CONFERENCE PAPER: Jean Rousset de Missy’s Les Intérêts présens de l’Europe (1733) as a political and legal mirror of diplomacy between sovereigns VIIth Splendid Encounters of the Premodern Diplomats Network: Conflict Resolution in Europe, 1300-1800] (Vilnius: Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, 27-28 SEP 2018)

(image source: Premodern Diplomats Network)

Abstract:

International relations after the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) were characterized by a quest for interpretation of the agreement that had brought the conflict to an end. Franco-British understanding made the end of the conflict possible.[1] Yet, could this be lasting? France and Britain were geopolitical competitors. Moreover, the cornerstone of the agreement was the renunciation of Philip V of Spain to his hereditary rights to the French throne, in order to safeguard the balance of power in Europe[2]. Its solidity depended, in practice, on the willingness of the French court to prefer treaties over the lois fondamentales (fundamental laws or unwritten principles of constitutional order). Finally, the treaties concluded in April 1713 (Utrecht), March 1714 (Rastatt) and September 1714 (Baden) left many questions unanswered, especially in case new succession quarrels would pop up. Diplomats had recourse to legal advisers, treaty collections and doctrine, and gradually instated a system whereby the peace treaties of 1713-1714 became a blueprint to solve new quarrels.[3]Les intérêts présens de l’Europe (1733, 1735, 1741)[4] by the Huguenot Jean Rousset de Missy (1686-1762), a two-volume collection of pretentions and published legal documents dedicated to the House of Orange, presents a precious mirror of past, pending and potential new quarrels between European sovereigns.  Together with Jean Du Mont (1666-1727), Rousset was involved in the Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens (1726-1731),[5] the most illustrious early modern collection of treaties between sovereigns and other legally relevant material.  Rousset’s collection is inspired on Schweder’s Theatrum Historicum Praetensionum (1727) initiated by Christoph Hermann Schweder and continued by Adam Friedrich Glafey (1692-1753), professor of the law of nations in Saxony[6], but merits more than a mere mention as a copy.
Rousset’s work is presented as a princely education manual, to introduce the young William Friso (1711-1751), who would become stadholder in 1747. Rousset presents not just the “interêts & Prétensions des Puissances de l’Europe », but foremost in a rigorous analysis, « examinées avec soin, d’après les Preuves tirées des Traitéz & des Ecrits publiez pour les soûtenir. » Rousset staunchly defended the diplomacy of the French Regent, Philip of Orléans (1715-1723). Orléans chose to continue the Franco-British alliance. He went to war against Philip V of Spain[7]. Rousset regularly indulges in political advice, conformably to his numerous journalistic writings.[8] This first layer of interpretation would do no justice to the intellectual complexity of Rousset’s work. Rousset synthetizes arguments on both, or all sides in succession quarrels, territorial disputes or debates on overlordship. This sticks closely to the practical operation of diplomacy in his age. Only arguments acceptable to one’s interlocutor could truly constitute a part of the law of nations applied between sovereigns, from the pope and the emperor to the republic of Venice and Genoa. Jean Rousset de Missy juggles with roman law, canon law, the law of nations, treaties, custom, feudal law, constitutional law, succession pacts or imperial law.[9] His powerful and rich analysis combines the chessboard of European sovereigns with the argumentative positions. Rousset unites geopolitical interest and law as a system of legitimacy, exceeding by far a listing exercise of the Intérêts and their Preuves.
 

