New Worlds and Th eir Challenges 101Pagans as Sovereigns
Since natural law applied to all members of the human race (and even to the
entire animal kingdom, in Ulpian’s version), there was no doubt that non-
Christians were fully entitled to be own ers of private property. More prob-
lematic was whether they had a right to exercise rulership, particularly over
Christian subjects. Th ere was a powerful strain of thought in Western Eu-
rope to the eff ect that pagans could not possess title to lands. Th is was the
opinion of Hostiensis (also known as Henry of Segusio), who taught canon
law at the University of Paris during the thirteenth century. In 1253, he con-
tended that, “with the advent of Christ all offi ces and princely ranks... have
with just cause been withdrawn from all heathen and transferred to Chris-
tians.” Giles of Rome, who was archbishop of Bourges and a follower of
Th omas Aquinas, insisted, in this same vein, that a person cannot be “the
lord of anything or... possess anything with justice unless he is also spiri-
tually regenerated through the Church.” Aquinas himself held a somewhat
more moderate stance: that, if sovereignty by an infi del ruler over Chris-
tians was “an established fact,” then it could be allowed to continue— but
that it was subject to revocation by the church at any time. Th e reason, he
explained, was that “infi dels by their infi delity deserve to forfeit power over
the faithful.”
But this position did not, in the event, win offi cial favor. Th e decisive con-
tribution to the debate was made in 1243 by Pope Innocent IV (Frederick
II’s nemesis). Invoking natural law, he pronounced that “[d]ominions, pos-
sessions and jurisdictions are lawful and blameless among the infi dels, for
these were created not only for the faithful, but for all rational creatures.”
Pagan princes even had a lawful right to rule over territories that had been
conquered from prior Christian rulers— with the notable exception (as will
be seen) of the Holy Land in the Middle East. Th is natural- law right to po liti cal
dominion was likened, in its universality, to sunshine, which warmed per-
sons of all faiths and cultures alike. For these views, there could be a case for
crowning Innocent IV with the contested title of father of international law.
Th e logical implication of Innocent’s position was immediately apparent.
In order for wars against pagans and infi dels to be lawful, they would have
to be brought within the framework of general just-war doctrine, or else
some kind of alternative justifi cation outside that framework would have to