My reading of The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, edited by Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, has undoubtedly been framed by my own field of research. This field is not international law, but the historical anthropology of Russia and Eurasia and includes changing legal practice in a context of increasing global connectedness. My review is therefore not intended to relate the Oxford Handbook to the wider historiography of international law, which I leave to other contributions in this symposium; it is meant to offer an external perspective on the question of Eurocentric analysis. The editors of the Handbook have identified Eurocentrism as one of the key challenges to overcome in the study of international law. On the whole, and even if some of my remarks are critical, the Handbook struck me as wide in scope and rich in detail. It approaches the history of international law from various perspectives, including concepts, regions, and individual actors. The recurrent feeling of having identified an issue that does not receive sufficient attention usually evaporates a few hundred pages further down when you find a whole section or chapter on the subject. The book, in this sense, is disarmingly detailed and exhaustive. The Handbook’s key objective is to overcome Eurocentric analysis and write an alternative history or, more precisely, alternative histories of international law. The introduction describes existing accounts as incomplete because they ignore not only the ruthlessness and destructiveness of European impositions but also most legal relations that did not involve Europeans, and legal norms that did not survive and become part of today’s body of international law. These aims are not only laudable and important but also backed up on the level of research design: the book includes a large number of legal experts from all over the globe, which is unusual for collaborative projects in the field of international law. Yet, there are a number of issues surrounding the question of Eurocentrism. In what follows, I concentrate on the book’s ambition to write a non-Eurocentric history of international law, arguing that, from my own disciplinary perspective, I perceive a certain discrepancy between this ambition and its implementation.