Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T22:06:04.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Counter-imperial orientalism: Friedrich Berber and the politics of international law in Germany and India, 1920s–1960s*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Katharina Rietzler*
Affiliation:
School of History, Art History and Philosophy, Room A7, Arts A, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QN, UK E-mail: K.E.Rietzler@sussex.ac.uk

Abstract

The most trenchant critiques of Western international law are framed around the legacy of its historic complicity in the imperial project of governing non-European peoples. International law organized Europe and its ‘others’ into a hierarchy of civilizational difference that was only ever reconfigured but never overturned. But when analysing the complex relationship between international law and imperialism the differences within Europe – as opposed to a dyadic opposition of Europe versus the ‘rest’ – also matter. Within the historical and political constellations of the early and mid twentieth century, German difference produced a set of arguments that challenged dominant discourses of international law by posturing as anti-imperialist critique. This article focuses on the global career of Friedrich Berber (1898–1984), who, as a legal adviser in Nazi Germany and Nehru’s India, was at the forefront of state-led challenges to liberal international law. Berber fused notions of German civilizational superiority with an appropriation of Indian colonial victimhood, and pursued a shared politics of opposition. He embodied a version of German–Indian entanglement which did not abate after the Second World War, emphasizing the long continuities of empire, power differentials, civilizational hierarchies, and developmental logics under the umbrella of international law.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thanks for crucial comments on a first draft are due to the participants of the third Oslo Contemporary International History Network Workshop in Bergen, especially Volker Barth, Susan Pedersen, Helge Pharo, and Amalia Ribi Forclaz. I have also benefited from the generous advice and encouragement of Rohit De, Gabriela Frei, Daniel Haines, Harshan Kumarasingham, Vincent Lagendijk, Daniel Laqua, Peter Mandler, Sarah Nouwen, Sunil Purushotham, Or Rosenboim, Juan Pablo Scarfi, John A. Thompson, and the editors and anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Global History. Discussions at the Sussex History Department’s Work in Progress seminar and the Interwar International Theory workshop in Cambridge in 2015 helped me refine the argument and I would like to thank the participants, as well as Gerhard Wolf, Duncan Bell, and Jens Steffek for the invitations. Finally, I am indebted to Ingrid Strauß and Elisabeth Zellermayr for sharing their recollections of Berber and agreeing to transfer his personal papers to the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität archives. Financial assistance from the Oslo Contemporary International History Network and the Mellon Fund at the University of Cambridge made research for this article possible.

References

1 Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koskenniemi, Martti, The gentle civilizer of nations: the rise and fall of international law, 1870–1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000Google Scholar; Benton, Lauren, A search for sovereignty: law and geography in European empires, 1400–1900, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010Google Scholar.

2 Pahuja, Sundhya, Decolonising international law: development, economic growth and the politics of universality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Pahuja’s perceptive review of Anghie, Imperialism, in Modern Law Review, 69, 3, 2006, pp. 486–8.

