Peter Price

English

Scholars Commons

Canadian Military History
Volume 24 | Issue 2 Article 18
11-23-2015
"A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making
International Law during the Great War (Book
Review)" by Isabel V. Hull
Peter Price
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Military
History by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Peter Price (2015) ""A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)" by Isabel V.
Hull," Canadian Military History: Vol. 24: Iss. 2, Article 18.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol24/iss2/18
304 • Book Reviews
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that Jack 
Granatstein and I are old friends, having been members of the same 
class, Class of 1961, at the Royal Military College of Canada.
ROBERT MARTIN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, EMERITUS, WESTERN UNIVERSITY
A Scrap of Paper: Bi'eaking and Making International Law during 
the Great War. Isabel V. Hull. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 
2014. Pp. 368.
International law does not often become front-page news, but in 
March 2015 the seemingly intricate subject gained national attention 
in Canada in the debate to authorize Canadian airstrikes in Syria. 
Though some experts pointed out that the decision seemed to violate 
international law, others argued that the atrocities committed by isis 
militants and the protection of Iraq*® sovereignty necessitated the 
action. The example illustrated just how murky the interpretation 
of international law can be, even when it is at the centre of major 
wartime decisions.
Cornell historian Isabel V. Hull’s book A Scrap of Paper serves 
as a. reminder that in most modern conflicts, no matter how messy 
or undefined, the realities of international law are never far from 
the frontlines. The First World War, she argues, was fundamentally 
shaped by variant understandings of international law, which affected 
the course and conduct of the war. Hull proves that international 
law was more than purely political rhetoric or a diplomatic nicety, 
but that it informed key decisions and reactions and was a central 
preoccupation of political and military leaders on all sides of the 
war. Going further, she effectively demonstrates that 1914 essentially 
represented a legal divide between Imperial Germany and the Allies 
-  specifically France and Britain. On the one hand, the Allies were 
generally careful to operate within the new framework established in 
the Brussels and Hague conventions. The Germans, however, were 
guided by what Hull calls “war positivism.” According to this idea, 
the exigencies of war require, irrespective of existing legal conventions, 
practical and particular solutions.
This divide was perhaps best captured in the famous quip that 
gives the book its title, when German Chancellor Theobald von 
Bethmann Holweg dismissed the Treaty of London of 1839, which
1
: "A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)" by Isabel V. Hull
Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2015
C A N A D I A N  M I L I T A R Y  H I S T O R Y  : 305
guaranteed Belgian neutrality and which ultimately brought Britain 
into the war, as just a “scrap of paper.” Hull stresses that this was more 
than a throwaway line because it effectively reflected the crux of the legal 
divide: for Germany, military necessity, including self-defence, permitted 
the breach of such treaties, whereas for Britain, the commitments it 
made in international treaties necessitated military backing to protect. 
The First World War was therefore essentially a legal war, and what 
was at stake was the established legal state system of Europe.
Throughout the book, Hull covers very familiar territory, ranging 
from the use of poison gas at Ypres, to the Atlantic blockade, to the 
sinking of the Lusitania, yet she does so in a way that is refreshingly 
innovative. In each chapter, she demonstrates how a particular aspect 
of the war was subject to differentiated legal understandings on both 
sides. For example, the atrocities committed by the Germans in 1914 
in neutral Belgium— including the mass execution of civilians and 
the burning of entire towns— was widely viewed by the Allies as a 
reflection of German lawlessness and indifference towards the customs 
