22 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



are recognized as obligatory. They only draw, therefore, their funda- 

 mental authority except from natural law, employing for an instant 

 this term, the sense of which we have before explained. And it is also 

 from natural law that is generally deduced the idea of the necessary 

 conditions to establish the validity of treaties, and that of the legitimate 

 consequences ensuing from their violation. 



[From " A Methodical System of Universal Law," by J. G. Heiueccius (Turnbull's 

 Translation), vol. I., ed. 1763.] 



Sec. XII, pageS: The law of nature, or the natural rule of recti- 

 tude, is a system of law promulgated by the eternal God to the whole 

 human race by reason. But if you would rather consider it as a 

 science, natural morality will be lightly defined the practical habit of 

 discovering the will of the supreme legislator by reason, and of apply- 

 ing it as a rule to every particular case that occurs. Now, because it 

 consists in deducing and applying a rule coming from God, it may be 

 justly called divine jurisprudence. 



Sec. XXI, page 14: *Since the law of nature comprehends all the 

 laws promulgated to mankind by right reason; and men may be con- 

 sidered either as particulars singly, or as they are united in certain 

 political bodies or societies; we call that laiv, by which the actions of 

 particulars ought to be governed, the law of nature, and we call that 

 the law of nations, which determines what is just and unjust in society 

 or between societies. And therefore the precepts, or the laws of both 

 are the same; nay, the law of nations is the law of nature itself, re- 

 specting or applied to social life and the affairs of societies and inde- 

 pendent states. 



Sec. XXII, page 15 : Hence we may infer, that the law of nature doth 

 not differ from the law of nations, neither in respect of its foundation 

 and first principles, nor of its rules, but solely with respect to its object. 

 Wherefore their opinion is groundless, who speak of, I know not what, 

 law of nations distinct from the law of nature. Thepositive or second 

 ary law of nations devised by certain ancients, does not properly belong- 

 to that law of nations we are now to treat of, because it is neither es- 

 tablished by God, nor promulgated by right reason; it is neither 

 common to all mankind nor unchangeable. 



[From Vattcl on the Law of Nations, seventh American ed., 1849.] 



There certainly exists a natural law of nations since the obligations 

 of the law of nature are no less binding on states, on men united in 

 political society, than on individuals. But, to acquire an exact knowl- 

 edge of that law, it is not sufficient to know what the law of nature 

 prescribes to the individuals of the human race. The application of a 

 rule to various subjects, can no otherwise be made than in a manner 

 agreeable to the nature of each subject. Hence, it follows, that the 

 natural law of nations is a particular science, consisting in a just and 

 rational application of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of 

 nations or sovereigns. (Preface, page v.) 



The moderns are generally agreed in restricting the appelation of 

 "The Law of Nations" to that system of right and justice which ought 

 to prevail between nations or sovereign states. (Preface, page vi.) 



The necessary and the voluntary law of nations are therefore both 

 established by nature, but each in a different manner; the former as a 

 sacred law which nations and sovereigns are bound to respect and fol- 

 low in all their actions; the latter, as a rule which the general welfare 



