Law of Nations: Meaning, Origins, and Legal Evolution

Introduction

The Law of Nations is one of the most important legal traditions behind modern public international law. It was not a fixed code, nor a single doctrine created by one author. It was a changing legal language used to explain how political communities could trade, negotiate, make treaties, send envoys, claim territory, wage war, remain neutral, and demand responsibility for injury.

Its meaning cannot be reduced to Roman jus gentium, Grotius, Westphalia, or Vattel. Each belongs to history, but none alone explains it. Roman lawyers supplied terms for rules considered common beyond local civil law. Medieval jurists added canon law, treaty faith, just war reasoning, and moral limits on rulers. Early modern writers then reshaped these materials under the pressure of oceanic trade, imperial expansion, religious conflict, and diplomatic rivalry (Lesaffer, 2005; Fassbender and Peters, 2012).

The term became especially influential in the eighteenth century through Emer de Vattel. His The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns gave the subject a clear state-centred structure. Vattel treated nations as self-governing political societies with rights and duties under law. That formulation strengthened sovereign equality, independence, non-intervention, treaty obligation, neutrality, and responsibility between states (Vattel, 1844; Jouannet, 2012).

That achievement also had limits. Classical doctrine often protected state independence more effectively than human beings or subordinated communities. Enslaved persons, Indigenous nations, colonized societies, religious minorities, and many non-European polities were frequently placed outside full legal equality. The same legal vocabulary that restrained some forms of arbitrary power also helped organize conquest, unequal treaties, territorial dispossession, and the nineteenth-century “standard of civilization” (Anghie, 2005; Koskenniemi, 2001).

This double character makes the subject legally important. The older tradition was neither simple progress nor mere domination. It helped build rules for diplomacy, treaty faith, maritime order, neutrality, and the conduct of war. At the same time, it allowed jurists and statesmen to convert power into legal title, coercion into formal consent, and hierarchy into doctrine. Any serious account must hold both sides together without turning history into celebration or indictment alone.

Modern international law changed the framework. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice expressed a more formal doctrine of sources through treaties, custom, general principles, judicial decisions, and scholarly writings as subsidiary means (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codified central rules on good faith, interpretation, invalidity, coercion, and peremptory norms (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, arts 26, 31, 52–53). The United Nations Charter also broke with the classical acceptance of war by prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)).

Yet the older framework did not disappear. Its concepts still shape the way lawyers argue about sovereignty, consent, custom, treaties, diplomatic protection, immunities, neutrality, state responsibility, and jurisdiction. What changed was the legal environment around those concepts. Human rights, self-determination, international criminal responsibility, jus cogens, collective security, and obligations owed to the international community now limit claims that once rested almost entirely on state's will.

This article examines the meaning, origins, and legal evolution of the Law of Nations as a historical and doctrinal problem. Its central argument is that the tradition survived by changing form. It began as a broad language of common legal reason and inter-polity conduct. It became state-centred through early modern and eighteenth-century jurists. It later entered modern public international law through positivism, codification, institutions, decolonization, and legal hierarchy.

Understanding that trajectory is essential for advanced students, researchers, and historians of international law. It explains why modern law still depends on sovereignty and consent, but no longer belongs only to sovereign states. It also shows why legal history matters for doctrine: many current disputes about force, territory, treaties, custom, human rights, and global governance still carry assumptions inherited from the older Law of Nations.

1. What Is the Law of Nations?

1.1 Meaning of the Law of Nations

The Law of Nations was a historical legal term for rules, principles, and practices governing relations among political communities. It covered more than relations between modern states. At different moments, it included rules on envoys, treaties, war, neutrality, maritime commerce, territorial claims, reprisals, safe conduct, sovereign independence, and responsibility for injury.

The term was broad because the legal world it described had no single legislature, no universal court, and no central executive power. Jurists had to explain how rulers and communities could be bound by law even when no superior political authority stood above them. Natural law, custom, treaty practice, diplomatic usage, and moral reasoning all supplied parts of the answer.

This explains why the term never had one fixed meaning. Roman lawyers used jus gentium in one way. Medieval canonists and theologians used related ideas differently. Early modern writers adapted them to war, empire, commerce, and diplomacy. Eighteenth-century jurists, especially Vattel, then gave the field a more state-centred form (Vattel, 1844; Jouannet, 2012).

The Law of Nations should be understood as a layered legal tradition, not as a closed code. It joined legal doctrine with political practice. A rule might be defended as natural reason, accepted as custom, written into a treaty, repeated by diplomats, or applied by courts. The field grew through this combination of argument and practice.

A useful definition is this: the Law of Nations was the body of legal reasoning used to regulate external relations among organized political communities before the modern discipline of public international law acquired its present institutional form. That definition is broad, but it is not vague. It captures the central subjects that made the field legally distinct: sovereignty, obligation, consent, conflict, commerce, territory, and diplomatic order.

1.2 Law of Nations and International Law

The Law of Nations and modern public international law are connected, but they are not identical. The older term belonged to a legal world in which natural law, moral duty, juristic writing, diplomatic practice, and custom were often discussed together. Modern international law is more technical. It is usually explained through recognized sources, institutions, courts, codification, treaties, and rules of responsibility.

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice gives the modern source framework its classic expression. It refers to treaties, custom, general principles, judicial decisions, and scholarly writings as subsidiary means for determining rules of law (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38). That method is far more formal than the older juristic style found in Grotius, Pufendorf, Wolff, or Vattel.

The difference can be seen in treaty law. Classical writers treated treaties as binding because sovereigns were expected to keep faith, honour promises, and respect legal obligation under natural and voluntary law. Modern treaty law still relies on good faith and pacta sunt servanda, but these principles now operate through a codified legal framework, especially the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, arts 26 and 31).

The same pattern appears in custom. Older jurists often spoke of long usage, common practice, civilized usage, or accepted maxims among nations. Modern customary international law requires evidence of general practice accepted as law. The International Law Commission’s work on identifying customary international law reflects this more disciplined method of proof (International Law Commission, 2018).

The modern field did not simply replace the older one. It absorbed many of its doctrines and changed their legal setting. Sovereign equality, consent, custom, neutrality, diplomatic immunity, state responsibility, and treaty obligation all carry older assumptions. Yet they now operate under stronger limits, including the UN Charter prohibition on the use of force, human rights, self-determination, jus cogens, and obligations owed to the international community as a whole.

The shift is not only linguistic. It marks a change in legal authority. The older tradition relied heavily on reason, usage, jurists, and sovereign practice. Modern international law still depends on state consent in many areas, but it also includes institutional law-making, compulsory treaty regimes, international courts, monitoring bodies, and rules that limit what states may validly agree to do.

1.3 Jus gentium and droit des gens

The expression Law of Nations is often linked to Roman jus gentium and the French droit des gens. That link is important, but it must be handled carefully. Similar words do not prove identical doctrine. Each term belonged to a different legal culture and answered different legal problems.

In Roman law, jus gentium referred to rules and institutions considered common across communities, especially in legal relations involving foreigners. It was not a body of modern interstate law. It dealt with matters such as contract, commerce, slavery, property, and legal dealings beyond the strict civil law of Roman citizens (Buckland, 1963; Stein, 1999).

Roman jurists distinguished jus gentium from jus civile, the law specific to a particular city or community. They also linked it at times with jus naturale, the law associated with nature or reason. The boundaries were not stable. Later writers inherited this instability and used it creatively when discussing war, treaties, trade, and relations among sovereigns.

The French droit des gens carried the discussion into a different intellectual world. Early modern and eighteenth-century writers used it to describe the law governing nations and sovereigns. Vattel’s title, Le Droit des gens, was translated into English as The Law of Nations. In his formulation, the term referred to principles of natural law applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns (Vattel, 1844).

That move was doctrinally significant. Roman jus gentium was not mainly a law between sovereign states. Vattel’s droit des gens was much closer to a law of external relations among independent political societies. The older Roman language remained visible, but the legal subject had changed.

The conceptual path is better understood as adaptation rather than continuity. Roman law supplied vocabulary. Medieval jurists added moral and theological structures. Early modern writers transformed the material through war, diplomacy, empire, maritime commerce, and state formation. The English term Law of Nations then entered legal education, diplomatic argument, and judicial reasoning as a way to describe rules beyond domestic law.

1.4 Nations before modern states

The word “nations” can mislead modern readers. It did not always mean nation-states in the contemporary sense. Earlier usage could refer to kingdoms, republics, cities, empires, dynastic realms, confederations, commercial societies, religious communities, or organized political bodies with external relations.

This matters because the legal history of the subject is older and wider than the modern state. Diplomatic exchange, treaty-making, rules on envoys, maritime usage, and peace settlements existed before the full consolidation of the sovereign territorial state. Medieval and early modern legal practice involved popes, emperors, kings, city-republics, merchants, military orders, colonial companies, and imperial authorities.

Vattel helped narrow the field by treating nations as self-governing political societies. His model placed sovereign states at the centre of legal analysis. A nation, for Vattel, had authority over itself, could enter into obligations, make treaties, defend its rights, and claim equality with other sovereign communities (Vattel, 1844).

That state-centred structure became highly influential because it gave jurists a clear legal actor. Rights and duties could be attached to the sovereign state. Treaty consent could be attributed to it. Injury could be claimed by it. Territory, jurisdiction, neutrality, and responsibility could be organized around it.

The cost of that clarity was exclusion. Communities that did not fit the European model of statehood were often treated as legally inferior, dependent, or incomplete. Indigenous nations, colonized societies, and non-European empires were not always denied legal relevance, but their status was frequently reduced by doctrines of civilization, protection, discovery, occupation, or unequal treaty capacity (Anghie, 2005; Becker Lorca, 2014).

The meaning of “nation” was thus not a neutral technical detail. It shaped who could make law, who could claim rights, who could own territory, who could resist intervention, and who would be treated as a legal object rather than a legal participant. Vattel’s state-centred account was a historical achievement, but it was also a historical narrowing.

2. Roman and Medieval Legal Foundations

2.1 Roman jus gentium

Roman jus gentium is one of the main foundations for later discussions of the Law of Nations, but it should not be mistaken for modern international law. It did not create a legal system between sovereign states. Rome did not operate with the modern concept of equal independent states bound by reciprocal legal rules.

Its importance lies elsewhere. Jus gentium gave later jurists a language for rules that were not confined to one local civil law. It suggested that some legal institutions could be recognized across political and cultural boundaries. That idea became valuable when later writers tried to explain law among rulers, communities, and foreign powers.

Roman jurists used jus gentium in connection with dealings involving non-citizens and institutions treated as common to many communities. Contract, sale, partnership, property, slavery, and commercial exchange were often discussed through this broader legal category. The concept helped Roman law manage legal relations in an imperial setting where citizens and foreigners interacted constantly (Buckland, 1963; Stein, 1999).

Later jurists reused Roman categories in new contexts. They drew analogies between private legal obligation and treaty obligation, between possession and territorial title, between injury and state responsibility, and between good faith in contract and good faith among sovereigns. These analogies were never perfect, but they helped build legal doctrine before modern public international law had a settled method.

The inheritance was powerful because Roman law offered structure. It supplied distinctions, forms of reasoning, and technical vocabulary. Yet it also carried dangers. When later writers borrowed Roman concepts for external relations, they sometimes treated empire, property, slavery, and conquest as if they were ordinary legal categories rather than structures of domination.

The Roman foundation should be read with precision. It did not give the world international law. It gave later jurists tools for organizing arguments about legal relations beyond a single civil order. That is a narrower claim, but it is the legally accurate one.

2.2 Jus naturale and civil law

Roman and medieval legal thought often worked with three categories: jus naturale, jus gentium, and jus civile. Jus naturale referred to the law associated with nature or reason. Jus civile referred to the law of a particular city or political community. Jus gentium occupied the uncertain space between them, describing rules considered common across communities or useful in relations involving outsiders.

This tripartite structure created a problem that never fully disappeared. If a rule was grounded in reason, was it natural law? If many communities accepted it, was it jus gentium? If a state enacted it, was it civil law? The categories overlapped, and later writers used that overlap to argue about obligation beyond domestic law.

The ambiguity became central to the Law of Nations. Jurists wanted to claim that sovereigns were not legally free to do anything they wished. Natural law helped make that claim. At the same time, sovereigns did not live under a common civil legislature. Custom, treaties, and usage helped explain how specific rules could arise among them.

This tension is visible in Vattel’s system. He treated the Law of Nations as the law of nature applied to nations and sovereigns, but he also distinguished natural, voluntary, conventional, and customary law (Vattel, 1844). That structure shows the inherited problem clearly: some duties came through reason, some through assumed equality, some through treaty, and some through practice.

