DOCSLIB.ORG

Abbreviations Used in Notes and Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abbreviations Used in Notes and Bibliography Abbreviations Used in Notes and Bibliography ADAE France. Archives des affaires étrangères ADP: Affaires diverses politiques CP: Correspondance politique AJIL American Journal of International Law BDOFA British Documents on Foreign Affairs FO Foreign Office, UK National Archives, Kew FRUS Foreign Relations of the United States JAIL Japanese Annual of International Law JHIL Journal of the History of International Law NGM Japan, Gaimushō [Foreign Ministry], Nihon gaikō monjo RDILC Revue de droit international et de législation comparée RGDIP Revue générale de droit international public Notes Chapter 1 1. Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998), 47–54, 61–6; and Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of Legal Argument [reissue edition] (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 132, 225. But see the critique of David Kennedy, “International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion,” Quinnipiac Law Review 17 (1997): 99–138 (esp. 122–5). 2. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana ([1866] repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 27f, 44, 75f; Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co., 1874), 50; James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1883–84), vol. 1: 139–56; Carlos Calvo, Dictionnaire manuel de diplomatie et de droit international public et privé (Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht [etc.], 1885), 401f; T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 56f; John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 86–90, 110–20; William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 50f, 55–8. 3. Stephen D. Krasner, “Problematic Sovereignty,” in Problematic Sovereignty: Con- tested Rules and Political Possibilities, ed. Stephen Krasner (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 1–23; see also Martti Koskenniemi, “Conclusion: Vocabu- laries of Sovereignty—Powers of a Paradox,” in Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present, and Future of a Contested Concept, ed. Hent Kalmo and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 222–42. 4. Lauri Mälksoo, “The Context of International Legal Arguments: ‘Positivist’ Inter- national Law Scholar August von Bulmerincq (1822–1890) and His Concept of Politics,” JHIL 7.2 (2005): 181–209; and Alexander Orakhelashvili, “International Law, International Politics, and Ideology,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Alexander Orakhelashvili (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011), 328–75 (esp. 345–53). 5. Amnon Lev, “The Transformation of International Law in the 19th Cen- tury,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. 148 ● Notes Orakhelashvili, 118 [111–42]. James L. Hevia notes the ways that sovereignty was manifested in both diplomatic protocol and territorial assumptions in the conflicts between Britain and China; see English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperial- ism in Nineteenth-Century China (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 61–6, 144–53. 6. Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 84f, 137f; and Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 132–6. More recently, Arnulf Becker Lorca has done more to include Japan in a global his- tory of international law: Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 7. Otherwise excellent surveys of the Japanese engagement with international law treat the nineteenth century in passing and focus on the material that appears here in Chapter 5. See Shinobu Junpei, “Vicissitudes of International law in the Mod- ern History of Japan,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 50.2 (1951): 196–234; Itō Fujio, “Kokusaihō,” in Kindai Nihon hō-shisōshi, ed. Noda Yoshiyuki and Aomi Jun’ichi, (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1979), 461–502; Ōnuma Yasuaki, “Japanese International Law in the Prewar Period,” JAIL 29 (1986): 23–47; R. P. Anand, “Family of ‘Civilized’ States and Japan: A Story of Humiliation, Assimilation, Defiance, and Confronta- tion,” JHIL 5 (2003): 1–75; Akashi Kinji, “Japan-Europe,” in The Oxford Hand- book of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 724–43; and Urs Matthias Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 1919–1960 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013), 48–84. 