{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026936026936026935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006734006734006734, 'mean_word_length': 4.6455696202531644, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How Many Cheers for the Peace Pact?

The Internationalists, the much-praised study of Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, fails badly in its estimate of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (the Peace Pact of 1928) and its larger characterization of the “Old World Order” and the “New World Order.” The authors unfairly excoriate Grotius as having “made the world safe for war,” and they mischaracterize the law of neutrality and the status of jus in bello in traditional international law. They misread the significance of the Peace Pact and its relationship to the League of Nations. They also offer a distorted view of the New World Order, mistaking the lineaments of the 70 years that followed World War II. The publicists of the law of nations, whose work made a deep imprint on America’s founders, are condemned by the authors as bearers of iniquitous principles, but they still have much to teach us.