Schlagwort: interwar

Marguerite Wolff at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

15. Dezember 2023
Gerhard Dannemann
Kommentare 3

When the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Foreign Public Law and International Law began to operate in January 1925 with a smaller advance team, Marguerite Wolff was a driving force in getting the Institute up and running. According to the diary of Marie Bruns, wife of the Institute’s founding director Viktor Bruns, their friend Marguerite Wolff was not only a member of the academic staff but also what she called the Institute’s housewife.[1] Before we further explore her contribution to this Institute, a few biographical facts should be mentioned.

Family and personal background

Marguerite Wolff, nee Jolowicz, was born in London on 10 December 1883, as a dual British-German citizen, the latter through her father Hermann Jolowicz (1849-1934), a wealthy silk merchant who was born in (then Prussian) Pleschen (Pleszew) and learned the trade in Lyon. Her mother was Marie Litthauer, born 1864 in (then also Prussian) Neutomysl (Nowy Tomyśl). Marguerite had two brothers, Paul (born 1885) and Herbert Felix (born 1890), who would later become Regius Professor of Civil Law at the University of Oxford.[2] Unusually for women at the time, but in line with her liberal bourgeois upbringing, Marguerite Jolowicz obtained a Master of Arts in English from Cambridge University, apparently with a “first”, and as student of Newnham College.[3] In 1906, she married the legal scholar Martin Wolff (1872-1953) and moved to Berlin, then to Marburg (1914), Bonn (1918), and back to Berlin (1921). Marguerite and Martin Wolff had two children: Konrad (1907-1989), who later became a famous pianist, and Victor (1911-1944), who qualified as a barrister and served in the Royal Air Force.[4]

“Housewife”, Assistant, Fellow? Marguerite Wolff at the Institute

Marguerite Wolff, as photographed by Ilse Bing (her daughter-in-law), 1947[5]

Marguerite Wolff worked at the Institute between 1 January 1925 and 1 May 1933 when her employment contract was terminated in the wake of national-socialist legislation aimed at removing all Germans of Jewish origin from public service or related employment. More will be said on this below.

Next to the short entry in the diary of Marie Bruns, we have one other contemporaneous and three non‑contemporaneous first-hand descriptions of her activities at the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Foreign Public Law, with the later descriptions dating from 1951/1952 and relating to compensation claims pursued by Marguerite Wolff.

In a very short self-description, Marguerite Wolff stated in 1951 that she had been employed as “Referentin [senior research fellow in modern MPIL English terminology] for the English and American notions of public international law” and that her employment “ended through termination by Professor Bruns on the basis of racial legislation”.[6] A glowing Dienstzeugnis (reference provided by employer on leaving service) written by Viktor Bruns and dated 19 December 1933 confirms the dates of her employment, initially as “wissenschaftliche Assistentin”, then “Referentin”, and specifies her academic area of work as “public international law with particular emphasis on England and the United States”, with the tasks of “observing the most recent political and legal developments which are relevant for public international law, to compile reports for the archive and the editors of the [Institute’s] journal, and to work academically on smaller and larger specific questions”. Moreover, Bruns notes her outstanding contribution to the editing of the Institute’s journal, her compiling of texts in the English language, providing English-German and German-English translations, and giving English legal terminology courses for other members of the Institute. Bruns praised her as completely bilingual and in full command of legal, political, and economic terminology.[7] The reference contains only a short description of her initial managerial role: “She was instructed with organizational tasks during the set-up of the Institute.”[8]

There is also a warm personal testimonial from 1952 by Marianne Reinert, non-academic staff member of the administration of the Max Planck Society and its predecessor, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. She states:

“The wife of Prof. Wolff, Marguerite Wolff, an exceptionally intelligent and amiable woman, was one of those personalities who, together with Prof. Bruns, a close friend of hers, built up the Institute for Public International Law in the year 1925. Together with myself, working in the office of the president of our general administration located in the palace [Berliner Schloss], she compiled the starting stock of the library, and then worked as Abteilungsleiterin [head of division] in the Institute. In 1933, Professor Bruns advised her not to return from a holiday in London, where her brother worked as a respected banker, on account her being Volljüdin [of full Jewish descent]. She therefore stopped being a member of the Institute.”[9]

A lawyer without formal training?

Finally, there is a somewhat problematic testimonial by the former librarian of the Institute, Curt Blass. He begins by giving credit: “Mrs M. Wolff had an important share in the organisational set-up of the Institute in the first years after it had been founded. She was at the time the main staff member for the Director, both academically, and as his secretary.”[10] But he then goes on to describe how after the initial phase her tasks became more and more limited, her lack of legal education a problem, and that no one was surprised when “Professor Bruns announced that Mrs. Wolff had decided to leave the Institute and return to her home country England, to where her husband had already relocated.” That last allegation was certainly incorrect: Martin Wolff only moved to England in 1938.[11] Moreover, the allegation of shortcomings can hardly be squared with Marguerite Wolff’s book on UK press law which the Institute published in 1928.[12] This is a masterly exercise in comparative law, explaining peculiarities of English law to an audience of lawyers trained in the German legal system, which gives the readers no clue that the author had formal legal training in neither English nor German law. It appears much more likely that Viktor Bruns’ reference correctly described the many talents and contributions which the Institute lost when Marguerite Wolff’s contract was terminated.

As the Institute’s own archive reveals, Blass tailored his testimonial to the expectations which Hans Ballreich had formulated on behalf of the Institute. Ballreich had specifically asked Blass to consider the alternative narrative that Marguerite Wolff had decided of her own accord to move to London with her family, lamenting the danger of the Max Planck Society being burdened with very considerable, and in many cases unmerited, compensation claims.[13] Blass expresses his disquiet about this request not in his testimonial, but in a cover letter to Ballreich which was not forwarded to the Max Planck Society. In this cover letter, Blass explains that this request is “a rather delicate task. I have attempted to solve this as well as I can. If you believe that the attached notes could be of use to the Society, please pass them on.”[14] It should be added that there is nothing in the compensation claim file which would suggest that the Max Planck Society had put any pressure on Ballreich. The German Federal Ministries involved had, quite to the contrary, all along been pushing for a favourable treatment of Marguerite Wolff’s compensation claims.[15]

Few other sources appear to exist on the role which Marguerite Wolff played at the Institute. The Institute’s own files perished in a fire which ravaged the Berlin Palace in 1945, and only occasional and fleeting mentions of Marguerite Wolff in other contemporaneous sources have so far emerged.

Those who have previously written about Marguerite Wolff have come to different conclusions about her role at the Institute, and the circumstances surrounding her leaving the Institute. She has been called “unofficial co-director”, “head of division”, or “unofficial head of division” at the Institute. [16] The evidential basis for these attributions remains unclear. Unlike some other Kaiser Wilhelm or Max Planck Institutes, this institute did not have any divisions (Abteilungen)[17] and still does not today. And while the strongest support for the significance of Marguerite Wolff’s role in the Institute’s initial phase is found in the (otherwise problematic) testimonial of Blass, one could easily question whether that would make her an unofficial co-director. This is not how KWI directors were understood to operate under the so-called Harnack Principle, exercising full control over their institute’s research agenda and the hiring of academic staff. It might be more appropriate to translate the somewhat antiquated notion of Marguerite Wolff as the Institute’s “housewife” into 21st century language as staff member with a leading managerial function, in charge of the practical aspects of building up the new institute from scratch.

