1 For a corresponding history of ideas, see Andreas Anter, Die Macht der Ordnung (2004).Google Scholar

2 On the concept of “paradigm” in epistemology, see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963).Google Scholar

3 For a reconstruction of contemporary international law in light of these paradigms, see Armin von Bogdandy and Sergio Dellavalle, Universalism and Particularism as Paradigms of International Law, IILJ Working Paper 2008/3, available at: http://www.iilj.org/publications/2008-3Bogdandy-Dellavalle.asp.Google Scholar

4 See Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (1959).Google Scholar

5 See Niccolò Machiavelli, Il Principe (1513); Niccolò Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1513-1519).Google Scholar

6 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, International Law and International Relations, in 285 Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law 9, 30 (2000).Google Scholar

7 See Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace (1954).Google Scholar

8 Muller, Jerry Z., Kampf der Völker. Die ungebrochene Kraft des ethnischen Nationalismus, 62 Merkur 461 (2008).Google Scholar

9 See Adam H. Müller, Die Elemente der Staatskunst (1809).Google Scholar

10 See Carl Schmitt, Völkerrechtuche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Màchte (1939). The concept has later been redefined; yet, in substance the theory has been restated, in Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europeum (1950).Google Scholar

11 Schmitt, Carl, Das Zeitalter der Neutralisierung und Entpolitisierung, in: Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien 87 (Carl Schmitt, 1963).Google Scholar

12 See Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).Google Scholar

13 See Jeremy A. Rabkin, Why Sovereignty Matters (1998); Deepak Lal, In Defense of Empires (2004); Deepak Lal, In Praise of Empires: Globalization and Order (2004); Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (2003); Kagan, Robert, America's Crisis of Legitimacy, 83 Foreign Affairs 65 (2004). For a critique, see Jean L. Cohen, Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus International Law, 18 Ethics & International Affairs 1 (2004); Krisch, Nico, Imperial International Law (2004) (Global Law Working Papers 01/04).Google Scholar

14 Dellavalle, Sergio, The Necessity of International Law Against the A-normativity of Neo-Conservative Thought, in Progress in International Law 95 (Russell A. Miller and Rebecca Bratspies eds., 2008).Google Scholar

15 See Johannes von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (1905).Google Scholar

16 This does not mean, however, that holistic particularism disappeared. Unlike their homologous in natural sciences the paradigms of social sciences survive much easier the emergence of a conceptual successor. In the most cases they only need to modify some aspects of their conceptual equipment. The consequence is that in social sciences we have often the contemporary presence of a plurality of paradigmatic sets within the same matter, although oftentimes one paradigm plays a preeminent role.Google Scholar

17 In the early centuries of Christianity, when Christendom was yet largely distant from political power or even persecuted, this necessity to formulate a concrete political program according to the Christian principles was not felt as strongly as later. This is the time of the distinction between the civitas dei and the civitas diaboli, whereas the second one – the City of the Devil – corresponds to the real political situation on earth, and the first – the City of God – is projected, along with its universalistic aim, into a purely spiritual dimension. See Aurelius Augustinus, De civitate Dei, in: The City of God, 413–426 (1957).Google Scholar

18 Alighieri, Dante, De Monarchia, in 2 Opere minori 1310–1314 (Dante, 1986).Google Scholar

19 Suarez, Francisco, De legibus, ac Deo legislatore, in Selections from three Works 1 (Suarez, 1944), at 1.Google Scholar

20 Id. Google Scholar

21 See Jörg Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht. Die Auseinandersetzungen um den Status der überseeischen Gebiete vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (1984).Google Scholar

22 Vitoria, Francisco de, Relectio prior de Indis recenter inventis, in: De Indis recenter inventis et de jure belli Hispanorum in Barbaros 1 (De Vitoria, 1952).Google Scholar

23 See Ram Prakash Anand, Studies in International Law and History (2004); Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2005).Google Scholar

24 See Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1646).Google Scholar

25 See Aristotle, The Politics.Google Scholar

26 Grotius admits that war can be sometimes unavoidable and even normatively acceptable. Nevertheless it is tolerable from a normative point of view only if it satisfies the conditions to be defined as “just”. On the Grotian tradition in international law as defensor pacis, see Lauterpacht, Hersch, The Grotian Tradition in International Law, 23 British Yearbook of International Law 1 (1946).Google Scholar

27 See Alfred Verdross, Die Verfassung der Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft (1926); Tomuschat, Christian, Die international Gemeinschaft, 33 Archiv des Völkerrechts 1 (1995); Tomuschat, Christian, International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century, 281 Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law (1999); Paulus, Andreas L., Die internationale Gemeinschaft im Völkerrecht. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung des Völkerrechts im Zeitalter der Globalisierung (2001).Google Scholar

28 René Descartes, Discours de la Methode (1637); Descartes, Rene, Meditationesde Prima Philosophia (1642).Google Scholar

29 Thomas Hobbes, De Cive (1642); Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, of the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651).Google Scholar

30 Norberto Bobbio, L'età dei diritti (1990).Google Scholar

31 See Hobbes, supra note 29; Spinoza, Baruch de, Tractatus politicus, in: 3 Spinoza Opera, III (1924); Spinoza, Baruch de, Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), in 3 Spinoza Opera XVI (1924); Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government (1690). Samuel Pufendorf may be a partial exception however, his theory should be better understood as a kind of half-way solution between contractualism and the traditional sociability conception, where the second prevails in the interpretation of international law, see Samuel Pufendorf, De jure naturae et gentium libri octo (1672).Google Scholar

32 See Kant, Immanuel, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf, in XI Werkausgabe 191; Kant, Immanuel, Die Metaphysik der Sitten, in VIII Werkausgabe 309.Google Scholar

33 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, supra note 32, at 212.Google Scholar

34 Id. at 213; Kant, Die Metaphysik der Sitten, supra note 32, § 54, at 467, § 61, at 475.Google Scholar

35 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, supra note 32, at 212.Google Scholar

36 Id. at 225.Google Scholar

37 Id. at 209.Google Scholar

38 Id. at 212.Google Scholar

39 Among the most influential analysis, see Giuliano Marini, Tre studi sul cosmopolitismo kantiano (1998); Otfried Höffe, Königliche Völker. Zu Kants kosmopolitischer Rechts- und Friedenstheorie (2001); Volker Gerhardt, Immanuel Kants Entwurf Zum ewigen Frieden. Eine Theorie der Politik (1995). On Habermas’ interpretation of Kant's theory of international order, see Habermas, Jürgen, Kants Idee des ewigen Friedens, 28 Kritische Justiz 293 (1995), also published in Die Einbeziehung des Anderen (1996); Habermas, Jürgen, Der gespaltene Westen (2004); Habermas, Jürgen, Eine politische Verfassung für die pluralistische Weltgesellschaft?, 38 Kritische Justiz 222 (2005).Google Scholar

40 Dellavalle, Sergio, Kant, l'ordine internazionale e l'integrazione europea, 20 Filosofia politica 245 (2006).Google Scholar

41 Habermas, , Eine politische Verfassung für die pluralistische Weltgesellschaft?, supra at note 39, at 224. The conception of divided sovereignty was present in the discussions of the 19th century due to the Federalist Papers, but it remained marginal, at least in Europe; see Stefan Oeter, Federalism and Democracy, in Principles of European Constitutional Law (Bogdandy, Von & Bast, Jürgen eds., 2006).Google Scholar

42 The main tenets of the individualistic-universalistic paradigm has deeply influenced – in their visionary strength as well as in their weaknesses – also Hans Kelsen who did conceive the possibility and desirability of a global state. See Hans Kelsen, Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts (1928); Kelsen, Hans, Reine Rechtslehre (1934); Kelsen, Hans, Law and Peace in International Relations (1942); Kelsen, Hans, Peace through Law (1944); Paulus, Die internationale Gemeinschaft im VoUlkerrecht, supra note 27. For a recent proposal explicitly defending the idea of a world state see Otfried Höffe, Demokratieim Zeitalter der Globalisierung (1999).Google Scholar

43 Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie (1984); Luhmann, Niklas, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (1997).Google Scholar

44 Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, supra note 43.Google Scholar

45 Id.; Niklas Luhmann, Das Recht der Gesellschaft (1993).Google Scholar

46 Luhmann, Das Recht der Gesellschaft, supra note 45; Teubner, Gunther, Recht als autopoietisches System (1989).Google Scholar

47 Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther, Fragmentierung des Weltrechts: Vernetzung globaler Regimes statt etatistischer Rechtseinheit, in Weltstaat und Weltstaatlichkeit. Beobachtungen globaler politischer Strukturbildung, 37 (Albert, Mathias & Stichweh, Rudolf eds., 2007).Google Scholar

48 Teubner, Gunther, Des Königs viele Leiber: Die Selbstdekonstruktion der Hierarchie des Rechts, in Globalisierung und Demokratie. Wirtschaft, Recht, Medien 240 (Brunkhorst, Hauke & Kettner, Matthias eds., 2000).Google Scholar

49 Fischer-Lescano & Teubner, , supra note 47.Google Scholar

50 Global Law Without a State (Teubner, Gunther ed., 1997); Teubner, Gunther, Privatregimes: Neo-Spontanes Recht und duale Sozialverfassungen in der Weltgesellschaft?, in Zur Autonomie des Individuums (Dieter Simon, Manfred Weiss eds., 2000).Google Scholar

51 Michel Foucault displays this approach in his deep-going analysis of different social phenomena, such as language, scientific knowledge, and sexuality. See Michel Foucault, Les mots et les choses (1966); Foucault, Michel, L'archeologie du Savoir (1969); Foucault, Michel, L'ordre du discours (1970); Foucault, Michel, Histoire de la sexualite, I: La volonte de savoir (1976); Foucault, Michel, The Subject and Power, in: Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 208 (Dreyfus, Hubert L. & Rabinow, Paul eds., 1982).Google Scholar

52 Koskenniemi, Martti, International Law in Europe between Tradition and Renewal, 16 European Journal of International Law 113 (2005).Google Scholar

53 For a critique of “Empire” as the contemporary form of unitary order, see Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Empire (2001).Google Scholar

54 Koskenniemi, Martti, International Law and Hegemony: A Reconfiguration, 17 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 197 (2004). For a critique of the universalistic and therefore utopian approach to international law see e.g. Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (1989).Google Scholar

55 David Kennedy, The Dark Sides of Virtue. Reassessing International Humanitarianism (2004).Google Scholar

56 Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nation: The Rise and fall of International Law 1870–1960 (2001).Google Scholar

57 As examples of the different approaches that can be traced back, to some extent, to a postmodern background insofar as they reject the idea of a unitary order, see neo-Grotianism (Benedict W. Kingsbury, The International Legal Order, IILJ Working Paper 2003/1; Kingsbury, Benedict W., The Problem of the Public in Public International Law, New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 2005/6), network-theories (Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order, 2004) and the theory of supranational integration (Joseph H. H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe, 1999).Google Scholar

58 See Karl-Otto Apel, Transformation der Philosophie Apel (1973).Google Scholar

59 See Jürgen Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981); Habermas, Jürgen, Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln (1983); Habermas, Jürgen, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1984).Google Scholar

60 As is shown by two famous examples – of contributions to, respectively, the liberal and the communitarian understanding of political philosophy: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1972) and Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity (1989).Google Scholar

61 See Jürgen Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985). With regard to the paramount relevance of Hegel's social philosophy for a theory of intersubjectivity see Axel Honneth, Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte (1992); Dellavalle, Sergio, Freiheit und Intersubjektivität. Zur historischen Entwicklung von Hegels geschichtsphilosophischen und politischen Auffassungen (1998).Google Scholar

