The International Law Association (ILA) and the Institut de Droit International (IDI) were both founded in 1873 at a critical juncture in the history of pacifism and internationalism, in the immediate aftermath of the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War and the 1872 British-American Alabama arbitration. Frustrated by the blatant violations of international rules during the war and then emboldened by the arbitral resolution of the protracted Alabama dispute between Britain and the United States, pacifists and international jurists joined forces to promote an ordered system of international law and advocate for legalized international dispute settlement. The aim was to marshal the scattered reformist forces of international law in furtherance of international legal reform—“international law needed to be institutionalized,” as Gerald Fitzmaurice put it.1 This resulted in the almost simultaneous establishment of the pacifism-originated ILA and the legal-scientism-oriented IDI, and helped to explain the similarity in institutional telos and the high degree of overlap in membership between the two institutions in their early years.2 Nevertheless, the ILA and the IDI differed in their working agendas and strategies. In terms of agendas, while the ILA tended to adopt an idealist view of international law hardly succumbing to compromises, the IDI mainly adhered to a scientifically pragmatic approach. With respect to strategies, the ILA sought social influence based on expansive membership, while the IDI's membership consisted of a limited number of international jurists. Despite changes over time, these organizational structures and distinctions between the two institutions at their founding moment are still visible.

The 150th anniversary of the Institut de Droit International (IDI) and the International Law Association (ILA) provides an opportunity to assess the role of legal scholarship in the codification and institutionalization of international law. This essay argues that academic expertise is a form of social and political capital that is at once individual, institutional, and structural. Empirically focused on international dispute settlement mechanisms (interstate adjudication and arbitration), this essay underscores that academic expertise shapes the professional status of international lawyers, and influences the clout of international institutions as codifiers of international law.

This essay examines the activities of the Institute of International Law (the Institute or IIL) during its 150 years of existence, dealing directly or indirectly with the colonial phenomenon. It distinguishes between two major periods of roughly equal length: first the period between the years 1873 and 1945; and second, the period from 1945 to the present. These correspond to two important periods of international relations: the second wave of colonial expansion and its remnants and the regime of mandates following World War I, on the one hand, and the era of the United Nations Charter, the promotion of human rights, self-determination, and decolonialization, on the other hand.

For the past 150 years, the Institut de Droit International (IDI) has held a prominent position in the field of international law, garnering recognition as one of the world's distinguished professional organizations for international lawyers. Yet, a closer look at its structures reveals that in fact, the IDI has been and remains an elitist club, comprised of renowned international legal jurists, practitioners, and scholars. Its goal was and is to formulate “principles from which rules [of international law] could be deduced.”1 While there may be doubts regarding the contemporary authority of the IDI in shaping today's international law, it possessed significant influence during its first century of existence. Therefore, on the occasion of its 150th anniversary, this essay offers an alternative perspective on the IDI's contribution to the field, focusing on the implications of its claimed status of the “legal conscience of the civilized world” and exploring whether this status had somehow impacted international legal norms and principles. While further empirical investigation is required to establish a definitive correlation between the IDI's affiliations with the “civilized world” and a skewed focus of international law on Western legal traditions, a few examples can serve as a starting point. The illustrations from the IDI's engagement with the laws of war—specifically, the nineteenth-century regulation of occupation and the post-World War II determination of military targets—exemplify how the inherent elitism rooted in the notion of “civilization” can be discerned in pivotal advancements of international law.

The Institut de Droit International (IDI) and the International Law Association (ILA) have bequeathed complex and contradictory legacies to the Americas. This essay explores both the resonances and the dissonances that the formation of the IDI, and to a lesser extent, the ILA, had in the institutionalization of the modern discipline of international law in the Americas. On the one hand, the IDI's establishment as an elite Eurocentric organization with a missionary imperial approach to the promotion and reform of international law, generated resonances across the Americas, inspiring the creation of the American Institute of International Law (AIIL). On the other hand, the AIIL emerged as a reaction to the IDI, insofar as the former promoted juridical values based on the idea of American international law and a distinctive sense of U.S. and continental legal exceptionalism. The essay argues that the institutionalization of international law in the Americas was both inspired by the Eurocentric imperial and elitist legal approach promoted by the IDI, and the desire to forge a distinctive Western Hemispheric counterpart: a continental American international law.

Unlike the International Law Association (ILA) and the Institut de Droit International (the Institut), the International Law Commission (the Commission, or ILC) is not 150 years old. Established in 1948, the Commission is exactly half the age of the two codification bodies to which this Symposium is dedicated and is celebrating its seventy-fifth anniversary in 2023.1 Like its older cousins, the Commission is charged with the codification and progressive development of international law. Among the many differences between the Commission and its older cousins, one that stands out and that provides the lens for this essay, is its close relationship to states. Although a comparison of both the ILA and the Institut with the younger, but apparently more “authoritative” body, the Commission, is worthwhile,2 due to space limitations, I focus my comments on the Institut and the Commission. This essay will home in on the impact of the relationship of these two bodies with states and argues that this relationship affects, to some extent, the work of the relevant bodies, both in terms of what topics they may address and how they address them. This broad conclusion, which is necessarily limited by space considerations, is substantiated on the basis of the membership and outputs of the two bodies.