8. For example, both Kōzai Shigeru (“Japan’s Early Practice of International Law: The Law of Neutrality,” [Osaka Gakuin Daigaku] Kokusaigaku ronshū 7.1 [1996]: 17) and Okagaki Tomoko (The Logic of Conformity: Japan’s Entry into International Society [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013], 59) claim that Japanese failed to “truly understand” the international legal concept of neutrality at the time of the Franco-Prussian War. I make a different argument in Chapter 2 of this book. 9. Yokota Kisaburō, “Wagakuni ni okeru kokusaihō no kenkyū,” in his Kokusaihō ronshū (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1976), vol. 1: 247–60; Itō Fujio, “One Hundred Years of International Law Studies in Japan,” JAIL 13 (1969): 19–34; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Seiō kokusaihōgaku no Nihon e no inyū to sono tenkai,” Hōritsu ronsō 42.4-5-6 (1969): 343–70; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō no dōnyū,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 71.5-6 (1973): 33–58; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō ishiki,” Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 48.2 (1975): 1–31; John Peter Stern, The Japanese Interpretation of the “Law of Nations,” 1854–1874 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979); Satō Tōru, Bakumatsu-Meiji shoki goi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1986), 161–97, 356–93; Kōzai Shigeru, “Japan’s Early Encounter with the Western Law of Nations,” (Osaka Gakuin Daigaku) Kokusaigaku ronshū 5.2 (1994): 75–96; Douglas Howland, Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Honolulu: University Notes ● 149 of Hawai‘i Press, 2002); Douglas Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nine- teenth Century: International Law and Transcultural Process,” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010): 14–37. More refined work in this vein has explored the complex connections, on the one hand, between indigenous Confucian ideas of “Heaven’s” or “natural” law and European natural law, and on the other hand, in the shift from natural law to positive law as Japan engaged the discipline of international law. See Ōhira Zengo, “Japan’s Reception of the Law of Nations,” Annals of the Hitotsubashi Academy 4.1 (1953): 55–66; Kuriyama Shigeru, “Historical Aspects of the Progress of International Law in Japan,” JAIL 1 (1957): 1–5; Yamamoto Soji, “Japanese Approaches and Attitudes towards International Law,” JAIL 34 (1991): 115–24; Murase Shinya, “Nihon no kokusaihōgaku ni okeru hōgenron no isō,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 96.4-5 (1997): 175–203. 10. Akashi Kinji, “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations: A Brief History of International Law in Japan c. 1853–1900,” in East Asian and European Perspectives on International Law, ed. Michael Stolleis and Masaharu Yanagihara (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004), 1–21; Akashi Kinji, “Methodological Aspects of Japan’s Encounter with the Modern Law of Nations,” Keiō Law Review 11 (2010): 2–4, 11f. 11. See Yasuoka Akio, “Bankoku kōhō to Meiji gaikō,” Seiji keizai shigaku 200 (1983): 188–200; Miyazaki Shigeki, “History of the Law of Nations— Regional Developments: Far East,” in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rudolf Bernhardt and Peter Macalister-Smith, (Amsterdam: North- Holland, 1992–2000), vol. 2: 802–9; Akashi, “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations,” 7–9; Morita Tomoko, Kaikoku to chigaihōken (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005); Mitani Hiroshi, “The Transformation of Diplomatic Norms in East Asia during the Nineteenth Century: From Ambi- guity to Singularity,” Acta Asiatica 93 (2007): 89–105; and Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity. 12. Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 161–7; K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 18–27, 144–6. 13. Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 13–9. 14. For assimilation, see Ōnuma “Japanese International Law in the Prewar Period,” 42–4; for conformity, see Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity. 15. Michele Acuto and Simon Curtis, eds., Reassembling International Theory (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Christian Bueger and Frank Gadinger, Interna- tional Practice Theory: New Perspectives (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 16. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). 17. Hidemi Suganami, “Japan’s Entry into International Society,” in The Expansion of International Society, ed. H. Bull and A. Watson, 185–99; and Gerrit Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). A prominent precursor to this argument was Alexander von Siebold, Japan’s 150 ● Notes Accession to the Comity of Nations, trans. Charles Lowe (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1901).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ward Churchill, the Law Stood Squarely on Its Head
