical method reveals the dynamics of how states constitute rules of international law. Third, he offers a realistic conclusion about the current, woeful status of the law, but provides hope for future improvements. Let me say a word about each of these points.

Joshua Goldstein has authored an exhaustive and insightful book on the major ways in which gender and war influence each other. This lengthy, thoroughly researched, and clearly argued work should have broad appeal for scholars of war and international relations, as well as of gender, across several disciplines and theoretical predilections. Why is it, the book asks, that although manifestations of both war and gender show great diversity, there is one constant: Gender roles in the context of war vary almost not at all across cultures and across time. Fighters are almost exclusively men, with the “near-total exclusion” of women from combat.

In this volume, several prominent international relations and international law (IL) scholars propose a framework through which to examine the proliferation of international legal institutions. They hope to chart common conceptual ground for IL and IR scholarship in order to examine the role of international law in international affairs.