This article considers the relationship between the uses and forms of history within international law and questions of method in the development of histories of international law. It focuses on the advantages of genealogy as an approach to the history of international law given its capacity to both explain the way in which the law itself makes use of the past and intervene in this.Elaborating on the compatibility between genealogy and elements of the contextual approach to history associated with the ‘Cambridge School’, this article challenges recent suggestions that anachronism is irrelevant, unavoidable, or even a ‘method’ that might be fruitfully embraced in studies of international law’s past directed towards explaining and potentially altering its present. It argues that historians of international law should take the dangers of anachronism seriously, particularly if the histories they develop are to operate as a form of critique and basis for change. Genealogy is a form of history that allows a particularly potent critique of international legal thought and practice. It opens up possibilities for more radical change by questioning and moving beyond the normative framework that usually structures (and limits) calls for reform in international law.

中文翻译：

---

论系谱学在国际法中的用途和优势

本文探讨了历史的用途和形式之间的关系之内国际法和历史发展中的方法问题的国际法。它侧重于系谱学作为一种研究国际法历史的方法的优势，因为它既能解释法律本身利用过去的方式，又能对此进行干预。详细阐述系谱学与上下文要素之间的兼容性与“剑桥学派”相关的历史方法，这篇文章挑战了最近的建议，即时代错误是无关紧要的、不可避免的，甚至是一种“方法”，在国际法过去的研究中可能会被有效地采用，以解释和潜在地改变它的现状。它认为，国际法历史学家应该认真对待不合时宜的危险，特别是如果他们所发展的历史是作为一种批判形式和变革的基础来运作的。系谱学是一种历史形式，可以对国际法律思想和实践进行特别有力的批评。它通过质疑和超越通常构成（和限制）国际法改革要求的规范框架，为更激进的变革开辟了可能性。