A New Foundation for Freedom of Movement in an Age of Sovereign Control: The Liberal Jurisprudence of August Wilhelm Heffter
Keywords:
August Wilhelm Heffter International law Natural law and positivism Customary international law Free movement State sovereigntyAbstract
AbstractThis article addresses how a once influential but now obscure jurist addressed a potential paradox in liberal thought—between democratic control over borders and transnational rights—as it arose in the mid-nineteenth-century, amid advocacy against authoritarianism and for free trade and movement, on the one hand, and the increasing calling into question of natural law theories that may have best facilitated free movement, on the other. While scholarship has increasingly shown how the boundaries between periods of natural law and positivist hegemony are difficult to distinguish, specific tensions in the mid-nineteenth-century called for an approach that preserved free movement in light of the growing appeal of empiricism and state sovereignty. In this context, August Wilhelm Heffter proposed that states were bound by higher law as a consequence of their free decision to enter international communities: these communities’ purpose, he wrote, bred customary laws facilitating interstate interaction. Heffter’s approximation of “natural” law in a more positivist context and his use of the period’s “customary” logic helps account for his influence not only in periods of free trade and movement’s ascendancy but also the survival of forms of his thought into periods of sovereigntist reaction against them. It therefore holds potential to address what scholarship has termed today’s “liberal paradox” between democracy and migration better than approaches that emphasize a more complete return to natural law.
References
1
Green, Nancy, The Limits of Transnationalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 105–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2
McAdam, Jane, “An Intellectual History of Freedom of Movement in International Law: The Right to Leave as a Personal Liberty,” Melbourne Journal of International Law 12 (2011): 11Google Scholar.
3
Padoa-Schioppa, Antonio, A History of Law in Europe: From the Early Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 615CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4
Koskenniemi, Martti, “Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756–1821) and Modern International Law,” Constellations 15 (2008): 190, n. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5
McAdam, “Intellectual History of Freedom of Movement,” 16.
6
On the variety of nineteenth-century liberalism, see Bell, Duncan, “What is Liberalism?” Political Theory 42 (2014): 682–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On liberals’ use of both positivism and natural law together, see Part I of this article; see also Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civiliser of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 95, 130–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7
A paradigm shift could change the “basis” for science, but “science” continued. Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed. 1970), 6Google Scholar.
8
Lauchert, Friedrich, “Heffter, August Wilhelm,” in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (Leipzig: Dunckner & Humblot, 1880), 253Google Scholar; Vec, Miloš, “From Invisible Peace to the Legitimation of War,” in Paradoxes of Peace in Nineteenth Century Europe, ed. Hippler, Thomas and Vec, Miloš (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 22Google Scholar.
9
Wilfried Küper, “August Wilhelm Heffter (1796–1880): Ein preußischer Kriminalist und Universaljurist im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Festschrift 200 Jahre Juristische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Geschichte, Gegenwart, und Zukunft, ed. Stefan Grundmann et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 195.
10
Hollifield, James F., “The Emerging Migration State,” International Migration Review 38 (2004): 886–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11
See Part IV of this article.
12
Neff, Stephen C., Justice Among Nations: A History of International Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 581CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Küper, “August Wilhelm Heffter,” 179.
13
Excepting, additionally, Ingo J. Hueck, “Pragmatism, Positivism, and Hegelianism in the Nineteenth Century: August Wilhelm Heffter's Notion of Public International Law,” in East Asian and European Perspectives on International Law, ed. Michael Stolleis and Masaharu Yanagihara (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004), 41–55.
14
Arthur Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1954), 243; and H.B. Jacobini, A Study of the Philosophy of International Law as Seen in the Works of Latin American Writers (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1954), 27.
15
Rafael Domingo, “Gaius, Vattel, and the New Global Law Paradigm,” European Journal of International Law 22 (2011): 638.
16
Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise: Volume I – Peace, ed. Ronald Roxburgh (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1920), 115.
17
Neff, Justice Among Nations, 228.
