Friedrich Martens

Friedrich Fromhold Martens, or Friedrich Fromhold von Martens, ( – ) was a diplomat and jurist in service of the Russian Empire who made important contributions to the science of international law. He represented Russia at the Hague Peace Conferences (during which he drafted the Martens Clause) and helped to settle the first cases of international arbitration, notably the dispute between France and the United Kingdom over Newfoundland. As a scholar, he is probably best remembered today for having edited 15 volumes of Russian international treaties (1874–1909).

Biography Friedrich Martens' death notice, published on June 8, 1909"Professor Martens, Professor of International Law at the Saint Petersburg University, a permanent member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has died according to the telegram at the Valga, Estonia train station on June 7. The deceased was an Estonian by ethnicity."

Born to ethnic Estonian parents at Pärnu in the Governorate of Livonia of Russian Empire, Martens was later raised and educated as a German-speaker. He lost both parents at the age of nine and was sent to a Lutheran orphanage in St. Petersburg, where he successfully completed the full course of studies at a German high school and in 1863 entered the law faculty of St. Petersburg University. In 1868, he started his service at the Russian ministry of foreign affairs.

In 1871, he became a Lecturer on Public Law in the university of St. Petersburg, and in 1873 professor of international law in the Imperial School of Law and the Imperial Alexander Lyceum. In 1874, he was selected special legal assistant to Prince Gorchakov, then imperial chancellor. It was written in Russian, a German edition appearing in 1884–1885, and a French edition in 1883–1887. It displays much judgment and acumen, though some of the doctrines which it defends by no means command universal assent. More openly biased in character are such treatises as: Russia and England in Central Asia (1879) Russia's Conflict with China (1881) The Egyptian Question (1882) The African Conference of Berlin and the Colonial Policy of Modern States (1887) In the delicate questions raised in some of these works Martens stated his case with learning and ability, even when it was obvious that he was arguing as a special pleader. Martens was repeatedly chosen to act in international arbitrations. Among the controversies which he sat as judge or arbitrator were: the Pious Fund Affair, between Mexico and the United States – the first case determined by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague – and the dispute between Great Britain and France over Newfoundland in 1891. ), Cambridge, Edinburgh and Yale (LL.D. October 1901 ); he was also one of the runner-up nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1902. In April 1907, he addressed a remarkable letter to The Times on the position of the second Duma, in which he argued that the best remedy for the ills of Russia would be the dissolution of that assembly and the election of another on a narrower franchise. He died suddenly in June 1909.

Nussbaum set himself the task of analysing the 'writings and actions' of Martens. First, he turned his attention to Martens' celebrated two-volume textbook and pointed out several pro-Russian gaps and biases in its historical part:

"Flagrant lack of objectivity and conscientiousness. The Tsars and Tsarinas invariably appear as pure representatives of peace, conciliation, moderation and justice, whereas the moral qualities of their non-Russian opponents leave much to be desired."

Nussbaum pointed out that Martens gave an extensive meaning to the notion of "international administrative law," even including war in the field of international administration, and emphasized that the supreme principle of international administrative law was expediency. Nussbaum was very critical of the application of that concept:

"Expanding the range of international administrative law meant, therefore, expanding the dominance of expediency – which is the very opposite of law."

Further, Nussbaum turned his attention to the other (publicist) writings of Martens, mostly the ones published in Revue de droit international et de législation comparée. Nussbaum noted that they were invariably signed by de Martens as professor of international law at the University of St. Petersburg and as member of the Institut de Droit International. Martens did not mention his high position in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The articles were thus only unrestrained briefs for various actions of the Russian government.

For example, Nussbaum concluded that the 1874 article by Martens on the Brussels conference, "It is purely apologetic and has nothing to do with law."

Then, Nussbaum turned to Martens's activities as arbitrator and found them "most conspicuous." In particular, Nussbaum referred to a memorandum of Venezuelan lawyer Severo Mellet Provost that had been made public posthumously. The memorandum made the claim that Martens had approached his fellow US arbitrators-judges with an ultimatum: either they agreed with a generally pro-British solution or Martens, as umpire, would join the British arbitrators in a solution that would be even more against Venezuela. Nussbaum held that Mr Provost's account seemed "entirely credible in all essential parts" and concluded:

"The spirit of arbitration will be perverted more seriously if the neutral arbitrator does not possess the external and internal independence from his government, which, according to the conception of most countries of Western civilization, is an essential attrribute of judicial office. That independence de Martens certainly did not have, and it is difficult to see how he could have acquired it within the framework of the Tsarist regime and tradition."

Finally, Nussbaum concluded:

"It appears that de Martens did not think of international law as something different from, and in a sense above, diplomacy.… de Martens considered in his professional duty as a scholar and writer on international law to defend and back up the policies of his government at any price.… Obviously his motivation was overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, political and patriotic. Legal argument served him as a refined art to tender his pleas for Russian claims more impressive or more palatable. He was not really a man of law...."