Search

Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Acts, which was issued in June 1915, empowered the Secretary of State to intern individuals, including British subjects, he deemed to be “of hostile origin or association” for the purpose of “securing public safety or the defence of the Realm”. The Defence of the Realm Acts, the primary legislation enacted for British home security during the war, bestowed very broad powers, but made no mention of internment. Accordingly, Regulation 14B authorised internment which had not been expressly authorised by Parliament. However, since the seventeenth century it had been a matter of great constitutional importance that detention without trial could only be authorised expressly by Parliament. Thus the introduction of Regulation 14B in terms of broad empowering legislation, but without express empowerment to authorise detention, is a striking moment in British constitutional history. This thesis seeks to contextualise and understand the origins of Regulation 14B. In particular, it investigates the relationship between the manner in which Britain governed its Empire and Regulation 14B. Two questions are addressed. The first relates to the relationship between experiences in Empire and the passage of the Defence of the Realm Acts, without which Regulation 14B could not have been issued. Key here is the Government decision to rely on legislation as opposed to martial law for the purposes of home security during the War. The second question relates to the relationship between experiences in Empire and Regulation 14B itself. A number of instances of authorisation of detention without trial in the British Empire are considered. This thesis concludes that there is evidence that the use of martial law in the colonies directly influenced the decision to enact the Defence of the Realm Acts. However, the available historical evidence is less clear as to the influence detention powers in the Empire had on Regulation 14B.

International audience; The battle of Oudenarde (11 July 1708) is one of the numerous defeats of the end of Louis XIV’s reign. The event seems disconnected from legal history. Yet, several layers of analysis allow to connect the battle to the constitutional systems of the belligerents, as well as to the law of nations. This article treats first the military confrontation of two mass armies, representing rulers from Granada to Königsberg, and the local perception of this sudden foreign military presence, through a satire on ‘French vanity and consternation’. In an ensuing stage, the German allies of Louis XIV and his opponents offer a perspective on the law of the Holy Roman Empire. Finally, the battle in itself being far from decisive, diplomatic manoeuvres announced the blueprint of the agreement that would bring the war to an end in 1713-1714. The interconnectedness of all ‘Theatres of War’ (Italy, Spain, Germany, Low Countries, Scotland) equally transpires in the iconography used in Schenk’s Schouwburg van den Oorlog.; La bataille d’Audenarde du 11 juillet 1708, une des nombreuses défaites françaises de la fin du règne de Louis XIV, semble bien éloignée de l’étude de l’histoire du droit. Pourtant, plusieurs niveaux d’analyse permettent de remonter au droit constitutionnel des belligérants impliqués dans la Guerre de Succession d’Espagne (1701/1702-1713/1714), tout comme au droit des gens. L’article présent traite d’abord le déroulement de l’affrontement entre deux armées de masse, représentant des souverains de Grenade à Königsberg, et la perception locale de ce déferlement de troupes, mise en scène dans une pièce satyrique exposant le ‘Français vantard et consterné’. Ensuite, la présence des alliés allemands de Louis XIV et de ses opposants mène au droit du Saint-Empire Germanique. Finalement, la bataille en elle-même n’étant pas décisive, il est important de souligner que les manœuvres diplomatiques entre les campagnes de 1707 et 1708 annonçaient les contours de l’accord qui a permis en 1713-1714 de terminer une guerre sanglante. Le caractère connecté de tous les « théâtres de la guerre » (Italie, Espagne, Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Ecosse) paraît également dans l’iconographie du Schouwburg van den Oorlog de Schenk.

L’abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) est un des penseurs les plus étudiés du début du dix-huitième siècle. Son projet « utopique » de paix perpétuelle fut publié pendant le Congrès de paix d’Utrecht (1712-1713), où des plénipotentiaires de diverses puissances européennes mirent fin à la guerre de Succession d’Espagne (1701-1714). Comme le souligne Merle Perkins, les conceptions de Saint-Pierre, comme celles de Hobbes, partaient de la crainte comme fondement de l’ordre social et de la nécessité d’un arbitrage obligatoire. Saint-Pierre croyait en le dépassement de l’état de nature violent. L’élément-clé était la fixation des prétentions juridiques réciproques des souverains, source de querelles. En abandonnant les querelles, l’ « Union européenne » pourrait assurer la « possession tranquille » des souverains. Le contexte diplomatique après la paix d’Utrecht était davantage compatible avec sa proposition que celui du début de la conférence, où Saint-Pierre fustigeait l’équilibre des pouvoirs. La paix était basée sur les renonciations réciproques des principaux prétendants à la succession d’Espagne. Saint-Pierre écrivit l’édition de 1717 de son Projet pour convaincre les diplomates du Régent, qui s’appliquaient à introduire une solution semblable pour les duchés de Parme et de Plaisance, et pour le Grand-Duché de Toscane. Le contexte de la diplomatie de la Régence explique les tentatives de l’abbé de formuler un message crédible, susceptible de convaincre les acteurs de la politique étrangère française. Abbot Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) is one of the most studied early 18th century political thinkers. His “utopian” project of perpetual peace was published during the Utrecht Peace Congress (1712-1713), where plenipotentiaries from various European powers ended the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). As Merle Perkins demonstrated, Saint-Pierre’s conceptions on the state of nature and man’s violent instinct were similar to Hobbes’. Saint-Pierre, by contrast, believed in the possibility to overcome the violent state of nature. The key element here was the freezing of reciprocal legal claims by monarchs, which were always a source of conflict. Leaving quarrels behind, the “European Union” would be able to ensure the “tranquil possession” of sovereigns. The diplomatic context after the Peace of Utrecht was more compatible with his position than his first version (1712), wherein he castigated balance of power-politics. The peace was based on the mutual renunciations by the most prominent pretenders to the Spanish Succession. Saint-Pierre redacted the 1717 edition of his Projet to convince the Regent’s diplomats. Their efforts focused on finding a solution for the duchies of Parma and Piacenza, and the Grand-Duchy of Tuscany. The context of Regency diplomacy explains the attempts of Saint-Pierre to deliver a credible message, able to convince the actors of French foreign policy.

