首页 > 最新文献

Past & Present最新文献

英文 中文
‘The Shipwreck of the Turks’: Sovereignty, Barbarism and Civilization in the Legal Order of the Eighteenth-Century Mediterranean 土耳其人的海难》:十八世纪地中海法律秩序中的主权、野蛮与文明
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae030
Guillaume Calafat, Francesca Trivellato
This article focuses on the consequences of a single major international affair — the shipwreck of a French ship carrying 165 Muslim pilgrims along the southern shores of Sicily in 1716 — to address two pivotal issues in the reordering of eighteenth-­century legal and political systems: the limits of domestic sovereignty in absolutist states and the status of non-Christian polities in the theory and practice of the law of nations. Both the time and place of this episode, which had a vast resonance at the time, have broad implications for how we write about the development of modern international law. While much of the debate on the maritime dimension of the eighteenth-century law of nations focuses on the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, we spotlight the Mediterranean, where endemic corsairing activities coexisted with age-old diplomatic and day-to-day practices of accommodation and mutual recognition between Christian and Muslim polities. Here we draw attention to shipwrecks that occurred in foreign territorial waters and their heuristic potential for better understanding controversial issues of maritime law, such as the status of shorelines, neutrality and the law of the flag. Even after the Peace of Utrecht (1713–15), which is often regarded as a watershed moment in the history of international law, these rules were far from settled and shipwrecks continued to fuel legal and philosophical battles that extended well beyond the confines of the famous controversy between supporters of mare liberum and advocates of mare clausum. The close examination of the 1716 shipwreck leads us to challenge the land/sea divide as constructed by Carl Schmitt and demonstrate that territorial waters were objects of sovereign disputes in much the same way as land territories. We also show how the emerging Eurocentric discourse about the ‘barbarity’ of non-Christian peoples and nations coexisted with intellectual, economic and diplomatic forces interested in establishing formal agreements between Western European nations, the Ottoman Empire and its North African provinces.
本文重点探讨了一件重大国际事件--1716 年一艘载有 165 名穆斯林朝圣者的法国船只在西西里岛南部海岸遇难--的后果,以探讨 18 世纪法律和政治制度重新排序的两个关键问题:专制主义国家国内主权的限制以及非基督教政体在万国法理论和实践中的地位。这一事件在当时引起了巨大反响,其发生的时间和地点对我们如何书写现代国际法的发展有着广泛的影响。关于十八世纪万国法的海洋层面的辩论大多集中在大西洋和印度洋,而我们则聚焦于地中海,在那里,地方性的海盗活动与基督教和穆斯林政体之间长期存在的互谅互让的外交和日常实践并存。在此,我们提请注意发生在外国领海的沉船事件及其启发式潜力,以便更好地理解有争议的海事法问题,如海岸线地位、中立和旗帜法。即使在通常被视为国际法历史分水岭的《乌得勒支和约》(1713-15 年)之后,这些规则也远未得到解决,沉船事件继续引发法律和哲学争论,其范围远远超出了 "自由海 "支持者和 "禁止海 "倡导者之间的著名争论。通过对 1716 年沉船事件的仔细研究,我们对卡尔-施密特所构建的陆地/海洋分界线提出了质疑,并证明领海与陆地领土一样,也是主权争端的对象。我们还展示了新出现的关于非基督教民族和国家 "野蛮 "的欧洲中心论是如何与希望在西欧国家、奥斯曼帝国及其北非省份之间达成正式协议的知识、经济和外交力量共存的。
{"title":"‘The Shipwreck of the Turks’: Sovereignty, Barbarism and Civilization in the Legal Order of the Eighteenth-Century Mediterranean","authors":"Guillaume Calafat, Francesca Trivellato","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae030","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the consequences of a single major international affair — the shipwreck of a French ship carrying 165 Muslim pilgrims along the southern shores of Sicily in 1716 — to address two pivotal issues in the reordering of eighteenth-­century legal and political systems: the limits of domestic sovereignty in absolutist states and the status of non-Christian polities in the theory and practice of the law of nations. Both the time and place of this episode, which had a vast resonance at the time, have broad implications for how we write about the development of modern international law. While much of the debate on the maritime dimension of the eighteenth-century law of nations focuses on the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, we spotlight the Mediterranean, where endemic corsairing activities coexisted with age-old diplomatic and day-to-day practices of accommodation and mutual recognition between Christian and Muslim polities. Here we draw attention to shipwrecks that occurred in foreign territorial waters and their heuristic potential for better understanding controversial issues of maritime law, such as the status of shorelines, neutrality and the law of the flag. Even after the Peace of Utrecht (1713–15), which is often regarded as a watershed moment in the history of international law, these rules were far from settled and shipwrecks continued to fuel legal and philosophical battles that extended well beyond the confines of the famous controversy between supporters of mare liberum and advocates of mare clausum. The close examination of the 1716 shipwreck leads us to challenge the land/sea divide as constructed by Carl Schmitt and demonstrate that territorial waters were objects of sovereign disputes in much the same way as land territories. We also show how the emerging Eurocentric discourse about the ‘barbarity’ of non-Christian peoples and nations coexisted with intellectual, economic and diplomatic forces interested in establishing formal agreements between Western European nations, the Ottoman Empire and its North African provinces.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Prize court politics and regional ordering in the Caribbean 加勒比地区的奖院政治和地区秩序
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae027
Jeppe Mulich
This article analyzes the practices and politics of Caribbean prize courts at the turn of the nineteenth century, in order to better understand the dynamics of these peculiar legal institutions on the ground in one of the most volatile inter-imperial maritime spaces of the period. The focus is on the daily operation of the courts, the relationship between different regional courts (within and between empires), and, importantly, on their role within wider Caribbean networks. The article asks how knowledge about these courts was shared within the trans- imperial networks of the region. Court shopping was a common practice and claimants would often go out of their way to take captures or cases to specific courts, either within a single empire or even in a different imperial jurisdiction, but how did potential claimants come to be so familiar with the characteristics of individual administrations and magistrates? And how did they disseminate this information? The story of Caribbean prize courts is the story of order-making at different, sometimes clashing, levels. While the legal regime around prizes can be seen as an ordering mechanism for interactions between empires, the Caribbean saw its own order-building project driven less by decision-­makers in faraway metropoles and more by individual actors within the region, equally likely to exploit, support, or circumvent the legal mechanisms set up by officials. These regional groups were especially likely to act against the prize regime when it posed a challenge to the sanctity of their private property, be it goods or enslaved.