But little will eventually hang on this terminological question. If we assume instead that Marguerite Wolff and Viktor Bruns correctly described her as Referentin or Senior Research Fellow, this will do nothing to belittle the outstanding achievements of this extraordinary woman. It means that she was treated, as appropriate, on par with fully trained male colleagues at the Institute who shared the same job title, including influential scholars such as Hermann Heller and Gerhard Leibholz.[18]

Marguerite Wolff in 1931 (AMPG, VI.1,KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/10)

It is safe to assume that Marguerite Wolff leaving the Institute was triggered by the racial persecution of Jews and the enactment of legislation in April 1933 which would exclude most (and eventually all) persons of Jewish descent from holding any public office. At the same time, the story could be more complex than her being dismissed in April 1933 in immediate application of the infamous Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums [Law to restore the professional civil service]. In April, that applied only to civil servants, then from 4 May 1933 to employees of public law bodies. The earliest dismissal date for such employees would have been 30 June 1933,[19] but this would still not apply to any employees of the Institute, as the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft was organised as a private association. Given that the Brunses were close friends with the Wolffs and not known for national-socialist sympathies, it appears unlikely that Marguerite Wolff was unilaterally dismissed with effect of 1 May 1933 against her express wishes. Conversely, there is nothing to suggest that Marguerite Wolff handed in her own termination notice, which would probably likewise have been too short. While Bruns’ reference remains silent on how and why her employment was terminated, the most likely explanation appears to be that Wolff and Bruns agreed that Bruns would terminate the contract in correct anticipation of further persecution and any lack of medium-term perspective, and that the unduly short notice period was also consensual. On the other hand, the suggestion that this would allow her to not return from a vacation in England is misleading. It was not until 1935 that Marguerite Wolff would move to London to pave the way for her husband’s eventual move to Oxford and London in 1938.[20]

This is not the occasion to explore in detail Marguerite Wolff’s professional and personal life after she left the Institute. Suffice it to say that she worked as news editor for the BBC and as translator at the Nuremberg Trials, supervising the translations of the trial proceedings,[21] that she would eventually receive some compensation for her dismissal, and that she died in 1964.[22] While racial persecution cut her academic career short, she nevertheless continued to contribute to the world of learning as an exceptionally gifted translator and editor of legal texts. She helped to make the work of Martin Wolff’s faculty colleague and fellow émigré scholar Fritz Schultz known to the anglophone world by translating his “Principles of Roman Law” to considerable acclaim. As one reviewer noted: “The translator is to be congratulated on her success in a difficult task. Refractory Law-German has been reduced to clear, readable English”.[23] Moreover, her linguistic contribution to Martin Wolff’s famous textbook on Private International Law was praised by one reviewer as follows: “The excellence of the English is due principally to Mrs. Wolff, whose skill in rendering the author’s thoughts into precise, technical but eminently readable language is a triumphant success”.[24]

[1] Excerpt from Marie Bruns’ marriage diary „Das Institut für Völkerrecht und ausländisches Staatsrecht“, private archive of Rainer Noltenius, Bremen (Germany), transcription by Philipp Glahé, translation by the author, 2.

[2] Interview with Professor J. Anthony Jolowicz (1926-2012), nephew of Marguerite Wolff, Cambridge, 6 February 2002; letter by J. Anthony Jolowicz to the author, dated 11 August 2002; Thomas Hansen, Martin Wolff (1872-1953), 1st ed., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009, 24, citing to a letter by J. Anthony Jolowicz, dated 29 August 2005; Some sources state, probably erroneously, that she re-acquired British citizenship: Herbert A. Strauss/Werner Röder/K.G. Saur (gen. eds.), International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Emigrés 1933-1945, Vol. II Pt.2: The Arts, Sciences, and Literature, Munich: De Gruyter 1983, 1261, “Wolff, Konrad Martin”.

[3] Marion Röwekamp, Juristinnen – Lexikon zu Leben und Werk, 1st ed., Baden-Baden: Nomos 2005, 436-438, 436; While her MA in English from Cambridge University is assured from other sources, this is plausible but less certain for Newnham as her college and the “first” mark, as Röwekamp’s contribution contains several inaccuracies: Marguerite was the oldest (not the second) child; her brother Herbert Felix became Regius Professor in Oxford (not Cambridge); she moved to England in 1935 (not 1933); her son Victor, by contrast, moved to London in 1933 (not 1935) and died in 1944 (not 1942).

[4] Hansen (fn. 2), 24-25, 42-54, 102; Gerhard Dannemann, Martin Wolff (1872-1953), in: Jack Beatson/Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Jurist Uprooted, OUP: Oxford 2003, 44-45, 441-461; On Konrad Wolff: see Ruth Gillen (ed.), The Writings and Letters of Konrad Wolff, Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut 2000.

[5] Photo: MPIL Archive.

[6] Letter by Marguerite Wolff to “the Director” of the Institute, dated 8 September 1951, APMG, I-1A-3170. Translated from the German original by the author.

[7] Dienstzeugnis for Marguerite Wolff by Victor Bruns, dated 19 December 1933, AMPG, I-1A-3170.

[8] AMPG (fn. 7).

[9] Letter by M[ariannne] Reinert to Mr. Pfuhl, Max Planck Society, dated 9 October 1951, APMG, I-1A-3170: Her short report is based on her own and recollections of some other staff; the 18 year time gap and the fact that she worked for the KWI general administration may explain some of the inaccuracies.

[10] Testimonial by Curt Blass, dated 19 January 1952, AMPG, I-1A-3170; It is doubtful whether Marguerite Wolff ever undertook core secretarial tasks for Viktor Bruns, as Marie Bruns (fn. 1) mentions that the Institute already employed five secretaries when it began to operate.

[11] Dannemann (fn. 4), 449.

[12] Viktor Bruns/Kurt Hentzschel (eds.), Die Preßgesetze des Erdballs, Bd. II: Marguerite Wolff, Das Preßrecht Großbritanniens, Berlin: Verlag Georg Stilke 1928.

[13] Letter by Hans Ballreich to Dr. Curt Blass in Zürich, dated (incorrectly) 14 January 1950 [in fact: 1952], Archive of the MPIL, staff file of Marguerite Wolff, translation by the author.

[14] Letter by Curt Blass to Hans Ballreich, dated 19 January 1952, Archive of the MPIL, staff file of Marguerite Wolff, translation by the author.

[15] See also: Michael Schüring, Minveras verstoßene Kinder. Vertriebene Wissenschaftler und die Vergangenheitspolitik der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Göttingen: Wallstein 2006, 198 f.: critical of the fact that ministerial support was primarily due to the eminence of her deceased husband.

[16] „Unofficial co-director“: Annette Vogt, Marguerite Wolff, in: Jewish Women’s Archive (ed.), The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, last updated 11 May 2022, online: <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/wolff-marguerite>; Röwenkamp (fn. 3), 437 (“unofficial co-director”, at a later stage); “head of division” (Abteilungsleiterin): Schüring (fn. 15), 196, citing in note 126 incorrectly to the testimonial of Viktor Bruns (fn. 6); “inofficial head of division” (inoffizielle Abteilungsleiterin): Annette Vogt,  Wissenschaftlerinnen in Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten A-Z, 2nd ed., Berlin: AMPG 2008, 216.

[17] Adolf von Harnack (ed.), Handbuch der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Verlag Reimar Hobbing 1928, 214.

[18] Von Harnack (fn. 18).

[19] § 3 Abs. 1 Zweite Durchführungsverordnung zum Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums.

[20] See Hansen (fn. 2), 102.

[21] Gillen (fn. 4), xxi.

[22] Hansen (fn. 2), 95 f.

[23] P.W. Duff, Review of Fritz Schulz, Principles of Roman Law, Classical Review 51 (1937), 238-239.

[24] John Morris, Review of Martin Wolff, Private International Law, LQR 62 (1946), 88-91, 90.

