Taming Politics or Na?vet? of Positivism in International Law?: Lassa Oppenheim and His Ascertainment of Customary International Law
Taming Politics or Na?vet? of Positivism in International Law?: Lassa Oppenheim and His Ascertainment of Customary International Law
复制标题
驯服政治还是天真？
DOI：
10.1163/9789004461802_019
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hirofumi OGURI
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
西上治;二杉健斗;権南希;Hirofumi OGURI
沿着国际法的“史学转向”，关于国际法与历史的相互作用及其方法论的研究日益增多，关于是否需要平衡语境主义和时代错误的争论也在不断进行。本章认为，这种关于方法的争论（Methodenstreit）只涉及对历史过去的认识论信念，而各方都认为，国际法的实证主义方法受到对国家实践和条约轨迹的天真信念的破坏，而没有适当考虑它们的来源。通过对习惯国际法识别的案例研究，有人认为，一个装备精良的来源批评（Quellenkritik）是减少这种“天真”的一种可能方法。因为对资料来源的“实证主义”但批判性的关注并不必然是天真的，所以没有必要诉诸于历史写作的不驯服的“政治”。
Along with the ‘turn to historiography’in international law, there has been a growing number of studies on the interaction between international law and history and its methodology as well as ongoing debate regarding the need to balance contextualism and anachronism. This chapter suggests that this dispute over methods (Methodenstreit) only concerns epistemic beliefs about the historical past, while all sides the share the understanding that positivistic methods of international law are marred by a naïve faith in the trajectories of state practices and treatises without due regard for their sources. With a case study of the identification of customary international law, it is argued that a well-equipped source criticism (Quellenkritik) is a possible way to reduce such ‘naïveté’. Because the ‘positivist’but criticalfocus on the sources are not inevitably naïve, there is no need to resort to an untamed ‘politics’ of history writing.