    81 Or. L. Rev. 663 Copyright (c) 2002 University of Oregon Oregon Law Review Fall, 2002 81 Or. L. Rev. 663 LENGTH: 12803 words SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS AND LATCRIT COMMUNITY: The Law Stood Squarely on Its Head: U.S. Legal Doctrine, Indigenous Self-Determination and the Question of World Order WARD CHURCHILL* BIO: * Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Cherokee) is Chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies and Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado/Boulder. Among his numerous books are: Since Predator Came: Notes from the Struggle for American Indian Liberation (1995), A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present (1997) and, most recently, Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and Angloamerican Law (2002). SUMMARY: ... As anyone who has ever debated or negotiated with U.S. officials on matters concerning American Indian land rights can attest, the federal government's first position is invariably that its title to/authority over its territoriality was acquired incrementally, mostly through provisions of cession contained in some 400 treaties with Indians ratified by the Senate between 1778 and 1871. ... The necessity of getting along with powerful Indian [peoples], who outnumbered the European settlers for several decades, dictated that as a matter of prudence, the settlers buy lands that the Indians were willing to sell, rather than displace them by other methods. ... Under international law, discoverers could acquire land only through a voluntary alienation of title by native owners, with one exception - when they were compelled to wage a "Just War" against native people - by which those holding discovery rights might seize land and other property through military force.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusion (Volume
    Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Conclusion At the time of his death, Professor Lillich’s manuscript was lacking only a concluding statement of the contemporary law governing the forcible protection of nationals abroad. Although we were determined to present his work without substantive alteration, we did want this volume to be as comprehensive as possible. An editorial consensus emerged that we should append a chapter as a complementary snapshot of the law as it exists today. The following article, written by a co-editor of this volume and originally published in the Dickinson Law Review in the Spring of 2000, fit the bill. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of The Dickinson Law School of The Pennsylvania State University.† We hope that it is an appropriate punctuation mark for Professor Lillich’s research and analysis, and that it may serve as a point of departure for those scholars who will build on his impressive body of work Forcible Protection of Nationals Abroad Thomas C. Wingfield “It was only one life. What is one life in the affairs of a state?” —Benito Mussolini, after running down a child in his automobile (as reported by Gen. Smedley D. Butler in address, 1931)1 “This Government wants Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.” —Theodore Roosevelt, committing the United States to the protection of Ion Perdicaris, kidnapped by Sherif Mulai Ahmed ibn-Muhammed er Raisuli (in State Department telegram, June 22nd, 1904)2 † Thomas C. Wingfield, Forcible Protection of Nationals Abroad, 104 DICK.L.REV. 493 (2000). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner, The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law 1 Antony Anghie∗
    4 Harvard International Law Journal / Vol. 40 19999 / Sovereignty and Colonialism in International Law 3 Volume 40, Number 1, Winter 1999 Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law 1 Antony Anghie∗ I. INTRODUCTION International law is universal. It is a body of law that applies to all states regardless of their specific cultures, belief systems, and political organizations. It is a common set of doctrines that all states use to regulate relations with each other. The association between international law and universality is so ingrained that pointing to this connection appears tautological. And yet, the universality of international law is a relatively recent development. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that a set of doctrines was established as applicable to all states, whether these were in Asia, Africa, or Europe. The universalization of international law was principally a consequence of the imperial expansion that took place towards the end of the \long nineteenth century."2 The conquest of non-European3 peoples for economic and political 1* Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah College of Law. S.J.D., Harvard Law School, 1995; LL.B., Monash University, 1987; B.A., Monash University, 1986. My thanks are due to Nathaniel Berman, Robert Chu, Mitchel Lasser, Vasuki Nesiah, Kunal Parker, Ileana Porras, Annelise Riles, Uta Roth, Michael Schwalb, and Lee Teitelbaum; to the Summer Stipend Program of the College of Law, University of Utah, the participants at the Dighton Writers Workshop, and my colleagues at the College of Law at the University of Utah who offered encouragement and comment when this work was presented to the Faculty; and to B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • British Historiography of IL
