Disputatio:Tribunal internationale Hagense
Nomen[fontem recensere]
Fortasse melius Iudicium inter Gentes ? Secundum Cassell's, ius gentium videtur = 'international law'. IacobusAmor 16:02, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Copied from 1000 paginae[fontem recensere]
Tribunal Internationale (from our Consociatio Nationum page)-Rafaelgarcia
- Internationalis, -e, doesn't seem to be a classical word; at least it's not in Cassell's. What can it mean, other than (as we can extrapolate from the definition of natio in Cassell's) 'among the tribes, races, peoples, esp. uncivilized'? IacobusAmor 17:41, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that "internationalis" is not a classical word, but in classical times there was no international law in the sense we have today. The only nation equal to Rome was Persia, and they were in a perpetual state of war. Cassell and many others are completely wrong about their advice on the word "natio". Their point of view is absolutely contradicted in stone by the arch in Rome named the "Porticus ad Nationes", described in our Nationes Mundi page:
- "Nationes autem dicebant specialiter qui extra Imperium vivebant, sicut Germani, vel qui olim civitatem suam habuerunt. Cicero qui appellabat Germanos, Gallos, Africanos et Hispanos "immanes ac barbarae nationes", ait "Omnes nationes servitutem ferre possunt, nostra civitas non potest."....Romanis quidem vocabulum natio idem significabat ut nobis hodie, quod demonstrat "Porticus ad Nationes" a Augusto factus, sic nominatus, qui habebat quattuordecim simulacra omnes nationes cognitas repraesentantia."
- Cicero etc., for all their virtues, were obviously very bigotted people and severly prejudiced against the cultures of nations outside the empire, which they thought low and unworthy of respect. We obviously should not enshrine their bigotted point of view here.
- The modern concept of nation as a state came from the nationalist movement in the 17 and 18 century, which saw the redrawing of boundaries according to national characteristics: This same movement saw the demise of latin as an international language, in favor of "national languages". In response, there was a classification of res publicae according to their status: status civitatis (composed of many nations or a subset of a nation like the Vatican); status nationis (when a state was composed of a single cultural group or nation); status imperii (composed of many nations); status gentis (state of a people (literally clan) which had never sought or had had an independent state of their own)...--Rafaelgarcia 18:32, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- De: "the nationalist movement in the 17 and 18 century, which saw the redrawing of boundaries according to national characteristics"—yet it can fairly be argued that such a movement was at its heart a racist movement, its "nation" being the political creation of a "folk," a homogeneous body of people related by birth (ex natio 'a being born'). It led to a Germany (and in varying degrees to other European entities) in which Jews, for example, were unwelcome because they were born apart, outside the nation, as it were. ¶ A quick reading of the entry on nation in the OED suggests that the idea that a nation is not fairly close in sense to that of a race (a people) must be a quite recent development, perhaps (one speculates) influenced by the growth of "nations" of immigrants from all over, as seen especially in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, etc. ¶ The usual translation of Haggai 2:7 (2:8) is something like "And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in" (RSV). The Vulgate version of that is "Et movebo omnes gentes, et veniet Desideratus cunctis gentibus." ¶ Cassell's says to translate the political senses of English 'nation' as civitas when it means 'body of citizens' and respublica when it means 'state', leaving for other senses populus, gens ("people, stock"), and natio ("tribe, not highly civilized"). How do the Six Nations fit in here? If they're Sex Nationes, will Cicero's & Jerome's shades think less of them than if they're Sex Civitates or Sex Respublicae ? IacobusAmor 19:32, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at the etymology gens is as racial a concept as natio, since both are centered on pedigree: gens (~genus)=tribe/clan; natio="a race of people, nation, people". So indeed, nationalism is in many respects a racist idea. Nationalism is using religious, historical, and cultural differences to justify the drawing of national boundaries, the premise being that cultural differences in religion, language and culture determine what system of government and laws ought to apply.
