"This pioneering work in international legal theory offers a rare combination of sober lawyerly caution and high philosophical aspiration - leavened with plain common sense. Sovereign Equality and Moral Disagreement gives good reason for pause, especially to those of us who have made a mission of pushing the boundaries of international criminal and humanitarian law. Roth's is a novel, inspired defense of traditional rules upholding the sovereignty of statesagainst recent demands from a putative 'international community.' It's a welcome antidote to new orthodoxies and sure to receive much attention, not least because it issues from someone long-identifiedwith the international human rights movement." --Mark J. Osiel Aliber Family Chair in Law, The University of Iowa College of Law"In this tour de force, Brad R. Roth returns to the first principles of international order and produces a rigorous defense of sovereignty, applicable to 21st century debates. A brilliant piece of work that will be required reading for international lawyers." --Tom Ginsburg Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago Law School"In Sovereign Equality and Moral Disagreement, Brad R. Roth offers a unique and profound perspective on the place of the state in international law, politics and morality. His aim is to bring about a fundamental shift, to make clear that sovereignty is central to pluralism in the emerging global order. Not all will agree, but everyone's view will be richer afterward. The book is masterful, provocative, and important." --David D. Caron, President, American Society of International Law; C. William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law, University of California"It is this clear-sighted interpretation of customary international law, combined with its firm theoretical grounding that makes Roth's work important. Professor Roth has given us a valuable tool to assess not only the current, but also future claims to modifications of these rules. Roth's work constitutes a convincing reminder that we must work towards an international legal order that will best serve the world that we have, rather than the world as we wish itwas." --Hannah Woolaver, University of Capetown British Yearbook of International Law