Modern public international law handles the issue differently. It does not usually treat natural law as a formal source in the same way classical writers did. Yet traces remain. General principles, good faith, equity, humanity, peremptory norms, and community obligations all show that legal reasoning cannot be reduced entirely to written consent.

The old distinction between natural law, common law among communities, and local civil law still helps explain a basic feature of international legal thought. Lawyers continue to ask which rules bind states because they consented, which bind because practice supports them, and which bind because no lawful order can permit their violation.

2.3 Envoys, treaties, and public faith

The protection of envoys is one of the oldest signs of legal order beyond domestic authority. Communities that disagreed about religion, language, dynasty, or territory still needed messengers, negotiators, interpreters, and diplomatic agents. Without some respect for envoys, negotiation became dangerous, and peace-making became harder.

This practical need produced legal expectations before modern diplomatic law was codified. Envoys required safe conduct. Their words had to be treated as official communication. Their persons and documents needed protection. Insults or violence against them could trigger serious political and legal consequences.

Treaty faith was equally important. Medieval and early modern rulers made truces, alliances, peace agreements, commercial arrangements, marriage settlements, and territorial bargains. These agreements were often reinforced by oaths, seals, hostages, religious sanctions, witnesses, ceremonies, and public acts. The form varied, but the legal concern was stable: promises between rulers had to carry weight.

The idea of public faith helped connect morality and law. A ruler who broke a treaty did not merely disappoint another ruler. He damaged the reliability of public order. This is why good faith became a central idea in the later Law of Nations and remains central in modern treaty law.

The modern Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties preserves this older concern in technical form. Article 26 states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 26). The language is modern, but the underlying anxiety is old: legal relations collapse when formal promises can be ignored at convenience.

Envoys and treaties show why the Law of Nations developed through practice as much as theory. Rulers needed rules because they had to communicate, settle disputes, exchange goods, form alliances, end wars, and manage borders. Jurists later gave doctrinal shape to problems that diplomats and rulers already faced.

2.4 Canon law and just war

Medieval Christian legal thought shaped the Law of Nations through canon law, moral theology, and just war doctrine. Its influence was not limited to religion. It affected legal arguments about authority, coercion, treaty obligation, territorial title, infidels, conversion, punishment, and the moral limits of rule.

Just war theory asks when force could be justified. The classic elements included legitimate authority, cause, and right intention. These ideas did not create modern rules on the use of force, but they supplied a legal and moral vocabulary for judging violence by rulers. War was not treated as a mere fact. It required justification.

The requirement of legitimate authority mattered because it linked war to public office. Private violence, feud, banditry, and unauthorized raids could be distinguished from public war. This distinction later influenced doctrines separating lawful combatants, public enemies, reprisals, piracy, and criminal violence.

Canon law also shaped treaty obligation through oaths, good faith, and the binding force of promises. Agreements between rulers could be framed not only as political bargains but as morally serious commitments. Breach could be described as dishonourable, unlawful, sinful, or destabilizing for public order.

The legal status of non-Christian communities became one of the most contested areas. Some arguments defended papal authority, missionary claims, or intervention. Others recognized forms of ownership, political authority, and legal capacity outside Christianity. The debates around the Spanish presence in the Americas later forced these issues into sharper doctrinal form, especially in the work of Vitoria (Anghie, 2005; Brett, 2011).

Canon law and just war reasoning left a mixed legacy. They gave jurists tools to restrain violence and challenge arbitrary conquest. They also supplied arguments that could justify intervention, conversion, punishment, or imperial control. The later Law of Nations inherited both sides: a language of restraint and a language that could legalize domination.

3. Early Modern Origins of the Law of Nations

3.1 Empire and global encounter

The early modern Law of Nations did not emerge in a quiet scholarly world. It took shape during European expansion, maritime competition, religious conflict, imperial rivalry, and sustained contact with non-European political orders. Jurists were not writing only about abstract relations among equal sovereigns. They were also responding to conquest, trade routes, missionary claims, chartered companies, piracy, slavery, territorial occupation, and diplomatic conflict.

This setting matters because it prevents a false account of legal progress. The Law of Nations was not simply a European achievement that gradually civilized international relations. It was also a legal language used to manage the empire. It supplied arguments for treaty-making, maritime freedom, diplomatic protection, and limits on war. Yet it also helped transform power into title, commerce into jurisdiction, and conquest into claims of legal authority (Anghie, 2005; Koskenniemi, 2001).

Oceanic commerce placed heavy pressure on older legal categories. European powers needed rules for navigation, prize, neutral trade, capture at sea, commercial monopoly, and relations with ports outside Europe. The sea became a legal battleground because control over maritime space meant control over trade, taxation, military movement, and colonial supply chains. Grotius’s defence of maritime freedom, for example, cannot be separated from Dutch commercial conflict with Iberian monopoly claims (Grotius, 2004; Van Ittersum, 2006).

Missionary activity created another set of legal problems. Christian rulers and theologians debated conversion, papal authority, the legal status of non-Christian rulers, and the conditions under which intervention could be justified. These debates did not remain theological. They shaped legal claims about jurisdiction, sovereignty, war, property, and the rights of foreign communities.

Diplomacy also expanded. European rulers negotiated not only with each other but with the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Persia, Mughal India, African kingdoms, Indigenous nations in the Americas, and Asian imperial courts. These encounters forced practical questions. Who had treaty capacity? What counted as a lawful title? Could non-Christian rulers own territory? Did trade require consent? Were European categories of sovereignty universal, or only regional?

The early modern Law of Nations answered these questions inconsistently. At times, it recognized political authority outside Europe. At other times, it downgraded that authority through doctrines of discovery, civilization, guardianship, protection, or unequal treaty capacity. This instability is central to the field’s history. The same legal vocabulary could restrain arbitrary violence in one context and justify subordination in another.

3.2 Vitoria and the Indies

Francisco de Vitoria occupies a central place in the early modern history of the Law of Nations because he addressed the Spanish presence in the Americas through legal argument rather than simple imperial assertion. His lectures on the Indies rejected some of the most direct claims used to justify Spanish domination. He denied that the pope could simply transfer political authority over Indigenous nations to Spain. He also rejected forced conversion as a sufficient title for conquest (Vitoria, 1991; Brett, 2011).

That part of Vitoria’s work is important. It shows that sixteenth-century scholastic thought could recognize legal limits on empire. Indigenous communities were not treated as ownerless populations with no political life. Vitoria accepted that they had forms of dominion, property, and political authority. This challenged the crude idea that Christian rulers could acquire territory merely because its inhabitants were non-Christian.

Yet a serious reading cannot stop there. Vitoria’s argument also opened alternative legal pathways for Spanish intervention. He defended a right of travel and communication, a right to trade, a right to preach, and possible intervention to protect converts or respond to alleged violations of natural law. If Indigenous rulers resisted what Vitoria characterized as lawful Spanish rights, he could treat that resistance as a basis for just war (Vitoria, 1991; Anghie, 2005).

The result was a more sophisticated legal structure for the empire. Vitoria limited some titles, but he did not remove the legal possibility of Spanish coercion. His method shifted the argument away from direct papal donation and toward universal rights framed through natural law and jus gentium. That shift appears less like a conquest and more like the enforcement of legal norms.

This is why Vitoria remains difficult. He cannot be reduced to an apologist for empire, but he cannot be presented as a modern anti-colonial jurist either. His work recognized legal capacity outside Europe while also placing non-European societies under standards defined by European scholastic reason. The Law of Nations appears here as both a restraint on arbitrary conquest and a structure through which domination could be legally rationalized.

Vitoria’s importance lies in that tension. He shows how the early modern legal imagination could challenge imperial excess while preserving the authority to judge, discipline, and intervene. Later international law would inherit that pattern repeatedly: formal recognition combined with substantive hierarchy.

3.3 Suárez and the political community

Francisco Suárez developed a more general theory of political community and legal obligation. His work treated political societies as real moral communities with authority, duties, and a place within a wider legal order. This mattered for the Law of Nations because it helped explain how independent political communities could be bound by law even without a common superior (Suárez, 2015; Brett, 2011).

Suárez did not treat rulers as legally unlimited. Political authority had a moral and legal structure. It was not pure force. A community could govern itself, but its rulers remained subject to higher norms. This idea helped sustain the view that external relations among political societies were not merely matters of power, convenience, or dynastic ambition.

His contribution also lies in the link between natural law and inter-polity obligation. Natural law supplied universal principles. Human communities then developed more specific rules through practice, agreement, and necessity. The Law of Nations could be understood as partly grounded in reason and partly shaped by the common life of political communities.

This approach prepared later debates about legal personality. If a political community had moral standing and governing authority, it could bear rights and duties. It could make agreements, suffer injury, claim reparation, and be judged by rules beyond its internal law. Such reasoning would later become central to theories of state personality.

Suárez also helps explain why early modern law did not move directly into positivism. Obligation was not yet understood, mainly as the state expressed through recognized sources. It remained tied to reason, justice, community, and moral limits on authority. That older structure would later be narrowed by state-centred doctrines, but it did not disappear completely.

His work sits between medieval universalism and later theories of sovereign equality. He preserved the idea of a wider legal order while accepting the reality of distinct political communities. That balance became one of the central problems of the Law of Nations: how to recognize independence without making rulers legally unaccountable.

3.4 Gentili and secular legal method

Alberico Gentili marked a methodological shift in the Law of Nations. He did not abandon moral reasoning, but he moved legal argument toward history, state practice, classic examples, and practical judgment. His work on war and diplomacy helped separate legal analysis from purely theological authority and gave jurists a more secular vocabulary for relations among rulers (Gentili, 1933; Haggenmacher, 2012).

Gentili’s importance is often overshadowed by Grotius. That is a mistake. Gentili wrote as a lawyer concerned with concrete problems: declarations of war, lawful enemies, ambassadors, treaties, reprisals, and the conduct of hostilities. He treated war as a public legal relation, not merely as sin, punishment, or moral disorder.

His treatment of ambassadors was especially important. Diplomatic protection requires rules capable of operating across religious and political divisions. A system that protected only envoys from friendly or theologically approved communities would fail. Gentili’s legal method supported the idea that diplomatic relations required common rules even among rivals.

Gentili also contributed to the separation between private violence and public war. War had to be connected to the public authority. This distinction later became essential for the legal treatment of lawful enemies, piracy, reprisals, rebellion, mercenary activity, and the conduct of armed conflict.

His secular method did not remove politics. It made legal arguments more usable by states. By drawing on examples, practice, and historical reasoning, Gentili helped turn the Law of Nations into a practical discipline for diplomacy and conflict. That made the field more technical, but also more closely tied to the interests of rulers.

The transition is important. Scholastic writers asked how rulers were bound by divine, natural, and moral law. Gentili helped jurists ask how rulers behaved, what practices could be treated as legally meaningful, and which rules could govern public conflict among independent authorities. That practical orientation prepared the ground for Grotius and later classical writers.

3.5 Grotius and the system of law

Hugo Grotius gave the Law of Nations one of its most influential systematic forms. He should not be described as the single founder of international law. That claim is too simple and historically weak. Earlier traditions had already addressed envoys, war, treaties, trade, maritime claims, natural law, and relations with foreign communities. Grotius’s importance lies in how he organized those materials into a powerful legal argument (Grotius, 2005; Tuck, 1999).

His work combined natural law, consent, historical examples, Roman law, theology, classical sources, and state practice. This mixture allowed him to argue that war could be judged by law even without a world sovereign. It also allowed him to distinguish rules based on nature from rules arising through the will or practice of nations.

Grotius’s treatment of war was central. He did not treat war as outside the law. He examined causes of war, property, punishment, promises, necessity, good faith, and restraint in hostilities. War remained a lawful institution in his world, but it was not legally empty. Rulers could act wrongfully even during armed conflict.

His maritime writing was equally significant. In Mare Liberum, Grotius defended freedom of the seas against Iberian claims of monopoly. The argument supported Dutch commercial interests, but it also gave lasting doctrinal form to the idea that the open sea could not be appropriated in the same way as land (Grotius, 2004; Van Ittersum, 2006).

This connection between doctrine and interest is essential. Grotius was not writing outside power politics. His legal arguments served commercial, imperial, and diplomatic contexts. That does not make them legally irrelevant. It means they must be read as both jurisprudence and political intervention.

Grotius’s long-term influence came from his ability to make diverse materials appear as a coherent legal order. He did not invent the field, but he gave it a form that later jurists could use, revise, attack, and teach. In that narrower and stronger sense, he was a systematizer of extraordinary importance.

3.6 Pufendorf, Wolff, and legal science

Samuel Pufendorf and Christian Wolff helped make the Law of Nations more systematic before Vattel. Both worked within natural-law traditions, but they refined the idea that states could be treated as moral persons capable of rights, duties, and legal relations.

Pufendorf viewed states as moral persons formed by human association and political authority. This idea allowed legal reasoning to move from individuals to collective bodies. If a state could be treated as a person for legal purposes, it could make promises, suffer wrongs, bear duties, defend rights, and be responsible for conduct (Pufendorf, 1934; Haakonssen, 2012).

That move was crucial. The Law of Nations required a legal actor. Individuals could be subjects of natural law, but external legal relations among political communities needed a way to attribute action and responsibility to the community itself. The moral-person theory helped solve that problem.

Wolff developed a more elaborate legal science. He imagined a universal community of nations and tried to organize their relations through rational principles. His framework was more abstract than Vattel’s later account, but it gave the field systematic ambition. It treated relations among states as capable of legal ordering through reason, not only through convenience or power (Wolff, 1934; Haakonssen, 2012).

Vattel drew heavily on Wolff but simplified and adapted the system. Wolff’s legal science was demanding and philosophical. Vattel made the subject more accessible to diplomats, statesmen, lawyers, and educated readers. That helps explain why Vattel became more influential in practice.

Pufendorf and Wolff prepared the doctrinal ground for Vattel in two ways. They reinforced the idea of states as legal persons. They also preserved a natural-law structure while making it more suitable for relations among independent political communities. Vattel’s achievement was to turn these ideas into a clearer, more practical, and more state-centred Law of Nations.

4. Vattel’s Law of Nations

4.1 Vattel’s central place

Emer de Vattel stands at the centre of the classical Law of Nations because his work gave the field a practical and influential state-centred form. His The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns became one of the most widely read eighteenth-century accounts of external legal relations among states (Vattel, 1844; Jouannet, 2012).

Vattel mattered because he made a complex natural-law tradition usable. Earlier writers had produced dense philosophical systems. Vattel wrote in a clearer style and organized the subject around the conduct of nations and sovereigns. That made his work attractive to diplomats, judges, politicians, and legal educators.

His framework placed the sovereign state at the centre of legal analysis. Nations were treated as political societies capable of governing themselves, making treaties, defending rights, maintaining neutrality, and claiming equality with other nations. This gave the field a definite actor and a practical structure.

The influence of Vattel was not limited to Europe. His work circulated widely in the Atlantic world and became especially important in early American legal and political thought. Courts, lawyers, and statesmen used him to discuss sovereignty, treaty obligation, neutrality, diplomacy, and the legal consequences of independence (Janis, 2010; Jouannet, 2012).

For modern readers, Vattel is essential because many searches for the Law of Nations are really searches for the meaning and legacy of his formulation. He did not create the subject, but he fixed one of its most influential classical expressions. Later international law would move beyond his framework, but it did so while retaining many of his central categories.

4.2 Nation as political society

Vattel defined a nation as a political society united for common purposes and capable of self-government. This definition connected the Law of Nations to independence, sovereignty, legal personality, and the capacity to enter relations with other political communities (Vattel, 1844).

The definition was powerful because it gave legal form to collective political authority. A nation was not merely a population, territory, or dynasty. It was an organized society with governing institutions and a capacity to act externally. That made it possible to speak of national rights, national duties, national injury, and national responsibility.

Vattel’s “nation” is close to what later lawyers would call the sovereign state. Yet it should not be confused with modern nationalism. His concept was not based primarily on ethnic identity, language, culture, or popular self-determination. It was a juridical and political concept centred on organized self-government.

This distinction matters. A modern reader may assume that a nation means a cultural or ethnic community seeking political expression. Vattel’s usage was different. His concern was the legal personality of a self-governing political society. The nation appeared as an actor capable of rights and duties under external law.

The concept helped clarify treaty capacity. If a nation were a self-governing political society, it could bind itself through agreement. It also helped clarify responsibility. If the nation acted through its sovereign or public authorities, it could be held accountable for injury to another nation.

Yet the definition also raised difficult questions. Which communities counted as self-governing political societies? Who decided? Could empires, confederations, Indigenous nations, or non-European kingdoms qualify on equal terms? Vattel’s framework gave the appearance of universality, but later practice often applied it through European assumptions about sovereignty and civilization.

4.3 Sovereign equality

Sovereign equality was one of Vattel’s most influential ideas. He argued that a small republic was no less sovereign than a powerful kingdom. Formal legal equality did not depend on population, wealth, territory, military strength, or prestige. Each independent nation had the same juridical standing as a subject of the Law of Nations (Vattel, 1844).

The doctrine had real legal force. It challenged claims of universal monarchy, imperial supremacy within Europe, and hierarchical theories that placed some Christian powers above others. It also supported the idea that weak states could possess rights against powerful states.

Sovereign equality helped organize treaty law. If states were formally equal, treaties could be treated as agreements between juridically equal parties. It also supported diplomatic equality, territorial independence, and the idea that no state could command another merely because it was stronger.

The difficulty is that formal equality often conceals material inequality. A weak state might be juridically equal and still be economically dependent, militarily exposed, diplomatically isolated, or subject to coercive treaty terms. Legal equality did not prevent unequal treaties, colonial protectorates, spheres of influence, or informal empire.

The problem was sharper outside Europe. Many non-European polities were denied full equality even when they possessed territory, government, diplomacy, and treaty practice. European jurists and states often used civilizational standards to decide who could enjoy full legal standing. Sovereign equality was universal in language, but selective in application (Anghie, 2005; Becker Lorca, 2014).

This does not make Vattel’s doctrine irrelevant. It makes it ambivalent. Sovereign equality could be used by weaker states to resist domination. It could also coexist with exclusion and hierarchy. Modern international law still carries that tension. Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter affirms sovereign equality, but international power remains radically unequal.

4.4 Independence and non-intervention

Vattel’s system gave strong protection to independence. Each nation was treated as legally entitled to govern itself, preserve its political order, control its affairs, and resist external domination. This principle became one of the most important foundations of non-intervention.

The logic was clear. If nations are free and equal, one state cannot treat another as a subordinate. It cannot dictate its constitution, seize its territory, control its government, or interfere in matters that belong to domestic authority. Independence protected political self-government against external command (Vattel, 1844).

This was a major legal achievement. It helped resist imperial claims among European powers and gave smaller states a language of legal defence. It also shaped later doctrines of territorial integrity, domestic jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and political independence.

Yet the doctrine created a hard problem. Strong non-intervention protects autonomy, but it can also shield abuse. If every state is the judge of many internal matters, external supervision becomes difficult. Classical law gave limited space for claims based on the treatment of individuals inside a state, especially when those individuals were not foreign nationals.

This tension remains visible in modern law. Human rights, self-determination, international criminal law, and Security Council practice have limited the older idea that internal treatment is purely domestic. Yet non-intervention still remains a core principle. Modern law tries to hold both values: independence and accountability.

Vattel’s framework explains why the balance is so difficult. The classical Law of Nations was built to protect states from domination by other states. It was not primarily designed to protect individuals or internal groups from their own rulers. Modern public international law inherited the state-centred structure and then had to modify it.

4.5 Perfect and imperfect obligations

Vattel’s distinction between perfect and imperfect obligations is one of the clearest examples of his legal method. A perfect obligation was one that another state could demand as a matter of right. An imperfect obligation was morally binding, but it usually could not be externally enforced by another state (Vattel, 1844).

The distinction allowed Vattel to preserve moral duty without turning every moral failure into a legal claim. A state might have duties of humanity, assistance, moderation, or fairness. Yet not every failure to perform such duties gave another state the right to coerce compliance.

This structure mattered because it protected independence. If every moral duty were enforceable by other states, powerful states could use moral claims as excuses for intervention. By separating moral obligation from external enforceability, Vattel tried to limit the danger of abuse.

At the same time, the distinction weakened accountability. Serious wrongs could be treated as matters of conscience, prudence, or internal judgment unless they violated a perfect right of another state. This made the classical system poorly equipped to address many harms suffered by individuals, minorities, enslaved persons, colonized communities, or Indigenous nations.

The distinction also reveals how Vattel handled natural law. He did not deny moral duties. He limited the legal consequences that other states could impose. The Law of Nations, in his hands, was not pure morality. It was a legal order adjusted to sovereign equality and independence.

Modern international law has moved away from this structure in several areas. Human rights law, international criminal law, jus cogens, and obligations owed to the international community make some violations legally relevant beyond bilateral injury. Yet the basic problem remains: not every legal or moral wrong gives every state the same right to enforce.

4.6 Natural, voluntary, and customary law

Vattel organized the Law of Nations through several layers. Natural law supplied basic principles derived from reason and the nature of political societies. Voluntary law adjusted those principles to the equality and independence of states. Conventional law arose through treaties. Customary law arose through repeated practice accepted among nations (Vattel, 1844).

This layered structure was designed to solve a practical problem. States were bound by natural law, but they were also independent. No state could claim general authority over another. The voluntary law of nations helped Vattel explain how rules could operate among formally equal states even when natural law might point to more demanding moral duties.

Conventional law was more direct. States could bind themselves through treaties. A treaty created obligations between the parties because sovereigns had expressed consent. This made treaty law central to external relations, diplomacy, commerce, peace settlements, alliances, and territorial arrangements.

Customary law came from practice. When nations repeatedly acted in a certain way and treated that practice as legally meaningful, the practice could acquire normative force. Vattel’s account was less technical than modern custom doctrine, but it anticipated the idea that legal rules can arise through conduct and acceptance rather than written agreement alone.

The structure is important because it shows that Vattel was not a simple positivist. He did not reduce law to consent. Natural law remained foundational. Yet he also gave treaty, custom, and state practice a major role. His framework sits between natural-law universalism and later positivist source doctrine.

Modern international law changed the method but kept parts of the architecture. Treaties and customs remain central sources. General principles preserve a role for legal reasoning beyond express consent. Peremptory norms limit what states may agree to do. Vattel’s categories are no longer modern doctrine, but they help explain how the modern source system developed.

4.7 Treaties and good faith

Treaties occupied a central place in Vattel’s Law of Nations because they expressed sovereign will in legal form. A treaty allowed independent nations to create specific obligations, settle disputes, form alliances, regulate commerce, transfer territory, end war, or establish peace.

For Vattel, the binding force of treaties rested on good faith and the duty to keep promises. A state that violated its treaty obligations did more than breach a bargain. It undermined confidence in the public legal order. Treaty faith was essential because independent states had no common superior able to enforce every promise (Vattel, 1844).

This older concern remains visible in modern treaty law. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith. Article 31 also makes good faith central to treaty interpretation (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, arts 26 and 31).

The continuity is real, but it should not be overstated. Modern treaty law is far more technical than Vattel’s account. It contains rules on conclusion, reservations, interpretation, third states, invalidity, termination, suspension, coercion, and conflict with peremptory norms. It also operates in a world of multilateral conventions, international organizations, monitoring bodies, and courts.

Vattel’s influence lies in the underlying structure. Treaties remain expressions of legal consent. Good faith remains essential to performance and interpretation. Breach still gives rise to responsibility. The difference is that modern law embeds these principles in codified rules and institutional practice.

This is a good example of continuity with transformation. Modern treaty law is not Vattel’s law. Yet it still addresses the same basic problem: how independent legal actors can create reliable obligations through agreement.

4.8 War and neutrality

Vattel wrote in a legal world where war was still treated as a lawful institution. States could resort to war to defend rights, obtain satisfaction, punish injury, or pursue claims when peaceful means failed. The central legal question was not only whether war could occur, but how it should be declared, conducted, limited, and ended.

His treatment of war reflected the classical structure of the Law of Nations. War was a public relations between states. It required public authority. It created legal effects for enemies, allies, neutral states, property, prisoners, territory, and commerce. Even when war was accepted as lawful, it was not a legal vacuum (Vattel, 1844).

Neutrality was especially important. A state not participating in war had rights and duties. It could claim respect for its territory and commerce, but it also had to avoid certain forms of assistance to belligerents. Neutrality helped manage conflict by limiting the spread of war and protecting relations with non-participating states.

Vattel’s world also accepted reprisals and satisfaction as methods of responding to injury. Before modern collective security, enforcement was decentralized. States often acted for themselves. This created obvious risks: powerful states could frame coercion as enforcement of rights.