本文分析了十九世纪之交加勒比地区战利品法庭的实践和政治,以便更好地理解这些特殊的法律机构在当时最动荡的帝国间海洋空间中的动态。文章的重点是法院的日常运作、不同地区法院之间的关系(帝国内部和帝国之间),更重要的是,这些法院在更广泛的加勒比网络中的作用。文章探讨了有关这些法院的知识是如何在该地区的跨帝国网络中共享的。选择法院是一种常见的做法,索赔人往往会不辞辛苦地将捕获物或案件提交给特定的法院,这些法院可以是在一个帝国境内,甚至是在不同的帝国司法管辖区,但潜在的索赔人是如何如此熟悉各个行政机构和地方法官的特点的?他们又是如何传播这些信息的呢?加勒比地区奖赏法庭的故事就是在不同层面上,有时是相互冲突的层面上建立秩序的故事。尽管围绕奖品的法律制度可以被视为帝国间互动的一种秩序机制,但在加勒比地区,其自身的秩序建设项目与其说是由遥远大都市的决策者推动的,不如说是由区域内的个人行为者推动的,他们同样有可能利用、支持或规避官员建立的法律机制。当奖赏制度对其私有财产(无论是货物还是奴隶)的神圣性构成挑战时,这些地区团体尤其可能采取反对行动。
{"title":"Prize court politics and regional ordering in the Caribbean","authors":"Jeppe Mulich","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae027","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the practices and politics of Caribbean prize courts at the turn of the nineteenth century, in order to better understand the dynamics of these peculiar legal institutions on the ground in one of the most volatile inter-imperial maritime spaces of the period. The focus is on the daily operation of the courts, the relationship between different regional courts (within and between empires), and, importantly, on their role within wider Caribbean networks. The article asks how knowledge about these courts was shared within the trans- imperial networks of the region. Court shopping was a common practice and claimants would often go out of their way to take captures or cases to specific courts, either within a single empire or even in a different imperial jurisdiction, but how did potential claimants come to be so familiar with the characteristics of individual administrations and magistrates? And how did they disseminate this information? The story of Caribbean prize courts is the story of order-making at different, sometimes clashing, levels. While the legal regime around prizes can be seen as an ordering mechanism for interactions between empires, the Caribbean saw its own order-building project driven less by decision-­makers in faraway metropoles and more by individual actors within the region, equally likely to exploit, support, or circumvent the legal mechanisms set up by officials. These regional groups were especially likely to act against the prize regime when it posed a challenge to the sanctity of their private property, be it goods or enslaved.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Frauds on Navy Pay and the Men and Women of Maritime London, c.1620–1740 海军军饷诈骗案和伦敦海运业的男男女女,约 1620-1740 年
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae026
Margaret R Hunt
During the wars of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries tens of thousands of English sailors had their wages deferred because the government could not come up with the cash to pay them. Instead, Navy sailors were discharged with undated government promissory notes, usually called ‘sailors’ tickets’, which they and their families sometimes had to wait months or years to have paid. This essay traces the way the Navy tried to institutionalize this system, and it also looks at competing ordering projects coming from within the London maritime community that sought to pressure the government to pay the tickets in a timely fashion, to manage overextended credit networks and — in the face of considerable Navy opposition — to make tickets more fungible so they could be used as collateral for debts. One feature of these conflicts was the rise of frauds on sailors’ pay tickets, and over time the Navy endorsed increasingly punitive methods to deal with the problem, most notably various kinds of institutional prosecution. The people indicted for ticket fraud, many of them at the Old Bailey, were predominantly women, and their ‘crimes’ were linked to more legitimate activities long associated with sailors’ female relatives. This essay argues that predatory borrowing by the State and the competing ordering projects to which it gave rise helped to configure as well as to distort social relations and economic opportunity both for women and men within the maritime community.