Suggested Citation:

Gerhard Dannemann, Marguerite Wolff at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, MPIL100.de, DOI: 10.17176/20240403-102936-0
image_pdfDownload PDF/Print
 Lizenz: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED

 

Cornelia Bruns. Eine wohlverdiente, wenn auch späte, Würdigung

Cornelia Bruns. A Well-Deserved, Albeit Belated, Tribute

1. Dezember 2023
Karin Oellers-Frahm
Kommentare 4
Deutsch

Cornelia Bruns, Aufnahme um 1935[1]

Wenn man das 100-jährige Jubiläum des Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht feiert, dann steht natürlich im Vordergrund die Entwicklung des Völkerrechts und der Rechtsvergleichung. Selten wird dabei hinterfragt, welche rein praktischen Probleme sich damals den Wissenschaftlern stellten, den Stand der Entwicklung zu erfassen. Denn das internationale Recht, wie der Begriff deutlich macht, bezieht sich auf die zwischenstaatlichen Rechtsbeziehungen und Rechtsregeln, was den Austausch zwischen Wissenschaftlern der einzelnen Staaten voraussetzt, um den Stand des Rechts und die konsensfähigen Ansätze seiner Fortentwicklung – man denke nur an das Entstehen von Gewohnheitsrecht – zu kennen.

Das klingt logisch und selbstverständlich, begegnete allerdings einer nicht zu unterschätzenden Hürde: der Sprachbarriere. Während heute Englisch/Amerikanisch als „Sprache des Völkerrechts“ beziehungsweise der Wissenschaft schlechthin bezeichnet werden kann, war das vor 100 Jahren noch völlig anders. Der Zugang zu fremdsprachiger Literatur war daher problematisch und Übersetzungen ins Deutsche gab es kaum, zumal Deutsch ohnehin als besonders schwierige Sprache galt. Hinzu kommt, dass Übersetzungen fachlicher Texte, wie eben wissenschaftlicher Ausarbeitungen zu Fragen des Völkerrechts oder rechtsvergleichender Analysen, nicht nur die umfassende Beherrschung einer fremden Sprache erfordern, sondern zudem profunde Kenntnisse in dem Sachgebiet, das zur Übersetzung ansteht. Denn Begriffe, die sprachlich auf den ersten Blick keine Übersetzungsprobleme bieten, können juristisch durchaus unterschiedliche Bedeutungen haben.

Als Beispiel mag der Begriff des „acte administratif“ im französischen Recht dienen, der die Übersetzung „Verwaltungsakt“ nahelegt. Mit dieser Übersetzung käme man aber zu großen Missverständnissen, da der „Verwaltungsakt“ im deutschen Recht ein Akt ist, der ein bestimmtes Individuum oder einen bestimmten Adressatenkreis betrifft, also eine „Einzelverfügung“ ist, während der „acte administratif“ im Französischen eine „Allgemeinverfügung“ bezeichnet. Damit wird deutlich, dass Fachübersetzungen nicht nur Sprachkenntnisse, sondern auch Fachkenntnisse erfordern. Sprachbegabte Experten hatten (und haben) jedoch wenig Interesse daran, statt eigene Publikationen zu erstellen, Arbeiten anderer Wissenschaftler zu übersetzen; bei Personen mit gründlicher Fremdsprachenkenntnis aber fehlt es meist am erforderlichen Fachwissen.

„Tante Cörnchen“. Cornelia Bruns zwischen Familie und Institut

Vor diesem Hintergrund tritt nun vor etwa 100 Jahren eine Person in Erscheinung, der uneingeschränkte Hochachtung für ihre Arbeit gebührt, die seinerzeit aber wohl nicht die entsprechende Würdigung erfahren hat: Cornelia Bruns mit ihren großartigen Übersetzungen von zwei grundlegenden völkerrechtlichen Werken. Zum einen handelt es sich um die Übersetzung des einflussreichen und klassischen Lehrbuchs des Völkerrechts Corso di diritto internazionale: Introduzione Teorie generali von Dionisio Anzilotti (1923), zum anderen um die Übertragung der völkerrechtskritischen Monographie The Lawless Law of Nations von Sterling E. Edmunds (1925).

Cornelia Bruns (um 1935)[2]

Das wirft an erster Stelle die Frage auf: Wer war Cornelia Bruns? Geboren wurde sie am 10. Februar 1888 als Mitglied der im rechtswissenschaftlichen Umfeld hoch renommierten „Bruns‑Familie“, nämlich als Enkelin von Karl-Georg Eduard Bruns, dem berühmten Rechtswissenschaftler und zeitweiligen Rektor der Berliner Universität. Dessen Bruder Victor Bruns war der Großvater von Viktor Bruns, dem Gründer des Kaiser‑Wilhelm‑Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (KWI). Cornelia Bruns, die seit frühester Jugend an einem zunehmenden Verlust ihres Hörvermögens litt, der schließlich zur völligen Gehörlosigkeit führte, legte 1907 ihr Lehrerinnen-Examen ab und hielt sich dann eine Zeitlang in England auf. Von 1925 bis 1949 lebte sie in Berlin, wo sie unter dem Direktorat von Viktor Bruns als Bibliothekarin im KWI arbeitete, einer Funktion, die sie nach dem Krieg unter Carl Bilfinger am MPIL in Heidelberg fortführte. Am 7. Mai 1965 starb sie in Heidelberg.

50. Geburtstag von Marie und Viktor Bruns (17.02.1935). Cornelia Bruns (dritte von links) und Mitarbeiterinnen des KWI führen bei Bruns zu Hause ein Theaterstück auf.[3]

Dies sind die wenigen Daten, die über den Lebenslauf von Cornelia Bruns bekannt sind. Weiter weiß man nur, dass sie sehr eng in die Bruns-Familie eingebunden war und von allen außerordentlich geschätzt wurde; unter ihrem Spitznamen „Tante Cörnchen“ findet sie an mehreren Stellen in den  Tagebüchern von Marie Bruns-Bode, der Ehefrau von Viktor Bruns, Erwähnung, insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit Feierlichkeiten in der Familie und am KWI.[4] Über ihre beruflichen Tätigkeiten wird dort nicht gesprochen; professionelle Aktivitäten sind ein Thema, das seinerzeit überwiegend mit Bezug auf Männer zur Sprache kam, und so ist auch in den Aufzeichnungen von Marie Bruns-Bode natürlich das Wirken von Viktor Bruns als Direktor des Instituts vorrangig.

Diese wenigen über das Leben von Cornelia Bruns bekannten Daten machen jedoch zumindest ihre Fähigkeit zu Übersetzungen aus dem Englischen nachvollziehbar: Die Tatsache, dass sie sich nach 1907 „einige Zeit“ in England aufhielt, erklärt ihre gründlichen Kenntnisse der englischen Sprache und damit ihre grundsätzliche Fähigkeit, das Werk des Amerikaners Edmunds zu übersetzen. Aber woher konnte sie Italienisch? Dass sie „Fremdsprachen lesen konnte“, findet sich an manchen Stellen in den von Rainer Noltenius edierten Aufzeichnungen von Marie Bruns-Bode erwähnt. Aber um welche Sprachen es sich handelte, erfährt man dort nicht. Das Erlernen von Fremdsprachen gehörte damals zwar durchaus zur „Ausbildung“ von Töchtern gehobener Kreise, aber dass das ausreichte, ein anspruchsvolles Lehrbuch aus dem Italienischen ins Deutsche zu übersetzen, ist zumindest nicht naheliegend. Ganz offensichtlich war Cornelia Bruns dazu in der Lage, vermutlich, weil sie sich aus eigener Initiative intensiv in die Sprache eingearbeitet hatte und zudem im Arbeitsumfeld des Bruns’schen Instituts auch beachtliche völkerrechtliche Kenntnisse erlangt hatte.

Anzilotti und Edmunds. Cornelia Bruns als Übersetzerin

Von großer Bedeutung für die deutschsprachige Völkerrechtswissenschaft war insbesondere ihre im Jahre 1929 erschienene Übersetzung der dritten Auflage von Band 1: Einführung – Allgemeine Lehren des Völkerrechtslehrbuchs von Dionisio Anzilotti. Die Bedeutung, die dieser deutschen Übersetzung des klassischen Lehrbuchs zukam, findet allerdings kaum Erwähnung, und noch weniger die Übersetzerin, die auch im von Anzilotti selbst verfassten Vorwort zur deutschen Übersetzung nicht namentlich genannt wird. Nachdem Anzilotti kurz auf die neuen, in die dritte Auflage eingefügten Entwicklungen im Völkerrecht verweist, widmet er der deutschen Übersetzung einen kurzen Absatz, der hier zitiert werden soll:

„Nachdem ich dies [die allgemeine Vorbemerkung und Neuerungen der 3. Auflage] vorausgeschickt habe, bleibt mir noch die angenehme Pflicht, Herrn Prof. Dr. Viktor Bruns, Direktor des Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht in Berlin, an dieser Stelle öffentlich meinen lebhaftesten Dank auszusprechen. Die große Mühe, die er sich gemacht hat, und die Art, wie er die nicht geringen Schwierigkeiten, die es zu überwinden galt, um die Übersetzung dieses Werks durchführen zu lassen, überwunden hat, verschaffen mir heute eine der größten Befriedigungen meiner wissenschaftlichen Laufbahn: der deutschen Öffentlichkeit ein Werk übergeben zu können, das der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft soviel verdankt.“ [5]

Wem Viktor Bruns die „Durchführung der Übersetzung überlassen“ hat, ergibt sich aus einer Anmerkung auf der Titelseite: „Vom Verfasser durchgesehene und autorisierte Übertragung nach der 3., erweiterten und revidierten italienischen Auflage von Cornelia Bruns u. Dr. Karl Schmid“.

Dr. Karl Schmid, besser bekannt als Carlo Schmid, war 1896 in Frankreich geboren und nahm 1919, nach seinem Dienst als Soldat im 1. Weltkrieg, sein Studium der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaften an der Universität Tübingen auf. Dort legte er 1921 das Erste Staatsexamen ab; das Zweite Staatsexamen folgte 1924. Zunächst arbeitete er als Rechtsanwalt, trat dann aber schon 1925 als Amtsrichter und später Landgerichtsrat in Tübingen in den Justizdienst ein. Von 1927 bis 1928 war er für eine Tätigkeit als Referent am Berliner KWI beurlaubt. 1929 habilitierte er sich in Tübingen mit einer Arbeit über „Die Rechtsprechung des Ständigen Internationalen Gerichtshofs“. Seine spätere Karriere als Politiker ist allgemein bekannt und bedarf an dieser Stelle keiner näheren Darstellung. Von Interesse ist hier aber seine Beteiligung an der Übersetzung des Lehrbuchs von Anzilotti, die deshalb von großer Bedeutung ist, weil er das juristische Fachwissen mitbrachte, das die sprachlichen Fähigkeiten von Cornelia Bruns ergänzte und in einem Prozess produktiven Zusammenwirkens beider an der Übersetzung beteiligter Institutsangehöriger ein Ergebnis von bemerkenswerter Qualität ermöglichte.

Dabei sollte jedoch erwähnt werden, dass Cornelia Bruns als Bibliothekarin am KWI (und zudem wohl durch Gespräche im Familienkreis) natürlich auch über einige Kenntnisse des Völkerrechts verfügte, was bei Bibliothekaren und Bibliothekarinnen auch heutzutage ein eindrucksvolles „Nebenprodukt“ ihrer Tätigkeit ist. Dennoch bleibt ihre Leistung als Übersetzerin herausragend, zumal die Übertragung von Texten aus dem Italienischen ins Deutsche, das wesentlich konziser und, wenn man so sagen darf, weniger ausschweifend ist, immer eine Herausforderung ist, vor allem weil der Stil des Autors so weit wie möglich authentisch wiedergegeben werden soll. Wenn man in das über 400 Seiten umfassende Buch hineinsieht, so zeigt sich, dass man heute wahrscheinlich einiges anders formulieren würde,  aber immer wird der juristische Gehalt absolut zutreffend und verständlich zum Ausdruck gebracht, die kennzeichnenden Unterschiede juristischer Termini und Institute und die damals noch wesentlich eingeschränkteren Bereiche des Völkerrechts, seiner Grundlagen und Entwicklungen sind klar dargestellt. Es stellte in den 1920er Jahren eine bedeutende bibliographische Bereicherung dar, ein solches Werk aus der Feder eines italienischen Völkerrechtlers verfügbar und zugänglich zu haben – neben den deutschen Standardwerken wie z.B. F. von Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechts (4 Bände, 1885-1889) , F. Stier-Somlo, Handbuch des Völkerrechts (1912), sowie  H.B. Oppenheim, System des Völkerrechts (1866), J.C. Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der zivilisierten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (1878),  A. Quaritsch, Compendium des europäischen Völkerrechts (1913), K. Strupp, Grundzüge des positiven Völkerrechts (1928). Dies insbesondere auch deshalb, weil viele Rechtswissenschaftler fraglos in der Lage waren, englische und auch französische Werke zu lesen, Italienisch hingegen nicht zu den verbreiteten Fremdsprachen gehörte. An die rein praktischen Probleme der Übersetzung eines so umfangreichen Werks, ohne die heutzutage als selbstverständlich geltenden technischen Hilfsmittel, sei hier nur erinnert. Es darf als sicher gelten, dass Cornelia Bruns keinen Mitarbeiterstab hatte, der sie bei dieser riesigen Aufgabe unterstützte.

Cornelia Bruns‘ zweite, zeitlich vor der Übersetzung von Anzilottis Lehrbuch erschienene Übersetzung ist das Werk von Sterling E. Edmunds mit dem amerikanischen Originaltitel The Lawless Law of Nations. An Exposition of the Prevailing Arbitrary International Legal System in Relation to Its Influence Upon Civil Liberty, Disclosing It as the Last Bulwark of Absolutism against the Political Emancipation of Man (1925 in Washington erschienen). Schon der Titel lässt vermuten, dass das Werk keinklassisches Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts ist. Die deutsche Übersetzung des Titels „Das Völkerrecht – ein Pseudorecht“ verdeutlicht, dass es sich um eine sehr kritische, ja insgesamt deutlich ablehnende, Abhandlung zur damaligen Lage der zwischenstaatlichen Ordnung handelt, in der insbesondere „das Völkerrecht, so wie es gemeinhin gelehrt und praktisch angewendet wird, in seinem Einfluß und seinen Wirkungen auf die menschliche Freiheit“ (Vorbemerkung des Verfassers, S. IV der deutschen Übersetzung) dargestellt werden sollte.[6]

Professor Sterling E. Edmunds, nach Stationen als Journalist und Mitarbeiter des State Department bei Erscheinen seines Buches Völkerrechtslehrer („Lecturer on the law of nations“) an der St. Louis University School of Law, machte schon in der Vorbemerkung aus seiner Ablehnung gegenüber dem damaligen Stand des Völkerrechts keinen Hehl: „In dem vorliegenden Buch glaube ich den vollkommenen Widerspruch zwischen dem herrschenden System des Völkerrechts und dem freien Fortschritt des Menschen als eines sittlichen und sozialen Wesens dargetan zu haben. Dabei mußte ich allerdings feststellen, daß das Völkerrecht überhaupt kein Zweig der Rechtswissenschaft ist; ich war infolgedessen genötigt, mich insoweit von meinen Berufsgenossen zu trennen. Ich hoffe aber und vertraue darauf, daß einige von ihnen […] mit mir einen sicheren Weg suchen werden, der weniger durch politische Raubtiere gefährdet ist, für die der Mensch bisher nichts anderes war als ein willkommener Leckerbissen“.[7]

Ob diese Bemerkungen bereits als Ausgangspunkt der menschenrechtlich fokussierten Entwicklung des Völkerrechts anzusehen sind, soll hier nicht näher vertieft werden. Bemerkenswert ist allerdings, dass die Kritik des Verfassers sich im Wesentlichen auf die kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen richtet und dass, so schlussfolgert er, „die Herrschaft eines wahren Völkerrechts“ erst beginnen könne, wenn es auf der Basis „der Anwendung jener Grundsätze der Gerechtigkeit und des Anstands auf die Gemeinschaftsbeziehungen beruht, die vernünftige Menschen in ihren persönlichen Beziehungen anzuwenden gelernt haben  – an Stelle eines Systems des Scheines, der Vorrechte, der Gewalt, das den künstlichen Ungeheuern angepaßt ist, die sich souveräne Staaten nennen“ (S. 442 der Werkes in den Schlussbemerkungen).[8]

Edmunds‘ idealistische Vorstellung einer progressiven Entwicklung der Staatengemeinschaft ist fast anrührend, bestärkt jedoch eher den Gedanken, dass das Völkerrecht gerade dazu aufgerufen ist, die Beziehungen der Staaten­ der „künstlichen Ungeheuer“‑ in einer Welt, die nun einmal nicht ideal ist, zu regeln. Die Übersetzung des unmittelbar nach Erscheinen intensiv rezipierten, unter anderem im American Journal of International Law von Jackson L. Ralston kritisch besprochenen Buches war nicht vom KWI „veranlasst“ worden, sondern ging auf einen Wunsch des Verfassers selbst zurück, der „durch Vermittlung des Herrn Professor Hermann Heller (jetzt an der Universität Frankfurt/Main)“ erfüllt wurde. Das ergibt sich aus der „Vorbemerkung der Übersetzerin“, die dem Buch vorangestellt ist und die zudem den Dank der Übersetzerin an die Personen zum Ausdruck bringt, die sie bei der Fertigstellung der Arbeit mit ihrem Fachwissen besonders unterstützt haben. Offiziell ist Cornelia Bruns auf der Titelseite des Werks erwähnt mit den auch in der Anzilotti-Übersetzung verwendeten Worten: Autorisierte Übersetzung des amerikanischen Werks The Lawless Law of Nations (1925) von Cornelia Bruns.

Fast ein Jahrhundert nach ihrer Fertigstellung werden diese kenntnisreichen und durch hohe sprachliche Sensibilität ausgezeichneten Arbeiten der Übersetzerin Cornelia Bruns hier erstmals gewürdigt und erinnern daran, dass die Wissenschaft, nicht nur die Rechtswissenschaft, zu ihrer Entwicklung auch heute noch nicht allein die innovativen wissenschaftlichen Fachleute und Denker braucht, sondern auch die eher „stillen Unterstützer“ im Hintergrund.  Die Anerkennung für ihren Einsatz schließt dieses kurze Gedenken an Cornelia Bruns ein.

[1] VI. Abt., Rep. 1, Nr. KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/29, AMPG.

[2] VI. Abt., Rep. 1, Nr. KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/27, AMPG.

[3] Fotografin: Lore Feininger, Berlin: VI. Abt., Rep. 1, Nr. KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/22, AMPG.

[4] Rainer Noltenius (Hrsg.), Mit einem Mann möcht ich nicht tauschen. Ein Zeitgemälde in Tagebüchern und Briefen der Marie Bruns-Bode (1885-1952), Berlin: Reimer 2018.

[5] Dionisio Anzilotti, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts. Band 1: Einführung – Allgemeine Lehren, Autor. Übers. Cornelia Bruns / Dr. Karl Schmid, Berlin: De Gruyter 1929, IV.

[6] Sterling, E. Edmunds, Das Völkerrecht – ein Pseudorecht, Autor. Übers. Cornelia Bruns, Berlin: De Gruyter 1933, „Vorbemerkung des Verfassers“, IV.

[7] Sterling (Fn. 6), „Vorbemerkungen des Verfassers“, IV.

[8] Sterling (Fn. 6), „Schluss“, 442.

 

Suggested Citation:

Karin Oellers-Frahm, Cornelia Bruns. Eine wohlverdiente, wenn auch späte, Würdigung, DOI: 10.17176/20240327-140753-0
image_pdfDownload PDF/Print
 Lizenz: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED

 

English

Cornelia Bruns, photo taken around 1935[1]

When celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, the focus is of course on the development of international law and comparative law. What is rarely questioned is the purely practical problems that scholars faced at that time in capturing the state of the developments. This is because international law, as the term clearly indicates, refers to inter-state legal relations and legal rules, which presupposes an exchange between scholars from the individual states in order to know the state of the law and the consensual approaches to its further development – one need only consider the emergence of customary law.

This sounds logical and self-evident, but it presented a hurdle that should not be underestimated: the language barrier. While today English can be considered the “language of international law” or of academia per se, 100 years ago this was completely different. Access to foreign-language literature was therefore problematic and there were hardly any translations into German, especially as German was considered a particularly difficult language. In addition, translations of specialist texts, such as academic papers on questions of international law or comparative legal analyses, not only require a comprehensive command of a foreign language, but also in-depth knowledge of the subject area being translated. This is because terms that at first glance do not pose any translation problems can actually have different meanings in legal terms.

Thus, for example, the term “acte administratif” in French law, which suggests the translation “Verwaltungsakt” (administrative act), may serve as an example. However, this translation would lead to major misunderstandings, as the “Verwaltungsakt” in German law is an act that concerns a specific individual or a specific group of addressees, i.e. an “Einzelverfügung” (individual decree), whereas the “acte administratif” in French refers to an “Allgemeinverfügung” (general decree). This makes it clear that specialist translations require not only language skills, but also specialist knowledge. However, linguistically gifted experts had (and have) little interest in translating the work of other scientists rather than producing their own publications; people with a thorough knowledge of foreign languages, however, usually lack the necessary specialist knowledge.

“Tante Cörnchen”: Cornelia Bruns between family and institute

Against this backdrop, around 100 years ago, a person emerged who deserves the highest respect for her work, but who probably did not receive the appropriate recognition at the time: Cornelia Bruns, with her magnificent translation of two fundamental works of international law. The first is the translation of the influential and classic textbook on international law Corso di diritto internazionale: Introduzione-Teorie generali by Dionisio Anzilotti (1923), and the second is the translation of Sterling E. Edmunds’s controversial monograph critical of international law, The Lawless Law of Nations (1925).

Cornelia Bruns (around 1935)[2]

First and foremost, this raises the following question: who was Cornelia Bruns? Born on February 10, 1888, she was a member of the highly renowned “Bruns family” of legal scholars, namely she was the granddaughter of Karl-Georg Eduard Bruns, the famous legal scholar and temporary rector of Berlin University.  His brother, Victor Bruns, was the grandfather of Viktor Bruns, the founder of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. Cornelia Bruns, who suffered from an increasing loss of hearing from an early age, which eventually led to complete deafness, passed her teacher’s examination in 1907 before residing in England for some time. From 1925 to 1949 she lived in Berlin, where she worked under the directorship of Viktor Bruns as a librarian at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, a position which she then continued after the war under Carl Bilfinger at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. She died in Heidelberg on May 7, 1965.

The 50th birthday of Marie and Viktor Bruns (17 February, 1935). Cornelia Bruns (third from left) and KWI employees perform a play at the Bruns’ home.[3]

These are the few details that are known about Cornelia Bruns’ life. Beyond that, we only know that she was very closely involved in the Bruns family and was held in extremely high esteem by everyone; she is mentioned in several places in the diaries of Marie Bruns-Bode, the wife of Viktor Bruns, under her nickname “Tante Cörnchen” (“Mit einem Mann möcht ich nicht tauschen” (“I wouldn’t swap places with a man”), particularly in connection with celebrations in the family and at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.[4] There is no mention of her professional activities; professional activities are a topic that was predominantly discussed in relation to men at the time, and so Marie Bruns-Bode’s notes naturally focus on Viktor Bruns’ work as Director of the Institute.

However, the few biographical details known about Cornelia Bruns’ life at least make her ability to translate from English comprehensible, and the fact that she spent “some time” in England after 1907 explains her thorough knowledge of English and thus her general ability to translate the work of the American Edmunds. But how did she know Italian? The fact that she “could read foreign languages” is mentioned in some places in Marie Bruns-Bode’s notes, edited by Rainer Noltenius. Yet we are not told which languages these were. Learning foreign languages was certainly part of the “education” of daughters of the upper classes at the time. But whether this was enough to translate a sophisticated textbook from Italian into German remains unclear. Cornelia Bruns was obviously in a position to do so, presumably because she had familiarized herself intensively with the language on her own initiative and was also able to develop considerable knowledge of international law in the working environment of the Bruns Institute.

Anzilotti and Edmunds. Cornelia Bruns as translator

Her translation of the third edition of Volume 1: Introduction – General Doctrines of Dionisio Anzilotti’s textbook on international law, published in 1929, was of particular importance for German-speaking scholars of international law.  However, the importance of this German translation of the classic textbook is hardly mentioned, and even less so the translator, who is not even mentioned by name in the preface to the German translation written by Anzilotti himself. After Anzilotti briefly refers to the new developments in international law included in the third edition, he devotes a short paragraph to the German translation, which is quoted here:

“Having said this [the general preliminary remarks and new features of the 3rd edition], it falls to me to take this opportunity to publicly express my most sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Viktor Bruns, Director of the Institute for Foreign Public Law and International Law in Berlin. The great effort he made and the way in which he overcame the not inconsiderable difficulties that had to be overcome in order to have this work translated today give me one of the greatest satisfactions of my academic career: to be able to hand over to the German public a work that is so greatly indebted to German jurisprudence.”[5]

Who Viktor Bruns “left the translation to” is clear from a note on the title page: “Transmission reviewed and authorized by the author after the 3rd, expanded and revised Italian edition by Cornelia Bruns u. Dr. Karl Schmid”.

 

Dr. Karl Schmid, better known as Carlo Schmid, was born in France in 1896 and began studying law and political science at the University of Tübingen in 1919 after serving as a soldier in the First World War. He passed his first state examination there in 1921; the second state examination followed in 1924. He initially worked as a lawyer, but then joined the judiciary in 1925 as a municipal judge and later state court judge in Tübingen. From 1927 to 1928, he was on leave of absence to work as a lecturer at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Foreign Public Law and International Law in Berlin. In 1929, he habilitated in Tübingen with a thesis on “The Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice”. His later career as a politician is commonly known and does not need to be described in detail here. Of interest here, however, is his involvement in the translation of Anzilotti’s textbook, which is of great importance because he brought with him the legal expertise that complemented Cornelia Bruns’ linguistic skills and, in a process of productive cooperation between the two members of the Institute involved in the translation, produced a result of remarkable quality.

It should be mentioned, however, that Cornelia Bruns, who worked as a librarian at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (and probably also through conversations within her family), naturally also had some knowledge of international law, which is an impressive “by-product” of the work as a librarian even today. Nevertheless, her achievement as a translator remains outstanding, especially given that the translation of texts from Italian into German, which is far more concise and, if one may say so, less verbose, is always a challenge, above all due to the fact that the author’s style must be reproduced as authentically as possible. If you look through the book of over 400 pages, you will see that some things would probably be formulated differently today, but the legal content is always expressed in an absolutely accurate and understandable way, and the characteristic differences in legal terms and institutions and the areas of international law, its foundations and developments, which were still much more limited at the time, are clearly portrayed. In the 1920s, it was a significant bibliographical enrichment to have such a work from the hand of an Italian scholar of international law available and accessible in a German translation – alongside the standard German works such as F. von Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechts (4 vols., 1885-1889), F. Stier-Somlo, Handbuch des Völkerrechts (1912), H.B. Oppenheim, System des Völkerrechts (1866), J.C. Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der zivilisierten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (1878), A. Quaritsch, Compendium des europäischen Völkerrechts (1913), and K. Strupp, Grundzüge des positiven Völkerrechts (1928). This was especially the case as many legal scholars were able to read English and French works whereas Italian was not a common foreign language. The purely practical problems of translating such an extensive work without the technical aids that are taken for granted today are recalled here. It is safe to say that Cornelia Bruns had noor nearly no staff to support her in this enormous task.

Cornelia Bruns’ second translation, published before the translation of Anzilotti’s textbook, is the work by Sterling E. Edmunds with the original American title The Lawless Law of Nations. An Exposition of the Prevailing Arbitrary International Legal System in Relation to Its Influence Upon Civil Liberty, Disclosing It as the Last Bulwark of Absolutism against the Political Emancipation of Man (published in Washington in 1925). The title alone suggests that this is not a classic textbook on international law. The German translation of the title – “Das Völkerrecht – ein Pseudorecht” – illustrates that it is a very critical, indeed overall distinctly negative work on the state of international order at the time, in which in particular  “…a work on International Law or The Law of Nations, as it is taught and practiced, in relation to its influence and effect upon human liberty”.[6]

Professor Sterling E. Edmunds, after working as a journalist and as a clerk in the State Department, was a lecturer on the law of nations at the St. Louis University School of Law when his book was published: “In this volume I feel that I have demonstrated the complete oppugnancy between the prevailing system of the Law of Nations and the free progress of man as a moral and social being. In doing so I have been compelled to deny that The Law of Nations is, in fact, a branch of jurisprudence, and thus to part company with my professional brethren in this field. However, I entertain the hope and belief that some of them … will … seek with me a safer route, less infested by political carnivora for whom up to now man has been but a feast.”[7]

Whether these remarks can already be seen as the starting point for the development of international law with its focus on human rights will not be discussed in detail here. However, it is noteworthy that the author’s criticism is essentially directed at armed conflicts and concludes that “the reign of a true Law of Nations” can only begin when it is “founded upon the application to collective relations of those fundamentals of justice and decency which reasonable men have learned to apply in their individual relations – not the fictitious and privileged system of violence adapted to those artificial monstrosities called Sovereign States”.[8]

Edmunds’ idealistic notion of a progressive development of the community of states is almost touching, but tends to reinforce the idea that international law is called upon to regulate the relations of states, the artificial beasts, in a world that is, after all, not ideal. The translation of the book, which was intensively received immediately after its publication and critically reviewed by Jackson L. Ralston in the American Journal of International Law, among others, was not “initiated” by the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, but was the result of a request by the author himself, which was fulfilled “through the mediation of Professor Hermann Heller (now at the University of Frankfurt/Main)”. This is stated in the “Translator’s Preliminary Remarks” at the beginning of the book, which also expresses the translator’s gratitude to the people who have given her special support in completing the work with their specialist knowledge. Cornelia Bruns is officially mentioned on the title page of the work with the words also used in the Anzilotti translation: Authorized translation of the American work The Lawless Law of Nations (1925) by Cornelia Bruns.

Almost a century after their completion, these works by the translator Cornelia Bruns, which are both informative and distinguished by a high degree of linguistic sensitivity, are honored here for the first time and remind us that science, not only jurisprudence, continues today to require not only innovative scientific experts and thinkers for its development, but also the more “silent supporters” in the background.  This short memorial to Cornelia Bruns for her efforts is a tribute to them.

Translation from the German original: Sarah Gebel

[1] VI. Abt., Rep. 1, Nr. KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/29, AMPG.

[2] VI. Abt., Rep. 1, Nr. KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/27, AMPG.

[3] Photographer: Lore Feininger, Berlin, VI. Abt., Rep. 1, No. KWIauslöffRechtuVölkerrecht III/22, AMPG.

[4] Rainer Noltenius (ed.), Mit einem Mann möcht ich nicht tauschen. Ein Zeitgemälde in Tagebüchern und Briefen der Marie Bruns-Bode (1885-1952), Berlin: Reimer 2018.

[5] Dionisio Anzilotti, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts. Band 1: Einführung – Allgemeine Lehren, Autor. Übers. Cornelia Bruns / Dr. Karl Schmid, Berlin: De Gruyter 1929, IV.

[6] Sterling, E. Edmunds, The Lawless Law of Nations. An Exposition of the Prevailing Arbitrary International Legal System in Relation to Its Influence Upon Civil Liberty, Disclosing It as the Last Bulwark of Absolutism against the Political Emancipation of Man, Washington D.C.: J. Byrne 1925, „Prefatory Note“, V.

[7] Sterling (fn. 6), „Prefatory Note“, IV.

[8] Sterling (fn. 6), “Conclusion”, 427.

Suggested Citation:

Karin Oellers-Frahm, Cornelia Bruns. A Well-Deserved, Albeit Belated, Tribute, DOI: 10.17176/20240327-140838-0
image_pdfDownload PDF/Print
 Lizenz: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED

 

Law and Power in Geneva

The KWI in the Debate over the New International Order

11. November 2023
Sandra Ricker
Kommentieren

Hans Wehberg felt he was staring into the ‘abyss’ of another world war.[1] Writing from Geneva in March 1933, as the National Socialists extended their power over the German state and its society, the pacifist legal scholar surveyed the broader ascendance of radical political forces directed against the established order and with it part of his life’s work—the League of Nations.

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria (September 1931-February 1932) had recently exposed the paralysing effects divergent political interests could have on the procedures for collective security. Despite the lack of agreement on concrete measures, for the first time in history, Wehberg noted, the international community of states speaking through the League had condemned the unlawful actions of a Great Power.[2] And still, the sense of failure was undeniable, a sense so ingrained in our own historical perception of the League’s ultimate significance.

Wehberg joined an international rank of prominent politicians, diplomats, and scholars in debating this question and its implications amid a crescendo of crises. Had the League failed? Could it be saved through reform? Its legal order strengthened against a ‘revival’ of the old ‘methods’, which were ‘not the methods of the League’, in the formulation of Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Edvard Beneš?[3] Members of renowned associations and institutions of international law, including the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Foreign Public Law and International Law (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht) in Berlin, weighed in.

Viktor Bruns, the Institute’s founding director, and by now one of the greatest German authorities of international law, thought that the moment had come to definitively expose the League’s imperial foundations, how they had arrested the creation of a peaceful legal order. In this, Wehberg certainly agreed with him. The conclusions they drew, however, cleaved apart. They had taken different stances within the new departures of international law in the Weimar Republic, whose broader implications now fully emerged. Wehberg, with his politically progressive pacifist inclinations, sought to salvage the principle of ‘peace through law’ partially embodied in the League by advocating for the belated institutional recognition of the postulate of justice. Bruns, inclined to a practice-oriented legal perspective, was not convinced that the ‘methods of the League’ could still serve to dislodge its unjust foundations in the German interest.

The stakes of the debate on the failures of the League are familiar. Its longer history, reaching back across a decade to the contestation of the post-war foundations of a ‘new international order’, sweeping along Wehberg and Bruns, perhaps less so. In 1919, the charge of continuing the ‘old methods’ discredited by the war, albeit in an insidious new form, had been levelled against the former Allied and Associated Powers from Weimar.

‘Ordering the World’

In December 1918, Wehberg became a founding member of the German Union for a League of Nations (Deutsche Liga für Völkerbund). The association comprised a group of mostly liberal and left-leaning political, legal, and economic elites determined to find an international response to imperial collapse in Central Europe that might support the transition to a stable democratic order in the region. The revolutionary Council of People’s Deputies, then the Weimar Coalition government, continued wartime efforts to constructively adapt Allied peace proposals based on American President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, treating this as the binding foundation for a ‘just peace’ on the German side.

The Union for a League of Nations collaborated closely with the Foreign Office in these efforts. Reaffirming international law and encouraging international cooperation—and thereby also the creation of a League of Nations—was strategically prudent and politically expedient for the new government. Boldly, it proceeded with the expectation of German participation in ‘ordering the world’ on equal terms with other Great Powers.[4]  Versailles, however, denied these ambitions. Germany was excluded from the League of Nations (although it joined the International Labour Organisation), the guardian of the new international order whose Covenant prefaced the peace treaty. This direct linkage ensured that the League remained central to all German efforts at revision, including those of the radical right predicated on its destruction.

The ‘League of Versailles’

Walther Schücking and Victor Bruns (undated), Archiv MPG

Walther Schücking and Victor Bruns (undated, MPG Archive)

Studies of the League dissecting these compromised origins proliferated in the Weimar Republic. Those with conservative views, among them Bernhard Wilhelm von Bülow, who led the Special Section for League of Nations Affairs at the Foreign Office, dismissed the ‘League of Versailles’ as an extension of the wartime alliance politics of the Allies that served to secure their political interests, territorial gains, and economic primacy.[5] It was the predominance of the Great Powers, institutionalised in the Council, where decisions were made in line with political rather than legal considerations that defined the League, he maintained. This had resulted in an ‘international oligarchy’ that ‘threatened’ the further ‘development of international law’, upon which Germany depended with its constrained military and economic capacities.[6] Even Wehberg and his long-term collaborator, the pacifist lawyer Walther Schücking, observed the League’s ‘Janus face’, one side bearing the ‘features of the imperial age that engendered the world war’, the other those of a liberal solidaristic future.[7]

For some time, the Union for a League of Nations retained a core of members who held onto their hope for this future, for the gradual creation of an interrelated constitutional and international legal order guided by democratic principles and anchored in the League. Even members who did not share this progressive internationalist sensibility, however, saw in its institutions a ‘legal recourse’ (‘Rechtsweg’) to adjust the peace treaty.[8] In the early years after the war, burdened by the struggle over war reparations, most Foreign Office officials, however, disagreed, insisting that revision was the precondition for any orientation towards the League.

They also invoked the law as the only recourse that remained, but it was to be deployed more narrowly in the German interest both in the ongoing technical elaboration of the peace treaty and its diplomatic refutation. This gradual reconfiguration of foreign policy relied on the rigorous legal expertise that was produced by an innovative array of emergent research institutes and associations of international law sustained to varying degrees by the state, public research organisations, private foundations and personal networks.[9]

Viktor Bruns, a professor of public and international law at the University of Berlin, began contemplating an institute of his own dedicated to legal research that could fulfil these novel requirements of the state. To raise the international stature of German legal practice and opinion, he envisioned a systematising, comparative approach to the law oriented towards practice and attuned to transnational debates. With support from the Foreign Office and the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, the foremost German research organisation, his Institute for Foreign Public Law and International Law was inaugurated in 1924, in the expectant climate of the negotiations over the Locarno Treaties. The Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr Valley in 1923 had changed perceptions of the peace treaty, revealing its value as an ‘international guarantee’ of German sovereignty, as National Liberal Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann had insisted, rather than merely its resented limitation.[10] The policy of rapprochement he pursued after the provisional resolution of the conflict led to German membership in the League with a permanent seat on the Council in 1926.

Legitimating the League

Under Bruns, the Institute advanced a programmatic conception of the international order as a legal order with its basis in the community of states.[11] While international law demarcated the domain of their self-directed freedom and action, rendering absolute notions of sovereignty defunct, its writ ended here, he held.[12] He insisted on the ‘boundaries’ between ‘state and international law’ against Wehberg and Schücking with their pacifist view but also Hans Kelsen and the Vienna School with their monistic view, who from different angles considered these boundaries ‘blurred’, particularly in the new ‘confederative’ forms of international organisation centred on the League.[13]

The Institute nonetheless contributed strongly to their incipient legitimation, not least with the legal practice of its members in the world of adjudicatory bodies.[14] This legitimation was complicated by deeper reservations concerning the foundations of the international order, constantly roiling the politics of the Weimar Republic. The League upheld some of its most disputed pillars—economic and military sanctions, the protection of national minorities, the oversight of mandates—and raised such sensitive questions about state sovereignty and its relation with international law. Their resonance was strong in the Weimar Republic, a precarious state beset by anxieties surrounding the perceived erosion of its sovereign power and the degradation of its status to an ‘object’ of international politics.[15] After the National Socialists took over, one of the first foreign policy decisions of the new regime was the declaration of Germany’s withdrawal from the League in October 1933.

The Crisis of the League and the ‘Requirements of the Law’

In November 1936, the debate over a reform of the League reached the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. Bruns made his intervention in a talk held before the general assembly.[16] The National Socialist leadership had taken another step to dismantle the treaty frameworks of Versailles and Locarno in early March by violating the demilitarisation provisions for the Rhineland. Bruns argued that the ultimate cause of the League’s failure to prevent and counter the rising surge of such revisionist infractions lay deep in its past.

Since its twinned codification with the Treaty of Versailles, the League, Bruns elaborated, had been implicated in the treaty architecture of an inequitable post-war order that contradicted its own ‘organisational principles’. While it had been furnished with institutional arrangements for diplomacy, arbitration, and sanctions in the service of peace, the necessary means for a more ambitious ‘development and adjustment of the law’ itself in response to deeper structural sources of conflict between states and in accordance with the ‘most noble duty’ of member states ‘to create justice’ had been neglected.[17]

There were rudimentary avenues of redress, he conceded, such as Article 19 of the Covenant, which granted an advisory capacity to the Assembly in reviewing treaty arrangements and ‘international conditions’ that might become a threat to peace. The possibilities rooted here had, however, largely been left buried in the text. The collective security system of the League was, he concluded, ‘not a procedure concerned with law as such, with its realisation and protection’.[18]

Wehberg’s assessment of the international situation of 1936—the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the fall of Ethiopia to Fascist Italy, the outbreak of civil war in Spain—was similar in its indictment of the League. Confronted with the possibility of its collapse, he pointed to the missed opportunity of transforming it into a more ‘dynamic’ organisation, an organisation that could adapt constructively to ‘the necessities of the moment’.[19] It remained ‘of the utmost importance that’ member states, foremost the ‘saturated states’, ‘developed a greater understanding for the requirements of the law’, he maintained, especially concerning ‘unjust conditions’. This could allow the League to move beyond ‘the defence of the status quo’ and through negotiated redress prevent further armed conflict.[20]

Bruns, however, was not convinced this shift was structurally possible. He argued that the recent disregard in Geneva for what he termed the relevant ‘material legal situation[s]’ that might compel a state to breach ordinary procedures for dispute resolution—situations in which it found itself in a ‘legitimate struggle for its existence’ or ‘against the denial or infringement of its most important rights’—was the inevitable consequence of a more systematic disregard following from the ‘power politics’ of the former Allies that had been reinvented in 1919 ‘in the guise of law’.[21] With this, he accommodated a more aggressive course of revision, suggesting that certain infractions could be justified as the restorative vindication of fundamental state interests and rights unacknowledged in the legal order.

As the League spiralled into irrelevance amid the violent ideological confrontation of the 1930s, many international lawyers in Germany came to understand this development—some also to embrace it—in similar terms, as anticipated in its beginnings, when the Allied victors, so they had argued for years, had sought to subject the law to their imperial ends.

[1] Hans Wehberg, Zusammenbruch des Völkerbundes?, Die Friedens-Warte 33 (1933), 65-68, 65.

[2] Wehberg (Fn. 1), 66.

[3] Edvard Beneš, The League of Nations: Successes and Failures, Foreign Affairs 11(1932), 66-80, 73.

[4] Ernst Jäckh, Die Ordnung der Welt. Die Aufgabe des Friedens, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Liga für Völkerbund 1 (1920).

[5] Bernhard Wilhelm von Bülow, Der Versailler Völkerbund. Eine vorläufige Bilanz, Berlin: W. Kohlhammer 1923, 14-16, 43.

[6] von Bülow (Fn. 5), 58; 66.

[7] Walther Schücking/Hans Wehberg, Die Satzung des Völkerbundes, vol. 1, Berlin, F. Vahlen 1931, 163.

[8] Untitled position paper of the Union for a League of Nations (29 December 1919), BArch, N/2097/68, 2.

[9] A German Society for International Law (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht) had been founded in 1917. In 1920, the Institute for Foreign Policy (Institut für Auswärtige Politik) under the direction of the lawyer Albrecht Mendelssohn-Bartholdy made Hamburg a centre of international law alongside Kiel, whose university had already opened an Institute for International Law (Institut für Internationales Recht) in 1914, overseen by Theodor Niemeyer. Across German universities, international law burgeoned as a disciplinary subfield.

[10] Reichstag 286. Sitzung. Sonnabend den 13. Januar 1923, 9423, Reichstagsprotokolle 1920/24,14, Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstags, Reichstag (Weimarer Republik/Nationalsozialismus) 1918-1942.

[11] Viktor Bruns, Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, ZaöRV 1 (1929), 1-56.

[12] Bruns (Fn.11), 42-44; 49.

[13] Wehberg/Schücking (Fn. 7), 90.

[14] Privately, many members of the Institute remained sceptical about the League. As Carlo Schmid, head of the section for international law, noted in his memoirs, by the late 1920s he regarded it with a measure of grim disillusionment not as a site for the ‘progressive advancement’ of all states ‘under law’ but as a fractious assembly where the power political motives behind many initiatives were only ever thinly disguised. See: Carlo Schmid, Erinnerungen, Bern: Scherz 1979, 129.

[15] Carl Schmitt was a prominent exponent of this view, although it was shared to varying degrees and  with varying historical-theoretical and ideological accentuations across the political spectrum. See his collection of essays Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar—Genf—Versailles, 1923-1939, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1988.

[16] The talk was published the following year in the institute’s journal: Viktor Bruns, Bund oder Bündnis? Zur Reform des Völkerbundes, ZaöRV 7 (1937), 295-312. There were several further contributions in the issue taking on the entangled question of a reform of the League and a comprehensive revision of the peace settlement from a historical perspective and with a comparable tenor.

[17] Bruns (fn. 16), 310.

[18] Bruns (fn. 16), 312.

[19] Hans Wehberg, Die Reform des Völkerbundes, Die Friedens-Warte, 36(1936), 205.

[20] Wehberg (fn. 19).

[21] Bruns (fn.16), 299; 308; 312.

Suggested Citation:

Sandra Ricker: Law and Power in Geneva. The KWI in the Debate over the New International Order, DOI: 10.17176/20240219-184505-0
image_pdfDownload PDF/Print
 Lizenz: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED