The teaching of Hugo Gratius of war and peace

: 2/6

For many preachers of this theory natural condition was a philosophical dogma or, as Golbach said, fiction. But this fiction helped ideologists of bourgeoisie to criticize pre-capitalistic social and political regime and to prophecy the victory of bourgeoisie. In this society - wrote Marx an individual is free from natural bonds, etc., that in the past made him belong to a certain limited human community.

Theorists of natural law consider state as a result of a juridical act Treaty of the society, of peoples free will.

The idea of natural law and treaty state origins can be found in Greek and Roman philosophy and works, and in the works of feudalism scholars in middle ages. But in 17 18 centuries these ideas became more developed with some peculiar features, because they lose theological context common for medieval scholars, and naïve naturalism of ancient ones, because some of them considered animals as subjects of law. But the main thing is that a theory of international law of the 17 18 centuries had different class essence. It expressed strong demands of bourgeoisie, struggling hard for on its way to power.

The views on the contents of the Treaty were also different. Hobbes calls a treaty via people an act by which all population loses all natural freedom and rights in monarchs favour and permit him an unlimited power upon them. Loch thought that an individual who enters this society via treaty loses his rights only partly (right for self-help, self-defense when something is threatening his natural rights), in favour of the other part: private property and freedom. Golbach defined the Treaty of the society as a bundle of conditions necessary for organizing and saving society. Denny Didreau thought of the Treaty of the society a bit differently. People, he wrote, quickly understood that if they continued using their freedom, their power, their independence then the situation of every single person would be even more miserable, than that if he lived separately; they realized that every person has to sacrifice a part of his natural independence and to submit to will, that would be the will of the whole society and would be, so to say, common center and a point of unification of all their wills and powers. That is the origin of rulers.

There is no need to say about theoretical unsoundness of this concept of the school of natural law. Even in the 18 century some bourgeois philosophers found the antihistorical essence of these views. For example, Jum says that natural condition is a fiction of the philosophers. State emerges not as a result of a treaty but historically. Some also said that people could not invent a term state, not knowing the practice. The first Russian law professor Semen Jefimovitch Desnitskiy abruptly criticized natural law and mostly Pouffendorf. The works of Pouffendorf he said was unnecessary, because writing of states of humankind that had never existed, is a very unworthy deed.

Chapter II

It is important to show which natural conditions were the soil for such an illusion of natural state and treaty state origins, and to show the role and importance of this idea in the class struggle of that time.

Marx said that the individual who enters the society union via treaty, as seen by theorists of the school of natural law, is a result of descended feudal society forms and developed in the 16-century new productive powers. A great mistake of natural law theorists was that in their opinion individual has not developed historically, but set up by nature itself. Features common for bourgeoisie were proclaimed as common for mankind.

: 27/02/2010