May a people resist its ruler?

Translation: quotations from Hugo Grotius are quoted in Ralph van Deman Magoffin's 1916 English translation; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition), not his original words.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in Ralph van Deman Magoffin's 1916 English translation): Hugo Grotius believed that coercion contrary to the law of nature cannot establish a right, and that the possession of freedom is preserved to all by a failure to use coercion upon even one person. "coercion is contrary to the law of nature and obnoxious to all mankind, it cannot establish a right... the possession of freedom of trade is preserved to all by a failure to use coercion upon even one person." [1]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that a people may resist their ruler under certain conditions, particularly when the ruler commits unheard-of cruelties and abandons the laws of nature, thereby losing the rights of an independent sovereign. He argued that such rulers can no longer claim the privilege of the law of nations, and other powers may assist the oppressed people. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that the person of the Sovereign is sacred and inviolable, implying that individuals may not lawfully use violence against the ruler for self-defense. This suggests that resistance to a ruler through violent means is not justified under the law of nature. (key quote above) [3]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius discusses whether the circumstances under which subordinate magistrates are authorized to use military force can be called public war, and he notes that Franciscus Victoria allows the inhabitants of a town to take up arms to redress their own wrongs if the Prince neglects to avenge them, though this opinion is justly rejected by others. Thus, the passage shows that the question of whether a people may resist its ruler is a matter of debate among legal writers, with some affirming it and others denying it. "Franciscus Victoria allows the inhabitants of a town to take up arms, even without such a case of necessity, to redress their own wrongs, which the Prince neglects to avenge, but such an opinion is justly rejected by others." [4]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that a people may not exercise control over a prince's conduct in his lawful government, and that attempting to do so under the pretense of promoting good or averting evil could lead to confusion and turbulence. "But this by no means includes a right to any controul over the Prince's conduct in his lawful government." [5]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that a free people who have been subjugated may recover their former condition if delivered from the yoke of the enemy by the power of their allies, implying that they may resist their ruler if subjugated and then liberated. This is grounded in the application of the law of postliminium to nations. "so that a free people, who have been subjugated, upon being delivered from the yoke of the enemy by the power of their allies, will recover their former condition." [6]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that a people may not resist their ruler unless the ruler's actions cause inconvenience to all or the greater part of the subjects, and even then, the interests of the whole community take precedence. He argued that sovereigns or rulers are not bound to take arms for a subject's just cause unless it aligns with the interests of the whole community. "Yet the cause of any subject, although it may be a just cause, does not always bind sovereigns or rulers to take arms: but only when it can be done without inconvenience to all, or the greater part of their subjects." [7]

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in A. C. Campbell's 1814 English translation (abridged; 1901 edition)): Hugo Grotius believed that the kingly office was appointed by God and that subjects must obey their sovereigns as a duty of supreme obligation, regardless of the character of the ruler. He argues that resistance to a sovereign is resistance to God, and that even ungodly rulers retain the indelible sanctity of their power. "it follows that the obedience of subjects to sovereigns is a duty of supreme obligation... This St. Paul denies, maintaining that the kingly office, even under all circumstances, was appointed by God, therefore if ought to be honoured from motives of conscience" [8]

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

1. Hugo Grotius acknowledged that a people may resist their ruler under extreme conditions, such as when the ruler commits unheard-of cruelties and abandons the laws of nature, thereby losing the rights of an independent sovereign. [2]

2. He also noted that Franciscus Victoria allowed the inhabitants of a town to take up arms to redress their own wrongs if the Prince neglects to avenge them, though this opinion is justly rejected by others. [4]

3. However, Grotius believed that the person of the Sovereign is sacred and inviolable, implying that individuals may not lawfully use violence against the ruler for self-defense. [3]

4. He argued that a people may not exercise control over a prince's conduct in his lawful government, and that attempting to do so under the pretense of promoting good or averting evil could lead to confusion and turbulence. [5]

5. Grotius also believed that a people may not resist their ruler unless the ruler's actions cause inconvenience to all or the greater part of the subjects, and even then, the interests of the whole community take precedence. [7]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific conditions under which a people may resist their ruler in modern contexts, but it provides related principles.

Extrapolation: Hugo Grotius likely believed that a people may resist their ruler under extreme conditions, such as when the ruler commits unheard-of cruelties and abandons the laws of nature, thereby losing the rights of an independent sovereign. However, he also believed that the person of the Sovereign is sacred and inviolable, implying that individuals may not lawfully use violence against the ruler for self-defense.

Competing readings: One reading is that Grotius supported resistance under extreme conditions, while another reading is that he opposed resistance due to the sacred nature of the Sovereign. The record itself supports both readings, with some passages affirming resistance under extreme conditions and others denying it due to the sacred nature of the Sovereign.

Confidence: Moderate, as the record provides conflicting principles and the specific conditions for resistance are not fully detailed.