Thomas Erskine Holland
Born on 17 July 1835, in Brighton, Holland read classics at Balliol College, OxÂford from 1854. Making a conventional progression, following his graduation he was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1863, though he soon found it â€?imÂpossible' to maintain professional practice alongside an academic career.[1358] [1359] [1360] [1361] [1362] In 1874 he was made Chichele Professor of International Law at All Souls ColÂlege, Oxford, a position he retained until his resignation in 1910.
Like many nineteenth-century jurists, Holland was deeply interested in the history of the discipline. He recognised the particular importance of Roman law as its preÂcursor, editing the first volume of The Institutes of Justinian in 1873?6 His inauÂgural lecture of 1874 focused on the life and work of the seventeenth-century Italianjurist Alberico Gentili, which is credited with generating an internaÂtional revival of Gentili.27 Holland completed his legal education by taking the bachelor degree in civil law in 1871, and the doctorate in civil law in 1876, both at Oxford?8 However, despite this appointment to one of the newly created chairs in international law, Holland remains enigmatic, as his contributions toward the strictly academic development of the field are minimal?9 Instead, he was most widely renowned before his retirement for his neo-Austinian work of legal philosophy, The Elements of Jurisprudence (1880), and as well for co-founding, the Law Quarterly Review (1880).Perhaps in recognition of the sparsity of his academic contribution to interÂnational law, in his 1910 valedictory lecture Holland argued that the role of an Oxford Professor, particularly a Professor of International Law, should not be bound by the confines of the university.[1363] Instead he placed great emphasis on his services rendered to the British Government.
These included the manuals he was asked to compile for the War Office and Admiralty, and his advisory positions on the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food and Raw Material in Time of War (1905) and the British delegation to the Geneva Convention (1906).3[1364] He was fastidious in his observance of international incidents and controversies, writing long instructive letters on international affairs to the Times for the benefit of the British public[1365] [1366] As a consequence, Holland's conÂtemporary, Alexander Pearce Higgins, remarked that â€?probably no internationÂal lawyer was better known to the British public'.33 As part of this role, he viewed it as his personal responsibility to guide and steady public opinion on important matters, such as on the legality of the sinking of the British ship Kowshing on the outbreak of the 1894 Sino-Japanese War[1367] Even if many of these letters may have been moved by a sense of public duty, Holland still retained a propensity to criticise certain departments of the British governÂment for incompliance with international legal conventions.[1368] In an era where the political and imperial views of international lawyers shaped their deployÂment of the law, Holland, on the surface at least, professed his belief in the guiding principle of the law itself[1369]Holland may also have been consumed by the spirit of internationalism that was so characteristic of his intellectual milieu in the late-nineteenth century, as in his early career he made a marked shift in favour of the codification of the laws of war[1370] The codification of international law was championed both by the rapidly organising peace movements and by a new cohort of international lawyers behind the 1873 foundation of the Institut de Droit?[1371] Reviewing the Brussels Declaration in 1876, Holland had written the time was â€?not yet ripe' for codification of the laws and usages of war[1372] Instead, he had advocated for inÂdividual nations to draw up rules for armies in the field, similar to the 1863 Lieber Code.
He echoed this view of the necessity for troops to receive written instructions in 1880, though he now also argued that these rules should be inÂternationally systematized.[1373] Such views were in line with the position advoÂcated by the Institut de Droit, which had adopted a Manual of the Laws of War on Land, later known as the Oxford Manual, in 1880. Holland's change of tune is likeliest attributable to his growing involvement with the Institut. He became a full member in 1878, hosted the annual meeting which produced the Oxford Manual in 1880, and was elected Vice-President to the Institut in 1910[1374]Holland's publications and commitments indicate that the major concern of his legal approach was a rigorous interest in the theoretical and scientific elements of the law.[1375] [1376] In 1870, Holland had published an â€?Essay on the Form of Law', in which he argued a clarification of form would be more beneficial to English Law than an improvement in content[1377] [1378] Similarly, in his lengthy critiÂcism of the 1874 Brussels Declaration, he drew attention to the poor positionÂing of articles and absence of structural clarity as much as the legal content of the text.44 These attempts to develop a scientific basis for the study of the law was also characteristic of many of his Oxford colleagues, such as Albert V. Dicey, Robert Bryce, William Anson and Frederick Pollock. Writing after his death, Holland's friends and colleagues praised his dedicaÂtion to improving the clarity of his own legal thought. These obituaries are also replete with references to the more dogmatic elements of his legal interpretaÂtion. Described as â€?accurate to the verge of pedantry', â€?apt to be over precise', and â€?impelled by a perhaps morbid hatred of disorder', Holland was evidently meticulous to point of fault[1379] Contemporaries also described his extreme reÂluctance to change his opinions?[1380] Certainly, in his publications at least HolÂland appeared impervious to criticism. Heavily influenced by the Austinian school of analytical jurisprudence, HolÂland's Elements of Jurisprudence became the principal vehicle for the dissemiÂnation of Austinian scholarship during the late-nineteenth century, reaching thirteen editions by his death in 1926. It was particularly popular among law students, as the work essentially amounted to a clarification and refinement of Austin's theories into a standard text book format.[1382] As part of this alignment with Austin, Holland's conception of the law was strictly positivist, viewing jurisprudence as the â€?formal science of positive law'[1383] Like his mentor, Holland was concerned with the law as it was, not as it ought to be; had little interest in historical context in jurisprudence; and was often openly hostile towards the idea of natural law.[1384] Holland's interpretation of the law rested on the assumpÂtion that common law was derived from consistent principles^1 In the internaÂtional sphere he professed a similarly Austinian viewpoint. Only rules which were applied by states could be â€?law' in the true sense of the word, whereas conventional rules, observed on a voluntary or habitual basis, could only be given the title of law by analogy.52 The text of international conventions, as set out by the Hague and Geneva Convention, was the basis for international law. These were complemented by the customary, but informal, rules observed by states. This textual basis for the law presented an entirely new approach to inÂternational law in the Manual of Military Law, contrasting sharply with that outlined by Holland's predecessor Lord Henry Thring. 3