“春秋国际法”这一概念自清末出现至今，在学界引发了广泛的争议，概括各家学者对其的态度，可分为“赞成说”、“否定说”和“折衷说”三种基本类型。对此概念的不同意见，反映出学界对春秋各国间的交往关系与相关法律秩序的认识尚未摆脱“以今量古”的思维定势。在这种思路影响下，目前仍在使用的“春秋国际法”概念，存在无法回避的瑕疵。基于此种事实，对春秋时代列国交往中形成的相关法律规范体系进行概念重定，“春秋诸国关系法”应该是一个兼顾学术传统与历史合理性的新概念。

As an academic concept, “International Law in Spring and Autumn Period” was raised in jurisprudential circle since late Qing Dynasty, from then to now, this concept have caused widespread controversy and debate. For an epitomized result, different opinions on this issue can be divided into three sorts: positive theory, negative theory, and the eclecticism. Those different opinions reveals that the modern scholars still hold a methodology which using modern pattern to analysis legal system in ancient times. Affected by this inappropriate methodology, induced many inevitable flaws of “International Law of Spring and Autumn Period”. To avoid those flaws, using methodology of legal history to redefine the historical relationship and order of leuds in Spring and Autumn Period, a new concept of “Inter-vassal states Law” seems more acceptable.