18
Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 51; and Tetsuya Toyoda, Theory and Politics of the Law of Nations: Political Bias in International Law Discourse of Seven German Court Councilors in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 201.
19
Andrew Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, and Empire: 1500–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 223.
20
Georg Cavallar, “From Hospitality to the Right of Immigration in the Law of Nations, 1750–1850,” in Hospitality and World Politics, ed. Gideon Baker (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 85–86; Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 55; and Karl-Heinz Lingens, “Europa in der Lehre des ‘Praktischen Völkerrechts’” in Auf dem Weg nach Europa: Deutungen, Visionen, Wirklichkeiten, ed. Irene Dingel and Matthias Schnettger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 173.
21
Sebastian M. Spitra, “Normativität aus Vernunft: Hegels Völkerrechtsdenken und seine Rezeption,” Der Staat 56 (2017): 612, sees Heffter following Hegelian patterns. Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 54, observes “hint[s]” of Hegel and the historical school. Nussbaum, Concise History, 243, claims Heffter had no “philosophical view” beyond “a few somewhat extrinsic pronouncements of Hegelian parentage.” Yet Anthony Carty, “The Evolution of International Legal Scholarship in Germany during the Kaiserreich and the Weimarer Republik (1871–1933),” German Yearbook of International Law 50 (2007): 41, writes that Heffter rejected Hegel. Georg Cavallar, “From Hospitality to the Right of Immigration in the Law of Nations, 1750–1850,” in Hospitality and World Politics, 86, asserts that Heffter did not adopt Hegel's state-centrism but was influenced by his determinism.
22
On colonial infiltration, see Cavallar, “From Hospitality,” 70–72. On the Enlightenment reaction see Jennifer Pitts, “Empire and Legal Universalisms in the Eighteenth Century,” American Historical Review 117 (2012): 92–121; and Cavallar, “From Hospitality,” 69–82.
23
See Seyla Benhabib, The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 27.
24
See Cavallar, “From Hospitality,” 84. For an example of such a history, see, for example, Stephan Hall, “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism,” European Journal of International Law 12 (2001): 269–307.
25
On Martens, see, for example, Koskenniemi, “Into Positivism,” 190, n. 8; on the Congress of Vienna, see Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 42–43.
26
On this scholarly shift, see Ignacio de la Rasilla, “The Problem of Periodization in the History of International Law,” Law and History Review 37 (2019): 292–96.
27
Pitts, “Empire and Legal Universalisms,” 111.
28
See Georg Cavallar, “Immigration and Sovereignty: Normative Approaches in the History of International Legal Theory (Pufendorf-Vattel-Bluntschli-Verdross),” Austrian Review of International and European Law 11 (2006): 5.
29
Koskenniemi, “Into Positivism,” 180–89, 192; and Vincent Chetail, “Sovereignty and Migration in the Doctrine of the Law of Nations: An Intellectual History of Hospitality from Vitoria to Vattel,” European Journal of International Law 27 (2016): 901–22.
30
Mark Weston Janis, “Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of ‘International Law,’” American Journal of International Law 78 (1984): 411–12; David Lieberman, The Province of Legislation Determined: Legal Theory in Eighteenth Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
31
Janis, “Bentham,” 414–15.
32
Koskenniemi, “Into Positivism,” 190–91, 196.
33
Cavallar, “From Hospitality,” 84.
34
Ibid., 72–77.
35
See Augustin Macheret, L'immigration étrangère en Suisse à l'heure de l'intégration européenne (Geneva: Georg, 1969), 16–17; James Nafziger, “The General Admission of Aliens Under International Law,” American Journal of International Law 77 (1983): 807; and Richard Plender, International Migration Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), 72–73.
36
David Kennedy, “International Law in the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion,” Nordic Journal of International Law 65 (1996): 385–42; and Miloš Vec, “Sources of International Law in the Nineteenth Century European Tradition: The Myth of Positivism,” in The Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law, ed. Samantha Besson, Jean d'Aspremont, and Sévrine Knuchel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 143.
