The Origins of ‘Full Protection and Security’. From Medieval Reprisals to the Age of Enlightenment

Mantilla Blanco, Sebastián

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_3

The Origins of ‘Full Protection and Security’. From Medieval Reprisals to the Age of Enlightenment

Sebastián Mantilla Blanco²¹

Chapter
First Online: 25 October 2019

625 Accesses

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 8))

Abstract

The standard of ‘full protection and security’ embodies a protection obligation in respect of foreign citizens. The standard originated in the practice of private reprisals in the European Middle Ages. It was, however, only until the eighteenth century that legal scholars ‘rationalized’ the protection obligation. In this vein, they resorted to the fiction of a ‘tacit agreement’ between the Sovereign and the foreigner who enters into his dominions. By this agreement, the Sovereign promises protection and the foreigner obedience. As an alternative to the theory of the tacit agreement, early positivist scholars sought to establish the foundations of the protection obligation through an analysis of state practice, and characterized FPS as a customary obligation. These theories had a likely influence on international treaties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For a philosophical analysis of the notion of ‘foreignness’ and its relationship to the idea of ‘otherness’ see: Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 21-2, 43 et seq and 71-2.
2.
For a general analysis of the historical development of the legal status of aliens see: Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad or the Law of International Claims (The Banks Law Publishing Co., New York 1916) 33-6.
3.
Cf. Nartnirun Junngam, ‘The Full Protection and Security Standard in International Investment Law: What and Who is Investment Fully[?] Protected and Secured From?’ (2018) 7(1) AUBLR 1, 8 et seq., 85-6, 90, 94 and 99 (arguing that the origins of the FPS standard can be placed in the antiquity, particularly in Greece and Rome).
4.
Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61. See also: Nicole O’Donnell, ‘Reconciling Full Protection and Security Guarantees in Bilateral Investment Treaties with Incidence of Terrorism’ (2018) 29(3) ARIA 293, 297-8 (following Weiler’s views); Timothy Foden, ‘Back to Bricks and Mortar: The case of a “Traditional” Definition of Investment that Never Was’ in Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric Sourgens and Todd Weiler (eds), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Juris Net, Huntington NY 2015) 145-8 (relying on Weiler’s approach).
5.
Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61.
6.
See: Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf (Frankfurt/Leipzig, 1796) 36-7; Emmanuel Levinas, Totalité et infini. Essai sur l’extériorité (Brodard at Taupin, Paris 1990) 12, 166-7, 187-8, 224 284, 332-4 and 341; Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000); Jacques Derrida, Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas (Pascale-Anne Brault/Michael Naas tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 1999) 15 et seq; Pierre Klossowski, Les lois de l’hospitalité (Gallimard, Paris 1970).
7.
Cf. Julian Pitt-Rivers, ‘The Law of Hospitality’ (2012) 2(1) HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory 501, 501-17. For other authors addressing the concept see: Amy G. Oden (ed), And You Welcomed Me. A Sourcebook on Hospitality in Early Christianity (Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2001); Hanns Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Baker Publishing, Grand Rapids MI 2004); James A. Heffernan, Hospitality and Treachery in Western Literature (Yale University Press, New Haven CT 2014); Jessica Wrobleski, The Limits of Hospitality (Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN 2012); Judith Still, Derrida and Hospitality. Theory and Practice (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 2013); Réal Robert Fillion, Multicultural Dynamics and the Ends of History. Exploring Kant, Hegel, and Marx (University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa 2008) 61-8.
8.
Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61-2.
9.
Chapters 8 and 9 discuss this aspect of the FPS standard in greater detail.
10.
See Sect. 8.3.1.
11.
See, for example: Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 3-73.
12.
For example, Jacques Derrida draws a careful distinction between the (absolute) ‘law of hospitality’ and the ‘laws of hospitality’. The said ‘laws’ include the whole body of rights and duties, which hosts and guests owe to each other. If a similar terminology were to be used in the context of international law, these ‘laws’ would embody all rules and principles of the law of aliens. See: Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 75-6. For an additional example see: Julius Goebel, ‘The International Responsibility of States for Injuries Sustained by Aliens on Account of Mob Violence, Insurrections and Civil Wars’ (1914) 8 AJIL 802, 803 (suggesting that the law of aliens arose out of the primitive notion of a Gastrecht among Germanic peoples).
13.
Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61.
14.
See, for example: Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 68-79 (quoting, among others, the Buddhacarita of Aśvaghosa, the Mencious Text, the Torah, the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Qur’an).
15.
Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61-2.
16.
Immanuel Kant, Project for a Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (Vernor & Hood, London 1796) 28-31; Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophisher Entwurf (Frankfurt/Leipzig 1796) 36-42.
17.
Immanuel Kant, Project for a Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (Vernor & Hood, London 1796) 28. The original German text reads as follows: “da bedeutet Hospitalität (Wirthbarkeit) das Recht eines Fremdlings, seines Ankunft auf dem Boden eines andern wegen, von diesem nicht feindselig behandelt zu werden”. See: Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophisher Entwurf (Frankfurt/Leipzig 1796) 36 [first edition: 1795].
18.
Immanuel Kant, Project for a Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (Vernor & Hood, London 1796) 28-31; Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophisher Entwurf (Frankfurt/Leipzig 1796) 36-42. For the interpretation of the Kantian concept of hospitality see: Jacques Derrida, Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas (Pascale-Anne Brault/Michael Naas tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 1999) 87 et seq.
19.
Jacques Derrida, Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas (Pascale-Anne Brault/Michael Naas tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 1999) 87 et seq; Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 43 et seq.
20.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 25-7.
21.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 25-7 and 71-81.
22.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 25-6.
23.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 25-7, 71-81, 75 et seq.
24.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 77.
25.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 75-7.
26.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 79.
27.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 81.
28.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 79.
29.
Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61-2.
30.
Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality (Rachel Bowlby tr, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA 2000) 75-81.
31.
See Sect. 2.1.
32.
See Sect. 3.6 (addressing the influence of Vattel and other eighteenth century international law scholars).
33.
See Sect. 3.2.
34.
The English term ‘reprisals’ seems to have appeared at some point during the thirteenth century. However, Medieval Latin texts usually used the expression repraesaliae or repressaliae. In an attempt to establish a link between the concept and earlier roman institutions, some sources chose the word pignerationes. See: Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 173. This chapter uses these expressions interchangeably.
35.
For an overview of the rudimentary origins of private reprisals see: Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 173-5.
36.