在十七世纪和十八世纪初的战争中,数以万计的英国水兵因为政府拿不出现金支付工资而被延期。取而代之的是,海军水兵在退伍时获得无日期的政府期票,通常被称为 "水兵票",他们和他们的家人有时不得不等待数月或数年才能拿到这笔钱。这篇文章追溯了海军试图将这一制度制度化的方式,同时也探讨了伦敦海运界内部相互竞争的订购项目,这些项目试图向政府施压,要求及时支付船票,管理过度扩张的信贷网络,并在海军的强烈反对下,使船票更具可替代性,从而可以用作债务抵押。随着时间的推移,海军采用了越来越多的惩罚性方法来解决这一问题,其中最著名的是各种制度性起诉。因票据欺诈而被起诉的人主要是女性,其中许多人是在老贝利法庭被起诉的,她们的 "罪行 "与水手的女性亲属长期以来从事的更为合法的活动有关。本文认为,国家的掠夺性借贷以及由此产生的相互竞争的排序项目,既有助于构建社会关系,也扭曲了海运界男女的经济机会。
{"title":"Frauds on Navy Pay and the Men and Women of Maritime London, c.1620–1740","authors":"Margaret R Hunt","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae026","url":null,"abstract":"During the wars of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries tens of thousands of English sailors had their wages deferred because the government could not come up with the cash to pay them. Instead, Navy sailors were discharged with undated government promissory notes, usually called ‘sailors’ tickets’, which they and their families sometimes had to wait months or years to have paid. This essay traces the way the Navy tried to institutionalize this system, and it also looks at competing ordering projects coming from within the London maritime community that sought to pressure the government to pay the tickets in a timely fashion, to manage overextended credit networks and — in the face of considerable Navy opposition — to make tickets more fungible so they could be used as collateral for debts. One feature of these conflicts was the rise of frauds on sailors’ pay tickets, and over time the Navy endorsed increasingly punitive methods to deal with the problem, most notably various kinds of institutional prosecution. The people indicted for ticket fraud, many of them at the Old Bailey, were predominantly women, and their ‘crimes’ were linked to more legitimate activities long associated with sailors’ female relatives. This essay argues that predatory borrowing by the State and the competing ordering projects to which it gave rise helped to configure as well as to distort social relations and economic opportunity both for women and men within the maritime community.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
An Interpolity Legal Regime in the eighteenth century: 
procedural law of prize 十八世纪的国际刑警法律制度:奖金程序法
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae025
Nathan Perl-Rosenthal
Prize law was a legal regime that played a crucial role in maritime trade and warfare in the European imperial world before the twentieth century, governing both the capture and disposition of enemy property seized by belligerents at sea during wartime. Prize law outlined the rules by which captures were to take place and how captured property was to be handled, adjudicated, and (if “condemned” or deemed a valid capture), disposed of. All European maritime powers had prize regimes during the early modern era, which collectively adjudicated the fates of tens of thousands of vessels worth the equivalent of hundreds of millions of today’s dollars. This article examines the procedural law of prize in the long eighteenth century: the rules that governed how legal actors in the prize regime brought cases before tribunals and the tribunals’ rules for adjudicating them. It shows that the law of prize was an interpolity legal regime, generated within the ambiguous legal spaces that existed between the jurisdictional boundaries of individual states and empires. The article focuses on three important areas of procedural law for evidence of the interpolity character of the prize regime. It looks first at the distinctive role played by mariners in prize procedures. Captains of privateers and other capturing vessels functioned as quasi-officers of the court, responsible for assembling the documentary record that prize tribunals used to adjudicate captures and bringing the cases before the courts. Imperial prize regulations gave almost no guidance on the rules that they were to follow. The proper procedures were defined by mariners and merchants themselves, as unwritten rules articulated at sea. Second, we turn to how the prize tribunals managed language diversity and translation. I show that, a few exceptions aside, prize tribunals did not acknowledge linguistic difference among litigants. Instead, the tribunals relied on silent and often unacknowledged translation processes, which embedded in their proceedings a fiction that all of the actors before them communicated in a common language. Last, the article shows that prize tribunals applied foreign law in their proceedings, in ways that were not formally authorized by imperial law. By focusing on the neglected procedural law of prize, this article offers a different view of the prize regime than the one that has been painted by many studies of substantive law of prize in the long eighteenth century, in at least two ways. One is that studying the procedural law of prize casts into sharp relief the bottom-up character of prize law. Far from being dictated by sovereigns or from imperial centers, much about the prize regime was created informally by lower-level legal actors. Second, a focus on procedural law reveals important continuities in prize law across space and time. Substantive prize law during the period saw extensive debates about the nature of neutral rights, among other issues, with different empires
战利品法是一种法律制度,在二十世纪以前的欧洲帝国世界的海上贸易和战争中发挥着至关重要的作用,它对战时交战方在海上俘获和处置敌方财产进行管理。战利品法概述了进行捕获的规则,以及如何处理、裁决和(如果 "判定 "或认为是有效的捕获)处置被捕获的财产。在近代早期,所有欧洲海洋强国都有战利品制度,这些制度共同决定了数万艘船只的命运,其价值相当于今天的数亿美元。本文研究了漫长的十八世纪的战利品诉讼法:规范战利品制度中的法律行为者如何向法庭提起诉讼的规则,以及法庭裁决这些案件的规则。文章表明,战利品法是一种国际法律制度,产生于单个国家和帝国管辖边界之间的模糊法律空间。文章重点关注程序法的三个重要领域,以证明战利品法制度的跨地域性特征。文章首先探讨了海员在战利品程序中扮演的独特角色。私掠船和其他捕获船只的船长充当法庭的准官员,负责收集战利品法庭用于裁决捕获的文件记录,并将案件提交法庭。帝国的战利品管理条例几乎没有对他们应遵循的规则提供任何指导。正确的程序是由水手和商人自己定义的,是海上不成文的规定。其次,我们来看看战利品法庭是如何处理语言多样性和翻译问题的。我的研究表明,除少数例外情况外,战利品法庭并不承认诉讼当事人之间的语言差异。相反,这些法庭依赖于无声的、往往不被承认的翻译过程,这就在其诉讼程序中植入了一种虚构,即法庭面前的所有行为人都用一种共同的语言进行交流。最后,文章指出,有奖法庭在诉讼程序中适用了外国法律,而这些法律并未得到帝国法律的正式授权。通过关注被忽视的战利品程序法,本文对战利品制度提出了不同于许多关于十八世纪漫长时期战利品实体法研究的看法,至少在两个方面。其一,对战利品程序法的研究凸显了战利品法自下而上的特点。奖赏制度远非由君主或帝国中心发号施令,而是由下层法律行为者非正式制定的。其次,对程序法的关注揭示了奖赏法在时空上的重要连续性。这一时期的实质奖赏法就中立权利的性质等问题展开了广泛的辩论,不同的帝国提出了截然不同的理论。战利品程序法则忠实于其互斥性的起源,在不同帝国和不同时期都保持着显著的稳定性。
{"title":"An Interpolity Legal Regime in the eighteenth century: \u2028procedural law of prize","authors":"Nathan Perl-Rosenthal","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae025","url":null,"abstract":"Prize law was a legal regime that played a crucial role in maritime trade and warfare in the European imperial world before the twentieth century, governing both the capture and disposition of enemy property seized by belligerents at sea during wartime. Prize law outlined the rules by which captures were to take place and how captured property was to be handled, adjudicated, and (if “condemned” or deemed a valid capture), disposed of. All European maritime powers had prize regimes during the early modern era, which collectively adjudicated the fates of tens of thousands of vessels worth the equivalent of hundreds of millions of today’s dollars. This article examines the procedural law of prize in the long eighteenth century: the rules that governed how legal actors in the prize regime brought cases before tribunals and the tribunals’ rules for adjudicating them. It shows that the law of prize was an interpolity legal regime, generated within the ambiguous legal spaces that existed between the jurisdictional boundaries of individual states and empires. The article focuses on three important areas of procedural law for evidence of the interpolity character of the prize regime. It looks first at the distinctive role played by mariners in prize procedures. Captains of privateers and other capturing vessels functioned as quasi-officers of the court, responsible for assembling the documentary record that prize tribunals used to adjudicate captures and bringing the cases before the courts. Imperial prize regulations gave almost no guidance on the rules that they were to follow. The proper procedures were defined by mariners and merchants themselves, as unwritten rules articulated at sea. Second, we turn to how the prize tribunals managed language diversity and translation. I show that, a few exceptions aside, prize tribunals did not acknowledge linguistic difference among litigants. Instead, the tribunals relied on silent and often unacknowledged translation processes, which embedded in their proceedings a fiction that all of the actors before them communicated in a common language. Last, the article shows that prize tribunals applied foreign law in their proceedings, in ways that were not formally authorized by imperial law. By focusing on the neglected procedural law of prize, this article offers a different view of the prize regime than the one that has been painted by many studies of substantive law of prize in the long eighteenth century, in at least two ways. One is that studying the procedural law of prize casts into sharp relief the bottom-up character of prize law. Far from being dictated by sovereigns or from imperial centers, much about the prize regime was created informally by lower-level legal actors. Second, a focus on procedural law reveals important continuities in prize law across space and time. Substantive prize law during the period saw extensive debates about the nature of neutral rights, among other issues, with different empires ","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Adrift in the Andaman Sea: 
Law, Archipelagos and the Making of Maritime Sovereignty 漂流在安达曼海:法律、群岛和海洋主权的形成
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae033
Kalyani Ramnath
This essay focuses on the long history of archipelagic formations in the Bay of Bengal as sites of legal experimentation. This history is often narrated beginning with convict transportation and the permanent occupation of the Andaman Islands as a British penal settlement in 1857 and the violent erasure of indigenous cultures that followed it. This essay focuses instead on the hundred years preceding it where the English East India Company experimented with abandoning jurisdiction over the lesser-known islands off the Bengal and Burma coasts and people who lived on them, despite being in the position of a territorial sovereign. These experimentations were recorded most eloquently in legal and administrative records about crime - which included, for example, how assault and “river dacoity” on the deltaic islands of the Sunderbans in lower Bengal were to be dealt with and how men convicted of murder on the islands off the Tenasserim coast in southern Burma were to be prosecuted. In each case, prompted by tensions between the Company and the British Crown, policing and prosecution were abandoned, but this escaped public attention as it took place on the empire’s maritime edges. Although jurisdictional claims were central to the expansionist aims of the British empire in the nineteenth century around the Indian Ocean, these instances offer an alternate account of sovereignty, one where assertions and abandonments were both critical to the making of empires.
