Men, Monsters and the History of Mankind in Vattel’s Law of Nations

P. Piirimäe
{"title":"Men, Monsters and the History of Mankind in Vattel’s Law of Nations","authors":"P. Piirimäe","doi":"10.1163/9789004384200_009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emer de Vattel has been widely considered a seminal figure in the European tradition of the law of nations. While attaching himself to the earlier tradition of natural jurisprudence, he offered a normative system of the law of nations that was more firmly and explicitly anchored to the political practice of his contemporary Europe than were the doctrines of his predecessors. Vattel promoted the practical applicability of his Droit des gens (1758), stressing that it was not so much written for interested ‘private individuals’, i.e. other scholars or the general public, but it was a ‘law of sovereigns’ that was primarily intended for ‘them and their ministers’. It would not help much, he explained, if his maxims were studied only by those who had no influence over public affairs; the ‘conductors of states’, on the other hand, if they chose to learn this science and adopt its maxims as the ‘compass’ for their policies, could produce many ‘happy results’.1 Vattel emphasized the easy comprehension and applicability of his book, contrasting his approach with that of Christian Wolff, whose treatise on the law of nations could be understood only if one ‘previously studied sixteen or seventeen quarto volumes which precede it’.2 As Vattel famously declared, his original intention was to introduce Wolff ’s system to a wider readership, by rendering his rigid and formal work more ‘agreeable and better calculated to ensure it a reception in the polite world’.3 While it is clear that Vattel’s work amounted to much more than a systematic account of Wolff ’s principles,4 it is in the manner of presentation that the differences between the two scholars are the most striking. Already the choice of French over Latin, the language of diplomats over that of the republic of","PeriodicalId":164710,"journal":{"name":"The Law of Nations and Natural Law 1625–1800","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Law of Nations and Natural Law 1625–1800","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004384200_009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Emer de Vattel has been widely considered a seminal figure in the European tradition of the law of nations. While attaching himself to the earlier tradition of natural jurisprudence, he offered a normative system of the law of nations that was more firmly and explicitly anchored to the political practice of his contemporary Europe than were the doctrines of his predecessors. Vattel promoted the practical applicability of his Droit des gens (1758), stressing that it was not so much written for interested ‘private individuals’, i.e. other scholars or the general public, but it was a ‘law of sovereigns’ that was primarily intended for ‘them and their ministers’. It would not help much, he explained, if his maxims were studied only by those who had no influence over public affairs; the ‘conductors of states’, on the other hand, if they chose to learn this science and adopt its maxims as the ‘compass’ for their policies, could produce many ‘happy results’.1 Vattel emphasized the easy comprehension and applicability of his book, contrasting his approach with that of Christian Wolff, whose treatise on the law of nations could be understood only if one ‘previously studied sixteen or seventeen quarto volumes which precede it’.2 As Vattel famously declared, his original intention was to introduce Wolff ’s system to a wider readership, by rendering his rigid and formal work more ‘agreeable and better calculated to ensure it a reception in the polite world’.3 While it is clear that Vattel’s work amounted to much more than a systematic account of Wolff ’s principles,4 it is in the manner of presentation that the differences between the two scholars are the most striking. Already the choice of French over Latin, the language of diplomats over that of the republic of
瓦特尔《国法》中的人、怪物和人类历史
埃默·德·瓦泰尔被广泛认为是欧洲国际法传统的开创性人物。在依附于早期的自然法传统的同时,他提出了一种国家法的规范体系,这种体系比他的前辈们的学说更牢固、更明确地依附于他同时代欧洲的政治实践。瓦特尔强调了他的《国法》(1758)的实用性,强调它不是为感兴趣的“个人”,即其他学者或普通公众而写的,而是一部“君主的法律”,主要是为“他们和他们的大臣”而写的。他解释说,如果他的格言只被那些对公共事务没有影响力的人研究,那也不会有多大帮助;另一方面,“国家的指挥者”,如果他们选择学习这门科学,并采用它的格言作为他们政策的“指南针”,就会产生许多“快乐的结果”Vattel强调了他的书的易于理解和适用性,将他的方法与Christian Wolff的方法进行了对比,后者关于国际法的论文只有在“之前研究了十六或十七卷四开本”的情况下才能理解正如瓦泰尔著名的声明,他的初衷是通过使沃尔夫的刻板和正式的作品更“令人愉快和更好地计算,以确保它在礼貌的世界中受到欢迎”,将沃尔夫的体系介绍给更广泛的读者很明显,瓦泰尔的著作远不止是对沃尔夫原理的系统阐述,4两位学者之间的差异最显著的是在表述方式上。法语已经取代了拉丁语,外交官的语言取代了共和国的语言
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信