Before Grotius (1583-1645) there were many who wrote upon matters relating to interna tional affairs. Among these are the well-known names of Victoria (1480-1575), Ayala (1548 84), Suarez (1548-1617) and Gentilis (1552 1608). The great work of Grotius, jure belli ac pacis' (1625), formulated and clarified much of what is now called international law. From this foundation Grotius gained the title of Father of International Law. His work in fluenced the leaders in international affairs almost immediately and the Treaty of West phalia at the end of the Thirty Years War, 1648, embodied ideas of this great master. To Grotius all writers acknowledged their in debtedness.
From the days of Grotius different schools began to develop. One school, sometimes called the anaturalists,° particularly followed the natural law theories, theories in their harmony or agreement with the inherent forces of the universe. Another school, the (Positivists° looked particularly to customs and treaties for the sources of international law. Aside from those who were commentators upon the work of Grotius, the main contributions were from writers upon special topics, such as the writings of Bynkersholk (1673-1743). The systematic work of Vattel (1714-67) had wide circulation in Europe and in America as did that of the American, Henry Wheaton (1785-1848). With the increase in the number of court decisions involving principles of international law, there has arisen a clearer definition of the field of international law and a recognition of its bind ing character.
Treaties, particularly since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, have embodied international law. Where the same clause occurs in a large number of treaties or when a large number of states are parties to one treaty the principle or principles tend to be generally accepted as law. Such was the case in regard to some parts of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 which were re peated in other treaties of the 18th century. The doctrine of the balance of power in Europe as a basis of peace clearly set forth in this treaty was accepted as a fundamental principle in the diplomatic negotiations in Europe for many years. According to Talleyrand a hun dred years later in 1813 the balance of power was combination of the neutral rights and interests of the Powers, by means of which, Europe aims at securing the following objects: al. That no single Power, nor any union of Powers shall have mastery in Europe.
g2. That no single Power nor union of Powers shall be able to infringe the actual pos session and recognized rights of any other Power.
u3. That it shall no longer be necessary, in order to maintain the established state of affairs, to live in a state of imminent or actual war, and that the proposed combination shall secure the peace and repose of Europe against the efforts of a disturber by diminishing his chances of success.°
If all that had at times been hoped for from the acceptance of this doctrine of balance of power had been realized, law in international relations would have developed much more rapidly.
Another principle that has been embodied in many treaties following the Treaty of Utrecht was in its brief form ((free ships make free goods" and there was also coupled with it the principle that °enemy ships make enemy goods.° This was a step in advance of earlier practice, particularly of the 17th century, which did not -acknowledge that innocent enemy goods under a neutral flag were free from capture. A hun dred years later Napoleon claimed that these doctrines of the Treaty of Utrecht had ((be come through their adoption in subsequent treaties, the common law of nations.° Progress has, however, been made in inter national law as in other law and in general there has been a tendency to free commerce from restraints. In respect to the treatment of goods upon the sea, the United States which had in the late 18th century but recently come into the family of nations as the first member from outside of Europe, endeavored to obtain complete exemption from capture of innocent private property even if belonging to enemy persons. In the last quarter of the 18th cen tury the principle was even embodied in certain treaties made by the United States, but it did not receive general approval.
While the precedents of the long negotiations leading to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 established some clear lines of diplomatic prac tice, there were many points upon which dis putes were common. The disputes sometimes led to personal encounters. As the diplomatic agent was regarded as embodying in the foreign state the dignity of the state which he repre sented, he endeavored to obtain for himself the place of greatest prominence. He strove for the highest place at the table, the chair at the right of the sovereign on ceremonial occasions, and by fair means or foul to gain precedence. Bribery of officials was common and some of the books of the early 18th century explain the principles of its use. The rivalry of states be came at length so keen that it seemed desirable to lay down laws for the precedence of diplo matic agents. The Congress of Vienna of 1815 embodied a conventional agreement which with an addition at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 made the grade of diplomatic repre sentatives as follows: 1. Ambassadors, legates and nuncios.