INTERNATIONAL LAW INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM: MIDDLE BRONZE AGE Jesper Eidem 1. S I L Material for the early second millennium is particularly rich. Abundant evidence for international relations is provided by archives of diplo- matic correspondence and some international treaties, excavated par- ticularly in northern Syria and Iraq (at Mari, Rimah, and Leilan).1 Earlier evidence of a similar kind is much sparser but seems likely to parallel later patterns.2 2. T I S 2.1 The international horizon for early second millennium Mesopo- tamia included Palestine,3 Syria, Iraq, central and eastern Anatolia, western Iran, and areas bordering the Arabo-Persian Gulf.4 Official contacts with areas outside this horizon, most prominently Egypt, are not attested. 2.2 The political landscape within this region was characterized by complex interrelations between different levels of organization, which may be summarized as traditional, geographical, and contempora- neous variables. The political inheritance from earlier periods was a strong regionalism with individual city states as basic entities but with episodes of territorial and imperial formations, providing ready inspiration for ambitious kings. In the mountainous periphery, urban 1 For Mari, see the series Archives Royales de Mari (ARM); for Rimah, see Dalley et al., Tell al Rimah . .; for Leilan, see the publications of Eidem below. 2 Biga, “Rapporti diplomatici...” 3 See Bonechi, “Relations...” 4 Eidem and Højlund, “Assyria and Dilmun...” 746 centers were fewer and smaller than in the lowland, and political formations devolved primarily on ethno-linguistic divisions and their aristocratic elites.5 On a contemporaneous level, a peculiar situation obtained in lowland Mesopotamia and Syria, where an as yet poorly understood process of conquest had introduced Amorite dynasties in most city states. The newcomers belonged to different ethnic groups, often referred to as “tribes” in the modern literature, and these divi- sions clearly had some influence on international alliances and conflicts.6 Similarly, the Amorites may have introduced particular standards and procedures in international relations, like the much-discussed rit- uals attending conclusion of treaties (see 3.2 below). It must be stressed, however, that the impact of these contemporaneous influences vis-à-vis traditional standards is difficult to define, due to the uneven nature of our documentation. 2.3 Outline of International Relations Although the power of Mesopotamian kings was balanced in vary- ing degrees by local elites, assemblies, and public opinion, the kings were usually the main agents in international relations, and for pur- poses of this brief survey we must treat them as supreme agents of their states. Relations between rulers were described with kinship terms. Thus, the most important kings were “fathers” in relation to their vassal “sons” and addressed each other as “brothers.” The sources provide interesting examples of how political changes were paralleled on this level and could give rise to fierce disputes.7 In the early eighteenth century, the most powerful states were those cen- tered on Halab (Aleppo), Qatna (Tell Meshrife), Mari, Babylon, Eshnunna (Tell Asmar), and Ekallatum (near Assur). The kings of these states would have a large following of vassal kings, bound to them by treaty. The major powers could form alliances, and vassals could contract alliances with other kingdoms and their own vassals, provided that the agreement did not run counter to stipulations in their treaty of vassalage. Treaties were concluded both as general alliances and for distinct ad hoc purposes. General alliances were often affirmed by establishment of affinal kinship ties in the shape of royal marriages, the more powerful king normally assuming the 5 Eidem and Læssøe, Shemshàra I. 6 See Charpin and Durand, “Fils de Sim"al...” 7 Lafont, “L’admonestation...”.