From International Law to Classics (and Back): Constructing Hegemonic Narratives in the Ancient Greek World

BUIS, EMILIANO JERÓNIMO

Uppsala

Congreso; International Conference *Historicising International (Humanitarian) Law ? Could We? Should We?*; 2016

Hugo-Valentin Centrum, Uppsala Universitet

Recent critical contributions on hegemony and colonialism in international law have almost unanimously focused on post-Westphalian times. Nevertheless, a broader and more complete picture could show that international lawyers have a lot to learn from ancient history. The general proposal of my research is to show that a systematic study of ancient norms can shed light on the modern regulation of international relations (and, of course, on the ideology lying behind it). It is not possible to disregard the fact that a heterogeneous set of rules ?sometimes explicit, for most times implicit? was agreed and arranged in order to regulate the behaviour of the autonomous and politically organised Hellenic communities between the sixth and first centuries BCE. Among the different Greek *póleis*, appealing to equality was an efficient way to overcome the difficulty of dealing with the unfair (but politically unavoidable) distinction between dominant and subordinate city-states. But even if most sources insist on a balance between city-states which are independent and do not allegedly depend on each other, in practical terms Greek international relations in classical times were determined by a notorious distinction between stronger and weaker *póleis*. The progressive foundation of international organisations during the late fifth and fourth centuries BCE shows autonomous *póleis* participating to a varied degree of interest and commitment. Even if associations among allied city-states respected and guaranteed the formal equality and independence of each member, they also created a practical ground that ensured imperialism through the effective supremacy of one of the *pólis* in the group. A subtle language, useful because of its vagueness, endorsed the power of some city-states over other parties to the negotiation. The purpose of this paper is to illuminate, in ancient sources, the complex bases for imposing domestic *nómoi* in bilateral or multilateral agreements. The example of Athens is here interesting, since the consolidation of a maritime empire over the "allied" islands seems to contradict the language used in documents, which is frequently critical of imperialism and favours instead a *shared* democracy (based on Athenian norms) that is never openly supportive of a superior authority that might destabilise the interstate balance.This tension between internal *isonomía* and external *hegemonía* (and the will to expand and impose local rules in foreign contexts) explains the conceptual construction of international law in antiquity and might provide one of the earliest examples of efficient mechanisms created for the justification of imperial and colonial experiences in modern times.