通过国际法重新定义奴隶制:1926年奴隶制公约,“本土劳工法”和种族资本主义

IF 2.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of International Economic Law Pub Date : 2022-07-28 DOI:10.1093/jiel/jgac024
Christopher Gevers
{"title":"通过国际法重新定义奴隶制:1926年奴隶制公约,“本土劳工法”和种族资本主义","authors":"Christopher Gevers","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article charts the refiguration of slavery through international law, the concatenations of slavery, colonialism and their afterlives in the present, and what these might tell us about racial capitalism and international economic law. Drawing on the Black Radical Tradition, it shows how slavery was refigured in two distinct but related respects. First, from the late nineteenth century onwards, international lawyers ‘refigured’ slavery historically, such that ‘antislavery’ became a defining attribute of ‘progressive’, ‘white’, ‘civilization’, and set about building the international legal architecture to confirm this fabrication; culminating in the Slavery Convention (1926) and the League of Nations’ ‘antislavery’ machinery. As a result, as a matter of ‘history’ and international law, the ‘recrudescence’ of slavery could only take place in Africa, and in particular in the two African states not yet under white rule—Liberia and Ethiopia—which laid the basis for the violent interventions in these Black Republics by Italy and the League in the interwar period. Second, the Slavery Convention and the International Labor Organization’s ‘native labor code’—through the figure of the ‘Black Worker’—refigured the afterlives of slavery and colonialism as acceptable, ‘civilizing’ (forced) labor, provided it was under white management. The article ends by showing how white supremacy and Black subordination were refigured, materially and symbolically—at both the international and individual level—through the ‘fabulation of debt’, literal and moral; and, in turn, surfaces slavery and colonialism’s entwined afterlives in the racial capitalist present, including through interntational (economic) law.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refiguring Slavery Through International Law: The 1926 Slavery Convention, the ‘Native Labor Code’ and Racial Capitalism\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Gevers\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jiel/jgac024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article charts the refiguration of slavery through international law, the concatenations of slavery, colonialism and their afterlives in the present, and what these might tell us about racial capitalism and international economic law. Drawing on the Black Radical Tradition, it shows how slavery was refigured in two distinct but related respects. First, from the late nineteenth century onwards, international lawyers ‘refigured’ slavery historically, such that ‘antislavery’ became a defining attribute of ‘progressive’, ‘white’, ‘civilization’, and set about building the international legal architecture to confirm this fabrication; culminating in the Slavery Convention (1926) and the League of Nations’ ‘antislavery’ machinery. As a result, as a matter of ‘history’ and international law, the ‘recrudescence’ of slavery could only take place in Africa, and in particular in the two African states not yet under white rule—Liberia and Ethiopia—which laid the basis for the violent interventions in these Black Republics by Italy and the League in the interwar period. Second, the Slavery Convention and the International Labor Organization’s ‘native labor code’—through the figure of the ‘Black Worker’—refigured the afterlives of slavery and colonialism as acceptable, ‘civilizing’ (forced) labor, provided it was under white management. The article ends by showing how white supremacy and Black subordination were refigured, materially and symbolically—at both the international and individual level—through the ‘fabulation of debt’, literal and moral; and, in turn, surfaces slavery and colonialism’s entwined afterlives in the racial capitalist present, including through interntational (economic) law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Economic Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Economic Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Economic Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章通过国际法描绘了奴隶制的重构,奴隶制、殖民主义和他们在现在的后遗症的联系,以及这些可能告诉我们的关于种族资本主义和国际经济法的东西。它借鉴了黑人激进传统,展示了奴隶制是如何在两个截然不同但相关的方面被重新塑造的。首先,从19世纪后期开始,国际律师对奴隶制进行了历史性的“重构”,使“反奴隶制”成为“进步”、“白人”、“文明”的一个定义属性,并着手建立国际法律架构来确认这一捏造;最终促成了1926年的《奴隶制公约》和国际联盟的“反奴隶制”机制。因此,作为“历史”和国际法的问题,奴隶制的“卷土重来”只能发生在非洲,特别是在两个尚未处于白人统治之下的非洲国家——利比里亚和埃塞俄比亚——这为意大利和联盟在两次世界大战期间对这些黑人共和国的暴力干预奠定了基础。其次,《奴隶制公约》和国际劳工组织的“本地劳动法”——通过“黑人工人”的形象——将奴隶制和殖民主义的后遗症重新定义为可接受的、“文明化”(强迫)的劳动,只要它是在白人的管理之下。文章最后展示了白人至上和黑人从属地位是如何在物质上和象征上——在国际和个人层面——通过“虚构债务”,在字面上和道德上被重新塑造的;并且,反过来,在种族资本主义的当下,包括通过国际(经济)法,揭示了奴隶制和殖民主义纠缠在一起的后遗症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Refiguring Slavery Through International Law: The 1926 Slavery Convention, the ‘Native Labor Code’ and Racial Capitalism
This article charts the refiguration of slavery through international law, the concatenations of slavery, colonialism and their afterlives in the present, and what these might tell us about racial capitalism and international economic law. Drawing on the Black Radical Tradition, it shows how slavery was refigured in two distinct but related respects. First, from the late nineteenth century onwards, international lawyers ‘refigured’ slavery historically, such that ‘antislavery’ became a defining attribute of ‘progressive’, ‘white’, ‘civilization’, and set about building the international legal architecture to confirm this fabrication; culminating in the Slavery Convention (1926) and the League of Nations’ ‘antislavery’ machinery. As a result, as a matter of ‘history’ and international law, the ‘recrudescence’ of slavery could only take place in Africa, and in particular in the two African states not yet under white rule—Liberia and Ethiopia—which laid the basis for the violent interventions in these Black Republics by Italy and the League in the interwar period. Second, the Slavery Convention and the International Labor Organization’s ‘native labor code’—through the figure of the ‘Black Worker’—refigured the afterlives of slavery and colonialism as acceptable, ‘civilizing’ (forced) labor, provided it was under white management. The article ends by showing how white supremacy and Black subordination were refigured, materially and symbolically—at both the international and individual level—through the ‘fabulation of debt’, literal and moral; and, in turn, surfaces slavery and colonialism’s entwined afterlives in the racial capitalist present, including through interntational (economic) law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Economic Law is dedicated to encouraging thoughtful and scholarly attention to a very broad range of subjects that concern the relation of law to international economic activity, by providing the major English language medium for publication of high-quality manuscripts relevant to the endeavours of scholars, government officials, legal professionals, and others. The journal"s emphasis is on fundamental, long-term, systemic problems and possible solutions, in the light of empirical observations and experience, as well as theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic diffusion The automatic termination clause in the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement—brinkmanship for future negotiation or a time bomb for self-destruction? The utility of appellate review at the WTO and its optimal structure Rethinking the ‘Full Reparation’ standard in energy investment arbitration: how to take climate change into account Regulatory autonomy in digital trade agreements
×
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