---

[1] Lucien Bély, Espions et Ambassadeurs Au Temps de Louis XIV, ed. by Daniel Roche (Paris: Fayard, 1990).[2] Frederik Dhondt, ‘La Société Des Princes et Le Droit Des Gens. Réflexions Sur La Hiérarchie Des Normes et Les Lois Fondamentales Du Royaume Autour Des Renonciations de Philippe V d’Espagne (1712-1713)’, in Penser l’ordre Juridique Médiéval et Moderne. Regards Croisés Sur Les Méthodes Des Juristes, ed. by Nicolas Laurent-Bonne and Xavier Prévost, Contextes - Culture Du Droit (Paris: Lextenso/LGDJ, 2016), pp. 83–109.[3] Frederik Dhondt, Balance of Power and Norm Hierarchy. Franco-British Diplomacy after the Peace of Utrecht, Legal History Library, 17; Studies in the History of International Law, 7, 7 (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2015) .[4] Jean Rousset de Missy, Les Intérêts Présens Des Puissances de l’Europe, Fondez Sur Les Traitez Conclus Depuis La Paix d’Utrecht Inclusivement, & Sur Les Preuves de Leurs Prétentions Particulieres (La Haye: Adrien Moetjens, 1733).[5] Jean Dumont, Corps Universel Diplomatique Du Droit Des Gens, 8 vols (Amsterdam/The Hague: Brunel, Wetstein, L’Honoré & Chatelain/Husson & Levrier, 1726).[6] Frank-Steffen Schmidt, Praktisches Naturrecht Zwischen Thomasius Und Wolff: Der Völkerrechtler Adam Friedrich Glafey (1692-1753), Studien Zur Geschichte Des Völkerrechts; 12 (Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2007).[7] Frederik Dhondt, ‘“Arrestez et Pillez Contre Toute Sorte de Droit ”: Trade and the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720)’, Legatio: The Journal for Renaissance and Early Modern Diplomatic Studies, I (2017), 128–62 .[8]Marion Brétéché, Les Compagnons de Mercure : Journalisme et Politique Dans l’Europe de Louis XIV, Époques (Ceyzérieu: Champ Vallon, 2015).[9] Tamar Herzog, A Short History of European Law: The Last Two and a Half Millennia (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2018).

See here for the conference program.

READING GROUP: Pierre Bourdieu's Sur l'État. Cours au Collège de France (VUB, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Law), 24 SEP 2018

(image source: La Martinière)

The first session of the reading group on "Sur l'État. Cours au Collège de France" will focus on Pierre Bourdieu's treatment of history, namely the vital transformation of what the sociologist terms "house thinking" to "raison d'État". Bourdieu's social construction of the conditions wherein the state can be thought, and wherein opposition to the legal orthodoxy of the state, thought by jurists, can become possible, is at the same time scrupulously respectful of established historical scholarship (ergo not very original, as the main narrative is already well known) and refreshing (with regards to new terms and concepts, that can possibly advance the state of our knowledge). 

Bourdieu is a central figure in the humanities and social sciences. Using his concepts (habitus - field - symbolic violence - doxa - orthodoxy - gatekeepers - implicit normativity), sometimes deliberately undefined and vague, can build bridges to render historical material understandable to a lay audience of sociologists, lawyers, philosophers... For instance, the technical and painstaking nature of procedures, political deals or networks generally comes first in legal historical research, whereas the conclusions are apt to be understood by a broader scientific audience. This of course does not allow shedding traditional heuristics and primary source-analysis.

In view of the time that separates us from the early 1990s when Bourdieu presented his intuitions at the Collège de Francw, much complementary historical research has filled this gap. Bourdieu's intuitions will be confronted by work on normativity and the early modern state by Lucien Bély (diplomatic history), Martin Loughlin (public law) and Olivier Beaud (public law). 

Readers are encouraged to address the whole book. Yet, in view of the repetitive nature of Bourdieu's explanations and the many digressions, the following excerpts are sufficient: - pp. 235-248 - pp. 249-264 - pp. 292-304.

Contact Sibel Top for more information.

ESIL IGHIL Pre-Conference Event: Consumers of Producers of International Law ? (ESIL Annual Conference on the "Universality of International Law", Manchester: Manchester University, 13-15 SEP 2018)

(image source: ESILHIL Blog)

I participated as convener in the ESIL Interest Group History of International Law-pre conference event at the Annual ESIL Conference on the Universality of International Law, organised by the Manchester Centre for International Law.

I acted as respondent to the paper of Prof. dr. Aiko Nakai (Kyoto) on "Latin American International Law as the First Regional International Law".

A conference report is online on the ESILHIL-blog.