37
Mónica García-Salmones Rovira, The Project of Positivism in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 1, 20; Plender, International Migration Law, 79.
38
Frédéric Mégret, “Transnational Mobility, the International Law of Aliens, and the Origins of Global Migration Law,” AJIL Unbound 111 (2017): 14–15.
39
Cavallar, “Immigration and Sovereignty,” 16–17.
40
Spitra, “Normativität aus Vernunft,” 598.
41
See Thom Brooks, “Natural Law Internalism,” in Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Essays on Ethics, Politics, and Law, ed. Thom Brooks (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).
42
A helpful reading in this regard is Kimberly Hutchings, “Hard Work: Hegel and the Meaning of the State in his Philosophy of Right,” in Hegel's Philosophy of Right.
43
See Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 49.
44
Spitra, “Normativität aus Vernunft,” 597, 606–12.
45
Koskenniemi, Gentle Civilizer, 48.
46
Janis, “Bentham,” 410–11.
47
Ibid. For other scholars’ perspectives see Vec, “Sources of International Law,” 138.
48
Koskenniemi, Gentle Civilizer, 43–47.
49
Ibid., 88.
50
Ibid., 93.
51
Ibid., 25, 32, 67, 93.
52
Ibid., 51.
53
Carl Kaltenborn von Stachau, Kritik des Völkerrechts nach dem Jetzigen Standpunkte der Wissenschaft (1840; repr., Leipzig: Gustav Mayer, 1847), 258, 297.
54
J.C. Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Nördlingen: C.H. Bech, 1868), 220 §381.
55
Ibid.
56
Robert von Mohl, Staatsrecht, Völkerrecht und Politik, Vol. 1 (Tübingen: H. Laupp, 1860), 587.
57
Ibid., 595.
58
See, for example, Friedrich Wilhelm Eitzen, Wörterbuch der Handelssprache: Deutsch-Englisch (Leipzig: H. Haeffel, 1906), 788 (noting that Verkehrsfreiheit could include Auswanderungsrecht [“right of emigrating”], Freihandel [free trade], Freizügigkeit [“right of ingress and egress”], Handelsfreiheit [“liberty of trade”], Gewerbefreiheit [“liberty of exercising a trade”], Handelsrecht [“right of commerce”]).
59
August Wilhelm Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart auf den bisherigen Grundlagen, 7th ed. (1844; repr., Berlin: E.H. Schroeder, 1881), 75 §33 (“auf welchen das Völkerrecht…bestehen muβ”). This article generally cites the seventh edition from 1881, which features some clarified language but largely unchanged arguments. The article points to meaningful distinctions between it and other editions, however, when necessary.
60
Ibid.
61
Heffter's use of the term “human rights” is consistent with evolving scholarly understanding of the term's nineteenth-century meaning as connected to but distinct from today's. See Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman, “Human Rights and History,” Past & Present 232 (2016): 280–82.
62
Compare Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 1st ed., 57–58 §33 with Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 76 §33 (“aber nicht gegen dritte, die ihn dulden”).
63
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 76 §33.
64
Ibid., 74–75 §33.
65
Ibid., 136–37 §61.
66
Ibid., 137–38 §60.
67
Ibid., 31 §10 (“Auch die neueste Philosophie hat den Streit der Systeme und Principien noch nicht beseitigt. Sie glaubt…an eine Gesetz-Offenbarung des göttlichen Geistes…oder…der sich selbst das Recht feßt oder in Gemeinschaft mit anderen bildet”).
68
Ibid., 138 n. 4 §60 (“Es beruhet zuerst nur auf aüβerer Nothwendigkeit oder äuβerlichen Nutzen”).
69
Ibid., 2–3 §2 (“Der einzelne Staat…giebt er die Isolirung auf, so bildet sich im Verkehre mit den anderen ein gemeines Recht”).
