146

Notes

1 Introduction

1 Plato, Politeia, I.xv.342 E; Nomoi, IV.715B. 2 Aristotle, Politica, III.iv.7. 3 See also ibid., VII.ii.10. 4 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39; de officiis, III.vi.26. 5 See J.G.F. Powell and J.A. North (eds), Cicero’s Republic. London. Institute of

Classical Studies, 2001; E. Bréguet, Cicéron, La République. Paris, 1980; M.Schofield, “Cicero’s definition of Res Publica”, in J.G.F. Powell (ed.), Cicero thePhilosopher. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 63–83.

6 K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity: A Critical Analysis ofPolybius’ Political Ideas. New York, 1954.

7 See M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United StatesConstitution. Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New York UniversityPress, 1994.

2 The origins of republican legal theory

1 See P. Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford. OxfordUniversity Press, 1997; M.N.S. Sellers. The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism,Liberalism and the Law. Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New YorkUniversity Press, 1998.

2 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39. 3 Ibid., at II.xxiii.43. 4 H. Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican

Liberty in the Age of Classicism and Tyranny. Revised edn, Princeton. PrincetonUniversity Press, 1966.

5 Z.S. Fink, The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thoughtin Seventeenth-century England. 2nd edn, Evanston, Illinois. Northwestern UniversityPress, 1962.

6 C. Robbins, The Eighteenth-century Commonwealthsman: Studies in the Transmission,Development and Circumstances of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration ofCharles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Harvard University Press, 1959.

7 J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and theAtlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton. Princeton University Press, 1975.

8 C. Nicolet, L’idée républicaine en France (1789–1924): Essai d’histoire critique. Paris.Gallimard, 1982.

9 G.S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill.University of North Carolina Press, 1969.

10 Q. Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press,1989.

11 D.T. Rodgers, “Republicanism: The Career of Concept” in 79 The Journalof American History, 11; R.E. Shalhope, “Republicanism and Early American

Notes 147

Historiography” in 39 William and Mary Quarterly, 334 (1982); ibid., “Towarda Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanismin American Historiography” in 29 William and Mary Quarterly, 49 (1972).

12 Constitution of the United States of America (17 September 1787), Article IV,Section 4.

13 J. Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und desdemokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp Verlag, 1992 (BetweenFacts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press, 1996).

14 M.J. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy.Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, 1996.

15 J. Rawls, Political Liberalism. New York. Columbia University Press, 1993. 16 P. Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford. Oxford

University Press, 1990. 17 Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government (1698). T.G. West (ed.),

Indianapolis. Liberty Fund, 1990, at III.16. 18 Ibid., at 1.5. 19 Ibid., at III.43. 20 George Washington, “The first inaugural speech” (30 April 1789) in W.B. Allen

(ed.), George Washington: A Collection. Indianapolis. Liberty Classics, 1988, p. 462.21 Titus Livius, ab urbe condita, 2.1.1–3; Sidney, Discourses, at II.12.144–145. 22 [John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon], Cato’s Letters, or Essays on Liberty, Civil

and Religious, and other Important Subjects. R. Hamowy (ed.), Indianapolis. LibertyFund, 1995, preface, 15.

23 Ibid., at 24.176. 24 Ibid., at 63.436. 25 John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America. London. C. Dilly, 1787–1788 at I.123. 26 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de officiis, at I.xxv.85. 27 Plato, Politeia, I.xv.342 E. 28 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de legibus, II.v.14. 29 Plato, Nomoi, IV.715. 30 Ibid., at VIII.832. 31 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de legibus, III.vi.14. 32 Aristotle, Politica, III.iv.7. 33 Ibid., at III.v.1. 34 Ibid., at II.iii.10–11. 35 Ibid., at III.vi.13. 36 Ibid., at III.vii.1; 13. 37 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de officiis, III.vi.26. 38 Aristotle, Politica, VII.ii.10. 39 Ibid., at III.x.6. 40 Marcus Tullius Cicero, in Catilinam, IV.14; Philippicae, IV.iv.8. 41 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxxi.47. 42 Ibid., at I.xxxiv.51. 43 Ibid., at I.xxxiii.45. 44 Ibid., at III.xi.27–28. 45 Niccolò Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, at I.iv.10. 46 Ibid., at I.5.8. 47 Ibid., at I.58.23.

148 Notes

48 Ibid., at I.58.10. 49 Ibid., at I.58.26. 50 Ibid., at I.58.38. 51 B. Rush, Observations upon the Present Government of Pennsylvania in Four Letters to

the People of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Steiner and Cist, 1777. 52 James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), J.G.A. Pocock (ed.),

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 172–173. 53 Ibid., at 170. 54 Ibid., at 237. 55 Marcus Tullius Cicero, pro Flacco, 15–17. 56 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de legibus, at III.xii.28. 57 James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana, at 149. 58 Ibid., at 10. 59 Ibid., at 22. 60 Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government (1782), at II.13.151. 61 Ibid., at II.21.195. 62 Ibid., at II.11.136. 63 C. de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois (1748),

at I.v.7. 64 Ibid., at I.viii.6. 65 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social (1762), at III.5. 66 Ibid., at III.1. 67 Ibid., at III.15. 68 Ibid., at III.4. 69 Ibid., at II.3. 70 Ibid., at IV.4. 71 Ibid., at III.15. 72 Ibid., at III.5. 73 Ibid., at II.6. 74 John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America. London. C. Dilly, 1787–1788, at I.3–4. 75 Ibid., at I.i. 76 Ibid., at I.xix. 77 Ibid., at I.iv. 78 Ibid., at I.x. 79 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social (1762), at III.15. 80 Ibid., at IV.4. 81 Ibid., at III.15. 82 John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America. London. C. Dilly, 1787–1788, at I.ii–iii. 83 “Publius” [Alexander Hamilton], “Letter IX” in The Federalist. New York. J. and

A. McLean, 1788. 84 “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X. 85 Ibid., Federalist LXIII. (Madison’s italics). 86 Ibid., Federalist X. 87 John Adams, Defence (1787), at I.7. 88 James Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), at 24. 89 Algernon Sidney, Discourses (1698), at II.5.102. 90 Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois (1748), at 2.6. 91 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social (1762), at II.6.

Notes 149

92 John Adams, Defence (1787), at I.125–126. 93 Ibid., at I.126; James Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), at 8–9. 94 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro Sulla, 25. 95 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de legibus, I.xvi.44. 96 John Adams, Defence (1787), at I.128. 97 Ibid., at I.224. 98 James Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), at 19–20. 99 Algernon Sidney, Discourses (1698), at I.5.17.

100 John Adams, Defence (1788), at III.159–160. 101 Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man: Part II (1792), in B. Kuklick (ed.), Paine: Political

Writings. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 168. 102 John Adams, Defence (1787), at I.xxi–xxii. 103 Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford.

Oxford University Press, 1997. 104 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, at I.xxv.39.

3 Republican influences on the French and American revolutions

1 George Washington, The First Inaugural Speech (30 April 1789), in W.B. Allen(ed.), George Washington: A Collection. Indianapolis. Liberty Press, 1988, p. 462.

2 Mocked by Thomas Moore: “Where tribunes rule, where dusky Dari bow, andwhat was Goose-Creek once is Tiber now”. The poem is discussed by C.J. Richard,The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome and the American Enlightment.Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, 1994, p. 50.

3 George Washington, First Inaugural, p. 462. 4 “Publius” [Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison], The Federalist:

A Collection of Essays Written in Favour of the New Constitution. 2 vols, New York.J. and A. McLean, 1788.

5 Letter of James Madison to James K. Paulding, 24 July 1818, in Gaillard Hunt(ed.), The Writings of James Madison. 9 vols, New York. G.P. Putnam’s Sons,1900–1910, vol. 8, pp. 410–411.

6 Camille Desmoulins, Histoire des Brissotins ou Fragment de l’histoire secrète de laRévolution (1793), in Jules Claretie (ed.), Oeuvres de Camille Desmoulins. vol. I,p. 309. See also H.T. Parker, The Cult of Antiquity and the French Revolutionaries:A Study in the Development of the Revolutionary Spirit. Chicago. University ofChicago Press, 1937; Claude Mossé, L’antiquité dans la Révolution française. Paris.Albin Michel, 1989.

7 “Publius” [Alexander Hamilton], The Federalist, Number IX. See M.N.S. Sellers,American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution.Basingstoke, UK and New York. Macmillan and New York University Press,1994; ibid., The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law.Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New York University Press, 1998.

8 W.R. Everdell, The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicanism.New York. The Free Press, 1983.

9 Cornelius Tacitus, ab excessu divi Augusti annalium libri, I.2; Titus Livius, ab urbecondita, II.1.1.

10 Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man: Part II (1792), in B. Kuklick (ed.), Paine:Political Writings. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 168.

150 Notes

11 For example, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social (1762), at II.6, Henri Guillemin(ed.), Paris. U.G.E., 1973, p. 99.

12 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States ofAmerica. 3 vols, London. C. Dilly, 1787–1788, at I.125.

13 Titus Livius, ab urbe condita, II.1.1. 14 Adams, Defence, at I.126, quoting James Harrington, The Commonweath of Oceana

(1659). See J.G.A. Pocock (ed.), Harrington: The Commonwealth of Oceana andA System of Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 8.

15 Harrington, Oceana, p. 8. 16 Adams, Defence, at I.126. 17 Harrington, Oceana, p. 8; Donato Giannotti, Libro della repubblica de’ Viniziani,

in Gianotti, Opere. Pisa, 1819. 18 Cornelius Tacitus, ab excessu divi Augusti annalium libri, I.2. 19 Thomas Gordon, The Works of Tacitus. London, 1728–1731. See also [John

Trenchard and Thomas Gordon], Cato’s Letters: or, Essays on Liberty, Civil andReligious (1724), Letter 65: “jura omnium in se traxit” in Ronald Hamowy (ed.),Cato’s Letters. 2 vols, Indianapolis. Liberty Fund, 1995, vol. I, p. 458.

20 Josiah Quincy’s will, written in 1774, left his son “when he shall arrive at the ageof fifteen years” Algernon Sidney’s works, John Locke’s works, and Lord Bacon’sworks, Gordon’s Tacitus and Cato’s Letters. “May the spirit of liberty rest uponhim”, Quoted in Meyer Reinhold, The Classick Pages: Classical Readings ofEighteenth-Century Americans. University Park, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press, p. 100.

21 See, for example, J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Movement: Florentine PoliticalThought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton. Princeton UniversityPress, 1975.

22 See, for example, Z.S. Fink, The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery ofa Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England. Evanston, Illinois. North-western University Press, 1945; C.A. Robbins, The Eighteenth-century Common-wealthsman: Studies in the Transmission, Development and Circumstances of EnglishLiberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War of the ThirteenColonies. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, 1959.

23 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) II.21, in Richard Tuck (ed.), Hobbes: Leviathan.Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 150.

24 See, for example, Biancamaria Fontana (ed.), The Invention of the Modern Republic.Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1994; H.A.L. Fisher, The RepublicanTradition in Europe. New York and London. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911; M.N.S.Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty.

25 [John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon], Cato’s Letters: or, Essays on Liberty, Civil,and Religious (1724), in Ronald Hamowy (ed.), Cato’s Letters. 2 vols, Indianapolis.Liberty Fund, 1995, vol. I, p. 14 (preface).

26 Ibid., Letter 37, in Hamowy, vol. 1, p. 262. 27 G. Vertue, Medals, Coins, Great-Seals, Impressions, from the elaborate works of

Thomas Simon, Chief Engraver of the Mint to Charles the 1st, to the Commonwealth,the Lord Protector Cromwell, and in the Reign of King Charles the IInd to 1665.London. 1753, Plate XVII.

28 See, for example, Respublica v. Ross, December Term, 1795, reported in A.J. Dallas,Reports of Cases Rules and Adjudged in the Several Courts of the United States and ofPennsylvania held at the seat of the Federal Government. F.C. Brightly (ed.), New York.Banks, 1903, vol. II, p. 239.

Notes 151

29 Plan and Frame of Government for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (28 September1776), in F.N. Thorpe (ed.), Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters andOther Organic Laws. 7 vols, Washington, DC, 1909, p. 3084.

30 Adams, Defence, at I.208. 31 Republican Society, “To The Citizens of Pennsylvania”, in the Pennsylvania

Packet, 23 March 1779, on the first and last pages. See also Benjamin Rush,Observations upon the Present Government of Pennsylvania in Four letters to the Peopleof Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1777.

32 See, for example, Charles de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, Del’esprit des lois (1748), at I.iv.6, in R. Derathé (ed.), 2 vols, Paris. Garnier, 1973,vol. I, p. 43. Cf. François Marie Arouet de Voltaire, Lettres écrites de Londres sur lesAnglois et autres sujets. Basle, 1734.

33 Adams, Defence, at I.208: “The Constitution of England is in truth a republic,and has been ever so considered by foreigners, and by the most learned andenlightened Englishman”.

34 Ibid., at III.504–505. 35 Tacitus, annalium libri, at IV.33. 36 Ibid., historiarum libri, at I.16. 37 Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, at I.8.16. Cf. Ibid., Considérations sur les causes de

la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence. Amsterdam. J. Desbordes, 1734. 38 For example, John Adams, Defence, at I.125: “Imperia legum potentiora fuerunt

quam hominum”.39 Charles Lee, Letter to Robert Morris, 15 August 1782, in Lee Papers. New York.

New York Historical Society, 1872–1875, vol. IV, p. 26. 40 See “Sallust and Corruption”, in M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism, pp. 87–89.

For the classical reading of eighteenth-century Americans, see M. Reinhold,The Classick Pages.

41 Adams, Defence, at I.128. 42 For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in M. Antonium orationes Philippicae, IV.4.8.43 New York Journal, 6 September 1787, in J.P. Kaminski and G.J. Saladino (eds), The

Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, vol. XIII. Commentarieson the Constitution, Public and Private. Madison, Wisconsin. State Historical Societyof Wisconsin, 1981, p. 137.

44 Pennsylvania Packet, 25 June 1787, in Kaminski and Saladino, XIII.144. 45 New York Journal, 27 September 1787, in Kaminski and Saladino, XIII.255. 46 New York Daily Advertiser, 29 September 1787, in Kaminski and Saladino,

XIII.268. 47 New York Journal, 18 October 1787, in Kaminski and Saladino, XIII.411. 48 New York Independent Journal, 27 October 1787, in Kaminski and Saladino,

XIII.486. 49 New York Journal, 1 November 1787, in Kaminski and Saladino, XIII.529. 50 See Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford.

Oxford University Press, 1997; Maurizio Viroli, Republicanism. A. Shugaar (trans.),New York. Hill and Wang, 2002.

51 See John Adams, Report of the Constitution or Form of Government for the Common-wealth of Massachusetts (1779), in C. Bradley Thompson (ed.), The RevolutionaryWritings of John Adams. Indianapolis. Liberty Fund, 2000, pp. 297–322.

52 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States ofAmerica. 3 vols, London. C. Dilly, 1787–1788, vol. I, p. xviii.

53 Ibid., at I.ii.

152 Notes

54 Ibid., at I.iii. 55 Ibid., at I.xvi. 56 Adams, Defence, at I.xvi; Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, II.xxiii.41: “ . . . statu

esse optimo constitutam rem publicam, quae ex tribus generibus illis, regali etoptumati et populari, confusa modice . . . ”

57 Adams, Defence, at I.xvii; Cicero, de re publica, II.xlii.69: “ut enim in fidibus auttibiis atque ut in cantu ipso ac vocibus concentus est quidam tenendus exdistinctis sonis . . . sic ex summis et infimis et mediis interiectis ordinibus ut sonismoderata ratione civitas consensus dissimillimorum concinit”.

58 Adams, Defence, at I.xviii; Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39: “respublica res [est]populi, populus autem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus,sed coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus”.

59 Adams, Defence, at I.xviii. 60 Ibid., at I.xvii. 61 Ibid.: “His decided opinion in favour of three branches is founded on a reason

that is unchangeable”.62 Sydney George Fisher, The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States.

Philadelphia. Lippincott, 1897; D. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism.Baton Rouge, 1988.

63 Adams, Defence, at I.xix. 64 “Publius” [James Madison], The Federalist, number X. 65 Ibid., number LXIII (Madison’s italics). 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., number X. 68 Ibid., number LXII. 69 Adams, Defence, at I.98. 70 Ibid., at I.93. 71 Ibid., at I.99. 72 Ibid., Letter XXX, at I.169–176. 73 Kaminski and Saladino, at XIII.83–85. 74 Adams, Defence, at I.171–173. 75 The Constitution of the United States (1787), Article II.I. 76 Ibid., Article I.8. 77 Adams, Defence, at I.175. 78 United States Constitution (1787), Article IV, Section 4. 79 The Republican party cited the guarantee clause in opposition to Southern slavery.

William Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. Ithaca,New York. Cornell University Press, 1972; ibid., The Sources of AntislaveryConstitutionalism in America, 1760–1848. Ithaca, New York. Cornell UniversityPress, 1977.

80 See Adams, Defence, at I.124. 81 His Letter to Dr. Price of 22 March 1778, was published as an appendix to Richard

Price, Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, 1785. 82 Abbé de Mably, Observations sur le gouvernement et les lois des Etats-Unis

d’Amérique. Amsterdam, 1784. 83 Benjamin Constant. De la liberté des anciens comparée à celle des modernes (1819).

Paris. Hachette, 1980. 84 Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, at I.viii.16. 85 Rousseau, Du contrat social, at III.1; 15. 86 Ibid., at II.9; III.15.

Notes 153

87 Ibid., at II.6. 88 Ibid., at II.1. 89 Ibid., at I.6. 90 Ibid., at I.7. 91 Cf. ibid., at I.8: “L’ obéissance á la loi qu’on s’est prescrite est liberté”.92 Ibid., at II.3. 93 Ibid., at III.15. 94 Ibid., at II.3 95 Ibid., at II.7. 96 Ibid., at III.4. 97 Ibid., at II.6. 98 Ibid., at II.7. 99 Ibid., at II.12.

