Deciphering l’esprit d’internationalité: The 1872 Alabama arbitration and the pacifist antithesis of modern international law profession

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Leiden Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1017/s0922156523000699
Xiaohang Chen
{"title":"Deciphering l’esprit d’internationalité: The 1872 Alabama arbitration and the pacifist antithesis of modern international law profession","authors":"Xiaohang Chen","doi":"10.1017/s0922156523000699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In international legal historiography, it becomes a commonplace that the successful resolution of the <span>Alabama</span> dispute between Britain and the US by the 1872 Geneva Tribunal of arbitration – the 1872 <span>Alabama</span> arbitration – kindled the progressivist enthusiasm of liberal internationalists for projects of humanitarianism, the codification of international law, and international arbitration. The article aims to take this scholarship further by arguing that, against this backdrop of reformist enthusiasm for international law, two transnational social reform movements – pacifist internationalism and legalist internationalism – converged in a joint effort of social and intellectual mobilization in furtherance of an ordered system of international law and its judicial application in practice. The epitome of this encounter was the almost simultaneous creation of the International Law Association and the <span>Institut de Droit International</span> in 1873. The article shows that international jurists sought to delineate the nascent modern international law profession by strategically distancing their scientific cause of international law from the one embarked on by their pacifist counterparts. By demarcating international legal science in contrast to the contemporary pacifist activism of international law, international jurists set the parameters of their social networks, and manoeuvred for professional outreach. Yet it is precisely by bringing back the pacifist antithesis that had been deliberately relegated into the secondary by international jurists – ‘the men of 1873’ – that some previously under-emphasized aspects of the sensibility of <span>l’esprit d’internationalité</span> can be grasped.</p>","PeriodicalId":46816,"journal":{"name":"Leiden Journal of International Law","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leiden Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156523000699","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In international legal historiography, it becomes a commonplace that the successful resolution of the Alabama dispute between Britain and the US by the 1872 Geneva Tribunal of arbitration – the 1872 Alabama arbitration – kindled the progressivist enthusiasm of liberal internationalists for projects of humanitarianism, the codification of international law, and international arbitration. The article aims to take this scholarship further by arguing that, against this backdrop of reformist enthusiasm for international law, two transnational social reform movements – pacifist internationalism and legalist internationalism – converged in a joint effort of social and intellectual mobilization in furtherance of an ordered system of international law and its judicial application in practice. The epitome of this encounter was the almost simultaneous creation of the International Law Association and the Institut de Droit International in 1873. The article shows that international jurists sought to delineate the nascent modern international law profession by strategically distancing their scientific cause of international law from the one embarked on by their pacifist counterparts. By demarcating international legal science in contrast to the contemporary pacifist activism of international law, international jurists set the parameters of their social networks, and manoeuvred for professional outreach. Yet it is precisely by bringing back the pacifist antithesis that had been deliberately relegated into the secondary by international jurists – ‘the men of 1873’ – that some previously under-emphasized aspects of the sensibility of l’esprit d’internationalité can be grasped.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解读国际精神:1872 年阿拉巴马仲裁与现代国际法专业的和平主义对立面
在国际法律史学中,1872 年日内瓦仲裁法庭成功解决英美之间的阿拉巴马争端--1872 年阿拉巴马仲裁--点燃了自由国际主义者对人道主义、国际法编纂和国际仲裁项目的进步主义热情,这已成为一种司空见惯的说法。本文旨在进一步推动这一学术研究,认为在改革派热衷于国际法的背景下,两个跨国社会改革运动--和平主义国际主义和法律主义国际主义--汇聚在一起,共同进行社会和思想动员,以促进有序的国际法体系及其在实践中的司法应用。这种交汇的缩影是 1873 年几乎同时成立的国际法协会和国际法学会。文章指出,国际法学家们试图通过战略性地拉开他们的国际法科学事业与和平主义同行所从事的事业之间的距离,来划分新生的现代国际法专业。通过将国际法律科学与当代国际法的和平主义行动主义区分开来,国际法学家们设定了其社会网络的参数,并为专业外延进行了周旋。然而,正是通过将被国际法学家们刻意置于次要地位的和平主义对立面--"1873 年的人"--重新拉回来,我们才能把握住国际精神中一些之前未被充分强调的感性方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
International law in the minds: On the ideational basis of the making, the changing, and the unmaking of international law BinaryTech in motion: The sexgender in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence Rewriting the law of international organizations: Whither the Asia Pacific? Beyond the machinery metaphors: Towards a theory of international organizations as machines The Committee on the Rights of the Child and Article 12: Applying the Lundy model to treaty body recommendations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1