International Law and Justice Working Papers - IILJ

Bulmerincq’s critique of policies of France did not, however, prevent him from recognizing the
position of the French language as the language of international law. Bulmerincq believed that
the French language suited best for international law, better than English or German. 129 This was
so for the reasons immanent to the French language itself. English would never make it to this
status. 130 But Bulmerincq also made it clear that preferring a certain language did not imply
preferring the nation of its native speakers. 131
Secondly, equally clear-cut as Bulmerincq’s disdain of policies of Napoleon’s France was his
rejection of the Catholic universalism. In fact, his angry reaction to claims of Catholic
universalism invoked images of age-old conspiracy theories regarding power pursuits of the
Church. There were ultramontanist “disturbers of peace” whose political propaganda was
“unpatriotic and radical”. 132 Essentially, the Church with its universalistic claims was leading a
battle against the State. To fight the ultramontanists was thus not only a political necessity, it was
an “international legal obligation”. 133 “The head of the religious-political International has its
seat in Rome, its constitutive members (Bundesgenossen) are (…) knights of legitimacy (…) the
religious-political International have far-reaching goals, it wants to create a Christian-Catholic
world state. It is an international legal obligation to intervene against all those enemies of the
State and of the States.” 134
The antagonism of the Catholic Church and the nation State was a historic phenomenon.
According to Bulmerincq, the Germans and other Germanic peoples played a crucial role in
securing the victory to the nation State: “The power position desired by the Catholic Church was
129 P. 119-120.
130 P. 121.
131 P. 122.
132 P. 18-19.
133 P. 20.
134 P. 21.