Grotius, III. c. 2--Vattel, II. §§ 342-354--Bynkershoek, _Quaestiones jur. publ._ I. c. 24--Hall, § 120--Lawrence, §§ 136-137--Westlake, II. pp. 7-11--Twiss, II. §§ 11-22--Moore, VII. §§ 1095, 1096-1098--Taylor, §§ 436-437--Wharton, III. §§ 318-320--Wheaton, §§ 291-293--Bluntschli, §§ 500-504--Heffter, §§ 111-112--Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 72-116--Ullmann, § 160--Bonfils, Nos. 975-985--Despagnet, Nos. 487-495--Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2637-2647--Rivier, II. § 60--Nys, III. pp. 84-91--Calvo, III. §§ 1808-1831--Fiore, II. Nos. 1228-1230, and Code, Nos. 1391-1399--Martens, II. § 105--Lafargue, _Les représailles en temps de paix_ (1899)--Ducrocq, _Représailles en temps de paix_ (1901), pp. 5-57, 175-232--Westlake in _The Law Quarterly Review_, XXV. (1909), pp. 127-137. [Sidenote: Conception of Reprisals in contradistinction to Retorsion.] § 33. Reprisals is the term applied to such injurious and otherwise internationally illegal acts of one State against another as are exceptionally permitted for the purpose of compelling the latter to consent to a satisfactory settlement of a difference created by its own international delinquency. Whereas retorsion consists in retaliation of discourteous, unfriendly, unfair, and inequitable acts by acts of the same or a similar kind, and has nothing to do with international delinquencies, reprisals are acts, otherwise illegal, performed by a State for the purpose of obtaining justice for an international delinquency by taking the law into its own hands. It is, of course, possible that a State retaliates in consequence of an illegal act committed against itself by the performance of an act of a similar kind. Such retaliation would be a retorsion in the ordinary sense of the term, but it would not be retorsion in the technical meaning of the term as used by those writers on International Law who correctly distinguish between retorsion and reprisals. [Sidenote: Reprisals admissible for all International Delinquencies.] § 34. Reprisals are admissible not only, as some writers[32] maintain, in case of denial or delay of justice, or of any other internationally interdicted ill-treatment of foreign citizens, but in every case of an international delinquency for which the injured State cannot get reparation through negotiation,[33] be it ill-treatment of its subjects abroad through denial or delay of justice or otherwise, or be it non-compliance with treaty obligations, violation of the dignity of a foreign State, violation of foreign territorial supremacy, or any other internationally illegal act. [Footnote 32: See, for instance, Twiss, II. § 19.] [Footnote 33: As regards reprisals for the non-payment of contract-debts, see below, § 41.]