A representative example may be found in the authorization for reprisals granted by King Edward I of England, to Bernard Dongresilli (1295). The letter was first issued by John, ‘lieutenant of the King’ in Gascony, and later confirmed by the King. Dongresilli had sought ‘shelter from bad weather’ in a Portuguese port. According to the document, ‘some sons of perdition’ ransacked his vessel, taking with them the merchant’s valuable possessions. The King of Portugal had allegedly received himself a part of the spoils. The letter of reprisals read as follows: “Yielding to the prayer of the said merchant, [we] have given and granted, and now give and grant to him, Bernard, his heirs, successors, and posterity, liberty to make reprisals upon the people of the realm of Portugal, and particularly upon those of the city of Lisbon aforesaid, and upon their goods, wheresoever he may find them, whether within the dominion of our lord, the King and Duke, or without, [and] to retain and keep them for himself, until he and his heirs or successors or posterity, shall be fully satisfied for [the loss of] his goods so spoiled as aforesaid, or their value as declared above, together with the expenses reasonably incurred by him in that behalf.” For a detailed account of the incident and the original historical sources see: Grover Clark, ‘The English Practice with Regard to Reprisals by Private Persons’ (1933) 27(4) AJIL 694, 696 (citing the original documents in length). See also: Hans Planitz, ‘Studien zur Geschichte des deutschen Arrestprozesses. Der Fremdenarrest’ (1919) 40 Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 87, 168 and 178 et seq.
37.
See: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501; Friedrich Rudolf Hohl, Bartolus a Saxoferrato: Seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Repressaliensrechts [unpublished doctoral dissertation] (Volume 1: Universität Bonn, Bonn 1954) 33-7; Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 173-5; Guha Roy, ‘Is the Law of Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens a Part of Universal International Law?’ (1963) 55(4) AJIL 863, 864; Hans Spiegel, ‘Origin and Development of Denial of Justice’ (1938) 32(1) AJIL 63, 64.
38.
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501-2; Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 174-5; Peter Haggermacher, ‘L’ancêtre de la protection diplomatique: les représailles de l’ancien droit’ (2010) 143 Relations Internationales 7, 7-12. Some scholars have observed that the expression ‘letter of marque’ conveys the meaning of an authorization to undertake reprisals abroad, that is to say, outside the home state’s territory. For this terminological precision see: Ernest Nys, Le droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius (C. Muquardt, Brussels 1882) 48; Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 89. This work uses the terms ‘letter of reprisals’, ‘letter of marque’ and ‘letter de requête’ indistinctly.
39.
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501 et seq.; Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 175-6.
40.
Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 175-6.
41.
Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 174-5. For a similar approach to the rationale of letters of reprisals see: Arthur Nussbaum, Geschichte des Völkerrechts in gedrängter Darstellung (C.H. Beck, München/Berlin 1960) 28-9.
42.
See generally: Geoffrey Butler and Simon Maccoby, The Development of International Law (Longmans, Green & Co., New York 1928) 173 et seq.
43.
See generally: Hans Spiegel, ‘Origin and Development of Denial of Justice’ (1938) 32(1) AJIL 63, 64 et seq.
44.
Friedrich Rudolf Hohl, Bartolus a Saxoferrato: Seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Repressaliensrechts [unpublished doctoral dissertation] (Volume 1: Universität Bonn, Bonn 1954) 37. On the relation between reprisals and the law of denial of justice see: Hans Spiegel, ‘Origin and Development of Denial of Justice’ (1938) 32(1) AJIL 63, 63-79; Peter Haggermacher, ‘L’ancêtre de la protection diplomatique: les représailles de l’ancien droit’ (2010) 143 Relations Internationales 7, 9-10. On the origins of the modern local remedies rule in the law of reprisals see: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501-14. For an exhaustive survey of early English legal authorities providing evidence of the close historical relationship between the institution of reprisals, the exhaustion of local remedies and the concept of denial of justice see: Arnold Duncan McNair (First Baron McNair), International Law Opinions (Volume 2: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1956) 297-304. For an analysis of the link between reprisals and denial of justice in medieval Germany see: Hans Planitz, ‘Studien zur Geschichte des deutschen Arrestprozesses. Der Fremdenarrest’ (1919) 40 Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 87, 178-83 and 189-90.
45.
For detailed examples of this treaty practice see: Hans Spiegel, ‘Origin and Development of Denial of Justice’ (1938) 32(1) AJIL 63, 64-5. See also: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 502 et seq.; Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 90.
46.
Bartolus Sassoferratus prepared an influential Tractatus Represaliarum in 1354. For an overview on Sassoferrato’s theory of reprisals see: Cecil Sidney Woolf, Bartolus of Sassoferrato. His position in the History of Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1913) 203-7. For a deeper analysis of his Tractatus Represaliarum see: Friedrich Rudolf Hohl, Bartolus a Saxoferrato: Seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Repressaliensrechts [unpublished doctoral dissertation] (Volume 1: Universität Bonn, Bonn 1954). Hohl discusses Sassoferrato’s theory of denial of justice at pp. 88-100.
47.
For an English translation of the treatise see: Giovanni da Legnano, ‘Tractatus De Bello, De Represaliis et De Duello’ (1393) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (James Leslie Brierly tr, Carnegie Institution, Washington 1917) 209, 307-30.
48.
Gentili addressed the issue in De iure belli libri tres (Book I, § XXI), which was devoted to offences committed by private individuals. See: Alberico Gentili, ‘De iure belli libri tres’ (1598) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (John C. Rolfe tr, Carnegie Institution, Washington 1917) 99-104.
49.
Grotius discussed the medieval law of reprisals in De iure belli ac pacis (Book 3, Chap. II). For the original text see: Hugonis Groti, De iure belli ac pacis (1625) (Leiden, A. W. Sijthoff 1919) 495-500. For an English translation see: Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace in Three Books (1625) (The Lawbook Exchange, Clark NJ 2004) 538-49.
50.
See, for example: Ali Ehsassi, ‘Cain and Abel: Congruence and Conflict in the Application of the Denial of Justice Principle’ in Stephan Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 213, 217; Alwyn Freeman, The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice (Klaus Reprint, New York, 1970) 53-67 [first edition: 1938]; Borzu Sabahdi, Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, New York 2011) 35-6; Charles De Visscher, ‘Le déni de justice en droit international’ (1935) 52(2) RCADI 369, 370-4; Don Wallace, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and Denial of Justice in Loewn v. US and Chattin v. Mexico’ in Todd Weiler, International Investment Law and Arbitration. Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, London 2005) 669, 672-4; Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchega, ‘International responsibility’ in Max Sørensen (ed), Manual of Public International Law (St. Martin’s Press, New York 1968) 531, 553; Friedrich August von der Heydte, Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts, der allgemeinen Staatslehre und des politischen Denkens (Druck und Verlag Josef Habbel, Regensburg 1952) 291-3; Jan Paulsson, Denial of Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press, New York 2005) 13-4. See also: Sebastián Mantilla Blanco, Justizielles Unrecht im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016) 56-7 (quoting these and other sources in particular reference to the origins of the concept of ‘denial of justice’).
51.
Cf. also Nartnirun Junngam, ‘The Full Protection and Security Standard in International Investment Law: What and Who is Investment Fully[?] Protected and Secured From?’ (2018) 7(1) AUBLR 1, 14-5.
52.
Wilhelm Grewe, The Epochs of International Law (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2000) 202-3; Grover Clark, ‘The English Practice with Regard to Reprisals by Private Persons’ (1933) 27(4) AJIL 694, 722-3.
53.
For a similar observation see: Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 88.
54.
Wilhelm Grewe, The Epochs of International Law (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2000) 202.
55.
See generally: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501 et seq.
56.
Albert Geuffre de Lapradelle and Nicolas Politis, Recueil des arbitrages internationaux (A. Pedone, Paris 1904) 213; Charles De Visscher, ‘Le déni de justice en droit international’ (1935) 52(2) RCADI. 369, 370.
57.
On the abandonment of the ‘personal bond’ as the basis for state responsibility see: Heinrich Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Verlag von C. L. Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1899) 325. Chapter 12 discusses this issue in more detail, in particular connection with the notion of ‘due diligence’.
58.
See: Heinrich Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Verlag von C. L. Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1899) 325.
59.
See: Adolf Jess, Politische Handlungen Privater gegen das Ausland und das Völkerrecht (Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, Breslau 1923) 8 et seq.; Jan Arno Hessbruegge, ‘The Historical Development of the Doctrines of Attribution and Due Diligence in International Law’ (2003/4) 36(4) JILP 265, 280-1. For a historical analysis of the foundations of sovereign power in the Middle Ages see: Heinrich Mitteis, Der Staat des hohen Mittelalters. Grundlinien einer vergleichenden Verfassungsgeschichte des Lehnszeitalters (Hermann Böhlaus, Weimar 1953) 3 et seq.; Theodor Mayer, ‘Die Ausbildung der Grundlagen des modernen deutschen Staates im hohen Mittelalter’ (1939) 159(3) Historische Zeitschrift 457, 462 et seq.; Theodor Mayer, ‘Die Entstehung des “modernen” Staates im Mittelalter und die freien Bauern’ (1937) 57(1) ZRG 210, 211-4. Some legal historians have consistently placed the origin of the ‘modern state’ in the late medieval period, particularly between the 13th and 14th centuries. See, for example: Friedrich August von der Heydte, Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts, der allgemeinen Staatslehre und des politischen Denkens (Druck und Verlag Josef Habbel, Regensburg 1952) 41 et seq.
60.
See Sect. 7.3. Cf. also Sect. 12.2.
61.
See generally: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501 et seq.
62.
See generally: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘Origin and Historical Development of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law’ (1976) 12 RBDI 499, 501 (referring to the historical roots of the idea that foreigners have ‘a right to be accorded justice’).
63.
Section 10.3 addresses the redress obligation in detail.
64.
See generally: Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘The Origins of Consensual Positivism – Pufendorf, Wolff and Vattel’ in Alexander Orakhelashvili (ed), Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA 2011) 93, 93-110; Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 179-213.
65.
Otto von Gierke, Der Humor im Deutschen Recht (Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1871) 4.
66.
Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “Abstrakt, ja abstrakt oft bis an die Grenze des Todten, werden Recht und Sprache, Glaube und Sitte, wird selbst der Staat”. Otto von Gierke, Der Humor im Deutschen Recht (Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1871) 4.
67.
Otfried Nippold used this expression in his introductory note to a reprint of Wolff’s Jus gentium method scientifica pertractactum. See: Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) lii. For the original Latin text of the treatise, see: Christian Freiherr von Wolff, Ius gentium methodo scientifica perpractatum (Officina libraria Rengeriana, Magdeburg 1749). This work primarily relies on the English translation prepared by Joseph Drake in 1934. The English version has however been verified, where relevant, against the original Latin text.
68.
Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 183.
69.
For a brief overview of Wolff’s contribution to international law see: Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Christian Wolff. System as an Episode?’ in Stefan Kadelbach, Thomas Kleinlein and David Roth-Isigkeit (eds), System, Order and International Law. The Early History of International Legal Thought from Machiavelli to Hegel (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017) 216, 216 et seq.
70.
See generally: Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Christian Wolff. System as an Episode?’ in Stefan Kadelbach, Thomas Kleinlein and David Roth-Isigkeit (eds), System, Order and International Law. The Early History of International Legal Thought from Machiavelli to Hegel (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017) 216, 221-5.
71.
Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 184.
72.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 11 § 7.
73.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 9 § 2.
74.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 9 §§ 2 and 3.
75.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 12 § 9.
76.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 12 § 9.
77.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 12 § 9. For an overview of the concept of the civitas maxima in the international law theory of Christian Wolff see: Anne Kühler, ‘Societas Humana bei Christian Wolff’ in Tilmann Altwicker, Francis Cheneval and Oliver Diggelmann (eds), Völkerrechtsphilosophie der Frühaufklärung (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015) 119-24; Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Christian Wolff. System as an Episode?’ in Stefan Kadelbach, Thomas Kleinlein and David Roth-Isigkeit (eds), System, Order and International Law. The Early History of International Legal Thought from Machiavelli to Hegel (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017) 216, 225-8.
78.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 10 § 4.
79.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 19 § 25.
80.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 17-8 § 22. This notion is consistent with Wolff’s characterization of the supreme state as a democratic one, in which the nations as a whole hold some sovereignty over each individual nation (at pp. 15-7 §§ 15-20, and particularly at p. 16 §19).
81.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 18 § 23.
82.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 18-9 § 24.
83.
For a more detailed account of Wolff’s approach to the sources of the law of nations see: Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Christian Wolff. System as an Episode?’ in Stefan Kadelbach, Thomas Kleinlein and David Roth-Isigkeit (eds), System, Order and International Law. The Early History of International Legal Thought from Machiavelli to Hegel (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017) 216, 228-31.
84.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 77 § 140 and 78 § 144.
85.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 74-5 § 134.
86.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 79 § 145.
87.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 79 § 145.
88.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 83 § 153.
89.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 83 § 154.
90.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 80 § 147.
91.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 80-1 § 148.