70
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 1st ed., vi (“Wo eine Gesellschaft ist, da ist auch ein Recht; treten mehere isolierte Nationen zusammen, so können sie nur auf dieser Basis miteinander existieren”).
71
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 5 n. 8 §2.
72
Ibid., 79 §33 (“Soll ein dem höchsten Ziel des Völkerrechts entsprechender Verband unter Nationen bestehen, so müssen sie sich auch einem gegenseitigen Verkehr fuer ihre geistigen und materiellen Bedürfnisse öffnen”) (emphasis added).
73
Ibid., 34 §11.
74
Ibid., 5 §3. Heffter added the clarification that he did not mean custom in the sense of mere “habit” (Gewohnheit) in later editions.
75
Ibid. (“Die Wahrheit ist, daß…für unabhängige Staaten ein giltiges Recht wesentlich durch gemeinsamen Willen [consensu] besteht, welches zu seiner Giltigkeit weder einer ausdrücklichen Anerkennung in Verträgen, noch einer Bestätigung durch Gewohnheit überall bedarf, vielmehr sind dieses nur einzelne Arten der formellen Erscheinung des Völkerrechtes”).
76
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 1st ed., 12 §7(I) (literally “hypothetisches Naturrecht”).
77
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 138 n. 4 §60.
78
Ibid. (“Mit der Bildungsstufe der Völker…In höherer Entwicklung nimmt es aber auch das sittlich Nöthige und Nützliche in sich auf”).
79
Ibid., 2–3 §2 (“wovon [ein Staat] sich nicht wieder lossagen kann, ohne seine Existenz und seinen Zusammenhang mit den anderen aufzuopfern oder doch in Gefahr zu bringen”).
80
Ibid., 4 §2 (“seine Bestimmung: der allseitigen Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts in dem Verkehr der Nationen und Staaten eine ſichere Basis zu geben”).
81
Ibid.
82
On balance of power, see ibid., 9–10 §5. These practical considerations were, in fact, linked. Heffter believed that balance had not yet been achieved at sea, which led to his belief that a prohibition on the slave trade could not be made default.
83
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 1st ed., vii.
84
Ibid., 15 §6.
85
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 31 §10.
86
See G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, trans. S.W. Hyde (1896; repr. Kitchener: Batoche, 2001), 262 §330 (addition), 263 §332, 264 §333.
87
Ibid., 263 §332.
88
See, for example, Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 79–80 §33 (emphasis added).
89
See Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” in Kant: Political Writings, ed. H.S. Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 107–8.
90
See Cavallar, “From Hospitality,” 86.
91
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 138 n. 4 §60 (“die neueste Zeit hat die weltbürgerliche Richtung eingehelten”).
92
See G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998), 266–409.
93
Andrew Sartori, Liberalism in Empire: An Alternative History (Oakland: University of California Press, 2014), 61–95, and generally.
94
Lauchert, “Heffter,” 250.
95
On Roman law, see, for example, Domingo, “Gaius, Vattel, and the New Global Law Paradigm,” 637–38; and Luigi Nuzzo, “History, Science and Christianity: International Law and Savigny's Paradigm,” in Constructing International Law: The Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012), 39–40. On concern with Europe see, for example, Wilhelm Grewe, The Epochs of International Law (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 464; and Lingens, “Praktischen Völkerrechts,” 173.
96
For example, Heffter sees “China, Japan, and Paraguay” as states suffering from self-punishment by turning their backs on cross-border interaction. Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 81 n. 2 §33. A later edition notes that the Ottoman Empire, “Japan, China, Annam, Siam, Persia, Zanzibar, etc.” were entering European law's orbit. Das europäische Völkerrecht, 8th ed. (Berlin: Müller, 1888), 24 §8.
