Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty. Hugo Grotius

Wherein It Is Shown That the War Is Just, and That the Prize in Question Was Justly Acquired by the Company, in the Public Cause of the Fatherland

       PART I. This Assertion Is True with respect to the Governmental Assemblies of Holland and of the United Provinces, in Their Character as Voluntary Agents.

       PART II. It Is True with respect to the East India Company, in Its Character as a Subject of the Said Assemblies.

       PART III. The War and the Afore-mentioned Acquisition Are also Just on the Basis of the Public Cause of Our Allies.

       In this same chapter the following theses are presented:

       I. A politically organized community, or its various internal states, even when they are ruled by a prince, nevertheless possess authority to enter publicly into a war.

       2. A just ground for war against a prince is the defence of long-established hereditary laws by which the principate is bound.

       3. War against the prince does not require a declaration of war.

       4. It is the part of a good citizen to obey the magistrates currently in office.

       5. A citizen fights in good faith against the prince, when fighting in defence of the state and the laws.

       6. The war of a state against a prince who was formerly its own ruler is a foreign war.

       7. It is sometimes right for Christians to enter into an alliance of war with infidels who are fighting against Christians.

       CHAPTER XIV

       PART I. The Seizure of the Prize in Question Was Honourable:

       In Part I the following theses are presented:

       I. Everything just is honourable.

       2. It is especially honourable to take vengeance, in behalf of one’s allies or one’s native land, upon men who are incorrigible.

       3. Seizure of spoils may be especially honourable because of the purpose served thereby.

       PART II. It Is Honourable to Retain Possession of the Prize in Question.

       CHAPTER XV

       PART I. The Seizure of the Prize in Question Was Beneficial.

       In Part I the following theses are presented:

       I. Everything just is beneficial.

       2. Everything honourable is beneficial.

       3. That which befits the circumstances in which the state is situated is especially beneficial.

       4. It is especially beneficial to do good to allies.

       5. It is especially beneficial to do harm to enemies.

       6. Ease of accomplishment is a beneficial factor.

       PART II. Retention of Possession of the Said Prize Is Beneficial.

       APPENDIX A

       Table of Rules and Laws Compiled from Chapter II of the Commentary

CHAPTER I

       Introductory Remarks—Outline [of the Case]—Divisions [of the Discussion]—Method—Order

      Introductory remarks

      A situation has arisen that is truly novel, and scarcely credible to foreign observers, namely: that those men who have been so long at war with the Spaniards and who have furthermore suffered the most grievous personal injuries, are debating as to whether or not, in a just war and with public authorization, they can rightfully despoil an exceedingly cruel enemy who has already violated the rules of international commerce. Thus we find that a considerable number of Hollanders (a people surpassed by none in their eagerness for honourable gain) are apparently ashamed to lay claim to the spoils of war, being moved forsooth, by compassion for those who in their own relations with the Dutch have failed to observe even the legal rights of enemies!

      Since this state of affairs is due partly to the malicious falsehoods of certain persons insufficiently devoted to the commonwealth, partly to the scruples and somewhat superstitious self-restraint of other individuals, it has seemed expedient that we should undertake to enlighten the artless innocence of the latter while combating the malice of the former. For no discerning person can be unaware of the consequences toward which these debates are tending, nor of the hostile wiles intermingled with them. That is to say, if the Dutch cease to harass the Spanish [and Portuguese]¹ blockaders of the sea (which will certainly be the outcome if their efforts result only in profitless peril), the savage insolence of the Iberian peoples will swell to immeasurable proportions, the shores of the whole world will soon be blocked off, and all commerce with Asia will collapse—that commerce by which (as the Dutch know, nor is the enemy ignorant of the fact) the wealth of our state is chiefly if not entirely sustained. On the other hand, if the Dutch choose to avail themselves of their good fortune, God has provided a weapon against the inmost heart of the enemy’s power, nor is there any weapon that offers a surer hope of liberty.

      Yet there is some reason to congratulate the fatherland on these erroneous scruples, since it is a rather strong indication of Dutch innocence that Hollanders should hesitate even before committing acts sanctioned by the moral law of nations and by the precepts of public law. Justice can never be found wanting, nor can there be a lack of good faith, in those who proceed so carefully and with hesitant tread (so to speak) in exercising this right which is most certainly possessed by all peoples and which would seem questionable to no one save the Dutch themselves.

      It is, however, indubitably true that virtue, at both extremes,