← CatalogInternational · Book or treatise
The Law of Nations
The 1863 Philadelphia English edition, edited by Joseph Chitty, with additional notes by Edward D. Ingraham. Checked passages concern diplomatic protection and inviolability; the public page map identifies the cited top pagination.
Requested text available. Collection target: Philadelphia 1863 English edition, from Joseph Chitty’s edition, with additional notes and references by Edward D. Ingraham
The Law of Nations
Emer de Vattel · 1863
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (Joseph Chitty ed., Phila., T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1863)
Trent University Library; digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with Kahle/Austin Foundation funding. No missing numbered content detected. This edition has multiple pagination systems; only checked top-page labels are used for automatic printed-page navigation.
Open reader → Download this PDF
Source repository ↗
Use in constitutional interpretation
Robert H. Bork · Opinion of the court
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1455–56 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Finzer uses Vattel’s account of diplomatic inviolability and the host sovereign’s protective duties in its historical analysis. Section 82 also addresses ignorance of diplomatic status and self-defense against an aggressor. Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318, 329–34 (1988). The display prohibition was invalidated; the narrowed congregation clause survived.
Later Supreme Court review: Boos v. Barry ↗
Read printed 464–65 →
Robert H. Bork · Opinion of the court
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Finzer invokes the respect due to ambassadors and punishment for insults. The paragraph continues with the case of a minister who is the aggressor; the serious/severe wording variance remains unresolved against the printed reporter. Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318, 329–34 (1988). The display prohibition was invalidated; the narrowed congregation clause survived.
Later Supreme Court review: Boos v. Barry ↗
Read printed 463–64 →
Finzer’s pinpoints use the top printed page numbers. Top pages 463–465 correspond to bottom pages 583–585 and PDF pages 589–591.
The book is an English translation, but the title page does not identify the translator.
The underlying passage is verified; exact Finzer quotation fidelity remains qualified because the historical scan reads “very serious difficulties,” while two accessible Finzer transcriptions read “very severe difficulties.”
The wording difference remains unresolved because a printed reporter facsimile was not available for comparison.
Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988). Its display prohibition did not survive Supreme Court review.
The 1852 preface in this 1863 edition identifies the original French work as published in 1758. The English translator is unnamed; Chitty is credited as editor, and Ingraham supplied additional notes.
