When may a nation go to war?

Translation: quotations from Emer de Vattel are quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852), not his original words.

OCR: 10 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation attacked and waging defensive war does not need to make any hostile declaration, as the state of war is sufficiently ascertained by the enemy's declaration. He also believed that there is no absolute necessity for a formal declaration of war to render it legal. [1]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed a nation may go to war either for self-defense (defensive war) or for reasons such as obtaining something to which it lays claim, punishing an injury, or preventing a danger. He distinguished between lawful reasons and unjust pretences, but did not include conquest or invading others' property as legitimate reasons for war. [2]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war when it has received an injury or is threatened with one. He argued that the foundation of every just war is injury, either already done or threatened. "the foundation, or cause of every just war is injury, either already done or threatened." [3]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war only if it has a right to demand something of another nation and is unable to obtain it otherwise than by force of arms. He also stated that war cannot be just on both sides, and that it should be founded on right and necessity. [4]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war when it has made a demand for justice and, if that demand is not met, it may issue a conditional declaration of war, notifying the adversary that hostilities will commence unless satisfaction is given. If the adversary still does not comply, a pure and simple declaration of war is unnecessary, as the conditional declaration suffices. "In this case there is no necessity for adding a pure and simple declaration of war, — the conditional one sufficing, if the enemy delays giving satisfaction." [5]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war only in the last extremity, when every other expedient proves ineffectual for the maintenance of justice. He stated that it is necessary to have a just cause of complaint and that a reasonable satisfaction have been denied. [6]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war when it has just cause, such as when threatened or attacked, and when the motives for war are proper and commendable, derived from the good of the state. He argued that justificatory reasons show the sovereign has a right to take up arms, and proper motives show it is advisable and expedient to do so. [7]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war only if it is authorized by the sovereign authority and accompanied by the demand for just satisfaction and a declaration of war, except in cases of defensive war which may not require a declaration. This is based on the conditions he outlines for a legitimate war according to the law of nations. "The right of making war belongs only to the sovereign (§ 4) ; and it is only after satisfaction has been refused to him (§ 37), and even after he has made a declaration of war (§ 51), that he has a right to take up arms." [8]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war only when it is necessary for its own safety or when it has no other mode of obtaining indemnification for an injury received. He argued that the justice of a cause does not give a right to subjugate an enemy unless such extremity is necessary. (key quote above) [9]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that a nation may go to war to repel an injury and to defend its rights, as nature authorizes a nation to use force against those who would deprive it of its rights. He also believed that a nation may form a general combination with other nations to repress an attempt by another nation to infringe upon the common rights of all nations. [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1], [2], [3].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Emer de Vattel outlined that a nation may go to war only when it has a just cause, such as defending itself from an attack or repelling an injury. This is derived from his belief that the foundation of every just war is injury, either already done or threatened. [9]

2. He emphasized that war should be a last resort, to be used only when all other means of obtaining justice have failed. This is supported by his statement that a nation may go to war only in the last extremity, when every other expedient proves ineffectual for the maintenance of justice. [6]

3. Emer de Vattel also stated that a nation may go to war only if it is authorized by the sovereign authority and accompanied by the demand for just satisfaction and a declaration of war, except in cases of defensive war which may not require a declaration. This is based on the conditions he outlines for a legitimate war according to the law of nations. [8]

4. He believed that a nation may go to war when it has just cause, such as when threatened or attacked, and when the motives for war are proper and commendable, derived from the good of the state. This is supported by his argument that justificatory reasons show the sovereign has a right to take up arms, and proper motives show it is advisable and expedient to do so. [7]

5. Emer de Vattel also outlined that a nation may go to war only when it is necessary for its own safety or when it has no other mode of obtaining indemnification for an injury received. He argued that the justice of a cause does not give a right to subjugate an enemy unless such extremity is necessary. [9]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific modern context of international law and the role of international organizations in authorizing the use of force. However, from the principles outlined, we can infer that Emer de Vattel would likely support the use of force only when it is necessary for self-defense, to obtain justice, or to prevent an injury. He would likely oppose the use of force for conquest or other unjust reasons.

Extrapolation: Emer de Vattel would likely support the use of force only when it is necessary for self-defense, to obtain justice, or to prevent an injury. He would likely oppose the use of force for conquest or other unjust reasons.

Competing readings: One reading is that Emer de Vattel would support the use of force only when it is necessary for self-defense, to obtain justice, or to prevent an injury. Another reading is that he would support the use of force for other reasons, such as to protect the rights of other nations. The record itself does not state this, but it is an inference based on his principles.

Confidence: Moderate, based on the partial coverage of the record and the inferences drawn from the principles outlined.