The Law of Nations

Neutrality[edit]

The practice of mercantilist economies granting their own ships legal privileges when trading with their colonies, and sometimes restricting trade entirely, created a whole host of issues in the 18th century.^[11] Neutral trade or neutral rights became a matter of controversy in the Seven Years' War in which neutral rights were supported by the Kingdom of France and opposed by the Kingdom of Great Britain. Vattel formulated a differing approach to the Rule of 1756 that had emerged from the prize courts in Britain.^[14]


With the Rule of 1756 the British had sought to prevent trade by neutral vessels between colonies and mother countries. Practically speaking, this would have stopped American vessels from trading between the West Indies and France.^[15] Vattel neither fully embraced the British approach distinguishing trade with the enemy (neutral) and trade for the enemy (deemed contraband), nor did he fully subscribe to French the "free ships, free goods" principle. Rather, in the Law of Nations Vattel proposed only some limited restrictions on trade, requiring that states trade with both belligerents to keep their neutral status, but rejected any obligation for neutral states to cease trade. Additionally, neutral nations were encouraged to accept that certain types of goods might be justifiably seized by belligerents, and these seizures should not be construed as acts of war.^[14][16]