92.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 80-1 § 148. Nonetheless, Wolff clarified that the refusal to admit a foreigner must be justified by ‘special reasons’ (at p. 81 § 149).
93.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 152-3 § 303.
94.
Emphasis added. Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 152-3 § 303. A similar statement appears at pp. 151-2 § 300. In Wolff’s theory, aliens are accordingly bound only ‘to do and not to do the things which must be done or not done by citizens at the time under same circumstances, except in so far as particular laws introduce something else concerning foreigners’ (at p. 153 § 304). Those particular laws are regarded as additional conditions incorporated to the tacit agreement (at pp. 153-4 § 304).
95.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 151 § 299.
96.
Emphasis added. Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 151 § 299.
97.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 536-7 § 1063.
98.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 151-2 §§ 299-300.
99.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 537 § 1063.
100.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 537 § 1063.
101.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 537 § 1063.
102.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 536-7 § 1063.
103.
George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1117. For a similar observation cf. Nartnirun Junngam, ‘The Full Protection and Security Standard in International Investment Law: What and Who is Investment Fully[?] Protected and Secured From?’ (2018) 7(1) AUBLR 1, 31.
104.
George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1156.
105.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 537 § 1063.
106.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 536 § 1063.
107.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 151-2 § 300.
108.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 151-2 § 300.
109.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 151 § 299.
110.
This interpretation of Wolff’s work is based on the language of §§ 299-300, where reference is made to the ‘presumed consent’ of the home and host states. The wording of the English translation prepared by Joseph Drake is consistent with the original Latin text, which uses the verb praesumere. See: Christian Freiherr von Wolff, Ius gentium methodo scientifica perpractatum (Officina libraria Rengeriana, Magdeburg 1749) 231-3 § 299-300.
111.
On the difficulties attached to the proper understanding of Wolff’s system of international law from a modern perspective, see: Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia. The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press, New York 2005) 110-2.
112.
Cf. Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia. The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press, New York 2005) 110.
113.
On this understanding of Wolff’s voluntary law, see: Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia. The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press, New York 2005) 110.
114.
For this interpretation of Wolff see: Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia. The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press, New York 2005) 110.
115.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 302 et seq. §§ 589 et seq.
116.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 302-3 § 590.
117.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 300-1 § 586 and 302 § 589. Delay in rendering judgment and cases of manifest injustice are embedded within Wolff’s notion of refusals to do justice (at pp. 301-2 §§ 587-8).
118.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 302 § 589.
119.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 146-7 § 289.
120.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 146-7 § 289.
121.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 147 § 290 and 256 § 495. Wolff clearly supports his principle on the law of nature; according to him, ‘the property of citizens is bound by nature for the debts of the state, and also the private property itself of the ruler of the state’ (at p. 300 § 586).
122.
Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 303 § 592.
123.
See: Samuel Pufendorf, ‘Of the Law of Nature and of Nations in Eight Books’ (1672) in Craig Carr (ed) The Political Writings of Samuel Pufendorf (Michael Seidler tr, Oxford University Press, New York 1994) 171. In his De jure naturae et gentium libri octo, Pufendorf addressed the issue of consent as the normative basis for promises and pacts, which ‘as a rule restrict our freedom and impose on us a burden of necessarily doing something we were formerly free to do or not to do’ (at p. 171). In this connection, he explained that consent might be express or tacit; for Pufendorf, a tacit pact ‘occurs when consent is expressed not by such signs as are regularly accepted in human transactions, but when it is clearly inferred from the nature of the affair and other circumstances’ (at p. 171). Aiming to provide an example of what would be a ‘tacit pact’, Pufendorf stated: “Suppose a foreigner comes as a friend to some state that commonly treats outsiders in a friendly manner. He is thought to have promised tacitly, and by his very act of coming, to conform himself to that state’s laws as they pertain to his status as soon as he has come to know that such laws apply generally to all who desire to go about in that state’s territory, even though he has never given a express promise to that effect. And for this reason he is in turn tacitly promised by the state that it will temporarily defend him and administer justice on his behalf.” (at p. 171).
124.
In his Elementorum jurisprudentiae universalis libri duo (1660), Pufendorf famously equalized the law of nations to natural law. See: Samuel Pufendorf, ‘Elementorum Jurisprudentiae Universalis Libri Duo’ in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (William Abbott tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1931) 165 (“Something must be added now also on the subject of the Law of Nations, which, in the eyes of some men, is nothing other than the law of nature, in so far as different nations, not united with another by a supreme command, observe it, who must render one another the same duties in their fashion, as are prescribed for individuals by the law of nature. On this point there is no reason for our conducting any special discussion here, since what we recount on the subject of the law of nature and of the duties of individuals, can be readily applied to whole states and nations which have also coalesced into one moral person. Aside from this law, we are of the opinion that there is no law of nations”).
125.
Otfried Nippold’s introductory note to Wolff’s Jus gentium provides a detailed account of the debate: Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) xli-xlv.
126.
This section uses an English translation of the original French treatise, which was published in London in 1797: Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797). References to the original French text will be included where necessary.
127.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xii.
128.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xiii-xiv.
129.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xv.
130.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) lxvi.
131.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xvii-xviii and lxv-lxvi.
132.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) lxv.
133.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) lxv. Vattel admits Wolff’s complex distinction between the necessary and the voluntary law of nations (at pp. xvi and lxix). Nonetheless, his understanding of these concepts subtly differs from Wolff. Avoiding recourse to the notion of the civitas maxima and its fictional legislator, Vattel explains that both ‘are established by nature’ (at p. xvi). The necessary law could be depicted as the ‘immutable’ conscience of a nation: it is a ‘sacred’, ‘absolute’ and ‘internal’ law, which ‘contains the precepts prescribed by the law of nature to states’ (at pp. xvi and lviii). By contrast, the voluntary law is not an ‘internal law’, but an ‘external law’: it is not the conscience of the individual nation, but a set of rational rules governing the relationships between states (at p. lxvi). According to Vattel, it applies ‘as a rule which the general welfare and safety oblige them to admit in their transactions to each other’ (at p. xvi). Vattel’s voluntary law is thus based on consent, and consistently belongs to the broader category of the ‘positive law of nations’ (at p. lxvi). Still, the consent upon which it is founded is neither actually nor freely given; it is always presumed (at p. lxvi). For a critical account of Vattel’s theory of the sources of international law see: Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 400-5.
134.
Cf. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xvi-xvii.
135.
