Among international law scholars, there has been relative absence of interest in the theory of international law by Christian Wolff(1679-1754). During the period of ‘classical’ international law when the concept of state sovereignty reigned supreme, his support for the concept of ‘civitas maxima’ was dismissed as overly idealistic and lacking in positivity. In this article, a preliminary investigation has been conducted into Wolff’s theory of international law, focusing on his concepts of ‘civitas maxima’ and voluntary international law (jus gentium voluntarium). In so doing, the author tries to revisit these concepts from a novel and constructive perspective. For instance, the affinity between the notion of ‘civitas maxima’ and the emerging concept of global community is highlighted. The notion of voluntary international law can also be positively evaluated since it enables one to discover sources of international law by normative intuition. The author goes on to conduct a critique on Wolff’s methodology that places an excessive reliance on natural law, while disregarding state practice. This critique leads to a critical comparison between Wolff and Vattel, who is generally regarded as a faithful disciple of Wolff. Through this comparative analysis, the author argues that despite a high degree of structural and substantive similarities, there are significant differences between the two authors. For instance, their conceptions of voluntary international law differ from each other substantially. In particular, Vattel, while emphasizing the elements of state practice in ascertaining the rules of international law, made a great contribution to the birth of modern or ‘classical’ international law that was founded on the principles of state sovereignty and independence, thus distancing himself from the universalizing tendency of ‘civitas maxima’ strongly contended for by Wolff.
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 볼프의 국제법론 개관
Ⅲ. 볼프의 국제법방법론에 대한 비판적 고찰
Ⅳ. 볼프의 국제법이론의 영향
Ⅴ. 결어
Abstract
(0)
(0)