International lawyers have played a central role in shaping contemporary understandings of and responses to civil war, including through debates over whether external actors can intervene in civil wars, what rules govern the resort to force, how neutral actors might continue trading with warring parties, and when investors and property owners are owed compensation for any losses suffered during the conflict. While such questions have concerned international lawyers for almost two centuries, they have again become pressing issues given the role of third states and other actors in initiating, supporting, financing, directing, policing, and profiting from civil and proxy wars in the Middle East and North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. In addition, the novelty of the U.S. claim to be engaged in a global form of “non-international armed conflict” or civil war has posed significant challenges to traditional conceptions of international law.More broadly, the increased militarization of civil life in the twenty-first century has challenged fundamental distinctions upon which international law has depended, including between civil and international, domestic and foreign, and war and peace. In that context, the arrival of a book by the Harvard historian David Armitage offering an intellectual history of the idea of civil war could not be more welcome. The work of Armitage is well known to international lawyers. For many years, Armitage was one of the few historians who took an interest in international law—a fact that is now hard to believe given the recent proliferation of work by historians exploring aspects of the international legal past. He was at the forefront of the “international turn in intellectual history,”1 publishing influential work on the ideologies of British imperialism and the foundations of modern international thought, and co-editing a volume curating the writings of C.H. Alexandrowicz.2 In addition, Armitage is a historian who has remained comfortable with writing expansive, longue durée histories,3 and his scholarship has been more compatible with the style and sensibility of legal argument than that of historians committed to undertaking tighter forms of temporal contextualization.4 Both Armitage’s interest in international law and his ease with historical study spanning centuries are on display in his consequential intellectual history of civil war. Armitage introduces the book as an attempt to understand the global phenomenon of civil war that has accompanied the long peace in the North Atlantic and other wealthy countries such as Japan and Australia. As the opening and closing chapters of the book explain, its writing was inspired by the concern that ours is a world in which civil war is ubiquitous and its effects unequal. Civil wars “disproportionately . . . befall the world’s poorest countries” (p. 6).Many of the civil wars of the last sixty years have become internationalized, whether through the intervention of outside parties or through spill-over crises that reshape the world beyond the battlefield. Thus while “the developed world has enjoyed a long peace since 1945, large parts of the global population have undergone an equally long trauma” (id.). While those actors do not in general have

中文翻译：

---

内战：思想史。大卫·阿米蒂奇。纽约：Alfred A. Knopf，2017。Pp xi，349。索引。

国际律师在塑造当代对内战的理解和反应方面发挥了核心作用，包括就外部行为体是否可以干预内战、使用武力的规则、中立行为体如何继续与交战方进行贸易以及投资者和财产所有人在冲突期间遭受的任何损失应得到赔偿。尽管近两个世纪以来这些问题一直困扰着国际律师，但鉴于第三国和其他行为者在发起、支持、资助、指导、监管和从中东的内战和代理人战争中获利方面的作用，它们再次成为紧迫的问题。北非、东欧和拉丁美洲。此外，美国的新颖性 声称参与全球形式的“非国际性武装冲突”或内战，对传统的国际法概念提出了重大挑战。更广泛地说，21 世纪公民生活日益军事化，挑战了对国际法的根本区别。国际法所依赖的，包括民事与国际、国内与国外、战争与和平之间的关系。在这种情况下，哈佛历史学家大卫·阿米蒂奇（David Armitage）的一本关于内战思想的思想史的书的到来，再受欢迎不过了。Armitage 的工作为国际律师所熟知。很多年了，阿米蒂奇是少数对国际法感兴趣的历史学家之一——鉴于最近历史学家探索国际法律历史各个方面的工作激增，现在很难相信这一事实。他站在“思想史的国际转向”1 的前沿，出版了有关英帝国主义意识形态和现代国际思想基础的有影响力的著作，并合编了一本策展 CH Alexandrowicz 著作的卷。2 此外，阿米蒂奇是一位历史学家，他一直乐于撰写宏大、冗长的历史，3 与致力于采用更严格的时间语境化形式的历史学家相比，他的学术研究更符合法律论证的风格和敏感性。4 阿米蒂奇对国际法的兴趣和他对跨越几个世纪的历史研究的轻松自如在他的内战思想史中得到了体现。阿米蒂奇介绍这本书是为了理解伴随北大西洋和日本和澳大利亚等其他富裕国家长期和平而来的全球内战现象。正如本书的开头和结尾章节所解释的那样，其写作的灵感来自于这样一个担忧，即我们所处的世界是一个内战无处不在且其影响不平等的世界。内战“不成比例。. . 降临到世界上最贫穷的国家”（第 6 页）。过去 60 年的许多内战已经国际化，无论是通过外部各方的干预，还是通过在战场之外重塑世界的溢出危机。因此，虽然“发达国家自 1945 年以来享有长期和平，但全球大部分人口也经历了同样长期的创伤”（同上）。虽然这些演员一般没有