100 As Niccolò Machiavelli had famously observed not only of the French, but alsoof the Spanish and the Italians in his Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio,at I.55.

101 Ibid., at III.8. 102 Ibid., at III.4. 103 Adams, Defence, at III.505. 104 Machiavelli, Discorsi, at I.55. Machiavelli was a major source for the continental

preoccupation with virtue as a precondition to any successful republic. SeeGisela Bock, Quentin Skinner and Maurizio Viroli (eds), Machiavelli and Republic-anism. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1990. On the adoption ofrepublican checks and balances by princes and kings, see Adams, Defence, at I.i.

105 Charles I, XIX Propositions Made by Both Houses of Parliament, to the Kings MostExcellent Majestie: With His Majesties Answer Thereunto. (York, 1642), in Joyce LeeMalcolm (ed.), The Struggle for Sovereignty: Seventeenth-Century English PoliticalTracts. Indianapolis. Liberty Fund, 1999, pp. 167–171.

106 Cato’s Letters, preface in Hamowy, at I.15. 107 Ibid., at I.31. 108 Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776), introduction in Kuklick (ed.), p. 2. 109 Ibid., Chapter I, p. 6. 110 Patrice Gueniffey, “Cordeliers and Girondins: the prehistory of the republic”,

in Fontana (ed.), pp. 86–106; Ran Halévi, “La république monarchique”, inFrançois Furet and Mona Ozouf (eds), Le siècle de l’avènement républicain. Paris.Gallimard, 1993, pp. 165–196.

111 Les Révolutions de Paris, issue of 12–19 June 1790. 112 Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre, 13 July 1791, to the Jacobins, in

A. Aulard (ed.), Recueil des documents pour l’histoire du Club des Jacobins de Paris,6 vols, Paris. 1889–1897. vol. 3, p. 12.

113 Keith Michael Baker, “Fixing the French Constitution” in Inventing the FrenchRevolution: Essays on French Political Culture in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge.Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 250–305.

114 Rousseau, Du contrat social, at II.6 (with his notes). 115 Ibid., at I.8. 116 Ibid., at III.5. 117 Ibid., at III.6. 118 Ibid., at III.8;13. 119 Ibid., at III.12. 120 Ibid., at III.15.

154 Notes

121 Ibid., at IV.2. 122 “Publius” [Madison], Federalist, X. 123 Adams, Defence, at I.132. 124 Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, at II.11.4 125 Rousseau, Du contrat social, at III.7. 126 Ibid., at IV.4; Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, at II.11.14. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid., at II.11.17. 129 R.L. Herbert. David, Voltaire, “Brutus” and the French Revolution. London. Allen

Lane, 1972. 130 Hugh Honour, Neo-Classicism. London. Pelican, 1968. 131 Giles Worsley, Classical Architecture in Britain: The Heroic Age. New Haven,

Connecticut. Yale University Press, 1995. 132 François de Polignac and Joselita Raspi Serra. La fascination de l’antique 1700–1770:

Rome découverte, Rome inventée. Paris. Somogy, 1998. 133 See, for example, Philip Ayres. Classical Culture and the Idea of Rome in

Eighteenth-Century England. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1997. 134 For the explosion of republican imagery in France after 1791, see Jacques

Boineau, Les toges de pouvoir (1789–1799) ou la révolution de droit antique.Toulouse. Editions Eché, 1986.

135 For example, Adams, Defence, at I.128–129. 136 Anne Louise Germaine de Staël-Holstein, Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent

terminer la révolution et des principes qui doivent fonder la république en France.Lucia Omacini (ed.), Geneva. Librairie Droz, 1979.

137 Benjamin Constant, De la liberté des anciens comparée a celle des modernes (1819).Paris. Hachette, 1980.

138 For a recent discussion of the evolution of French views of the republic in thisperiod, see Keith Michael Baker, “Transformations of Classical Republicanismin Eighteenth-Century France”, in Journal of Modern History, vol. 73 (2001)pp. 32 ff.

139 The documents implementing this transformation are gathered in DominiqueColas (ed.), Textes constitutionnels français et étrangers. Paris. Larousse, 1994.

140 See M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and theLaw. Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New York University Press,1998.

141 Claude Nicolet, L’idée républicaine en France (1789–1924) Essai d’histoire critique.Paris. Gallimard, 1982; Serge Berstein and Odile Rudelle (eds), Le modèlerépublicain. Paris. Presses Universitaires de France, 1992.

142 The best discussion of this is still H. T. Parker, The Cult of Antiquity and theFrench Revolutionaries: A Study in the Development of the Revolutionary Spirit.Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1937, Chapters XI–XIII, esp. Chapter XI,“The Problem of Regeneration”.

143 Meyer Reinhold, Classica Americana: The Greek and Roman Heritage in the UnitedStates. Detroit. Wayne State University Press, 1984.

144 Natalio R. Botana, La tradición republicana: Alberdi, Sarmiento y las ideas políticasde su tiempo. Buenos Aires. Editorial Sudamericana, 1984.

145 Nicolet, p. 172. 146 See, for example, Edouard Laboulaye, Esquisse d’une constitution républicaine

suivie d’un projet de constitution. Paris, 1872. John Bigelow. Some Recollections ofthe Late Edouard Laboulaye. New York. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888.

Notes 155

147 For example, “Publius” [Madison], Federalist X; Rousseau, Du contrat social,at III.4.

148 Ibid., at III.1. 149 Ibid., at III.15. 150 Achille Murat, A Moral and Political Sketch of the United States of America.

London. 1833. Cf. George Fitzhugh, Slavery Justified by a Southerner (Fredericksburg,1850), in Eric L. McKittrick (ed.), Slavery Defended: the Views of the Old South.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, 1963, pp. 42–44. Article IV, Section4 of the United States Constitution, guaranteeing every state in the Uniona “republican” form of government, had become the basis on which manyabolitionists denied the constitutionality of slavery in the United States. SeeWiecek, Antislavery Constitutionalism.

151 Joseph Addison’s Cato was George Washington’s favorite play, and he hadit performed in 1778 for the American troops at Valley Forge. Garry Wills,Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment. New York. Doubleday,1984, pp. 133–137; Richard, Founders and the Classics, p. 58.

152 Minor Myers, Jr., Liberty Without Anarchy: A History of the Society of the Cincinnati.Charlottesville. University Press of Virginia, 1983.

4 Republican legal systems

1 M.N.S. Sellers, Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law. Basingstoke and NewYork. Macmillan and New York University Press, 1998.

2 See supra, Chapter 2. 3 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39: “Res publica res populi [est],

populus autem non hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetusmultitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus”.

4 See infra, Chapter 7. 5 M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law.

Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New York University Press, 1998. 6 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America. London. C. Dilly, 1787–1788, at I.123. 7 See, for example, J.M. Horwitz, “Republicanism and Liberalism in American

Constitutional Thought”, 57 William and Mary Law Review, 29 (1987); Symposium:the Republican Civic Tradition, Special issue of The Yale Law Journal, vol. 97,number 8, 1988; J. Habermas, “The European Nation State: Its Achievementsand Its Limits. On the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship”, 9 RatioJuris 2 (1996).

8 George Washington, The First Inaugural Speech.9 See infra, Chapter 10.

10 Paine, The Rights of Man: Part II (1792), Kuklick (ed.), pp. 167–168. 11 Benjamin Constant, De la liberté des anciens comparée á celle des modernes.

Paris, 1819. 12 John Rawls. Political Liberalism. New York. Columbia University Press, 1993. 13 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de officiis, III.vi.26: “Ergo unum debet esse omnibus

propositum, ut eadem sit utilitas unius cuiusque et universorum; quam si ad sequisque rapiet, dissolvetur omnis humana consortio”.

14 Ibid., at III.v.23. 15 See infra, Chapter 5. 16 Ibid.

156 Notes

17 Adams, Defence, at III.160–162, “Publius” [Madison], Federalist XIV; Sidney,Discourses, at II.20; 30.

18 At least in the eyes of Henry Clay, “Speech of January 20, 1818”, in James F.Hopkins et al. (eds), The Papers of Henry Clay, vol. 2, Lexington, Kentucky, 1959.

19 “Publius” [Madison], Federalist LI; Adams, Defence, at III.505; Montesquieu,De l’esprit des lois, at II.ii.4.

20 Titus Livius, ab urbe condita, 2.1.1. 21 Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceana, at 161. 22 Sidney, Discourses, at I.1, n.2. 23 Adams, Defence, at I.124–126. 24 “Publius” [Madison], Federalist, XXXVII. 25 Rousseau, Du contrat social, at II.6. 26 See, for example, the Constitution of the United States (1787), Article III, Section 1,

and the English history behind it. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Lawsof England. Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1765, vol. I, p. 258.

27 Christian Wolff, Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractum (1764). Joseph H. Drake(trans.) New York, 1934, at 2.xli–xlii.

28 Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden (1781) reprinted Stuttgart. Philipp Reclam,1984.

29 The classic and most influential statement of this position was by the baron deMontesquieu in De l’esprit des lois, at I.viii.16.

30 United States Constitution (1787), at Article IV, Section 4. 31 Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part II, Kuklick (ed.), at 167–168: “What is called

a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical ofthe purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, andon which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good;or, literally translated, the public thing”.

5 Republican Impartiality

1 See Publius [James Madison], Federalist X in The Federalist. New York. McLean,1788: “A Republic . . . [is] a government in which a scheme of representationtakes place”, so that “the public voice pronounced by the representatives of thepeople, will be more consonant with the public good than if pronounced by thepeople themselves . . . ”.

2 Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Part II (1792), in B. Kuklick (ed.), Paine: PoliticalWritings. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 168.

3 Ibid. 4 Cf. Publius [Madison], Federalist LI: “Justice is the end of government. It is the

end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained,or until liberty be lost in the pursuit”.

5 M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty. Basingstoke and New York. Macmillanand New York University Press, 1998.

6 John Rawls, “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus”, in 7 Oxford Journal of LegalStudies 1 (1987); Thomas Nagel, “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy” in 16Philosophy & Public Affairs, 231 (1987).

7 Rawls, “The Idea of An Overlapping Consensus”, at 6. 8 Nagel, “Moral Conflict and Political Legitmacy”, at 234. 9 John Rawls, “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical”, 14 Philosophy &

Public Affairs, 230 (1985).

Notes 157

10 Nagel, “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy”, at 233. 11 For example, John Rawls, “The Domain of the Political and Overlapping

Consensus” in 64 New York University Law Review, 234 (1989). 12 John Rawls, “The Idea of Overlapping Consensus”, at 4. Let me add some

observations about the words “good” and “justice” because I think that mis-understanding these words may undermine my arguments for democracy. Notethat different things may be recognized to be good for different people, but therecan be only one established justice. I think it is safe to assume that a just moralorder will encourage people to pursue many different private ends, occupationsand activities. Trying to realize moral truth in society does not preclude indivi-duals from pursuing many different conceptions of the good life. The republicwill not interfere with even wicked or misguided ends unless it is just to do so.

13 John Rawls adds that even when all agree, we should avoid the claim of truth asdivisive. Ibid., at 14–15; “Justice as Fairness”, at 230. Thomas Nagel allows truereason to overrule faulty deductions from shared moral instincts, but not contro-versial moral premises. “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy”, at 233.

14 For example, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge. Harvard UniversityPress, 1971, pp. 142–143; “Justice as Fairness”, at 229. Cf. David Hume, A Treatiseon Human Nature, Book II, Part III, p. 3 in L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Hume’s Treatise.Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1888 at 415: “reason is, and ought to be the slave ofthe passions, and can never pretend to any other office but to serve and obeythem”.

15 Nagel, “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy”, at 232–233. Cf. Hume, Treatise,Book II, Part III, 416: “When a passion is neither founded on false suppositions[about material objects], nor chooses means insufficient for the end, the under-standing can neither justify nor condemn it. ‘Tis not contrary to reason to preferthe destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger . . . In short,a passion must be accompany’d with some false judgment, in order to its beingunreasonable; and even then tis not the passion, properly speaking, which isunreasonable, but the judgement”.

16 This liberal viewpoint implies that there is nothing to morality but expressionsof will. It may entail profoundly illiberal results. For example, FriedrichNietzsche, Die froehliche Wissenschaft, (1886), in Gesammelte Werke, vol. XII.Munich. Musarion, 1924, pp. 243–247.

17 The examples are from John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1700), Book IV, Chapter I, Section I. P.H. Nidditch (ed.), Oxford. ClarendonPress, 1979, p. 531.

18 Cf. Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, Principles of Natural and Politic Law, Part II,Chapter V, s. I, as cited and explained by Morton White, The Philosophy of theAmerican Revolution. New York. Oxford University Press, 1978, at 36–41.

19 Truth may be easier to perceive in those sciences which require the fewest firstprinciples.

20 Rawls, “Justice as Fairness” at 233–4. Nagel, “Moral Conflict and Political Legit-imacy”, at 233.

21 Rawls, “Justice as Fairness”, at 245; “The Idea of a Overlapping Consensus”, at 4–5;Nagel, “Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy”, at 238.

22 I have not assumed, although I think it is true, that we all have a duty to educateeach other about the moral truth. Even if we have no obligation to assist in eachother’s moral education, implementing a correct view of the truth will be easierif as many people as possible can be made to understand what truth is, and to

158 Notes

embrace it. The democratic technique of republicanism gives everyone an incentiveto educate others, because in the end the majority view will prevail, and thosewho think that they are right will wish to convince the rest.

23 I do not mean by this to imply that coercion is desirable, that democratic repub-licanism will ever endorse coercion as a right course of action, or that citizenswill always have an obligation to obey democratic majorities, but rather that thebest way to determine whether coercion is (ever) appropriate is through therepublican deliberation of a representative democracy.

24 For example, John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of theUnited States of America. London. Dilly, 1787–1788. vol. III, at 159–160: “[Some]define a republic to signify government, in which all men . . . are equally subjectto laws. This indeed appears to be the true, and only true definition of a republic”.Cf. ibid., Thoughts on Government Applicable to the Present State of the AmericanColonies. Philadelphia, 1776, in Works C.F. Adams (ed.), 1865, at IV.194.

25 Which is not to say that it ever will be. “Coercion” is a form of action. When it isright to coerce others, citizens should do so. Whether coercion is ever right mustbe determined through the republican deliberation of a representative dem-ocracy. It may well be that state coercion is self-defeating as a means of helpingpeople to lead just lives. One value of democracy as a republican technique isthat by seeking to convince people of the truth, it minimizes possible occasionsfor coercion.

26 For instance, a democracy might openly abandon the search for truth, andembrace the promotion of private interest – perhaps the interests of a majority. Sucha democracy would not be a republic, and citizens would have no obligation toobey its laws.

27 For a hint at the distinction between the right to command and to enforceobedience (law’s legitimate authority) and the citizens’ obligation to obey thelaw (which does not always follow from legitimate authority) see M.B.E. Smith,“Is There a Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law?” in 82 Yale Law Journal, 976(1973).

6 Republican authority

1 Most scholars now assume that republican government requires representativedemocracy. See supra Chapters 4 and 5; Publius [James Madison], Federalist X.This assumption is not part of my argument for republican authority.

2 People often assume that rights imply duties. See for example, Richard Brandt,Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, 1959, at 438; butrights need not, sometimes should not and often do not imply duties in a justlegal system. W.N. Hohfeld, “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied inJudicial Reasoning” in 23 Yale Law Journal, 16 (1913), at 28–45. Cf. Robert Ladenson,“In Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law”, in 9 Philosophy & Public Affairs,134 (1980), at 137–139.

3 The early history and origin of American republicanism have a vast recent bibli-ography. See, for example, C. Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthsman.Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, 1961; Bernard Bailyn, TheIdeological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts. HarvardUniversity Press, 1967; G.S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787.Chapel Hill, North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, 1969; J.G.A.Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton. Princeton University Press, 1975;

Notes 159

I. Kramnick, Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism. Ithaca, New York. CornellUniversity Press, 1990. American lawyers have been interested in the constitu-tional requirements of republican government, which is guaranteed to everystate in the Union by Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.Cf. for example, W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ithaca.Cornell University Press, 1972; C. Sunstein, “Interest Groups in American PublicLaw”, in 38 Stanford Law Review, 29 (1985); Suzanna Sherry, “Civic Virtue andthe Feminine Voice in Constitutional Adjudication”, in 72 Virginia Law Review,435 (1986); Frank Michelman, “Law’s Republic”, in 97 Yale Law Journal, 1493(1989).

4 By advocating precision in the language of jurisprudence, I do not mean toimply that precision is always possible or desirable in the law. One great weaknessin Anglo-American jurisprudence has been its excessive desire for “clarity”, evenat the expense of justice. See, for example, H.L.A. Hart, “Positivism and the Separ-ation of Law and Morals”, in H.L.A. Hart, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy.Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 49. Common-law judges often seek tolegislate as to future disputes while deciding cases in the interstices of existingpositive law. Hart, “American Jurisprudence Through English Eyes” in ibid.,at 128. This limits the discretion of subsequent decision-makers, which may notalways be desirable. The law may become too precise to be just. Some truths maynot be expressible as rules.

5 On republics in this sense, see supra, Chapter 4; A. Sidney, Discourses ConcerningGovernment. London. J. Toland, 1698; Cicero, de re publica. The Greek “πολιτε7α”has a somewhat different meaning.

6 “Respublica est res populi. Populus autem non omnis coetus multitudinis, sedcoetus juris consensu, et utilitatis communione sociatus”. Marcus Tullius Cicero,de re publica, I.xxv.39, as paraphrased by John Adams, Defence of the Constitutionsof Government of the United States. London. C. Dilly. 1786 at I.xxi. The word“republic” can apply to any form of government that serves justice and thecommon good: “Res publica res est populi, cum bene ac juste geritur, sive ab unorege, sive a paucis optimatibus, sive ab universo populo”, Cicero, ibid., (Frag.) asquoted by Adams, ibid., at xxi. Cf. Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man Part II(1792), in B. Kuklick (ed.), Thomas Paine: Political Writings. Cambridge. CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989, pp. 167–168: “What is called a republic is not any particu-lar form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter orobject for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to beemployed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good. Every governmentthat does not act on the principle of a republic or, in other words, that does notmake the res-publica its whole or sole object, is not good government . . .[Republican government] is not necessarily connected with any particularform, but it most naturally associates with the representative form [of govern-ment], as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at theexpense of supporting it”.

