Explore the vast range of titles available.

Challenging the common assumption that legal misunderstanding was pervasive, this article analyzes jurisdictional politics as an element of “interpolity law”—a broad framework for legal interactions across polities and regions in the early modern world. It draws on recent research on jurisdictional politics to show how such an approach allows historians to avoid some of the familiar pitfalls associated with studies of legal pluralism. This approach provides clear methodological advantages over the study of global legal history as a function of multi-normativity. Political communities across the globe centered on internal and external conflicts on the nature and reach of legal authority. By focusing on jurisdiction as a touchstone of legal action and tracing how legal authority was produced through conflict, our approach treats legal pluralism as a valuable descriptive term rather than an analytical framework. The study of jurisdictional politics portrays state authority as potentially one among many forms of legal authority, and it brings into sharp focus continuities within and across pluri-political regions. By tracking broad institutional shifts that occurred when empires and states moved to assert power over multi-jurisdictional orders, the perspective informs new narratives about trajectories of regional and global legal order.

\"For five centuries protection has provided a basic currency for organising relations between polities. Protection underpinned sprawling tributary systems, permeated networks of long-distance trade, reinforced claims of royal authority in distant colonies and structured treaties. Empires made routine use of protection as they extended their influence, projecting authority over old and new subjects, forcing weaker parties to pay them for safe conduct and, sometimes, paying for it themselves. The result was a fluid politics that absorbed both the powerful and the weak while giving rise to institutions and jurisdictional arrangements with broad geographic scope and influence. This volume brings together leading scholars to trace the long history of protection across empires in Asia, Africa, Australasia, Europe and the Americas. Employing a global lens, it offers an innovative way of understanding the formation and growth of empires and uncovers new dimensions of the relation of empires to regional and global order\"-- Provided by publisher.

For animal research, the precautionary principle was written into public policy through the so-called three R’s of replacement, reduction, and refinement. These guidelines, as developed by Russell and Burch six decades ago, aimed to establish safeguards against the abuse of animals in the pursuit of science. While these safeguards, which started from the basic premise that science itself would benefit from a reduction of animal suffering, seem compelling at first, the three R’s have in practice generated a degree of confusion while opening up loopholes that have enabled researchers to effectively dismiss some of the more inconvenient aspects of ethical concerns. Such problems have been discussed in detail by multiple authors. Here, we suggest a different approach by arguing that a clear parallel can be drawn between the shortcomings evident in the current three R’s model and the flawed practice of early modern judicial torture, in which a set of elaborate safeguards that were designed to prevent abuses served instead to create the same combination of confusion and easily exploited loopholes. In the case of judicial torture, attempts to refine the system from within produced limited results, and effective change only took place when individual legal systems succeeded in enforcing clear absolutes. We explore the implications of this for the regulation of animal research by pointing to the need for achievable absolutes, based on a clear, evidence-based, and publicly deliberated rationale, in order to facilitate and improve research ethics.

When he arrived back from his first voyage, Columbus reported that he had taken possession of lands and people beyond count. This typically confident statement encapsulates the key act of European expansion: the claim to possession over distant territories. This article considers European claims to possession in early modern Asia and in particular a string of territorial acquisitions made by the Dutch East India Company in the first half of the seventeenth century. My focus is on legal claims, how the Company justified its hold over territory, and the counterclaims that these prompted. The process of looking for counterclaims is, I suggest, a productive one, revealing connections between otherwise neglected events or actions that cohere to form patterns of legal opposition. Put together, these patterns reveal that legal resistance was the pervasive byproduct of expansion and that different groups were able to mobilize arguments that struck at the heart of the Company’s claims to territory.

The Dutch East India Company was a hybrid organization combining the characteristics of both corporation and state that attempted to thrust itself aggressively into an Asian political order in which it possessed no obvious place and was transformed in the process. This study focuses on the company's clashes with Tokugawa Japan over diplomacy, violence, and sovereignty. In each encounter the Dutch were forced to retreat, compelled to abandon their claims to sovereign powers, and to refashion themselves again and again -- from subjects of a fictive king to loyal vassals of the shogun, from aggressive pirates to meek merchants, and from insistent defenders of colonial sovereignty to legal subjects of the Tokugawa state. Within the confines of these conflicts, the terms of the relationship between the company and the shogun first took shape and were subsequently set into what would become their permanent form. The first book to treat the Dutch East India Company in Japan as something more than just a commercial organization,The Company and the Shogunpresents new perspective on one of the most important, long-lasting relationships to develop between an Asian state and a European overseas enterprise.