Modern law changed the legal position of war. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except within limited legal frameworks such as self-defence and Security Council authorization (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, arts 2(4), 39–42 and 51). Aggressive war is no longer an ordinary legal instrument.

Even so, Vattel remains relevant because older categories did not vanish completely. Neutrality, belligerency, occupation, reprisals, enemy property, and the rights of non-participating states continue to influence legal debates, though under different rules. The major shift is that modern law separates the legality of resorting to force from rules governing conduct during armed conflict.

This contrast is central to the article. Vattel’s Law of Nations tried to legalize and restrain war. Modern international law goes further by restricting the right to begin war.

4.9 Vattel’s influence and limits

Vattel’s influence was broad because his work was practical, clear, and adaptable. It shaped diplomatic reasoning, legal education, judicial argument, and early constitutional debates. It was especially influential in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Atlantic world, including the legal culture of the early United States (Janis, 2010; Jouannet, 2012).

American lawyers and statesmen used Vattel to reason about independence, neutrality, recognition, treaties, diplomatic relations, and the status of the new republic within the international order. His language of sovereign equality was useful to a state seeking recognition as an independent member of the legal community of nations.

His work also influenced judicial reasoning. Courts could invoke the Law of Nations to address prize law, neutrality, diplomatic protection, alien rights, and relations with foreign states. In such contexts, Vattel operated as a learned authority rather than a formal source in the modern sense.

The influence continued into nineteenth-century legal education. Vattel offered a structured account of external law that could be taught to lawyers, diplomats, and public officials. His work helped make the Law of Nations appear as a coherent discipline.

Yet his limits are equally important. His framework centred the sovereign state and left many actors at the margins. Individuals usually appeared through nationality, protection, injury, or state responsibility. Enslaved persons, Indigenous nations, colonized societies, and many non-European polities were not treated as equal legal participants.

These exclusions were not accidental details. They reveal the structure of the classical order. The state was the main bearer of rights. Communities that did not fit the dominant model of sovereignty could be reduced, managed, protected, or subordinated. Legal equality operated strongly among recognized states, but unevenly outside that circle.

Vattel’s legacy is best understood through this combination of clarity and exclusion. He gave the Law of Nations one of its most influential doctrinal forms. He also helped consolidate a state-centred model that modern international law has had to revise through human rights, self-determination, decolonization, international criminal law, and the recognition of broader legal interests.

5. Sources of the Law of Nations

5.1 Natural reason

Natural reason was one of the earliest foundations used to explain obligation beyond domestic law. Classical jurists faced a basic problem: no world legislature made rules for sovereigns, and no world sovereign stood above them. If rulers were legally bound only by their own will, external law would collapse into convenience. Natural law offered a different answer. It allowed jurists to argue that rulers and political communities were bound by reason, justice, good faith, and the moral structure of public authority.

This was not a minor theoretical claim. It made legal criticism possible. A ruler could not escape all legal judgment by saying that no superior had commanded him. War, treaty breach, seizure of property, mistreatment of envoys, and unjustified intervention could be assessed against standards beyond local civil law. Grotius, Pufendorf, Wolff, and Vattel all relied on natural-law reasoning, although they used it in different ways (Grotius, 2005; Pufendorf, 1934; Vattel, 1844).

Natural reason also helped explain why legal duties could exist before express consent. Some duties, such as keeping faith, respecting envoys, avoiding arbitrary violence, and repairing injury, were presented as requirements of rational order. They did not depend entirely on treaty text. This was essential in a legal world where written agreements covered only part of external relations.

The strength of natural law was also its danger. Because it claimed access to universal reason, it could restrain power, but it could also justify intervention. A state or empire could argue that another society had violated natural law, blocked lawful commerce, mistreated foreigners, resisted missionary activity, or offended basic standards of human conduct. Those claims could then be converted into reasons for coercion.

Vitoria’s writings on the Indies show the problem clearly. He rejected papal donation and forced conversion as direct titles for conquest, but he also defended the rights of travel, communication, trade, and preaching. Resistance to those claimed rights could be framed as a legal wrong capable of supporting Spanish intervention (Vitoria, 1991; Anghie, 2005).

Natural reason gave the Law of Nations moral depth. It also gave powerful actors a language for judging others. That double use explains why the tradition cannot be treated as pure restraint or pure domination. It was both a method for limiting arbitrary rule and a method for turning contested moral claims into legal authority.

5.2 Custom and long usage

Custom was one of the main bridges between the older Law of Nations and modern international law. In the classical tradition, jurists often referred to long usage, common practice, accepted maxims, and the conduct of nations. These references mattered because many external rules were not written into treaties. Diplomatic immunity, neutral commerce, prize practice, reprisals, maritime usages, and the treatment of envoys often depended on repeated practice and shared expectation.

Earlier customs were not always identified through a strict test. Writers relied on historical examples, diplomatic correspondence, court decisions, state conduct, and the authority of learned jurists. The line between evidence of law and argument about what law ought to be was often unclear. Vattel treated customary law as arising through long practice accepted among nations, but his method was less technical than modern doctrine (Vattel, 1844).

Modern customary international law is more disciplined. It requires general practice and acceptance of that practice as law, usually called opinio juris. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly treated both elements as necessary, although their weight can vary by context. The North Sea Continental Shelf cases remain central because the Court insisted that practice must show a belief that the conduct is legally required, not merely convenient or habitual (North Sea Continental Shelf, 1969).

The International Law Commission’s 2018 conclusions on customary international law restate the same basic structure. A rule of customary international law exists where there is a general practice accepted as law. Evidence may include diplomatic acts, national legislation, decisions of national courts, treaty practice, official statements, military manuals, and conduct in international organizations (International Law Commission, 2018).

This modern method changed the older tradition. Custom is no longer established by elegant quotations or broad appeals to civilized usage. It requires evidence. That does not make the process mechanical. Disputes remain over how much practice is enough, whose practice counts, how to treat silence, and how to identify opinio juris.

The deeper continuity is still visible. Both the old and modern systems use custom to solve the same structural problem: law must sometimes arise without a treaty. The difference is that modern international law demands a clearer method for proving that practice has become law.

5.3 Treaties and consent

Treaties became one of the clearest sources of obligation because they expressed consent in formal terms. A treaty showed that political communities had agreed to bind themselves. That made treaties especially important in diplomacy, commerce, peace settlements, territorial arrangements, alliances, navigation, extradition, and the regulation of war.

The older Law of Nations treated treaty faith as a condition of legal order. If rulers could ignore their promises at their convenience, external relations would lose stability. Vattel placed strong emphasis on good faith, keeping promises, and the binding force of agreements between nations (Vattel, 1844). Modern treaty law preserves that concern through pacta sunt servanda and good faith performance (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 26).

Consent gave treaties legitimacy, but it also created a serious weakness. Formal agreement does not always prove free agreement. Many treaties were concluded under pressure, debt dependency, military threat, colonial subordination, or unequal bargaining power. The legal form looked consensual, while the political reality was coercive.

Unequal treaties exposed this problem. In nineteenth-century Asia and the Ottoman world, treaty instruments often imposed extraterritorial jurisdiction, forced market access, fixed tariffs, territorial concessions, or special privileges for foreign nationals. Similar patterns appeared in colonial Africa and parts of Latin America. Consent operated as a legal form, while power determined many of the terms (Alexandrowicz, 1967; Anghie, 2005).

Modern law partly responds to this problem. The Vienna Convention treats coercion of a state by the threat or use of force as a ground of invalidity (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 52). It also recognizes that treaties conflicting with peremptory norms are void (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 53). These rules limit the older idea that consent alone can validate an obligation.

Yet modern law does not erase inequality. Economic pressure, political dependency, sanctions, military alliances, and institutional bargaining can still shape treaty-making. The legal question is not only whether consent exists on paper, but what kind of legal order consent helps create. The history of the Law of Nations shows why that question cannot be ignored.

5.4 Writers and learned authority

Writers played an unusually important role in the Law of Nations. Gentili, Grotius, Pufendorf, Wolff, Vattel, Bynkershoek, Wheaton, Phillimore, Westlake, and Oppenheim did not create law by personal authority. Their importance was methodological. They organized practice, supplied categories, interpreted disputes, educated officials, and gave courts and diplomats a language for legal argument.

This role made sense in a decentralized system. With no legislature above the states, jurists helped identify and explain rules drawn from reason, treaties, custom, diplomatic correspondence, maritime practice, and judicial decisions. Their works became tools of argument. A lawyer, judge, diplomat, or statesman could cite them to clarify doctrine or support a contested position.

Grotius offered a systematic treatment of war, natural law, consent, and maritime freedom. Bynkershoek relied more heavily on practice, especially in matters involving the sea, ambassadors, and neutrality. Vattel made the field more accessible and state-centred. Wheaton and Oppenheim later helped present international law as a professional legal discipline with a clearer structure (Grotius, 2005; Bynkershoek, 1930; Vattel, 1844; Oppenheim, 1905).

Modern law still recognizes the writings of highly qualified publicists, but only as a subsidiary means for determining rules of law. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice gives scholarly writing this limited role (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38(1)(d)). Writers assist in identifying law; they are not a direct source equivalent to treaties or custom.

That limitation is important. The older tradition sometimes gave learned writers great influence because formal sources were less settled. Modern doctrine is more cautious. It asks whether a statement reflects treaty law, custom, general principles, or judicial reasoning. Scholarly authority alone is not enough.

Even with that caution, learned writing remains influential. It shapes pleadings, judgments, codification projects, academic training, and state legal advice. The Law of Nations became a discipline because writers made scattered practices intelligible. Modern international law still depends on that intellectual labour, even while denying that jurists legislate by writing.

5.5 Courts and legal evidence

Courts helped transform the Law of Nations into a more formal legal system. Earlier jurists relied heavily on learned authority, diplomatic practice, and moral reasoning. Courts added a different discipline. They required evidence, legal characterization, reasoning by precedent, and application of rules to concrete disputes.

Prize courts were especially important in maritime law. They dealt with capture at sea, neutrality, blockade, enemy property, contraband, and lawful prize. Their decisions supplied practical legal material for later writers. Domestic courts also applied rules on ambassadors, aliens, piracy, neutrality, and treaty obligations. This helped bring external law into municipal legal systems.

The Paquete Habana is a famous example of a domestic court treating customary international law as judicially ascertainable. The United States Supreme Court held that coastal fishing vessels were exempt from capture as prize under established custom. The decision relied on long practice, state conduct, and juristic authority (The Paquete Habana, 1900). It shows the older method is still alive, but under judicial control.

The Permanent Court of International Justice gave the source doctrine a more international form. In Wimbledon, the Court treated treaty obligations and international legal commitments as limits on unilateral state discretion (Wimbledon, 1923). In Lotus, it addressed the relation between state freedom and prohibitive rules, often cited for a voluntarist conception of international law, though the judgment is more contested than simplified accounts suggest (Lotus, 1927).

The International Court of Justice later refined the customary method. In the North Sea Continental Shelf, the Court insisted on state practice and opinio juris before a treaty rule could be treated as customary law binding non-parties (North Sea Continental Shelf, 1969). That judgment marked a movement away from broad claims of usage toward a more evidence-based doctrine.

Judicial reasoning did not remove uncertainty. Courts still disagree, evidence can be uneven, and state practice is often ambiguous. Yet courts changed the field by turning learned claims into legal tests. The Law of Nations had relied heavily on juristic synthesis. Modern international law increasingly asks for demonstrable sources, evidence, and institutional reasoning.

6. Positivism, Empire, and Exclusion

6.1 The nineteenth-century turn

The nineteenth century brought a major shift toward positivism. Lawyers increasingly emphasized state will, treaty texts, diplomatic practice, legislation, judicial decisions, and recognized custom. This was not a complete break with earlier thought, but it changed the tone and method of international legal argument.

Positivism appealed to lawyers because it promised clarity. Natural-law reasoning could appear uncertain, moralized, or open to abuse. The positivist method seemed more technical. It asked what states had accepted, what treaties said, what practice showed, and what recognized legal authorities had applied.

This shift helped professionalize international law. It supported clearer source doctrine, more detailed treaty analysis, specialized legal writing, and systematic teaching. It also reflected the growing role of foreign ministries, legal advisers, arbitral tribunals, colonial administrations, and codification projects.

The cost was narrowing. If international law depended mainly on the will and practice of recognized sovereign states, the key question became who counted as a full state. This moved attention away from universal moral obligation and toward membership in an international legal community defined largely by European standards.