7 “In these westerne parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinionsconcerning the Institution and Rights of Commonwealths from Aristotle, Cicero,and other men, Greeks and Romanes . . . and other Writers have grounded theirCivil doctrine, on the opinions of the Romanes . . . And by reading of theseGreek, and Latine Authors, men from their childhood have gotten a habit(under a falseshew of Liberty) of favouring tumults, and of licentious controllingthe actions of their Soveraigns; and again of controlling those controllers, with

160 Notes

the effusion of so much blood; as I think I may truly say, there was never anythingso dearly bought as these Western parts have bought the learning of the Greekand Latine tongues”. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. London. A. Crooke, 1651.Book.II, Chapter XXI, at pp. 110–111.

8 Ibid., at I.VI.24. 9 Ibid., at I.XIII.63.

10 “[I]f the essential Rights of Sovereignty . . . be taken away, the Commonwealth isthereby dissolved, and every man returneth into the condition and calamity ofa warre with every other man, (which is the greatest evill that can happen inthis life)”. Ibid., at II.XXX.175.

11 Ibid., at II.XVIII.90. 12 Ibid., at II.XXVI.93. 13 Ibid., at II.XXVI.137. 14 Cf. supra, note 10. 15 “The Office of the Soveraign, (be it a Monarch or an Assembly,) consisteth in the

end, for which he was trusted with the Soveraign Power, namely the procurationof the safety of the people; to which he is obliged by the Law of Nature, and torender an account thereof to God, the Author of that Law, and to none buthim”. Ibid., at II.XXX.175.

16 “CIVILL LAW, Is to every Subject, those Rules, which the Common-wealth hathCommanded him, by Word, Writing, or other sufficient Sign of the Will, to make useof, for the Distinction of Right, and Wrong: that is to say, of what is contrary, andwhat is not contrary to the Rule”. Ibid., at II.XXVI.137.

17 Ladenson, In Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law, at 142–145. 18 “There is a Sixth doctrine, plainly, and directly against the essence of a

Common-wealth; and ‘tis this, That the Soveraign Power may be divided. Forwhat is to divide the Power of the Common-wealth, but to Dissolve it; forPowers divided mutually destroy each other”. Hobbes, Leviathan, at II.XXIX.170.

19 Joseph Raz, “Authority, Law and Morality” 68 The Monist, 295 (1985), at 295. 20 Ibid., at 304. 21 American courts do “something very different from what conventional legal

thought in all countries, conceives as the standard judicial function: the impartialapplication of determinate existing rules of law in the settlement of disputes”.H.L.A. Hart, “American Jurisprudence Through English Eyes”, at 125.

22 See, for example, Justice Black’s concurring opinion in Rochin v. California(1952), 342 US 165 and his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 381 US 479.

23 Adams, Defence, vol. I. 24 Adams, ibid. vol. I, at 126, slightly misquoting James Harrington, see The

Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), in J.G.A. Pocock (ed.), The Political works ofJames Harrington. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 161.

25 Ibid., at 161 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., at 165. 29 Ibid., at 161. 30 United States Constitution, Preamble. 31 Adams, Defence, at I.xviii. 32 Ibid., at I.129. 33 Ibid., at I.182; Cf. “Publius” [J. Madison], Federalist LI.

Notes 161

34 Adams, Defence, at I.I. xviii, quoting Cicero, de re publica (Frag.): “Respublica resest populi, cum bene ac juste geritur . . . Cum vero . . . injustus ipse populus, cuinomen usitatum nullum reperio, nisi ut etiam ipsum tyrannum appellem; nonjam vitiosa, sed omnino nulla respublica est, quoniam non est res populi, cumtyrannus eam factiove capessat; nec ipse populus est si sit injustus, quoniam nonest multidinis juris consensu et utilitatis unione sociata”.

35 Ibid., at I.123. 36 Ibid., at III.210–211. 37 Ibid., at III.211. 38 Ibid., at I.325–326. 39 Ibid., at III.282, quoting Cicero, Philippicae, at II.28: “Lex nihil est nisi recta,

et a numine Deorum tracta ratio, imperans honesta, prohibens contraria”.40 Ibid., at III.365, quoting Cicero. 41 Ibid., at I.131, quoting Montesquieu. 42 Ibid., at I.177. 43 Cf. J. Bentham, the other architect of English legal positivism and his Answer

To The Declaration Of The American Congress. London, 1776, as discussed byH.L.A. Hart, “1776–1976: Law in the perspective of philosophy” in Hart, Essaysin Jurisprudence and Philosophy, at 145.

44 J. Austin, A Plea For The Constitution, (3rd edn) London, 1859, at 17. 45 Ibid., at 14. 46 W. Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England, vol. I. Oxford. Clarendon

Press, 1765 at 42, (Introduction, 2); Cf. Ibid., vol. I at 41: “This law of naturebeing co-eval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superiorin obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, andat all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such ofthem as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately orimmediately, from this original”.

47 Ibid., vol. 1, at 54 (Introduction). 48 “On the other hand, over-zealous republicans, feeling the absurdity of unlimited

passive obedience, have fancifully (or sometimes factiously) gone over to theother extreme: and, because resistance is justifiable to the person of the princewhen the being of the state is endangered, and the public voice proclaims suchresistance necessary, they have therefore allowed to every individual the right ofdetermining this expedience, and of employing private force to resist even privateoppression. A doctrine productive of anarchy, and (in consequence) equally fatalto civil liberty as tyranny itself”. Ibid., vol. I, at 244 (Bk. 1, C. 7). The legislature“acknowledges no superior upon earth”, Ibid., vol. I, at 70 (Introd. 3), and noone should disobey the sovereign authorities unless “the contracts of society arein danger of dissolution, and the law proves too weak a defence against theviolence of fraud or oppression”. Only then can “recourse to first principles”be justified. Ibid.

49 Ibid., vol. I, at 243 (bk.1 C. 7). 50 J. Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832), H.L.A. Hart (ed.), New

York. Humanities Press, 1954, at 185. 51 Ibid., at 186. Austin used the word “utility” because, like Hobbes, he believed

“moral sense” and “conscience” merely to be “convenient cloaks for ignoranceor sinister interest”. Ibid.

52 “The existence of law is one thing: its merit or demerit is another. Whether it beor be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed

162 Notes

standard is a different enquiry. A law, which actually exists, is a law, though wehappen to dislike it, or though it vary from the text, by which we regulate ourapprobation and disapprobation”. Ibid., at 184.

53 “To prove by pertinent reasons that a law is pernicious is highly useful, becausesuch process may lead to the abrogation of the pernicious law . . . But to proclaimgenerally that all laws which are pernicious, or contrary to the will of God arevoid and not to be tolerated, is to preach anarchy, hostile and perilous as muchto wise and benign rule as to stupid and galling tyranny”. Ibid., at 186.

54 Ibid., at 9. 55 Ibid., at 13: “A command is distinguished from other significations or desire, not

by the style in which the desire is signified, but by the power and the purpose ofthe party commanding to inflict an evil or pain in case the desire be disre-garded”. Ibid., at 14.

56 Ibid., at 19. 57 Ibid., at 24. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid., at 192. 60 Ibid., at 193, “To th[eir] determinate superior, the other members of society are

subject . . . The mutual relation which subsists between . . . them, may be styledthe relation of sovereign and subject”. Thus “no government [can be] styled withpropriety half or imperfectly supreme”. Ibid., at 241.

61 Ibid., at 254. 62 Ibid., at 271. 63 Ibid., at 272. 64 Ibid., at 273. 65 Ibid., at 274, Fear of presumptuous, incapacity led Austin to endorse Hobbes’

defence of despotism: “The soveraign power . . . is as great as men can be imaginedto make it. And though of so unlimited a power men may fancy many evillconsequences, yet the consequence of the want of it, which is warre of everyman against his neighbour, is much worse. The condition of man in his life shallnever be without inconveniences, but there happeneth in no commonwealthany great inconvenience, but what proceeds from the subjects’ disobedience.And whosoever, thinking sovereign power too great, will seek to make it lesse,must subject himselfe to a power which can limit it: that is to say, to a greater”.Hobbes, Leviathan, bk. II. C. xx all 106–107, quoted in Austin, Province of Jurispru-dence Determined, at 275. One opinion most “repugnant to the nature of acommonwealth, is this: that he who hath the sovereign power is subject to thecivill lawes . . . But to the civill lawes, . . . or the lawes which the sovereignmaketh, the soveraign is not subject . . . [Whosoever] setteth the civill lawesabove the soveraign, setteth also a judge above him, and a power to punish him:which is to make a new soveraign; and again, for the same reason, a third topunish the second; and so continually without end, to the confusion and dissol-ution of the commonwealth”. Hobbes, Leviathan, bk. II., C. XXIX, at 169, quotedin Austin, Province, at 275–276.

66 Ibid., at 278. 67 “[A]gainst a monarch properly so called, or against a sovereign body in its collegiate

and sovereign capacity, constitutional law is morality merely, or is enforced bymoral sanctions. . . . Consequently, although an act of the sovereign whichviolates constitutional law, may be styled with propriety unconstitutional, it isnot an infringement of law simply and strictly so called, and cannot be styled

Notes 163

with propriety illegal”. Ibid., at 259. Cf. quotation from Austin contained infootnote 52 above.

68 Ibid., at 186. 69 Ibid., at 10. 70 Cf. Joseph Raz, “Authority and Justification”, 14 Philosophy & Public Affairs,

3 (1985), at 15: “The whole point and purpose of authorities . . . is to preemptindividual judgment on the merits”.

71 Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. I, at 69 (Introduction 3). 72 Which is to say that judges take common law precedents seriously, and are

inclined to accept the reasoning of precedents, unless they have a strong reasonnot to.

73 The mistake originated with Hobbes, who disdained classical learning. SeeHobbes, supra, note 7. The Romans made a clear distinction between auctoritas(authority), which belonged to the best and wisest men, and potestas (power) orimperium (sovereignty), which belonged to the people, at least in a republic.Thus D. Brutus: “did well by the republic in defending the authority (auctoritas)of the Senate and the liberty and sovereignty (imperium) of the Roman people”.M. Tullius Cicero, Philippicae, III.xv.37. Cf. Ibid., at IV.iv 8: “decrevit senatusD. Brutum optime de re publica mereri, cum senatus auctoritatem populique Rom-ani libertatem imperiumque defenderet”.

74 “English” for the purposes of this discussion in virtue of his position, attitudeand education, rather than by birth or inclination.

75 Raz calls this “The Normal Justification Thesis”. See J. Raz, The Morality ofFreedom. Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1986, at 53. Cf. Raz, “Authority, Law andMorality”, at 299.

76 Raz, “Authority, Law and Morality”, at 299. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., at 303. 79 Ibid., at 304. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid., at 310. 82 Ibid., at 315. 83 Ibid., at 315–316. 84 Ibid., at 318. 85 Ibid., at 321. 86 Some, including Hart, have sought to modify the command theory, while clinging

to the old separation of law from morality. H.L.A. Hart, “Positivism and theSeparation of Law and Morals” in Hart, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy,at 57–62.

87 “And for the moral sense, innate practical principles, conscience, they aremerely convenient cloaks for ignorance or sinister interest”. Austin, Province,at 186. Cf. supra, note 51, and accompanying text.

88 “The good of mankind, is the aggregate, of the pleasures which are respectivelyenjoyed by the individuals who constitute the human race”. Ibid., at 105.

89 Raz, The Morality of Freedom, at 93–94; cf. Blackstone, Commentaries, at I.70. 90 Austin, Province, at 186. 91 See infra, notes 105–108, and accompanying text. 92 Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in general congress

assembled. Philadelphia. 4 July 1776. 93 Constitution of the United States. Preamble (17 September 1787).

164 Notes

94 See, for example, Raz, “Authority, Law and Morality”, at 319. Hart, “AmericanJurisprudence”, at 141.

95 See Blackstone, Commentaries, supra, note 71 and accompanying text. 96 See supra, notes 5–6 and accompanying text. 97 Raz argues that “the fact that an authority requires performance of an action is a

reason for it’s performance which is not to be added to all other relevant reasons whenassessing what to do, but should exclude and take the place of some of them” (italicsin original). Raz calls this the “Pre-emptive Thesis”, The Morality of Freedom,at 46. This is because “all authoritative directives should be based on reasonswhich already independently apply to the subjects of the directives and arerelevant to their action in the circumstances covered by the directive”. Raz callsthis the “Dependence Thesis” in ibid., at 47–48. “An authority is justified[i.e., legitimate] . . . if it is more likely than its subjects to act correctly for theright reasons”. Ibid., at 61.

98 Ibid., at 62. Cf. Raz, “Authority and Justification”, at 26. 99 Raz, The Morality of Freedom, at 70, See also Raz, “The Obligation to Obey the

Law”, in Raz, The Authority of Law. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1979, at233–249.

100 Raz, The Morality of Freedom, at 73. 101 Ibid., at 74. 102 Ibid., at 78. 103 Ibid., at 102. 104 Ibid., at 158. 105 Ibid., at 133. Cf. ibid., at 142: “[O]ne does not wish one’s desire satisfied if one’s

reason for the desire is mistaken even if one continues, through ignorance, toentertain the desire. One does not wish merely not to have mistaken desires;one also does not wish to have them satisified”. See also ibid., at 159: “Whilean authority’s belief that a decision is based on sound considerations makes itbinding even if it is not in fact sound, the reason for this is that acknowledgingthe validity of an authority’s decision even if it is unsound is in fact more likelyto lead to action supported by sound reason than any alternative method ofdeciding what to do”.

106 As J. Raz recognizes, ibid., at 158. 107 See, for example, Adams, Defence, “Publius” [A. Hamilton, J. Jay, J. Madison]

The Federalist.108 For example, Raz, The Morality of Freedom, at 170. 109 Cf. Ladenson, “In the Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law”, at 137–139. 110 Hohfeld, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions”, at 36, citing Quinn v. Leathem,

[I901] A.C. 495 at 534. 111 Ladenson, “In Defense of Hobbesian Conception of Law”, at 137–138. Republican

authorities have what Ladenson calls a “justification-right”. As contrasted with“claim-rights”, justification rights imply no obligations.

112 See, for example, Raz, “Authority and Justification”, at 5. Legal authoritiesclaim a right to rule which implies an obligation to obey . . . They have legitim-ate authority only if and to the extent that their claim is justified and they areowed a duty of obedience”. Cf. Hohfeld, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions”,supra note 2, at 26.

113 Hobbes and Austin’s theories of sovereign authority survive in the uncheckedpower of the British parliament, but few contemporary English lawyers sharethe old fear of democracy. H.L.A. Hart is prominent among those who have

Notes 165

recognized and advocated, substantive legal limitations on the exercise ofsovereign power, H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law. Oxford. Oxford UniversityPress, 1961, at 144–150. But Hart, like many other contemporary positivists,continues to assert that what the law is can and should be distinguished fromwhat the law ought to be. Hart, “Positivism”, supra note 4, at 57–62.

7 The actual validity of law

1 The distinction between “validity” and “legal validity” is well established. SeeJ. Raz, The Authority of Law. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 149.“Moral validity” has been used as a synonym for what I call “actual validity”.Ibid., p. 150; J. Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford. Clarendon Press,1980, p. 26. I use it as a useful shorthand for “the basic requirements of practicalreasonableness” antecedent to legislation. Ibid., p. 289. Raz also identifies“direct” validity (actual validity based on moral validity) and “systemic” validity(actual validity arising from legal validity), The Authority of Law, p. 152.

2 R. Ladenson, “In Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law”, 9 Philosophy andPublic Affairs, 142–145 (1980).

3 See J. Raz, The Morality of Freedom. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 78;and Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, p. 357.

4 H.L.A. Hart equates moral validity (in this sense) with the doctrine of “ClassicalTheories of Natural Law”. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law. Oxford. ClarendonPress, 1961, p. 182; but see Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, p. 26.

5 See T. Aquinas, Summa theologica, I–II, q.95, a.2, with John Finnis’ commentary,Natural Law and Natural Rights, pp. 281–290.

6 H.L.A. Hart, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford. Clarendon Press,1983, p. 140.

7 Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, p. 380. 8 E. Ullman-Margalit, The Emergence of Norms. Oxford. Oxford University Press,

1977, p. 74 ff., esp. pp. 78, 96. 9 See J. Finnis, “The Authority of Law”, 1 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and

Public Policy, 136 (1984). 10 Raz, The Authority of Law, pp. 233–249, esp. pp. 247–248. 11 Unless the very involvement of the regime created worse problems than it

solved. 12 For a suggestion, see supra, Chapter 5. 13 H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, p. 100. 14 See J. Raz, “Authority, Law and Morality”, 68 The Monist, 295 (1985); ibid.,

The Authority of Law, p. 148, for “legal validity”.15 Raz, The Authority of Law, p. 149: “A valid rule is one which has normative

effects. A legally valid rule is one which has legal effects”.16 See my discussion, infra, of “Actual Validity”.17 H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 104–105. 18 Ibid., p. 207. 19 See my discussion, infra, of “Legal Validity”.20 Raz, The Authority of Law, p. 152. 21 Ibid., pp. 150–152. See Hart’s “rules of recognition”.22 Raz, “Authority, Law and Morality”, p. 315 ff. 23 Raz, The Authority of Law, p. 152; cf. ibid., “Authority, Law and Morality”,

pp. 296–305.