3 Koskenniemi, Gentle civilizer, p. 87; Anghie, Imperialism, p. 189. For the war’s destabilizing impact, see Gerwarth, Robert and Manela, Erez, eds., Empires at war, 1911–1923, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Horne, John N. and Kramer, Alan, German atrocities, 1914: a history of denial, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001, pp. 216223Google Scholar; Poiger, Uta, ‘Imperialism and empire in twentieth-century Germany’, History and Memory, 17, 1, 2005, p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Marchand, Suzanne, German orientalism in the age of empire: religion, race, and scholarship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009Google Scholar; Manjapra, Kris, Age of entanglement: German and Indian intellectuals across empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Mehring, Reinhard, Carl Schmitt: Aufstieg und Fall, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2009Google Scholar; Herbert, Ulrich, Best. Biographische Studien über Radikalismus, Weltanschauung und Vernunft, 1903–1989, Bonn: Dietz, 1996Google Scholar. On Berber, see Paußmeyer, Carl H., ‘Die Grundlagen nationalsozialistischer Völkerrechtstheorie als ideologischer Rahmen für die Geschichte des Instituts für Auswärtige Politik, 1933–1945’, in Klaus Jürgen Gantzel, ed., Kolonialrechtswissenschaft, Kriegsursachenforschung, Internationale Angelegenheiten: Materialien und Interpretationen zur Geschichte des Instituts für Internationale Angelegenheiten der Universität Hamburg, 1923–1983 im Widerstreit der Interessen, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1983, pp. 115158Google Scholar; Hermann Weber, ‘Von Albrecht Mendelssohn-Bartholdy zu Ernst Forsthoff: die Hamburger Rechtsfakultät im Zeitpunkt des Machtübergangs 1933 bis 1935’, in Gantzel, Kolonialrechtswissenschaft, pp. 159–81; Weber, Hermann, ‘Rechtswissenschaft im Dienst der NS-Propaganda: das Institut für Auswärtige Politik und die deutsche Völkerrechtsdoktrin in den Jahren 1933 bis 1945’, in Klaus Jürgen Gantzel, ed., Wissenschaftliche Verantwortung und Politische Macht, Hamburger Beiträge zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 2, Berlin: Reimer, 1986, pp. 185425Google Scholar. On Vergangenheitsbewältigung (‘coming to terms with the past’), see Gassert, Philipp and Steinweis, Alan E., eds., Coping with the Nazi past: West German debates on Nazism and generational conflict, 1955/1975, New York; Oxford: Berghahn, 2006Google Scholar.

7 International law’s continued imperial ordering necessitates a critical use of the term.

8 Viswanatha, S.V., International law in ancient India, Bombay: Longmans, 1925, pp. 34Google Scholar.

9 Bandyopadhyay, Pramathanath, International law and custom in ancient India, Calcutta: Calcutta University Press, 1920Google Scholar; Patel, Bimal, ‘India’, in Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, eds., The Oxford handbook of the history of international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 500521Google Scholar.

10 Hull, Isabel V., A scrap of paper: breaking and making international law during the Great War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014Google Scholar.

11 Klotz, Marcia, ‘The Weimar Republic: a postcolonial state in a still-colonial world’, in Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, and Lora Wildenthal, eds., Germany’s colonial pasts, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2005, pp. 135147Google Scholar; Roos, Julia, ‘Women’s rights, nationalist anxiety, and the “moral” agenda in the early Weimar Republic: revisiting the “black horror” campaign against France’s African occupation troops’, Central European History, 42, 3, 2009, pp. 473508CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Laak, Dirk, Imperiale Infrastruktur. Deutsche Planungen für eine Erschließung Afrikas 1880 bis 1960, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004, p. 210Google Scholar.

12 Berber, Fritz, ‘Von der Gerechtigkeit’, in Zwischen den Bünden. Drei Vorträge aus dem Jugendring München, Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1924, pp. 30, 35Google Scholar.

13 Manjapra, Age of entanglement, pp. 88–106, 162–3, 203–4.

14 Archives of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich (henceforth LMU), NL-064, Friedrich Berber Papers (henceforth Berber Papers), Berber’s birth certificate. Voigt, Karl Heinz, ‘Die Methodistenkirche in Deutschland’, in Karl Steckel and Carl Ernst Sommer, eds., Geschichte der Evangelisch-Methodistischen Kirche. Weg, Wesen und Auftrag des Methodismus unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschsprachigen Länder Europas, 3rd edn, Göttingen: Edition Ruprecht, 2007, pp. 85112Google Scholar.

15 Berber, ‘Von der Gerechtigkeit’, p. 27.

16 Berber left a rather self-serving autobiography. Where possible, I have consulted other evidence. Berber, Friedrich, Zwischen Macht und Gewissen. Lebenserinnerungen, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1986, pp. 2538Google Scholar. On Protestant internationalism, see Clark, Christopher and Ledger-Lomas, Michael, ‘The Protestant International’, in Abigail Green and Vincent Viaene, eds., Religious internationals in the modern world: globalization and faith communities since 1750, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Toynbee, Arnold, Acquaintances, London: Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 277Google Scholar.

