Bibliographic Essay 581
phie des positiven Rechts (Duncker und Humblot, 1972); and C. E. Merriam Jr., History
of the Th eory of Sovereignty since Rousseau (Columbia University Press, 1900), 130– 57.
On the challenge posed by Austin to international law, see Michael Lobban, “En glish
Approaches to International Law in the Nineteenth Century,” in Matthew D. R. Cra-
ven, M. Fitzmaurice, and Maria Vogiatzi (eds.), Time, History and International Law,
65– 90 (Martinus Nijhoff , 2007), 78– 88.
On Wheaton, see Mark W. Janis, Th e American Tradition of International Law:
Great Expectations 1789– 1914 (Oxford University Press, 2004), 40– 48; and Randall
Lesaff er, “Roman Law and the Early Historiography of International Law: Ward,
Wheaton, Hosack and Walker,” in Th ilo Marauhn and Heinhard Steiger (eds.), Uni-
versality and Continuity in International Law, 149– 84 (Eleven International, 2011),
160– 69, who fi rmly presents him as a middle- ground or transitional fi gure rather
than as a true positivist. Hefft er has been seriously neglected. Ingo J. Hueck, “Pragma-
tism, Positivism and Hegelianism in the Nineteenth Century: August Wilhelm Heff -
ter’s Notion of Public International Law,” in Michael Stolleis and Masaharu Yanagi-
hara (eds.), East Asian and Eu ro pe an Perspectives on International Law, 41– 55
(Nomos, 2004) actually contains only a small amount of material on him. A. Pearce
Higgins, “La contribution de quatre grands juristes britaniques au droit interna-
tional,” 40 RdC 1– 85 (1932) is a very useful work, dealing with Westlake (23– 43) and
Hall (44– 65).
Oppenheim is unusual in being lavishly attended to. See Walter Schiff er, Th e Legal
Community of Mankind: A Critical Analysis of the Modern Concept of World Or ga ni-
za tion (Columbia University Press, 1954), 79– 96; Mathis Schmoeckel, “Lassa Oppen-
heim (1858– 1919),” in Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Jurists Up-
rooted: German- Speaking Émigré Lawyers in Twentieth- Century Britain, 538– 99
(Oxford University Press, 2004); Benedict Kingsbury, “Legal Positivism as Normative
Politics: International Society, Balance of Power and Lassa Oppenheim’s Positive In-
ternational Law,” in Stolleis and Yanagihara (eds.), East Asian and Eu ro pe an Perspec-
tives, 139– 77; Amanda Perreau- Saussine, “A Case Study on Jurisprudence as a Source
of International Law: Oppenheim’s Infl uence,” in Craven, Fitzmaurice, and Vogiatzi
(ed s.), Time, History and International Law, 91– 117; and Mathias Schmoeckel, “Th e
Story of a Success: Lassa Oppenheim and His ‘International Law’,” in Stolleis and
Yanagihara (eds.), East Asian and Eu ro pe an Perspectives, 57– 138.
Anzilotti has also received a reasonable degree of attention. See Angelo Piero
Sereni, Th e Italian Conception of International Law (Columbia University Press,
1943), 213– 44; and Giorgio Gaja, “Positivism and Dualism in Dionisio Anzilotti,” 3
EJIL 123– 38 (1992). On his seminal contribution to the law of state responsibility in
par tic u lar, see Pierre- Marie Dupuy, “Dionisio Anzilotti and the Law of International
Responsibility of States,” 3 EJIL 139– 48 (1992). Th e major treatment of Triepel is Ulrich
M. Gassner, Heinrich Triepel: Leben und Werk (Duncker und Humblot, 1999). See also
Alexander Hollerbach, “Zu Leben und Werk Heinrich Triepels,” 91 Archiv für öff entli-
chen Rechts 417– 41, 551– 57 (1966). In En glish, there is a very short, but excellent,