We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2016
This article asks when, how, and why states started to use the concept of international community in the shared language of diplomacy and international law. It argues that the concept was accepted to the interstate language as a result of debates over international institutions, which were to acquire a universal character, at the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The article suggests that conceptual changes in interstate language should be understood as products of rhetorical power struggles, in which some arguments lose the battle while others prevail, some concepts are discarded while others modified. The article suggests a model of conceptual change that explains an innovation in interstate language. First, it draws attention to collective assertive speech acts at diplomatic events that signal changes in international politics. Second, it examines whether such acts implicate conceptual innovations. Third, it posits that the composition of epistemic community assembled at the Hague determines the nature of conceptual innovation. Fourth, it demonstrates how rhetorical interventions into debates at the conference introduce and mould relevant concepts. Fifth, it illuminates how contextualisation of the conference interventions in professional debates helps us understand the polemical nature of arguments and the scope of conceptual innovation.
1 Skinner, Cf. Quentin, Visions of Politics, Volume 1, ‘Regarding Method’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 7 Google Scholar.
2 For an attempt to define International Relations as interlingual relations through conceptual entanglements and pairs of languages see Wigen, Einar, ‘Two-level language games: International Relations as interlingual relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:2 (2015), pp. 427–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962)Google Scholar, particularly, lectures IX and X; Skinner, Visions of Politics.
4 Nicholas Onuf, following John Searle, termed as ‘assertive’ speech acts that inform agents about the world, see Onuf, Nicholas, Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 11 Google Scholar.
5 In this article I do not aim to analyse speech acts expressing contractual obligations, which rather fall into the category of ‘commissive’ speech acts that mean the exchange of promises, see ibid., pp. 11–12. Instead, I focus only on assertive speech acts that are deployed in shared diplomatic and legal language games; on international law as a language game see Kratochwil, Friedrich, The Status of Law in World Society: Meditations on the Role and Rule of Law (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 This is not a question of procedures to adopt legal norms, but a question of politics that recognised an extra-legal reality of international community within the body of international law and diplomatic norms.
7 See classical remarks by Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, eds Kenneth Thompson and David Clinton (7th edn, Boston: McGraw-Hill Education, 2005), p. 6 Google Scholar; and E. H. Carr opposing this principle to harmony of national interests in his The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: Reissued with New Introduction, ed. Michael Cox (new edn, Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001). As opposed to realist theories, I do not mean to reify the state in what follows, hence all speech acts mentioned henceforth should be understood as acts of authorised state representatives.
8 The history of international society in natural law tradition and in the nascent discipline of international law in 19–20 cc. has already been analysed, for instance, in Keene, Edward, ‘The development of the concept of international society: an essay on political argument in International Relations Theory’, in Michi Ebata and Beverly Neufeld (eds), Confronting the Political in International Relations (Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), pp. 17–46 Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Roshchin, Evgeny, ‘(Un)natural and contractual international society: a conceptual inquiry’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:2 (2013), pp. 257–279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 See Appadurai, Arjun, ‘Broken promises’, Foreign Policy (2002)Google Scholar, available at: {http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/09/broken-promises/}; Brown, Chris, International Society, Global Polity: An Introduction to International Political Theory (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2015)Google Scholar; Brown, Chris, ‘Moral agency and international society’, Ethics & International Affairs, 15:2 (2001), pp. 87–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, ed. Stanley Hoffmann (2nd rev. edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1995), p. 13 Google Scholar; Buzan, Barry, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wight, Martin, International Theory: The Three Traditions, eds G. Wight and B. Porter (Leicester and London: Leicester University Press, 1991), p. 30 Google Scholar.
10 de Guevara, Berit Bliesemann and Kühn, Florian P., ‘“The international community needs to act”: Loose use and empty signalling of a hackneyed concept’, International Peacekeeping, 18:2 (2011), pp. 135–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellis, David C., ‘On the possibility of “international community”’, International Studies Review, 11:1 (2009), p. 24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiss, Thomas G., ‘Researching humanitarian intervention: Some lessons’, Journal of Peace Research, 38:4 (2001), pp. 423–424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirkpatrick, Jeane J., ‘The shackles of consensus’, Foreign Policy (2002), available at: {http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2002/09/01/the_shackles_of_consensus}Google Scholar.