97
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., 1 §1 (“Völkerrecht, ius gentium, hieβ in seiner antiken und weitesten Bedeutung, wie sie die Römische Rechtswissenschaft aufgestellt hat, die gemeinsame Volkersitte, welche nicht allein unter den Nationen in gegenseitigen Verkehr als Regel beobachtet ward, sondern auch die inneren gesellschaftlichen Zustände in den Einzelstaaten gleichmässig durchdrang und regelte…Es enthielt demnach theils ein äuβeres Staatenrecht, theils ein allgemeines Menschenrecht”).
98
Ibid. (“In der neuen Welt ist ihm nur die erstere Bedeutung eines äuβeres Staatenrechtes, ius inter gentes, droit international verblieben. Der andere Bestandtheil des antiken Völkerrechtes, gleichsam das gemeinsame Privatrecht aller Menschen von gleicher Sitte, hat sich dagegen in dem inneren Rechtssystem der Einzelstaaten verloren; dem heutigen Völkerrecht gehoert er nur noch in so fern an, als gewisse Menschenrechte und Privatverhältnisse zugleich unter die…Gewährleistung verschiedener Nationen gegenseitig gestellt sind”).
99
Heffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht, 1st ed., v.
100
James Godfrey, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 216.
101
Rafael Domingo, The New Global Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 4; and Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 27 n. 43.
102
Onuma Yasuaki, A Transcivilizational Perspective on International Law: Questioning Prevalent Cognitive Frameworks in the Emerging Multi-Polar and Multi-Civilizational World of the Twenty-First Century (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010), 221.
103
Lingens, “Praktischen Völkerrechts,” 173; and Nussbaum, Concise History, 243.
104
Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 51.
105
Küper, “August Wilhelm Heffter,” 180, 192.
106
Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1863), 14 §10; see also Cavallar, “From Hospitality,” 85–86; and Nussbaum, Concise History, 230.
107
Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 50.
108
Shogo Suzuki, Civilization and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with European International Society (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), 84.
109
Hueck, “Pragmatism,” 53–55.
110
Friedrich Heinrich Geffcken, “Preface to the Seventh Edition,” in Heffter, Europäische Völkerrecht, 7th ed., iii.
111
Jennifer Pitts, A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 15.
112
See Dieter Langewiesche, Liberalism in Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 77.
113
See Alan S. Kahan, Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe: The Political Culture of Limited Suffrage (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 3.
114
See A.G. Heffter, Le Droit International de l'Europe, trans. Jules Bergson (Paris: A. Cotillon, 1883), 37 §33.
115
See Alfred E. Eckes, Opening America's Market: U.S. Foreign Trade Policy Since 1776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 63–66.
116
See Alfred E. Eckes, Jr., William A. Lovett, and Richard L. Brinkman, U.S. Trade Policy: History, Theory, and the WTO (New York: Routledge, 2015), 46.
117
“PROGRESS OF FREE TRADE,” The Economist, August 11, 1855, 867.
118
Henry George, Protection or Free Trade: An Examination of the Tariff Question, with especial Regard to the Interests of Free Trade (New York: Doubleday, 1905), 32–33.
119
See Forrest Capie, Tariffs and Growth: Some Illustrations from the World Economy, 1850–1940 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 9.
120
See Bertrand Russell, Freedom and Organization, 1814–1914 (New York: Routledge, 2013), 125.
121
On European borders see Leo Lucassen, The Immigrant Threat: The Integration of Old and New Migrants in Western Europe Since 1850 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 27–100; on American and British imperial contexts see Adam McKeown, Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).
122
McAdam, “Intellectual History of Freedom of Movement,” 16.
123
Henri Coursier, “The Right of Asylum,” International Review of the Red Cross 2 (1962): 500. On Heffter's membership see Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, and Empire, 223.
124
Mégret, “Transnational Mobility,” 16.
125
Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law (Miami: HardPress, 2019).
126
See, for example, James Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 21.
127
Plender, International Migration Law, 79.
128
Oppenheim, International Law, 115.
129
Hersch Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), 298–99.
130
Ibid., 304, 304 n. 3 (citing Stowell and Politis).
