During the Napoleonic Wars, in 1807, Britain attacked the small neutral state of Denmark without direct provocation, bombarded Copenhagen, seized its navy, and temporarily occupied part of its territory. Killing and displacing thousands of civilians, this was a highly traumatic experience for survivors and deeply controversial among contemporaries. This article examines how debates over the legitimacy of the attack were framed within predominant understandings of international law. International law at the turn of the 19th century was characterized by a dualism containing both the “Law of Nations” and “Law of Nature.”By utilizing divergent aspects of these discourses, the article shows how critics and defenders of the British military action were both able to frame their positions within existing frameworks of nascent international law.

During the Napoleonic Wars, in 1807, Britain attacked the small neutral state of Denmark without direct provocation, bombarded Copenhagen, seized its navy, and temporarily occupied part of its territory. Killing and displacing thousands of civilians, this was a highly traumatic experience for survivors and deeply controversial among contemporaries. This article examines how debates over the legitimacy of the attack were framed within predominant understandings of international law. International law at the turn of the 19th century was characterized by a dualism containing both the “Law of Nations” and “Law of Nature.”By utilizing divergent aspects of these discourses, the article shows how critics and defenders of the British military action were both able to frame their positions within existing frameworks of nascent international law.