Acquisitive Prescription in Early Modern International Law

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
Alexander D. Batson
{"title":"Acquisitive Prescription in Early Modern International Law","authors":"Alexander D. Batson","doi":"10.1163/15718050-12340198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article examines the role of Roman acquisitive prescription in early modern international law debates. The ubiquity of prescription demonstrates the importance of Roman private law in the development of international law. Yet, although it was a widely-used juristic concept, there was no consensus about its legitimacy in international relations from 1500 to 1800. Debates raged over whether it was a product of the natural law, the law of nations, or the Roman civil law. There was a crucial tension between prescription’s utility in confirming the political status quo and its tendency to justify ownership based on prior injustice or violence. In assessing the place of prescription in international law, this article examines its use by Grotius, Vázquez, Freitas, Boecler, Conring, Bellarmine, Solórzano, and others in debates over freedom of the seas, imperial possessions in the Americas, Dutch independence, papal temporal power, and the aftermath of the Thirty Years War.","PeriodicalId":43459,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718050-12340198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article examines the role of Roman acquisitive prescription in early modern international law debates. The ubiquity of prescription demonstrates the importance of Roman private law in the development of international law. Yet, although it was a widely-used juristic concept, there was no consensus about its legitimacy in international relations from 1500 to 1800. Debates raged over whether it was a product of the natural law, the law of nations, or the Roman civil law. There was a crucial tension between prescription’s utility in confirming the political status quo and its tendency to justify ownership based on prior injustice or violence. In assessing the place of prescription in international law, this article examines its use by Grotius, Vázquez, Freitas, Boecler, Conring, Bellarmine, Solórzano, and others in debates over freedom of the seas, imperial possessions in the Americas, Dutch independence, papal temporal power, and the aftermath of the Thirty Years War.
近代早期国际法中的取得时效
本文考察了罗马取得时效在近代早期国际法辩论中的作用。时效的普遍存在表明了罗马私法在国际法发展中的重要性。然而,虽然它是一个广泛使用的法学概念,但在1500年至1800年期间,对其在国际关系中的合法性没有达成共识。关于它是自然法、国法还是罗马民法的产物,争论激烈。处方在确认政治现状方面的效用与其基于先前的不公正或暴力为所有权辩护的倾向之间存在着一种至关重要的紧张关系。在评估时效在国际法中的地位时,本文考察了格劳秀斯、Vázquez、弗雷塔斯、伯克勒、康宁、贝拉明、Solórzano等人在海洋自由、帝国在美洲的属地、荷兰独立、教皇世俗权力和三十年战争余波等问题上对时效的使用。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The object of the Journal of the History of International Law/Revue d"histoire du droit international is to contribute to the effort to make intelligible the international legal past, however varied and eccentric it may be, to stimulate interest in the whys, the whats and wheres of international legal development, without projecting present relationships upon the past, and to promote the application of a sense of proportion to the study of current international legal problems. The aim of the Journal is to open fields of inquiry, to enable new questions to be asked, to be awake to and always aware of the plurality of human civilizations and cultures, past and present.
×
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