All programmers have their style of programming. But some of the styles are let’s say... let’s not say. So you have code review to try to impose certain rules for good design and good programming techniques.

But most of the programmers don’t like code review. They don’t like other people criticizing their work. 

Who do they think they are to consider themselves better than me and tell me that this is bad design, this could be done in another way. It works right? What is the problem? This is something  they might say (or think but not say which is just as bad if not worse).

So how do you make people accept code review without starting a war? 

How can you convince them this is a good thing; that will only improve their programming skills and avoid a lot of work later to fix and patch a zillion times a thing that hey... "it works"?

People will tell you how to make code review (peer-programming, formal inspections etc) what to look for in a code review, studies have been made to show the number of defects that can be discovered before the software hits production etc. But how do you convince programmers to accept a code review?

I've found that people who don't like code reviews will do their best to work around whatever you put in place.

The best way to make sure that the code you work with is code reviewed properly is to work somewhere that treats that as the normal way of coding, and that only hires developers who are likely to fit into that environment well.

If you can't change who you work with, you might have success if you first give your own code for review. Encourage them to find fault with it (dare I suggest adding in a few deliberate mistakes?) so that you can demonstrate that it's not meant to be a way of criticising the developer in question. That's the main problem, IMO: people take code reviews too personally.