of war. Yet as Hull illustrates, the Germans viewed their actions as 
part of a long-standing understanding of law that placed military 
necessity above other considerations. From the German perspective, 
the Belgian atrocities represented reprisal for Belgian civilians’ 
resistance to German troops, not legal recklessness. The writings 
of German legal thinkers, military leaders, and state officials make 
clear that they believed the prevailing customs of international law 
could not and should not circumscribe the limits of military action. 
A Scrap of Paper offers quite a critical evaluation of Germany’s 
war effort and a rebuke of realist scholars who are inclined to view 
the blame for the war as evenly placed. For Hull, it is clear that 
Germany’s representation of international law enflamed conflict and 
that its ability to jettison key aspects of established legal conventions 
contributed to its ultimate loss.
The task of reconstructing historical understandings of 
international law during wartime is certainly an ambitious feat. Hull 
draws upon an impressive range of political and diplomatic archival 
documents from Germany, France, and Britain. It is clear from these 
sources alone that wartime leaders were very much cognisant of the 
subject of international law, regardless of how they interpreted it. 
This book, however, is very much a history of the war that is focussed 
on Europe; there is no mention of the wider experience of war around 
the world, though there are obvious connections that come to mind,
2
Canadian Military History, Vol. 24 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 18
http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol24/iss2/18
306 : Book Reviews
which warrant further consideration. One thinks for example of the 
division of the Ottoman Empire, which was still then a sovereign 
state, however unstable its internal political control had become, 
as a violation of existing customs and conventions of international 
law. How then did actions like the Skyes-Picot agreement between 
France and Britain correspond to those states’ apparent regard for 
international law? The colonialist and Eurocentric assumptions that 
underlie much of the legal ideas of the people that Hull writes about 
certainly require a. more substantive analysis. There is also much left 
to be written about the place of international law throughout the 
British Empire, and for Canadian historians in particular, the extent 
to which it influenced legal, political, and military thought in Canada 
and the other dominions.
This book should not get lost in the rather large volume of new 
studies published as we mark the centennial of the First World War. 
It marks a distinct contribution not only to the vast historiography of 
the war, but also to the developing body of literature on the intersection 
of law and international conflict. Historians of the First World War 
need to take law seriously— not just as a backdrop behind wartime 
events, but as a critical influence in the waging of war. O f course, 
it is not just a topic of historical interest, and it is difficult not to 
make connections between history and contemporary experience. The 
implications are clear. As Hull states in her conclusion, “momentary 
power superiority and great security anxiety might tempt a. state to 
engage in unilateral legal destruction” (p. 323). States need to heed 
international law and military decisions need to be made in close 
conjunction with legal considerations. The temptation to view the 
necessities of war as a legitimate defense against wilful violations of 
international law ignores the long shadow of the First World War.
PETER PRICE, ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA
Secret, Service: Political Policing in Canada from the Fenians to 
Fortress America. Reg Whitaker, Gregory S. Kealey, and Andrew 
Parnaby. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Pp. 544.
The main theme of Secret Service— the new “ complete” story of 
political policing in Canada— was to demonstrate in a larger context, 
the ongoing argument presented to us over the past twenty years,
3
: "A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)" by Isabel V. Hull
Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2015


