« 이전계속 »
Wherefore, to represent Grotius as having excluded the jus naturale and the jus divinum from the sources of International Law, is a grave misrepresentation. As a matter of fact he has done no such thing, and nothing could have heen more alien to his habits of thought than to have done so.
A Dutch writer, in a recent and very interesting commentary on the writers since the time of Grotius, says truly, "Postquam juris gentium fundamenta (Grotius) posuerat in ipsa natura, legibusque divinis in moribus, atque in pactis: ejus sectatores in duas (a) fere abiere partes."
To represent jus voluntarium, explained as I have shown by Grotius himself, as a Protestant discovery, is an extraordinary error. It is an error also, though of less magnitude, to assert that Suarez, the Roman Catholic predecessor of Grotius, would never have admitted, as a source of International Law, this jus voluntarium; because, though not in terms, in substance he has distinctly done so.
In a passage (cited in the Appendix, p. 494, to my first volume), speaking of the necessity of an International Law, Suarez says, "Et quamvis magna ex parte hoc fiat per rationem naturalem non tamen sufficienter et immediate quoad omnia: ideoque specialia jura potuerunt usu corundem gentium introduci."
I have one more citation to make from Grotius himself, which perhaps puts this grave and fundamental error of the reviewer in the strongest, and I fear the least venial, light. The reviewer says, Grotius "made the prime source (of International Law) independent of God and providence." Grotius says, "jure primo Gentium quod et naturale interdum dicitur." (6)
Lastly, I will dismiss this mischievous and baseless notion of a Protestant discovery, which is to render the immutable
(a) Van Hogendorf, Commentatio de Juris Gentium studio in Patrid nostra post H. Orotium, Amstelod, 1856. (6) Cited vol. i. 15.
laws of eternal justice not binding between States, in the language of the Protestant Wolff, the Protestant successor of the Protestant Grotius: "Absit vero, ut existimes, jus gentium voluntarium, ab eorum voluntate ita proficisci ut libera sit eorum in eodem condendo voluntas, et stet pro ratione sola voluntas, nulla habita ratione juris naturalis." (a)
The review teems with minor and, in a Reviewer, venial errors—e. g., as to Roman Law—the Recuperatores—the effect of Roman upon International Law—the English exposition of International Law in 1753 confounded with a German theory. These are errors comparatively insignificant.
But it is not insignificant to place, even in a review, International Law upon a false basis—to substitute what I must call the rubbish of "a law of personalty, resistance, will, and warfare," for the immutable foundation of everlasting justice— and to misrepresent Orotius as your fellow-labourer in the mischief.