Inventing the Status Quo: Ottoman Land-Law during the Palestine Mandate, 1917–1936

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW Pub Date : 1999-03-01 DOI:10.1080/07075332.1999.9640851
Martin Bunton
{"title":"Inventing the Status Quo: Ottoman Land-Law during the Palestine Mandate, 1917–1936","authors":"Martin Bunton","doi":"10.1080/07075332.1999.9640851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"British tions into their management of Palestine's land regime shed light on important though largely neglected features of colonial rule in the Middle East between the World Wars. Although laws and legal procedures played an integral part in the British establishment of a new political and economic order in Palestine, their role has yet to be studied in its historical context. The literature on Palestine is predisposed to view the role played by Ottoman land-law under British rule as axiomatic: it followed naturally from the imposition of the British pattern of indirect rule and, more specifically, from the order-in-council of September 1922 which set out the composition and organization of the government of Palestine. Such presumptions are helped by the prevailing conception of Ottoman land-law as codified. But historians must not take at face value the picture drawn by British apologists at the time who, like the 1937 Peel Commission report, complained that ;the Ottoman Land Code has been retained, with all the difficulties involved in its various forms of ownership and tenure of land; several new laws have been passed to amend it, but it remains in essence the same complicated system, one which is not calculated to promote close settlement and intensive cultivation. Even with the amendments which it has been found possible to introduce, it cannot be deemed to be a satisfactory system in these respects.'1 In attributing the land-law in force during the mandate to the written Ottoman codes dating from 1858, British officials often wished to characterize it as bewildering and antiquated, a barrier to modernization and progress. Missing from the literature is an attempt to problematize and contextual ize the Ottoman law in force during the mandate. In fact, Ottoman law in mandatory Palestine should not be studied as though it were a detached arbiter with fixed rules waiting to be administered by colonial officials. The historical study of land-law is better served by recognizing it as","PeriodicalId":46534,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":"21 1","pages":"28-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640851","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640851","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

British tions into their management of Palestine's land regime shed light on important though largely neglected features of colonial rule in the Middle East between the World Wars. Although laws and legal procedures played an integral part in the British establishment of a new political and economic order in Palestine, their role has yet to be studied in its historical context. The literature on Palestine is predisposed to view the role played by Ottoman land-law under British rule as axiomatic: it followed naturally from the imposition of the British pattern of indirect rule and, more specifically, from the order-in-council of September 1922 which set out the composition and organization of the government of Palestine. Such presumptions are helped by the prevailing conception of Ottoman land-law as codified. But historians must not take at face value the picture drawn by British apologists at the time who, like the 1937 Peel Commission report, complained that ;the Ottoman Land Code has been retained, with all the difficulties involved in its various forms of ownership and tenure of land; several new laws have been passed to amend it, but it remains in essence the same complicated system, one which is not calculated to promote close settlement and intensive cultivation. Even with the amendments which it has been found possible to introduce, it cannot be deemed to be a satisfactory system in these respects.'1 In attributing the land-law in force during the mandate to the written Ottoman codes dating from 1858, British officials often wished to characterize it as bewildering and antiquated, a barrier to modernization and progress. Missing from the literature is an attempt to problematize and contextual ize the Ottoman law in force during the mandate. In fact, Ottoman law in mandatory Palestine should not be studied as though it were a detached arbiter with fixed rules waiting to be administered by colonial officials. The historical study of land-law is better served by recognizing it as
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创造现状:1917-1936年巴勒斯坦托管期间的奥斯曼土地法
英国对巴勒斯坦土地政权的管理,揭示了两次世界大战之间中东殖民统治的重要特征,尽管这些特征在很大程度上被忽视了。尽管法律和法律程序在英国在巴勒斯坦建立新的政治和经济秩序中发挥了不可或缺的作用,但它们的作用还有待在其历史背景下进行研究。关于巴勒斯坦的文献倾向于认为奥斯曼土地法在英国统治下所扮演的角色是不言自明的:它自然地遵循了英国间接统治模式的强加,更具体地说,是1922年9月的会议命令,该命令规定了巴勒斯坦政府的组成和组织。这样的假设得到了奥斯曼土地法已被编纂的普遍观念的帮助。但是历史学家不能只看英国当时的辩护者所描绘的画面,他们就像1937年皮尔委员会的报告一样,抱怨说:“奥斯曼土地法被保留了下来,尽管它的各种形式的所有权和土地使用权涉及到所有的困难;已经通过了几项新的法律对其进行修改,但它本质上仍然是同一个复杂的系统,一个不是为了促进密集定居和集约种植而设计的系统。即使有了可能提出的修正,在这些方面,它也不能被认为是一个令人满意的制度。在将委任统治期间的有效土地法归因于1858年的书面奥斯曼法典时,英国官员经常希望将其描述为令人困惑和过时的,是现代化和进步的障碍。文献中缺少的是试图将托管期间有效的奥斯曼法律问题化和上下文化。事实上,在强制统治的巴勒斯坦,奥斯曼法律不应该被视为一个独立的仲裁者,有着固定的规则,等待着殖民地官员的管理。将土地法的历史研究看作是一种历史现象,将有助于土地法的历史研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The International History Review is the only English-language quarterly devoted entirely to the history of international relations and the history of international thought. Since 1979 the Review has established itself as one of the premier History journals in the world, read and regularly cited by both political scientists and historians. The Review serves as a bridge between historical research and the study of international relations. The Review publishes articles exploring the history of international relations and the history of international thought. The editors particularly welcome submissions that explore the history of current conflicts and conflicts of current interest; the development of international thought; diplomatic history.
期刊最新文献
Notes on Contributors Fascist Cultural Diplomacy and Italian Foreign Policy in Norway from the 1930s until the Second World War Ankara in Chinese Imagination: Turkish Capital and Its Influence on ‘Temporary Capital’ Chongqing Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency The Suez Crisis and Dag Hammarskjöld’s Mediation: Biased or Balanced? A View from Cairo
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1