Nauru: International Status, Imperial Form, and the Histories of International Law
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nauru: International Status, Imperial Form, and the Histories of International Law Anne Caithleen Storr ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5351-5767 Doctor of Philosophy February 2017 Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne Submitted in total fulfilment of the degree Abstract This thesis responds to the following question: what might a close reading of the history of Nauru as an object of international legal administration reveal about the relationship between imperialism and international law that accounts focusing on more ‘central’ sites of international legal formation do not? The thesis takes the form of an historical narrative of the changing status of Nauru in international law since the island’s violent incorporation into the German protectorate of the Marshall Islands in 1888, described in relation to corresponding changes in local administrative form. Considering in turn the imposition of the protectorate, the designation of Nauru as a C Class Mandate by the League of Nations in 1920, its re-designation by the United Nations as a Trust Territory in 1947, and its recognition as a sovereign state independent of Australia in 1968, this thesis argues that while status shifts, form accretes: as the international status of Nauru has shifted in each phase, what has occurred at the level of the administrative form is an accretive process of internal bureaucratisation and external restatement according to the prevailing concepts of the period. In order to hold the history of Nauru and the history of international law together, the thesis develops a method of redescription that borrows from jurisdictional thinking and from Weberian social theory in order to focus on local administrative form as a site of international legal formation. The focus on administrative form offers detailed insight not only into the Nauruan case, but into the difference between ‘the’ history of international law as the development of an ideal conceptual framework for governing the world, and the histories of international law as actually practised in place. In this sense, this thesis is a work not of international law, but about the ways in which histories of international law are constructed, and is offered as a contribution to the genre of histories of imperialism and international law. In fixing a ‘marginal’ place as the site from which the historical formation of the international legal order is considered, the thesis aligns politically with the imperative to ‘provincialise Europe’ not only in histories of international law, but in imaginaries of the international order in the present. The political aim of the thesis is to demonstrate not only that presumptions of the centrality of certain places over others prefigures the narrative construction of histories of international law, but that it is possible - even within the confines of disciplinary practice - to see the international legal order from other perspectives. Declaration I declare that: G this thesiscomprises only my original work toward the fulfilment of the requirements of the Doctor of Philosophy; @ due acknowledgment has been made in the text to allother materialused; and @ the thesis is fewer than the maximum word limitin length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. Anne Caithleen (Cait) Storr Acknowledgments Many junior scholars find doctoral work an isolating journey. It may be that I have chosen to disremember the isolating parts of the last four years; nevertheless, I am grateful that the abiding memory I take with me is one of ever-growing solidarity. This project has generated its own community, both real and imagined, and I have drawn elemental strength from the many and varied contributions of others. The list that follows will inevitably omit some who deserve acknowledgment. To that end, I begin by acknowledging that we do not always, or in good time, comprehend the ways in which we are supported by others. This project was made possible in large part by the granting of an Australian Postgraduate Award from the Australian Government’s Department of Education and Training. The dedication of public resources to postgraduate education is basic to the advancement and protection of public knowledge. Postgraduate education remains out of the reach of many scholars of the global South, and access to public funding for doctoral work is a privilege I do not wear lightly. My principal supervisor, Professor Sundhya Pahuja, has walked this path with me from beginning to end, as both mentor and companion. Sundhya’s acumen, intellectual grace and excellent humour have been guiding lights in the construction of this thesis. My co-supervisor Associate Professor Shaun McVeigh, who took on the role in late 2015 on the departure of Professor Gerry Simpson from Melbourne Law School, worked with care and integrity to support me through the final phase of the project. Any clarity in this thesis has been achieved in no small part due to the supervision of Sundhya and Shaun. Gerry Simpson, now Chair of International Law at the London School of Economics, kindly agreed to stay on as external supervisor. His support of this project has been both constant and meaningful. This project has its origins in a short consultancy I held with the Parliament of Nauru in 2009, and I thank Katherine Le Roy and Professor Cheryl Saunders for suggesting me as a candidate for the role. Seven years later I continue to learn from that brief experience, and am particularly grateful to have had the chance to work alongside Stella Duburiya, Fimosa Temaki, Tini Duburiya, Barina Waqa, Kirstie Dunn and Catriona Steele. This thesis leans heavily on the earlier scholarship of others. Whilst this is true of all sincere scholarship, I wish to acknowledge a number of historians and lawyers by name here, if only to illustrate that the true value of good scholarship is not measurable in the timeframes of the reporting period and the funding round. This project could not have been completed without the benefit of the work of Wilhelm Fabricius, Stewart Firth, Peter Sack, Dymphna Clark, Dirk Spennemann, Maslyn Williams, Barrie Macdonald, and Nancy Viviani; and the work of Christopher Weeramantry, Antony Anghie and Deborah Cass. Spending years with their work has taught me that we do not work alone, or only for our contemporaries. I have been fortunate to find myself travelling with an exceptional group of junior scholars at Melbourne Law School, who have supported me not only as productive interlocutors, but individually as friends, and together as an extraordinary international community. In no particular order, I wish to thank James Parker, Jake Goldenfein, Rose Parfitt, Tom Andrews, Sara Dehm, Debolina Dutta, Oishik Sircar, Maria Elander, Julia Dehm, Anna Hood, Maddy Chiam, Monique Cormier, Marie Aronsson-Storrier, Dylan Lino, Chris Gevers, Claire Oppermann, Karen Crawley, Marc Trabsky, Gashahun Fura, Laura Griffin, Luis Eslava, Ntina Tzouvala, Tsegaye Ararrsa, Angus Frith, Olivia Barr, Lily O’Neill, Josh Paine, and Hailegabriel Gedecho Feyissa. At various stages in the life of this project, I have received generous feedback on work in progress from a range of scholars in a range of capacities, both at Melbourne Law School and beyond. I would like to thank, at Melbourne Law School, Professor Anne Orford and Professor Tim Lindsey; and beyond, Associate Professor Hani Sayed, Associate Professor Vasuki Nesiah, Meghan Morris, Professor Martti Koskeniemmi, Professor Matthew Craven, Dr Mai Taha, Dr Anne- Charlotte Martineau, Dr Isabel Feichtner, Dr Nahed Samour, Dr Onur Ulas Ince, and Dr Henry Jones. I have received institutional and financial support from a number of research institutes and groups over the last four years, and have drawn heavily on these intellectual communities that have been created over time through the efforts of others. Thank you to the Institute of International Law and Humanities and the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law at Melbourne Law School; the Institute of Global Law and Policy at Harvard Law School; and Law and Global Justice at Durham. Thanks also to the Melbourne Research Office team; to all those I have taught and worked with at Melbourne Law School over the last five years; and to Kara Connolly for her assistance with preparing the final document. Finally, deepest thanks are due to my family for their unwavering support, forbearance and love - thank you to Tess, Rob, Mick and Pete, and to Beth, Ali, Tom and Alice; and to my dear friends for truly knowing me – thanks in particular to Andrea, Zoё, Monica, Nigel, and Zoё. I have learnt through this process that very little, if anything at all, is achieved alone. Table of Contents Prologue .................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 - Nauru: international status, imperial form & the histories of international law 7 1. Introduction: thesis statement ....................................................................................................... 7 2. Arriving at the question .................................................................................................................. 9 3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 The sources .................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Theoretical influences ................................................................................................................