This article focuses on Grotius’s treatment of obligations arising from wrongdoing in his Inleidinge. The work has clear parallels with the natural law formulation of the same topic in De Jure Belli ac Pacis, and this article explores the extent of the similarities. It focuses on points of divergence, suggesting that the theoretical coherence of the natural law approach to obligations arising from wrongdoing was challenged primarily by extant legislative enactments. These provided either for region-specific doctrines, or rules that proved difficult to reconcile with the underlying principles of natural law, especially the primacy of fault. While much of the Inleidinge’s treatment of liability arising from wrongdoing is consonant with Grotius’ approach to the topic in De Jure Belli ac Pacis, these discrete points of dissimilarity serve as a reminder of the limits of theoretical accounts of private law.

本文重点介绍Grotius在Inleidinge中对因不当行为引起的义务的处理。这项工作与《De Jure Belli ac Pacis》中同一主题的自然法表述有着明显的相似之处，并且本文探讨了相似性的程度。它着眼于分歧点，表明自然法对因不法行为引起的义务的理论一致性主要受到现存立法法规的挑战。这些规定提供了针对特定地区的学说，或者提供了难以与自然法的基本原则（尤其是过错至高无上的原则）保持一致的规则。虽然大部分Inleidinge'对因不当行为而引起的责任的处理与格罗蒂乌斯在《法学杂志》上对这一主题的态度相吻合，这些不同的离散点提醒人们对私法理论解释的局限性。