The global politics of sovereignty that developed after the Cold War, together with the catastrophic United States led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after 2001, have furnished international, imperial and diplomatic historians with good, grim reasons to return to the interlocked histories of empire, internationalism and international institutions. A torrent of work on the Geneva based League of Nations (LON) has been one result, alongside writing on the United Nations (UN). In particular, scholars such as Susan Pedersen, Patricia Clavin and Glenda Sluga, already well versed in the archives and literature of European empires and their gender and economic politics, have led a systematic reappraisal of internationalism and international institutions after the First World War. They brought to this campaign heuristic tools sharpened in the 1990s, in the cultural historiography of empire, and they aimed broadly to understand the League's workings and variety, rather than to reassert its political failures. The parallel – and often intersecting – rise of historiographies on the modern and contemporary histories of economic development, human rights and humanitarianism, with their frequent attention to the role of international institutions, has further catalysed this renewal.

中文翻译：

---

从贝鲁特到柏林（经日内瓦）：新国际历史、中东研究和国际联盟

冷战后发展起来的全球主权政治，以及美国在 2001 年之后对阿富汗和伊拉克发动的灾难性入侵，为国际、帝国和外交历史学家提供了充分而严峻的理由，让他们回到帝国、国际主义相互关联的历史中去。和国际机构。除了撰写有关联合国 (UN) 的文章外，还对总部位于日内瓦的国际联盟 (LON) 进行了大量工作。尤其是苏珊·佩德森、帕特里夏·克拉文和格伦达·斯鲁加等已经精通欧洲帝国的档案和文学及其性别和经济政治的学者，在第一次世界大战后领导了对国际主义和国际制度的系统重新评估。他们为这场运动带来了 1990 年代锐化的启发式工具，在帝国的文化史学中，他们旨在广泛地了解联盟的运作和多样性，而不是重申其政治上的失败。现代和当代经济发展史、人权史和人道主义史的平行——而且往往是交叉的——兴起，它们经常关注国际机构的作用，进一步促进了这种更新。