11 For instance, E. H. Carr famously, and somewhat reluctantly, noted that world community may exist only by virtue of people talking and sometimes behaving as if it did, see Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939, p. 162. For a critical rendering of a sceptical realist stance towards international community and international institutions see Donnelly, Jack, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 131–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linklater, Andrew, Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Oxford, UK: Polity Press, 1998), pp. 18–21 Google Scholar.
12 See, for example, Milliken, Jennifer, ‘The study of discourse in International Relations: a critique of research and methods’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:2 (1999), pp. 225–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Onuf, Nicholas, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zehfuss, Maja, Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 For the argument on how ideas matter in classical realism and how this can be linked to constructivist theories, see Williams, Michael C., ‘Why ideas matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, classical realism, and the moral construction of power politics’, International Organization, 58:4 (2004), pp. 633–665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 See Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘The community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical action, and the Eastern enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization, 55:1 (2001), pp. 47–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 This is something that Ronald R. Krebs and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson would define as a ‘framing contest’, see their ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms: the power of political rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007), p. 44.
16 For the ways this classical Weberian statement translates into linguistic political theory see Franck, Thomas M., The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 16–19 Google Scholar; Palonen, Kari, Quentin Skinner: History, Politics, Rhetoric (Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity, 2003), p. 53 Google Scholar; Skinner, Visions of Politics, pp. 146–7.
17 As Quentin Skinner argued, ‘[t]he surest sign that a group or society has entered into the self-conscious possession of a new concept is that a corresponding vocabulary will be developed, a vocabulary which can then be used to pick out and discuss the concept in question with consistency.’ Skinner, Visions of Politics 1, ‘Regarding Method’, p. 160.
18 For the theory of epistemic community see Adler, Emanuel, Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations (London, UK; New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 16–17 Google Scholar; Haas, Peter M., ‘Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organization, 46:1 (1992), pp. 1–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Palonen, Kari, ‘Quentin Skinner’s “rhetorical turn” and the chances for political thought’, Philosophy Study, 3:1 (2013), pp. 9–22 Google Scholar; Palonen, Kari, ‘The history of concepts as a style of political theorizing: Quentin Skinner’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s subversion of normative political theory’, European Journal of Political Theory, 1:1 (2002), pp. 91–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 For the techniques of rhetorical innovation and redescription see Skinner, Quentin, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skinner, Quentin, ‘Rhetoric and conceptual change’, Redescriptions: Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought, Volume 3 (1999), pp. 60–73 Google Scholar.
21 Although countries like Great Britain and the United States by the time of the Conference had a record of disputes resolved by means of arbitration, for many universal obligatory arbitration seemed a far-fetched proposal.
22 For the analysis of the growing internationalism of the late nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries, see Sluga, Glenda, Internationalism in the Age of Nationalism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), pp. 11–18 Google Scholar; see also Gorman, Daniel, The Emergence of International Society in the 1920s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 See Paulmann, Johannes, ‘Searching for a “royal international”: the mechanics of monarchical relations in nineteenth-century Europe’, in Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann (eds), The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War (London; Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 145–176 Google Scholar.
24 Edward Keene shows that the nineteenth century witnessed a revolution in treaty-making, but increase in the number of multilateral treaties was still hardly comparable to the numbers of bilateral treaties; see his ‘The treaty-making revolution of the nineteenth century’, The International History Review, 34:3 (2012), pp. 475–500.
25 The first Hague Conference, 1899, was convoked by a rather unexpected initiative of the Russian emperor Nicholas II to discuss reduction of armaments, rules of warfare, and ways to solve conflicts by peaceful means. It did not succeed in reaching most of the original goals, but the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes is considered as one its modest achievements. The significance of the Hague Conferences for contemporary international institutions has already been indicated in Buzan, Barry and Lawson, George, The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 85–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reus-Smit, Christian, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 141–151 Google Scholar.
26 At least one exception to this observation is the speech that an American delegate Mr Kasson made at the Congo Conference in Berlin in which he appealed to the interests of ‘family of nations’, but this phrase, popular at the time, did not appear in the final act. See Gavin, R. J. and Betley, J. A. (eds), The Scramble for Africa: Documents on the Berlin West African Conference and Related Subjects, 1884/1885 (Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press, 1973), pp. 138–139 Google Scholar.