    ‘The Most Neglected Province’: British Historiography of International Law† David Armitage and Ignacio de la Rasilla [email protected]; [email protected] Introduction In 1908, the German émigré Lassa Oppenheim (1858–1919), soon to take up the Whewell Professorship of International Law at Cambridge, remarked that, ‘[t]he history of international law is certainly the most neglected province of it. Apart from a few points that are dealt with in monographs, the history of international law is virgin land which awaits its cultivators’.1 Until recently, it might have been argued that the British history of international law was peculiarly neglected as a province of the historiography of international law more generally. Yet defining and discerning specific historiographical traditions in international law can be difficult as well as problematic. In the British case, isolating such traditions is especially fraught because neither the anglosphere nor even the common law world has ever been coterminous with any British state, empire or commonwealth. The boundaries of these communities shifted often, for example to exclude the Thirteen Colonies that became the United States after 1783 or to include Ireland after 1800 and then to exclude much of it again after 1922. The problem is exacerbated by the dominion status and de facto independence for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and still more so by waves of decolonisation in the mid-to-late twentieth century especially but not only in South and Southeast Asia and in Africa. These constraints have to be borne in mind in the context of the abridged modern history that follows of international law histories in and beyond Britain, the British Empire and parts of the Commonwealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Obituary Report - Oct 4, 2020
    Obituary Report - Oct 4, 2020 Surname, Given names Born Died *Spouse *Marr 1 Abbott, Jean Ann 28 Jun 1943, Rippon, 5 Feb 2011, Rockingham Co., Karl Kaufman England VA 2 Abeel, Julia Gayle 27 May 1945, 26 Nov 2018, Loudoun Co., Unknown Shifflett Richmond City, VA VA 3 Ables, Dennis Earl 9 Apr 1944, Glenville, 27 Sep 2012, Charlottesville, Carolyn Marie 21 Jan 1969, Gordonsville, Gilmer Co., WV Albemarle Co., VA Shiflett Orange Co., VA 4 Ache, Anna Christina 25 Dec 1881, Wood 21 Nov 1967, Atchison, Eber Shifflett 2 Jan 1917, Atchison, Atchison Co., OH Atchison Co., KS Co., KS 5 Acker, Eva 7 Aug 1919, 7 Dec 2002, Charlottesville, William Howard 20 Jul 1957, Loudoun Co., VA Southampton, NY Albemarle Co., VA Berry 6 Ackley, Rose M. 29 May 1903, Valley 16 Jun 1995, Dodge City, Ford Floyd T. Harris 9 Oct 1926 Falls, Jefferson Co., Co., KS KS 7 Action, Frank E. 29 Sep 1936, 13 Jul 2013, IL Beverly Ann Shifflett Abt 1956 McBaine, Boone Co., MO 8 Acton, Rose Marie 1916, Coulter, 15 Dec 2012, OH Franklin J. "Shippy" Allegheny Co., PA Shiplett Jr. 9 Adams, Donald L. 25 Aug 1934 1 Jan 2003, Columbus, Franklin Marjorie May Shifflet Abt 1964 Co., OH 10 Adams, Frances 29 Nov 1919, 13 May 1949 David Henry Shiplett Augusta Co., VA Sr. 11 Adams, Osie Leona 19 Sep 1924, Grand 4 Nov 2009, Garland, TX Clois Glenn Shiflet 1943, Grand Saline, Van Zandt Saline, Van Zandt Co., TX Co., TX 12 Adams, Ruth 8 Nov 1919 9 Apr 2009, Hartwell, GA Sidney Lanier Shiflet 13 Adams, Troyce 6 Jan 1915, Hart Co., 23 Oct 2007, El Paso, El Paso John Leonard Clark GA Co., TX 14
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Historical Quarterly
    Florida Historical Quarterly October 1971 PUBLISHED BY THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY COVER St. Francis Street, St. Augustine, is a steel engraving by the English artist Harry Fenn, well-known nineteenth-centurv book illustrator and a founder of the American Water-Color Society. It appeared in Picturesque America. edited by William Cullen Bryant, Volume I: published in 1872 by D. Apple ton & Co., New York. The second volume appeared two years later. Two sections in the book were devoted to Florida showing scenes on the St. Johns and Ocklawaha rivers and St. Augustine. A collection of the pictures, including St. Francis Street, was republished in America Was Beautiful, edited by Alice Watson (Barre Publishers, 1969). THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Volume L, Number 2 October 1971 THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY SAMUEL PROCTOR, Editor PETER D. KLINGMAN, Editorial Assistant EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD LUIS R. ARANA Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine HERBERT J. DOHERTY, JR. University of Florida JOHN K. MAHON University of Florida WILLIAM W. ROGERS Florida State University JERRELL H. SHOFNER Florida State University CHARLTON W. TEBEAU University of Miami Correspondence concerning contributions, books for review, and all editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor, Florida Historical Quarterly, Box 14045, University Station, Gainesville, Florida 32601. The Quarterly is interested in articles and documents pertaining to the history of Florida. Sources, style, footnote form, original- ity of material and interpretation, clarity of thought, and interest of readers are considered. All copy, including footnotes, should be double-spaced. Footnotes should be numbered consecutively in the text and assembled at the end. Particular attention should be given to following the footnote style of the Quarterly.
