Posted on 02/07/2011 1:37:31 PM PST by devattel
SYNOPSIS:
Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.
There is no modern edition of The Law of Nations, but facsimiles of the popular nineteenth-century editions by the London barrister Joseph Chitty have appeared in recent times. These annotated editions (first in 1834) and their reissue with further notes by Edward Ingraham (first in 1852) were based on the 1797 London edition. Chitty helpfully identified the notes that distinguished the 1797 edition from the earlier English translation. He sought, however, to add much more to the text, as he explained in a preface written in Chancery Lane in November 1833:
Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition upon which any care was bestowed, was published in ad 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established. The object of the present Editor has, therefore, been to collect and condense, in numerous notes, the modern rules and decisions, and to fortify the positions in the text by references to other authors of eminence, and by which he hopes that this edition will be found of more practical utility, without interfering with the text, or materially increasing its size.
In consequence, Chitty’s text is overloaded with legal citations based on the case law of the sea that emerged in the Napoleonic era. Vattel’s work had become a textbook for law students in both Britain and North America.
Some of Chitty’s notes remain useful and have on occasion been incorporated into the editorial apparatus for this edition. The present edition includes new footnotes, elucidating dates, events, works, and persons referred to by Vattel. Posthumous additions to the French edition of 1773, which were then translated in the edition of 1797, are identified as such in the new notes. Translations of Vattel’s Latin citations have come from the best modern editions, particularly from the Loeb Classical Library. For each translation, reference to the edition used can be found in the bibliography of authors cited. In cases where no translation could be found, or where the context of Vattel’s work required an amended translation, the editors undertook the translation, and this is signaled in the text by “trans. Eds.” All of the preceding new material has been added to the 1797 text as numbered notes or as double square-bracketed inserts within Vattel’s original notes.
Chitty lamented in 1833 that “he proposed to form an Index, so as to render the work more readily accessible; but, in that desire, he has been overruled by the publishers.” The present edition adds bibliographical and biographical details of authors cited in the text, following up Vattel’s own sometimes obscure references. The bibliography of authors cited includes and explains the short titles employed by Vattel in his footnotes.
Page breaks in the 1797 edition have been indicated in the body of the text by the use of angle brackets. For example, page 112 begins after <112>.
Nice tactic in changing the subject, troll.
“Sooooo....why do you defend him so much regarding his Constitutional eligibility?”
The truth is important. Ask LTC Lakin, who had his butt handed to him in court after he made the mistake of listening to Internet Rambo Birthers...
If Obama was born in the USA of parents here legally, he is qualified per the Constitution. Evil, but qualified.
Yeah, a decorated 18+ year Vet who did more for his county than your f***king idol obama could ever dream of....people like you make my skin crawl...drink the stench deep and suck the corruption willingly lest they kill you first.
If Obama was born in the USA of parents here legally, he is qualified per the Constitution. Evil, but qualified.
You're stuck on stupid, the FF are evil?
They were God given and sent, you think they could pen evil.....again, FO.
Then explain why the NBC clause means nothing if a foreign born father can spawn a faithful American POTUS........c'mon.....then explain the NBC clause.....waiting.....
“You’re stuck on stupid, the FF are evil?”
Learn to read, moron.
If Putin came here, had a son he abandoned, and the son was raised by the American mother and American grandparents, then in what sense does the child owe squat to Russia?
LOL, I'll let your statement stand.....for all to see.....lol......fool.
Hey rogers....suck this traitor tail pipe sucking pos.......(_!_)
Just his existence. No big deal.
Do I need the /sarc tag?
Ignoramus's jerk, dreams FROM MY FATHER....stupid.
Get off of your knees....
BTW FU MR.
That is bullshit.
Thank you for confirming your intent to keep lying.
Vattel also says it is different in England than where he is - that the King grants the children of aliens natural born subject status.
What Vattel actually said:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner."
Some countries may choose to naturalize the children of aliens (such as Barry claims to be) at birth. They are not natural born citizens. They are naturalised, under natural law and the Law of Nations, the language of the Constitution.
Bookmarked! Thanks.
Just a few examples...
The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Published: 1780
Original from: University of Lausanne
From: http://books.google.com/books?id=xZUPAAAAQAAJ
A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University
From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ
And...welcome to FR devattel!
The inalienable truth that citizenship is an international term where many countries still confer citizenship to children through the father, not the mother.
The Law of Nations: or, principles of the law of nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns.
By M. de Vattel. ... Translated from the French
Printed in Dublin
Publisher: printed for Luke White, 1787
I’ve always wondered why they used two different statements in the qualifications i.e. for POTUS or Congress.
To me if they truly meant the same thing then why not just use Native Born Citizen for both?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.