- The Jews are a natio, according to the latin concept of natio, since they were once an independent republic. During the 1930's, accoriding to late latin politcal terminology, they would have been classed as a natio sine statu (stateless nation).
- However, my point pertained to the advice given by Casell's and others that "natio" should not be taken to translate nation because it is a derogatory term. The derogatory nature is based on the bigoted sentiments of Cicero and other upper class classical Romans; and thus ought to be dismissed: Hispania, Gallia, et Britannia are among those nationes thought so lowly of, but are obviously what we call nations today.
- Indeed yes, Cicero would think "less" of "sex nationes" (six nations/tribes from outside the empire) versus "sex gentes" (six clans/races from within the empire), "sex civitates" (six citizenships; he would have trouble understanding this as "six states"),
- I don't see why. See Caesar below. IacobusAmor 01:23, 29 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- and sex res publicas ( six types or generations of government; again would have trouble understanding this since there was only one republic at a time). But what he or Caesar "felt" about them status-wise is beside the point. The point is what they are existentially.--Rafaelgarcia 20:08, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- De: "Hispania, Gallia, et Britannia are among those nationes thought so lowly of, but are obviously what we call nations today."—Were they really considered nationes in Classical times? Germania clearly wasn't, at least by Tacitus, as we see in this passage: "nunc singularum gentium instituta ritusque, quatenus differant, quaeque nationes e Germania in Gallias commigraverunt, expediam 'I shall now set forth the habits and customs of the several races, and the extent to which they differ from each other; and explain what tribes have migrated from Germany to the Gallic provinces'" (Germania, 27, in the Loeb edition). IacobusAmor 22:01, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed Gens was used as a polite term for natio very often. Strictly speakig however, nationes were people outside the empire; gentes were people inside; and nationes naturally became gentes as they became integrated. So Germans, Spaniards, etc., as they became citizens were no longer considered nationes, at least not unless you wanted to insult them. Since within the empire, the gens was considered the general term for a distinct civilized people, there was "ius gentium" that governed the legal relations among non-citizens within the empire. IF a non citizen committed a crime against another noncitizen he was subject to the ius gentium, not the ius civile. Thus, today (by extension) we have "ius gentium"= international law, considered to be the law that binds all peoples not just within the empire but everywhere. --Rafaelgarcia 22:22, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that, for modern notions of statehood (nationhood), we shouldn't be sticking with civitas, as in this passage from Caesar's Gallic War: Tamen Senones, quae est civitas in primis firma et magnae inter Gallos auctoritatis 'The Senones, however, a state of prominent power and great authority among the Gauls' (5.54, Loeb translation, emphasis added). IacobusAmor 01:23, 29 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that in modern usage civitas should be used for state. There is no problem because the civitas/state/citizenship in the modern sense happens to be tied to the idea of a pagus or geographical administrative area. However, this linking to geographical area is not present in classical latin; and more importantly the idea of state is not the same as the idea of nation, even in english.
- In english as in latin, nation does not primarily mean state. A nation (natio) in the primary sense is a group of people of common culture and heritage, independent of citizenship or geographical location. Although nations are typically named after location (galli, hispani, germani), the idea of natio is not tied to geography, certainly not in classical latin. Only in the sense of the modern "nation state" is a nation defined by borders that lie along cultural and language distributions; and this is what is meant by a the latin phrase status nationis: res publica statu nationis = a commonwealth (region and government) with the status of a nation.
- As to my point about civitas not meaning state in the primary sense, if you read about the Roman law and how it evolved in the later stages of the empire, you will see what I mean. Classically, Civitas = citizenship and only secondarily is construed to mean state in the modern sense. The notion of civitas was not associated with a border, the way we associate it today with the concept of state or country. In a single given region, there could be more than one civitas of overlapping authority. Roman legal custom was to try a person for his crimes according to the civitas of the victim, not geographical location. Totally different laws applied to crimes committed in the same geographical area, depending on who committed the crime and to whom. This was true even inside the city of Rome. You would actually go before a different judge and different legal procedures and rights applied. All of which caused an incredible legal mess.
