‘Vitoria’s arguments are of some historical interest, but have little to tell us today, since we live in a
world in which slavery and colonial rule are things of the past’ Do you agree?
During this essay I will disagree that Francisco de Vitoria's arguments have little to tell us
today and that his concepts are still important in today's world. Whilst his arguments are
certainly constrained to the colonial frameworks of his time, this essay argues that his ideas
hold great value and remain relevant in today's modern world. Vitoria’s ‘ius gentium’ formed
the foundations for concepts of international law as well as universal human rights as seen in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, his support for the indigenous
people and rejection of the ‘right of discovery’ still prevails in today's modern world.
Additionally, Vitoria’s ideas on just war theory and emphasis on proportionality and defence
on non-combatants still remain essential in contemporary conversations within international
law. Despite the fact opposing views can tie Vitoria with a ‘bygone era’, Vitoria’s philosophy
still tackles deep structural issues of colonial rule and slavery within today, therefore
demonstrating how his arguments still maintain important relevance in today's global world.
Francisco de Vitoria’s arguments, while historically significant, have limited relevance in
today’s world, as they were developed in response to the unique circumstances of the 16th
century. The abolition of slavery and the end of formal colonial rule have fundamentally
transformed the global landscape, making many of Vitoria’s concerns outdated. Modern
issues such as economic inequality, climate change, and global migration demand
frameworks grounded in contemporary realities, which are far more complex and
interconnected than those of Vitoria’s time.
One major limitation of Vitoria’s work is its reliance on the concept of natural law, which is
inherently tied to a Christian worldview. While this framework allowed Vitoria to critique some
aspects of Spanish colonial practices, it remains Eurocentric and presumes a universal
moral authority that aligns with European theological traditions. In a pluralistic, secular world,
this reliance on natural law lacks the cultural inclusivity needed to address diverse
perspectives.
Furthermore, Vitoria’s arguments reflect the contradictions of his era. While he challenged
the abuses of Spanish colonisers, he did not advocate for the complete dismantling of
colonial structures. Instead, he sought to regulate colonial practices in a way that still
preserved European dominance. For example, his justification of “just war” under certain
conditions can be interpreted as permitting imperialist interventions under the guise of moral
or religious superiority. Such ideas have echoes in the 21st century, where military
interventions are often justified in terms of humanitarianism but can perpetuate neo-colonial
power dynamics.
Finally, modern international relations have evolved far beyond the principles Vitoria
proposed. Institutions like the United Nations, international treaties, and global human rights
frameworks are far more sophisticated than the rudimentary notions of sovereignty and
justice in Vitoria’s work. These structures are better equipped to address the complexities of
neo-colonialism, systemic racism, and global inequality. As a result, while Vitoria’s
arguments are historically important, they belong to a bygone era, offering limited guidance
for solving today’s global challenges ("Write an argument agreeing with the view Victoria's
arguments are of some historical interest, but have little to tell us today, since we live in a
world in which slavery and colonial rule are things of the past").
, Within the Ai generated text, it portrays Vitoria’s arguments as outdated and too dependent
on natural law which it argues is too Eurocentric and Christian to prevail in today's pluralistic
and secular world. However, Vitoria's commitment to natural law, stemming from Christian
theology, is due to the acknowledgment of universal human integrity. Victoria's notion of ‘ius
gentium’ is what opened up the foundations of international law by stressing the shared
rationality of all humans and the shared universal moral principles which is still relevant in
today's world as seen in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. It states ‘All human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ (United Nations, 1948). Thus,
emphasising Vitoria’s point of inherent rationality and the equality of indigenous people as
demonstrated in his ‘Relectio de Indis (1539)’. In Vitoria’s Relectio de Indis, he even states
that ‘the natural law of nations applied to all nations including indigenous ones’ (Mantilla,
2021). This universality challenges the ethnocentrism of his time as he is able to recognize
the indigenous people, thus challenging the view of European superiority.
Furthermore, the points raised about the abolitionment of slavery making any of Vitoria’s
concerns outdated is simply not true. Whilst Vitoria’s work is tied to the age of formal
colonialism, stating it is ‘outdated’ underestimates the ever going impact of colonial power
structures and although traditional slavery has passed, the significance of that era still
perceives through structural inequalities opposing the view that they ‘have little to tell us
today’. For example, Vitoria’s rejection of the ‘right of discovery’ and his support of the
ingenious people’s right towards sovereignty as well as property closely links to important
debates in today's world such as the return of historical artefacts such as Benin Bronzes or
CARICOM’s call for ‘Repritations for Native Genocide and Slavery’ which involves the need
to resolve colonial wrongs, closely linked to Vitoria’s support for Universal Moral Justice
(Beckles, 2014). So, the supposition that slavery and colonialism are ‘things of the past’
doesn’t consider their ongoing structural legacies which remain in today's modern
inequalities.
Secondly, when referring to the contradictions of his era by failing to disassemble colonial
structures, whilst its true Vitoria induced a more regulatory approach rather than abolishing
colonial actions, his heavy emphasis on sovereignty and justice as well as universal human
worth still provides importance in addressing past colonialism. Further, Vitoria’s basis of ‘just
war’ which aimed to limit violence instead of encouraging it provides important relevance to
current debates revolving around international law and military conflicts. Some of these
principles question the remark of slavery and colonial rule ‘as things of the past’ by
showcasing their ever going legacies in the world today. Vitoria layed down an idea of a
neutral judge ‘to assure that things done during a war be done justly’ (Amell, 2017). This
idea did lay down the foundations ‘for moral restraints and ethical guidelines that should be
recognized by all even in the midst of the chaos that comes with a war’ and played a ‘big
step in keeping the focus of a war on its real goal’ (Amell, 2017). This idea of the ‘real goal’
holds great importance in modern just war theory by not causing undue harm relative to the
‘real goal’ and that innocent civilians must not be targeted. For instance, he insisted that
wars must have just causes and must minimise harm to innocent civilians is what can be
demonstrated in contemporary conventions such as the Geneva Convention which states
‘Every state has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes:
genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing’ (R2P, 2005). These
constitutions can demonstrate how Vitoria’s concepts still shape global ideas in relation to
warfare, opposing the view his arguments ‘have little to tell us today’. Further, recent
conflicts involved in the middle east can demonstrate how far modern practices have strayed
from principles Vitoria expressed.
The argument that modern day international relations has progressed ‘far beyond the
principles Vitoria proposed’ regarding his ideas as obsolete completely neglects the
immense impact his ideas continue to contribute to global institutions. Although it is hard to
deny that present day organisations such as the United Nations are far more advanced in
world in which slavery and colonial rule are things of the past’ Do you agree?
During this essay I will disagree that Francisco de Vitoria's arguments have little to tell us
today and that his concepts are still important in today's world. Whilst his arguments are
certainly constrained to the colonial frameworks of his time, this essay argues that his ideas
hold great value and remain relevant in today's modern world. Vitoria’s ‘ius gentium’ formed
the foundations for concepts of international law as well as universal human rights as seen in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, his support for the indigenous
people and rejection of the ‘right of discovery’ still prevails in today's modern world.
Additionally, Vitoria’s ideas on just war theory and emphasis on proportionality and defence
on non-combatants still remain essential in contemporary conversations within international
law. Despite the fact opposing views can tie Vitoria with a ‘bygone era’, Vitoria’s philosophy
still tackles deep structural issues of colonial rule and slavery within today, therefore
demonstrating how his arguments still maintain important relevance in today's global world.
Francisco de Vitoria’s arguments, while historically significant, have limited relevance in
today’s world, as they were developed in response to the unique circumstances of the 16th
century. The abolition of slavery and the end of formal colonial rule have fundamentally
transformed the global landscape, making many of Vitoria’s concerns outdated. Modern
issues such as economic inequality, climate change, and global migration demand
frameworks grounded in contemporary realities, which are far more complex and
interconnected than those of Vitoria’s time.
One major limitation of Vitoria’s work is its reliance on the concept of natural law, which is
inherently tied to a Christian worldview. While this framework allowed Vitoria to critique some
aspects of Spanish colonial practices, it remains Eurocentric and presumes a universal
moral authority that aligns with European theological traditions. In a pluralistic, secular world,
this reliance on natural law lacks the cultural inclusivity needed to address diverse
perspectives.
Furthermore, Vitoria’s arguments reflect the contradictions of his era. While he challenged
the abuses of Spanish colonisers, he did not advocate for the complete dismantling of
colonial structures. Instead, he sought to regulate colonial practices in a way that still
preserved European dominance. For example, his justification of “just war” under certain
conditions can be interpreted as permitting imperialist interventions under the guise of moral
or religious superiority. Such ideas have echoes in the 21st century, where military
interventions are often justified in terms of humanitarianism but can perpetuate neo-colonial
power dynamics.
