[Footnote 29: See Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No. 2649, and below, § 95.] [Footnote 30: See Taylor, §§ 431, 433, 441; Moore, VII. §§ 1089, 1091, 1099; Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No. 2633.] II RETORSION Vattel, II. § 341--Hall, § 120--Westlake, II. p. 6--Phillimore, III. § 7--Twiss II. § 10--Taylor, § 435--Wharton, III. § 318--Moore, VII. § 1090--Wheaton, § 290--Bluntschli, § 505--Heffter, § 110--Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 59-71--Ullmann, § 159--Bonfils, Nos. 972-974--Despagnet, Nos. 484-486--Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2634-2636--Rivier, II. § 60--Calvo, III. § 1807--Fiore, II. Nos. 1226-1227, and Code, Nos. 1386-1390--Martens, II § 105. [Sidenote: Conception and Character of Retorsion.] § 29. Retorsion is the technical term for the retaliation of discourteous or unkind or unfair and inequitable acts by acts of the same or a similar kind. Retorsion has nothing to do with international delinquencies, as it is not a means of compulsion in the case of legal differences, but only in the case of certain political differences. The act which calls for retaliation is not an illegal act; on the contrary, it is an act that is within the competence of the doer.[31] But a State can commit many legislative, administrative, or judicial acts which, although they are not internationally illegal, contain a discourtesy or unfriendliness to another State or are unfair and inequitable. If the State against which such acts are directed considers itself wronged thereby, a political difference is created which might be settled by retorsion. [Footnote 31: For this reason--see Heilborn, _System_, p. 352, and Wagner, _Zur Lehre von den Streiterledigungsmitteln des Völkerrechts_ (1900), pp. 53-60--it is correctly maintained that retorsion, in contradistinction to reprisals, is not of legal, but only of political importance. Nevertheless, a system of the Law of Nations must not omit the matter of retorsion altogether, because retorsion is in practice an important means of settling political differences.] [Sidenote: Retorsion, when justified.]