Abstract
Abstract Despite the historical turn in the study of public international law and the advance of comparative approaches, still too little attention is paid nowadays to specific national traditions. This holds, inter alia, for the scholarly views and practices in the Netherlands during the first half of the 20th century. This article seeks to shed light on the experiences here at the advent of the League of Nations and its tentative ‘new world order’. Offering a meso-level analysis, it portrays the leading protagonists during the 1920s and 1930s, aiming to provide a snapshot of how their discipline and activities underwent an unexpectedly swift professionalization. This process is perceived to have run along three distinct vectors – academic, societal and diplomatic/bureaucratic – which are each examined in turn. Novel opportunities stemming from the rise of the international judiciary, especially the two Permanent Courts established on Dutch soil, are looked at separately. The research delivers a greater insight into the inter-war era and the challenges faced by (academics from) smaller nations, enabling us to situate underexplored local experiences within a global frame, and offering useful lessons for (the writing of) international law history more generally.
Highlights
Novel opportunities stemming from the rise of the international judiciary, especially the two Permanent Courts established on Dutch soil, are looked at separately
Despite the historical turn in the study of public international law and the nouvelle vague of comparative approaches, it has rightly been remarked that still too little attention is being paid to the plethora of national traditions.[1]
In the 1920s and 1930s, did public international law scholarship go through a process of institutional emancipation at universities and substantive blossoming in scientific discourse, but increasing numbers of scholars proceeded to share their thoughts in talks and publications destined for wider audiences, offering authoritative analyses and rectifying widespread misconceptions
Summary
Despite the historical turn in the study of public international law and the nouvelle vague of comparative approaches, it has rightly been remarked that still too little attention is being paid to the plethora of national traditions.[1]. The professionalization of international law scholarship as defined here is believed to have run along three vectors, largely reflected in the structure of our analysis.[14] To begin with, the process possessed a quintessential academic dimension, primarily illustrated by the emancipation of the discipline within the legal curriculum and the creation of dedicated chairs across the Netherlands (Section 2). Beyond this institutional aspect, but closely linked, there is the expanding substantive discourse in the field, in which the new generation scrambled to partake (Section 3). We round off with a series of overarching conclusions that highlight the lessons that can be drawn from this episode towards (the writing of) international law history more generally (Section 7)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