That shift intensified exclusion. Many non-European polities were treated as lacking full legal personality, even when they had governments, territories, diplomatic relations, and treaty practice. Positivism claimed technical neutrality, but its categories often reflected imperial power (Koskenniemi, 2001; Anghie, 2005).

The nineteenth-century turn gave international law a sharper professional form. It also helped create a legal order where recognition, civilization, sovereignty, and treaty capacity could be used to include some communities and subordinate others.

6.2 Bentham and international law

Jeremy Bentham is often associated with the rise of the term “international law.” His role should be stated precisely. He did not invent legal relations beyond states, and he did not replace the older tradition by himself. His importance lies in language and conceptual framing.

Bentham criticized older terminology and used “international law” to describe law between nations. The phrase gradually gained ground because it sounded more modern, technical, and disciplinary than the Law of Nations. It also suited a legal culture increasingly concerned with classification, legislation, utility, and reform (Bentham, 1789; Janis, 1984).

The change in vocabulary mattered. The older expression carried the weight of natural law, Roman inheritance, diplomacy, moral reasoning, and juristic tradition. “International law” suggested a more modern field organized around relations between states and identifiable sources of obligation.

The shift was not immediate. The Law of Nations remained common in legal writing, judicial decisions, and political debate throughout the nineteenth century. In some domestic legal systems, it survived even longer as a constitutional or statutory term. The older and newer expressions overlapped for a long period.

Bentham’s significance should not be exaggerated. He was part of a broader transformation in legal thought. The rise of treaty collections, arbitral practice, legal positivism, codification, foreign office practice, and professional international law all contributed to the change.

The linguistic shift still reveals something important. It marks the movement toward a discipline that wanted clearer boundaries, sources, and methods. The Law of Nations was broad, historical, and juristic. International law became more technical, institutional, and professional.

6.3 The standard of civilization

The “standard of civilization” was one of the most damaging doctrines of nineteenth-century international law. It classified political communities according to criteria defined largely by European powers and jurists. Those considered “civilized” could enjoy full participation in international law. Others were treated as partially included, dependent, subordinate, or outside the circle of full legal equality.

The doctrine turned legal personality into a hierarchy. Full sovereignty was not treated as a neutral fact of organized political authority. It became linked to European expectations about government, law, diplomacy, property, commerce, religion, and treatment of foreigners. A political community could be judged legally deficient because it did not match those standards (Gong, 1984; Anghie, 2005).

This classification had practical consequences. It affected treaty capacity, territorial title, extraterritorial jurisdiction, diplomatic equality, consular privileges, intervention, and recognition. It helped justify protectorates, unequal treaties, colonial administration, and foreign control over ports, tariffs, courts, and trade.

The doctrine also changed the meaning of sovereign equality. Among recognized European and European-style states, formal equality could be defended. Outside that circle, equality was conditional. A state or empire could be treated as sovereign for some purposes but not for others. Legal status became divisible and politically managed.

Japan’s nineteenth-century legal reforms illustrate the pressure created by this standard. Reform of legal institutions became tied to ending unequal treaty arrangements and gaining recognition as a full participant in the international legal order. Similar pressures affected the Ottoman Empire, China, Siam, and other non-European polities (Gong, 1984; Becker Lorca, 2014).

The standard of civilization exposes the limits of positivist neutrality. International law claimed to rely on consent and recognition, but the criteria for full legal participation were shaped by imperial power. Legal doctrine did not merely describe hierarchy. It helped produce and stabilize it.

6.4 Unequal treaties

Unequal treaties show why formal consent cannot be equated with genuine legal equality. These instruments were often signed by recognized authorities and written in treaty form, but they were shaped by military defeat, naval pressure, debt, diplomatic isolation, or fear of further intervention.

In China, treaties after the Opium Wars imposed port openings, indemnities, tariff limits, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and foreign privileges. In the Ottoman world, capitulatory and commercial arrangements placed serious constraints on jurisdiction and economic control. In parts of Africa and Latin America, treaties could formalize protection, debt arrangements, territorial concessions, trade privileges, or foreign control over strategic infrastructure (Alexandrowicz, 1967; Anghie, 2005).

The legal form of consent gave these arrangements durability. Once written as treaties, they could be defended as binding obligations. The weaker party’s consent became the formal basis for legal enforcement, even when the surrounding conditions were coercive.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction was especially significant. Foreign nationals could be removed from local courts and placed under consular or foreign jurisdiction. This did not merely protect individuals abroad. It marked the local legal system as inferior and limited the host authority’s sovereign control.

Unequal treaties also affected economic sovereignty. Tariff restrictions, port rights, debt controls, and commercial privileges reduced the ability of states to regulate their own markets. International law operated not only through armies and borders, but through contracts, customs duties, courts, and finance.

Modern treaty law recognizes some forms of coercion, especially coercion by the threat or use of force (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 52). Yet many historical forms of pressure fall outside narrow invalidity rules. Economic dependency, diplomatic isolation, and structural inequality are harder to translate into treaty invalidity.

The lesson is direct: consent is necessary in treaty law, but it is not always enough to prove fairness. The Law of Nations made consent central. Empire showed how consent could be extracted, staged, and legalized.

6.5 Territory and colonial title

Territorial doctrine was one of the areas where the Law of Nations most clearly intersected with empire. Jurists and states developed categories such as discovery, occupation, conquest, cession, prescription, protectorates, spheres of influence, and effective occupation. These categories appeared technical, but they often organized colonial expansion.

Discovery could be used to create an initial claim against other European powers, even when the land was inhabited. Occupation was later framed as the acquisition of territory considered terra nullius or legally available for appropriation. Conquest involved military seizure. Cession used a treaty form to transfer territory. Protectorates preserved some local authority on paper while placing external relations or key sovereign powers under foreign control (Lindley, 1926; Anghie, 2005).

Effective occupation became especially important in the late nineteenth century. European powers increasingly required signs of administration, control, or authority to support colonial claims against rival European states. The Berlin Conference reflected this logic in relation to African territory, linking colonial claims to notification and effective authority (General Act of the Berlin Conference, 1885).

The problem is that these doctrines often treated Indigenous nations and local political orders as legally diminished. Their land relations, diplomatic systems, and authority structures were frequently ignored, translated into European categories, or treated as insufficient for full territorial sovereignty.

The colonial title was not outside the law. It was made through legal arguments. Treaties, maps, charters, company rights, protectorate agreements, military acts, administrative posts, and diplomatic recognition all contributed to legal claims. International law gave colonial expansion a vocabulary of order.

This does not mean the law operated only as domination. Some doctrines could restrain rival claims, require evidence, limit arbitrary annexation, or preserve certain obligations. Yet the broader structure favoured European expansion. Legal technique made dispossession appear orderly.

Modern international law has rejected conquest as a lawful mode of territorial acquisition and recognizes self-determination, territorial integrity, and limits on the use of force. Yet historical titles still affect boundary disputes, Indigenous land claims, state succession, and arguments about colonial responsibility. The old territorial doctrines continue to cast long shadows.

6.6 Latin American legal thought

Latin American jurists and states made important contributions to international law, especially through arguments about sovereign equality, non-intervention, territorial integrity, diplomatic protection, and regional legal identity. This history is essential because it challenges the idea that non-European or postcolonial actors merely received law made elsewhere.

The principle of uti possidetis became especially important in Latin America. Newly independent states used inherited colonial administrative boundaries as a basis for post-independence frontiers. The doctrine aimed to reduce territorial conflict by converting colonial administrative lines into international boundaries (Shaw, 1997).

Latin American legal thought also developed strong arguments against intervention. These arguments responded to repeated military pressure, debt enforcement, diplomatic coercion, and great-power interference. Sovereign equality was not an abstract principle for the region. It was a defensive legal tool.

The Calvo Doctrine challenged expansive diplomatic protection by foreign powers. It argued that foreign nationals should generally rely on local remedies and should not receive stronger protection than nationals of the host state. This doctrine addressed a real pattern: powerful states often used injury to their nationals or investors as a basis for pressure or intervention (Shea, 1955; Becker Lorca, 2014).

The Drago Doctrine responded to the use of force for debt collection, especially after European intervention against Venezuela in 1902. It argued against armed intervention to recover public debts. This contributed to later legal limits on force used for contract or debt claims.

Latin American jurists also participated in broader debates about codification, arbitration, regional conferences, and the equality of states. Their arguments shaped Pan-American legal developments and influenced global debates on intervention and sovereignty.

This history matters for the article’s broader argument. The Law of Nations was not only a European export. It became a field of contestation. Latin American lawyers and governments used their language to resist domination, reinterpret sovereignty, and demand legal equality. They did not simply accept the categories they inherited. They used them strategically and reshaped them.

7. The Law of Nations After 1945

7.1 The UN Charter break

The United Nations Charter marked one of the deepest legal breaks with the classical Law of Nations. Earlier doctrine treated war as a lawful instrument in many circumstances. A state could resort to war to defend rights, obtain satisfaction, punish injury, recover territory, or enforce claims. The central legal task was often to regulate war, not to prohibit its use as a tool of policy.

Article 2(4) of the Charter changed that structure. It prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)). This rule did not end armed conflict. It changed the legal status of force. War was no longer an ordinary option within sovereign discretion.

The Charter also required states to settle disputes by peaceful means. Article 2(3) places peaceful settlement at the centre of the post-1945 order, while Chapter VI identifies negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means as recognized methods (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, arts 2(3) and 33).

Collective security added a further change. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and may authorize measures ranging from sanctions to military action (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, arts 39–42). This replaced the older assumption that each state could judge and enforce many claims for itself.

The break was not absolute. The post-1945 system still depends heavily on states. Enforcement remains selective, political, and shaped by power. The veto of the permanent members can block Security Council action even in grave crises. Yet the legal baseline changed. A state now needs a recognized legal justification for force, usually self-defence or Security Council authorization.

This is why the Charter matters for the history of the Law of Nations. It did not create a fully centralized world legal order. It did, however, reject the classical view that war could remain a general legal instrument of sovereign policy.

7.2 Self-defence and collective security

Self-defence and collective security became the main modern legal alternatives to unilateral war, reprisals, and older practices of decentralized enforcement. Article 51 of the Charter preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 51).

This rule narrowed the older legal space for force. Classical writers accepted a wider set of causes for war, including injury, denial of justice, punishment, territorial claims, or satisfaction. Modern law does not permit states to use force simply because they believe they have been wronged. The wrong must fall within a recognized legal framework.

The International Court of Justice has treated self-defence as subject to conditions, including necessity and proportionality. In Nicaragua, the Court distinguished armed attack from lesser uses of force and emphasized that collective self-defence requires a request by the victim state (Nicaragua v United States, 1986). These limits show how modern law disciplines claims that older doctrine might have left to unilateral judgment.

Collective security has a different logic. It is not based on the injured state acting alone. It rests on institutional authority. The Security Council identifies threats and may authorize collective measures. This was meant to reduce the danger that every state would act as judge and enforcer in its own cause.

Practice has been uneven. The Council has acted decisively in some situations and failed in others. Political bargaining, veto power, regional alliances, and strategic interest shape outcomes. Still, uneven enforcement does not erase the doctrinal shift. The legal order no longer treats unilateral war as an ordinary remedy.

The move from self-help to institutional authority remains incomplete. States still argue aggressively about self-defence, intervention, countermeasures, sanctions, and assistance to allies. Yet the vocabulary has changed. Modern legal argument must be framed through Charter rules, not through the older language of sovereign war, reprisals, or punitive force.

7.3 Human rights and the individual

Human rights law transformed the state-centred inheritance of the Law of Nations by giving individuals direct legal significance in international law. Classical doctrine usually treated individuals through the state. A person harmed abroad could become the basis of diplomatic protection. A foreign national could trigger responsibility between states. The individual rarely appeared as a direct holder of international rights.

The UN Charter changed the direction of legal thought by placing human rights among the purposes of the organization (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, arts 1(3), 55 and 56). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights then gave a global statement of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948).

The two 1966 Covenants gave treaty form to much of this structure. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects rights such as life, liberty, fair trial, privacy, expression, religion, political participation, and equality before the law. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights addresses work, social security, health, education, adequate living conditions, and cultural life (ICCPR, 1966; ICESCR, 1966).

Regional systems deepened the change. The European, Inter-American, and African human rights systems created courts, commissions, reporting procedures, and complaint mechanisms. These bodies made the treatment of individuals a matter of international legal supervision, not only domestic policy.

This development weakened the classical claim that how a state treats persons under its authority belongs only to internal jurisdiction. Domestic jurisdiction still matters, and states remain central to implementation. Yet human rights law makes clear that sovereignty does not give unlimited authority over persons.