Finally, modern international relations have evolved far beyond the principles Vitoria
proposed. Institutions like the United Nations, international treaties, and global human rights
frameworks are far more sophisticated than the rudimentary notions of sovereignty and
justice in Vitoria’s work. These structures are better equipped to address the complexities of
neo-colonialism, systemic racism, and global inequality. As a result, while Vitoria’s
arguments are historically important, they belong to a bygone era, offering limited guidance
for solving today’s global challenges ("Write an argument agreeing with the view Victoria's
arguments are of some historical interest, but have little to tell us today, since we live in a
world in which slavery and colonial rule are things of the past").
, Within the Ai generated text, it portrays Vitoria’s arguments as outdated and too dependent
on natural law which it argues is too Eurocentric and Christian to prevail in today's pluralistic
and secular world. However, Vitoria's commitment to natural law, stemming from Christian
theology, is due to the acknowledgment of universal human integrity. Victoria's notion of ‘ius
gentium’ is what opened up the foundations of international law by stressing the shared
rationality of all humans and the shared universal moral principles which is still relevant in
today's world as seen in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. It states ‘All human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ (United Nations, 1948). Thus,
emphasising Vitoria’s point of inherent rationality and the equality of indigenous people as
demonstrated in his ‘Relectio de Indis (1539)’. In Vitoria’s Relectio de Indis, he even states
that ‘the natural law of nations applied to all nations including indigenous ones’ (Mantilla,
2021). This universality challenges the ethnocentrism of his time as he is able to recognize
the indigenous people, thus challenging the view of European superiority.
Furthermore, the points raised about the abolitionment of slavery making any of Vitoria’s
concerns outdated is simply not true. Whilst Vitoria’s work is tied to the age of formal
colonialism, stating it is ‘outdated’ underestimates the ever going impact of colonial power
structures and although traditional slavery has passed, the significance of that era still
perceives through structural inequalities opposing the view that they ‘have little to tell us
today’. For example, Vitoria’s rejection of the ‘right of discovery’ and his support of the
ingenious people’s right towards sovereignty as well as property closely links to important
debates in today's world such as the return of historical artefacts such as Benin Bronzes or
CARICOM’s call for ‘Repritations for Native Genocide and Slavery’ which involves the need
to resolve colonial wrongs, closely linked to Vitoria’s support for Universal Moral Justice
(Beckles, 2014). So, the supposition that slavery and colonialism are ‘things of the past’
doesn’t consider their ongoing structural legacies which remain in today's modern
inequalities.
Secondly, when referring to the contradictions of his era by failing to disassemble colonial
structures, whilst its true Vitoria induced a more regulatory approach rather than abolishing
colonial actions, his heavy emphasis on sovereignty and justice as well as universal human
worth still provides importance in addressing past colonialism. Further, Vitoria’s basis of ‘just
war’ which aimed to limit violence instead of encouraging it provides important relevance to
current debates revolving around international law and military conflicts. Some of these
principles question the remark of slavery and colonial rule ‘as things of the past’ by
showcasing their ever going legacies in the world today. Vitoria layed down an idea of a
neutral judge ‘to assure that things done during a war be done justly’ (Amell, 2017). This
idea did lay down the foundations ‘for moral restraints and ethical guidelines that should be
recognized by all even in the midst of the chaos that comes with a war’ and played a ‘big
step in keeping the focus of a war on its real goal’ (Amell, 2017). This idea of the ‘real goal’
holds great importance in modern just war theory by not causing undue harm relative to the
‘real goal’ and that innocent civilians must not be targeted. For instance, he insisted that
wars must have just causes and must minimise harm to innocent civilians is what can be
demonstrated in contemporary conventions such as the Geneva Convention which states
‘Every state has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes:
genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing’ (R2P, 2005). These
constitutions can demonstrate how Vitoria’s concepts still shape global ideas in relation to
warfare, opposing the view his arguments ‘have little to tell us today’. Further, recent
conflicts involved in the middle east can demonstrate how far modern practices have strayed
from principles Vitoria expressed.
The argument that modern day international relations has progressed ‘far beyond the
principles Vitoria proposed’ regarding his ideas as obsolete completely neglects the
immense impact his ideas continue to contribute to global institutions. Although it is hard to
deny that present day organisations such as the United Nations are far more advanced in