166 Notes

24 See supra, Chapter 6. 25 See the beginning of this chapter. 26 Raz, The Morality of Freedom, p. 78. 27 Raz, The Authority of Law, p. 233 ff. 28 This was the position of Joseph Raz. See Raz, The Authority of Law, p. 153; ibid.,

“The Obligation to Obey: Revision and Tradition”, 1 Notre Dame Journal of Law,Ethics and Public Policy, 140–143 (1984). Now Raz would seem to hold that legalvalidity is decisive within the scope of legitimate state authority. See Raz, TheMorality of Freedom, p. 74. When states mistake the limits of their jurisdictiontheir decisions lose actual validity. Ibid., p. 62.

29 Raz, Authority, Law and Morality, p. 304. 30 See J. Coleman, “Negative and Positive Positivism”, 11 Journal of Legal Studies,

161 (1982). 31 See R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), corrected edn. London.

Duckworth, 1978, pp. 43, 44, 64 ff, 349–350. Finnis, Natural Law and NaturalRights, p. 356.

32 Raz, The Morality of Freedom, p. 62. 33 For a more detailed discussion of the conflict between legal legitimacy and law’s

factual determinacy, see supra Chapter 6. 34 Ibid. 35 R.P. Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism. New York. Harper & Row, 1970. Cf. Raz,

The Authority of Law, p. 233 ff.; ibid., “The Obligation to Obey: Revision andTradition”, pp. 139 ff.

36 Cf. L. Fuller, The Morality of Law. New Haven and London. Yale University Press,revised edn. 1969, pp. 79, 106, 150.

37 Cf. supra Chapter 6. Fuller is right that the law must “be viewed as a purposefulenterprise, dependent for its success on the energy, insight, intelligence andconscientiousness of those who conduct it, and fated, because of this depend-ence, to fall always somewhat short of full attainment of its goals”. The Moralityof Law, p. 145. But the aim of law’s enterprise is not to subject human conduct tothe governance of rules, but to establish justice.

8 Ideals of public discourse

1 See supra, Chapter 2. 2 See, for example, M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the

United States Constitution. Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New YorkUniversity Press, 1994; P. Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom andGovernment. Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1997.

9 Group rights and democracy

1 M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty. Basingstoke, England and New York.Macmillan and New York University Press, 1998.

2 The classic statement of this fundamental republican doctrine was by MarcusTullius Cicero, de re publica, I.XXV.39: “res publica res [est] populi, populusautem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetusmultitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus”. Subsequent

Notes 167

republican authors frequently repeated this passage in their own discussions ofrepublican legal theory. For example John Adams, Defence, at I.xviii.

3 Charles de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois(1748) at VIII.xvi. R. Derathe (ed.), 2 vols, Paris. Garnier, 1973.

4 “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X. 5 See, for example, M. Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39. 6 See supra, Chapter 3. 7 J. Rawls, Political Liberalism. New York. Columbia University Press, 1993. 8 See supra, Chapter 4.

10 Republicanism, liberalism and the law

1 For example, M.J. Horwitz, “Republicanism and Liberalism in American Constitu-tional Thought”, 29 William and Mary Law Review, 57. See also Symposium, “TheRepublican Civic Tradition”, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1493 (1988); Symposium,“Roads Not Taken: Undercurrents of Republican Thinking in Modern Constitu-tional Theory”, 84 Northwestern University Law Review, 1 (1989); and Symposium,41 Florida Law Review, 409 (1989).

2 For critical surveys of recent “republican” literature see G.E. White, “Reflectionson the ‘Republican Revival’: Interdisciplinary Scholarship in the Legal Academy”,6 Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 1 (1994); D.T. Rodgers, “Republicanism:The Career of a Concept”, in 79 The Journal of American History, 11 (1992). For theeven vaster bibliography of liberalism in the law reviews, see most recently thenumerous responses to John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia UniversityPress. New York, 1993. For example, “Symposium on Political Liberalism”, 94Columbia Law Review, 1813 (1994); “Symposium on John Rawls’ Political Liberalism”,69 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 549 (1994).

3 Horwitz, “Republicanism and Liberalism”, at 73. 4 Supra, Chapter 2. 5 M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law.

Basingstoke, England and New York. Macmillan and New York University Press,1998.

6 M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Consti-tution. Basingstoke, England and New York. Macmillan and New York UniversityPress, 1994, at 6, 245 et passim.

7 M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty. See also Titus Livius, ab urbe condita,II.1.1–2; George Washington, “The First Inaugural Speech” (30 April 1789), inW.B. Allen (ed.), George Washington: A Collection (Indianapolis, 1988) p. 462.

8 See A. Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government (London, 1698), at I.5; J. Adams,A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America(London, 1787), at I.xxvi.123.

9 M. Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39: “Res publica res est populi. Populusautem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus mul-titudinis juris consensu, et utilitatis communione sociatus”.

10 M. Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxxi.47: “itaque nulla alia in civitate, nisi in quapopuli potestas summa est, ullum domicilium libertas habet”; I.xxxiv.51:“quodsi liber populus deliget, quibus se committat, deligetque, si modus salvusesse vult, optimum quemque, certe in optimorum consiliis posita est civitatiumsalus . . . ”.

11 M. Tullius Cicero, de officiis, II.xii.42.

168 Notes

12 M. Tullius Cicero, de legibus, III.xii.27–28. 13 M. Tullius Cicero, de re publica, II.xxxi.53–56. 14 Ibid., II.xxiii.41; II.xxxiii.57. 15 Ibid., III.xxxii.44–xxxiii.45. 16 See, for example, “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X. 17 Adams, Defence, at I.123. 18 Adams, Defence, I.iv; 365–371. Cf. “Cato” [John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon],

Letter no. 25 (15 April 1721), in Ronald Hamowy (ed.), Cato’s Letters, vol. I,p. 187 (Indianapolis, 1995).

19 “Corruption” is a technical term in republican discourse, derived from Romanpolitical vocabulary, meaning public action motivated by anything other thanthe common good. See, for example, Cornelius Tacitus, Annalium ab excessu diviAugusti libri, III.27, “iamque non modo in commune sed in singulos homineslatae quaestiones, et corruptissima re publica plurimae leges”.

20 For the earliest English uses of “liberal” and “liberalism”, and their dependenceon France see The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn, 1989), vol. VIII, p. 882.For the French Liberals, see Louis Girard, Les liberaux Français: 1814–1875 (Paris,1985).

21 B. Constant, De la liberté des anciens comparée a celle des modernes (Paris, 1819);repr. in Collection complète des ouvrages publiés sur le Gouvernement représentatifet la Constitution actuelle de la France, formant une espèce de Cours de politiqueconstitutionelle (Paris and Rouen, 1820) vol. 4, pp. 238–274.

22 For translation and commentary, see B. Fontana (ed.), Benjamin Constant: PoliticalWritings (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 310–311.

23 Ibid., p. 316. 24 Ibid., p. 321. 25 For some attempts to put the term into historical context, see, for example,

Guido de Ruggiero (R.G. Collinwood trans.), The History of European Liberalism(Oxford, 1927); Richard Bellamy, Liberalism and Modern Society: An HistoricalArgument (Cambridge, 1992).

26 Constant, Political Writings, p. 323. 27 J.S. Mill, On Liberty (1859), in Stefan Collini (ed.), J.S. Mill: On Liberty and Other

Writings (Cambridge, 1989), p. 7. 28 Ibid., p.12. 29 Ibid., p. 13. 30 Ibid., p. 75 for rights. 31 John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters or Essays on Liberty, Civil and

Religious, and Other Important Subjects (1720–1723), R. Hamowy (ed.) (Indianapolis,1995).

32 J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1690), P. Laslett (ed.) (Cambridge, 1988). 33 Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Lawes of England (London, 1628–1644). 34 Mill, On Liberty, p. 6. 35 Cato’s Letters, No. 61 (13 January 1721), pp. 420–426. 36 Cato’s Letters, the Preface, pp. 13–15. 37 B. Rush, “Observations on the Government of Pennsylvania” (1777), in D. Runes

(ed.), The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush (New York, 1947), p. 78. 38 Locke, Two Treatises, II.18.205 (p. 402). 39 Ibid., II.10.133 (p. 355). 40 Adams, Defence, Letter LIV, “Locke, Milton, Hume”, at I.365–371. 41 Locke, Two Treatises, at I.10.132 (p. 354).

Notes 169

42 Ibid., at II.4.22 (p. 283). 43 Ibid., at II.11.135 (p. 357). 44 Constant, Political Writings, p. 310. 45 Livy, III.9.5; III.67.6. 46 Locke, Two Treatises, II.2.6 (p. 270). 47 Ibid., II.4.22 (pp. 283–284). 48 Locke, Two Treatises, II.11.135 (p. 357). 49 Constitution of the United States of America, Amendments I–X (ratified 15

December 1791). 50 Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV (ratified 9 July 1868). 51 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the General

Assembly of the United Nations, 10 December 1948. Cf. the International Covenanton Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, both of which appeared in an annex to a resolution adopted by theUnited Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, and entered into force on3 January 1976 (economic) and 23 March 1976 (political) respectively. See G.A. Res.A/RES/220 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 3rd Comm., 21st Sess., Annex, Agenda Item 62.

52 Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, first adopted by the NationalAssembly on 26 August 1789.

53 A Declaration of Rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia,assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity,as the basis and foundation of government, adopted, unanimously by the Virginiaprovincial congress on 12 June 1776. For the links between France and Virginiasee R.C. Van Caenegem, An Historical Introduction to Western Constitutional Law(Cambridge, 1995).

54 Mill, On Liberty, p. 7. 55 Constant, Political Writings, p. 311. 56 E.G. Horwitz, “Republicanism and Liberalism” pp. 63–73; Frank Michelman,

“The Supreme Court 1985 Term Foreword: Traces of Self-Government”, 100Harvard Law Review (1986) pp. 17–23.

57 Mill, On Liberty, p. 7. 58 M. Tullius Cicero, de re publica, III.xxxiii.45. 59 See Susan Ford Wiltshire, Greece, Rome, and The Bill of Rights. Norman. University

of Oklahoma Press, 1992. 60 See Cicero, de officiis, at I.vii.21, I.xvi.51. 61 See ibid., at III.v.21–24. 62 Adams, Defence, at III.160: “For the people, or public, comprehends more than

a majority, it comprehends all and every individual; and the property of everycitizen is a part of a public property, as each citizen is a part of the public,people, or community”.

63 See S.D. White, Sir Edward Coke Grievances of the Commonwealth, 1621–1628Chapter 7 (1979).

64 See Locke, Two Treatises, at II.II.6. 65 See ibid., at II.VII.87, II.XV.171. Locke found the Law of Nature “in the minds of

Men”. Ibid., at II.XI.136. 66 Although there was never a “liberal movement” or “liberal party” in the United

States until after the Second World War, the protection of individuals rightsprovided a unifying ideology from the beginning. See L. Hartz, The Liberal Traditionin America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution(1955), at pp. 10–11, 47.

170 Notes

67 I. Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture (Oxford, 1958), at 7. 68 See ibid. 69 See Locke, Two Treatises, I.IV.22. 70 T. Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), at Part II, Chapter XXI, p. 107. 71 See ibid., at II.xxi.109. 72 Ibid., at II.xxi.110. 73 See Mill, On Liberty, at 104. 74 See J. Bentham, A Fragment of Government (1777), J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart

(eds), Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 93. 75 J. Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832), W.E. Rumble (ed.),

1995, p. 160. 76 Ibid., at 223. 77 Ibid., at 224. 78 Ibid. 79 Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, at 11. 80 Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, at 24. 81 Bentham, A Fragment of Government, at 99. 82 See Mill, On Liberty, at 13: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully

exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is toprevent harm to others”.

83 See Berlin, The Concepts of Liberty, at 15 n.1. 84 See ibid., at 16. 85 Ibid., at 15 n.1. The extent of freedom also depends on how easy or difficult

each of these possibilities is to actualize; how important in my plan of life,given my character and circumstances, these possibilities are when comparedwith each other; how far they are closed and opened by deliberate human acts;and what value not merely the agent, but also the general sentiment of thesociety in which he lives, puts on the various possibilities.

86 Ibid., at 16. 87 See ibid., at 17. 88 Berlin admits as much. See ibid., at 19. 89 Ibid., at 32. 90 Ibid., at 33 (quoting Jeremy Bentham). 91 See ibid., at 7. 92 See ibid., at 14. 93 Ibid., at 17. 94 Ibid., at 11 (quoting Mill). 95 See ibid., at 30. 96 See Cicero, de officiis, at III.vi.26. 97 Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, at 32 (quoting Spinoza). 98 Ibid., at 36, 37. 99 See ibid., at 39.

100 Cf. “Publius” [Madison], Federalist X. 101 This is the view, at least of Isaiah Berlin. Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, at 46. 102 For Berlin’s strictures on government by the people, quoting Mill and Constant,

see ibid., at 48. 103 Ibid., at 50. 104 Ibid., at 56. 105 See Cicero, pro Cluentio.106 See Livy, ab urbe condita, at 2.1.

Notes 171

107 See James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana, (1656), J.G.A. Pocock (ed.),Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 19–20.

108 See Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government.109 See Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 11, Chapter 3 (Geneva, 1748). 110 Adams, Defence, at III.159–160. 111 See Locke, Two Treatises, at II.VI.57. 112 Ibid. 113 See Wiltshire, Greece, Rome and the Bill of Rights; Benjamin Fletcher Wright, Jr.,

American Interpretations of Natural Law: A Study in the History of Political Thought(1931).

114 Adams, Defence, at I.282 (quoting Cicero, Philippicae II.28); Cicero, de legibus,at II.11; III.2.

115 Adams, Defence, at III.128. 116 See, for example, H.L.A. Hart, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and

Morals”, in Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (1983), pp. 49–87. 117 For a discussion of the antecedents of this viewpoint, see ibid., at 50. 118 See ibid., at 52. 119 Ibid., at 55 (quoting Amos, The Science of Law 4 (5th edn, 1881), who attributed

this statement to his predecessor, Austin). 120 See Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, at 62. 121 See ibid., at 68. 122 See ibid., at 69. 123 See ibid., at 71. 124 See ibid., at 72. 125 See ibid., at 75. 126 See ibid., at 80. 127 See ibid., at 82. 128 See J. Raz, “Authority, Law, and Morality”, in Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays

in the Morality of Law and Politics (1993), pp. 194–221. 129 See ibid., at 200. 130 See, for example, J. Raz, “The Politics of the Rule of Law”, in Ethics in the Public

Domain, at 354–362. 131 See J. Raz, “Liberalism, Scepticism, and Democracy”, in Ethics in the Public

Domain, at 101. 132 See ibid., at 102. 133 See J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971); ibid., Political Liberalism (1993). 134 See Rawls, A Theory of Justice, at 101. 135 See Rawls, Political Liberalism.136 See, for example, ibid., at 36–37. 137 See Rawls, A Theory of Justice, at 303. 138 See ibid., at 53. 139 See, for example, ibid., at 36–37. 140 See ibid., at 62. 141 See ibid., at 63. 142 See ibid., at 64. 143 See ibid., at 94. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid., at 113. 146 See ibid., at 127. 147 See ibid., at 129.

172 Notes

148 See supra, Chapter 5. 149 See, for example, Mill, On Liberty, at 8–9. 150 See, for example, Rawls, Political Liberalism, at 133. 151 See ibid., at 138. 152 See ibid., at 152. 153 See, for example, ibid., at 146 n.13. 154 See ibid., at 157. 155 See ibid., at 180. 156 See ibid., at 194. 157 See ibid., at 201. 158 See ibid., at 205. 159 See ibid., at 206. 160 See ibid., at 213. 161 See ibid., at 214. 162 See ibid., at 216. 163 See ibid., at 217. 164 See ibid., at 218. 165 See ibid. 166 See ibid., at 219. 167 Ibid., at 227. 168 See ibid., at 222–228. 169 See ibid., at 230. 170 See ibid., at 232. 171 See ibid., at 233. 172 See ibid. 173 See ibid., at 303. 174 See ibid., at 338–339. 175 For a discussion and bibliography on the republican revival, see G.E. White,

“Reflections on the ‘Republican Revival’ Interdisciplinary Scholarship in theLegal Academy”, 6 Yale Law Journal & Humanities, 1–35 (1994).

176 See C.R. Sunstein, “Naked Preferences and the Constitution”, 84 Columbia LawReview, 1689, 1689–1732 (1984).

177 See ibid., at 1691. 178 See, for example, ibid., at 1691 nn.12–13. 179 See, for example, Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (1975); Alasdair Macintyre,

After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (1981); Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Knowledgeand Politics (1975).

180 See Sunstein, “Naked Preferences”, at 1692. 181 See ibid., at 1693. 182 See ibid., at 1695–1696. 183 Ibid., at 1731. 184 Michelman, “Traces of Self-Government”, at 13 n.44. 185 See ibid., at 16–17. 186 Ibid., at 18 (quoting G.R. Stone et al., Constitutional Law (1986)). 187 Ibid., at 17–18 188 See also Stone et al., Constitutional Law, at 5. 189 See Michelman, “Traces of Self-Government”, at 21. 190 Cf. C. Sunstein, “Interest Groups in American Public Law”, 38 Stanford Law

Review, 29, 32–33 (1985). 191 See Michelman, “Traces of Self-Government”, at 23.

Notes 173

192 Ibid., at 27. 193 Ibid., at 31. 194 See ibid., at 38. 195 See ibid., at 42. 196 Ibid., at 42–43. 197 Ibid., at 47. 198 Ibid., at 51. 199 See ibid., at 64, 73. 200 See, for example ibid., at 73. 201 Constant, De la liberté des anciens comparée a celle des modernes (Paris, 1819). 202 Michelman, “Traces of Self-Government”, at 73–74. 203 Ibid., at 75. 204 See ibid., at 76–77. 205 See F. Michelman, “Law’s Republic”, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1493, 1496 (1988). 206 See ibid., at 1507. 207 See ibid., at 1511. 208 Ibid., at 1526. 209 C.R. Sunstein, “Beyond the Republican Revival”, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1539,

1541 (1988). 210 See ibid. 211 See ibid., at 1551. 212 See ibid., at 1569. 213 See ibid., at 1570. 214 See ibid., at 1574. 215 Rawls, Political Liberalism, at 303. 216 Ibid., at 304. 217 Rawls admits as much. See ibid., at 314. 218 See ibid., at 22–28. 219 See ibid., at 310–311. 220 Locke, Two Treatises, at II.iv.22.