Les historiens ont fait preuve d’une étonnante indifférence à l’égard des dimensions juridiques de l’« empire informel ». Cet article montre que les pratiques juridiques ont en réalité créé et soutenu une indétermination de souveraineté. Nous nous intéressons à Pitcairn, une petite île isolée du Pacifique, peuplée en 1789 par une poignée de Britanniques et de Tahitiens après la mutinerie du Bounty . Administrateurs britanniques, professionnels du droit, voyageurs et historiens ont avancé un enchevêtrement de revendications, chacune liée à une chronologie particulière, sur la manière dont Pitcairn est devenue britannique. Une des thèses qui ressort de ces controverses est qu’un capitaine de la marine britannique aurait pris possession de l’île en 1838. Nous remettons en question cette version ainsi que d’autres récits prédominants en montrant comment les multiples reconfigurations des liens entre l’île et l’empire ont non seulement empêché la première d’être absorbée dans le second, mais également de devenir une entité indépendante. Les visites intermittentes des officiers de la marine britannique ont progressivement constitué un système juridique improvisé, tandis que des factions rivales parmi les habitants de l’île ont orienté les agents impériaux dans le soutien de projets locaux, y compris des tentatives de prise de pouvoir sur l’île. Pendant un siècle et demi, ces processus ont maintenu Pitcairn au seuil de l’empire. La portée de cette histoire dépasse largement le cas de ce minuscule territoire. En nous appuyant sur une étude micro-historique de Pitcairn afin d’éclairer plus largement l’agencement des relations entre entités politiques, nous montrerons que cette souveraineté indécise a pour origine ce que nous proposons d’appeler les « circuits juridiques » de l’empire au xix e  siècle. Historians have been remarkably incurious about the legal dimensions of “informal empire.” This article shows that legal practices in fact created and sustained sovereign indeterminacy. Our focus is Pitcairn, a small, remote island in the Pacific settled in 1789 by a handful of Britons and Tahitians after the mutiny on the  Bounty . British officials, legal professionals, island sojourners, and historians have advanced a jumble of claims, each attached to a particular timeline, about how Pitcairn became British. One prominent view is that a single British navy captain took possession of the island in 1838. We challenge this and other prevailing accounts by showing how repeated reconfigurations of island-imperial connections kept Pitcairn from being either enfolded into the empire or established as an independent entity. Intermittent visits by British naval officers gradually constituted a make-shift legal system, while rival factions of islanders steered imperial agents to support local schemes, including bids for island rule. For a century and a half, these processes held Pitcairn on the threshold of the empire. The significance of the narrative recounted here extends far beyond one small island. This microhistory illustrates broad processes of interpolity ordering and locates the origins of sovereign indeterminacy in the “legal circuitry” of nineteenth-century empire.

References to protection were ubiquitous across the early modern world, featuring in a range of transactions between polities in very different regions. And yet discourses about protection retained a quality of imprecision that makes it difficult to pin down precise legal statuses and responsibilities. It was often unclear who was protecting whom or the exact nature of the relationship. In this article, we interrogate standard distinctions about the dual character of protection that differentiate between ‘inside’ protection of subjects and ‘outside’ protection of allies and other external groups. Rather than a clear division, we find a blurring of lines, with many protection claims creatively combining ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ protection. We argue that the juxtaposition of these ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ meanings of protection underpinned the formation of irregular, interpenetrating zones of imperial suzerainty in crowded maritime arenas and conflict-ridden borderlands across the early modern world.

The Virtual Angkor project, which was built from the ground up by a team of virtual history specialists, archaeologists, and historians, allows us to place students inside the Angkor Wat complex, to view the famous bas-reliefs firsthand, to sail down one of the hundreds of canals crisscrossing the city, to inspect a marketplace selling goods from across Southeast Asia and to watch as thousands of animated people and processions enter, exit, and circulate around the city. Once they slipped on the bulky virtual reality headsets, the experience was dizzying for students who jumped to move aside as processions passed, experienced vertigo as they looked down from elevated structures and became aware of the sun slowly rising in the sky above them. The product of almost a decade of intensive 3-D modelling, the Virtual Angkor project is a particularly striking example of technologically driven interactive history that looks close to the immersive historical worlds that many of us imagined as children. Other developments have been less visually arresting, building upon the promise of the internet and technology that has been widely available for decades now, but which represent no less of a sea change in the ways in which we can do research and engage with students. What follows is a personal overview of the developments and technologies that have had the greatest influence on my own practice as a teacher and student of early modern global history.