本文重点论述了孟加拉湾群岛作为法律实验场地的悠久历史。这段历史通常从 1857 年运送囚犯和永久占领安达曼群岛作为英国刑罚定居点开始,以及随后对土著文化的暴力侵蚀开始叙述。本文的重点则是在此之前的一百年里,英国东印度公司曾尝试放弃对孟加拉和缅甸沿海鲜为人知的岛屿以及岛上居民的管辖权,尽管它处于领土主权国的地位。这些尝试在有关犯罪的法律和行政记录中得到了最有力的记录,例如,这些记录包括如何处理孟加拉下游桑德班三角洲岛屿上的袭击和 "河上抢劫 "行为,以及如何起诉在缅甸南部特纳塞林(Tenasserim)沿岸岛屿上被判犯有谋杀罪的人。由于公司与英国王室之间的紧张关系,每起案件都放弃了警务和起诉,但由于发生在帝国的海洋边缘,因此没有引起公众的注意。虽然管辖权主张是 19 世纪大英帝国在印度洋周边扩张主义目标的核心,但这些事例提供了另一种关于主权的解释,即主张和放弃对帝国的建立都至关重要。
{"title":"Adrift in the Andaman Sea: \u2028Law, Archipelagos and the Making of Maritime Sovereignty","authors":"Kalyani Ramnath","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae033","url":null,"abstract":"This essay focuses on the long history of archipelagic formations in the Bay of Bengal as sites of legal experimentation. This history is often narrated beginning with convict transportation and the permanent occupation of the Andaman Islands as a British penal settlement in 1857 and the violent erasure of indigenous cultures that followed it. This essay focuses instead on the hundred years preceding it where the English East India Company experimented with abandoning jurisdiction over the lesser-known islands off the Bengal and Burma coasts and people who lived on them, despite being in the position of a territorial sovereign. These experimentations were recorded most eloquently in legal and administrative records about crime - which included, for example, how assault and “river dacoity” on the deltaic islands of the Sunderbans in lower Bengal were to be dealt with and how men convicted of murder on the islands off the Tenasserim coast in southern Burma were to be prosecuted. In each case, prompted by tensions between the Company and the British Crown, policing and prosecution were abandoned, but this escaped public attention as it took place on the empire’s maritime edges. Although jurisdictional claims were central to the expansionist aims of the British empire in the nineteenth century around the Indian Ocean, these instances offer an alternate account of sovereignty, one where assertions and abandonments were both critical to the making of empires.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142555890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Return of the Repressed: Political Deportation in the 
Indian Ocean during the Age 
of Revolutions 被压迫者的回归:革命时代印度洋上的政治驱逐
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae029
Renaud Morieux
Between the second half of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Indian Ocean became a theatre of the global war waged by European imperial states. This article compares how three colonial powers, in French, Danish, and British colonial territories, dealt with interconnected political threats, in a region where the limits of imperial sovereignty and jurisdictions were often blurred and frequently renegotiated. Rather than a formally sanctioned doctrine and legal category, deportation should be understood as a crude tool for solving a variety of problems. Although the forced removal of criminals, religious minorities or political opponents was not a new instrument to the late eighteenth century, it is often ignored that political deportation was also a widely used legal practice in the Indian Ocean during the ‘age of revolutions’. In this region, deportation was used by imperial centres to get rid of political enemies, but also by regional authorities, without referring to metropolitan orders. It was usually not a judicial punishment, but an administrative measure justified in the name of political necessity. This article focuses on three small colonial enclaves, French Reunion, Danish Tranquebar, and British Pondicherry, where a siege mentality and fear of political sedition were omnipresent in this period. Contemporaries believed, with some justifications, that a single conspiracy linked these three colonial theatres, involving the same set of protagonists, who redeployed their projects as they were removed from one place to the next. But in these three sites and societies, deportation raises different issues. Dumping radicals on a foreign shore might have been a short-term fix, but it rarely solved problems in the long term: deportees often returned after some time, which was a direct consequence of the colonial authorities’ reluctance to take irreparable decisions, and of the entanglement of empires and polities in the Indian Ocean.
十八世纪下半叶至十九世纪初,印度洋成为欧洲帝国国家发动全球战争的战场。本文比较了三个殖民国家在法国、丹麦和英国殖民领土上如何应对相互关联的政治威胁,在这一地区,帝国主权和管辖权的界限往往模糊不清,并经常重新谈判。与其说递解出境是一种正式认可的理论和法律范畴,不如将其理解为一种解决各种问题的粗糙工具。虽然强制驱逐罪犯、宗教少数派或政治反对派并非十八世纪末的新工具,但人们往往忽视了政治驱逐在 "革命时代 "的印度洋也是一种广泛使用的法律实践。在这一地区,帝国中心使用递解出境来除掉政敌,地区当局也使用这种手段,但并不参照大都会的命令。这通常不是一种司法惩罚,而是一种以政治需要为名的行政措施。这篇文章的重点是法属留尼汪、丹麦特兰克巴和英属本地治里这三块殖民飞地,在这一时期,围困心态和对政治煽动的恐惧无处不在。同时代的人认为,将这三个殖民地连接起来的是一个单一的阴谋,涉及到同一批主角,他们在从一个地方转移到另一个地方时重新部署了自己的项目。但在这三个地方和社会中,递解出境引发了不同的问题。将激进分子丢弃在异国他乡可能是一种短期解决办法,但很少能长期解决问题:被驱逐者往往在一段时间后返回,这是殖民当局不愿做出不可挽回的决定以及印度洋上帝国与政体纠葛的直接后果。
{"title":"The Return of the Repressed: Political Deportation in the \u2028Indian Ocean during the Age \u2028of Revolutions","authors":"Renaud Morieux","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae029","url":null,"abstract":"Between the second half of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Indian Ocean became a theatre of the global war waged by European imperial states. This article compares how three colonial powers, in French, Danish, and British colonial territories, dealt with interconnected political threats, in a region where the limits of imperial sovereignty and jurisdictions were often blurred and frequently renegotiated. Rather than a formally sanctioned doctrine and legal category, deportation should be understood as a crude tool for solving a variety of problems. Although the forced removal of criminals, religious minorities or political opponents was not a new instrument to the late eighteenth century, it is often ignored that political deportation was also a widely used legal practice in the Indian Ocean during the ‘age of revolutions’. In this region, deportation was used by imperial centres to get rid of political enemies, but also by regional authorities, without referring to metropolitan orders. It was usually not a judicial punishment, but an administrative measure justified in the name of political necessity. This article focuses on three small colonial enclaves, French Reunion, Danish Tranquebar, and British Pondicherry, where a siege mentality and fear of political sedition were omnipresent in this period. Contemporaries believed, with some justifications, that a single conspiracy linked these three colonial theatres, involving the same set of protagonists, who redeployed their projects as they were removed from one place to the next. But in these three sites and societies, deportation raises different issues. Dumping radicals on a foreign shore might have been a short-term fix, but it rarely solved problems in the long term: deportees often returned after some time, which was a direct consequence of the colonial authorities’ reluctance to take irreparable decisions, and of the entanglement of empires and polities in the Indian Ocean.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Jurisdiction and Afro-Brazilian Legal Politics from Colonialism to Early Independence 从殖民主义到独立初期的管辖权与非裔巴西人的法律政治
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae028
Jake Subryan Richards
Every empire in the Americas developed a law of slavery that connected the forced transoceanic migration of enslaved people with land-based economic production and social life. Competing conceptions of jurisdiction over land and sea emerged from legal processes regarding slavery in the transition from colonial Portuguese rule to early independence in Brazil. Both the Portuguese monarch and post-independence Brazilian ministers sought to assert jurisdiction over residents inside the territory, including enslaved people. Their attempts to do so created social conflicts in which enslaved people put forth their own visions of jurisdiction and justice. Afro-Brazilian people developed a legal politics that drew upon diasporic maritime connections to overturn enslavement. The legal politics of cases regarding uprisings and contraband slave-trading animated concerns among judges and imperial administrators about effective legal order. A revolutionary movement in 1798 contested Portuguese colonial sovereignty with a vision of free-trade popular sovereignty. The monarch’s transfer from Portugal to Brazil in 1808 opened a small route for enslaved people to petition the crown for freedom based on innovative readings of free soil. A major case of capture in 1851 illuminated how the naval court judge adjudicated the case as the capture of an enemy. Captive African people testified in court to gain collective freedom in a liminal space. These claims to freedom raised important questions about legal equality and freedom from illegal trafficking for all people held in slavery in Brazil.
美洲的每个帝国都制定了奴隶制法律,将被奴役者被迫跨洋移徙与陆地经济生产和社会生活联系起来。在巴西从葡萄牙殖民统治向早期独立过渡的过程中,有关奴隶制的法律程序产生了对陆地和海洋管辖权的相互竞争的概念。葡萄牙君主和独立后的巴西大臣都试图对领土内的居民(包括被奴役者)行使管辖权。他们的这一企图引发了社会冲突,在冲突中,被奴役者提出了自己对管辖权和正义的看法。非裔巴西人发展了一种法律政治,利用散居海外的海上联系来推翻奴役。有关起义和违禁奴隶贸易案件的法律政治激发了法官和帝国管理者对有效法律秩序的关注。1798 年的一场革命运动以自由贸易人民主权的愿景对葡萄牙的殖民主权提出了质疑。1808 年,君主从葡萄牙迁往巴西,这为被奴役者根据对自由土壤的创新解读向王室请求自由开辟了一条小路。1851 年发生的一起重大俘虏案件揭示了海军法庭法官如何将案件判定为俘虏敌人。被俘虏的非洲人在法庭上作证,以求在边缘空间获得集体自由。这些自由诉求提出了关于巴西所有被奴役者的法律平等和免遭非法贩运的重要问题。
{"title":"Jurisdiction and Afro-Brazilian Legal Politics from Colonialism to Early Independence","authors":"Jake Subryan Richards","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae028","url":null,"abstract":"Every empire in the Americas developed a law of slavery that connected the forced transoceanic migration of enslaved people with land-based economic production and social life. Competing conceptions of jurisdiction over land and sea emerged from legal processes regarding slavery in the transition from colonial Portuguese rule to early independence in Brazil. Both the Portuguese monarch and post-independence Brazilian ministers sought to assert jurisdiction over residents inside the territory, including enslaved people. Their attempts to do so created social conflicts in which enslaved people put forth their own visions of jurisdiction and justice. Afro-Brazilian people developed a legal politics that drew upon diasporic maritime connections to overturn enslavement. The legal politics of cases regarding uprisings and contraband slave-trading animated concerns among judges and imperial administrators about effective legal order. A revolutionary movement in 1798 contested Portuguese colonial sovereignty with a vision of free-trade popular sovereignty. The monarch’s transfer from Portugal to Brazil in 1808 opened a small route for enslaved people to petition the crown for freedom based on innovative readings of free soil. A major case of capture in 1851 illuminated how the naval court judge adjudicated the case as the capture of an enemy. Captive African people testified in court to gain collective freedom in a liminal space. These claims to freedom raised important questions about legal equality and freedom from illegal trafficking for all people held in slavery in Brazil.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Mutiny on Trial: Law and Order among Seventeenth-Century Seafarers 审判中的叛变十七世纪海员的法律与秩序
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae031
Richard J Blakemore
This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discuss
本文对叛变以及十七世纪海事法界定和实施这一概念的方式进行了新的诠释。文章特别关注英国海员和英国高等海事法院文件中的证据,并参考其他国家的法律规定进行比较。海洋社会史学者对叛变的概念尤为关注,但很少对其做出精确的判定,也很少对其错综复杂的法律问题进行探讨,他们的观点一般都建立在各国海军颁布的惩罚性法规的基础上。一些人认为,兵变本质上是一种响应行动,海员通过这种行动表达不满,并诉诸共同的宗法正义观念。另一些人则从兵变中发现了一种独特的海上政治激进主义传统,这种传统在整个近代早期不断发酵,最终促成了 18 世纪末和 19 世纪初的革命时代。在这一鸿沟中,大多数历史学家都一致认为这是一种极端的、往往是暴力的反抗建制权威的行为。本文将注意力转移到这一专制制度在 17 世纪的起源,并将分析范围扩大到国家海军的戒严法之外,因为戒严法仅适用于特定且数量有限的船只。文章首先考虑了管理航海的国家、市政、军事和习惯海事法等多重体系的分散性,认为即使在海军法中,对叛变也没有一致的定义或起诉,而习惯法(比海军法更普遍)的规定远没有流行的传说中那么严厉。然后,文章转向海事法庭案件中提交的海员证词,探讨海员自己如何讲述他们在海上的行为,反驳雇主对他们的叛变指控。特别重要的是要考虑到这些资料来源的法律目的和背景,它们突出了争议和分歧,以及双方为了达到某些目的而策略性地撰写的陈述。通过对法典和法律实践的分析,本文证明了海上的权威和法律并不是简单的无限制的权力遇到激进的反抗,也不是对既定等级制度的默许。虽然冲突、虐待和权力不对称无疑存在于现代早期的航海活动中,但来自高等海事法院的证据表明,即使在海上,船长及其船员的行为也是由海事法知识决定的。此外,海员和他们的雇主(无论是商业雇主还是帝国雇主)对指挥官的权力限制以及船上的共识和妥协有着共同的期望。只有当航行失败并引发对谁应承担过失和代价的指责时,讨论和抗议才会被视为叛变:后果比行为本身更能决定其法律地位。因此,本文对海事劳动的社会层面以及早期现代海员在帝国和法律体系中的作用进行了新颖的思考。
{"title":"Mutiny on Trial: Law and Order among Seventeenth-Century Seafarers","authors":"Richard J Blakemore","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae031","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discuss","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A Sea of Households: Ordering Violence and Mobility in the 
Inter-Imperial Caribbean 家庭之海:帝国间加勒比地区的暴力与流动秩序
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae024
Lauren Benton, Timo McGregor
Historians have paid more attention to the inner life of households than to their legal and political significance in early European overseas empires. This article analyses the legal role of households in the seventeenth century Caribbean, with an emphasis on Jamaica and Suriname. It argues that households were key to organising maritime violence and composing regional order. Imperial agents in the Caribbean—soldiers, sojourners, servants, and officials—drew selectively from European political and legal discourses about dominium to define households as essential to the constitution of colonial communities and governance. In imperial and colonial legal imagination, households were necessary for the constitution of political communities and their presence fortified arguments for interpolitical violence, especially maritime raiding. Affirming the rights of household heads to hold and command captives, imperial policies to foment household formation and regulate conflicts within households underpinned a regional regime of raiding, captive taking, and enslavement. The regional regime centred on legalities of violence. Demand for coerced labour in early plantation households fuelled a 
