chcafe

Congress Hall Cafe

Law of Nations

Grotius quoting Cicero “some duties are to be observed even toward those, from whom you recieved an injury. For even vengence and punishment have their due bounds.” 287

Law of Nations: There are no innocent civilians in war. The leadership of any nation is the choice of the people, and the people are directly responsible for the actions of their leadership. If the leadership chooses war, it is also the choice of all the people and all suffer the consequence of their mutual decision and actions, otherwise, citizens of a nation can choose corrupt, warring, and dangerous leadership expecting to be immune from leadership decisions thereby avoiding personal responsibility for the actions of the whole nation.  JB

Grotius 278. Quintus Curius says that Alexander said that it was for conquerors to dictate laws, which the conquered were bound to receive them. Arovistus, in Caesar, says that it is an indubitable right of war, for the conqueror to impose whatever terms he pleased upon the conquered,

Note: We say war is allowed for two purposes; defense and sovereignty reestablishment which is lost be pernicious violation of divine law. The cost of war in full restitution is allowed and perhaps punishment inflicted on those responsible. Once a city or nation is defeated, the war is over and natural rights for every inhabitant is resumed while political right may be controlled by the conqueror according divine law. 278 God calling Israel into the land of Canaan through the process of an offensive war is an example of restoring sovereignty, The Canaanites falling in moral perversion lost the right to rule while the Israelites operating under God’s law has the right to rule or sovereignty and could justly displace the inhabitants, years later, when Israel fell into moral corruption they also lost the right to rule and lost the right to sovereignty and God pushed them into the diaspora.

Grotius “By conquest, a prince succeeds to all the rights of the conquered sovereign or state; and if it be a commonwealth , he acquires all the rights and privileges, which the people possessed. He gains the same right, which the state had before, to alienate the possessions, or to transmit them if he chuses to his descendants, by which means they will become the patrimonial territory. 278

Note: This position on the laws of conquest in untenable. The American civil war present the law of conquest of a more perfect light. The Southern States by the maintaining slavery coupled with vicious slavery laws to check the slaves removed the Southern States to the right of sovereignty.  The Northern States abolition of slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation ensured the Northern States right to sovereignty in the eyes of God; this gave the Northern States the right of conquest over the Southern states.  This conquest was limited to restoring majority rule according to divine law within territory boundaries in the conquered territories and the North effectively did this by forcing the conquered Southern States to submit to the 13th and 14th amendment. The 13th removed slavery an impediment to the right of sovereignty. The 14th ensured that the principles of the Declaration of Independence as formulated in the Federal Bill of Rights was enforceable upon the Southern as well as Northern States by the general (federal) government.  This is proper use of conquest and should be the standard for every nation.

 

 

Abraham rescued Lot and all the property belong to Lot and his clan. Abraham refused to take a portion for the victory he acquires against the five kings. Grotius says soldiers who sacrifice effort, time, risk life, should be compensated. Was Abraham stating law of nations or a law of charity? The law of nations allows recompense for the effort of military action but military action is only justified in for defense. The spoils of the enemy pay for the cost of defense, however, in lot case, this was a police action in a recovery of those kidnapped and robbed. The good recovered belong to the clan. Abraham fighting on the side of justice could paid himself with the spoils of the defeated king but not with the recovery of goods which he sought to rescue unless a understood agreement exist.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on April 19, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: