Lars Niléhn 68 agreement valid. Thus it could not be according to Pufendorf, a question of any breach of agreement, at least not on the part of Sweden. Even if it had been, the actions of the Danes were such that Charles Gustavus would have had sufficient reason to take to arms for reasons connected to thesafety of his kingdom, that is, justified by interests of state. To this may be added the way the Danes had acted, as seen in a longer perspective, and their obviously irreconcilable hatred of Sweden. It is particularly Interesting to analyze the question of breaches of treaties, since this may be seen against the background of Pufendorf’s theory of natural law. It is, of course, not a question here of social contracts, but of other kinds of agreements included in the theory. These, however, are on a different level compared to the absolute duties the social contract implies. But Pufendorf also writes about other mutual duties of man. These are imperfect, which means valid but not possible to enforce lawfully in all instances. To these belongs the normthat man shall honour promises and agreements. This is a pragmatic maxim, not an absolute one.^** Breaches of treaties must be regarded as one of these duties under natural law. By this it is also said that such a break is a serious thing, even if it is possible that interests of state, in the actual historical situation, may make it necessary to do. In summarizing Samuel von Pufendorf’s treatment of these three protagonists in Charles Gustavus, it is possible to observe a difference between, on the one hand, how the Great Elector and Charles Gustavus are treated and, on the other, what is written about the Danes. The two princes constantly act according to interests of state, even when they are doing things which may be seen as little flattering. But they are not treated in exactly the same way. The character of Charles Gustavus is obviously highly regarded and, in contrast to what is said about Frederick William’s actions of 1657, there is not really a breach of treaty on the part of the Swedish king in 1658 and this must be seen as significant. The efforts of the elector to mediate must, however, again be mentioned in this context. Morally the Danes act in an almost depraved way throughout. This is what stops the agreement of Roskilde. By this they also break natural law. In this regard they are given a rather special position in the book, even though all that is written about themis not unique. Austria, the Netherlands and other states are depicted primarily as plotters, and they are obviously represented in a less favourable light than Charles Gustavus and Frederick William. But in their cases, in contrast to what is said about Denmark, interests of state may be put forward as a justification for their actions. The question then is why these states are treated so differently. Clearly Krieger p 100, Lindberg p 30 f, Denzer p 142.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=