27 See Preamble, in Scott, James Brown (ed.), The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences: Translation of the Original Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), p. 236 Google Scholar; La Conférence Internationale de la Paix. La Haye, 18 mai–29 juillet 1899, Nouvelle ed. (La Haye: M. Nijhoff, 1907), Convention, p. 7.
28 Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, Duncan and Sylvest, Casper, ‘International Society in Victorian political thought: T. H. Green, Herbert Spencer, and Henry Sidgwick’, Modern Intellectual History, 3:2 (2006), pp. 207–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations; Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions.
29 See Hull, William Isaac, The Two Hague Conferences, and Their Contributions to International Law (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1908)Google Scholar; Schücking, Walther, The International Union of the Hague Conferences (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1918)Google Scholar.
30 See Lesaffer, R., ‘The medieval canon law of contract and early modern treaty law’, Journal of the History of International Law / Revue D’histoire Du Droit International, 2:2 (2000), pp. 178–198, doi:10.1163/15718050020956821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lesaffer, R., ‘Amicitia in Renaissance peace and alliance treaties (1450–1530)’, Journal of the History of International Law / Revue D’histoire Du Droit International, 4:1 (2002), pp. 77–99, doi:10.1163/15718050220957143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 In the debates over of the convention drafts the terms ‘society of civilised nations’ and ‘international community’ were used interchangeably.
32 See K. Holsti for a concept of polyarchy describing the system of the nineteenth century: Holsti, Kalevi J., ‘Governance without government: Polyarchy in nineteenth-century European international politics’, in James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 30–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 The universality of asserted society of nations should not be overstated. It was, above all, a ‘society of civilized nations’, that is, a concept central to the colonial origins and promulgation of international law based on the idea of the standard of civilisation (for more on this see Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law; Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations; and Bowden, Brett, The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea (reprint edn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly, ch. 5. As such, it manifested a hierarchical society in which ‘civilised’ states were to exercise power over those peoples who were placed into the category of ‘barbarian’ and, hence, were governed until they reached a certain ‘standard of civilisation’. The concept, thus, helped to further legitimise imperialist practices and aspirations of the many powers present at the conference.
34 I use the concept of ‘epistemic community’ with reservations as to ‘shared knowledge’ and degree of ‘community’ among jurists-diplomats gathered at the Hague. What they shared was perhaps training in law and professional interest in the customs of interstate ‘intercourse’, while on many other accounts their interaction could be best described by dissensus and defined as attempts to win debates rather than secure genuine learning and diffusion of ‘the shared knowledge’. Nevertheless, the concept helps to identify participants as a group of acclaimed jurists contributing to a debate the terms of which they all understood.
35 See Martens assessing the conference in retrospect in ‘Professor Martens on the peace conference’, The Times (24 October 1899), Issue 35968.
36 Eyffinger, Arthur, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference: ‘The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World’ (The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), p. 356 Google Scholar.
37 ‘We have already more than once expressed … ’, The Times (13 May 1899), Issue 35828.
38 Professor Asser is a co-founder of the first professional journal in international law Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée with John Westlake and Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns, 1869, and a co-founder of the Institute of International Law, 1873.
39 Poustogarov, Vladimir, Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens: Jurist, Diplomat (2nd edn, Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenia, 1999), p. 164 Google Scholar.
40 It was suspected that Martens’ opinion on scholarly matters was politically biased, that is, reflecting Russia’s special interests in particular subjects. For a discussion of Martens’ legacy and ideology, see Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Martens Clause: Half a loaf or simply pie in the sky?’, European Journal of International Law, 11:1 (2000), p. 199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mälksoo, Lauri, ‘F. F. Martens and his time: When Russia was an integral part of the European tradition of international law’, European Journal of International Law, 25:3 (2014), p. 823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, p. 208; see also Eyffinger, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference, pp. 148–9.
