The long life of Alejandro Álvarez, the most renowned Latin American international legal scholar of the twentieth century, was dedicated to the persistent promotion of projects of a continental (American), regional (Latin American), and universal international law. This article undertakes an overview of his oeuvre through a reading of Álvarez's work as coming from a criollo (or Creole) and social legal consciousness presented through the three consistent tropes of renewal, reform, and rupture. Although much of Álvarez's work has been forgotten, during his lifetime he generated profound admiration and even a school of thought, but also rejection and ridicule on both sides of the Atlantic. Álvarez may be considered a scholar from the ‘periphery’ because of his country of origin and regionalist claims, but his life and works show that he was also at the forefront of the leading issues and institutions of international law in the first half of the twentieth century.

Judge Alejandro Álvarez had already developed a theory of a ‘new international law’ when he joined the first bench of the International Court of Justice in 1946. During his time at the Court, he elucidated his theory by means of Individual or Dissenting Opinions, always stressing the importance of the Court for judicial lawmaking. The aim of this article is to present Álvarez's concept of a ‘new international law’ and to analyse some of his individual and dissenting opinions with respect to his theory, with additional emphasis on the lawmaking function of the Court as an integral part of his approach.