Analysis of the claims of Philip V of Spain on the throne of France after 1713 and his peculiar position in the struggle for the succession of the composite Habsburg monarchy from 1700 to 1725.

The author investigates the birth of modern diplomacy. Drawing on a wide-ranging body of various textual materials dealing with the ambassador from the 13th to the 17th century, he analyses how that figure was developed within a complex field of issues raised by a constantly renewed interaction between law, ethics and politics, where theory and practice are intertwined in an unresolved dialectical interaction. The first part of the book examines how the legal status of the ambassador was shaped during the late Middle Ages and how this process influenced early-modern scholarship on diplomacy. The second part investigates how the emergence of the modern State both reinvigorated and reshaped the scholarly approaches to the different themes linked to the figure of the ambassador. The third and last part proposes an account of how the professional status of the ambassador developed within the examined body of literature. Through the prism of these issue-related approaches, diplomacy appears as a foundational matrix of modern political rationality. L’auteur reconstruit la naissance de la diplomatie moderne, en analysant – à partir d’un corpus composite de textes parus du XIIIe au XVIIe siècle – l’élaboration de la figure de l’ambassadeur tel qu’il est apparu dans un champ de problématisation caractérisé par une interaction souvent renouvelée entre droit, éthique et politique, et marqué par une dialectique irrésolue entre théorie et pratique. La première partie de ce livre étudie comment le statut juridique de l’ambassadeur a été façonné à la fin du Moyen-âge et l’influence de cette réflexion sur la doctrine de la première époque moderne. La seconde partie aborde les transformations des thématiques en rapport avec la diplomatie au moment où l’État émerge en tant que nouvelle forme d’organisation politique. La troisième partie examine l’élaboration de la figure de l’ambassadeur à partir de la construction du profil de son statut professionnel. À travers le prisme de ces approches, la diplomatie apparaît comme l’une des matrices essentielles de la rationalité politique moderne. AVAILABLE IN OPEN ACCESS AT https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783845284361/naissance-de-la-diplomatie-moderne-xiiie-xviie-siecles ispartof: Studien zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts vol:36 nrpages: 846 status: published

Presentation of Emer de Vattel's Le droit des gens (London [Neuchâtel], 1758), a classic work on the law of nations. Vattel defended the principality of Neuchâtel's interests above all. He tried to combine the natural law tradition (Grotius, Pufendorf, must mostly Wolf, whom he acknowledges being in debt to) and state practice. The result is an often contradictory fundgrube, providing posterity with numerous arguments suitable to any position in trials. Hence Vattel's 19th century popularity and frequent use by the US Supreme court.

1. Today, Hungary is a small Central-Eastern-European country making headlines with its domestic political and constitutional controversies. Yet, throughout its 1000-year history, this country had many struggles and developments, which, when put into a European comparative context, are relatively unknown and nevertheless very interesting. Hungary was similar to its Western-European counterparts in many ways: it was a monarchy, which joined the Roman Catholic Church upon its founding. It established a domestic administrative system, regulated land ownership and eventually established feudal representation. The pace of its development may have been a little slower sometimes than that of the West, but Hungarian scholars studied at the Western Universities, its rulers fought and consulted their foreign counterparts and the country had a normal-size territory to be considered a country, like any other, in Europe. 2. At the same time, Hungary was also different in many ways than its Western counterparts. The country only had a so-called historical constitution and no written constitution until the 20th century. Due to certain elements of this historical constitution, the structure of land ownership, local public administration and social structures remained the same throughout the middle ages. As a result of the Turkish occupation in the 16th-18th centuries, the country dipped into the second wave of serfdom. It did not embark on the road to a civil society as the West has after renaissance and reformation. Roman law was never officially received in Hungary and multiple codification attempts for domestic laws failed throughout the 18th-19th centuries. A closer examination of the 19th century constitutional development in Hungary and especially the rather unique dualist state of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy may provide additional meaning to legitimacy, sovereignty and multi-level governance in international law. A multitude of questions arise in this regard, such as the true significance of the 1867 Ausgleich between the Austrian Empire and Hungary from the perspective of international law, the relevance of domestic constitutional order within related states, etc. Taught together with dr. F. Dhondt (Legal History Institute).

Analysis of legal argumentation in the quarrel around the renunciation vows of Philip V of France with regards to his right of succession to the throne, read together with diplomatic and treaty developments in the early 18th century. Present-day public international law concepts can be deemed useful to understand both sides of the medal.