This paper proposes to think counterfactually about international law: How could it have been otherwise? Asking that question has the benefit of, first, exposing contingencies in international law’s development that are otherwise glossed over in the rush towards making sense of what happened. Second, counterfactual thinking supports the understanding of what actually happened in a context-sensitive fashion. Third, it forms part of comparative moral assessments and exposes blind spots. Counterfactual thinking may thus contribute to the freedom from necessity, from grand theory, and from reality. The paper draws the contours of what writing counterfactual (hi)stories of international law is about, discusses its merits as well as drawbacks, offers guidance on how to do it, and then focuses on two probing examples: What if the International Trade Organization had been established around 1949? What if garment workers were seals and the European Commission prohibited the importation of certain textiles?

中文翻译：

---

如果？国际法的反事实（Hi）故事

本文建议对国际法进行反事实思考：否则怎么可能？提出这个问题的好处是，首先，揭露国际法发展中的偶然事件，否则这些偶然事件会在急于弄清所发生的事情时被掩盖。其次，反事实思维支持以上下文敏感的方式理解实际发生的事情。第三，它构成了比较道德评估的一部分，暴露了盲点。因此，反事实思维可能有助于摆脱必然性、摆脱宏大理论和摆脱现实。本文勾勒了编写反事实（历史）国际法故事的内容，讨论了其优点和缺点，提供了如何做到这一点的指导，然后重点介绍了两个探索性的例子：如果国际贸易组织是在 1949 年左右成立的呢？如果制衣工人是海豹，欧盟委员会禁止进口某些纺织品怎么办？