specialized, or extraterritorial issues in areas such as maritime law, but they are unlikely to be so receptive when it comes to more run-ofthe-mill issues, especially when the international law at issue is customary rather than treaty-based. As a result, international law’s success in expanding to increasing corners of lawmay have contributed to the reluctance of U.S. courts to link international law and foreign relations law as closely as did the Restatement Third. International law appears to have led to a reduced judicial role in another way as well. One of the bedrock principles of international law is sovereignty. Sovereignty has played a mixed and evolving role in U.S. foreign relations law. In Curtiss-Wright, the Court cited U.S. sovereignty as the source of extraconstitutional federal, and particularly presidential, power over foreign affairs.45 The Court has since pushed back on extraconstitutional notions of presidential power.46 The sovereignty of other nations has also influenced the judiciary. The Supreme Court generally invokes the concern for other states’ sovereignty through a separation of powers or federalism lens in which the Court leaves to the federal political branches the decision whether to infringe on that sovereignty, or otherwise provoke another sovereign. During the Cold War, concern for state interference with sovereignty led the Court to adopt a broad role for the judiciary in policing state action touching on foreign affairs.47 More recently, however, consideration of other nations’ sovereignty has led to a more restrictive judicial role. In the Alien Tort Statute cases, for example, concern for other nations’ sovereignty led the Court to counsel caution in the judicial recognition of federal causes of action based on CIL.48 Similarly, in the personal jurisdiction context, respect for and avoidance of tension with other sovereigns has contributed to a restrictive view of general jurisdiction.49 The influence of this particular principle of international law has trended toward lesser judicial involvement in foreign affairs, in tension with the Restatement Third. In short, much has changed in U.S. foreign relations law since the adoption of the Restatement Third. Foreign relations law has pivoted away from the orthodoxy of the Restatement Third, and the judiciary, though active in deciding foreign relations law cases, has declined to adopt an active role in foreign affairs. The Restatement and Beyond both documents and evidences these changes. The volume likewise provides insights into the future of the Restatement and foreign relations law. The volume thus stands as a worthy companion to the already valuable Restatement Fourth.

中文翻译：

---

战争律师：美国、以色列和司法战争。通过克雷格琼斯。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社，2020 年。Pp。xxxii, 347. 索引。

海事法等领域的专业或域外问题，但在涉及更普通的问题时，它们不太可能如此接受，特别是当所涉国际法是习惯法而不是基于条约时。结果，国际法成功地扩展到越来越多的法律领域，这可能导致美国法院不愿像第三次重述那样将国际法和外交关系法紧密联系起来。国际法似乎也以另一种方式导致司法角色的减少。国际法的基本原则之一是主权。主权在美国外交关系法中扮演了复杂且不断演变的角色。在 Curtiss-Wright 案中，法院将美国主权作为宪法外联邦，特别是总统的来源，外交事务的权力。45 此后，法院反对宪法外关于总统权力的概念。46 其他国家的主权也影响了司法机构。最高法院通常通过三权分立或联邦主义视角来援引对其他州主权的关注，在这种视角下，法院将是否侵犯该主权或以其他方式激怒另一主权者的决定留给联邦政治部门。在冷战期间，对国家干涉主权的担忧导致法院在监督涉及外交事务的国家行动方面发挥了广泛的作用。 47 然而，最近，对其他国家主权的考虑导致了更具限制性的司法角色。例如，在外国人侵权法案件中，对其他国家主权的关注导致法院在基于 CIL 的联邦诉讼因由的司法承认中建议谨慎。 48 同样，在属人管辖权的背景下，尊重和避免与其他主权国家的紧张关系导致限制性观点一般管辖权。49 国际法这一特殊原则的影响趋向于减少司法对外交事务的参与，这与第三次重述相冲突。简而言之，自通过第三次重述以来，美国外交关系法发生了很大变化。外交关系法已经脱离了第三次重述的正统观念，司法机关虽然积极审理涉外关系法案件，但拒绝在外交事务中发挥积极作用。重述和超越都记录和证明了这些变化。该卷还提供了对重述和外交关系法的未来的见解。因此，这本书是已经很有价值的第四次重述的有价值的伴侣。