12 History, liberty and comparative law

1 United States Constitution (1787), Preamble. 2 G. Washington, The First Inaugural Speech (30 April 1789), in W.B. Allen (ed.),

George Washington: A Collection. Indianapolis. Liberty Classics, 1988, p. 462. 3 The word “liberty” or the portrait of the goddess of Liberty, has appeared on all

United States coins since the founding. 4 See supra, Chapter 3. 5 See M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the

Law. Basingstoke and New York. Macmillan and New York University Press,1998.

6 Washington, First Inaugural, p. 462. 7 United States Constitution (1787), at IV.4. 8 C.J. Richard, The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome and the American

Enlightment. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, 1994,pp. 57–60.

9 M. Myers, Jr., Liberty without Anarchy: A History of the Society of the Cincinnati.Charlottesville, Virginia. University Press of Virginia, 1983.

174 Notes

14 Republican government in the United States of America

1 T. Paine, The Rights of Man: Part II (1792), in B. Kuklick (ed.), Paine: PoliticalWritings. Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 168. Onrepublicanism generally, see P. Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom andGovernment. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1997; M.N.S. Sellers, The Sacred Fireof Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law. Basingstoke, England and NewYork. Macmillan and New York University Press, 1998; ibid., American Republican-ism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution. Basingstoke, England andNew York. Macmillan and New York University, 1994.

2 Alexander Pope, Epistles III (1733), at I.303. 3 Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man: Part II (1792), in Bruce Kuklick (ed.), Paine: Political

Writings, pp. 167–169. 4 “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X (1787), in Isaac Kramnick (ed.), The

Federalist Papers, London. Penguin, 1987, pp. 126–127. 5 “Publius” [Alexander Hamilton] Federalist IX ( 1787), in ibid., pp. 118–120. 6 Ibid., p. 119. 7 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America. London. C. Dilly, 1787, p. I.ii. 8 John Adams, Thoughts on government (1776), in C.S. Hyneman and D.S. Lutz (eds),

American Political Writing during the Founding Era: 1760–1805. Indianapolis.Liberty Fund, 1983, pp. I.401–409.

9 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States ofAmerica, vol. I.

10 Ibid., I. ii; M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the UnitedStates Constitution, pp. 33–40.

11 J. Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,pp. I. xix–xxii.

12 John Adams, Thoughts on Government (1776), in C.S. Hyneman and D.S. Lutz(eds), American Political Writing during the Founding Era: 1760–1805, p. 402.

13 Ibid., p. 403. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., p. 405. 16 Ibid., p. 404. 17 Ibid., p. 405. 18 Ibid., p. 406. 19 Ibid., p. 407. 20 Ibid., p. 408. 21 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America, pp. I.xxii–xxiii. 22 Ibid., I.362–363. 23 Ibid., III.505–506. 24 Ibid., p. I.i. 25 Ibid., p. I.ii. 26 Ibid., p. I.ii. 27 Ibid., p. I.iii. 28 Ibid., pp. I.x, xii–xiii. 29 Ibid., p. I.xii. 30 Ibid., p. I.xvi. 31 Ibid., p. I.5.

Notes 175

32 Ibid., pp. I.xiv–xxv. 33 Ibid., p. I.xxi. 34 Ibid., pp. I.122–123. 35 Ibid., p. I.128. 36 Ibid., pp. I.125–127. 37 Ibid., p. I.28. 38 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de officiis, III.vi.26. 39 Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois.

Geneva, 1748, at I.ix.1–3. 40 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America, p. I.124. 41 M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Consti-

tution. Basingstoke, England and New York. Macmillan and New York UniversityPress, 1994.

42 Ibid., pp. 149–162. 43 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America, pp. I.362–363. 44 Ibid., at III. 505–506. 45 United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. 46 “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X (1787), in Isaac Kramnick (ed.), The Fed-

eralist Papers, pp. 126–128. 47 “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist LXIII (1788) in ibid., p. 373. 48 Cf. John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America, pp. I.ix–x. 49 James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), in J.G.A. Pocock (ed.),

The Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1992, p. 22.

50 United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2. 51 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896). 52 Ibid. 53 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). 54 See, for example, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US 1

(1970); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 US 448 (1980); Local 28, Sheet Metal WorkersInternational Association v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 106 S.Ct.309 (1986).

55 Local Number 93, International Association of Firefighters v. Cleveland, 106 S.Ct.3063 (1986).

56 Cf. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1690). 57 Institutes, I.2.6: “Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem, cum lege regia

quae de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei et in cum, omne imperium suum etpotestatem concessit”. Cf. Ulpian, Digest I.4.1.

58 Titus Livius, ab urbe condita, III.xxxiii-li; John Locke, Two Treatises of Government(1690), II.xviii.201.

59 United States Constitution (1787), Article I, Section 1. 60 Yakus v. United States, 321 US 414 (1944). Cf. Henry Hart, Jr. & Albert Sacks,

The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law, WilliamEskridge, Jr. & Philip Frickey (eds), 1994 [tent. ed. 1958].

61 Lichter v. United States, 334 US 742 (1948). 62 Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, at I.viii.16. 63 Ibid., I.ix.1–3; Publius [James Madison], Federalist XXXIX.

176 Notes

64 United States Constitution (1787), Article I, Section 8. 65 Ibid., Amendment XIV, Section 1; Article IV, Section 4. 66 Presault v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 494 US 1 (1990). 67 “Publius” [Alexander Hamilton], Federalist LXXVIII. 68 United States Constitution (1787), Amendment XIV, Section 1; Cf. Article IV, Section 2. 69 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (1872). 70 Oliver Wendell Holmes was very influential in encouraging this attitude. 71 United States Constitution (1787), Article IV, Section 4. 72 Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1 (1849). 73 Pacific States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 US 118 (1912). 74 Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962). 75 George Washington, “The First Inaugural Speech” (1789), in W.B. Allen (ed.),

George Washington: A Collection. Indianapolis. Liberty Fund, 1988, p. 462. 76 18 September 1787: James McHenry recorded Franklin’s remark to Mrs Powell in

his diary. 11 American Historical Review, 618 (1906). 77 United States Constitution (1787), Article V. 78 Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1 (1849). 79 See, for example, Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, 4th edn

(Boston, 1860). 80 See H.M. Hyman and W.M. Wiecek, Equal Justice Under Law: Constitutional

Development 1835–1875. New York, 1982, pp. 269–273, for Republican awarenessof the guarantee clause.

81 President Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court in 1937. CongressionalRecord, vol. 81, pt. 1 (75th Congress, 1st Session), pp. 877–878.

82 United States Constitution (1787), Article VI. 83 Ibid., Article III, Section 1. 84 Marbury v. Madison (1803), 5 US 137, 177–178. 85 That is, an “imperium legum” and not the “imperium hominum” of non-republican

states. See the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (1780), Article XXX. 86 United States Constitution (1787), Article VI. 87 For districting as a “political question” beyond judicial competence, see, for

example, Colegrove v. Green, 328 US 549 (1946). Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962),took a different view, but only as to the population size, not the structure ofelection districts.

88 Cf. Publius Vergilius Maro, Aeneid I.33.

15 Republican principles in international law

1 Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden (Königsberg, 1796). Reprint Stuttgart,1993. “Die bürgerliche Verfassung in jedem Staate soll republikanisch sein”(p. 10) and “Das Völkerrecht soll auf einen Föderalism freier Staaten gegründetsein” (p. 16).

2 United States Constitution (1787, ratified 1789), Article IV, Section 4. 3 For example, Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden at 19: “Denn wenn das Glück es so fügt:

dass ein mächtiges und aufgeklärtes Volk sich zu einer Republik (die ihrer Naturnach zum ewigen Frieden geneigt sein muss) bilden Kann, so gibt diese einenMittelpunkt der föderativen Vereinigung für andere Staaten, ab um sich an sieanzuschliessen und so den Freiheitszustand der Staaten gemäss der Idee desVölkerrechts zu sichern und sich durch mehrere Verbindungen dieser Art nachund nach immer weiter auszubreiten”.

Notes 177

4 See also H.S. Maine, Ancient Law, pp. 52–58, pp. 73–96 contain a discussion onthe jus gentium. Cf. Cicero, de officiis II.viii; III.v–vi; III.xvii. 69. See also N.G.Onuf, “Civitas Maxima: Wolff, Vattel and the Fate of Republicanism” in 88American Journal of International Law, 280 (1994).

5 There is a vast recent literature applying Kant’s theories to modern internationallaw, which usually does not enquire too closely into the meaning of the word“republican”. See, for example, Cecelia Lynch, “Kant, the Republican Peace, andMoral Guidance in International Law”, 8 Ethics & International Affairs, 39 (1994);F.R. Tesón, “The Kantian Theory of International Law”, in 92 Columbia LawReview, 53 (1992); Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs”, 12Philosophy & Public Affairs, 205, 323 (1993). On the “Kantian Tradition” in theinternational law, see D.R. Mapel and T. Nardin, “Convergence and divergencein international ethics”, in Nardin and Mapel (eds), Traditions of InternationalEthics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1992, 297–322. For a non-Kantiandiscussion of republicanism in international law, see N.G. Onuf, “Civitas Maxima:Wolff, Vattel and the Fate of Republicanism” in 88 American Journal of Inter-national Law, 280 (1994).

6 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, 10–11: “Die erstlich nach Prinzipien der Freiheitder Glieder einer Gesellschaft (als Menschen), zweitens nach Grundsätzender Abhängigkeit aller von einer einzigen gemeinsamen Gesetzgebung (alsUntertanen) und drittens die nach dem Gesetz der Gleichheit derselben(als Staatsbürger) gestiftete Verfassung – die einzige, welche aus der Idee desursprünglichen Vertrags hervorgeht, auf der alle rechtliche Gesetzgebungeines Volks gegründet sein muss – ist die republikanische”.

7 Ibid., p. 13. 8 Ibid., p. 15: “Zu jener aber, wenn sie dem Rechts begriffe gemäss sein soll, gehört

das repräsentative system, in welchem allein eine republikanische Regierungsartmöglich, ohne welches sie (die Verfassung mag sein, welche sie wolle) despotischund gewalttätig ist”.

9 Ibid., p. 14: “Der Republikanism ist das Staatsprinzip der Absonderung derausführenden Gewalt (der Regierung) von der gesetzgebenden . . .”.

10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., p. 16. 12 For a broad overview of the republican legal tradition, see M.N.S. Sellers, The

Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law. Basingstoke and NewYork. Macmillan and New York University Press, 1998; ibid., American Republic-anism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution. Basingstoke and New York.Macmillan and New York University Press, 1994. For bibliographies and (some-what jaundiced) discussions of recent republican scholarship, see D.T. Rodgers,“Republicanism: The Career of a Concept” in 79 The Journal of American History,11 (1992), and G.E. White, “Reflections on the ‘Republican Revival’: Interdisciplin-ary Scholarship in the Legal Academy” in 6 Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities,1 (1994).

13 See supra, Chapter 7. 14 See supra, Chapter 5. For the “imperium” and “maiestas” of the people, see Cicero,

Philippicae, IV.4.8; T. Livius, ab urbe condita II.7.7. 15 See, for example, “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X in The Federalist (1788),

Isaac Kramnick (ed.), (1987), 126: “A republic . . . [is] a government in whicha scheme of representation takes place”, so that “the public voice, pronouncedby the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good

178 Notes

than if pronounced by the people themselves”. Cf. Montesquieu, who alsoconsidered the structure of suffrage as fundamental in a republic. Charles deSecondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois (1748) at bookII, Chapter 2.

16 Most influentially John Rawls, “The law of peoples” in Stephen Shute and SusanHurley (eds), On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993. New York.Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 41–82. Cf. ibid., Political Liberalism. New York.Columbia University Press, 1993.

17 Rawls, for example, now endorses “a common good conception of justice”, in“The Law of Peoples”, pp. 61, 69.

18 See, for example, Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39: “res publica respopuli, populus autem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus,sed coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus”; ibid.,de officiis, III.vi.26: “Ergo unum debet esse omnibus propositum, ut eadem situtilitas unius cuiusque et universorum; quam si ad se quisque. rapiet, dissolveturomnis humana consortio”.

19 This would seem to be the worry of John Rawls when he refuses to speak of“truth” about justice. See, for example, his Political Liberalism and “Reply toHabermas” in XCII The Journal of Philosophy 132–180, 150 (1995).

20 See supra, Chapter 5. Consensus and compromise will be more easily achieved insearch of the common good than in pursuit of even “rational” self-interest.

21 Supra, Chapter 5. 22 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of

America. London. C. Dilly, 1787, at vol. I, p. 123. 23 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, pp. 16–20. 24 For the origins of the concept of self-determination, see A. Cobban, The Nation,

State and National Self-Determination (1969); M. Pomerance, Self-Determination inLaw and Practice (1982); D. Ronen, The Quest for Self-Determination (1979); A. RigoSureda, The Evolution of the Right to Self-Determination (1973).

25 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, 4 July 1776. 26 Woodrow Wilson, quoted in Michla Pomerance, “The United States and Self-

Determination: Perspectives of the Wilsonian Conception” in 70 American Journalof International Law, 1, 2 (1976).

27 Charter of the United Nations (1945), Article I.2: “[The Purposes of the UnitedNations are] to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect forthe principles of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”; Article 55:“With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which arenecessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect forthe principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.

28 Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à laconduite ex aux affaires des nations et des souverains (1758), Preliminaires Section 4.

29 See most recently Rawls, The Law of Peoples.30 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, 32: “Die Natur will unwiderstehlich dass das Recht

zuletzt die Obergewalt erhalte”. Ibid., p. 33: “durch den wechselseitigenEigennutz . . .”

31 Ibid., p. 32: “Universal monarchie”.32 Ibid., p. 6: “Kein Staat soll sich in die Verfassung und Regierung eines andern

Staats gewalttätig einmischen”.33 Ibid., p. 7: “Dahin würde nicht zu ziehen sein, wenn ein Staat sich durch innere

Veruneinigung in Zwei Teile spaltete, deren jeder für sich einen besondern Staat

Notes 179

vorstellt, der auf das Ganze Anspruch macht; wo einen derselben Beistand zuleisten einem aüssern Staat nicht für Einmischung in die Verfassung des andern(denn es ist alsdahn Anarchie) angerechnet werden Könnte”.

34 Ibid., p. 49: “Das Recht der Menschen muss heilig gehalten werden, derherrschenden Gewalt mag es auch noch so grosse Aufopferung Kosten”. Cf.Kamenka, “Human rights, peoples rights”, in Crawford (ed.), The Rights ofPeoples, p. 129, for the republican sources of modern rights discourse inCommonwealth England, France and the United States of America. Kamenkarightly notes that all “liberal democracy” grew out of this republican tradition.

35 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976), Part 1,Article I.1.

36 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), Part 1, Article I.1: “Allpeoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freelydetermine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social andcultural development”.

37 Ibid., Article 9.1. 38 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 21. 39 For discussions of the modern concept of self-determination, see Hurst Hannum,

Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of ConflictingRights (1990); Michla Pomerance, Self-Determination in Law and Practice (1982);ibid., “The United States and Self-determination: Perspectives on the WilsonianConception”, 70 American Journal of International Law, 1 (1976); T.M. Franck,“The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance”, 86 American Journal of Inter-national Law, 46 (1992); ibid., “Postmodern tribalism and the right to secession”,in Catherine Broelmann, Réné Lefeber and Marjoleine Zieck (eds), Peoplesand Minorities in International Law (1992); Lea Brilmayer, “Secession and Self-determination: A Territorial Interpretation”, 16 Yale Journal of International Law,177 (1991); F.L. Kirgis, Jr., “The Degrees of Self-determination in the UnitedNations Era” in 88 American Journal of International Law, 304–310 (1994).

40 Charter of the United Nations (1945), Article 2.1. 41 Ibid., 2.4 42 Ibid., 2.7. 43 Vattel, Droits des gens, Preliminaries, 18 as translated in the fourth edition

(London, 1811). 44 Ibid., II.vi.54. 45 Ibid., I.iv. Section 38. 46 Ibid., I.iv. Section 39. 47 Ibid., I.iv. Section 51. 48 Ibid., II.iv. Section 56: “But we ought not to abuse this maxim, and make a handle

of it to authorise odious machinations against the internal tranquillity of states”.49 Jean Bodin, Six livres de la république (1586), I.8–II.5. 50 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625), I.iii.viii.1: “Atque hoc loco primum

rejicienda est eorum opinio, qui ubique & sine exceptione summam potestatemesse volunt populi, ita ut ei reges, quoties imperio suo male utuntur & coercere &punire liceat: quae sententia quot malis causam dederit, &dare etiamnum possit,penitus animis recepta, nemo sapiens non videt. Nos his argumentis eam refutamus.Licet homini cuique se in privatam servitutem cui velit addicere, ut & ex legeHebraea & Romana apparet. Quidni ergo populo sui juris liceat se uni cuipiam,aut pluribus ita addicere, ut regendi sui jus in eum plane transcribat, nulla ejusjuris parte retenta?”

180 Notes

51 Ibid., I.iii.viii.4 (citing Aristotle). 52 Ibid., I.iii.viii.6. 53 Ibid., I.iii.viii.13. 54 Ibid., I.iii.viii.14. 55 Ibid., I.iii.ix.2. 56 Cf. supra, Chapter 6, and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), II.18.1: “And there-

fore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast offMonarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; nor transferredtheir person from him that beareth it, to another Man, or other Assembly ofmen”.

