The Law of Nations Treated According to the Scientific Method. Christian von Wolff
also be plain what sort of a union there ought to be between soul and body, and how harmony may be established between soul and body, by determining the form of state, and that the bond of union is obedience of the subjects and mutual love of superior and subjects. If any one has sufficient intelligence, and has an adequate conception of the human soul and body, and also of a properly constituted state, he will not get a better conception of the perfection of a nation and its condition than by aid of this analogy. Nor in truth is it to be considered that this analogy is only a kind of play of the imagination. For it is a heuristic principle, which aids wonderfully in discovering those things which pertain to universal public law and the law of nations, and in confirming what is already plain in some other way, not to mention that by its aid men who cannot grasp a long course of proof may be persuaded of the truth of those things to which otherwise they would not easily assent. But it is not for us to pursue this argument at greater length.
§ 31. Of a nation’s duty of self-preservation
§ 5, part 8, Jus Nat.
§ 28, part 8, Jus Nat.
§ 28.
Every nation is bound to preserve itself. For the people who make a nation, when they have united into a state, are as individuals bound to
[print edition page 32]
the whole for promoting the common good, and the whole is bound to the individuals to provide for them those things which are required as a competency for life, for peace and security. Furthermore it is self-evident that this obligation cannot be satisfied, either on the part of the individuals or of the whole, unless the union in a state should persist, consequently, since the preservation of the nation depends on this union, unless the nation should be preserved. Therefore every nation is bound to preserve itself.
§ 28, part 8, Jus Nat.
Note, § 3.
§ 26, part 8, Jus Nat.
§ 789, part 3, Jus Nat.
§ 840, part 3, Jus Nat.
§ 28.
§ 19, part 1, Jus Nat.
§ 26, part 8, Jus Nat.
§ 349, part 1, and § 144, part 7, Jus Nat.
All obligation, by which the individuals in a state are bound to the whole and the whole to the individuals, comes from the agreement by which the state was established, as is evident from the proof given elsewhere. But since the obligation of self-preservation may proceed from this, by force of the present proof; this obligation itself also comes from the agreement, as we have already suggested above. But the obligation from the agreement ratified by the law of nature, receives its force from the same source. Therefore every nation is bound to save itself by the law of nature itself. It is no objection that agreements can be dissolved by mutual consent, consequently it is permitted by nature also to dissolve the union by unanimous consent, and when this occurs the nation does not exist. For the obligation of self-preservation in a nation belongs to the category of those which are called hypothetical, and rests on some human action as a basis. But this of itself is not immutable, as being absolute, which comes from the essence and nature of man, but in the present case it persists as long as the desire to endure abides in the state. But with difficulty, and scarcely at all, can it be conceived that the desire would fail all the inhabitants of any district. Nay, unless there should be sufficient reason for its failure, as is very unlikely, since states have been established in accordance with natural law, those err especially who wish to end the union into a state by common consent, therefore nations have besides the duty of preserving themselves. Individuals are bound to preserve themselves, and they owe mutual assistance to each other in perfecting themselves and their condition. But to destroy the union into a state, which is a means of satisfying that natural obligation, is opposed to this. Nay, unless you assume that the individuals who compose a nation are insane, or so stupid that they do not recognize that it is to their especial interest
[print edition page 33]
that the bond of civil society should not be removed, the spontaneous dissolution of the state is rightly considered as absurd or morally impossible.
§ 32. Of the law of nations in regard to those things which are necessary for their preservation
§ 31.
§ 159, part 1, Phil. Pract. Univ.
Since every nation is bound to preserve itself, since, moreover, the law of nature gives to men the right to those things without which they could not perform their obligation, every nation has the right to those things without which it cannot preserve itself.
§ 28.
It must be properly observed that we speak here concerning the preservation of a nation as such, which exists during its union in a state and consequently during the preservation of the state, in so far as it is regarded in general, and not in a particular form. Therefore we speak here of nothing except the right to those things which are necessary that the state may remain and the nation not perish. For those things which are necessary to the preservation of the individuals who make the state, belong to universal public law, and are evident from the things which we have abundantly proved concerning the constitution of a state, in the last part of “The Law of Nature.”
§ 33. Of averting the danger of destruction
§ 31.
§ 209, part 1, Phil. Pract. Univ.
In like manner because each nation is bound to preserve itself; it ought also to avert from itself all danger of destruction, therefore it ought to avoid those things which can bring about its destruction, as much of course as is in its power, since no one is bound to the impossible.
§ 540, part 1, Theol. Nat.
§ 593, part 1, Jus Nat.
§ 1192, part 1, Jus Nat.
§ 371, part 17, Jus Nat.
The preservation of a nation and its destruction are mutually opposed to each other. Therefore, since it ought to preserve itself, it ought also to be on its guard lest it may perish of its own fault. For that which is to be imputed to bad fortune, and is not subject to our control, must be patiently endured and entrusted to divine providence. Association in a state is as it were the life of a nation. Therefore, just as a man ought to avoid every risk to his life so far as in his power, so also is a nation bound to avoid risk of destruction. But just as it is
[print edition page 34]
impossible for a man to resist a superior force, by which he is brought into peril of his life, or without his consent is deprived of life; so likewise it is not possible that a nation protect itself from destruction by a superior force threatening it, for example, from perishing by earthquake or extraordinary flood or from destruction by the wrongful act of a stronger nation or from dissolution of the union by force of internal war or by famine or pestilence, instances of which are found in the annals of the ancients, which it is not our plan to collect in this place. It is enough to have suggested those things which make for a better understanding of the present proposition.
§ 34. Of the right to those things which are necessary for guarding against the risk of destruction
§ 33.
§ 159, part 1, Phil. Pract. Univ.
Since a nation ought to ward off from itself all peril of destruction and avoid those things which can bring destruction to it, so far as it is within its power, and since the law of nature gives a right to those things without which we cannot perform our obligation, every nation has the right to those means by which it can, as far as possible, avert the peril of destruction and avoid those things which can bring destruction upon it.
§ 859, part 1, Jus Nat.
§ 348, Log.
It is needful that the laws of nations be understood, that it may be plain in how many ways wrongs can be done to a nation; from which many other things may be derived which pertain to the law of nations. Moreover from the general principles which we have already proved,