42 Eyffinger, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference, p. 368; Scott, The Proceedings, p. 107.
43 Scott, The Proceedings, p. 688; La Conférence 1899, p. 2, second meeting.
44 Scott, The Proceedings, pp. 170, 172; the French original has a slightly different meaning of the ‘ensemble of states’—“l’ensemble des États constituant la communauté internationale”’, see also ‘Miscellaneous. No. 1. Correspondence Respecting the Peace Conference Held at the Hague in 1899’ [In Continuation of ‘Russia no. 1 (1899)’] (London: Printed for her Majesty’s stationery office by Harrison and Sons, 1899), N27, Enclosure 1, emphasis added.
45 Scott, The Proceedings, p. 173.
46 Ibid., p. 177.
47 Ibid., p. 176.
48 Martens, Fyodor, ‘Gaagskaya Konferentsia Mira: Kulturno-Istoricheskii Ocherk’, Vestnik Evropy, Volume 3 (1900), p. 8 Google Scholar (emphasis added).
49 Ibid., p. 7.
50 See Mälksoo, Lauri, ‘Russia-Europe’, in Bardo Fassbender, Anne Peters, and Daniel Högger (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 778–779 Google Scholar.
51 Descamps, Édouard, ‘Essai sur L’Organisation de L’Arbitrage International’, Revue de droit international et de législation compare, Volume XXVIII (1896), pp. 5–74 Google Scholar.
52 Martens, Fyodor, Sovremennoe Pravo Tsivilizovannyh Narodov, Volume 1, 2 vols (St Petersburg: Tipografia ministerstva putei soobschenia [Benke], 1882)Google Scholar.
53 Martens, Fyodor, Traité de droit international, Volume 1, 2 vols, trans. Alfred (pseud François Danville Léo) (Paris: A. Chevalier-Maresq, 1883)Google Scholar, available at: {http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5665463j}.
54 See the summary of German government’s position that Zorn gave on 20 July in Scott, The Proceedings, p. 659.
55 Eyffinger, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference, pp. 374–8; ‘Miscellaneous. No. 1’, NN 28, 29.
56 Scott, The Proceedings, p. 108; cf. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law.
57 Scott, The Proceedings, p. 110.
58 See also an American delegate Holls explaining the need to recognise this duty – contra Bluntschli – by showing its benefits to ‘international society’, Holls, Frederick William, The Peace Conference at the Hague, and its Bearings on International Law and Policy (New York; London: The Macmillan Company, 1900), p. 180 Google Scholar.
59 Scott, The Proceedings, p. 118; La Conférence 1899, pp. 84–5, emphasis added.
60 Scott, The Proceedings, p. 127; La Conférence 1899, p. 89. For this argument also see his ‘Essai sur L’Organisation de L’Arbitrage International’, p. 6.
61 The co-constitution of international community and international law remains a key ontological assumption in the discipline of international law, see Addis, Adeno, ‘Imagining the international community: the constitutive dimension of universal jurisdiction’, Human Rights Quarterly, 31:1 (2009), pp. 129–162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kritsiotis, Dino, ‘Imagining the international community’, European Journal of International Law, 13:4 (2002), pp. 961–992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tsagourias, Nicholas, ‘International community, recognition of states, and political cloning’, in Stephen Tierney and Colin Warbrick (eds), Towards an ‘International Legal Community’?: The Sovereignty of States and the Sovereignty of International Law (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2006), pp. 211–240 Google Scholar.
62 Keene, ‘The development of the concept of international society’; Roshchin, ‘(Un)natural and contractual international society’.
63 On the importance of altering criteria of application of terms in rhetorical tactics pursued by innovating ideologists, see Skinner, Visions of Politics 1, ‘Regarding Method’, pp. 150–5.
64 Paradoxically, the effect of rhetorical persuasion and conceptual innovation was such that even the opponents of arbitration, for example, A. T. Mahan, ended up adopting the rhetoric of international community. For his use of the term see Mahan, Alfred Thayer, Armaments and Arbitration, Or, the Place of Force in the International Relations of States (The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd, 1912), pp. 86 Google Scholar, 107.
65 In 1879 Renault published a treatise Introduction à l’étude du droit international (L. Larose [Paris], 1879), available at: {http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5612185s} in which he made use of the term ‘la grande communauté des nations’ (p. 4). His use was informed by Robert Phillimore’s Commentaries Upon International Law, Volume I (Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson, 1854), p. 7; and James Kent’s (an American jurist), Kent’s Commentary on International Law: Revised with Notes and Cases Brought Down to the Present Time, ed. J. T. Abdy (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1866), p. 92, who Renault cites in p. 11.