    [Show full text]
  • Paulo Borba Casella*
    INTERNATIONAL LAW - THE POST MODERN APPROACH TO THE CLASSICS AND THE NEW CHALLENGES PAULO BORBA CASELLA∗ ∗ Full Professor for Public International Law and Head of the International and Comparative Law Department at the University of São Paulo Law School. Visiting professorships include Universities of Amsterdam (1997 and 2000), Macao, China (2007, 2008, 2009), Paris-Sorbonne (2007), Paris-Panthéon-Assas (2005-2006), Strasbourg III Robert Schumann (2005). Has published widely on international law; has lectured and spoken at conferences in Brazil and at various locations abroad, having published thirty books and several articles in 15 countries. 3 Summary: Introduction: I. The classics and the post modern approach; II. International law between past and present; III. Is there a distinct system of Inter-American international law?; IV. The new challenges and the role of law in an international institutional and legal system; Final remark. Introduction Une logique juridique et politique à l’oeuvre depuis 1945 dans le droit international contemporain qui fait de lui un droit international providence. C’est un droit qui intervient partout, et qui cherche à combler les deséquilibres économiques, sociaux, écologiques et sanitaires de la planète. Mais ce faisant, il suscite des attentes et contient des promesses, qu’il ne pourra peut-être pas tenir. Emmanuelle JOUANNET, À quoi sert le droit international ? Le droit international providence du XXIe siècle (2007)1 THE SCOPE of this three-hour course in two sessions and four items is to provide a glimpse of the current state of international law, as it stands today, between the legacy of the past and the challenges, lying ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of the Standard of Civilization in International Law
    ___________________________________________________________________________ MTA Law Working Papers 2016/17. The Concept of the Standard of Civilization in International Law Tamás Hoffmann _________________________________________________ Magyar Tudományos Akadémia / Hungarian Academy of Sciences Budapest ISSN 2064-4515 http://jog.tk.mta.hu/mtalwp Tamás Hoffmann* The Concept of the Standard of Civilization in International Law I. Introduction Article 38 (1) (a) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lists as one of the sources applied by the Court ‘the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations’. This ob- scure reference to the standard of civilization today serves no more purpose, however, until the first half of the 20th century it functioned as one of the structural principles of international law. This short article aims at introducing the concept and its effects on international relations and its disappearance from the normative framework of international law. II. The Standard of Civilization Until the 19th century international law was considered to be applicable to all interactions be- tween states. Even in a discipline with a distinctly European origin1 the natural law heritage necessitated the acceptance of the universal reach of the law of nations extending it to non- European civilizations.2 Thus Alexandrowicz convincingly argued that between the 17th and the 18th centuries, East Indian and European sovereigns interacted on relatively equal footing * Senior Research Fellow, HAS Centre for Social Sciences Institute for Legal Studies. This paper was written with the funding of the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund OTKA (Project PD 113010). 1 Neff represents the majority opinion in international legal scholarship when declares that ‘Like any man-made system, international law must inevitably bear traces of the historical context in which it was formed.
    [Show full text]
  • Railways, Ports and Irrigation: the Sykes-Picot Agreement's Forgotten
    Railways, Ports and Irrigation: The Sykes-Picot Agreement’s Forgotten Regional Moment Karin Loevy, NYU School of Law Abstract What was the geo-political scale of the Sykes-Picot agreement (May 1916)? What did the British and French mid-level officials who drew lines on its maps imagine as the territorial scope of their negotiations? This essay claims that the Sykes-Picot agreement cannot be understood strictly as the beginning of a story about territorial division in the Middle East, but also as an end of a story of perceived regional potency. Rather than a blueprint for what would later become the post-war division of the region into artificially created independent states, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was still based on a powerful vision of a broad region that is open for a range of developmental possibilities. The paper outlines the historical context of the agreement moving from pre-war ideas and practices of colonial development (II), through war-time exercises of imperial regional management to the immediate and more intimate drafting context (III) and locates the Sykes- Picot agreement within a ‘missed’ moment of regional grandeur. Table of Contents I. Introduction: Opening Territorial Space 1. Preface: December, 1915, 10 Downing Street 2. A Forgotten Regional Moment 3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement: A Region Opening-Up for Development II. Pre-war History of the Sykes Picot Agreement 1. The Context of the Agreement in Pre-war Colonial Development 2. Railways, Ports and Debt Administration: Shaping Routes in Ottoman Space III. The War-time History of the Sykes-Picot Agreement 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The War in the Orient in the Light of International
    THE WAR IN rI E ORIENT IN THE LIGHT OF I INTERNATIONAL LAW. In 1&M9 the late William Edward Hall, an eminent inter- national lawyer, in prefacing a treatise upon the subjectsaid: *J therefore lxk forward with much misgiving to the manner in which the next great war will be waged, but with no misgiving at all as to the character of the rules which will be acknowledged ten years after its termination, by comparison with the rules now con- sidered to exist." I Since that time the world has seen the Chinese-Japanese Var (1894-1895). the Grzeco-Turkish War (1897), the Spanish- American War (1898), the British-Boer War (1899-i91 ), and the Russo-Japanese War. which began February 6, i9o4, and is just ended. Of all these national struggles the last named may be truly said to be the first great war, for while both the Spanish-American and the British-Boer Wars were momentous conflicts, still, neither had a valid claim to be considered of the first magnitude. Russia and Japan. however. have played a game for enormous stakes; Russia's preponderating influence in Manchuria, the Liao-tung Peninsula. and Corea was risked on the one hand, while the very existence of the Mikado's Empire was wagered on the other. Although the war continued for only nineteen months, the first part of Mr. I-all's prophecy was strikingly fulfilled and his "isgiving'" amply justified. Both of the belligerents by their actions have raised more questions upon points of international law than probably ever before have occurred in a period of such short duration.
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century Setting the Precedent
    the long nineteenth century Humanitarian intervention in Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century Setting the precedent During the course of the long nineteenth century, a precedent was set for the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention that is still influencing the current debate on this controversial concept. This volume provides a comprehensive presentation of the development of humanitarian theories in international law and international political theory, and assesses four nineteenth-century case studies, linking them to the ongoing theoretical arguments, with an emphasis on the lesser-known Russian dimension. The book starts with a brief overview of the current situation, and goes on to present a genealogy of the idea of assisting people who Humanitarian intervention are maltreated. The concept is first found in the Renaissance, and was followed by the nineteenth-century civilization–barbarity dichotomy, in the long nineteenth with its biased Eurocentric gaze. The authors then examine the pivotal international law dimension, the arguments of advocates and opponents of humanitarian intervention, and the views of major political theorists. century The second part of the book examines in detail four instances of humanitarian intervention: the Greek war (1821–31); the Lebanon/Syria ethnic conflict (1860–61); the Bulgarian case (1876–78), with emphasis on Setting the precedent the role of Britain and Russia; and US intervention in Cuba (1895–98). The book will be of benefit to scholars and students of international
    [Show full text]
  • The Louisiana Purchase: Indian and American Sovereignty in the Missouri Watershed
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2019 The Louisiana Purchase: Indian and American Sovereignty in the Missouri Watershed Kent McNeil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Source Publication: 50:1 Western Historical Quarterly 17-42 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Repository Citation McNeil, Kent, "The Louisiana Purchase: Indian and American Sovereignty in the Missouri Watershed" (2019). Articles & Book Chapters. 2785. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/2785 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. 1 The Louisiana Purchase: Indian and American Sovereignty in the Missouri Watershed Kent McNeil This paper has now been published: Kent McNeil, “The Louisiana Purchase: Indian and American Sovereignty in the Missouri Watershed” (2019) 50:1 Western Historical Quarterly 17-42, https://academic.oup.com/whq/advance- article/doi/10.1093/whq/why135/5231578?guestAccessKey=e2ea54c6-af2b-4eaa-b13d- 54553eae2752 Like a historical mantra repeated time and again, it is asserted that the Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States.1 As this assertion takes for granted that the Purchase included the entire Missouri watershed,
    [Show full text]