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
His igitur sublatis cum manifestum sit, quod et Victoria
scribit,[37a] Hispanos ad terras remotiores illas navigantes nullum
ius secum attulisse occupandi eas provincias, unus dumtaxat titulus
belli restat, qui et ipse si iustus esset, tamen ad dominium
proficere non posset, nisi iure praedae, hoc est post occupationem.
Atqui tantum abest ut Lusitani eas res occupaverint, ut cum plerisque
gentibus quas Batavi accesserunt, bellum eo tempore nullum haberent.
Et sic igitur nullum ius illis quaeri potuit, cum etiam si quas ab
Indis pertulissent iniurias, eas longa pace et amicis commerciis
remisisse merito censeantur.
Quamquam ne fuit quidem quod bello obtenderent. Nam qui Barbaros
bello persequuntur ut Americanos Hispani, duo solent praetexere, quod
ab illis commercio arceantur, aut quod doctrinam verae religionis
illi nolent agnoscere. Et commercia quidem Lusitani ab Indis
impetrarunt,[38a] ut hac in parte nihil habeant quod querantur.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHAPTER IV
_The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by
title of war_
Since it is clear, (as Victoria also says),[37] from the refutation
of any claim to title from the Pope’s Donation, that the Spaniards
when they sailed to those distant lands did not carry with them any
right to occupy them as provinces, only one kind of title remains to
be considered, namely, that based upon war. But even if this title
could be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty,
except by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would be
a prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as possible from
occupation of those lands. They were not even at war with most of
the peoples whom the Dutch visited. So therefore no legal claim
could be established there by the Portuguese, because even if they
had suffered wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be
considered by the long peace and friendly commercial relations that
those injuries had been forgiven.
Indeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. For those
who force war upon barbarous peoples, as the Spaniards did upon
the aborigines of America, commonly allege one of two pretexts:
either that they have been refused the right to trade, or that the
barbarians are unwilling to acknowledge the doctrines of the True
Faith. But as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians
the right to trade,[38] they have, on that score at least, no
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in
Barbaros, quo Boëthius respexit:[39a]
_An distant quia dissidentque mores,
Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent,
Alternisque volunt perire telis?
Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio._
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