66 Scott, James Brown, ed., The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences; Translation of the Official Texts: The Conference of 1907, Volume 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), p. 166 Google Scholar.
67 For instance, a Colombian delegate defended in this way restrictions on the use of anchored automatic contact mines, ibid., 1:285; other examples include justification of proposals for a long and renewable term of office for the judges of the court of arbitration, ibid., 1:355; and arguments for states to bear expenses of the court in the interest of the community of nations, ibid., 1:382–4.
68 See examples of such arguments in ibid., 1:425, p. 482; Scott, James Brown (ed.), The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences; Translation of the Official Texts: The Conference of 1907, Volume 3 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), p. 211 Google Scholar.
69 Scott, The Proceedings. The Conference of 1907 3, p. 589.
70 The earliest record in the OED entry on ‘international community’ refers to George B. Adams’ Civilization During the Middle Ages (1894) and its definition of Christendom as ‘a great international community’, see ‘Oxford English Dictionary’, Oxford English Dictionary, available at: {http://public.oed.com/about/} accessed 2 May 2014.
71 I borrow the focus on speaking as doing and contrasting such acts with the conventional use from Skinner, Visions of Politics 1, ‘Regarding Method’, pp. 101–2.
72 ‘Sir Julian Pauncefote leaves England’, The Times (16 May 1899), Issue 35830; ‘The Peace Conference at the Hague: Second Report’, The Times (19 May 1899), Issue 35833.
73 ‘The Peace Conference’, The Times (12 February 1907), Issue 38254, p. 5.
74 Descamps, ‘Essai sur L’Organisation de L’Arbitrage International’, pp. 12–13.
75 Austin, John, Lectures on Jurisprudence; Or, The Philosophy of Positive Law, Volume 1, ed. Robert Campbell (5th edn, London: J. Murray, 1885), pp. 231–232 Google Scholar.
76 Westlake, John, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), p. viGoogle Scholar.
77 Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, pp. 208–13.
78 ‘The Peace Conference at the Hague: Second Report’, p. 9.
79 For classic examples of this response, see Wheaton, Henry, Elements of International Law, ed. Richard Henry Dana (8th edn, Boston; Cambridge: Little, Brown, and Co.; John Wilson and Son, 1866), I, p. 14 Google Scholar; II, p. 63; see also Westlake, Chapters, pp. 3, 86.
80 See, for example, Phillimore, Commentaries Upon International Law, I:I:I;I, I–IX; cf. fn. 65.
81 Bluntschli, Johann Caspar, The Theory of the State (3rd edn, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1895), p. 34 Google Scholar.
82 Cavallar, Georg, ‘From hospitality to the right of immigration in the law of nations: 1750–1850’, in Gideon Baker (ed.), Hospitality and World Politics (Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 86–87 Google Scholar.
83 A similar idea has recently been articulated by Terry Nardin in his theory of legal positivism, see his ‘Legal positivism as a theory of international society’, in Mapel, David R. and Nardin, Terry (eds), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives (new edn, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 17–35 Google Scholar.
84 Cf. Suganami, Hidemi, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 66–70 Google Scholar.
85 Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law: A Treatise, Volume 1 (London; New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905), p. 10 Google Scholar; similarly Lawrence, T. J. conceives of ‘society of nations’ on the basis of restricted membership, see his International Problems and Hague Conferences (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1908), p. 3 Google Scholar.
86 Martens, Sovremennoe Pravo Tsivilizovannyh Narodov, 1:217, p. 221.
87 Cf. Descamps, ‘Essai sur L’Organisation de L’Arbitrage International’, p. 13; Martens, Sovremennoe Pravo Tsivilizovannyh Narodov.
88 Schücking, The International Union of the Hague Conferences, pp. 217–34; Lawrence, Thomas J., The Society of Nations: Its Past, Present, and Possible Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1919)Google Scholar; for a more recent legal evolutionary interpretation of international community history see Cassese, Antonio, International Law in a Divided World (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1986)Google Scholar.
89 Holls, The Peace Conference at the Hague, pp. 364–5.
90 Buzan, Barry, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 108–111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
