Building Sovereignty in the Late Ottoman World: Imperial Subjects, Consular Networks and Documentation of Individual Identities Merve Ispahani Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2018 © 2018 Merve Ispahani All rights reserved ABSTRACT Building Sovereignty in the Late Ottoman World: Imperial Subjects, Consular Networks and Documentation of Individual Identities Merve Ispahani This dissertation examines the formation of Ottoman sovereignty in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at the disciplinary intersection of international law and history. As an attempt to break away from a strictly territorial understanding of sovereignty as a fixed legal construct, it explores shifting definitions of sovereignty within and across the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire as well as its semi-autonomous provinces. It argues that Ottoman sovereignty was constantly re-defined by inter-imperial rivalries, jurisdictional politics and the formation of modern subjecthood and citizenship in the emerging arena of international law during the period in question. Exploring what it meant to be an Ottoman and a foreigner in the Ottoman Empire during this period, I argue that subjecthood; nationality and citizenship often appear as instrumental categories incidentally utilized by ordinary individuals when deemed necessary. A careful examination of the Ottoman passport regime, on the other hand, proves that there already existed a prolonged process of experimentation on individual documentation and movement controls during the second half of the nineteenth history. Studying a collection of identity cards and passports, I argue that individual documentation was more important for some subjects than others, who needed to maintain and negotiate their identities under overlapping structures of multiple sovereignties. A careful analysis of various case studies, from former Ottoman Bulgaria to never- Ottoman Dutch Indonesia, demonstrate that disputed claims to nationality and foreign protection in one locality were often connected to the enhancement or loss of Ottoman sovereignty elsewhere and can only be understood beyond the geographical and disciplinary constraints of area studies. Table of Contents List of Abbreviations . ii Acknowledgements . iii Introduction . 1 Chapter 1: International Law and the Emergence of a European State System: The Ottoman Case Revisited . 16 Chapter 2: Ottoman Legal Imagination and Claiming Imperial Sovereignty . 52 Chapter 3: Negotiating Sovereignty Through Individual Documentation: Identity Cards, Internal Travel Permits and Passports . 87 Chapter 4: Disputed Nationality and Jurisdictional Politics between Ottoman and British Courts . 149 Chapter 5: Subjecthood and Citizenship across Borders: Hadrami Arabs and Asiatic Ottomans of Dutch Indonesia . 200 Conclusion . 236 Bibliography . 240 i List of Abbreviations BOA Basbalanlik Osmanli Arsivi Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, Istanbul Collections: YEE Yildiz Esas Evraki Yildiz Palace Collections BEO Bab-i Ali Evrak Odasi Sublime Porte Collections A.MKT.MHM Mektubi Muhimme Kalem Evraki Important Correspondences, Sublime Porte A.MTZ Mumtaze Kalemi The Office of Autonomous Provinces HR.H Hariciye Hukuk Kismi Foreign Ministry Legal Division HR. MKT. Hariciye Mektubi Kalemi Foreign Ministry Correspondences HR.SYS Hariciye Nezareti, Siyasi Kismi Belgeleri Foreign Ministry, Political Documents HR.HMS.ISO Hariciye Nezareti, Hukuk Musavirligi, Istisare Odasi Foreign Ministry, Legal Advisors, Office of the Legal Counsel DH. SN. THR Dahiliye Nezareti Sicill-i Nüfus İdare-i Umumiyesi Belgeleri (Tahrirat Kalemi Interior Ministry, General Directorate of Population Administration Correspondences I. DUIT Iradeler, Dosya Usulu Iradeler Tasnifi Sultan’s Commads ii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Rashid Khalidi for his mentorship and continuous support, which made this project possible. His patience and motivation kept my enthusiasm alive and encouraged me to continue writing at difficult times. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my dissertation committee, Timothy Mitchell, Marwa Elshakry, Christine Philliou and Tunc Sen for reading my dissertation, and providing thoughtful and insightful comments. They inspired me to deepen my research and carry my project forward to new directions in the future. I would also like to say that I am very thankful for the financial support I received during my doctoral studies. Columbia University’s Richard Hofstadter Faculty Fellowship, the Institute of Comparative Literature and Societies Summer Grant and the Middle East Institute Dissertation Writing Grant funded my doctoral work. During my doctoral studies at Columbia, I tremendously benefited from conversations with great scholars and colleagues. I am profoundly thankful to Richard Bulliet, Brinkley Messick and Lauren Benton for their mentorship and encouragement. I cannot thank them enough for their insights and questions, which allowed me to develop my seminal research interests into this dissertation. I felt extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to work closely with Lauren Benton, who introduced me to an extensive literature on comparative law and created the time to meet me on a weekly basis in her busy schedule. Mark Mazower, Gregory Mann, Elizabeth Blackmar, Janaki Bakhle and Wael Hallaq allowed me to broaden the scope of my research and re-visit my questions in comparative framework. Heartfelt thanks go to my mentors at the Bogazici University, where I completed my BA and MA studies. Huricihan Islamoglu, Selim Deringil, Edhem Eldem and late Yavuz Selim iii Karakisla not only taught me the craft of history at the very beginning of my academic carrier, but also continued to offer me their guidance throughout this long journey. When I decided to return to Istanbul in 2013, I crossed paths with Ipek Cem Taha who took me under her wings at the Columbia Global Centers | Istanbul. I am profoundly grateful for this opportunity, which allowed me to stay connected to my academic home and continue to grow both intellectually and professionally. I am thankful for Ipek Cem Taha’s support and mentorship, which helped me to cope with professional and personal challenges along the way and motivated me towards completing my dissertation. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Istanbul Center for their continuous support. I was lucky to be surrounded by wonderful friends who made me feel at home during my doctoral studies. I would like to thank Yasemin, Ercan, Melisa, Aylin and Tunc Doker, Zeynep and Serra Eken, Burcu Tunakan, Nicholas Diener, Serra Sangar, Peri, Aydin, Engin and Esat Kadaster, Oya Okman, Muin Oztop, Erkut, Anna Kucukboyaci, Elektra Kostopoulu and Zeynep Odabasi for keeping me grounded at challenging times. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their continuous support. I am grateful to Nevra, Kazim and Serra Ispahani for their patience and encouragement, and being the most amazing playmates of our sons when I had to spend hours of writing in isolation. My sincere thanks go to my father Okan Tezcanli, who patiently carried me to university libraries during my high school years and inspired me to write at an early age. My mother Beril Tezcanli heartened me to follow my dreams and continued to believe in me even when I did not believe in myself. She has been a true role model as a hard-working business professional with a kind and loving nature. My sister Evin and brother in-law Tugrul Pehlivanli have always stood by me during my emotional lows and highs, and were always there to listen and offer help. iv Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family. I owe this dissertation to my husband Ali Ispahani’s love and unconditional support; he was always there for me, from near or far. I am grateful for his wisdom, patience and companionship. I could not have done any of this without him. With the arrival of our dear sons Emre and Can, I now know that a true accomplishment is to have such a loving family and I dedicate this work to them. v Introduction The Nineteenth century positivist doctrine of international law recognized the legal personality of sovereign states alone, while leaving quasi-sovereign political entities, imperial agents and indigenous peoples outside its scope of analysis.1 More significantly, however, in-built assumptions of the positivist school of international law excluded non-European states from its purview, even when these political formations were indisputably sovereign political entities. “Both outside the scope of law and yet within it,” these states were perceived as lacking international legal capacity even when they simultaneously possessed it. 2 Even though positivist doctrine considered sovereign statehood as the precondition of membership in international society, it justified the imposition of European extraterritorial jurisdiction in non-European states, which were yet to adopt specific forms of domestic legal institutions. Emblematic of a colonial mindset, such a formulation of international law made it obligatory on non-European states to carry out comprehensive legal reforms in order to meet the standard of civilization assumed by their European counterparts and confront extraterritorial jurisdiction within their sovereign territories during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.3 1 Positivist legal theory found its most systematic