- As a result of it being the Roman empire after all, however, Roman citizens were offered additional legal protections in the Ius civile, that a citizen could appeal to if convicted on certain charges in another court.
- I tried to smmarize the evolution of the civitas notion on our page nationes mundi page, although I haven't provided references so I am to blame. After the empire, and towards the middle ages as feudalism died, the meaning of natio and civitas became more tied to geography and specific borders. But even as late as Hobbes, you can see the original Roman notion of civitas in mind. As kings gained in power over local lords, nation states (countries with the state of being considered a nation =the status nationis) came about, along side some countries that merely had status civitatis, along side others that had status imperii.--Rafaelgarcia 02:30, 29 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that, for modern notions of statehood (nationhood), we shouldn't be sticking with civitas, as in this passage from Caesar's Gallic War: Tamen Senones, quae est civitas in primis firma et magnae inter Gallos auctoritatis 'The Senones, however, a state of prominent power and great authority among the Gauls' (5.54, Loeb translation, emphasis added). IacobusAmor 01:23, 29 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed Gens was used as a polite term for natio very often. Strictly speakig however, nationes were people outside the empire; gentes were people inside; and nationes naturally became gentes as they became integrated. So Germans, Spaniards, etc., as they became citizens were no longer considered nationes, at least not unless you wanted to insult them. Since within the empire, the gens was considered the general term for a distinct civilized people, there was "ius gentium" that governed the legal relations among non-citizens within the empire. IF a non citizen committed a crime against another noncitizen he was subject to the ius gentium, not the ius civile. Thus, today (by extension) we have "ius gentium"= international law, considered to be the law that binds all peoples not just within the empire but everywhere. --Rafaelgarcia 22:22, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- De: "Hispania, Gallia, et Britannia are among those nationes thought so lowly of, but are obviously what we call nations today."—Were they really considered nationes in Classical times? Germania clearly wasn't, at least by Tacitus, as we see in this passage: "nunc singularum gentium instituta ritusque, quatenus differant, quaeque nationes e Germania in Gallias commigraverunt, expediam 'I shall now set forth the habits and customs of the several races, and the extent to which they differ from each other; and explain what tribes have migrated from Germany to the Gallic provinces'" (Germania, 27, in the Loeb edition). IacobusAmor 22:01, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- De: "the nationalist movement in the 17 and 18 century, which saw the redrawing of boundaries according to national characteristics"—yet it can fairly be argued that such a movement was at its heart a racist movement, its "nation" being the political creation of a "folk," a homogeneous body of people related by birth (ex natio 'a being born'). It led to a Germany (and in varying degrees to other European entities) in which Jews, for example, were unwelcome because they were born apart, outside the nation, as it were. ¶ A quick reading of the entry on nation in the OED suggests that the idea that a nation is not fairly close in sense to that of a race (a people) must be a quite recent development, perhaps (one speculates) influenced by the growth of "nations" of immigrants from all over, as seen especially in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, etc. ¶ The usual translation of Haggai 2:7 (2:8) is something like "And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in" (RSV). The Vulgate version of that is "Et movebo omnes gentes, et veniet Desideratus cunctis gentibus." ¶ Cassell's says to translate the political senses of English 'nation' as civitas when it means 'body of citizens' and respublica when it means 'state', leaving for other senses populus, gens ("people, stock"), and natio ("tribe, not highly civilized"). How do the Six Nations fit in here? If they're Sex Nationes, will Cicero's & Jerome's shades think less of them than if they're Sex Civitates or Sex Respublicae ? IacobusAmor 19:32, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that "internationalis" is not a classical word, but in classical times there was no international law in the sense we have today. The only nation equal to Rome was Persia, and they were in a perpetual state of war. Cassell and many others are completely wrong about their advice on the word "natio". Their point of view is absolutely contradicted in stone by the arch in Rome named the "Porticus ad Nationes", described in our Nationes Mundi page: