The History of International Law lacks systematic studies on the link between legal scholars and practices of justifying war. This missing analytical link has for a long time given the impression that legal scholars describe ‘state practice’ in an ‘objective’, unpolitical way. Contradicting this impression, the article turns to the politics of legal scholars in the genesis of the modern war discourse. It reflects on the fateful entanglement of violence, law and politics, but nevertheless distinguishes between ‘objective’ and ‘political’ scholarship on the basis of Hans Kelsen’s work. Furthermore, the article illustrates the politicisability of legal scholars in selected historical cases of the ‘long 19th century’ (1789–1918). In all cases, two hearts pounded in lawyers’ chests: one scientific, the other political. As will be shown, the modern war discourse is shaped by a phenomenon that enables scholars to expand the intrinsic limits to the political instrumentalisation of law: ‘multi-normativity’.

国际法史缺乏对法律学者与证明战争作法之间的联系的系统研究。长期以来，这种缺失的分析联系给人的印象是法学家以“客观”，非政治的方式描述“国家实践”。与这种印象相反，本文从现代战争话语的产生转向法律学者的政治。它反映了暴力，法律和政治的命运纠缠，但根据汉斯·凯尔森（Hans Kelsen）的著作区分了“客观”和“政治”学术。此外，本文还说明了在“ 19世纪漫长的历史”（1789–1918年）的部分历史案例中法律学者的政治化能力。在所有情况下，两颗心都砸在律师的胸膛上：一颗科学之心，另一颗政治之心。如将显示的那样，