¹ Scelle, G., Précis de droit des gens (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1984)Google Scholar reprinting Précis de droit des gens, vol. 1 (Paris: Sirey, 1932) and Précis de droit des gens, Vol. II (Paris: Sirey, 1934). Page references are the same in both editions.

² “This is not a book of the international law of today, but it may be a book of the international law of tomorrow.” (1934) 28 A.J.I.L. 411, at 411.

³ de Visscher called Vols. I and II of Scelle’s Précis “hardiment novateur” in separate reviews published two years apart: (1933) 14 Rev. de dr. int’l leg’n comp. 181 (Vol. I) and (1935) 16 Rev. de dr. int’l leg’n comp. 391 (Vol. 11).

⁴ Sibert ends both his praising reviews of Vols. I and II of the Précis with question marks! (1932) 39 R.G.D.I.P. 829 (Vol. I) and (1935) 42 R.G.D.I.P. 231 (Vol. II).

⁵ (1932) Arch. phil. dr. 279.

⁶ The only change between the 1932–34 edition and its 1984 republication is to the title as it appears on the new cover: Précis de droit des gens (1932–34) becomes Précis du droit des gens (1984). Whether this reflects a highly subtle distinction in French grammar or simply a printer’s error I am unqualified to say.

⁷ The editors of the new and influential review Droits (sub nom.: Revue française de théorie juridique) lament the fact that no comprehensive history of international law exists in France: Bienvenu, J., Combacau, J., & Rials, S., “Notules” (1986) 4 Droits 185.Google Scholar Manfred Lachs devotes a portion of his study of legal scholarship to France and in particular to Scelle : The Teacher in International Law 97–99 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982). See also Truyol, A., “Doctrines contemporaines du droit des gens (suite)” (1951) 55 R.G.D.I.P. 22, at 33–40 Google Scholar and Charvin, R., “Le droit international tel qu’il a été enseigné” in Le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes (Mélanges offerts à Charles Chaumont) 135 (Paris: Éd. A. Pedone, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁸ “La doctrine de Georges Scelle[:] études de quelques thèmes” in Berlia, G., Droit public interne et international[:] Études et réflections 355 (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1980) (my translation).Google Scholar

⁹ Scelle’s very early work attests to the depth and breadth of his interest in the political economy of public law. His prize-winning doctoral thesis on black slavery in colonial Spain, Histoire politique de la traite négrière aux Indes de Castille, 2 vols. (Paris: Sirey, 1906) represents an impressive piece of scholarship based on theretofore unpublished documents from French, Spanish, Portuguese, and English public archives. He defended a second thesis on administrative law, De l’influence des considérations d’utilité publique sur le contrat (Paris: Sirey, 1906), which is mysteriously absent from bibliographies of Scelle’s work, but which includes, at pages 31–33, an unmistakable early version of Scelle’s distinctive view of the relationship between the individual and the state in society which I discuss, infra.

¹⁰ His exam paper on “Rebus sic stantibus” is characteristically bold and amusing, beginning with a comparison between the misuse of Latin by doctors in Molière’s plays and by diplomats, “les médicins traitant les nations,” and ending with a sketchy version of the theory of droit des gens, to which he would later devote his career: Scelle, , “De la clause Rebus sic stantibus” in Agrégation des Facultés de droit: Section de droit public 4 (Paris: Sirey, 1912).Google Scholar

¹¹ For bibliographical information on Scelle, see Berlia, supra note 9; Kopel-manas, L., “La pensée de Georges Scelle et ses possibilités d’application à quelques problèmes récents de droit international” (1961) 88 J.D.I. (Clunet) 350 Google Scholar (with English translation) ; and Berlia, G., “Georges Scelle (1878-1961)” (1960) A.F.D.I. 3.Google Scholar

¹² See Burdeau, G., Traité de science politique, 3rd ed. (1980) Vol. 1 Google Scholar at paras. 246 et seq., wherein the author presents a coherent and convincing argument against the existence of international law based on a view that the state, through its expression of law purely municipal in character, hinders the evolution of the international society and its droit des gens. Scelle responded in style to the original presentation of Burdeau’s theory with a critique of his student’s view of power and the state which turned, he said, as much on wartime circumstances as anything else: Scelle, , “Pouvoir étatique et droit des gens” (1943) Rev. dr. pub. 189 Google Scholar. Burdeau answered this criticism (and provided more) in his 1980 Traité, op cit. at para. 247 and passim. A contemporary French (non-Scellian) academic, Jean Combacau, took up the cause in defence of international law in “Définition restrictive du droit: Dialogue sans issue” in Mélanges offerts à Georges Burdeau: Le pouvoir 1033 (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1977).

¹³ Rousseau, C., “Avant propos,” in La technique et les principles du droit public[:] Etudes en l’honneur de Georges Scelle v-vi (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1950), Vol. I.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Georges Berlia, supra note 8, at 399–403, prepared a detailed bibliography of Scelle’s work as an annex to his published lectures on Scellian doctrine in 1961. Though extensive, this list has some notable omissions, including Scelle’s account of the influence of Léon Duguit, infra note 25; his critique of Burdeau, supra note 12; two short but important notes by Scelle on federalism, infra note 35, and a brilliant book review of Georges Ripert’s Le déclin du droit in (1949) Rev. dr. pub. 103.

¹⁵ Truyol, supra note 7, at 35 called Scelle’s Précis an “ouvrage capital”; Berlia, supra note 8, at 358 said the Précis “a édifié les fondements d’une doctrine” and recently, the editors of Droits remarked that it represented an expression of “sa vision du droit international dans un ouvrage d’ensemble”: (1986) 3 Droits 181.

¹⁶ Scelle had initially viewed the Précis as a major treatise, including a planned third volume on international administrative law, but later chose to devote his significant talents to other projects.

¹⁷ See G. Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. I at 3. Cicero’s axiom was reversible for Scelle: society necessarily implies law just as law necessarily implies society. See Scelle, G., “Le droit constitutionnel international” in Mélanges R. Carré de Malberg 505 (Paris: Sirey, 1933).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., Vol. I, at 10.

¹⁹ Those interested in a broader view of Scelle’s legal theory should consult the opening chapters of the polycopies of his graduate courses in public law given at the University of Paris law faculty in the 1940s, particularly Principes du droit public et de technique juridique 11 et seq. (Paris: Les Cours de Droit, 1939–40) ; Principes du droit public[:] La technique générale du droit public 3 et seq. (Paris: Les Cours de Droit, 1940–41); and Cours de principes du droit public 5 et seq. (Paris: Les Cours de Droit, 1944–45). See also Scelle’s study designed as an introduction to law for first-year students but pitched at a high level: “Le droit public et la théorie de l’État” in Scelle et al., Introduction à l’étude du droit 3 (Paris: Éd. Rousseau, 1951 ).

²⁰ Duguit, L., Traité de droit constitutionnel, 3rd ed. (Paris: Éd. Boccard, 1927)Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid., Vol. I, at 65 et seq.

²² Ibid., Vol. I, at 534 et seq.

²³ Truyol, supra note 7 at 64, called Duguit a doctrinal cyclone sweeping up all in his path. See (1932) Arch. phil. dr.: special issue on Duguit’s influence on French public law, with articles by Bonnard, Réglade, Politis, Harold Laski, Mestre, and Le Fur. See also Timsit, G., Thèmes et systèmes de droit 48–53, 64–67, 78–80 (Paris: P.U.F., 1986)Google Scholar.

²⁴ See Politis, N., “L’influence de la doctrine de L. Duguit sur le développement du droit international” (1932) Arch. phil. dr. 69.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Scelle, G., “La doctrine de Léon Duguit et les fondements du droit des gens” (1932) Arch. phil. dr. 83 Google Scholar. Here Scelle refers us to two paragraphs in Duguit’s Traité de droit constitutionnel, supra note 20, devoted to international law. Duguit’s short exposés on “la norme juridique internationale” (para. 17) and “le Droit public international” (para. 67) can be said to have influenced, through Scelle, a generation (or two) of international lawyers.

²⁶ See Guggenheim, P.,“Contribution à l’histoire des sources du droit des gens” (1958) 94 R.C.A.D.I. 4 Google Scholar et seq.

²⁷ M. Hudson, supra note 2, at 411. Manfred Lachs, supra note 7, at 99 suggests the term “law of peoples” which, though inelegant, is closer to the Scellian notion. Friedman, Wolfgang, The Changing Structure of International Law 233 (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1964)Google Scholar, draws a parallel between Scelle’s droit des gens and the expression “transnational law” made popular by Philip Jessup. Scelle’s conception approaches, though not exactly, Wilfred Jenk’s idea of the “common law of mankind” and the recent American doctrinal concept of “homocentric planetary law” both discussed in Stone, Julius, “A Sociological Perspective on International Law” in Macdonald, R. St. J. and Johnston, D. M. (eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law 263 (The Hague: Martinus Nijoff, 1983)Google Scholar.

²⁸ See Scelle’s own explanation, supra note 1, Vol. I, at vii-х. Paradoxically, Scelle’s first published article on international law was an analysis of the work of seventeenth-century English internationalist Richard Zouch, who is generally credited with having coined the phrase jus inter gentes, from which we take “international law”: Scelle, , “Zouch” in Les fondateurs du droit international, Pillet, A. (intro.), 269 (Paris: Éd. Giard & Brière, 1904)Google Scholar. Still more ironic was Scelle’s decision as to the title of his well-known manuel élémentaire published ten years after the Précis: see Scelle, , Droit international public (Paris: Domat-Montchrestien, 1944)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. I, at 34–35.

³⁰ The pyramid metaphor illustrates a similarity between the monism explained by Hans Kelsen in various works including Pure Theory of Law, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1967), M. Knight, (trans.), and the hierarchy of norms described by Scelle. Indeed, Scelle himself recognized the common ground between what he calls the objectivist Austrian doctrine and his own work, though he disagreed with Kelsen’s idea that the origin of law is, in the final analysis, metajuridical. He argues that the origin of law is not a grundnorm but rather can be traced to the fait social: see Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. I, at 40–41. A further distinction noted by Truyol, supra note 7, at 37 is that Scelle’s sociobiological theory of law is far from the pure normativism of Kelsen.

³¹ Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. II at 6, and Vol. I, at 31–33.

³² Morin described Quebec’s current constitution as “éparse et informe”: “Pour une nouvelle Constitution du Québec” (1985) 30 McGill L.J. 171 (head-note).

³³ Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. II, Chap. 1.

³⁴ Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. II, at 10–11. Two articles in the Mélanges Scelle further explain the notion of dédoublement fonctionnel: C. Chaumont, “Perspectives d’une théorie du Service public à l’usage du Droit international contemporain” and Kopelmanas, L., “La théorie du dédoublement fonctionnel et son utilisation pour la solution du problème dit du conflit de lois” in La technique et les principes du droit public: Études en l’honneur de Georges Scelle (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1950), at Vol. 1, 115 Google Scholar and Vol. II, 753, respectively.

³⁵ See Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. I, at 57. Of the great many articles Scelle devoted to his ideal of universal federalism, two are particularly revealing: his preface to Guy de Lacharrière’s published thesis, L’idée fédérale en Russie de Riourik à Staline (1862–1945) (Paris: Éd. A. Pedone, 1945) and his introduction to Karl Strupp’s monograph Legal Machinery for Peaceful Change (London: Constable & Co., 1937).

³⁶ Scelle, supra note 1, Vol. I, at 252–54.

³⁷ Ibid., Vol. I, at 198–204.

³⁸ This is particularly true of the chapter of the Précis devoted to colonialism: supra note 1, Vol. I, at 143 et seq.

³⁹ Ibid., Vol. I, at 288 et seq.

⁴⁰ Ibid., Vol. II, at 15 et seq.

⁴¹ Ibid., Vol. I, at 6 and Vol. II, at 297 et seq.

⁴² See Brown Scott, James, Le français: langue diplomatique moderne (Paris: Éd. A. Pedone, 1924).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Macdonald, R.St.J. and Johnston, D.M., “International Legal Theory: New Frontiers of the Discipline” in Macdonald, St.J. and Johnston, , supra note 27, 1 at 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Kennedy, D., “International Legal Education” (1985) 26 Harv. Int’l L.J. 361, at 362.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Scelle, , Principes de droit public général et de technique juridique 39–40 (Paris: Les Cours de Droit, 1939–40).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Kopelmanas, supra note 11, at 358.

⁴⁷ St. J. Macdonald and Johnston, supra note 40, at 1.