Onuma Yasuaki’s 2017 treatise, International Law in a Transcivilizational World, is an essential critical contribution to the analysis of international law. Onuma’s main claim is that West-centrism or what he (in my view somewhat misleadingly; more on this later) calls Eurocentrism continues to be a fundamental structural problem in international law. In Onuma’s analysis, the concepts, institutions, and the very language of international law are historically biased in favour of Eurocentrism. International law must undergo peaceful change in order to reflect global shifts in economic and military power as well as demographic realities—but mostly just reflecting also the values, interests, and preferences of other, non-Western civilizations. Quite symbolically, when I started to write this essay discussing Onuma’s book, the news came in that, for the first time since 1946, the UK will not have a judge in the International Court of Justics [ICJ]. The non-Western majority in the UN General Assembly [GA] favoured the Indian candidate to the UK one and was willing to confront the UN Security Council [SC] in this matter.This diplomatic occurrence captures quite well the Zeitgeist of Onuma’s treatise while his writing serves as prediction for developments of this kind yet to come. Of course, the criticism of Western domination in the context of international law is in itself not new. Throughout the existence of the USSR, Soviet diplomats and scholars criticized the international law of the Western-dominated capitalist world. In the 1970s, Third World scholars raised the banner of New International Economic Order and criticized the global North and especially the former colonial powers in the context of international law and its West-centric norms and biases. Thus, Onuma is not the first international lawyer to call for the redistribution of power or for reimagining norms and institutions of international law in a less West-centric way. So what then is

中文翻译：

---

文明多样性是对国际法（虚假）普遍性的挑战

大沼康明（Anuma Yasuaki）于2017年发表的论文《跨文明世界中的国际法》对分析国际法至关重要。大沼的主要主张是，西方中心主义或他（我认为有些误导；稍后将对此进行更多讨论）所称的欧洲中心主义仍然是国际法中的一个基本结构性问题。在大沼的分析中，国际法的概念，制度和语言在历史上一直偏向于欧洲中心主义。为了反映经济和军事力量以及人口实际状况的全球变化，国际法必须进行和平变革，但大多数情况下也只是反映了其他非西方文明的价值，利益和偏好。颇具象征意义，当我开始写这篇讨论大沼的书的文章时，消息传来了，自1946年以来，英国首次没有国际正义法庭（ICJ）的法官。联合国大会中的非西方多数赞成印度候选人加入英国，并愿意在此问题上与联合国安理会[SC]对峙。这一外交事件很好地抓住了大沼的时代精神，而他的论文写作是对未来这种发展的预测。当然，在国际法中对西方统治的批评本身并不是什么新鲜事。在整个苏联时期，苏联外交官和学者批评西方统治的资本主义世界的国际法。在1970年代，第三世界学者在国际法及其以西方为中心的规范和偏见的背景下，举起了新的国际经济秩序的旗帜，并批评了全球北方，特别是前殖民大国。因此，大沼不是第一个呼吁权力重新分配或以不太以西方为中心的方式重新构想国际法规范和制度的国际律师。那是什么