57 For example, Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning FriendlyRelations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations. Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, 24 October 1970.

58 For example, Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law. 3rd edn,Oxford. Oxford University, 1979, Chapter 13 “Sovereignty and Equality ofStates”.

59 Bodin, Six livres, II.5 (p. 609). 60 In addition to the passage quoted above, see De Jure Belli ac Pacis, III.vii, in which

Grotius admits that slavery violates the law of nature, and the barbarity of inheritedservitude.

61 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, I.iii.viii.7. 62 Ibid., I.iii.vii.1: “[S]umma [potestas] autem illa dicitur, cujus actus alterius juri

non subsunt, ita ut alterius voluntatis humanae arbitrio irriti possint reddi”.63 For example, Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government (London,

1698), I.5: “For as liberty solely consists in an independency upon the will ofanother, and by the name of slave we understand a man, who can neitherdispose of his person nor goods, but enjoys all at the will of his master; there isno such thing in nature as a slave, if those men and nations are not slaves, whohave no other title to what they enjoy, than the grace of a prince, which hemay revoke whensoever he pleaseth”. See Mortimer Sellers, “Republicanliberty”, in Gabriël Moens and Suri Ratnapala (eds), The Jurisprudence of Liberty.London, 1996.

64 Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law (8th edn, Boston, 1866), Part II,Sections 65–66.

65 See, for example, President Monroe’s message to Congress of 2, December 1823,the so-called “Monroe doctrine”.

66 My emphasis. Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, p. 16: “Das Völkerrecht soll auf einenFöderalism freier Staaten gegründet sein”.

67 Ibid., p. 32. 68 Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, at VIII.16: “Il est de la nature d’une république

qu’elle n’ait qu’un petit territoire . . . Dans une grande république, le biencommun est sacrifié à mille considérations; il est subordonné à des exceptions; ildépend des accidents. Dans une petite, le bien public est mieux senti, mieuxconnu, plus près de chaque citoyen”. Cf. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social(1762) book II, Chapter 9; book III, Chapter 6.

69 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, p. 33: “So wie die Natur weislich die Völker trennt,welche der Wille jedes Staats und zwar selbst nach Gründen des Völkerrechtsgern unter sich durch List oder Gewalt . . .”.

70 “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist LI in Kramnick, p. 319: “Ambition must bemade to counteract ambition” . . . “And happily for the republican cause, the

Notes 181

practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent by a judicious modifica-tion and mixture of the federal principle” (p. 322). Cf. Federalist X.

71 Adams, Defence, vol. III, p. 505. 72 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, p. 31. 73 “Publius” [Madison], Federalist X in Kramnick, p. 128: “. . . And according to the

degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans ought to be our zeal incherishing the spirit and supporting the character of federalists”.

74 F. von Savigny, Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft(1814); Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (1989).

75 See, for example, Amy Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism, 2nd edn, Princeton.Princeton University Press, 1994; Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community, andCulture. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1989.

76 See, for example, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in Inter-national Politics. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1993.

77 For example, Jürgen Habermas, “Human Rights and Popular Sovereignty: TheLiberal and Republican Versions”, in 7 Ratio Juris, 1–13 (1994); Frank Michelman,“Law’s Republic”, in 97 Yale Law Journal, 1493–1537 (1988).

78 See Sellers, American Republicanism, 244 et passim, for the traditional desiderata ofrepublican government.

79 Republicans have always been very careful to distinguish their constitution fromdemocracy. For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, II.xiii.41; AlgernonSidney, Discourses Concerning Government (1698), II.16; 30; “Publius” [JamesMadison], Federalist X; XIV; Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, p. 13.

80 Titus Livius, ab urbe condita, II.1; see Sellers, Republican Liberty.81 Benjamin Constant, De la liberté des anciens comparée à celle des modernes (Paris,

1819). 82 Most critics of the nation state fear its unifying force in the hands of tyrants.

Even Jürgen Habermas, who sees the importance of nationalism in Europe’semerging republican sensibility, and the value of common identity in protectinguniversal human rights does not understand how weak civic bonds will be, withouta national identity to support them. See Jürgen Habermas, “The European NationState – Its Achievement and Its Limits. On the Past and Future of Sovereigntyand Citizenship” in Challenges to Law at the End of the 20th Century. Papers andAbstracts of the 17th IVR World Congress Bologna, 16–21 June, 1995. vol. VII,pp. 27–36.

83 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de re publica, I.xxv.39: “Res publica res est populi. Populusautem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetusmultitudinis juris consensu, et utilitatis communione sociatus”.

84 United States Constitution (1787), Article IV, Section 4. 85 Ibid., Article I, Section 10; Amendment XIV. 86 Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, Erster Zusatz: Von der Garantie des ewigen Friedens. 87 Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois

I.viii.16: “Il est de la nature d’une république qu’elle n’ait qu’un petit territoire”;Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social, II.9; III.1: “plus l’état s’agrandit, plus laliberté diminue”.

88 Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (1991); I. MacIntyre, After Virtue: WhoseJustice? Which Rationality (1988).

89 See “Publius” [James Madison], Federalist X: “The smaller the society, the fewerprobably will be the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently willa majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals

182 Notes

composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they areplaced, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression”.

90 Charter of the United Nations (1945), Preamble: “to reaffirm faith in fundamentalhuman rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equalrights of men and women and of nations large and small”.

91 Ibid., Article 55(c). 92 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). 93 See supra note 35 and accompanying text. 94 See supra note 30 and accompanying text. 95 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Part II, Article 2.1.96 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part II, Article 2.1. 97 Ibid., Article 4.2 98 Ibid., Article 6. 99 Ibid., Articles 8–9.

100 Ibid., Article 14; 26. 101 Ibid., Article 25. 102 Cf. Eugene Kamenka, “Human rights: peoples rights”, in James Crawford (ed.),

The Rights of Peoples, pp. 127, 135 (1988). 103 The United States signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights on 5 October 1977. The International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights was also signed on 5 October 1977, and ratified on 2 April 1992.CCH Cong. Index vol. I, Senate 102 Cong., Sess. 1991–1992. France signed boththe International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 29 January 1981. 1981J. République Française, 405.

104 See above and the famous quote from Cicero, supra note 83. 105 See supra note 15 and accompanying text. 106 For example, under Articles 55 and 1.2 of the United Nations Charter.107 For example, under Article 1.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights.108 Deploring this fact, see Richard Falk, “The rights of peoples (in particular indi-

genous peoples)”, in James Crawford (ed.), The Rights of Peoples. Oxford. OxfordUniversity Press, 1988, p. 26.

109 For example, Ian Brownlie, “The rights of peoples in modern international law”,in Crawford (ed.), The Rights of Peoples, p. 11.

110 Charter of the United Nations, Preamble: “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITEDNATIONS . . . ” The language consciously echoes the Preamble to the Constitutionof the United States of America: “We the People of the United States . . . ”, andimplies all citizens of the republic.

111 The populus, or population. 112 Cicero, de re publica I.xxv.39: “Res publica res est populi. Populus autem non

omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinisjuris consensu, et utilitatis communione sociatus”.

113 C.T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. Clarendon Press,1879, s.v. “natio”, p. 1189.

114 See Jürgen Habermas, “The European Nation State – Its Achievements and ItsLimits. On the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship” in Challenges ToLaw at the End of the 20th Century. 17th IVR World Congress Bologna, 16–21 June1995. Papers and Abstracts vol. VII, p. 28.

115 Ibid.

Notes 183

116 Ibid., pp. 31–32. 117 On uti possidetis juris, with bibliography, see Ian Brownlie, Principles of

Public International Law. 3rd edn. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1979,pp. 137–138.

118 See, for example, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples, General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), par 1: “the subjection ofpeoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denialof fundamental human rights”.

119 Ibid., par. 6. 120 Some claim that there is a logical inconsistency inherent in this behavior. See,

for example, David Makinson, “Rights of peoples: point of view of a logician” inCrawford (ed.), The Rights of Peoples, pp. 75–77. This need not be the case ifsubordinated populations do not rise to the level of “peoples”. Everythinghinges on how boundaries will be drawn between “peoples”.

121 The African (“Banjul”) Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1981), Article20.1.

122 OAU Resolution 16(1) of July 1964 declared that “all member states pledgethemselves to respect the frontiers existing on their achievement of nationalindependence”.

123 Jürgen Habermas deplores the natural cultural unity of republican peoples, inthe name of “pluralism” and multicultural diversity. Habermas, “The EuropeanNation State”, pp. 31–36. This overestimates the tenacity of tribal affinities, andthe dangers of cultural union. Republics naturally and properly develop acommon sense of identity that includes and builds on all the constituentelements of the population. Habermas and many other have been misled bythe recent fluidity of European borders. Immigrants naturally assimilate overtime to republican cultures, while contributing aspects of their own previousheritage to the common patrimony. Only strong legal encouragement of differ-ences can preserve significant cultural diversity under free and equal republicangovernments.

124 This principle is reflected in Articles 1 and 25 of the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights (1966).

125 This principle is recognized by Article 2.1 of the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights (1966).

126 This right has been recognized by Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights (1966).

127 See, for example, Ian Brownlie, “The rights of peoples in modern internationallaw”, in Crawford (ed.), The Rights of Peoples, pp. 5–6.

128 For an interesting attempt to define the Rights of Peoples, see the Universal(Algiers) Declaration of the Rights of Peoples (1976) in International Lelio BassoFoundation for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, Universal Declaration of theRights of Peoples (Paris, 1977), partially reprinted in Crawford (ed.), The Rights ofPeoples, pp. 187–189 and esp. Article 5. For documents on autonomy andminority rights, see Hurst Hannum (ed.), Documents on Autonomy and MinorityRights (Dordrecht, 1993).

129 The central importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms to theequal rights and self-determination of peoples is reflected in Article 55(c) of theUnited Nations Charter.

130 Lee C. Buchheit, Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (New Haven,1978).

184 Notes

131 U.N.G.A. resolution 217 A (III), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),Article 21.

132 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Article 25. 133 Cf. Hurst Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommo-

dation of Conflicting Rights (Philadelphia, 1990), p. 116. 134 For a lucid expression of these principles, see the Universal (“Algiers”) Declaration

of the Rights of Peoples (1976), with text and commentary in Antonio Cassese,“Political self-determination – old concepts and new developments”, in AntonioCassese (ed.), UN Law/Fundamental Rights (Alphen aan den Rijn, 1979) at 137–165.

135 This was implied by an international tribunal as early as 1920 in the Reportof the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League ofNations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspectsof the Aaland Islands question, in League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3(October 1920) at 5, when it reserved the question of the rights of people undersuch circumstances.

136 The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by theCommission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7. 21 (68) 106 (1921) at 28.

137 Ibid., at 28. 138 Ibid. For modern recognition of this fundamental aspect of the Law of Nations,

see, for example, Hurst Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination:The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights (Philadelphia, 1990) at 470–474; L.C.Buchheit, Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (New Haven, 1978) at94; V.P. Nanda, “Self-determination outside the colonial context: the birth ofBangladesh in retrospect” in Yonah Alexander and R.A. Friedlander (eds), Self-Determination: National, Regional, and Global Dimensions (Boulder, Colorado,1980) at 204; Alfred Cobban, The Nation State and National Self-Determination(revised edn New York, 1969) at 140.

139 U.N.G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), 25 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 28) 121, U.N. Doc. A/8028(1971).

140 Ibid. 141 See supra, Chapter 7. 142 See M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism, Roman Ideology in the United States

Constitution; and “Republican Impartiality”, supra, Chapter 5. 143 Ibid., “Republican Authority”, supra Chapter 6. 144 See The Constitution of the United States of America (1787) and esp. the Preamble,

Article 1, Article IV.4, and Amendment XIV. 145 Neal Wood, Cicero’s Social & Political Thought. Berkeley. University of California

Press, 1991, pp. 126–127; 137–146; 165–166, 169. 146 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de legibus, III.i.3. 147 See 1946 Cong. Rec. Senate 8134. 148 “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and consent of the

Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”,United States Constitution (1787), Article II, Section 2.

149 United States Constitution (1787), Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws ofthe United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treatiesmade, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shallbe the supreme Law of the Land”.

150 Charter of the United Nations (1945), Article 7. 151 Ibid., Article 9. 152 Ibid., Article 18.1.

Notes 185

153 Ibid., Article 10. 154 Ibid., Article 18.2. 155 Ibid., Article 23. 156 Ibid., Article 27.3. 157 Ibid., Article 25. 158 Ibid., Article 61. 159 Ibid., Article 62.1. 160 Ibid., Article 62.3. 161 Ibid., Article 68. 162 Ibid., Article 86. 163 Ibid., Article 92. 164 Ibid., Article 94. 165 Ibid., Article 96. 166 Ibid., Article 36. 167 M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism, pp. 234–235; John Adams, Defence, at

I.viii; xxii; 125–126; III.159–160. 168 M.N.S. Sellers, American Republicanism, pp. 234–235 et passim.169 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 13. 170 Ibid., Article 4.1. 171 Ibid., Article 10. 172 Ibid., Article 101. 173 Ibid., Article 97. 174 Ibid., Articles 100–101.

16 Conclusion

1 Marcus Tullius Cicero, de officiis, I.x.31.

186

Short Bibliography on Republicanism

Aalders, G.J.D. (1968) Die Theorie der gemischten Verfassung im Altertum. Amsterdam. Adams, J. (1787–1788) A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States

of America. 3 vols, London, England. Aristoteles. Politica. [W.D. Ross (ed.) 1957. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England.] Ayres, P. (1997) Classical Culture and the Idea of Rome in Eighteenth-Century England.

Cambridge, England. Bailyn, B. (ed.) (1993) The Debate on the Constitution. 2 vols, New York. Baron, H. (1966) The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican

Liberty in the Age of Classicism and Tyranny. Revised edn, Princeton, New Jersey. Baron, H. (1988) In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism. Princeton, New Jersey. Bartolus of Sassoferrato (1983) De regimine civitatis, in D. Quaglioni (ed.), Politica

e diritto nel Trecento italiano. Il “De tyranno” de Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1314–1357).Con l’edizione critica dei trattati “De Guelphis et Gebellinis” e “De tyranno”. Rome.

Berstein, S. and Rudelle, O. (1992) Le modèle républicain. Paris. Bleicken, J. (1972) Staatliche Ordnung und Freiheit in der römischen Republik. Kallmunz.Blythe, J.M. (1992) Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages.

Princeton, New Jersey. Bock, G., Skinner, Q. and Viroli, M. (eds) (1990) Machiavelli and Republicanism.

Cambridge, England. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and

Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Botana, N.R. (1984) La tradición republicana. Buenos Aires. Bouwsma, W.J. (1968) Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values

in the Age of the Counter-Reformation. Berkeley, California. Brugger, B. (1999) Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual? Basingstoke,

England. Brunt, P. (1988) The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford, England. Bruun, C. (ed.) (2000) The Roman Middle Republic: Politics, Religions and Historiography

c. 400–133 BC. Rome. Büchner, K. (1984) M. Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, Kommentar. Heidelberg. Cizek, E. (1990) Mentalités et institutions politiques romaines. Paris. Chinard, G. (1940) “Polybius and the American Constitution” 1 Journal of the History

of Ideas 38–58. The Classical Tradition in the South, 1977. Special issue of the Southern Humanities Review.Colbourn, T. (1965) The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of

the American Revolution. 2nd edn 1998, Indianapolis, Indiana. Constant, B. (1819) De la liberté des anciens comparée a celle des modernes. Paris. Constant, B. (1988) Political Writings. B. Fontana (ed. and trans.) Cambridge, England. Contarini, G. (1543) De magistratibus e Republica Venetorum. Paris. Cornelius Tacitus, P. Ab excessu divi Augusti annalium libri. [C.D. Fisher (ed.) 1906.

Oxford, England.] Cornelius Tacitus, P. Historiarum libri. [C.D. Fisher (ed.) 1911. Oxford, England.] Corwin, E.S. (1955) The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law.

Ithaca, New York.

Short Bibliography on Republicanism 187

Dagger, R. (1997) Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. Oxford. de la Court, P. and deWitt, J. (1642) Interest van Holland. Trans. 1702. The True Interest

and Political Maxims of the Republick of Holland and West Friesland. London. Earl, D. (1967) The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome. Ithaca, New York. Everdell, W.R. (1983) The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. New

York. Fabre, M.-H. (1987) La République: sa perception constitutionnelle par les Français.

Aix-en-Provence. Ferry, L. and Renaut, A. (1985) Philosophie politique: des droits de l’homme a l’idée

républicaine. Paris. Fink, Z.S. (1962) The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of

Thought in Seventeenth Century England. 2nd edn, Evanston, Illinois. Fisher, H.A.L. (1911) The Republican Tradition in Europe. New York. Flüeler, C. (1992) Rezeption und Interpretation der Aristotelischen Politica im späten Mittelalter.

Amsterdam. Foner, E. (1970) Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before

the Civil War. New York. Fontana, B. (ed.) (1994) The Invention of the Modern Republic. Cambridge, England. Furet, F. and Ozouf, M. (1992) La République. Paris. Gabba, E. (ed.) (1973) Polybe. Geneva. Gell, C. (1995) Le Dix-huitième siècle et l’antiquité en France, 1680–1789. Oxford. Gianotti, D. (1540) Libro della Repubblica de’ Viniziani in F. Diaz (ed.) 1974. Opere

politiche. Milan. Gilbert, F. (1965) Macchiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century

Florence. Princeton, New Jersey. Gordon, T. (1728–1731) The Works of Tacitus with Political Discourses upon that Author.

4 vols. London. Gordon, T. (1744) The Works of Sallust translated into English with Political Discourses

upon that Author. London. Gummere, R.M. (1963) The American Colonial Mind in the Classical Tradition: Essays in

Comparative Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Gwynn, W.B. (1965) The Meaning of the Separation of Powers. The Hague. Habermas, J. (1992) Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des

demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main. [1996. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts.]

