Friedrich Martens

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 in international law in the university of St. Petersburg, and in 1872 professor of public 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. His book on The Right of Private Property in War had appeared in 1869, and had been followed in 1873 by that upon The Office of Consul and Consular Jurisdiction in the East, which had been translated into German and republished at Berlin. These were the first of a long series of studies which won for their author a worldwide reputation, and raised the character of the Russian school of international jurisprudence in all civilised countries. 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. ==Ennoblement==

The date and circumstances of Martens' ennoblement are not clear. While it is undisputed that he called himself and was referred to as von or de Martens in publications since the early 1870s, this title might have been bestowed upon him either with one of the more distinguished Russian Orders, or with the title of a Privy Councillor (according to the Table of Ranks), or simply with his appointment as a full professor. He was never registered in the matriculae of the knightage of Livonia (Livländische Ritterschaft) or one of the other three Baltic knighthoods (that is of Estonia, Courland and Ösel). His surname, Martens, is included in the Russian Heraldic Book No. 14, though it is uncertain if this entry relates to him or to another noble of the same name. His social advancement was the more remarkable, as it was exclusively based on his professional merits. ==Popular culture==

• Friedrich Martens is featured as the main character in the novel ''Professor Martens' Departure (Professor Martensi ärasõit'', 1984) by Estonian author Jaan Kross. == Criticism ==

In 1952, the German émigré scholar in the US, Arthur Nussbaum, himself the author of a well-received history of the law of nations, published an article on Martens, which still "makes waves". 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...." ==See also==