The first part of the article presents a six-tiered typology of conventional approaches to historical periodization in international law. The “hegemonic” approach, the “Eurocentric universalist” approach, the “state-centric” approach, the “intellectual doctrinal” approach, the “institutional” approach, and the “normative” approach to the question of periodization of the history of international law are surveyed in turn in the light of contemporary literature. The second part examines how in the wake of the recent “historical turn” in international law a new critical historiographical wave has problematized the question of periodization because of the homogenizing effects and the “teleology of progress” to which periodization is interpreted to contribute in international legal history. The third part tackles the notion of “alternative periodization” illustrating, with examples from contemporary literature in the history of international law, its value as a launching pad for the “formation of new, formerly unknown periods,” a task that is considered “an essential part of historiographical innovation.” The conclusion elaborates on the heuristic potential of a multiperspectival approach to the study of periodization in the history of international law.Saepe stilum vertas,iterum quae digna legi sunt scripturusHor., Sat. 1, 10, 72

中文翻译：

---

国际法史上的分期问题

本文的第一部分介绍了国际法中历史分期的传统方法的六层类型学。“霸权”方法、“欧洲中心主义”方法、“国家中心”方法、“知识学说”方法、“制度”方法和“规范”方法来解决国际历史分期问题法律是根据当代文学依次进行调查的。第二部分考察了在国际法最近的“历史转向”之后，由于同质化效应和“进步的目的论”，新的批判史学浪潮如何使分期问题成为问题，而分期被解释为国际法中的贡献。法律史。第三部分探讨“替代分期”的概念，以国际法史上的当代文献为例，说明其作为“形成新的、以前不为人知的时期”的跳板的价值，这项任务被认为是“一个史学创新的重要组成部分。” 结论阐述了以多视角方法研究国际法史分期的启发式潜力。Saepe stilum vertas,iterum quae digna legi sunt scripturusHor., Sat. 1、10、72