Prospects and Limits of a Global History of International Law: A Brief Rejoinder

As we remarked in the Introduction to our Handbook, 1 it is exciting but also risky to leave a well-worn path (at 2). It means meeting unforeseen obstacles. We were quite aware of the fact that if we wanted to shed light on historical developments in international law which so far had remained in darkness or obscurity, we had to be prepared to encounter the unexpected and not so readily understood – that is, accounts and narratives which call into question conventional wisdom and which, at least initially, pose additional problems rather than providing easy answers. We knew that new research on issues which had rarely been examined before would not be perfect or ‘complete’. In other words, we expected, and in fact expressly invited, criticism of a work which tried to break new ground. What came as a pleasant surprise, though, was a stimulating workshop in Berlin to mark the publication of the Handbook. Organized by Alexandra Kemmerer and ‘Rechtskulturen: Confrontations Beyond Comparison’, an initiative of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and Humboldt University Law School, the workshop was a generous gift, and we appreciate how much time and energy went into it. We are very grateful to all those who made it possible, and to all who participated in the event. Before a large crowd of interested listeners, some 20 lawyers, historians and political scientists critically discussed in three panels the conception, the structure and the substance of our Handbook, focusing on the ‘Encounters’ section, various ‘Themes’ analysed in Part II and, lastly, on a primary motive of the Handbook: ‘Overcoming Eurocentrism’. Adding to that gift now is the publication, in this Journal, of revised versions of some of the remarks made at the Berlin workshop. It is truly rewarding and we feel honoured to receive such lucid comments from a number of scholars who have devoted their precious time to reading and reflecting