Hamilton, A., Jay, J. and Madison, J. (eds) “Publius” (1787–1788) The Federalist.New York.

Harrington, J. (1656) The Commonwealth of Oceana: and, A System of Politics.J.G.A. Pocock (ed.) 1992. Cambridge, England.

Higonnet, P. (1988) Sister Republics: The Origins of French and American Republicanism.Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Horwitz, J.M. (1987) “Republicanism and Liberalism in American ConstitutionalThought” 57 William and Mary Law Review, 29.

Holt, M. (1978) Slavery, Republicanism and the Republican Party. New York. Houston, A.C. (1991) Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America.

Princeton, New Jersey. Isoart, P. and Bidegaray, C. (1988) Des Républiques françaises. Paris. Johnson, J.W. (1967) The Formation of English Neo-Classical Thought. Princeton,

New Jersey. Kant, I. (1781) Zum ewigen Frieden. Reprint 1994. Stuttgart.

188 Short Bibliography on Republicanism

Kant, I. (1991) Kant’s Political Writings. H. Reiss (ed.), H.B. Nisbet (trans.), 2nd enlargededn, Cambridge, England.

Kempshall, M.S. (1999) The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought. Oxford. Koenigsberger, H.G. (ed.) (1988) Republiken und Republikanismus im Europa der frühen

Neuzeit. Munich. Kramnick, I. (1990) Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late

Eighteenth-Century England and America. Ithaca, New York. Lintott, A. (1999) The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford, England. Livius, T. Ab urbe condita VI–X. [C.F. Walters and R.S. Conway (eds) 1919. Oxford,

England.] Livius, T. Ab urbe condita I–V. [R.M. Ogilvie (ed.) 1974. Oxford, England.] Macchiavelli, N. (1517) Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio. [G. Inglese (ed.) 1984.

Milano.] Malcolm, J.L. (ed.) (1999) The Struggle for Sovereignty: Seventeenth-Century English Political

Tracts. 2 vols, Indianapolis, Indiana. Maltz, E.M. (1990) Civil Rights, The Constitution, and Congress, 1863–1869. Lawrence,

Kansas. Marsilius of Padua. 1324. Defensor Pacis. [M. Conetti (ed.) 2001. Milan.] Marsilius of Padua. 1340. Defensor Minor. [C. Jeudy and J. Quillet (eds) 1979. Paris] Michelman, F. (1986) “The Supreme Court 1985 Term – Foreword: Traces of Self

Government” no. 100 Harvard Law Review, 4–77. Millar, F. (2002) The Roman Republic in Political Thought. Hanover, New Hampshire. Milton, J. (1651) Defensio pro Populo Anglicano trans., in J. Alvis (ed.), 1999. Areopagitica

and other Political Writings of John Milton. Indianapolis, Indiana. Milton, J. (1660) The Readie and Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth, in J. Alvis

(ed.), 1999. Areopagitica and Other Political Writings of John Milton. Indianapolis, Indiana.Montesquieu, C. de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de. (1734) Considérations sur les

causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence. [1967. G. Truc (ed.) Paris.] Montesquieu, C. de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de. (1748) De l’esprit des lois.

[R. Derathé (ed.) 1973. 2 vols, Paris.] Moyle, W. (1796) Essay upon the Constitution of the Roman Government. [C. Robbins

(ed.) 1969. Two English Republican Tracts. Cambridge, England.] Nedham, M. (1656) The Excellencie of a Free State or the Right Constitution of a Common-

wealth. London. Neville, H. (1681) Plato Redivivus, or A Dialogue concerning Government. [C. Robbins

(ed.) 1969. Two English Republican Tracts. Cambridge, England.] Nicolet, C. (1982) L’idée républicaine en France (1789–1924): Essai d’histoire critique. Paris. Nicolet, C. (1988) Le métier de citoyen dans la Rome républicaine. 2nd edn, Paris. Nicolet, C. (1992) La République en France: état des lieu. Paris. Nino, C.S. (1996) The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven, Connecticut. Nippel, W. (1980) Mischverfassungstheorie und Verfassungsrealität in Antike und früher

Neuzeit. Stuttgart. Onuf, N.G. (1998) The Republican Legacy in International Thought. Cambridge,

England. Paine, T. (1776) Common Sense, in B. Kuklick (ed.), 1989. Paine: Political Writings.

Cambridge, England. Paine, T. (1791) The Rights of Man: Part I, in B. Kuklick (ed.), 1989. Paine: Political Writings.

Cambridge, England. Paine, T. (1792) The Rights of Man: Part II, in B. Kuklick (ed.), 1989. Thomas Paine:

Political Writings. Cambridge, England.

Short Bibliography on Republicanism 189

Parker, H.T. (1937) The Cult of Antiquity and the French Revolutionaries: A Study in theDevelopment of the Revolutionary Spirit. Chicago, Illinois.

Peltonen, M. (1995) Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought1570–1640. Cambridge, England.

Pettit, P. (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford. Plato, Politeia. [reprinted in J. Burnet (ed.) 1902. Platonis Opera. vol. IV. Oxford, England.]Plato, Nomoi. [reprinted in J. Burnet (ed.) 1902. Platonis Opera. vol. V. Oxford, England.]Plutarchos, Bioi paralleloi. [reprinted in C. Lindskog and K. Ziegler (eds) 1949–1971.

Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae. Leipzig.] Pocock, J.G.A. (1975) The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the

Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, New Jersey. Polybios, Historia. [L. Dindorf (ed.) 1866–1868. Leipzig.] Ponnet, J. (1556) The Shorte Treatise of Politicke Power and the true Obedience which

Subjects Owe to Kyngs. London. Powell, J.G.F. and North, J.A. (eds) (2001) Cicero’s Republic. London. Powell, J.G.F. (1995) Cicero the Philosopher. Oxford, England. Rahe, P.A. (1992) Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American

Revolution. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Reinhold, M. (1984) Classica Americana: The Greek and Roman Heritage in the United

States. Detroit. Richard, C.J. (1994) The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American

Enlightenment. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Robbins, C. (1959) The Eighteenth-century Commonwealthsman: Studies in the Transmission,

Development and Circumstance of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration ofCharles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rousseau, J.-J. (1762) Du contrat social. [H. Guillemin (ed.) 1973. Paris.] Rush, B. (1777) Observations upon the Present Government of Pennsylvania in Four Letters

to the People of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Sallustius Crispus, C. Bellum Catilinae. [in L.D. Reynolds (ed.) 1991. Catilina; Jugurtha;

Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta; Appendix Sallustiana. Oxford, England.] Sallustius Crispus, C. Bellum Iugurthinum. [in L.D. Reynolds (ed.) 1991. Catilina;

Jugurtha; Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta; Appendix Sallustiana. Oxford, England.] Sandel, M.J. (1996) Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy.

Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sellers, M.N.S. (1994) American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States

Constitution. New York and Basingstoke, England. Sellers, M.N.S. (1998) The Sacred Fire of Liberty: Republicanism, Liberalism and the Law.

New York and Basingstoke, England. Sidney, A. (1798) Discourses Concerning Government. [T.G. West (ed.) 1990. Indianapolis,

Indiana.] Skinner, Q. (1978) The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 vols, Cambridge, England. Skinner, Q. (1998) Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge, England. Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics. Vol. II Renaissance Virtues. Cambridge, England. Skinner, Q. and van Gelderen, M. (2002) Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage.

2 vols, Cambridge, England. Spitz, J.-F. (1995) La Liberté politique. Paris. Sunstein, C.R. (1993) “The Enduring Legacy of Republicanism”, in S.E. Elkin and

K.E. Soltan (eds), A New Constitutionalism: Designing Political Institutions for a GoodSociety. Chicago, Illinois.

Symposium: The Republican Civic Tradition. (1988) 97 The Yale Law Journal, 1493–1723.

190 Short Bibliography on Republicanism

Trenchard, J. and Gordon, T. (1723) Cato’s Letters or Essays on Liberty, Civil andReligious, and Other Important Subjects. 4 vols, [R. Hamowy (ed.) 1995. 2 vols, Indian-apolis, Indianapolis.]

Tullius Cicero, M. De legibus. [C.F.W. Mueller (ed.) 1914. Leipzig.] Tullius Cicero, M. De officiis. [M. Winterbottom (ed.) 1994. Oxford, England.] Tullius Cicero, M. De re publica. [K. Ziegler (ed.) 1969. Leipzig.] Tullius Cicero, M. In M. Antonium orationes Philippicae. [P. Fedeli (ed.) 1986. 2nd edn,

Leipzig.] Tullius Cicero, M. Orationes in L. Catilinam. [A.B. Clark (ed.) 1901. Oxford, England.] Tullius Cicero, M. Pro L. Flacco oratio. [in C.F.W. Mueller (ed.) 1906. M. Tulli Ciceronis

orationes, Pro P. Sulla, Pro A. Licinio Archia poeta, Pro L. Flacco. Leipzig.] Tullius Cicero, M. Pro P. Sulla oratio. [in C.F.W. Mueller (ed.) 1906. M. Tulli Ciceronis

orationes, Pro P. Sulla, Pro A. Licinio Archia poeta, Pro L. Flacco. Leipzig.] Vile, M.J.C. (1967) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers. Oxford, England. Vindiciae contra Tyrannos. (1660) “Stephanus Junius Brutus” [= Hubert Languet or

Philippe Duplessis – Mornay.] Amsterdam. Viroli, M. (1990) Macchiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge, England. Viroli, M. (1999) Repubblicanesimo. Roma [ = Republicanism. 2002. (A. Shugaar trans.)

New York.] von Fritz, K. (1954) The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity. New York. Washington, G. (1789) The First Inaugural Speech. [W.B. Allen (ed.) 1988 in George

Washington: A Collection. Indianapolis, Indiana.] Weiss, R. (1969) The Renaissance Rediscovery of Classical Antiquity. Oxford, England. White, G.E. (1994) “Reflections on the ‘Republican Revival’: Interdisciplinary Scholarship

in the Legal Academy” 6 Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 1–35. White, M. (1987) Philosophy, The Federalist, and the Constitution. New York. White, M. (1978) The Philosophy of the American Revolution. New York. Wiecek, W.M. (1972) The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ithaca, New York.Wiecek, W.M. (1977) The Sources of Anti-Slavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760–1848.

Ithaca, New York. Wilson, R.C. (1989) Ancient Republicanism: Its Struggle for Liberty Against Corruption.

New York. Wiltshire, S.F. (1992) Greece, Rome, and the Bill of Rights. Norman, Oklahoma. Wirzubski, C. (1950) “Libertas” as a Political Ideal at Rome during the Late Republic and

Early Principate. Cambridge, England. Witt, R.G. (1971) “The Rebirth of the Conception of Republican Liberty in Italy”, in

A. Molho and J.A. Tedeschi (eds), Renaissance: Studies in Honour of Hans Baron,pp. 173–199. DeKalb, Illinois.

Wolff, C. (1764) Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractum. [J.H. Drake, trans. 1934.New York.]

Wood, G.S. (1969) The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill,North Carolina.

Wood, N. (1991) Cicero’s Social and Political Thought. Berkeley, California.

191

Index

Aaland Islands 133 Adams, John viii, 2, 17, 45–7, 81, 107,

108, 109, 126 bicameralism 110 checks and balances 12, 19, 23, 108 Cicero 19, 108 common good 46 Defence of the Constitutions of

Government of the United States of America 3, 8, 9–10, 19, 21, 45, 122

education 107 equality 46 judiciary 107 liberty 9, 84 nature 108 Polybius 20 representation 12–13, 107, 108 republican government 14 Rome 19 rule of law 13–14, 29, 84, 107–8 senate 11–12, 108 separation of powers 13, 106, 110 Thoughts on Government 3, 107 unicameralism 12, 13 veto 107

Addison, Joseph 23, 100 Africa viii, 130 African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights 131 altruism 68 anarchy 48, 51, 79, 125 Antifederalist 109 de Araujo, Nadia x aristocracy 7 Aristotle 1, 2, 10

common good 10 mixed government 10 sovereignty of law 10, 14

Asia viii, 130 Athens 28, 105 Augustus see Julius Caesar

Octavianus, Gaius

Austin, John 42, 47–8, 49, 50, 55, 82, 84, 85

command theory 47–8 democracy 48 positivism 48

authority 42–55 advisory 43, 48–9, 50, 55 defined 43 legitimate 43, 48, 49, 50–1,

52, 55, 94 moral 94, 138 of law 42, 44 of the people 11 of the senate 11 peremptory 43, 44–5,

51, 55 sovereign 44, 45, 47, 48 see also republican authority

autonomy 5, 86, 93, 127, 131

Babeuf, Francois Noel 23 balanced government see mixed

government; republican checks and balances

Baron, Hans 8 Bauguess, Joyce x Bentham, Jeremy 82, 85 Berlin, Isaiah 81, 82, 83 bicameralism 2, 3, 4, 11, 53, 71,

96–8, 108, 111, 143, 145 Blackstone, William 47, 49, 85 Bodin, Jean 124 Bonaparte, Napoléon 5, 23, 24,

29, 78 borders 75, 110, 131, 138 British empire 130 Brown v. Board of Education 113Brutus see Junius Brutus, Lucius Butler, Joseph 46

Caesar see Julius Caesar, Gaius Catiline 2 Cato see Porcius Cato, Marcus

192 Index

Cato’s Letters 7, 9, 17, 22 liberty 17 republic 17 see also Gordon, Thomas;

Trenchard, John chauvinism 62 checks and balances see republican

checks and balances see also mixed government

Charles I 22 Charles II 5 Charles X 79 Cicero see Tullius Cicero, Marcus Cincinnati, Society of the 25, 100 Cincinnatus see Quinctius

Cincinnatus, Lucius citizenship viii, 67, 71, 72, 145

see also United States of America, citizenship

civility 62, 65, 142 defined 62

Cliteur, Paul x coercion 40, 69, 81 Coke, Sir Edward 79, 81, 104, 105 comitia see Rome, popular assemblies commerce 4 common good vi, ix, x, 1, 2, 7, 10,

14, 17, 26, 27–8, 31, 62, 63–4, 139, 145

of humanity 135, 138 possibility of 73 search for 32, 43 see also res publica; utility

common law 42, 49, 102 Commonwealth 79

see also England; Massachusetts; Pennsylvania; republic; Virginia

community 5, 9, 15, 30, 31, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70

comparative law see law, comparative Confederate States of America 102 consent x, 10, 94, 108 Constant, Benjamin 5, 15, 21, 27,

78, 80, 81, 83, 90, 93, 127 De la liberté des anciens comparée

à celle des modernes, 5 constitution

best x republican 96

see also republican form of government; United States of America, Constitution

cooperation 39, 41, 87 coordination problems 57, 64 corruption viii, 3, 5, 29, 78, 97

defined 29 Cromwell, Oliver 17, 29, 78 culture 31, 75, 110, 114, 128, 134

Darius viii, 107 David, Jacques-Louis 23 Davis, Jefferson 105 decemviri 113 Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du

citoyen 80, 129 Declaration on Principles of

International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States 133

deliberation 2, 13, 32, 35, 36, 38, 74, 81, 90, 91, 128

rational 93 see also democracy; deliberation;

discourse democracy 4, 5, 7, 8, 28, 31, 39, 48,

71–6, 83, 96, 127–8, 142 defined 71 deliberation 38, 41, 135 direct 3, 13, 25, 37 fear of 88 Greek 4, 11, 12, 25, 90 group rights and 71–6liberal ix, 27, 127 local ix majority 63 representative 32, 33–4, 36–7,

40, 41 republican 33–4, 38–9, 74 Roman 25 simple 111 slavery and 25 society 34 truth 35 tyranny 20, 90 see also elections; popular assembly

Democratic Party 105, 117 Desmoulins, Camille 16, 23 despotism 48, 63, 121, 125, 127, 135

see also domination; tyranny

Index 193

discourse 62–70, 90 private see private discourse public see public discourse republican see republican

discourse see also deliberation

discretion 40 diversity 88

see also pluralism domination 1, 6, 9, 15, 145

see also tyranny dominium see domination Dred Scott v. Sanford 72due process of law 4

Eastern Europe viii elections viii, 2, 3, 11, 13, 17, 29,

32, 33, 96, 97, 123, 131, 145 see also democracy

empire 130, 132 see also Britain, Empire; imperium

emperors 113 England 1, 26, 77–9, 139

Civil War 7, 17, 18, 47 Commonwealth 7, 17, 18, 42, 44,

46, 77, 100 legal culture 42 liberalism 78–9, 85 mixed government 22 republic 17, 22 see also Glorious Revolution

Enlightenment, the 2 epistemology 87 equal concern and respect x equal rights see rights, equal equality

civic 3 of possessions 6 Spartan 4 under law 121 see also Fourteenth Amendment

ethnicity 68, 74, 75, 112, 113, 131 Europe 2

Eastern see Eastern Europe Western see Western Europe

exclusion 67 executive viii, 38, 114, 145

veto 3 see also magistrates

experts 113

faction 2, 21, 47, 66, 67, 110 family 68, 74 federalism 30–1, 71, 74–5, 110, 119,

120, 125–6, 140 see also republican federalism

Federalist, The 3, 8, 21, 72, 106, 109see also Hamilton, Alexander;

Jay, John; Madison, James; “Publius”

fidelity 112 Filmer, Sir Robert 80, 94

liberty 94 Fink, Zera 8 Finland 133 Flower, Harriet x Fourteenth Amendment 4, 114,

115, 116 France 1, 26, 135, 139, 140

bicameralism 24 checks and balances 24 corrupt 22, 24 liberals 24, 80 liberty 25 republicanism 12, 16–25, 42 revolution 2, 5, 8, 15, 16–25, 27,

77, 83, 92, 105, 120 Third Republic 8 unicameralism 4, 8, 24 virtue 18, 22

Frank, Donna x Franklin, Benjamin 18, 116

Galba see Sulpicius Galba, Servius general will see public will Geneva 4 George I 22, 79 George III 122 Gianotti, Donato 14, 17 Glorious Revolution 5, 7, 18, 46,