A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)  by Isabel V. Hull

Wilfrid Laurier University

Canadian Military HistoryVolume 24 | Issue 2 Article 1811-23-2015"A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and MakingInternational Law during the Great War (BookReview)" by Isabel V. HullPeter PriceThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian MilitaryHistory by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationPeter Price (2015) ""A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)" by Isabel V.Hull," Canadian Military History: Vol. 24: Iss. 2, Article 18.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol24/iss2/18304 • Book ReviewsIn the interest of full disclosure, I should note that Jack Granatstein and I are old friends, having been members of the same class, Class of 1961, at the Royal Military College of Canada.ROBERT MARTIN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, EMERITUS, WESTERN UNIVERSITYA Scrap of Paper: Bi'eaking and Making International Law during the Great War. Isabel V. Hull. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014. Pp. 368.International law does not often become front-page news, but in March 2015 the seemingly intricate subject gained national attention in Canada in the debate to authorize Canadian airstrikes in Syria. Though some experts pointed out that the decision seemed to violate international law, others argued that the atrocities committed by isis militants and the protection of Iraq*® sovereignty necessitated the action. The example illustrated just how murky the interpretation of international law can be, even when it is at the centre of major wartime decisions.Cornell historian Isabel V. Hull’s book A Scrap of Paper serves as a. reminder that in most modern conflicts, no matter how messy or undefined, the realities of international law are never far from the frontlines. The First World War, she argues, was fundamentally shaped by variant understandings of international law, which affected the course and conduct of the war. Hull proves that international law was more than purely political rhetoric or a diplomatic nicety, but that it informed key decisions and reactions and was a central preoccupation of political and military leaders on all sides of the war. Going further, she effectively demonstrates that 1914 essentially represented a legal divide between Imperial Germany and the Allies -  specifically France and Britain. On the one hand, the Allies were generally careful to operate within the new framework established in the Brussels and Hague conventions. The Germans, however, were guided by what Hull calls “war positivism.” According to this idea, the exigencies of war require, irrespective of existing legal conventions, practical and particular solutions.This divide was perhaps best captured in the famous quip that gives the book its title, when German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Holweg dismissed the Treaty of London of 1839, which1: "A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)" by Isabel V. HullPublished by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2015C A N A D I A N  M I L I T A R Y  H I S T O R Y  : 305guaranteed Belgian neutrality and which ultimately brought Britain into the war, as just a “scrap of paper.” Hull stresses that this was more than a throwaway line because it effectively reflected the crux of the legal divide: for Germany, military necessity, including self-defence, permitted the breach of such treaties, whereas for Britain, the commitments it made in international treaties necessitated military backing to protect. The First World War was therefore essentially a legal war, and what was at stake was the established legal state system of Europe.Throughout the book, Hull covers very familiar territory, ranging from the use of poison gas at Ypres, to the Atlantic blockade, to the sinking of the Lusitania, yet she does so in a way that is refreshingly innovative. In each chapter, she demonstrates how a particular aspect of the war was subject to differentiated legal understandings on both sides. For example, the atrocities committed by the Germans in 1914 in neutral Belgium— including the mass execution of civilians and the burning of entire towns— was widely viewed by the Allies as a reflection of German lawlessness and indifference towards the customs of war. Yet as Hull illustrates, the Germans viewed their actions as part of a long-standing understanding of law that placed military necessity above other considerations. From the German perspective, the Belgian atrocities represented reprisal for Belgian civilians’ resistance to German troops, not legal recklessness. The writings of German legal thinkers, military leaders, and state officials make clear that they believed the prevailing customs of international law could not and should not circumscribe the limits of military action. A Scrap of Paper offers quite a critical evaluation of Germany’s war effort and a rebuke of realist scholars who are inclined to view the blame for the war as evenly placed. For Hull, it is clear that Germany’s representation of international law enflamed conflict and that its ability to jettison key aspects of established legal conventions contributed to its ultimate loss.The task of reconstructing historical understandings of international law during wartime is certainly an ambitious feat. Hull draws upon an impressive range of political and diplomatic archival documents from Germany, France, and Britain. It is clear from these sources alone that wartime leaders were very much cognisant of the subject of international law, regardless of how they interpreted it. This book, however, is very much a history of the war that is focussed on Europe; there is no mention of the wider experience of war around the world, though there are obvious connections that come to mind,2Canadian Military History, Vol. 24 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 18http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol24/iss2/18306 : Book Reviewswhich warrant further consideration. One thinks for example of the division of the Ottoman Empire, which was still then a sovereign state, however unstable its internal political control had become, as a violation of existing customs and conventions of international law. How then did actions like the Skyes-Picot agreement between France and Britain correspond to those states’ apparent regard for international law? The colonialist and Eurocentric assumptions that underlie much of the legal ideas of the people that Hull writes about certainly require a. more substantive analysis. There is also much left to be written about the place of international law throughout the British Empire, and for Canadian historians in particular, the extent to which it influenced legal, political, and military thought in Canada and the other dominions.This book should not get lost in the rather large volume of new studies published as we mark the centennial of the First World War. It marks a distinct contribution not only to the vast historiography of the war, but also to the developing body of literature on the intersection of law and international conflict. Historians of the First World War need to take law seriously— not just as a backdrop behind wartime events, but as a critical influence in the waging of war. O f course, it is not just a topic of historical interest, and it is difficult not to make connections between history and contemporary experience. The implications are clear. As Hull states in her conclusion, “momentary power superiority and great security anxiety might tempt a. state to engage in unilateral legal destruction” (p. 323). States need to heed international law and military decisions need to be made in close conjunction with legal considerations. The temptation to view the necessities of war as a legitimate defense against wilful violations of international law ignores the long shadow of the First World War.PETER PRICE, ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADASecret, Service: Political Policing in Canada from the Fenians to Fortress America. Reg Whitaker, Gregory S. Kealey, and Andrew Parnaby. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Pp. 544.The main theme of Secret Service— the new “ complete” story of political policing in Canada— was to demonstrate in a larger context, the ongoing argument presented to us over the past twenty years,3: "A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review)" by Isabel V. HullPublished by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2015

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1793&amp;context=cmh

A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War (Book Review) by Isabel V. Hull

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University