But at what a cost! Germany was reduced in population from sixteen millions to four millions. A state of famine was caused which drove men and women to cannibalism. "Twelve hours after the fall of Magdeburg 20,000 men, women, and children lay charred and blackened corpses amidst the ashes of the hapless city. . . . During the siege of Leipsic Tilly's soldiers exercised the wildest licentiousness and cruelty in the surrounding towns; men and women were stripped, scourged, cropped, yoked, and submitted to such freaks of unrestrained barbarity as sicken the heart by their bare recital." 1 Besides the political results of the Thirty Years' War as formulated in the treaties of Münster and Osnaburg under the name of the peace of Westphalia, these treaties and this peace opened up the new school of jurists, the disciples of Grotius, in continental Europe. It marked also the period of the establishment of permanent legations, which tended toward pacific relations among the European states. In a larger sense it has been well said that the peace of Westphalia sang the deathknell of world empire as well as of world church, while international law as a modern science resting upon the territorial sovereignty of states commences its history with the conclusion of its treaties. The terms of this peace were constantly renewed and confirmed in all treaties of peace of the continental states of Europe until the outbreak of the French Revolution. 24. The Successors of Grotius.-The principal writers and jurists dealing with public international law who may be termed the successors of Grotius were Zouche (1590-1660), Puffendorf (1632-94), Thomasius (1655-1728), Cornelius Bynkershoek, who wrote his more famous books from 1702-37, and Vattel, whose career extended from 1714 to 1767. The most celebrated writers among the immediate succes3ors of Grotius were the two last mentioned, Bynkershoek and Vattel. The most famous and important work of Bynker1 Walker, "Science of Int. Law," p. 247. shoek was the "Questiones Juris Publici." Of this work Wheaton, no mean authority himself, says that: "In this work Bynkershoek treats the important subject of belligerent and neutral relations with more completeness, precision, and fulness of practical illustration than any of his predecessors and, indeed, it may be said, of his successors among the public jurists. He is the first writer who has entered into a critical and systematic exposition of the law of nations on the subject of maritime commerce between neutral and belligerent nations; and the plan which he adopted was well calculated to do justice to the subject." 1 Vattel was also one of the most distinguished writers among the successors of Grotius. He was a Swiss writer, a disciple of the profound German philosopher Wolff. Vattel treated especially upon the primary rights and duties of states and also laid stress upon the conventional and customary side of international law, which he largely illustrated from the history of his own times. His books are among the classics of international law. Other writers of a still later date, perhaps worth mentioning, were Moser, G. F. de Martens, the earliest of three writers of the same name upon international law and diplomacy, Hübner, a Dane, and Lampredi, an Italian, who wrote upon "Armed Neutrality" in 1788. It can be said, finally, that although the successors of Grotius show various tendencies in treating of international law, some reactionary, others more positive in their teachings, there will be found, on the whole, general progress and substantial agreement in their writings. 25. From the Peace of Westphalia until the Peace of Utrecht. This period, extending from 1648 to 1713, was filled with a succession of wars arising from the ambition of Louis XIV. They were closed at times by the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668, of Nimeguen in 1678, and that of Ryswick in 1697. These treaties of peace marked, however, little more than truces; nevertheless, upon the whole, this period shows a 1 Wheaton, "History of Law of Nations," p. 193. progress in the development of the law of nations, notwithstanding the occasional violations in its practice. Among the principles constantly discussed in the learned and laborious state papers of these times was that of intervention to maintain the balance of power in Europe. The principle itself was then generally acknowledged, but as a not unusual thing in state policy the question of its application became a subject for disputes. It came too close to being a question of interference by one state or group of states with the internal affairs of another state not to be one of danger to pacific relations. In one shape or another the question of the balance of power may be said to exist in Europe to the present day. During the period under discussion the laws of maritime warfare became more generally known and followed. During the wars in the Low Countries, however, a Spanish archduke hanged twelve sick Dutch soldiers made prisoners in a stranded vessel on the plea that they were taken at sea, where there were no laws of arms to be observed.1 But matters had improved since then, and it can be said at this time of the period under discussion that the doctrine of the freedom of the sea had been largely conceded, notwithstanding the writings of Selden to the contrary, while fixed rules were formulated as to the right of visit and search, blockade and contraband. Much was due in this subject to the survival of the early maritime codes already referred to. Of one of these, Wheaton says: "The testimony of Grotius and other public jurists of the seventeenth and the earlier part of the eighteenth century shows that the rules relating to maritime warfare adopted by the consolato del mare as early as the latter part of the fourteenth century were still recognized in practice by the principal European states, with certain exceptions contained in the ordinances of France and Spain, during the different mar1"Grotius," p. 398. itime wars which took place between the peace of the Pyrenees in 1659 and the peace of Utrecht, 1713. These rules, then, may be considered as forming the general maritime law of Christendom, independent of these exceptions and of others introduced between particular nations by special treaties forming the conventional law between the contracting parties." 1 26. From the Peace of Utrecht to the French Revolution.This period, extending from 1713 to 1789, was marked by the rise of Prussia to a power of the first class, the war of independence on the part of British American colonies and the subsequent recognition of their independence by all nations, the entry of Russia into the family of nations, the first partition of Poland, and the beginning of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic era. The peace of Utrecht, among other matters, sanctioned once more "the legitimacy of the English Revolution of 1688 and guaranteed the Protestant succession to the British crown in the House of Hanover, as it had been settled by Act of Parliament. The cause of the Stuarts was thus finally abandoned by France and with it the principle of hereditary, indefeasible right on which it was grounded. The treaties of Utrecht were constantly renewed and confirmed from this time forth in every successive treaty of peace between the great continental and maritime powers until the peace of Lunéville, in 1800, and that of Amiens, in 1803, when they were, for the first time, omitted." "12 The two maritime wars that were terminated by the treatie: of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748, and of Paris, 1763, caused many maritime questions to arise. Each belligerent adhered to its own views of the laws of nations in its conduct toward neutrals. France, by the ordinance of October 21, 1744, exempted from capture neutral vessels with enemy's goods, confiscating the goods of the enemy and restoring the vessel with the rest of 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations," pp. 106, etc. the cargo, contraband excepted. But two remarkable restrictions upon foreign commerce were revived to the effect that 1. All goods the growth, produce, or manufacture of the enemy's country were made liable to capture and confiscation except in neutral vessels navigating directly from the enemy's port where the goods were laden to a port of their own country. 2. Neutral vessels were prohibited from carrying a cargo from one port to another of the enemy, whatever might be the origin of the goods or to whomever they might belong. From these rules Denmark, Spain, and Sweden were exempt. The English practice, as given by their commissioners in 1754, was "that the law of nations has established that the goods of an enemy on board the ship of a friend may be taken." "That the lawful goods of a friend on board of the ship of an enemy ought to be restored." 1 Another rule laid down by England at this period was known as the Rule of the War of 1756, which forbade, in war time, neutrals to engage in the coasting trade of a belligerent, or in any other trade which was not permitted to them in time of peace. The desirability of this rule, whose correctness was supported by many English and some American jurists, will be discussed later. ✓ In 1780 Russia proclaimed the maritime principles of the armed neutrality, which were: (1) That all neutral vessels may freely navigate from port to port and on the coasts of nations at war. (2) That goods belonging to the subjects of powers at war shall be free in neutral vessels except contraband of war. (3) That contraband articles shall be restricted to munitions of war. (4) That the denomination of a blockaded port is to be given only to one which has the enemy vessels stationed sufficiently near to cause an evident danger to the attempt to enter." 2 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations," pp. 210, etc. |