47, 104 good, conceptions of 32, 34, 37,

73, 89, 91, 92 Gordon, Thomas 7, 9, 17, 46, 79

see also Cato’s Lettersgovernment

mixed see mixed government purpose of x, 1 republican see republican form of

government Gray, Christopher x

194 Index

Greece democracy see democracy, Greek slavery 25 unicameralism 11

greed 64 Grotius, Hugo 120, 124, 135 group rights see rights, group Guarantee Clause 8, 20, 30, 95, 106,

110, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 128, 144

see also republican form of government

Habermas, Jürgen 9 Hamilton, Alexander 8, 16, 21, 106,

107, 109 federalism 106, 107 judges 13 representation 13, 106 separation of powers 13, 106 see also Federalist, The; “Publius”

happiness x, 64 harm 93, 142, 145

see also Mill, John Stuart harmony 88, 100, 121

see also Tullius Cicero, Marcus, harmony

Harrington, James 2, 4, 10, 11, 17, 45–6, 77, 111–12

Commonwealth of Oceana 3, 7 democracy 12 representation 13 senate 12 sovereignty of law 14, 29, 84

Hart, H.L.A. 42, 58, 85 hegemony 130 historians 8, 102–5, 143–4

bad 103–4history ix, 99–101, 143 Hoadly, Benjamin 46 Hobbes, Thomas 9, 17, 42, 44, 45,

46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 81, 84, 92, 124

checks and balances 18 Cicero 17 good 44, 51 justice 44 liberty 81–2monarchy 44 power 49 sovereignty 49

human nature 22, 28, 29, 31, 64, 69, 92, 96, 104, 109, 127, 138, 145

human rights see rights, human Hume, David 46 humility 34–5, 41, 65, 91, 121

impartiality 18, 75, 119 see also objectivity; republican

impartiality imperialism 130 imperium 15 imperium legum 14, 29

see also sovereignty, of the laws imperium populi 11, 71, 121, 125, 129, 131

see also popular sovereignty incivility 62 independence 78, 122, 123 individual rights see rights, individual individualism 74, 90 injustice 44 Inquisition 73 insincerity 66 interest groups 5

see also private interests; res privataInternational Court of Justice 136, 137 International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights 123, 128, 132, 137 International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights 123, 128, 132

international law 120–38, 144 purposes of 129

international organizations 135–8legitimacy 135–8

Interregnum 46 see also England; Commonwealth

intolerance 69 intuition 35, 37, 40 Italy 1, 17, 26, 77, 139

Jackson, Andrew 29 James I 79 James II 124 Jay, John 159

see also Federalist, The; “Publius”Jones, Barbara x Joy, Gloria x judiciary 90, 102, 114

independent viii, 29, 31, 137 quam diu se bene gesserint 117

Index 195

Julius Caesar, Gaius 6, 14, 16, 17, 29, 46, 78

Julius Caesar Octavianus, Gaius 5, 6, 16, 17

Junius Brutus, Lucius 9, 17 jurisdiction 51, 52–3justice viii, ix, x, 1, 2, 9, 28, 31, 32, 38,

44, 46, 51, 63, 72, 93, 121, 138 search for 73–4

justification 33, 37, 59, 60

Kahlert, Martha x Kant, Immanuel 2, 30, 83, 122,

123, 138 democracy 121 federalism 30, 120, 125–6, 138 peace 138 representation 121 republicanism 30, 120, 121–2rights 123 separation of powers 121 small republics 128 Zum ewigen Frieden 4

kings 3, 8, 16, 19, 73, 92 see also monarchy

law ix, 39–40, 143, 145 command theory 44, 45, 47–8, 50 comparative 99–101constitutional 2 defined 139 due process of see due process of law equal protection of the 4, 10, 14 essence of 31 impartial 18 international 120–38liberalism and 77–95liberty and 15 morality 46, 48, 51–2, 56–7, 61 natural 4, 14, 51, 84 obligation to obey 40, 42, 48, 50–1,

53–4, 60, 139 positive 94; see also positivism purpose of ix, 1, 138, 139 republicanism and 77–95rule of see rule of law sovereignty of see sovereignty of

the laws validity of 54, 56–61

lawyers x, 2, 8, 99, 103

legal systems 145 see also republican legal systems

legislators 2 see also legislature

legislature structure 96–8 see also bicameralism; legislature;

senate; Rome, popular assemblies legitimacy 1 liberalism ix, 4, 5, 9, 14, 26–7, 31,

77–95, 142–3defined 34, 78–9democracy and see democracy, liberal modern 89, 90 political 86–8republicanism and 77–95

liberation ix, 73 liberty viii, ix, x, 1, 2, 9–10, 27,

92, 99–101, 140, 143 defined 7, 9, 10, 71, 79–80, 82,

99–100, 139, 145 fundamental requirements 10 law and 15, 95 liberal 79 negative 81–2positive 82–4, 90, 128 see also republican liberty; Rome liberty

license 9, 81, 82, 84, 92, 94, 100, 143 defined 27, 80

Lincoln, Abraham 2, 105, 117 Livius, Titus 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21,

25, 77, 121 elections 17 liberty 17, 84 sovereignty of law 14, 17, 18, 29

Locke, John 46, 79, 81, 83, 93, 104, 105 law 84 liberty 80, 84 license 94

Long Parliament 78 Louis XVI 22 Louis XVIII 79 Luther v. Borden 116 Lycurgus 4, 18

Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de 12, 21 Macchiavelli, Niccolò 2, 4, 7, 8, 77

Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio 3, 7

people 11

196 Index

Madison, James 3, 8, 16, 21, 77, 106, 109, 126

checks and balances 23 common good 71 democracy 13, 20, 71 representation 13, 20, 110 republic 20, 71 rule of law 29 see also Federalist, The; “Publius”

magistrates 2, 3, 40, 134 elected 3 magistratus est lex loquens 134see also executive

Massachusetts Commonwealth of 19 Constitution 19, 117

Michelman, Frank 89, 90 Mill, John Stuart 79, 80, 83,

87, 93 harm principle 80, 82

Milton, John 46 minorities 76, 97, 131–3, 142 mixed government 3, 7, 10, 18, 79

see also republican checks and balances

monarchy 3, 5, 7, 17, 44, 124 constitutional 78 see also kings

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de 2, 3, 4, 24, 83, 109

Causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence 8

checks and balances 23 De l’esprit des lois 3, 8, 21 large republics 18, 22–3law 84 liberty 84 representation 13 senate 12 small republics 21, 72, 128

morality 45, 46, 48, 50, 51–2, 58, 84 see also intuition; validity, moral

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 83 multiculturalism 126

Nagel, Thomas 33–4, 36 nationalism 30, 31, 126–8nations 130, 132, 138

defined 130

natural law see law, natural Netherlands 7, 17, 100, 124, 125, 139 Nicolet, Claude 8 North America viii, 2

objectivity 5 see also impartiality

O’Flaherty, Luciana x oligarchy 63 oppression x, 5, 9, 84, 93, 97, 105 Oregon 115 originalism viii outrage 66–7

Paine, Thomas 14, 16, 106, 107 Common Sense 22representation 32, 106 res publica 32, 106

peace 4, 122, 138 Peale, Charles Willson 23 Penn, William 18 Pennsylvania 100

Commonwealth of 17 Constitution 18, 107 Republican Society 18 unicameralism 18, 107

people ix, 5, 11, 26, 71, 72, 132 assembly see popular assembly authority see authority, of the people defined 26, 130 of Rome 6 sovereignty see imperium populi;

popular sovereignty see also common good; democracy

peoples 127, 129–31, 138 Pettit, Philip x Philip II 124 Pitt, William 23 Plato vi, 1, 7

common good 10 democracy 10

plebiscites 4, 24, 115, 119 Plessy v. Ferguson 112, 113 pluralism 5, 27, 34–5, 73, 81, 84, 87,

89, 90, 121 contested 91 see also diversity

Plutarchus, L. Mestrius 3, 7, 18 Pocock, J.G.A. 8, 89 politics viii, 86–8

Index 197

Polybius 1, 2, 4, 7, 23, 77 book six 20 mixed government 20

Pope, Alexander 106, 107 popular assembly viii, 1, 3, 20 popular sovereignty viii, 1, 3, 5,

10–11, 13, 27, 28, 31, 72, 73, 79, 111, 121–2, 140–1, 145

defined 28 see also imperium populi

Porcius Cato, Marcus 25, 100 positivism 42–3, 44, 45, 47–8, 49, 50,

51, 52, 53, 84, 85, 102, 135 mistaken 54, 55

power 49, 55, 69, 89 see also separation of powers

Price, Richard 10 privacy 74, 86 private discourse 67

defined 62 private interests 4, 5, 17, 29, 32, 45,

62, 63, 89, 90, 121 see also interest groups; res privata

private will 1, 6, 9 pseudonyms see republican

pseudonyms public discourse 9, 62–70, 142

defined 62 ideals 63 see also deliberation; reason

public good see common good public reason see reason, public public will 5, 12, 14 “Publius” 3, 16, 19, 106

see also Federalist, The; Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James

Quinctius Cincinnatus, Lucius 25

race 68, 74, 75, 113, 115, 132 Rawls, John 9, 33–4, 36, 86–7, 89

original position 89, 92 Raz, Joseph 42, 49–50, 58

pre-emption thesis 52 sources thesis 58

Reagan, Ronald viii, 91 reason 27, 34, 35, 39, 49, 84, 85,

108, 118, 145 public 88–9see also public discourse

reasonable 87, 88–9, 92 Reformation 46 relativism 86 religion 68, 74, 75, 92, 113 Renouvier, Charles 2 representation 3, 4, 5, 6, 12–13,

29, 33–4, 37–8, 71, 97, 111, 121, 140

virtual, 90 see also democracy, representative

republic vi, viii, 6–7, 64–5definition of 7, 43–4, 52, 64–5, 109 federal 71 large 13, 18, 126 small 4, 21, 30, 72, 124, 125, 128 see also res publica; Rome, republic

republican authority 42–55, 141 defined 43, 54–5

republican checks and balances viii, ix, x, 3, 5, 7, 9, 17, 20, 23, 29, 110–11, 140, 145

see also mixed government; separation of powers

republican constitution see republican form of government

republican discourse 64, 90 republican doctrine viii, ix, 120 republican federalism 74–5, 134 republican form of government x, 1,

4, 7, 9, 10, 20, 26, 109–12 fundamental requirements viii, 3,

6, 15, 25, 78, 112, 118–19, 139, 145

purpose of 14, 72 United States 106–19 see also Guarantee Clause

republican impartiality 32–41, 64–5, 141 republican legal systems 26–31, 140

defined 26, 31 republican legal theory viii, ix, x, 1, 2,

5, 14–15, 26, 120, 139, 144–5origins of 6–15

republican liberty 3, 6, 9, 16, 25 defined 16, 25, 26, 27, 77, 79 see also liberty

Republican Party 4, 105, 117 republican political philosophy 8 republican principles viii, ix, 1, 112,

119, 121–2, 131–2, 144 in international law 120–38, 144

198 Index

republican pseudonyms 19 republican revival 8–9, 89–91republican revolutions 16–25 Republican Society 18 republican tradition 7–8republican virtue viii, 3, 4, 5, 22 republicanism 33, 77–95, 121–2

American 4, 106–19defined 77–8French 4, 16–25law and 77–95liberal 91, 94 liberalism and 77–95United States 16–25, 106–19

res privata 2, 27, 64, 81 see also private interests

res publica 2, 6, 14, 16, 17–18, 26, 27, 32, 62, 79, 81, 96, 100, 139, 145

see also common good; republic revolution 104–5

see also France, revolution; Glorious Revolution; republican revolutions; United States of America

Rhode Island 115 rights 54, 80–1

civil 128–9, 132, 145 economic 128, 129 equal viii, 133 fundamental 115, 122, 132, 133, 134 group 71–6human 27, 115, 122, 126–7, 128–9,

132, 133, 134 inalienable x, 51 individual viii, 79 international 31 natural 47, 132 political 128–9, 145 universal 133 see also African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; United States of America, Bill of Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Robbins, Caroline 8 Robespierre, Maximilien 4, 21, 24 Rollin, Charles 23

Rome 1, 14, 118, 139 bicameralism 11 citizens 71 constitution 6 consuls 20 kings 16 liberty 9, 16, 23, 46, 71 people 6, 71 popular assemblies 20, 23 popular sovereignty 28 republic 11, 16, 46, 71, 77, 140 senate 11, 20 tyranny 5

rotation in office 3 see also elections

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 2, 3–4, 21–2, 24, 77

common good 21 democracy 21 Du contrat social 4, 8, 21 general will 21 large republics 22–3magistrates 22 monarchy 22 people 12, 25 popular sovereignty 21, 23 representation 13, 21 rule of law 13, 21, 29 senate 12 slavery 23 small republics 21, 128 Sparta 23 virtue 21

rudeness 62, 69 rule of law viii, ix, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13–14,

17, 31, 40, 96, 111 defined 29, 60

Rush, Benjamin 11, 13

sadism 64 Sallustius Crispus, C. 3, 7, 25

corruption 18 Sandel, Michael 9 San Marino 12 Schonsheck, Jonathan x secession 132 self-determination 122–3, 131, 132,

133, 134, 138 self government 90 self-righteousness 62, 69

Index 199

Sellers, Cora Mary Stead x Sellers, Frances Mary Stead x Sellers, Nicholas v, x senate 2, 3, 11–12, 111

authority see authority, of the senate deliberative viii, 1

separation of powers 6, 28–9, 31, 110 see also republican checks and balances

Sidney, Algernon 2, 4, 10, 46, 77 democracy 12 Discourses Concerning Government 3,

7, 9 law 84 liberty 9, 84 mixed government 12 people 12 representation 13 rule of law 29 senate 12 slavery 9

sincerity 66 Skinner, Quentin 8 Slaughterhouse Cases 102, 114 slavery 4, 18, 23, 47, 105, 116, 124

defined 9 social change 102–5social stability 102–3South America viii South Carolina 116 sovereignty 44, 47, 49, 52, 122,

123–5, 127 of the laws, 10; see also imperium legum of the people, see popular sovereignty;

see also imperium populiSparta 4, 10, 18, 23, 24 Spinoza, Baruch 83 states 122, 123–4, 130

defined 130 equality 123, 133–4independence 123, 124 legitimacy 131

stoicism 84 Sulpicius Galba, Servius 18 Sunstein, Cass 89, 91 Switzerland 7, 100, 125, 139

Tacitus, Cornelius 3, 7, 17, 18, 24, 25 Tarquinius Superbus 16 Terror 4, 21 toleration 27, 68–9, 87, 92

Trenchard, John 7, 9, 17, 46, 79 see also Cato’s Letters

tribes 68 truth ix, 28, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40–1, 50,

55, 60, 86, 87, 145 avoided 92 perceptions of 34–5, 37, 38, 65 search for v, 28, 32, 66, 88 self-evident 35–6

Tullius Cicero, Marcus vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 25, 46, 77, 81, 100, 107, 108, 109, 118, 120, 139, 140

Aristotle and 10 Catilinam 2checks and balances 19, 108 common good vi, 10, 14, 19 de legibus 2, 10 democracy 12 de officiis vi, 2 de re publica 2, 7, 10, 19 harmony 19, 83 imperium populi 11, 121 law 84 liberty 84 people 11, 12, 26 Philippicae 2Plato vi, 10 pro Flacco 12public will 14 republican government 19 senate 12 tyranny 5 utility vi virtue 11

Turgot, Anne Robert Jacques 12, 13, 21 unicameralism 21

tyranny x, 5, 6, 10, 20, 78, 82, 132, 139 see also despotism; domination

unicameralism 4, 8, 12, 21, 97 Union of the Soviet Socialist

Republics 130 United Nations 129, 133

Charter 122, 123, 128, 130, 134, 135 Economic and Social Council 136–7General Assembly 123, 133, 136,

137Secretariat 136, 137 Security Council 136 Trusteeship Council 136, 137

200 Index

United States of America 26, 125, 133, 135, 140

Bill of Rights 80, 115 citizenship 4, 72, 116 Civil War 4, 21, 80, 102, 117, 134 Congress 108, 113, 114 Constitution viii, 4, 8, 9, 20, 72, 74,

89, 95, 99, 101, 109, 112, 126, 136, 143, 144; see also due process of law; Fourteenth Amendment; Guarantee Clause

Constitutional Convention 20, 107 Declaration of Independence 122 federalism 30, 74, 75, 109–10,

114, 119 House of Representatives 20, 118 liberty 25, 99, 128 people 16, 112 President 20 representation 119 republicanism of 16–25, 42, 106–19,

144 revolution 2, 5, 8, 16–25, 100, 101,

104, 120 Senate 16, 20, 118, 136 slavery 25, 119 Supreme Court 89, 90, 117

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 123, 128, 132

utility vi, 47, 82, 145 see also common good

uti possidetis juris 130

Valerius Publicola, Publius 16 validation paradox 56, 61

defined 58, 141

validity 56–61 actual 56, 58–9, 60–1, 141–2defined 56 legal 56, 58–60, 61, 88 moral 56–7, 59, 61, 120, 133 paradox 56, 57, 61, 141 systemic 58 see also law

Valley Forge 100 Vattel, Emmerich de 120, 122, 123–4, 135 veto 3 Vindiciae contra tyrannos 46 Virginia

Commonwealth 80 Declaration of Rights 80

virtue 2, 11, 140, 145 civic 89 see also republican virtue

Voltaire, François Marie Arouet de 23

Waldron, Jeremy x Washington, George 9, 16, 77, 99, 100,

101, 115–16, 143 Western Europe viii will 81

general see public will private see private will public see public will

William III 79, 124 Wilson, Woodrow 122 Wolff, Christian 30, 120 Wood, Gordon 8, 89 World War I 122 World War II 80

Zoethout, Carla x