582 Bibliographic Essayaccount of his contribution in Jochen von Bernstorff and Th omas Dunlap, Th e Public
International Law Th eory of Hans Kelsen: Believing in Universal Law (Ca mbridge
University Press, 2010), 38– 42.
On Hegel, there is an astonishing quantity of writing. Concerning his relevance for
international law, the best source is William E. Conklin, Hegel’s Laws: Th e Legitimacy
of a Modern Legal Order (Stanford University Press, 2008), 270– 98. See also Howard
Williams, International Relations in Po liti cal Th eory (Open University Press, 1992),
92– 104; Andrew Linklater, “Hegel, the State and International Relations,” in Ian Clark
and Iver B. Neumann (eds.), Classical Th eories of International Relations, 193– 209
(Macmillan, 1996); and David Boucher, Po liti cal Th eories of International Relations:
From Th ucydides to the Present (Oxford University Press, 1998), 330– 53. For Hegel’s
views on war, see Christopher Coker, Barbarous Phi los o phers: Refl ections on the Nature
of War from Heraclitus to Heisenberg (Hurst, 2010), 193– 206.
Gierke is another fi gure who is reasonably well known outside of the German-
speaking world (though far less than Hegel). On his relevance to international law, see
John D. Lewis, Th e Genossenschaft - Th eory of Otto von Gierke: A Study in Po liti cal
Th ought (University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, 1935).
For a shorter, but excellent, exposition of his ideas, see David Runciman, Pluralism
and the Personality of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 34– 63. On his
organic theory of the state, see Merriam, History of the Th eory of Sovereignty, 114 – 20.
For a capsule summary, see Wolfgang Friedmann, Legal Th eory (5th ed.; Stevens and
Sons, 1967), 171– 75. On the thesis of the real personality of the state, see the Introduc-
tion, by George H. Sabine and Walter J. Shepard, to H. Krabbe, Th e Modern Idea of the
State (Martinus Nijhoff , 1922), xi– lxxxi.
On Bergbohm, see Lauri Mälksoo, “Th e Science of International Law and the Con-
cept of Politics: Th e Arguments and Lives of the International Law Professors at the
University of Dorpat/Iur’ev/Tartu 1855– 1985,” 76 BYBIL 383– 501 (2005), 419– 37; and
B. Kastner, “Karl Magnus Bergbohm: Werk und Wirkung,” 84 Archiv für Rechts- und
Soziophilosophie 232– 49 (1998). Lasson is less well covered, but for a short account of
his ideas, see Rupert Emerson, State and Sovereignty in Modern Germany (Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1928), 186– 89.
For a lucid and succinct account of the German Rechtsstaat concept, see Leonard
Krieger, Th e German Idea of Freedom: History of a Po liti cal Tradition (University of
Chicago Press, 1957), 252– 61. On Jellinek and his autolimitation thesis, see Emerson,
State and Sovereignty, 60– 73; Koskenniemi, Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 198– 206; and
Bernstorff and Dunlap, Public International Law Th eory, 26– 38. On Franz Liszt, see
Florian Herrmann, Das Standardwerk: Franz von Liszt und das Völkerrecht (Nomos,
2001).
For an exposition of the positivist synthesis, see Sereni, Italian Conception, 206– 50.
For an excellent, and more succinct, summation of it, see Lassa Oppenheim, “Th e Sci-
ence of International Law: Its Task and Method,” 2 AJIL 313– 56 (1908). On the positivist
view of war and peace, see Stephen C. Neff , War and the Law of Nations: A General His-