Expanding now familiar debates about the impact of the ‘historical turn’ upon the field of international law, this article considers some of the different ways in which ‘turn to history’ scholars have confronted the methodological and theoretical tensions arising from the central, yet paradoxical, role occupied by the sources doctrine in international law. We suggest that the anxiety over the sources of international law as the basic methodological precepts of the discipline has been a catalyzing element for a radical reengagement with the canon of international law, one with a significant impact on the field’s existing parameters and doctrinal limits. Within the three streams of scholarship we explore here, history has become a site of creative engagement for scholars in opening up the discipline to diverse ends, one in which a new doctrinal universe can be created, and new issues, sources, subjects, and approaches can be explored. Yet, by opening up international law’s sources doctrine, reactionary causes and unjust ends may equally well be the result. This account is an attempt at diversifying the narrative surrounding the causal relationship between history and the ongoing changes to the field of international law, along with the differential practices, techniques and epistemological foundations behind the history of international law as an evolving discipline, and of the different scholarly motivations of its specialists.

中文翻译：

---

国际法中的历史转向和渊源学说：批判性进路和方法论想象

本文扩展了关于“历史转向”对国际法领域的影响的现在熟悉的辩论，考虑了“转向历史”学者面对来自中心但自相矛盾的方法论和理论张力的一些不同方式, 渊源学说在国际法中的作用。我们认为，对作为该学科基本方法论规则的国际法渊源的焦虑一直是与国际法经典重新接触的催化剂，对该领域的现有参数和理论限制产生重大影响。在我们在这里探讨的三个学术流派中，历史已成为学者们创造性地参与向不同目的开放学科的场所，可以创造一个新的教义宇宙，并且可以探索新的问题、来源、主题和方法。然而，通过开放国际法的渊源学说，反动的原因和不公正的目的也可能同样是结果。这一叙述试图使围绕历史与国际法领域不断变化之间的因果关系的叙述多样化，以及作为一门不断发展的学科的国际法历史背后的不同实践、技术和认识论基础，以及其专家的不同学术动机。