The freedom of the seas : $b or, The right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade — John Shaqi
The freedom of the seas : $b or, The right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian tradeGrotius, Hugo
Philosophy
The freedom of the seas : $b or, The right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade
Grotius, Hugo
Freedom of the seas; Law of the sea
Those therefore who deny this law, destroy this most praise-worthy
bond of human fellowship, remove the opportunities for doing mutual
service, in a word do violence to Nature herself. For do not the
ocean, navigable in every direction with which God has encompassed
all the earth, and the regular and the occasional winds which blow
now from one quarter and now from another, offer sufficient proof
that Nature has given to all peoples a right of access to all
other peoples? Seneca[4] thinks this is Nature’s greatest service,
that by the wind she united the widely scattered peoples, and yet
did so distribute all her products over the earth that commercial
intercourse was a necessity to mankind. Therefore this right belongs
equally to all nations. Indeed the most famous jurists[5] extend
its application so far as to deny that any state or any ruler can
debar foreigners from having access to their subjects and trading
with them. Hence is derived that law of hospitality which is of the
highest sanctity; hence the complaint of the poet Vergil:
“_What men, what monsters, what inhuman race,
What laws, what barbarous customs of the place,
Shut up a desert shore to drowning men,
And drive us to the cruel seas again._”[6]
And:
“_To beg what you without your want may spare--
The common water, and the common air._”[7]
We know that certain wars have arisen over this very matter; such for
example as the war of the Megarians against the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
in Athenienses.[8a] Bononiensibus in. Venetos,[9a] Castellanis etiam
in Americanos has iustas potuisse belli causas esse, et ceteris
probabiliores Victoria putat,[10a] si peregrinari et degere apud
illos prohiberentur, si arcerentur a participatione earum rerum quae
iure gentium aut moribus communia sunt, si denique ad commercia non
admitterentur.
Cui simile est quod in Mosis[11a] historia et inde apud Augustinum
legimus,[12a] iusta bella Israelitas contra Amorrhaeos gessisse,
quia innoxius transitus denegabatur; qui IVRE HVMANAE SOCIETATIS
aequissimo patere debebat. Et hoc nomine Hercules Orchomeniorum,
Graeci sub Agamemnone Mysorum Regi arma intulerunt,[13a] quasi libera
essent naturaliter itinera, ut Baldus dixit.[14a] Accusanturque
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Athenians,[8] and that of the Bolognese against the Venetians.[9]
Again, Victoria[10] holds that the Spaniards could have shown just
reasons for making war upon the Aztecs and the Indians in America,
more plausible reasons certainly than were alleged, if they really
were prevented from traveling or sojourning among those peoples,
and were denied the right to share in those things which by the Law
of Nations or by Custom are common to all, and finally if they were
debarred from trade.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account