The transformation is doctrinal as well as institutional. Individuals can hold rights under treaties. They can bring claims in some systems. Their treatment can trigger state responsibility. In some areas, grave violations may also generate individual criminal liability. Modern international law no longer fits the older model of a law only among sovereigns.

7.4 Self-determination and decolonization

Self-determination produced one of the strongest breaks with classical legal doctrine. The older Law of Nations largely treated colonies as objects of imperial administration, territorial title, mandate, trusteeship, or protection. After 1945, anti-colonial self-determination became a legal claim capable of challenging the empire itself.

The UN Charter refers to equal rights and self-determination as part of the organization’s purposes (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 1(2)). The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Territories gave the principle sharper legal and political force by rejecting alien subjugation and colonial domination (UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, 1960).

The Friendly Relations Declaration later connected self-determination with the duty of states to refrain from forcible action depriving a population under colonial domination of that right (UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, 1970). Self-determination became linked to sovereign equality, territorial integrity, non-intervention, and the illegality of colonial rule.

The International Court of Justice reinforced this development. In Namibia, the Court treated continued South African presence in Namibia as unlawful after the termination of the mandate (Namibia Advisory Opinion, 1971). In Western Sahara, the Court rejected the idea that the territory was terra nullius at the time of colonization and emphasized the relevance of local legal and political ties (Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, 1975).

The Chagos advisory opinion confirmed that the right to self-determination had become a rule of customary international law during the relevant period of decolonization and that the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius was unlawful (Chagos Advisory Opinion, 2019). The Court’s 2024 advisory opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory also treated self-determination as a central legal issue in assessing the consequences of prolonged occupation and related policies (Occupied Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion, 2024).

This body of law changed the status of colonized communities. They were no longer merely administered, transferred, or protected. They became legal claimants in their own right. That shift directly challenged older doctrines of discovery, occupation, cession, protectorate status, and imperial title.

7.5 International organizations

International organizations changed the structure of international legal personality. The classical Law of Nations centred on states. Modern law still treats states as primary actors, but it also recognizes that organizations can hold rights, bear duties, conclude agreements, enjoy privileges and immunities, and incur responsibility.

The United Nations is the central example. In the Reparation for Injuries advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice held that the UN possessed international legal personality and could bring international claims for injuries suffered by its agents (Reparation for Injuries Advisory Opinion, 1949). This did not make the UN a state. It meant that legal personality could arise from functions, purposes, and institutional necessity.

The doctrine of implied powers followed the same logic. An organization may possess powers not expressly written in its constituent instrument when those powers are necessary for the performance of its functions. This gave international organizations legal capacity beyond narrow textual enumeration, while still tying that capacity to their mandates.

Privileges and immunities also became important. Organizations require independence from unilateral interference by member states if they are to perform international functions. Treaties on UN privileges and immunities, specialized agency privileges, and headquarters agreements reflect that need (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1946).

Institutional law-making further changed the older model. International organizations adopt resolutions, regulations, standards, decisions, recommendations, and technical rules. Not all of these are binding in the same way. Yet they shape state conduct, treaty interpretation, custom formation, compliance expectations, and domestic regulation.

There are limits. International organizations act within conferred powers. Their authority depends on constituent instruments, member state consent, institutional practice, and general international law. They can also incur responsibility when their conduct breaches international obligations (International Law Commission, 2011).

The rise of organizations did not remove state sovereignty. It complicated it. States created institutions to solve problems they could not manage alone, then found that those institutions generated legal effects of their own. The Law of Nations became less purely horizontal and more institutional.

7.6 International criminal law

International criminal law altered another core assumption of the classical Law of Nations. Older doctrine generally treated wrongful conduct as a matter of state responsibility, diplomatic protection, reprisal, or war. Individuals appeared mostly through nationality, protection, piracy, slavery, or enemy status. Modern law can impose direct criminal responsibility on persons for international crimes.

There were older roots. Piracy was treated as an offence of universal concern, often described through the language of hostis humani generis. Slave trading also became subject to growing international suppression. These examples showed that some conduct could be treated as an offence against a wider legal order, not only against one state (Cassese, 2008).

The decisive modern change came after the Second World War. The Nuremberg Charter recognized individual responsibility for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945, art. 6). Nuremberg rejected the defence that only states could be responsible for international wrongs. Individuals who acted through state machinery could still be criminally liable.

The Genocide Convention added another major category by defining genocide as an international crime and requiring states to prevent and punish it (Genocide Convention, 1948). Later tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda developed the law of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, command responsibility, joint criminal enterprise, and sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court consolidated much of this development. It gives the ICC jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, subject to jurisdictional limits and complementarity (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 5–8 bis and 17). The Court does not replace national courts. It acts when domestic systems are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.

This shift changed legal subjectivity. A state may still bear responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, but individuals can also be prosecuted for international crimes. Sovereign office does not automatically erase criminal accountability in international criminal law.

The analytical point is direct. The classical Law of Nations mainly regulated relations among states. Modern international law can reach through the state and impose responsibility on persons who commit the gravest crimes. That does not end impunity in practice, but it changes the legal architecture.

8. Modern Sources and Legal Hierarchy

8.1 Article 38 and source doctrine

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is the classic modern statement of international legal sources. It directs the Court to apply treaties, customary international law, general principles of law, and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38).

This provision disciplined the older mix of natural law, custom, treaty practice, diplomatic usage, and juristic authority. Classical writers often moved between reason, usage, examples, and moral argument. Article 38 reflects a more formal method. It asks what recognized legal materials support the rule being claimed.

Treaties appear as express agreements. Custom requires general practice accepted as law. General principles supply rules drawn from legal systems or basic principles of legal reasoning. Judicial decisions and scholarship assist in identifying rules, but do not operate as primary sources in the same way as treaties or custom.

The provision is not a complete theory of international law. It does not fully explain unilateral declarations, Security Council decisions, soft law, acts of international organizations, peremptory norms, or the law-making effects of repeated institutional practice. Yet it remains the starting point for source analysis.

Article 38 also marks a methodological break with the older Law of Nations. Jurists still matter, but they do not legislate. Moral reasoning still influences legal argument, but it must be connected to recognized sources. Practice matters, but it must be assessed as evidence of law.

This source discipline gives modern international law a different professional character. It does not remove disagreement, but it changes how disagreement must be argued. A legal claim now needs source-based support, not only philosophical elegance or historical authority.

8.2 The Vienna Convention system

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one of the most important codifications in modern international law. It gives technical form to rules on treaty-making, entry into force, reservations, interpretation, amendment, invalidity, termination, suspension, and treaty conflict.

The Convention preserves an older principle at its core: treaties must be kept. Article 26 states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 26). This echoes a central concern of Vattel and earlier jurists: external legal order depends on reliable promises.

Modern law goes much further than classical treaty faith. Article 31 sets out a general rule of interpretation based on good faith, ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose. Articles 19 to 23 regulate reservations. Articles 46 to 53 address invalidity, including internal law, error, fraud, corruption, coercion, and conflict with peremptory norms (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).

The Convention also limits consent. A treaty procured by coercion of a state through the threat or use of force is void. A treaty conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law is also void (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, arts 52–53). This marks a major departure from any view that state agreement alone can validate every legal arrangement.

The connection with Vattel is clear but limited. Vattel emphasized consent, promise, good faith, and sovereign treaty capacity. The Vienna Convention keeps those ideas, but embeds them in a more formal and hierarchical legal system.

Modern treaty law is also multilateral in a way Vattel’s world could not fully anticipate. Human rights treaties, environmental conventions, trade agreements, disarmament regimes, law of the sea instruments, and institutional treaties create dense legal systems. Treaty law now does more than record bilateral promises. It organizes fields of global governance.

8.3 Custom after Vattel

Vattel treated custom as law formed through long usage accepted among nations. That account reflected the needs of a decentralized order. Many rules were not written, yet diplomats, courts, and statesmen treated some practices as legally significant.

Modern customary international law uses a more precise method. It requires general practice and acceptance as law. State conduct alone is not enough if it reflects habit, courtesy, convenience, or political choice rather than legal obligation. Acceptance as law is what separates legal custom from regular behaviour.

The North Sea Continental Shelf cases are central to this method. The International Court of Justice held that a rule could not be treated as customary merely because it appeared in a treaty or had some practical attraction. There had to be state practice, including specially affected states, and evidence that the practice was carried out because it was legally required (North Sea Continental Shelf, 1969).

The International Law Commission’s 2018 conclusions confirm this two-element approach. They identify forms of practice such as diplomatic acts, public statements, military manuals, legislation, national court decisions, treaty practice, and conduct before international organizations. They also treat opinio juris as requiring evidence that states accepted the practice as law (International Law Commission, 2018).

This method differs sharply from vague references to long usage. A court or lawyer must ask whose practice counts, how consistent it is, how widespread it is, and what legal belief accompanies it. The inquiry is evidentiary, not merely historical.

Yet continuity remains. Custom still performs the same structural function it performed in the older Law of Nations. It allows law to arise without a universal legislature and without a treaty binding every state. Modern doctrine has not abolished custom. It has made the proof of custom more rigorous.

8.4 Jus cogens

Jus cogens places one of the strongest limits on state consent. A peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as one from which no derogation is permitted. A treaty conflicting with such a norm is void (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 53).

This idea changes the legal architecture inherited from the classical Law of Nations. Vattel’s system relied heavily on sovereign equality, independence, treaty consent, and voluntary obligation. Jus cogens means that some rules stand above ordinary agreement. States cannot contract out of them.

The International Law Commission’s 2022 conclusions identify commonly cited examples, including the prohibitions of aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, racial discrimination, apartheid, torture, and the right of self-determination (International Law Commission, 2022). These examples show the kind of interests involved: basic conditions of international legal order and human dignity.

Jus cogens also affects responsibility. Serious breaches of peremptory norms generate consequences beyond ordinary bilateral injury. States must cooperate to bring such breaches to an end through lawful means, must not recognize as lawful a situation created by such a breach, and must not aid or assist in maintaining that situation (International Law Commission, 2001, arts 40–41).

The doctrine remains contested in application. Lawyers may disagree over how to identify a peremptory norm, what evidence is required, and what consequences follow in a particular case. Yet the core proposition is now part of modern international law: there are some rules that state consent cannot defeat.

This is a decisive move away from a purely voluntarist order. The modern system still values consent, but it places limits on what consent can lawfully achieve. That is one of the clearest signs that public international law has moved beyond the classical Law of Nations.

8.5 Erga omnes obligations

Erga omnes obligations are duties owed to the international community as a whole. They are not merely bilateral obligations owed by one state to another. Their breach concerns all states because the protected interest belongs to the legal community, not only to an injured state.

The International Court of Justice gave the classic formulation in Barcelona Traction. The Court distinguished ordinary obligations owed to another state from obligations owed to the international community as a whole. It referred to obligations arising from the outlawing of aggression and genocide, and principles concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination (Barcelona Traction, 1970).

This doctrine changes the older structure of responsibility. Classical law often centred on injury to a state. A wrong mattered internationally because one sovereign had injured another. Erga omnes obligations recognize that some wrongs affect a wider legal interest even when no single state is the exclusive injured party.

The relationship between erga omnes and jus cogens is close but not identical. Jus cogens concerns the superior status of a norm and the impossibility of derogation. Erga omnes concerns the legal interest of all states in compliance. Some norms may be both peremptory and erga omnes, but the concepts answer different questions.

Self-determination is a major example. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly treated it as a right with broad legal significance, especially in decolonization and occupation contexts (East Timor, 1995; Chagos Advisory Opinion, 2019; Occupied Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion, 2024).

The key point is that modern international law contains community interests. Not every rule is reducible to a reciprocal bargain. Some obligations protect the structure of the legal order itself, or basic human interests that all states have a legal interest in preserving.

8.6 Fragmentation and unity

Modern international law is no longer a single, neat Law of Nations. It is divided across specialized fields: trade, investment, human rights, environmental law, climate law, law of the sea, cyber operations, space law, migration, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law. Each field has its own treaties, institutions, procedures, vocabulary, and expert communities.

This specialization creates practical benefits. Technical regimes can develop detailed rules for complex problems. Trade law can address market access and dispute settlement. Environmental law can regulate emissions, biodiversity, and transboundary harm. Human rights law can develop standards for detention, equality, expression, and fair trial. The law of the sea can regulate maritime zones, navigation, resources, and seabed activities.