Citizenship is thus primarily transmitted by blood (ius sanguinis) (at pp. 101-2). This premise has far-reaching consequences for the status of aliens who have obtained the right of permanent residence (at p. 102). The children of such aliens, Vattel says, ‘follow the condition of their fathers’ and do not acquire citizenship by birth, but just ‘the right of perpetual residence’ (at p. 102). It should be noted that Vattel slightly departs from Wolff’s views on citizenship. While Wolff believed that children were citizens of the country in which their parents had their (permanent) domicile, Vattel develops an autonomous notion of citizenship, which is entirely detached from the concept of domicile. Cf. Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) 77 § 140; Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 102-3.
136.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 106. By contrast to Wolff, however, Vattel held that the right to emigrate originates in each person’s natural freedom (at pp. 103-4). Vattel also recognized that emigration could be founded on domestic law, the prince’s graciousness and international agreements (at p. 106).
137.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 104.
138.
For Vattel, a citizen has an absolute right to definitively abandon his country in three cases: (i) if he lacks the means to earn his own subsistence; (ii) when the state ‘absolutely fails’ in its duties towards a citizen; and (iii) if domestic law places inacceptable burdens upon a citizen (e.g. prohibiting his religion). See: Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 105-6.
139.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 108.
140.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 108.
141.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 102 (particularly referring to inhabitants) and 173-4 (particularly referring to travellers). For the classification of foreigners in these two categories see pp. 102 and 171.
142.
Emphasis added. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 173. On his part, the foreigner shall, ‘from a sense of gratitude for the protection granted to him’ contribute to the protection of the nation, ‘as far as [this] is consistent with his duty as citizen of another state’ (at p. 173). For the original French text see: Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens (1758) (Volume 1: Carnegie Institution, Washington 1916) 331.
143.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 172.
144.
Emphasis added. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 172. This wording is consistent with the French original text, where Vattel states: ‘le Souverain est supposé ne lui donner accès que sous cette condition tacite, qu’il sera soumis aux Loix’. Emphasis added. Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens (1758) (Volume 1: Carnegie Institution, Washington 1916) 329.
145.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 172. For the original French text see: Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens (1758) (Volume 1: Carnegie Institution, Washington 1916) 329.
146.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xvi-xvii.
147.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 173.
148.
For this interpretation of Vattel see: George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1117-8.
149.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 172.
150.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 162.
151.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 162-3.
152.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 287.
153.
Cf. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 162.
154.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 162. This statement is also known as the ‘Vattelian fiction’ in the law of diplomatic protection.
155.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 162.
156.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 283.
157.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 283-4.
158.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 284.
159.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 285-7 (at p. 287, Vattel explains: “we ought not to make reprisals, except when we are unable to obtain justice. Now justice is refuted in several ways: – First, by denial of justice, properly so called, or by a refusal to hear our complaints or those of your subjects, or to admit them to establish their right before the ordinary tribunals. Secondly, by studied delays, for which no good reasons can be given, – delays equivalent to refusal, or still more ruinous. Thirdly, by an evidently unjust and partial decision.”).
160.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 285.
161.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 285.
162.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 284.
163.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 165. This results from the fact that ‘nations act and treat together as bodies, in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so moral persons’ (at p. 165).
164.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 165.
165.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 287. Vattel however insisted that the prisoner’s lives shall be respected (at p. 287).
166.
Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 395 et seq. On the influence of Vattel in other regions of the world see: Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 312.
167.
For Wolff’s original text see: Christian Freiherr von Wolff, Ius gentium methodo scientifica perpractatum (Officina libraria Rengeriana, Magdeburg 1749).
168.
For a reprint of the original French text see: Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens (1758) (Volume 1: Carnegie Institution, Washington 1916).
169.
For a similar observation see: Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 396-7.
170.
Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 395.
171.
Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 395.
172.
Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 395.
173.
See Sects. 3.3 and 3.4. For a discussion of the influence of Wolff and Vattel in the development of the FPS standard cf. also George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1117-8; Nartnirun Junngam, ‘The Full Protection and Security Standard in International Investment Law: What and Who is Investment Fully[?] Protected and Secured From?’ (2018) 7(1) AUBLR 1, 31; Onyema Awa Oyeani, The Obligation of Host States to Accord the Standard of “Full Protection and Security” to Foreign Investments under International Investment Law (Brunel University, London 2018) [D.Phil. Thesis] 33-6, 58 and 318.
174.
See Sects. 3.3 and 3.4.
175.
Cf. Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 227 (explaining that ‘pragmatist’ scholars from the eighteenth century were certainly not ‘true positivists’, but could still be considered as ‘forerunners of positivism’). It must be observed, however, that Neff only classifies Vattel as a ‘pragmatist’ (at p. 196). By contrast, he describes Wolff as a ‘rationalist’ (at pp. 183 et seq.). On the relationship of Wolff and Vattel to positivism see: Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘The Origins of Consensual Positivism – Pufendorf, Wolff and Vattel’ in Alexander Orakhelashvili (ed), Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA 2011) 93, 93-110 (providing a detailed, general analysis of their influence). See also: Leo Gross, ‘The Peace of Westphalia 1648-1948’ in ASIL, International Law in the Twentieth Century (Meredith Corp., New York 1969) 25, 41-3 (particularly referring to Vattel).
176.
Otfried Nippold summarized Wolff’s contributions in this regard in an introductory note to a reprint of Jus gentium method scientifica pertractactum. See: Christian Wolff, ‘Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractactum’ (1749) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (Joseph Drake tr, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1934) xxxvii.
177.
Samuel Pufendorf, ‘Of the Law of Nature and of Nations in Eight Books’ (1672) in Craig Carr (ed) The Political Writings of Samuel Pufendorf (Michael Seidler tr, Oxford University Press, New York 1994) 95-268. For an early criticism to naturalism see: Samuel Rachel, ‘De Jure Naturae et Gentium Dissertationes’ (1676) in James Brown Scott (ed), Classics of International Law (John Pawley Bate tr, Carnegie Institution, Washington 1916) 209 § XCIV. On the so-called ‘early positivists’ see: Arthur Nussbaum, Geschichte des Völkerrechts in gedrängter Darstellung (C.H. Beck, München/Berlin 1960) 182-93.
178.
This circumstance may be evidenced in some parts of Vattel’s Preface. See: Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) xi-xii and xviii-xix. Charles Fenwick would describe Vattel’s work as an attempt to ‘popularize the larger and less accessible work of Wolff’. Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 396-7. Fenwick does however acknowledge that Vattel ‘did not borrow blindly’ (at p. 397).
179.
For authors making similar observations see: Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘The Origins of Consensual Positivism – Pufendorf, Wolff and Vattel’ in Alexander Orakhelashvili (ed), Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA 2011) 93, 93-110; Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 179 et seq.; Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 189-93.
180.
Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 189 et seq.
181.
Leo Gross, ‘The Peace of Westphalia 1648-1948’ in ASIL, International Law in the Twentieth Century (Meredith Corp., New York 1969) 25, 37. Leo Gross rightfully observed that the basis of the binding character of international law would be placed on the will of each individual state, so that ‘[t]he concept of the family of nations recedes in the background’ (at p. 37). See also: Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 217-9.
182.
Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 190.
183.
Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 190.
184.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750). On Moser’s importance for classic positivism see: Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 194 et seq.
185.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 9.
186.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) iv.
187.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) iv.
188.
Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “[Es ist also dies mein Völkerrecht] lediglich und ganz allein auf das gegründet, was wirklich geschehen ist und zu geschehen pfleget, es mag nun nach denen Göttlichen geschriebenen und natürlichen auch menschliche Rechten recht oder unrecht seyn”. Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) iv; see also p. 6.
189.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 393 et seq. and 469 et seq.
190.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 393 et seq.
191.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 393-5. Moser went as far as to assert that a sovereign may even require – as a condition for admission – foreign subjects to renounce to their former sovereign and promise him obedience (at p. 393).
192.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 393-5.
193.
For example, Moser expressed the view that foreigners cannot be compelled to enroll in the host state’s military. See: Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 396.
194.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 396.
195.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 398.
196.
Author’s translation. The original German text reads as follows: “Landesherrn seynd schuldig, anderer Souvereinen Bediente und Unterthanen, so sich aus rechtsmäßigen Ursachen in ihren Staaten aufhalten, gegen allen Gewalt, oder andere Beleidigungen, zu schützen”. Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 398.
197.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 398.
198.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 398.
199.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 398.
200.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 469-70.
201.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 469.
202.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 469-70.
203.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 470.
204.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 597.
205.
Johann Jakob Moser, Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Europäischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (Hanau 1750) 598.
206.
See generally: Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 193 et seq.
207.
On Marten’s importance for the development of international law see: Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 198-201.
208.
See: Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 194; Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 198-9.
209.
The Primae lineae iuris gentium europearum were not only used in academic debate, but also as teaching material for Martens’ lectures at the University of Göttingen. For a brief presentation of Martens’ teaching activity and an enlightening summary of his approach to the law of nations see: Georg Friedrich von Martens, Versuch über die Existenz eines positiven Europäischen Völkerrechts und den Nutzen dieser Wissenschaft (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1787). The Vesuch was used as an introduction to the international law course Martens held at Göttingen in the fall semester of 1787. The Vesuch already contains many of the defining features of Martens’ positive law of nations (at pp. 6-12).
210.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Précis du droit moderne de l’Europe (Guillaumin et cir. Libraires, Paris 1858) [first edition: 1789].
211.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796). Martens explained the differences between his French first edition and the revisited German second edition in the Preamble (Vorbericht) to the German book (at iii-xvi). This chapter primarily relies on the 1796 German edition.
212.
For a similar observation see: Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Into Positivism: Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821) and modern international law’ (2008) 15 Constellations 189, 199 (observing that Martens’ commentaries were considered ‘as a kind of methodological and political credo of its author’).
213.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) v-xiv.
214.
Cf. Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) v et seq.
215.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) vii.
216.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 2.
217.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 2.
218.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 2.
219.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 2.
220.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 2.
221.
The original German text reads: “Sobald zwey Völker mit einander in Verkehr treten, so reicht das natürliche Völkerrecht allein nicht mehr hin, um ihre Rechte zu bestimmen.” Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 3.
222.
The original German text reads: “[Aus dem Inbegriff dieser Bestimmungen] entsteht im Gegensatz des natürlichen, allgemeinen und nothwendigen Völkerrechts, ein positives, besonderes, willkürliches Völkerrecht dieser beyden Völker.” Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 3.
223.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 6-7.
224.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 7.
225.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 3.
226.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 3.
227.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 72.
228.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 72.
229.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 72-3.
230.
Cf. Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 74.
231.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 74.
232.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 74.
233.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 74.
234.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 94-5. Martens observed, however, that European sovereigns had usually granted some freedom of entry and establishment to each other’s subjects (at pp. 94-5).
235.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 100.
236.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 100.
237.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 94 et seq.
238.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 92.
239.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 92-3.
240.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 97 and 101. Martens excluded from this rule diplomatic envoys (Gesandte) and reigning princes (regierende Prinzen) (at p. 97).
241.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 98.
242.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 122.
243.
Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “[Sieht man hingegen auf die, theils auf Herkommen, theils auf Verträge gegründete Praxis der Europäischen Völker, so zeigt sich sehr häufig, daß] fremde Mächte für ihre Unterthanen welche in ein fremdes Gebiet eintreten, oder sich dort niederlassen, oder von Haus aus mit den Unterthanen dieses Staates in Verkehr sind, manches zu fordern berechtigt sind, was nach den strengen Grundsätzen des natürlichen Rechts dieser Staat zu ihrem Vortheil zu leiden, zu unterlassen oder zu unternehmen nicht verbunden wäre.” Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 93.
244.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 93. Martens elaborated further on the concept of the ‘international law easements’ (Völkerrechts-Dienstbarkeiten) in a later section of his treatise (at pp. 135-6). These concepts continued to be used in German-speaking countries for centuries. For an indicative example see: Eduard Otto von Waldkirch, Das Völkerrecht in seinen Grundzügen dargestellt (Verlag von Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 1926) 201.
245.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 124.
246.
Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “Kraft des Schutzes welchen der Staat den fremden Einwohnern für Ihre Person und Güter zu leisten schuldig ist, muß er die in seinem Gebiet wider selbige begangenen Verbrechen mit eben der Sorgfalt und Strenge untersuchen und bestrafen, als wenn sie gegen seine Eingebohrne Unterthanen begangen worden wären.” Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 124.
247.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 98-9.
248.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 115.
249.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 115-22.
250.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 116.
251.
Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “[Dagegen ist aber] jeder Staat vollkommen schuldig den Fremden, so wie seinen eigenen Unterthanen, die Wege des Rechtens zu eröffnen, und ihnen eine schleunige und unpartheiyliche Justitz angedenken zu lassen.” Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 116.
252.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 116.
253.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 116-7. Martens clarified that his conclusion was inapplicable to cases where local courts have decided on the basis of international law: no state can impose on other states its own understanding of the law of nations (at p. 117).
254.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 118 (in general) and 293 (in particular reference to reprisals).
255.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 118.
256.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 293-4.
257.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 294-5.
258.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 294-5.
259.
