分区控制:回顾1890年布鲁塞尔会议法案及其对20世纪的影响

J. Oldfield
{"title":"分区控制:回顾1890年布鲁塞尔会议法案及其对20世纪的影响","authors":"J. Oldfield","doi":"10.3366/ajicl.2022.0413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One hundred and thirty years ago, governments convened in Brussels to discuss a new treaty that would address the trades in slaves, firearms and liquors in Africa. This treaty - the Brussels Conference Act (BCA) - came just five years after the Berlin Conference and Act and has largely been overshadowed by its predecessor. In many ways, though, for colonial governments the BCA was both the necessary counterpart and the logical, as well as legal, successor to the Berlin Conference and Act. If Berlin politically carved up the continent of Africa, Brussels provided the legal justification for doing so. The BCA did this through creating a series of zones, within which European states empowered themselves to act in ways that would facilitate, and at times mandate, colonialism in the guise of humanitarian ideals. These zones covered much of sub-Saharan Africa and the waters off its eastern coast. While the BCA itself lasted until the end of the First World War, the idea of these zones had greater longevity, with special zones proposed in discussions on slavery and the arms trade both during the League of Nations era and into the early years of the United Nations. This article explores the ways in which the idea of this zone within the BCA enabled colonialism and how this idea persisted into the middle of the twentieth century. In doing so, it seeks to consider zones of control not only a matter of legal history, but also as a way to better understand and make more visible the structures upon which international law is built today.","PeriodicalId":42692,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Zoning Control: Revisiting the Brussels Conference Act of 1890 and Its Legacy into the Twentieth Century\",\"authors\":\"J. Oldfield\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/ajicl.2022.0413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One hundred and thirty years ago, governments convened in Brussels to discuss a new treaty that would address the trades in slaves, firearms and liquors in Africa. This treaty - the Brussels Conference Act (BCA) - came just five years after the Berlin Conference and Act and has largely been overshadowed by its predecessor. In many ways, though, for colonial governments the BCA was both the necessary counterpart and the logical, as well as legal, successor to the Berlin Conference and Act. If Berlin politically carved up the continent of Africa, Brussels provided the legal justification for doing so. The BCA did this through creating a series of zones, within which European states empowered themselves to act in ways that would facilitate, and at times mandate, colonialism in the guise of humanitarian ideals. These zones covered much of sub-Saharan Africa and the waters off its eastern coast. While the BCA itself lasted until the end of the First World War, the idea of these zones had greater longevity, with special zones proposed in discussions on slavery and the arms trade both during the League of Nations era and into the early years of the United Nations. This article explores the ways in which the idea of this zone within the BCA enabled colonialism and how this idea persisted into the middle of the twentieth century. In doing so, it seeks to consider zones of control not only a matter of legal history, but also as a way to better understand and make more visible the structures upon which international law is built today.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2022.0413\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2022.0413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

130年前,各国政府在布鲁塞尔召开会议,讨论一项新的条约,该条约将解决非洲的奴隶、枪支和酒类贸易问题。这项条约——《布鲁塞尔会议法》(BCA)——是在《柏林会议法》五年后制定的,在很大程度上被其前身所掩盖。然而,在许多方面,对于殖民地政府来说,BCA既是柏林会议和法案的必要对应者,也是合乎逻辑和合法的继承者。如果柏林在政治上瓜分了非洲大陆,布鲁塞尔就为这样做提供了法律依据。BCA通过创建一系列区域来做到这一点,在这些区域内,欧洲国家有权以人道主义理想为幌子,以促进殖民主义,有时甚至强制殖民主义的方式行事。这些区域覆盖了撒哈拉以南非洲的大部分地区及其东海岸附近的水域。虽然BCA本身一直持续到第一次世界大战结束,但这些地区的想法更为持久,在国际联盟时代和联合国成立初期,在关于奴隶制和武器贸易的讨论中都提出了特别地区。本文探讨了BCA中这一地区的理念是如何促成殖民主义的,以及这一理念是如何持续到20世纪中叶的。在这样做的过程中,它试图将控制区不仅视为一个法律历史问题,而且视为一种更好地理解和使当今国际法所依据的结构更加明显的方式。
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
Zoning Control: Revisiting the Brussels Conference Act of 1890 and Its Legacy into the Twentieth Century
One hundred and thirty years ago, governments convened in Brussels to discuss a new treaty that would address the trades in slaves, firearms and liquors in Africa. This treaty - the Brussels Conference Act (BCA) - came just five years after the Berlin Conference and Act and has largely been overshadowed by its predecessor. In many ways, though, for colonial governments the BCA was both the necessary counterpart and the logical, as well as legal, successor to the Berlin Conference and Act. If Berlin politically carved up the continent of Africa, Brussels provided the legal justification for doing so. The BCA did this through creating a series of zones, within which European states empowered themselves to act in ways that would facilitate, and at times mandate, colonialism in the guise of humanitarian ideals. These zones covered much of sub-Saharan Africa and the waters off its eastern coast. While the BCA itself lasted until the end of the First World War, the idea of these zones had greater longevity, with special zones proposed in discussions on slavery and the arms trade both during the League of Nations era and into the early years of the United Nations. This article explores the ways in which the idea of this zone within the BCA enabled colonialism and how this idea persisted into the middle of the twentieth century. In doing so, it seeks to consider zones of control not only a matter of legal history, but also as a way to better understand and make more visible the structures upon which international law is built today.
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
An Evaluation of South Africa's Maternity and Parental Benefits Legislation in Light of the International Labour Organisation's Maternity Protection Convention and Recommendation Front matter The Supreme Court of Uganda and the Right to Bail Pending Appeal: Understanding Nakiwuge Racheal Muleke v Uganda (Criminal Reference No.12 Of 2020) (9 September 2021) Corporate Accountability to Local Communities for Investment-Related Harms: The Elusive Promise of Balanced Investment Treaties The Igiogbe Custom as a Mandatory Norm in Conflict of Laws: An Exploration of Nigerian Appellate Court Decisions
×
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