The difficulty is fragmentation. Specialized regimes may develop different priorities. Investment tribunals may emphasize investor protection, while human rights bodies emphasize social rights or Indigenous land claims. Trade rules may conflict with environmental measures. Security Council sanctions may affect due process. Climate obligations may interact with energy law, development, finance, and trade.

International lawyers use several doctrines to manage these tensions. Treaty interpretation may take into account context, object, and purpose, and relevant rules of international law applicable between the parties. State responsibility supplies general rules on attribution, breach, reparation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. Jus cogens creates hierarchy. Article 103 of the UN Charter gives Charter obligations priority over conflicting treaty obligations (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 103).

Systemic integration also matters. Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention allows interpreters to consider relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 31(3)(c)). This helps prevent specialized regimes from becoming legally isolated.

The older Law of Nations sought unity through broad juristic synthesis. Modern international law seeks unity through sources, interpretation, responsibility, hierarchy, institutions, and judicial reasoning. The unity is imperfect, but the need for connection remains. Without connecting doctrines, specialized regimes risk becoming separate legal languages with conflicting commands.

9. Global Histories of the Law of Nations

9.1 Why global history is necessary

The Law of Nations should not be told as a purely European story. European jurists gave the field some of its most influential vocabulary, especially through natural law, treaty doctrine, state sovereignty, neutrality, and the law of war. Yet the wider history of legal order beyond the state includes many forms of diplomacy, treaty-making, trade regulation, protection, hierarchy, religious law, imperial administration, and inter-polity negotiation.

A European-only account creates two distortions. It exaggerates the originality of European doctrine, and it hides the role of non-European actors in shaping legal relations. Asian empires, Islamic jurists, African kingdoms, Indigenous nations, Latin American republics, and colonial subjects were not merely passive recipients of European rule. They negotiated, resisted, adapted, translated, and contested legal claims.

Global history also changes the meaning of legal diffusion. The Law of Nations did not spread only through persuasion or intellectual progress. It was globalized through commerce, war, unequal treaties, colonization, missionary activity, diplomatic translation, consular jurisdiction, arbitration, and imperial administration (Fassbender and Peters, 2012; Benton and Ford, 2016).

This matters for doctrine. Concepts such as sovereignty, treaty consent, territorial title, civilization, protection, and jurisdiction were not neutral tools applied evenly across the world. They were often used differently depending on the political status of the community involved. A European state might be treated as a legal equal, while an Asian empire, African kingdom, or Indigenous nation could be classified as partially sovereign, protected, dependent, or legally deficient.

A global approach does not deny the importance of European doctrine. It places that doctrine in a wider field of encounter and power. The central question is not only what Grotius, Vattel, or Oppenheim wrote. It is also how legal categories were used in ports, colonies, courts, treaties, protectorates, trading companies, frontier diplomacy, and anti-colonial movements.

The result is a more accurate history. The Law of Nations was both a language of legal order and a language of hierarchy. Its global expansion was shaped by legal argument, but also by military force, commercial pressure, racial classification, and institutional control. Modern international law inherited that mixed legacy.

9.2 Islamic legal traditions

Islamic legal traditions developed sophisticated rules on external relations long before modern international law became a professional discipline. Jurists discussed treaties, safe conduct, protection, war, peace, trade, diplomacy, tribute, prisoners, non-Muslim communities, and relations with rulers outside Muslim authority. These debates should not be treated as a footnote to European legal thought.

The classical distinction between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb is often oversimplified. Islamic legal writing contained more than a rigid opposition between Muslim and non-Muslim territories. Jurists also addressed truces, covenants, aman, commercial relations, diplomatic protection, and the treatment of foreign merchants and envoys. Legal relations across political and religious boundaries were possible and often necessary (Khadduri, 1966; Baderin, 2012).

Treaties were central. Muslim rulers concluded agreements with Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and other political communities. These arrangements could regulate peace, trade, tribute, safe passage, prisoners, religious communities, and territorial relations. The existence of such agreements shows that legal order among political communities did not require European sovereign equality as its only model.

Protection was another important category. Aman could provide security to foreigners, merchants, messengers, or temporary visitors. This had practical legal effects. It allowed movement, trade, negotiation, and communication across political boundaries. The logic resembles broader legal concerns later associated with safe conduct and diplomatic protection, although the doctrinal structure was different.

Islamic thought also addressed limits on warfare. Jurists discussed authority to wage war, treatment of non-combatants, property, prisoners, truces, and proportional restraint. These rules were not identical to modern humanitarian law, but they show a long-standing concern with legal regulation of force.

This tradition complicates the idea that law beyond the state emerged only in Europe. Different legal civilizations developed their own methods for managing external relations. The modern discipline later became dominated by European categories, but global legal history is wider than the genealogy of those categories.

9.3 Asian diplomatic and treaty orders

Asian diplomatic and treaty orders also challenge a narrow European account. China, Japan, India, Southeast Asian polities, and Central Asian authorities managed external relations through systems of hierarchy, tribute, ritual, trade, imperial recognition, religious authority, frontier negotiation, and treaty practice. Legal order did not always rest on formal sovereign equality.

The Chinese imperial order is a clear example. Relations with neighboring polities often operated through hierarchy, tribute, ritual submission, and regulated trade. This was not the same as the European model of equal sovereign states. It had its own grammar of status, authority, ceremony, and obligation (Kawashima, 2012).

Japan’s encounter with Western treaty practice in the nineteenth century illustrates the violence of legal translation. The unequal treaties imposed extraterritorial jurisdiction, tariff limits, and foreign privileges. Japanese legal reform later became tied to the revision of those treaties and recognition as a full participant in the international legal order (Gong, 1984; Akashi, 2012).

India offers another complex history. Before British dominance, Mughal, regional, and commercial authorities managed diplomacy, trade, military alliances, tribute, and jurisdiction through legal and political practices that did not fit neatly into European statehood. British rule later reinterpreted many local arrangements through imperial categories of sovereignty, paramountcy, protectorate status, and indirect rule (Baxi, 2012).

Southeast Asia also had plural legal orders. Kingdoms and trading ports dealt with Chinese, Islamic, Indian, European, and local legal influences. Maritime commerce required rules on merchants, ports, customs, piracy, debt, jurisdiction, and diplomatic exchange. European treaty practice entered this world through negotiation, coercion, and commercial pressure.

The nineteenth century changed the legal balance. European powers increasingly demanded treaty forms, extraterritorial privileges, consular jurisdiction, fixed tariffs, and territorial concessions. Local authorities could sign treaties, but the treaty form often concealed unequal power.

Asian legal history shows why the Law of Nations cannot be reduced to one model of sovereign equality. Legal order existed in hierarchical, imperial, commercial, and plural forms. European doctrine became globally dominant partly because it was carried by military and economic power, not because it was the only available legal language.

9.4 African legal agency and imposition

African political communities engaged in diplomacy, treaty-making, trade regulation, alliance formation, boundary negotiation, and legal claims long before and during European colonial expansion. Kingdoms, emirates, city-states, confederacies, and local authorities dealt with merchants, missionaries, consuls, soldiers, rival rulers, and imperial agents. They were legal actors, not merely objects of European decision-making.

African rulers concluded treaties on commerce, protection, friendship, anti-slavery measures, territorial access, missionary presence, and military alliance. Some used treaty relations strategically to manage rival European powers, preserve autonomy, or secure trade advantages. Others faced coercion, deception, mistranslation, or pressure under conditions that made equal consent doubtful (Alexandrowicz, 1967; Gathii, 2012).

Colonial law often reinterpreted these agreements. Treaties that local authorities may have understood as arrangements of friendship, trade, protection, or limited permission were later used by European powers as evidence of sovereignty transfer, protectorate status, or territorial title. Translation was not a neutral act. It could change the legal meaning of the instrument.

Anti-slavery agreements also show the mixture of agency and domination. European powers used anti-slavery law to justify naval patrols, treaty demands, consular presence, and intervention. At the same time, African actors negotiated, resisted, adapted, and sometimes invoked anti-slavery language for their own political purposes. The legal field was contested.

The Berlin Conference exposed the imperial structure of late nineteenth-century territorial doctrine. European powers discussed effective occupation, notification, navigation, and commerce in Africa while African political communities were excluded from the central diplomatic process (General Act of the Berlin Conference, 1885). Legal order was being made about Africa without equal African participation.

Postcolonial statehood later reversed part of this structure. African states used sovereign equality, self-determination, territorial integrity, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and anti-apartheid law to challenge colonial and racial hierarchy. The Organization of African Unity also gave regional expression to decolonization and boundary stability.

African legal history must hold agency and imposition together. African rulers and jurists made legal claims. Colonial doctrine often narrowed, translated, or erased those claims. Modern international law cannot be understood without both realities.

9.5 Indigenous treaty relations

Indigenous nations developed diplomatic and treaty relations with European powers, settler colonies, and neighboring communities. These relations involved land, alliance, peace, trade, kinship, military cooperation, protection, jurisdiction, and coexistence. They were not merely informal political contacts. Many were solemn legal arrangements understood through Indigenous legal orders as well as European treaty language.

In North America, treaty-making often involved ceremony, oral commitments, wampum, kinship language, territorial understandings, and continuing obligations. European and later settler authorities frequently translated these relations into property transfers, sovereignty concessions, or instruments of extinguishment. The difference in legal understanding was not accidental. It became a mechanism of dispossession (Williams, 1990; Anaya, 2004).

European doctrine often downgraded Indigenous legal personality. Indigenous nations might be treated as allies, trading partners, or treaty parties in one period, then later classified as domestic dependent communities, wards, tribes, or occupants without full territorial sovereignty. This shift allowed settler legal systems to preserve the appearance of treaty order while reducing Indigenous authority.

Territory was central. Indigenous land relations did not always match European ideas of absolute title, alienability, and exclusive territorial sovereignty. Settler law often treated that difference as a legal deficiency. The result was a conversion of different land systems into claims of discovery, occupation, cession, or Crown title.

Modern international law has begun to address part of this history, though incompletely. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes rights relating to self-determination, lands, territories, resources, culture, institutions, treaty recognition, and free, prior, and informed consent (UNDRIP, 2007). ILO Convention No. 169 also protects consultation, land rights, cultural integrity, and participation for Indigenous and tribal communities (ILO Convention No. 169, 1989).

These modern instruments do not erase historical dispossession. They do, however, reopen questions that classical doctrine often closed. Treaty relations, land rights, cultural authority, and self-government are not relics of the past. They remain live legal issues.

Indigenous treaty history reveals one of the deepest limits of the classical Law of Nations. The field could recognize Indigenous nations when recognition served diplomacy or settlement, then reduce their legal standing when territory became the central prize. Modern law is still struggling with the consequences.

Also read

• History of International Law

• International Law and Colonialism

• The Sources Of International Law

• Customary International Law: How It Forms and Works

• The Age of Grotius: Foundations and Impact on International Law

• Treaty of Westphalia 1648

• Principle of Sovereign Equality of States

• Doctrine of Discovery and Colonial Legal Order

10. Contemporary Meaning of the Law of Nations

10.1 Why the term still matters

The Law of Nations remains useful because it reveals the older foundations of modern international law. It helps explain why doctrines such as sovereignty, consent, custom, treaty obligation, diplomatic immunity, neutrality, jurisdiction, and state responsibility still carry historical assumptions.

The term also reminds readers that international law was not always a codified and institutional discipline. It once depended heavily on natural reason, juristic authority, diplomatic practice, moral argument, treaty faith, and customary usage. Modern lawyers may now speak in the language of sources, institutions, and courts, but many problems remain structurally similar.

States still ask when they are bound without express consent. Courts still examine custom. Governments still invoke sovereign equality and non-intervention. Diplomats still rely on immunities and treaty practice. Armed conflict still raises questions about neutrality, occupation, reprisals, and responsibility. These issues have modern rules, but they were shaped by older legal debates.

The term also has critical value. It exposes the history behind doctrines that can appear neutral. Sovereignty, consent, and territorial title were not always used to protect equality. They also supported hierarchy, unequal treaties, colonial administration, and exclusion. Remembering that history improves legal analysis.

For advanced readers, the Law of Nations is not a museum category. It is a way to understand continuity and rupture. It shows which ideas survived, which were rejected, and which were transformed under modern public international law.

10.2 Constitutional and domestic uses

The phrase Law of Nations survives in some domestic legal systems, especially in constitutional, statutory, and judicial materials. The United States is the clearest example. The Constitution refers to offences against the law of nations, and federal courts have historically used the term in cases involving piracy, ambassadors, neutrality, prize, alien claims, and foreign relations.

