Bibliographic Essay 579butions of Zouche (164– 67), Rachel (172– 74), and Moser (175– 79). Also on Moser, see
Cavallar, Imperfect Cosmopolis, 93– 96; Mack Walker, Johann Jakob Moser and the
Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (University of North Carolina Press, 1981),
337– 42; Toyoda, Th eory and Politics, 149– 60; and Albert Leschhorn, Johann Jakob
Moser und die Eidgenossenschaft (Juris, 1965), 44– 49. Martens is outstandingly ne-
glected. But see Nussbaum, Concise History, 179– 85; and Martti Koskenniemi, “On
International Legal Positivism— Georg Friedrich von Martens’ (1756– 1821) Infl uence
on International Law” (Göttingen, 2005; available on the internet, at www .helsinki .fi /
eci /Publications /Koskenniemi).
Vattel has only very recently begun to receive a degree of scholarly attention compa-
rable to the infl uence that he had. For important steps in this direction, see Emmanu-
elle Jouannet, L’ émergence doctrinale du droit international classique: Emer de Vattel et
l’école de droit de la nature et des gens (Pedone, 1998); and Vincent Chetail and Peter
Haggenmacher (eds.), Vattel’s International Law in a XXIst Century Perspective (Mar-
tinus Nijhoff , 2011). For an older contribution that can still be read with great profi t, see
Charles G. Fenwick, “Th e Authority of Vattel,” 7 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 395– 410 (1913) and
8 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 375– 92 (1914). See also Andrew Hurrell, “Vattel: Pluralism and Its
Limits,” in Clark and Neumann (eds.), Classical Th eories, 233– 55. Isaac Nakhimovsky,
“Vattel’s Th eory of the International Order: Commerce and the Balance of Power in the
Law of Nations,” 33 History of Eu ro pe an Ideas 157– 73 (2007) stresses Vattel’s intellec-
tual debt to Wolff. For a brief survey of Vattel’s overall contribution to international
law, see Nussbaum, Concise History, 156– 64. On Vattel’s views on sovereignty issues,
see Toyoda Tesuya, “La doctrine vattelienne de l’égalité souveraine dans le context
neuchâtelois,” 11 JHIL 103– 24 (2009); and Toyoda, Th eory and Politics, 161– 90. On Vat-
tel and neutrality, see Stefan Oeter, “Neutrality and Alliances,” in Chetail and Haggen-
macher (eds.), Va t t e l ’s In t e r n a t i o n a l L aw, 336– 47. On Vattel and the law of war, see
Stephen C. Neff , “Vattel and the Laws of War: A Tale of Th ree Circles,” in Chetail and
Haggenmacher (eds.), Va t t e l ’s In t e r n a t i o n a l L aw, 317– 33. On his impact in the United
States in the early postin de pen dence period, see Brian Richardson, “Th e Use of Vattel
in the American Law of Nations,” 106 AJIL 547– 71 (2012), 548– 60.
On international law issues and debates in the newly emerged United States, see
Daniel G. Lang, Foreign Policy in the Early Republic: Th e Law of Nations and the Bal-
ance of Power (Louisiana State University Press, 1985). In the area of neutrality, the
new country was especially active. See Charles S. Hyneman, Th e First American Neu-
trality: A Study of the American Understanding of Neutral Obligations during the Years
1792 to 1815 (University of Illinois Press, 1934); and Charles Marion Th omas, Ameri-
can Neutrality in 1793: A Study in Cabinet Government (Columbia University Press,
1931). For detailed information on legal disputes between the United States and Brit-
ain leading up to the War of 1812, see Bradford Perkins, Prologue to War: En gland and
the United States 1805– 1812 (University of California Press, 1961).
On the French Revolutionary period, see Marc Belissa, Fraternité universelle et inté-
ret national (1713– 1795): Les cosmopolitiques du droit des gens (Kimé, 1998). On the