Duquesne Law Review


Two visions of world order clashed dramatically in the period between World War I and World War II. One vision advocated the position that if there were an agreement on the meaning and function of law, perhaps it then would be possible to build a world order based on the obligations of law instead of force. The other vision advocated that if there were a realistic understanding of the inadequacies or impossibilities of international law, perhaps it then would be possible to build a stable world order based on a realistic political concept of force. This article examines how the jurisprudence of international law came under increasing attack on two fronts in the inter-war period. The jurisprudential underpinnings were criticized as an outdated formalistic positivism that was incapable of responding to the political and social realities of the time. Also, the jurisprudential underpinnings were attacked by realists, who believed that the very nature of international law was idealistic and impractical.

First Page


Included in

Law Commons