No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
In a recent editorial of one of the legal periodicals, the author quotes Alexander Hamilton’s statement in the Federalist, that “it is essential to the idea of law that it be attended with a sanction, or in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience,” and from this premise draws the following conclusion: “The law of nations, so-called, is a mere empty term or phrase, a high resounding name for something in and of itself vain and impotent.”
To most authorities and students of international law, the author’s conclusion is somewhat astounding, but the fact that the statement could be made by a prominent legal editor, illustrates the extent of the present popular distrust of the science.
1 Bench and Bar, Vol. 9, No. 11, p. 478.
2 General Orders No. 100, War of the Rebellion, Official Records, Series III, 151.
3 Book 3, Ch. 1, Par. 1.
4 Book 1, Ch. 1.
5 Ibid., Par. 2.
6 Halleck, International Law, Vol. I, p. 120.
7 Pollock and Maitland, History of the English Law, Vol. II, p. 574.
8 Section 246.
9 Section 42.
10 Metropolitan Magazine, Oct., 1915.
11 2 Gallatin’s Writings, 494.
12 Vol. I, 2nd Ed., p. 209, et seq.
13 Part 1, Book 1, Tit. 1, par. 13.
14 P. xv, xxvii.