This domestic survival matters because old terminology can still affect litigation. When a statute or constitution uses the phrase, courts must decide what it means in a modern legal system. Does it refer to eighteenth-century doctrine, contemporary customary international law, treaty-based rules, or a narrower class of universally recognized norms? The answer can affect jurisdiction, remedies, and the separation of powers.

The Alien Tort Statute is a major example in American litigation. It has raised questions about which violations of international law are sufficiently specific, universal, and obligatory to support civil claims in federal court (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 2004). Later cases narrowed the statute’s reach, especially in relation to extraterritoriality and corporate liability (Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, 2013; Jesner v Arab Bank, 2018).

Domestic courts outside the United States also engage with international law, though often without using the old phrase. They apply treaties, customary law, immunity rules, human rights obligations, refugee law, international criminal law, and principles of interpretation. The older vocabulary survives unevenly, but the underlying issue remains: how external legal obligations enter domestic law.

This is not only technical. Domestic use of the Law of Nations shows how historical concepts can continue to shape modern legal authority. Courts may invoke international norms, but they must also respect constitutional structure, legislative intent, executive power, and limits on judicial competence.

The main point is that terminology matters. A phrase inherited from older legal doctrine may still carry legal consequences. Its meaning cannot be assumed. It must be interpreted with attention to history, modern source doctrine, and the domestic legal system in which it appears.

10.3 Current pressure on the old model

Modern global problems place pressure on the state-centred inheritance of the Law of Nations. Climate change, cyber operations, pandemics, migration, sanctions, artificial intelligence, ocean governance, and outer space do not fit easily into a model built mainly around territorial states, bilateral consent, and reciprocal obligations.

Climate change is the clearest example. Greenhouse gas emissions are produced across jurisdictions and affect the whole planet. Harm is cumulative, long-term, and unevenly distributed. A purely bilateral model of injury and responsibility is poorly suited to the problem. Climate law depends on treaties, reporting systems, financial mechanisms, scientific assessment, differentiated responsibilities, and institutional cooperation (Paris Agreement, 2015).

Cyber operations create a different pressure. Harm can be transboundary, anonymous, rapid, and difficult to attribute. Traditional doctrines of sovereignty, jurisdiction, due diligence, intervention, and use of force still matter, but they must operate in a technical environment that older doctrine never anticipated (Tallinn Manual 2.0, 2017).

Migration also tests state-centred assumptions. States control borders, but refugees, stateless persons, migrant workers, trafficking victims, and displaced communities raise legal questions that cannot be answered only through territorial sovereignty. Refugee law, human rights law, labour standards, and regional systems limit exclusive state discretion.

Pandemics show the same pattern. Disease crosses borders faster than national regulations. Global health law depends on notification, surveillance, cooperation, scientific exchange, emergency powers, travel measures, and institutional coordination through the World Health Organization (International Health Regulations, 2005).

Artificial intelligence adds a new challenge. It affects surveillance, warfare, disinformation, discrimination, migration control, financial markets, labour, and public administration. State consent and territorial jurisdiction remain relevant, but private corporations, technical standards, data flows, and algorithmic systems complicate the older map of legal responsibility.

The old framework still matters because sovereignty, consent, jurisdiction, treaties, custom, and responsibility remain basic legal tools. Yet they are insufficient alone. Modern problems require institutional cooperation, scientific expertise, transnational regulation, human rights review, and rules addressing non-state power.

10.4 Historical authority and misuse

Historical authorities such as Vattel, Grotius, Gentili, or Roman jus gentium can clarify doctrine, but they cannot decide modern disputes by themselves. Their works belong to specific legal worlds. They used different categories, faced different political conditions, and wrote before the UN Charter, modern human rights law, decolonization, international criminal law, and jus cogens.

Using them carelessly creates legal error. A quotation from Vattel cannot override a binding treaty. Grotius cannot restore a classical right of war in a legal order governed by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Roman jus gentium cannot settle modern questions of self-determination, genocide, cyber operations, environmental harm, or occupation.

Historical material is still valuable. It explains where legal concepts came from, why they were persuasive, how they were used, and what assumptions they carried. It can reveal hidden continuities in doctrines such as sovereignty, consent, custom, treaty faith, diplomatic immunity, and territorial title.

The danger begins when history is treated as authority detached from modern law. A jurist may cite Vattel to explain the evolution of neutrality, but the applicable law may be found in treaties, custom, Security Council practice, or contemporary law of armed conflict. A court may discuss the Law of Nations in historical terms, but it still has to identify the relevant modern rule.

Good legal history does not turn old writers into present-day legislators. It uses them to understand doctrine more deeply. It also asks whose interests their arguments served, who was excluded, and how their categories later changed.

The strongest use of historical authority is analytical, not nostalgic. It helps modern lawyers understand why public international law is built on sovereignty and consent, yet increasingly limited by human rights, self-determination, peremptory norms, criminal responsibility, and institutional law-making.

Conclusion

The Law of Nations is not dead, but it no longer exists in its classical form. It survives inside modern public international law through doctrines of sovereignty, consent, custom, treaty obligation, diplomatic law, neutrality, responsibility, jurisdiction, and legal equality. These ideas did not disappear when lawyers adopted the language of international law. They were absorbed, revised, and placed under new limits.

Its history is not a straight line of progress. The same tradition that helped protect envoys, stabilize treaty faith, restrain war, and defend sovereign equality also supported colonial title, unequal treaties, legal hierarchy, and the exclusion of many communities from full legal standing. That double character is central. The Law of Nations was a language of order, but not always a language of justice.

Vattel gave the tradition one of its most influential forms by placing the sovereign state at the centre. His account made legal relations among states clearer and more practical. It also narrowed the field by making many other actors legally secondary. Modern international law has spent much of the period after 1945 revising that inheritance.

The UN Charter changed the status of force. Human rights weakened the claim that the treatment of individuals belongs only to domestic jurisdiction. Self-determination challenged colonial rule. International organizations added institutional authority. International criminal law made individuals directly responsible for the gravest crimes. Jus cogens and erga omnes obligations limited the idea that state consent can explain the whole legal order.

The legal evolution of the Law of Nations is best understood as a transformation, not a replacement. Roman categories and natural-law reasoning supplied early vocabulary. Early modern jurists adapted that vocabulary to war, trade, empire, diplomacy, and global encounter. Vattel gave it a state-centred structure. Positivism turned it toward treaties, custom, and state practice. Modern public international law placed that inheritance inside a system shaped by the UN Charter, codification, human rights, decolonization, international institutions, peremptory norms, and community obligations.

The term still matters because it reveals the foundations and limits of the present system. Modern international law remains deeply dependent on sovereignty and consent, but it can no longer be reduced to them. The older Law of Nations explains how that tension arose, why it persists, and why legal history remains essential to serious doctrinal analysis.

References

1. Akashi, K. (2012) ‘Japan-Europe’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 724–743.

2. Alexandrowicz, C.H. (1967) An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

3. Anaya, S.J. (2004) Indigenous Peoples in International Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Anghie, A. (2005) Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Baderin, M.A. (2012) ‘Muhammad al-Shaybānī (749/50–805)’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1081–1085.

6. Baxi, U. (2012) ‘India-Europe’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 744–763.

7. Becker Lorca, A. (2014) Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne and Son.

9. Benton, L. and Ford, L. (2016) Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10. Brett, A.S. (2011) Changes of State: Nature and the Limits of the City in Early Modern Natural Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

11. Buckland, W.W. (1963) A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian. 3rd edn. Revised by P. Stein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Bynkershoek, C. van (1930) Quaestionum Juris Publici Libri Duo. Translated by T. Frank. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

13. Cassese, A. (2008) International Criminal Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14. Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15. Gathii, J.T. (2012) ‘Africa’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–428.

16. Gentili, A. (1933) De Jure Belli Libri Tres. Translated by J.C. Rolfe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

17. Gong, G.W. (1984) The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

18. Grotius, H. (2004) The Free Sea. Edited by D. Armitage. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

19. Grotius, H. (2005) The Rights of War and Peace. Edited by R. Tuck. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

20. Haakonssen, K. (2012a) ‘Samuel Pufendorf (1632–1694)’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1102–1105.

21. Haakonssen, K. (2012b) ‘Christian Wolff (1679–1754)’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1106–1109.

22. Haggenmacher, P. (2012) ‘Hugo Grotius (1583–1645)’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1098–1101.

23. Janis, M.W. (1984) ‘Jeremy Bentham and the fashioning of “international law”’, American Journal of International Law, 78(2), pp. 405–418.

24. Janis, M.W. (2010) America and the Law of Nations 1776–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25. Jouannet, E. (2012) ‘Emer de Vattel (1714–1767)’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1118–1121.

26. Kawashima, S. (2012) ‘China’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 451–474.

27. Khadduri, M. (1966) The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

28. Koskenniemi, M. (2001) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Lesaffer, R. (2005) ‘Peace treaties from Lodi to Westphalia’, in Lesaffer, R. (ed.) Peace Treaties and International Law in European History: From the Late Middle Ages to World War One. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–44.

30. Lindley, M.F. (1926) The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

31. Oppenheim, L. (1905) International Law: A Treatise. Vol. 1: Peace. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

32. Pufendorf, S. (1934) De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo. Translated by C.H. Oldfather and W.A. Oldfather. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

33. Schmitt, M.N. (ed.) (2017) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34. Shaw, M.N. (1997) ‘The heritage of states: the principle of uti possidetis juris today’, British Yearbook of International Law, 67(1), pp. 75–154.

35. Shea, D.R. (1955) The Calvo Clause: A Problem of Inter-American and International Law and Diplomacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

36. Stein, P. (1999) Roman Law in European History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37. Suárez, F. (2015) Selections from Three Works of Francisco Suárez, S.J. Edited by J.B. Scott. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

38. Tuck, R. (1999) The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

39. Van Ittersum, M.J. (2006) Profit and Principle: Hugo Grotius, Natural Rights Theories and the Rise of Dutch Power in the East Indies, 1595–1615. Leiden: Brill.

40. Vattel, E. de (1844) The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. 6th American edn. Philadelphia: T. & J.W. Johnson.

41. Vitoria, F. de (1991) Political Writings. Edited by A. Pagden and J. Lawrance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42. Williams, R.A. Jr. (1990) The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

43. Wolff, C. (1934) Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum. Translated by J.H. Drake. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

44. Legal instruments, cases, and institutional documents

45. Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945) 82 UNTS 279.

46. Charter of the United Nations (1945) 1 UNTS XVI [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter (Accessed: 12 June 2026).

47. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) 78 UNTS 277.

48. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) 1 UNTS 15.

49. General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa (1885) 165 CTS 485.

50. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 999 UNTS 171.

51. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) 993 UNTS 3.

52. International Court of Justice (1949) Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 174.

53. International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.

54. International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3.

55. International Court of Justice (1971) Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16.

56. International Court of Justice (1975) Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1975, p. 12.

57. International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

58. International Court of Justice (1995) East Timor (Portugal v Australia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 90.

59. International Court of Justice (2019) Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2019, p. 95.

60. International Court of Justice (2024) Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186 (Accessed: 20 June 2026).

61. International Labour Organization (1989) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) [online]. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314 (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

62. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two.

63. International Law Commission (2011) Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, Vol. II, Part Two.

64. International Law Commission (2018) Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf (Accessed: 16 June 2026).

65. International Law Commission (2022) Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens), with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_14_2022.pdf (Accessed: 16 June 2026).

66. International Military Tribunal (1946) Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal. Nuremberg: International Military Tribunal.

67. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2011) Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, ITLOS Reports 2011, p. 10.

68. Jesner v Arab Bank, PLC (2018) 584 US 241.

69. Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013) 569 US 108.

70. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (2024) Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186/advisory-opinions (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

71. Paris Agreement (2015) UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1.

72. Permanent Court of International Justice (1923) S.S. Wimbledon (United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan v Germany), Judgment, PCIJ Series A No. 1.

73. Permanent Court of International Justice (1927) The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey), Judgment, PCIJ Series A No. 10.

74. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) 2187 UNTS 90.

75. Sosa v Alvarez-Machain (2004) 542 US 692.

76. Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) 1 UNTS XVI [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/statute-of-the-international-court-of-justice (Accessed: 20 June 2026).

77. The Paquete Habana (1900) 175 US 677.

78. United Nations General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217A (III).

79. United Nations General Assembly (1960) Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UNGA Res 1514 (XV).

80. United Nations General Assembly (1970) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res 2625 (XXV).

81. United Nations General Assembly (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA Res 61/295.

82. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) 1155 UNTS 331 [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 20 June 2026).

83. World Health Organization (2005) International Health Regulations. 3rd edn. Geneva: World Health Organization.