Rereading Grotius in the Year 1940

1940 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Durward V. Sandifer

“We await a jurist with the mastery of the legal materials, the philosophical vision, and the juristic faith which enabled Grotius to set up a law of nations almost at one stroke,” declared Dean Pound in concluding his address before the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law on “The Idea of Law in International Relations.” That is a statement which challenges the attention and arouses the curiosity of a present-day international lawyer. Although accustomed as such a lawyer is to the notion of Grotius as the founder and father of the law of nations, it is a little startling to be told that the answer to the current dilemma of international law is contingent upon the advent of a jurist with his accomplishments. What is there in his De Jure Belli ac Pads to warrant such confidence? What would he have to offer as a guide to a lawyer seeking to extend and to reenforce the domain of law in international relations?

Author(s):  
S. Prakash Sinha

The midwives of international law, Gentili, Grotius, Vitoria, Suarez, Pufendorf, and Wolff, found the principles of this law in the law of nature. This, in turn, was derived by some of them from the law of God and by others from the law of reason. But, as the law of nations grew and its content developed, its derivation was established, particularly with Vattel in the middle of the eighteenth century, from the will of states rather than from the law of nature. Today’s international lawyer simply inherits the principle of identification whereby international-law rules of general application are created by international custom. (This custom is produced by that kind of practice of states relating to a matter of international relations which is concordant and general and is accompanied by the conviction of states that it is obligatory under international law.) The application of this principle of identification, however, is not so simple because of the appearance of three new situations.


Author(s):  
David Boucher

The classic foundational status that Hobbes has been afforded by contemporary international relations theorists is largely the work of Hans Morgenthau, Martin Wight, and Hedley Bull. They were not unaware that they were to some extent creating a convenient fiction, an emblematic realist, a shorthand for all of the features encapsulated in the term. The detachment of international law from the law of nature by nineteenth-century positivists opened Hobbes up, even among international jurists, to be portrayed as almost exclusively a mechanistic theorist of absolute state sovereignty. If we are to endow him with a foundational place at all it is not because he was an uncompromising realist equating might with right, on the analogy of the state of nature, but instead to his complete identification of natural law with the law of nations. It was simply a matter of subject that distinguished them, the individual and the state.


Author(s):  
C. H. Alexandrowicz

This chapter considers problems in the study of the history of the law of nations in Asia. It argues that international lawyers have focused their attention on the legal aspects of contemporary problems of international relations and politics, and on the operation of tribunals and quasi-tribunals and the case law they produce. Writers of present day treatises of international law devote just a few introductory pages to the history of the subject and these short chapters are often based on similar introductions in nineteenth-century treatises. The chapter discusses some of the elements of legal change in which European–Asian relations played a significant role; the gradual elimination of the natural law outlook by growing European positivism; the principle of universality of the law of nations and the principle of identity of de facto and de jure State sovereignty; and the use of capitulations to delay the ‘entry’ of Asian States into the family of nations.


1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pitman B. Potter

Members of the American Society of International Law are by inference charged by the Constitution of their Society with doing all that is possible to promote the study and development of international law and the conduct of international affairs on the basis of law and justice. For this purpose it is not sufficient to study and advocate the development of the law itself or for its own sake. Much attention must be given, certainly much more than has been given in the past, to the second section of the mandate, partly because of its own importance and partly to provide the kind of international situation where the law can thrive and be effective— which in turn is calculated to promote peace and justice. Friends of international law cannot afford to evade even the most difficult and delicate issues in the field of international relations on the ground that they are purely political in character.


1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles G. Fenwick

There is no more significant commentary on the growth of international law, both in precision and in comprehensiveness, than an estimate of the relative authority of the name of Vattel in the world of international relations a century ago and in that of today. A century ago not even the name of Grotius himself was more potent in its influence upon questions relating to international law than that of Vattel. Vattel's treatise on the law of nations was quoted by judicial tribunals, in speeches before legislative assemblies, and in the decrees and correspondence of executive officials. It was the manual of the student, the reference work of the statesman, and the text from which the political philosopher drew inspiration. Publicists considered it sufficient to cite the authority of Vattel to justify and give conclusiveness and force to statements as to the proper conduct of a state in its international relations.At the present day the name and treatise of Vattel have both passed into the remoter field of the history of international law. It is safe to say that in no modern controversy over the existence and force of an alleged rule of international law would publicists seek to strengthen the position taken by them by quoting the authority of Vattel. As an exposition of the law of nations at a given period of its growth, the work can, it is true, lose nothing of its value, but in saying that it has thus won its place irrevocably among the classics of international law, we are merely repeating that it has lost its value as a treatise on the law of the present day.


1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-669
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

It was inevitable that the end of the World War should be followed by a revival of interest in the systematic development of the law of nations. Such a result was foreseen by W. E. Hall as long ago as 1890, but the extent of the revival and its consequences were pictured by him in terms altogether too sanguine. Many of the people who have expected the experience of the war to be capitalized in an immediate clarification of the laws of war must have been greatly disappointed by the events of the past years. A struggle which aroused so many passions, which divided a large part of the human race into hostile camps, could not possibly have produced the conditions necessary for building a new law which would embody the common views of people in many countries; but perhaps it did serve to direct attention to the lawless character of international relations in certain fields, and thus gave to politicians and lawyers opportunity for extending and improving the law governing such relations. If there has not been a general unanimity of opinion as to the method to be followed and the direction to be taken, the opportunity has not been neglected, and currents are now under way and agencies have been created which promise a continued if not a consistent progress for the future.


1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 788-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Quigley

Soviet positions on international law and organizations are changing sharply under the influence of the policy of perestroika (restructuring) introduced by General Secretary M. S. Gorbachev. This development was brought to the attention of the American Society of International Law at its Annual Meeting in April 1988 by the noted Soviet international lawyer, G. I. Tunkin.


1950 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Gerald Downey

In an address before the 1949 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law this writer remarked that the laws governing captured enemy property have never been codified or collected in one place and are very difficult to find and apply. The lack of a handy tool in the field of captured property has been noted at times by others, including Professor H. A. Smith, formerly a colonel with the British 21st Army Group, who observed that the “law of booty is almost unwritten” and Judge Manley O. Hudson, who wrote some years ago in an editorial in this JOURNAL that the “literature on captured property and war booty seemed inadequate.”


1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-443
Author(s):  
William Ledyard Rodgers

The discussions on the subject of the codification of international law at the 1926 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law made clear once more that matters as to which codification was conceivable fell into two broad classes, namely:Those affecting the international relations of states in their sovereign capacity and those affecting individuals in their international relations. It will be difficult to make law control in the first class of relations; it will be less difficult to do so in the second class.


1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 709-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur K. Kuhn

The nationalization of foreign-owned property presents problems which put a severe strain upon some of the accepted principles of international law. Chandler Anderson, one of the founding members of the American Society of International Law, pointed out nearly a quarter of a century ago that the principle which safeguards foreign-owned property from confiscation in time of peace “has become a part of the law of nations not merely because it represents a universally recognized standard ofjustice, but also because it is absolutely essential for the welfare of every nation, for without its protection no commercial, or financial international intercourse could safely be carried on.” Since that time, the practice of expropriating foreign property by "nationalization" has spread from Soviet Kussia to other countries constituting important parts of the free world strongly opposed to Communism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document