131
Paul Fauchille, “The Rights of Emigration and Immigration,” International Labour Review 11 (1924): 318.
132
Fauchille, “Rights of Emigration and Immigration,” 319.
133
The S.S. “Wimbledon,” Britain et al. v. Germany, PCIJ Series A01 (1923), ¶35.
134
Max Fleischmann, ed. Das Völkerrecht, systematisch dargestellt von Franz von Liszt (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1925), 170–71.
135
Ibid., 171.
136
Ibid., 170.
137
Ibid., 172–75.
138
Ibid., 179.
139
Ibid., 180.
140
Bruno Simma, “The Contribution of Alfred Verdross to the Theory of International Law,” European Journal of International Law 6 (1995): 37.
141
Aoife O'Donoghue, “Alfred Verdross and the Contemporary Constitutionalization Debate,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32 (2012): 803. Verdross’s protégé notes that this naturalism was not explicit because Verdross wanted to avoid the appearance of “bias.” Simma, “Contribution of Alfred Verdross,” 34.
142
Ibid., 46.
143
Ibid. 48–49, 51. See also Verdross, “On the Concept of International Law,” American Journal of International Law 43 (1949): 1–2.
144
Alfred Verdross, “Règles concernant le traitement des étrangers,” Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye 37 (1931): 343–44.
145
O'Donoghue, “Alfred Verdross,” 803; and Simma, “Contribution of Alfred Verdross,” 37.
146
Ibid., 39.
147
Ibid.
148
Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1984), 328–29.
149
Simma, “Contribution of Alfred Verdross,” 37.
150
Antony Carty, “Alfred Verdross and Othmar Spann: German Romantic Nationalism, National Socialism and International Law,” European Journal of International Law 6 (1995): 90.
151
See, for example, Stephan Kirste, “Natural Law in Germany in the 20th Century,” in A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, eds. Enrico Pattaro and Corrado Roversi, Vol. 12, Tome II: Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World, ed. Franceso Viola (Dordrecht: Springer, 2016), 91.
152
See, for example, ibid.; and Philip Soper, “Some Natural Confusions about Natural Law,” Michigan Law Review 90 (1992): 2393, 2402.
153
Simma, “Contribution of Alfred Verdross,” 53.
154
Ibid., 47.
155
O'Donoghue, “Alfred Verdross,” 818, notes the similarity of Verdross's conceptions of peremptory norms and general principles to others’ use of human rights; Jean Porter, “From Natural Law to Human Rights: Or, Why Rights Talk Matters,” Journal of Law and Religion 14 (1999): 77–96, notes the similarity between human rights and natural law.
156
McAdam, “Intellectual History of Freedom of Movement,” 20, 22.
157
Gideon Baker, “Introduction,” in Hospitality and World Politics.
158
See, for example, Jean Allain, “The jus cogens Nature of non-refoulement,” International Journal of Refugee Law 13 (2001): 533–58.
159
See, for example, David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 176–79.
160
Kirste, “Natural Law in Germany in the 20th Century,” 91. Treatises like Oppenheim's moved away from natural law justifications for freedom of movement once again. McAdam, “Intellectual History of Freedom of Movement,” 20.
161
Domingo, “New Global Law Paradigm,” 638.
162
Note, for example, the rights of European Union migrants in Britain before and proposed after Brexit. Alessio D'Angelo and Eleonore Kofman, “From Mobile Workers to Fellow Citizens and Back Again? The Future Status of EU Citizens in the UK,” Social Policy & Society 17 (2018): 332.
163
Zinovijus Ciupijus, “EU Citizens or Eastern European Labour Migrants? The Peculiar Case of Central Eastern Europeans in Britain,” Politeja 20 (2012): 43–44.
164
See, for example, Stephen D. Collins, “Europe's United Future after Brexit: Brexit Has Not Killed the European Union, Rather It Has Eliminated the Largest Obstacle to EU Consolidation,” Global Change, Peace & Security 29 (2017): 311–12, 314–15.