circum-Caribbean economy of captive taking and plunder, while settlers invoked the defence of households to authorise privateering and local warfare. As the primary legal framework for absorbing and commanding coerced labour, households became the object of inter-imperial competition and a vehicle for constructing enslavement as an institution. Contests over the rights of settlers to relocate to competing colonies at times pitted expansive understandings of the dominium of household heads—the exercise of private power over household subordinates—against the public authorities they nominally sustained. Such conflicts worked to reinforce the centrality of households to the expansion of plantation slavery. The politics of households made them an unstable underpinning for colonial governance and a site of resistance to the emerging plantocracy. Officials in Jamaica struggled to manage the volatile relation between raiding and planter household formation. In Suriname, Indigenous and African captives struggled to escape and subvert forms of slavery and coercion imposed under cover of household dominium. Examining the significance of households in colonial thought illuminates important and often overlooked continuities in the legal politics of nascent Caribbean colonies and the rise of a regional slave regime. Viewed from the colonial household, legal change across the Caribbean did not follow discrete stages of conquest, privateering, and plantation slavery. Instead, it evolved in relation to shifting accommodations between public and private claims to authority and legitimate violence. Authorising warfare and converting captives into property, households formed a legal fulcrum for balancing interdependent networks of raiding, slaving, and planting in emergent slave
历史学家对家庭内部生活的关注多于对其在早期欧洲海外帝国的法律和政治意义的关注。本文以牙买加和苏里南为重点,分析了家庭在十七世纪加勒比地区的法律作用。文章认为,家庭是组织海上暴力和组成地区秩序的关键。加勒比地区的帝国代理人--士兵、旅居者、仆人和官员--选择性地借鉴欧洲关于统治权的政治和法律论述,将家庭定义为构成殖民社区和治理的关键。在帝国和殖民地的法律想象中,家庭是政治社区构成的必要条件,家庭的存在强化了政治间暴力,尤其是海上袭击的论据。帝国的政策肯定了户主持有和指挥俘虏的权利,这些政策促进了家庭的形成并调节了家庭内部的冲突,从而巩固了地区性的掠夺、俘虏和奴役制度。地区制度的核心是暴力的合法性。早期种植园家庭对强制劳动力的需求助长了掳掠和掠夺的环加勒比经济,而定居者则以家庭防卫为由授权私掠和地方战争。作为吸收和指挥被胁迫劳动力的主要法律框架,家庭成为帝国间竞争的对象,也是构建奴役制度的工具。关于定居者迁移到竞争殖民地的权利的争夺,有时会将对户主统治权的扩张性理解--对户主下属行使私人权力--与户主名义上支持的公共当局对立起来。这种冲突强化了家庭在种植园奴隶制扩张中的中心地位。家户政治使家户成为殖民治理的不稳定基础,也成为反抗新兴种植园主的场所。牙买加的官员们竭力处理突袭与种植园主组建家庭之间的不稳定关系。在苏里南,土著和非洲俘虏努力逃脱和颠覆在家庭统治掩盖下的各种形式的奴役和胁迫。研究殖民思想中家庭的重要性,可以揭示新生的加勒比殖民地的法律政治和地区奴隶制度的兴起之间重要的、但往往被忽视的连续性。从殖民家庭的角度来看,整个加勒比地区的法律变革并没有遵循征服、私人掠夺和种植园奴隶制等独立的阶段。相反,它是随着公共和私人对权力和合法暴力的诉求的变化而演变的。户籍授权战争并将俘虏转化为财产,形成了一个法律支点,用以平衡新兴奴隶社会中相互依存的掠夺、奴役和种植网络。这种围绕俘虏企业和奴隶主家庭组织起来的私人权利和公共权力的组合,横跨 17 世纪的加勒比地区,产生了一种帝国间的法律制度,在这种制度中,奴隶主的权利成为地区秩序愿景的核心。
{"title":"A Sea of Households: Ordering Violence and Mobility in the \u2028Inter-Imperial Caribbean","authors":"Lauren Benton, Timo McGregor","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae024","url":null,"abstract":"Historians have paid more attention to the inner life of households than to their legal and political significance in early European overseas empires. This article analyses the legal role of households in the seventeenth century Caribbean, with an emphasis on Jamaica and Suriname. It argues that households were key to organising maritime violence and composing regional order. Imperial agents in the Caribbean—soldiers, sojourners, servants, and officials—drew selectively from European political and legal discourses about dominium to define households as essential to the constitution of colonial communities and governance. In imperial and colonial legal imagination, households were necessary for the constitution of political communities and their presence fortified arguments for interpolitical violence, especially maritime raiding. Affirming the rights of household heads to hold and command captives, imperial policies to foment household formation and regulate conflicts within households underpinned a regional regime of raiding, captive taking, and enslavement. The regional regime centred on legalities of violence. Demand for coerced labour in early plantation households fuelled a 
circum-Caribbean economy of captive taking and plunder, while settlers invoked the defence of households to authorise privateering and local warfare. As the primary legal framework for absorbing and commanding coerced labour, households became the object of inter-imperial competition and a vehicle for constructing enslavement as an institution. Contests over the rights of settlers to relocate to competing colonies at times pitted expansive understandings of the dominium of household heads—the exercise of private power over household subordinates—against the public authorities they nominally sustained. Such conflicts worked to reinforce the centrality of households to the expansion of plantation slavery. The politics of households made them an unstable underpinning for colonial governance and a site of resistance to the emerging plantocracy. Officials in Jamaica struggled to manage the volatile relation between raiding and planter household formation. In Suriname, Indigenous and African captives struggled to escape and subvert forms of slavery and coercion imposed under cover of household dominium. Examining the significance of households in colonial thought illuminates important and often overlooked continuities in the legal politics of nascent Caribbean colonies and the rise of a regional slave regime. Viewed from the colonial household, legal change across the Caribbean did not follow discrete stages of conquest, privateering, and plantation slavery. Instead, it evolved in relation to shifting accommodations between public and private claims to authority and legitimate violence. Authorising warfare and converting captives into property, households formed a legal fulcrum for balancing interdependent networks of raiding, slaving, and planting in emergent slave","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Race-Making Festivities in Brandenburg-Prussia, 1652–1750 1652-1750 年勃兰登堡-普鲁士的竞赛庆典
IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI: 10.1093/pastj/gtae012
Alexander Bevilacqua
The four generations of Hohenzollern rulers who transformed the electorate of Brandenburg into the kingdom of Prussia — a regional player into a great power — all employed Black men at their courts and in their armies. Through court performance, including processions and tournaments, as well as through artistic commissions, the Brandenburgian rulers adapted existing traditions of representing and displaying human difference and hierarchy for their own ends. As the only member of the Holy Roman Empire to join the Atlantic slave trade, Brandenburg had a particular commitment to staging its global aspirations, both during its slave-trading venture and after it failed. Brandenburg-Prussia’s belated rise exhibits with particular clarity the importance to early modern statecraft not just of foreign enterprise but of its courtly representations. Through the display and representation of Black people in performance and art, the rulers of Brandenburg participated in forms of ‘race-making’ that altered the perception not only of sub-Saharan Africans but of the princely lineage as well.
将勃兰登堡选区转变为普鲁士王国的四代霍亨索伦统治者--从一个地区性角色转变为一个大国--都在其宫廷和军队中雇佣了黑人。通过宫廷表演(包括游行和竞技)以及艺术委托,勃兰登堡统治者为了自己的目的,调整了表现和展示人类差异和等级制度的现有传统。作为神圣罗马帝国唯一加入大西洋奴隶贸易的成员,勃兰登堡在奴隶贸易期间和失败后都特别致力于展示其全球抱负。勃兰登堡-普鲁士姗姗来迟的崛起特别清楚地表明,对于近代早期的国家来说,重要的不仅是对外企业,还有其宫廷表现形式。通过在表演和艺术中展示和表现黑人,勃兰登堡的统治者参与了各种形式的 "种族塑造",这不仅改变了人们对撒哈拉以南非洲人的看法,也改变了人们对王室血统的看法。
{"title":"Race-Making Festivities in Brandenburg-Prussia, 1652–1750","authors":"Alexander Bevilacqua","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae012","url":null,"abstract":"The four generations of Hohenzollern rulers who transformed the electorate of Brandenburg into the kingdom of Prussia — a regional player into a great power — all employed Black men at their courts and in their armies. Through court performance, including processions and tournaments, as well as through artistic commissions, the Brandenburgian rulers adapted existing traditions of representing and displaying human difference and hierarchy for their own ends. As the only member of the Holy Roman Empire to join the Atlantic slave trade, Brandenburg had a particular commitment to staging its global aspirations, both during its slave-trading venture and after it failed. Brandenburg-Prussia’s belated rise exhibits with particular clarity the importance to early modern statecraft not just of foreign enterprise but of its courtly representations. Through the display and representation of Black people in performance and art, the rulers of Brandenburg participated in forms of ‘race-making’ that altered the perception not only of sub-Saharan Africans but of the princely lineage as well.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142329183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Past & Present
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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