62 See Habermas, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen, supra note 59. The idea of a validity claim in propositions as a necessary condition of communication has raised much criticism. For an overview of the various positions see Sybille Kramer, Sprache, Sprechakt, Kommunikation (2001). Object of dispute remains – even between the authors of the present contribution – whether the validity claim as a precondition of communication is an indispensable requirement for a (normative) theory of social order.Google Scholar

63 Habermas, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen, supra note 59; Habermas, Jürgen, Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung (1999).Google Scholar

64 Habermas, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen, supra note 59.Google Scholar

65 Jürgen Habermas, Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik (1991).Google Scholar

66 Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats (1992).Google Scholar

67 Habermas, Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik, supra note 59.Google Scholar

68 Id. Google Scholar

69 Jürgen Habermas, Die postnationale Konstellation (1998).Google Scholar

70 Habermas, Die Einbeziehung des Anderen, supra note 39; Dellavalle, Sergio, Una costituzione senza popolo? La Costituzione Europea alla luce delle concezioni del popolo come “potere costituente” (2002).Google Scholar

71 Habermas, Der gespaltene Westen, supra note 39; Habermas, Eine politische Verfassung für die pluralistische Weltgesellschaft?, supra note 39.Google Scholar

72 It has to be pointed out that Habermas’ understanding of the concept of “transnational law” is significantly different from its interpretation by the theorists of the “transnational legal process” which give little importance to international institutions, see Harold Hangju Koh, Transnational Legal Process, 35 Nebraska Law Review 181 (1988); Hanschmann, Felix, Theorie transnationaler Rechtsprozesse, in Neue Theorien des Rechts, 347 (Sonja Buckel, Ralph Christensen, & Fischer-Lescano, Andreas eds., 2006).Google Scholar

73 Harald Müller, Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln, 1 Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 15 (1994); Müller, Harald, Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations, 10 Eur. J. Int'l Rel. 395 (2004); Risse, Thomas, “Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics, 54 Int'l Org. 1 (2000).Google Scholar

74 For a survey on empirical studies on conditions and effectiveness of such an influence see Cornelia Ulbert & Thomas Risse, Deliberately Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective?, 40 Acta Politica 351 (2005).Google Scholar

75 Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Schwerpunkte und Ziele der Friedensforschung (1972); Galtung, Johan, Peace and social structure (1978); Gert Krell (ed.), Frieden und Konfukt in den internationalen Beziehungen (1994).Google Scholar

76 Stefan Kadelbach, Zwingendes Völkerrecht (1992); Kadelbach, Stefan, Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and other Rules – The Identification of Fundamental Norms, in: The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order, 21 (Tomuschat, Christian & Thouvenin, Jean Marc eds., 2006).Google Scholar

77 At this point, it needs to be stressed that discourse ethics as well as deliberative democracy do not coincide tout court with the communicative paradigm. Rather they are two specific uses of reason among those covered by the paradigm.Google Scholar

78 Karl-Otto Apel, Transformation der Philosophie (1976); Apel, Karl-Otto, Diskurs und Verantwortung (1990).Google Scholar

79 Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community (1998).Google Scholar

80 A hybrid position is taken by supranational organisations such as the European Union, which have access both to strong own legitimacy resources as well as to legitimation coming from the procedures within the member states.Google Scholar

81 For a taxonomy of relevant positions see Armin von Bogdandy, Globalization and Europe: How to Square Democracy, Globalization, and International Law, 15 European Journal of International Law 885 (2004). Habermas’ position is expressed in: Habermas, Die postnationale Konstellation, supra note 69; Habermas, Eine Politische Verfassung für die pluraustische Weltgesellschaft?, supra note 39.Google Scholar

82 Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung, supra note 66.Google Scholar

83 Habermas, Jürgen, Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts und die Legitimationsprobleme einer verfassten Weltgemeinschaft, in Rechtsphilosophie im 21. Jahrhundert, 360, 371–373 (Winfried Brugger, Ulfried Neumann, & Kirste, Stephan eds., 2008).Google Scholar