This is evident in the language used in the assessment of the rules applicable to the treatment of aliens. Cf. Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 94 et seq.
260.
A clear example is Martens’ presentation of the ius albinagii or droit d’aubaine (i.e. the institution allowing the host state, upon the death of a foreign citizen, to requisition or inherit the foreigner’s properties), which, Martens observed, was already in disuse in most European states and did hence no longer belong to customary international law. Georg Friedrich von Martens, Einleitung in das positive Europäische Völkerrecht auf Verträge und Herkommen gegründet (Johann Christian Dieterich, Göttingen 1796) 112-4.
261.
See Sects. 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.
262.
Cf. Charles Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’ (1913) 7(3) APSR 395, 395 (particularly referring to Vattel); Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 200 (referring to Martens’ reputation in academic circles).
263.
On the historical connection between FCN treaties and BITs see: Kate Miles, The Origins of International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, New York 2013) 24-5 (characterizing FCN treaty practice ‘as a forerunner of modern investment treaties’). See also: Jeswald Salacuse, The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015) 92-4; John Coyle, ‘The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation in the Modern Era’ (2013) 51 Columb. J. Transnat’l L. 302, 327-30; Kenneth Vandevelde, ‘A Brief History of International Investment Agreements’ (2005) 12 U. C. Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 157, 157-61; O. Thomas Johnson and Jonathan Gimblett, ‘From Gunboats to BITs: The Evolution of Modern International Investment Law’ in Karl Sauvant (ed), Yearbook on International Law & Policy 649, 676-9; Rumana Islam, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard (FET) in International Investment Arbitration (Springer, Singapore 2018) 32; Stephan Schill, The Multilaterization of International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009) 29-30; Wolfgang Alschner, ‘Americanization of the BIT Universe: The Influence of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) Treaties on Modern Investment Treaty Law’ (2013) 5(2) GoJIL 455, 468-8. For a different view on the influence of FCN agreements on contemporary IIAs see: Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge University Press, New York 2010) 180 (“The FCN treaty contained almost a charter of the rights that the alien was to enjoy in the host state […] to the extent that the early FCN treaty was not specific to investment, the FCN treaty may not be the precursor of the modern bilateral investment treaty, but its investment provisions contain many features which are now found in a more refined way in bilateral investment treaties”). On early FCN treaty practice as a shaping factor of the FPS standard cf. George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1118-20 (particularly focusing on the correspondence of Alexander Hamilton and briefly noting the possible influence of European scholars); Onyema Awa Oyeani, The Obligation of Host States to Accord the Standard of “Full Protection and Security” to Foreign Investments under International Investment Law (Brunel University, London 2018) [D.Phil. Thesis] 36-9 (providing an overview and citing the papers of Alexander Hamilton at p. 38).
264.
Cf. Alfred Eckes Jr., Opening America’s Market. U.S. Foreign Trade Policy Since 1776 (The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC 1995) 4 et seq.
265.
Alfred Eckes Jr., Opening America’s Market. U.S. Foreign Trade Policy Since 1776 (The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC 1995) 4-5.
266.
Specific examples are provided later in this section.
267.
For a historical account of Franklin’s role in the negotiation of the treaty see: Jonathan Dull, Franklin the Diplomat: the French Mission (The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia 1982) 19-32. For a detailed analysis of American foreign policy during the period at issue see: Willem Theo Oosterveld, The Law of Nations in Early American Foreign Policy. Theory and Practice from the Revolution to the Monroe Doctrine (Brill, Leiden 2015) 97-116 (particularly considering the French Alliance in historical context).
268.
On the ‘Model Treaty’ or ‘Plan of Treaties’ of 1776 see: Gregg Lint, ‘John Adams on the Drafting of the Treaty Plan of 1776’ 2(4) Diplomatic History (1978) 313, 313-20.
269.
Emphasis added. Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and the Kingdom of France (adopted 6 February 1778, entered into force 17 July 1778) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 3, 7 art. 6.
270.
Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and the Kingdom of France (adopted 6 February 1778, entered into force 17 July 1778) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 3, 8 art. 8.
271.
Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and the Kingdom of France (adopted 6 February 1778, entered into force 17 July 1778) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 3, 9-21 art. 8 (creating an obligation upon the French monarch to ‘employ his good offices and interposition’ with African sovereigns ‘in order to provide as full and efficaciously as possible for the Benefit, Convenience and Safety of the said United States and each of them, their Subjects, People and Inhabitants, and their Vessels and Effects, against all Violence, Insult, Attacks, or Depredations on the Part of the said Princes and States of Barbary, or their Subjects’), art. 17 (providing that ‘the more effectual Care may be taken for the Security of the Subjects and Inhabitants of both Parties, that they suffer no injury by the men of War or Privateers of the other Party, all the Commanders of the Ships of his most Christian Majesty & the said United States and all their Subjects and Inhabitants shall be forbid doing any Injury or Damage to the other Side; and if they act to the contrary, they shall be punished and shall moreover be bound to make Satisfaction for all the Matter of Damage, and the Interest thereof, by reparation, under the Pain and obligation of their Person and Goods’) and art. 25 (concerning the right to sail and trade with ‘Liberty and Security’).
272.
Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and the Netherlands (adopted 8 October 1782, entered into force 23 June 1783) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 59, 64-5 art. 5.
273.
Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Prussia (adopted 10 September 1785, entered into force 17 May 1786) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 162, 167 art. 7.
274.
Jerald Combs, The Jay Treaty: Political Battleground of the Founding Fathers (University of California Press, Berkeley 1970) ix. Among others, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison actively opposed the treaty, which they considered to be nothing more than technical ‘surrender’ to Britain (at ix).
275.
For a detailed account on the negotiation of the Jay Treaty see: Jerald Combs, The Jay Treaty: Political Battleground of the Founding Fathers (University of California Press, Berkeley 1970) 137-58.
276.
On the role of Alexander Hamilton in the history of the Anglo-American relations see: Jerald Combs, The Jay Treaty: Political Battleground of the Founding Fathers (University of California Press, Berkeley 1970) 31-64. The participation of Hamilton in the shaping of the Jay Treaty is also a well-documented historical fact (at pp. 137-58).
277.
Emphasis added. Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between the United States and Great Britain (adopted 19 November 1794, entered into force 28 October 1795) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 245, 257 art. 14.
278.
Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between the United States and Great Britain (adopted 19 November 1794, entered into force 28 October 1795) Hunter Miller (ed), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1931) 245, 259 art. 19.
279.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 172.
280.
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758) (G.G. and J. Robinson, London 1797) 172.
281.
‘Remarks on the Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation Lately Made between the United States and Great Britain’ (9-11 July 1795) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0281].
282.
‘Remarks on the Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation Lately Made between the United States and Great Britain’ (9-11 July 1795) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0281].
283.
In relation to articles 19 and 20, Hamilton stated: “These articles require no comment. They are usual and every way unexceptionable.” ‘Remarks on the Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation Lately Made between the United States and Great Britain’ (9-11 July 1795) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0281].
284.
Emphasis added. ‘Report for a Plan for the Further Support of Public Debt’ (16 January 1795) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0052-0002].
285.
For a detail presentation of Vattel’s influence on the American founding fathers see: Vincent Chetail, ‘Vattel and the American Dream: An Inquiry into the Reception of the Law of Nations in the United States’ in Vincent Chetail and Pierre Marie Dupuy (eds), The Roots of International Law. Liber Amicorum Peter Haggenmacher (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden 2013) 251, 253-62.
286.
‘John Adams to Benjamin Rush’ (24 July 1789) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-0700]. For a further example of Adams’ admiration for Vattel see: ‘John Adams to Richard Cranch Norton’ (20 March 1812) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-2127].
287.
‘John Adams to Richard Rush’ (14 April 1811) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5631].
288.
‘John Adams to Richard Rush’ (14 April 1811) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5631].
289.
‘Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s First Message’ (26 January 1773) in Robert Taylor, The Adams Papers. Papers of John Adams (Volume 1: Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1977) 315, 320 and 330-1. See also: ‘Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s Second Message’ (2 March 1773) in Robert Taylor, The Adams Papers. Papers of John Adams (Volume 1: Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1977) 344 and 346.
290.
Franklin referred to this event in a letter addressed to his friend, James Bowdoin. See: ‘Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoin’ (24 March 1776) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0231].
291.
‘John Adams to William Cranch’ (30 December 1790) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-1118].
292.
‘John Adams to George Washington Adams’ (9 December 1821) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-3989]; ‘John Adams to George Washington Adams’ (13 January 1822) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-3995]. John Adams also seems to have transmitted some of his high esteem for the Swiss scholar to his son, the later President John Quincy Adams. The diary of President John Quincy Adams suggests that he read the entire treatise in 1787 (at the young age of 21 years). On September 15th, 1787, Adams wrote: ‘[Vattel’s] sentiments and principles appear to be dictated by good sense and real virtue. They appear all to derive from that law of nature, which every person of common sense and common honesty must wish to prevail’. ‘September 15th’ in Robert Taylor & Marc Fredlaender, The Adams Papers. Diary of John Quincy Adams (Volume 2: Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1981) 289. For a further example of Adams’ admiration for Vattel see his note of September 22nd, 1787 (at pp. 292-3).
293.
‘Original Letter from Dr. Franklin to Monsieur Dumas’ (9 December 1775) 45 The European Magazine and London Review (1804) 347, 347.
294.
‘Original Letter from Dr. Franklin to Monsieur Dumas’ (9 December 1775) 45 The European Magazine and London Review (1804) 347, 347. In the same letter, Franklin briefly referred to the reception of Vattel’s work. In this connection, he wrote: “[A] copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed), has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author” (at pp. 347-8).
295.
See, for example: ‘Benjamin Franklin to Andreas Peter Graf von Bernstorff’ (22 December 1779) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-31-02-0175].
296.
For instance, in a letter to John Garland Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson proposed him a reading list, recommending the study of Vattel’s treatise. See: ‘Thomas Jefferson to John Garland Jefferson’ (11 June 1790) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0278]. See also: ‘Report on the Negotiations with Spain’ (18 March 1792) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-23-02-0259]; ‘Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond’ (20 May 1792) [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-23-02-0506].
297.
‘Thomas Jefferson to James Madison’ (3 August 1793) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0044].
298.
‘Thomas Jefferson to James Madison’ (3 August 1793) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0044].
299.
‘Thomas Jefferson to Edmond Charles Genet’ (17 June 1793) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0276].
300.
See, for example: ‘John Jay to George Washington’ (28 August 1790) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0170].
301.
Hamilton contended that the 1778 treaty could be declared void after the French Revolution and supported his argument on a passage of Vattel. Others were skeptical. Jefferson would write to John Madison: “Would you suppose it possible that it should have been seriously proposed to declare our treaties with France void on the authority of an ill-understood scrap in Vattel 2.§.197. (‘toutefois si ce changement &c—gouvernement’) and that it should be necessary to discuss it?” See: ‘Thomas Jefferson to James Madison’ (28 April 1793) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0013]. For a record of the discussions about Hamilton’s proposal see: ‘Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on a Proclamation of Neutrality and on Receiving the French Minister’ (19 April 1793) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-14-02-0226].
302.
Georg Friedrich von Martens, Précis du droit moderne de l’Europe (Guillaumin et cir. Libraires, Paris 1858) [first edition: 1789].
303.
See: ‘Remarks on the Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation Lately Made between the United States and Great Britain’ (9-11 July 1795) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0281]. For a further example see: ‘No Jacobin No. II’ (5 August 1793) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-15-02-0145].
304.
William Short sent Jefferson a copy of the Recueil des Traités in 1792, referring to Martens as ‘the same author on the Droit des gens moderne de l’Europe’. This suggests that Jefferson had access to the Précis before 1792. See: ‘William Short to Thomas Jefferson’ (31 August 1792) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0313].
305.
‘Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton’ (14 February 1799) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-31-02-0024]. In 1800, Jefferson would include Martens’ manual in a reading list suggested for Joseph Cabell. See: ‘A Course of Reading for Joseph C. Cabell’ (September 1800) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-32-02-0110].
306.
‘John Quincy Adams to John Adams’ (9 November 1794) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-1580]; ‘John Quincy Adams to John Adams’ (3 December 1794) United States National Archives: Founders Online Project [http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-1610]. The latter communication suggests that Adams received the Précis after the conclusion of the Jay Treaty but at the time when the debate on its ratification was taking place.
307.
For an arbitral tribunal expressly recognizing the influence of FCN treaty practice on contemporary FPS clauses see: Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [161-3].
308.
See generally: Kenneth Vandevelde, ‘A Brief History of International Investment Agreements’ 12 U. C. Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 157, 158-61.
309.
Stephen Neff, Justice Among Nations. A History of International Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2014) 201.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Bonn, Germany
Sebastián Mantilla Blanco

Authors

Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mantilla Blanco, S. (2019). The Origins of ‘Full Protection and Security’. From Medieval Reprisals to the Age of Enlightenment. In: Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_3
Published: 25 October 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24837-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24838-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics