Rereading Grotius in 2019 as a sequel to the 1990 and 2009 European Journal of International Law’s contributions on ‘the politics of international law’, at a time of staggering global inequality, Martti Koskenniemi asks what we can learn from Grotius about the ‘tendency [of humans] to subordinate themselves’ to law and, I may add, the limits of that tendency. While I agree with Koskenniemi that Grotius’ ‘rule-of-law’ conception may help us understand the current backlash against the international rule of law, I suggest an alternative reading of this conception that may assist us even more. Grotius’ understanding of humans and of the importance of corrective and distributive justice as components of the international rule of law helps us see the cry ‘take back control’ as ‘indignation’ about the (social) injustices and global inequality that international institutions (re)produce and as a cry for just international institutions. Koskenniemi’s Foreword rightly asks: what is ‘required of us’? I suggest that we should understand the current backlash as an institutional crisis as well as a crisis of selfhood. Reading Grotius may encourage us to include critical language of distributive justice in our ‘bricolage’ to address ‘legitimate popular grievance’ about the international rule of law and address the human desire for just institutions also at the international level.

中文翻译：

---

格劳秀斯的“法治”与人类的正义感：Martti Koskenniemi 前言的后记

Martti Koskenniemi 在 2019 年重新阅读格劳秀斯作为 1990 年和 2009 年欧洲国际法杂志关于“国际法政治”的贡献的续集，在全球不平等令人震惊的时候，Martti Koskenniemi 询问我们可以从格劳秀斯身上学到什么人类]使自己服从于法律，我可以补充一下，这种趋势的局限性。虽然我同意 Koskenniemi 的观点，即格劳秀斯的“法治”概念可能有助于我们理解当前对国际法治的强烈反对，但我建议对这一概念进行另一种解读，这可能对我们更有帮助。Grotius 对人类以及矫正和分配正义作为国际法治组成部分的重要性的理解帮助我们将“收回控制权”的呼声视为对国际机构（重新定义的）（社会）不公正和全球不平等的“愤慨”。 ）产生并作为对公正国际机构的呼声。科斯肯涅米的前言正确地问道：“我们需要什么”？我建议我们应该将当前的反弹理解为制度危机和自我危机。阅读格劳秀斯可能会鼓励我们在我们的“拼凑”中加入分配正义的批判性语言，以解决对国际法治的“合法民众不满”，并解决人类对国际层面公正制度的渴望。