The Interpretation of International Law in Second Scholasticism
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The grandees of so called second scholasticism – Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1480–1546) and Jesuit Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) – must be reckoned among founders of international law theory. Their works, issued before famous treatise “On the Law of War and Peace” by another father of international law Hugo Grotius, contained solid system of that law. This system, referring to Roman law, the works of Thomas Aquinas, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Raymund of Penafort and John of Legnano, analyzed nature and origin of international law, declared inseparable rights of nations and states, determined sufficient conditions for defending those rights in just war (bellum justum).
De Vitoria and Suarez regarded international law as a set of customary rules and principles regulating relations among all or almost all the nations and states of the world. Those rules were considered the certain principles of natural law accommodated to the sphere of international relations. According to de Vitoria and Suarez, by trial and error, nations and states gradually derive from natural law more or less general customs of international conduct.
One of the most significant aspects of international law theory in second scholasticism is the list of fundamental and inseparable rights of nations and states, presented by de Vitoria. This list includes the rights to existence, equality and political sovereignty; the right to international migration and trade; the right and duty to lend a military aid to nation, victimized by domestic tyrants or threatened or attacked by external aggressor. These rights must be regarded as a certain equivalent of some principles of modern international law, namely, sovereignty of states; noninterference into internal affairs; interdiction to use force and even to threaten by it; equality and self-determination of nations; freedom of migration; humanitarian intervention etc.
The violation of rights of nations and states, declared by second scholasticism, was considered a sufficient reason to begin a just war. The conception of just war was chiefly developed by Suarez. The certain principles of that conception – warning an enemy before beginning an offensive war; inviolability of ambassadors and peaceful population; prohibition to kill prisoners and hostages; correspondence of reparations to injury received before and during the war; illegitimacy of confessional wars etc. – have not lost significance in our age.
Theory of international law included in second scholasticism is akin to system of that law presented by Grotius. Interpreting nature and origin of international law, declaring rights of nations and states, finally, setting causes and principles of just war, Grotius has not essentially digressed from the path delineated by de Vitoria and Suarez.
De Vitoria and Suarez regarded international law as a set of customary rules and principles regulating relations among all or almost all the nations and states of the world. Those rules were considered the certain principles of natural law accommodated to the sphere of international relations. According to de Vitoria and Suarez, by trial and error, nations and states gradually derive from natural law more or less general customs of international conduct.
One of the most significant aspects of international law theory in second scholasticism is the list of fundamental and inseparable rights of nations and states, presented by de Vitoria. This list includes the rights to existence, equality and political sovereignty; the right to international migration and trade; the right and duty to lend a military aid to nation, victimized by domestic tyrants or threatened or attacked by external aggressor. These rights must be regarded as a certain equivalent of some principles of modern international law, namely, sovereignty of states; noninterference into internal affairs; interdiction to use force and even to threaten by it; equality and self-determination of nations; freedom of migration; humanitarian intervention etc.
The violation of rights of nations and states, declared by second scholasticism, was considered a sufficient reason to begin a just war. The conception of just war was chiefly developed by Suarez. The certain principles of that conception – warning an enemy before beginning an offensive war; inviolability of ambassadors and peaceful population; prohibition to kill prisoners and hostages; correspondence of reparations to injury received before and during the war; illegitimacy of confessional wars etc. – have not lost significance in our age.
Theory of international law included in second scholasticism is akin to system of that law presented by Grotius. Interpreting nature and origin of international law, declaring rights of nations and states, finally, setting causes and principles of just war, Grotius has not essentially digressed from the path delineated by de Vitoria and Suarez.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