18 Library of the Religious Society of Friends, London, Horace Alexander Papers (henceforth LSF-HA), Temp. MSS 577/20, Horace Alexander to Girja Shankar Bajpai, Ministry of External Affairs, 28 December 1950 (copy).

19 Legg, Stephen, ‘An international anomaly? Sovereignty, the League of Nations and India’s princely geographies’, Journal of Historical Geography, 43, 2014, pp. 96110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McIntyre, William David, The Britannic vision: historians and the making of the British Commonwealth of Nations, 1907–48, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009Google Scholar; Gorman, Daniel, The emergence of international society in the 1920s, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Berber, Friedrich, Die Rechtsbeziehungen der britischen Dominions zum Mutterlande, Ansbach: Brügel, 1929, p. 15Google Scholar.

21 Anand, R. P., ‘The formation of international organizations and India: a historical study’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23, 1, 2010, p. 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Legg, ‘International anomaly’.

22 Lloyd, Lorna, ‘Loosening the apron strings’, Round Table, 92, 369, 2003, pp. 279303CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berber, Rechtsbeziehungen, p. 69.

23 Berber, Fritz, ‘Die Dezentralisation des Britischen Reiches als Problem demokratischer Selbstverwaltung’, in Carl Schmitt et al., Probleme der Demokratie, Berlin: Rothschild, 1928, pp. 8897Google Scholar.

24 On British legal innovations that tried to deal with this problem, see Benton, Search for Sovereignty; Mantena, Karuna, Alibis of empire: Henry Maine and the ends of liberal imperialism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Berber, ‘Dezentralisation’, p. 97.

26 Legg, Stephen, ed., Spatiality, sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: geographies of the nomos, London: Routledge, 2011Google Scholar; Lorca, Arnulf Becker, ‘Universal international law: nineteenth-century histories of imposition and appropriation’, Harvard International Law Journal, 51, 2, 2010, pp. 475552Google Scholar; Obregón, Liliana, ‘Completing civilization: Creole consciousness and international law in nineteenth-century Latin America’, in Anne Orford, ed., International law and its others, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 247264CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. p. 248; Lorca, Arnulf Becker, ‘Eurocentrism in the history of international law’, in Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, eds., The Oxford handbook of the history of international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 10341057Google Scholar.

27 LMU, Berber Papers, letter granting demission, 23 July 1930.

28 Korenblat, Steven D., ‘A school for the republic? Cosmopolitans and their enemies at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik, 1920–1933’, Central European History, 39, 3, 2006, pp. 394430CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Berber, Lebenserinnerungen, p. 53; Günther, Frieder, Denken vom Staat her. Die bundesdeutsche Staatsrechtslehre zwischen Dezision und Integration, 1949–1970, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2004, pp. 3447CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stolleis, Michael, A history of public law in Germany, 1914–1945, transl. Thomas Dunlap, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 164168CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Mehring, Schmitt, pp. 313–15.

31 Yale University, Stirling Memorial Library, Arnold Wolfers Papers, box 2, folder 21, Erich Kaufmann to Arnold Wolfers, 7 June 1938.

32 Carnall, Geoffrey, Gandhi’s interpreter: a life of Horace Alexander, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoting Alexander.

33 Müller, Ingo, Hitler’s justice: the courts of the Third Reich, transl. Deborah Lucas Schneider, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991Google Scholar.

34 LMU, Sen-I-30, Otto Koellreutter to Vice Chancellor, 11 December 1936 (copy). On Koellreutter, see Stolleis, History of public law, pp. 327–31.

35 Vagts, Detlev, ‘International law in the Third Reich’, American Journal of International Law, 84, 3, 1990, pp. 661704CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stolleis, History of public law, pp. 410–15.

36 LMU, Berber Papers, certificate of denazification, 31 January 1949; Ernst Klee, Das Personenlexikon zum Dritten Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945, 2nd edn, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2003, p. 39.

37 LSF-HA, Temp. MSS 577/98, Berber to Alexander, 10 May 1934; Carnall, Gandhi’s Interpreter, p. 113.

38 Weber, ‘Rechtswissenschaft’, pp. 250–3, 255, 260–5, 381.

39 Herbert, Best, pp. 279–86.

40 LMU, Sen-I-30, Vice Dean Edmund Mezger to Vice Chancellor, 8 December 1936 (copy), encl. report of Fritz Reu, 5 December 1936; see also Botsch, Gideon, ‘Politische Wissenschaft’ im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Die ‘deutschen Auslandswissenschaften’ im Einsatz, 1940–1945, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2006, p. 263Google Scholar.

41 LSF-HA, Temp. MSS 577/98, Berber to Alexander, 4 May 1934.

42 Berber, Friedrich, Sicherheit und Gerechtigkeit. Eine allgemeinverständliche Einführung in die Hauptprobleme der Völkerrechtspolitik, Berlin: Carl Heymanns, 1934, pp. 4Google Scholar, 26.

43 Ibid., p. 30.

44 Ibid., p. 29.

45 Ibid., p. 164.

46 Manjapra, Age of entanglement, p. 202.

47 Guha, Ramachandra, India after Gandhi: the history of the world’s largest democracy, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2007, p. 152Google Scholar. Note, though, Subhas Chandra Bose’s failed attempt to gain Nazi support for Indian independence.

48 Schmitt, Carl, cited in Urs Matthias Zachmann, ‘Race and international law in Japan’s New Order in East Asia, 1938–1945’, in Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel, eds., Race and racism in modern East Asia: Western and Eastern constructions, Leiden: Brill, 2013, p. 454Google Scholar; Berber, Sicherheit und Gerechtigkeit, p. 158.

49 Berber, Sicherheit und Gerechtigkeit, pp. 41, 143, 160. Anglo-American think tanks shared Berber’s distrust of popular influence on foreign policy: see e.g. Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow (henceforth RF), RG 1.1, series 200, box 356, folder 4223, J. B. Condliffe, ‘International collaboration in the study of international relations’, paper given at the 1930 International Studies Conference.

50 Frei, Christoph, Hans J. Morgenthau: an intellectual biography, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2001Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, Gentle civilizer, ch. 6.

51 Reviews in Deutsches Recht, 10 March 1935, p. 133, and Kritische Umschau, quoted in LMU, L-X-3a, Bd. 4, curriculum vitae for Berber, 7 June 1953.

52 Bristler, Eduard [John Herz], Die Völkerrechtslehre des Nationalsozialismus, Zurich: Europa-Verlag, 1938, pp. 5758Google Scholar.

53 Kunz, Josef L., American Journal of International Law, 29, 1935, p. 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Carr, E.H., The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939: an introduction to the study of international relations, reissue of 2nd [1946] edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, pp. 165167Google Scholar. On Carr and appeasement, see Ashworth, Lucian, International relations and the Labour Party: intellectuals and policy making from 1918–1945, London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007, pp. 2122Google Scholar.

55 On realism’s affinity for Nazi thinkers, see Mirowski, Philip, ‘Realism and neoliberalism: from reactionary modernism to postwar conservatism’, in Nicolas Guilhot, ed., The invention of international relations theory: the Rockefeller Foundation and the 1954 conference on theory, New York: Columbia University Press, 2011, pp. 210238Google Scholar.

56 Berber, F., ed., Locarno. Eine Dokumentensammlung, Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1936Google Scholar; Berber, F., ed., Das Diktat von Versailles. Entstehung, Inhalt, Zerfall. Eine Darstellung in Dokumenten, Essen: Essener Verlagsanstalt, 1939Google Scholar. German diplomats commented on the political usefulness of these publications: see Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Berlin (henceforth PAAA), R 43162, Erich Albrecht to Berber, 20 February 1939.

57 Berber, F., Die völkerrechtspolitische Lage Deutschlands, Schriften der Deutschen Hochschule für Politik, 1/21, ed. Paul Meier-Benneckenstein, Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1936, pp. 524Google Scholar.

58 Berber, F., ‘Das Völkerrecht in der Außenpolitik’, Hamburger Monatshefte für Auswärtige Politik, 3, 1, 1936, p. 6Google Scholar.

59 PAAA, R 64152, ISC participant list, March 1928; PAAA, R 65746, memorandum from Artur Oster, 12 December 1933; Riemens, Michael, ‘International academic cooperation on international relations in the interwar period: the International Studies Conference’, Review of International Studies, 37, 2, 2011, pp. 911928CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Chalmers-Wright, F., The International Studies Conference: origins, functions, organisation, Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, 1937, p. 44Google Scholar.

61 Princeton University, Council on Foreign Relations Archives, box 573, folder 5, James T. Shotwell to Walter Mallory, 1 June 1936.

62 Rietzler, Katharina, ‘Of highways, turntables, and mirror mazes: metaphors of Americanisation in the history of American philanthropy’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 24, 1, 2013, pp. 125126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Columbia Univeristy, New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Centre Européen Archives, box 182, folder 1, Berber to Malcolm Davis, 12 May 1936; memorandum 22 May 1936. See also Crozier, Andrew, ‘Chatham House and appeasement’, in Andrea Bosco and Cornelia Navari, eds., Chatham House and British foreign policy, 1919–1945: the Royal Institute of International Affairs during the inter-war period, London: Lothian Foundation Press, 1994, pp. 205259Google Scholar; Toynbee, Acquaintances, pp. 276–85.

64 RF, RG 1.1 series 100, box 5, folder 46, memorandum of conversations in Geneva, 29–30 August and 6 and 10 September 1935; Tracy B. Kittredge to Sydnor Walker, 12 October 1935; Walker to Kittredge, 30 October 1935.

65 RF, RG 1.1 Series 100, box 5, folder 46, Kittredge to Walker and John Van Sickle, 18 December 1937; RF, RG 1.1 Series 100, box 6, folder 50, Kittredge to Walker, 23 September 1937.

66 RF, RG 1.1 Series 100, Box 6, Folder 52, Kittredge to Walker, 30 June 1938.

67 Carnall, Gandhi’s interpreter, pp. 112-117, 128-135.

68 League of Nations Archives, Geneva, R4011, report on the ‘General study conference on collective security’, June 1935. For Berber’s role in the broader context of colonial appeasement, see Pedersen, Susan, The guardians: the League of Nations and the crisis of empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 325347CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 International Studies Conference, Peaceful change, Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, 1938, 467.

70 Berber, Die völkerrechtspolitische Lage Deutschlands, p. 8.

71 Michalka, Wolfgang, Ribbentrop und die deutsche Weltpolitik, 1933–1940, Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1980, pp. 138149Google Scholar; Crozier, ‘Chatham House’, p. 245.

72 RF, RG 1.1, 717 S, box 19, folder 178, Berber to Kittredge, 19 August 1940.

73 Europäische Politik 1933–1938 im Spiegel der Prager Akten, 3rd edn, Essen: Essener Verlagsanstalt, 1942, contained captured documents from the Czechoslovak foreign office with headings such as ‘the powerful Jewish element in England’ (p. 21). Die amerikanische Neutralität im Kriege, 1939–1941, Essen: Essener Verlagsanstalt, 1943, was designed to show how Roosevelt subverted US neutrality and introduced a discriminatory concept of war (diskriminierender Kriegsbegriff – a Schmittian term; p. 46).

74 PAAA, R 43162, Berber to Albrecht, 29 July 1942; Deutsches Institut für Aussenpolitische Forschung, annual report 1942/43.

75 Weber, ‘Rechtswissenschaft’, pp. 391–3.

76 Frevert, Ute, ‘Europeanizing Germany’s twentieth century’, History & Memory, 17, 1/2, 2005, pp. 100102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Berber, F., ‘Epochen europäischer Gesamtordnung’, Donaueuropa, 2, 1942, pp. 735Google Scholar, 738.

78 Ibid., p. 738. See also Berber, F., ‘Die Neuordnung Europas und die Aufgabe der außenpolitischen Wissenschaft’, Auswärtige Politik, 9, 3, 1942, pp. 189195Google Scholar.

79 LMU, E-II-855, Seeliger, Rolf, ‘Widerruf’, May 1965Google Scholar. See also Mazower, Mark, Hitler’s empire: Nazi rule in occupied Europe, London: Allen Lane, 2008Google Scholar.

80 Schmitt blocked a professorial appointment for Berber in 1934/35: see Weber, ‘Rechtswissenschaft’, pp. 253–4; Stolleis, History of public law, p. 285.

81 Berber, ‘Neuordnung Europas’, p. 194.

82 PAAA, R 27177, Franz Müller to Berber, 22 April 1942; Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office) to Werner Picot, 7 October 1942.

83 Stauffer, Paul, ‘Ein Naziagent am Sitz des IKRK?’, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 16 September 1996, p. 15Google Scholar; Berber, Lebenserinnerungen, p. 124; Crossland, James, ‘A man of peaceable intent: Burckhardt, the British and Red Cross neutrality during the Second World War’, Historical Research, 84, 223, 2011, pp. 169174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Berber, Lebenserinnerungen, pp. 126–43; his claims of having saved 400,000 Hungarian Jews from deportation are grossly inflated, though he did act as a go-between for the ICRC. Favez, Jean-Claude, The Red Cross and the Holocaust, transl. John and Beryl Fletcher, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 234247Google Scholar, 262–4.

85 Weber, ‘Rechtswissenschaft’, pp. 381, 396–408; Berber, Lebenserinnerungen, pp. 159–67; LMU, Sen-I-39, Alfred Hueck to Bavarian Ministry for Culture and Education, 13 July 1953 (copy); LMU, Berber Papers, French military government, letter of protection, 19 October 1945; certificate of registration, 23 June 1947; certificate of denazification, 31 January 1949. Berber’s expulsion was only formally rescinded in 1959: LMU, Berber Papers, Swiss federal prosecutor’s office to Berber, 30 October 1959. For career trajectories of Nazi jurists after 1945, see Schumann, Eva, ed., Kontinuität und Zäsuren. Rechtswissenschaft und Justiz im ‘Dritten Reich’ und in der Nachkriegszeit, Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2008Google Scholar.

86 Mazower, Mark, Governing the world: the history of an idea, London: Allen Lane, 2012, pp. 209Google Scholar, 250–3; Rajagopal, Balakrishnan, International law from below: development, social movements, and Third World resistance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 7172CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 LSF-HA, Temp. MSS 577/20, transcript of interview with Berber, 21 and 22 May 1948.

88 Mazower, , Governing the world, pp. 254255Google Scholar. On the UN, see Prashad, Vijay, The darker nations: a people’s history of the Third World, New York: New Press, 2007Google Scholar.

89 Sellars, Kirsten, ‘Crimes against peace’ and international law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 234259CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boister, Neil and Cryer, Robert, The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: a reappraisal, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Chimni, B. S., ‘International law scholarship in post-colonial India: coping with dualism’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23, 1, 2010, pp. 2351CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quotes at p. 23; Anand, ‘Formation of international organizations’, pp. 17–21; Anghie, Imperialism, pp. 200–2. On the Union, Soviet, Hirsch, see Francine, ‘The Soviets at Nuremberg: international law, propaganda, and the making of the postwar order’, American Historical Review, 113, 3, 2008, pp. 701730Google Scholar.

91 Guha, India after Gandhi, pp. 72–3.

92 Alam, Undala Z., ‘Questioning the water wars rationale: a case study of the Indus Waters Treaty’, Geographical Journal, 168, 4, 2002, pp. 341353CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Lowi, Miriam R., Water and power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 6167Google Scholar; Heimsath, Charles H. and Mansingh, Surjit, A diplomatic history of modern India, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1971, pp. 130138Google Scholar.

93 Alam, Undala Z., ‘Water rationality: mediating the Indus Water Treaty’, PhD thesis, Durham University, 1998, pp. 160161Google Scholar, 322.

94 UN General Assembly, Sixth Committee, 166th meeting, 17 October 1949, A/C.6/SR.166, para. 82.

95 National Archives of India, New Delhi (henceforth NAI), Ministry of External Affairs, Branch: External Publication, 6/1/7 – XP(P)/49, ‘Directive on canal water dispute between India and Pakistan – secret’.

96 Byrd, Robert, Quaker ways in foreign policy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960, p. 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 NAI, Ministry of States, Branch: Kashmir, File 7(58)-K, 1950, passim.

98 Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, Horace Alexander Papers, Agatha Harrison Correspondence, file 5, Alexander to Agatha Harrison, 11 April 1953.

99 LSF-HA, Temp. MSS 577/20, Alexander to Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, 28 December 1950 (copy); Lowi, Water and power, 64.

100 LSF-HA, Temp. MSS 577/20, Berber to Alexander, 13 January 1951.

101 Chacko, Priya, Indian foreign policy: the politics of postcolonial identity from 1947 to 2004, London: Routledge, 2012Google Scholar, chs. 1–3; Bhagavan, Manu, ‘A new hope: India, the United Nations and the making of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Modern Asian Studies 44, 2, 2010, pp. 311347CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 McGarr, Paul, The Cold War in South Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gupta, Amit Das, Handel, Hilfe, Hallstein-Doktrin. Die bundesdeutsche Südasienpolitik unter Adenauer und Erhard 1949 bis 1966, Husum: Matthiesen, 2004Google Scholar. The fractious relations between India and Pakistan paralleled those between West and East Germany, but this was not a connection that Berber made.

103 LMU, Sen-I-39, Ernst Wilhelm Meyer to Hans Reinfelder, 20 February 1953. On West German development expertise in India, see most recently Unger, Corinna, Entwicklungspfade in Indien. Eine internationale Geschichte, 1947–1980, Göttingen: Wallstein, 2015Google Scholar.

104 Lilienthal, David, ‘Another Korea in the making?’, Collier’s, 4 August 1951, pp. 2223Google Scholar, 56–8; Haines, Daniel, ‘(Inter)nationalist rivers? Cooperative development in David Lilienthal’s plan for the Indus Basin, 1951’, Water History, 6, 2, 2014, pp. 133151CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Bodleian Library, Oxford, Arnold Toynbee Papers (uncatalogued), box 13, 3 November 1953; Alam, ‘Water rationality’, pp. 197–8, 213–14.

106 Berber, F. J., ‘The Indus water dispute’, Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 6, 1957, p. 48Google Scholar.

107 Pahuja, Decolonising international law, pp. 71–2, 84–5.

108 Berber, F. J., ‘Indien und das Völkerrecht’, in H. O. Günther, Indien und Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1956, pp. 229Google Scholar, 233, 232. Berber criticized Nussbaum’s, Arthur (a Jewish refugee from Nazism) Concise history of the law of nations, New York: Macmillan, 1947Google Scholar.

109 Bourne, Charles S., ‘The International Law Association’s contribution to international water resources law’, National Resources Journal, 36, 2, 1996, pp. 155216Google Scholar.

110 Berber, Friedrich, Die Rechtsquellen des internationalen Wassernutzungsrechts, Munich: Oldenbourg, 1955Google Scholar; translated into English as Rivers in international law, London: Stevens & Sons, 1959, quote from p. 273.

111 ‘Münchner Lehrstuhl für Ribbentrops Völkerrechtler’, Abendzeitung, 291, 8 December 1955, p. 5. Berber’s integration into West German academia deserves its own treatment, but see LMU, Sen-I-39, L-X-3a, Bd. 4.

112 NAI, Ministry of External Affairs, UNES CG/17/61: Canal waters, ‘Methodological considerations concerning the study on the uses of the waters of international rivers’, 15 September 1957. My thanks to Daniel Haines for sharing this source.

113 ‘Friedrich Berber zum 75. Geburtstag’, Münchner Merkur, 28 November 1973; ‘Friedrich Berber zum 80. Geburtstag’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27 November 1978.

114 Berber, Friedrich, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, vol. 1, Munich: Beck, 1960, p. 243Google Scholar.

115 Berber, F. J., ‘International aspects of the Holy Roman Empire after the Treaty of Westphalia’, Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 13, 2, 1964, pp. 174183Google Scholar.