Empire, Law and Revolutions
MSc in Political Science (International Relations)
2020-2021
Semester 1 block 2-3
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
Table of Contents
Session 1: International Law, Liberalism and Capitalism – Introducing the Problem..............4
Essay: The Historical Background of International Law...........................................................20
Session 2: Historical Beginnings – Empire and the Origins of International Law...................23
Session 3: Imperialism and the Second International Challenges at the Turn of the Century I
– Rosa Luxemburg Accumulation of Capital..............................................................................38
Essay: Russian Revolution and Imperialism...............................................................................49
Session 4: Imperialism and the Second International Challenges at the Turn of the Century II
– The Russian Revolution and Critique of Imperialism.............................................................51
Session 5: The World of Human Rights and Corporate Human Rights Violations.................69
Session 6: Neo-Liberalism to New International Resistance......................................................81
Session 7: Absolutism and Anti-Colonialism in an International Perspective – Reconsidering
the Nation-State.............................................................................................................................93
Session 8: New Challenges, New Revolutions?............................................................................99
End of Term Paper......................................................................................................................103
2
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
3
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
Session 1: International Law, Liberalism and Capitalism –
Introducing the Problem
28/10/2020
Lecturer: Dana Mills
The Specter of Sovereignty: Reflections on Teaching about Empires and Political
Imagination – Lauren Benton (2013)
Westphalian order
But the term of sovereignty remains a troubled historical term, like the term ‘state’,
also the use of ‘sovereignty’ requires us to associate with an ideal image of historians
Classroom experiment
Doubts on destabilising Eurocentric perspectives would be sufficient, we need to
bring in legal history
But the problem is larger: the exposure to ‘sovereignty’ as a term with an apparently
settled meaning in the contemporary world is a too powerful influence
What to do? Continue to raise questions rather than providing answers
'Colonial reflection’ and territoriality: The peripheral origins of sovereign statehood –
Jordan Branch (2012)
Introduction
The modern international system is commonly argued to have originated within
Western Europe and spread globally during centuries of colonialism, but instead, here
it is argued that the character of the modern system of territorially sovereign states
resulted from a complex interaction between European colonizing polities and events,
actors, and spaces in other parts of the globe
In particular, through a process of colonial reflection, many of the foundational ideas
and practices of modern statehood were formed in the interactions of Europeans with
the unknown, supposedly empty, spaces of the New World in the 16th and 17th
centuries
These novel practices were applied only later to politics among states in Europe
Most important among these developments is the ideal of territorial exclusivity as the
sole basis for state sovereignty
Dominant narratives of the expansion of European statehood
Many other theorists have approached the origin of modern states from a variety of
angles,1 yet few place causal emphasis on the extra-European expansion of colonial
powers, even though they often note the historical coincidence of colonial expansion
and European state formation
The organizational form of the state and the practices of the state system are argued to
have spread to the rest of the world through direct colonial imposition and post-
colonial institutional mimicry
This article argues instead, that certain practices and ideas fundamental to modern
states and international relations appeared first in the colonial world, albeit in the
4
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
interactions of European polities operating there, and were only later applied to intra-
European political structures
This article’s contribution builds on these insights, arguing that our understanding of
the development of European states continues to be incomplete because important
aspects of what I have termed colonial reflection have been overlooked
The importance of colonial practices to later European political developments has
been noted by other studies, none of which, however, focuses on explaining the shift
to exclusive territoriality as a foundation for modern statehood
Sovereignty, territoriality, and the modern state
In short, the territorial statehood and linear boundaries that have defined international
politics since the 19th century first appeared in European colonial practices
The important characteristics of the international system include more than diplomatic
practices (which the English School emphasizes) or the anarchy–hierarchy distinction
(of neorealism). The characteristics of the actors themselves must be considered as
well, and these characteristics are fundamentally structured by ideas and practices of
sovereign authority
In this key dimension of state and system structure — the form of legitimate authority
— the modern state system differs fundamentally from other historical international
systems, both the medieval political structure that preceded it in Europe and the non-
Western political systems from various eras
The European medieval political world, for example, was structured by a mix of
territorial and jurisdictional or personal forms of authority, but outside of Western
Europe, political systems were often based on similar, non-modern forms of territorial
authority or personal quasi-kinship bonds
The modern state system, on the other hand, has been structured since the early 19th
century by exclusive territorial authority, with no other form of authority considered
legitimate
New World territoriality and European reflection
New World territoriality
o The ‘discovery’ of America in the 1490s was not easily incorporated into
European geographic and cosmological thinking
o Columbus’s traditional means of asserting authority on the spot — in his own
words, ‘by proclamation made and with the royal standard unfurled’ — was
insufficient for claiming a poorly understood territory
o Europeans found particularly useful the ideas built on techniques of mapping
newly rediscovered from the classical Greek author Ptolemy, whose work
contained instructions for mapping according to the now-familiar celestial
coordinate system of latitude and longitude
o Linear territorial claims were used in conjunction with other innovations in
order to delineate and justify New World possessions
o The cartographic basis for these large territorial claims in colonial charters
was then followed by the imposition of survey-based property mapping as a
key element in delineating and assigning colonial lands to settlers, often along
equally geometric lines
o In the Old World, filled with recognized authority structures and legal titles,
an invader could conquer a people and claim the same authority that the
previous ruler had held
o In the New World, the absence of recognized authorities demanded a new
means of claiming authority vis-á-vis other European powers: linearly defined
territoriality, expressed abstractly in maps or cartographic language
5
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
Early modern European territoriality
o Contemporary with the implementation of territorial exclusivity in the political
claims and counterclaims of colonial powers in the New World, authority
relations within Europe remained relatively unchanged for several centuries
o Rulers continued to make political authority claims based on personal or
jurisdictional notions, as well as territorial claims built on the medieval idea of
territory as a series of places rather than a geometrically delineated space (this
is evident in the language used in major European peace treaties, which
provide one means of gauging the ideas held by leading political actors in the
early modern period)
o Nearly contemporary with Columbus and the Treaty of Tordesillas, late
medieval treaty settlements were built on notions of political authority very
different from those evident in New World claims
o Over a century later, in 1558–9, France, Spain, and England met to negotiate
an end to the Italian Wars, yielding the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis. In the
several treaties that resulted from these meetings, territorial trades and
cessions were once again made in the form of lists of towns
o Contrary to the conventional narrative in international relations theory about
the innovative and transformative nature of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648,
the treaties signed at Münster and Osnabrück demonstrated that territorial
authority continued to be understood in the medieval fashion, as a series of
differentiated places, and non-territorial authorities also continued to be
important
o What is also notable in 1648 is the continuing absence of cartographic or
geographic language of the kind being used in the New World
o Furthermore, these treaties contained numerous references to ‘rights’ and
‘privileges’ associated with particular places
o In short, Westphalia marked not the creation, let alone the consolidation, of
the modern state system, but instead continued the intra-European practices of
exchanging authority along medieval lines
The divergence between New World and Old World practices
Early modern peace treaties among European powers thus illustrate the disconnect
between linear territorial exclusivity in the New World and jurisdictional complexities
in the Old
For example, compare the place-focused territorial exchanges and jurisdictional
complexities of the cessions in the treaties of Westphalia with the cartographic
abstraction and linearity of English colonial charters from the same century
1713 Treaty of Utrecht: the emphasis placed on ‘limits,’ or boundaries, stands in stark
contrast to the focus on places, or centers, in intra-European territorial claims
Reflection of linear exclusive territoriality back onto Europe
The discrepancy between New World territorial practices and those used within
Europe was slowly narrowed and finally eliminated, beginning in the 18th century,
but culminating only after the defeat of Napoleon
In the treaty signed at the Congress of Vienna, for example, the redivision of the
Duchy of Warsaw among Austria, Prussia, and Russia was effected in an entirely
linear fashion
6
– –
MSc in Political Science (International Relations)
2020-2021
Semester 1 block 2-3
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
Table of Contents
Session 1: International Law, Liberalism and Capitalism – Introducing the Problem..............4
Essay: The Historical Background of International Law...........................................................20
Session 2: Historical Beginnings – Empire and the Origins of International Law...................23
Session 3: Imperialism and the Second International Challenges at the Turn of the Century I
– Rosa Luxemburg Accumulation of Capital..............................................................................38
Essay: Russian Revolution and Imperialism...............................................................................49
Session 4: Imperialism and the Second International Challenges at the Turn of the Century II
– The Russian Revolution and Critique of Imperialism.............................................................51
Session 5: The World of Human Rights and Corporate Human Rights Violations.................69
Session 6: Neo-Liberalism to New International Resistance......................................................81
Session 7: Absolutism and Anti-Colonialism in an International Perspective – Reconsidering
the Nation-State.............................................................................................................................93
Session 8: New Challenges, New Revolutions?............................................................................99
End of Term Paper......................................................................................................................103
2
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
3
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
Session 1: International Law, Liberalism and Capitalism –
Introducing the Problem
28/10/2020
Lecturer: Dana Mills
The Specter of Sovereignty: Reflections on Teaching about Empires and Political
Imagination – Lauren Benton (2013)
Westphalian order
But the term of sovereignty remains a troubled historical term, like the term ‘state’,
also the use of ‘sovereignty’ requires us to associate with an ideal image of historians
Classroom experiment
Doubts on destabilising Eurocentric perspectives would be sufficient, we need to
bring in legal history
But the problem is larger: the exposure to ‘sovereignty’ as a term with an apparently
settled meaning in the contemporary world is a too powerful influence
What to do? Continue to raise questions rather than providing answers
'Colonial reflection’ and territoriality: The peripheral origins of sovereign statehood –
Jordan Branch (2012)
Introduction
The modern international system is commonly argued to have originated within
Western Europe and spread globally during centuries of colonialism, but instead, here
it is argued that the character of the modern system of territorially sovereign states
resulted from a complex interaction between European colonizing polities and events,
actors, and spaces in other parts of the globe
In particular, through a process of colonial reflection, many of the foundational ideas
and practices of modern statehood were formed in the interactions of Europeans with
the unknown, supposedly empty, spaces of the New World in the 16th and 17th
centuries
These novel practices were applied only later to politics among states in Europe
Most important among these developments is the ideal of territorial exclusivity as the
sole basis for state sovereignty
Dominant narratives of the expansion of European statehood
Many other theorists have approached the origin of modern states from a variety of
angles,1 yet few place causal emphasis on the extra-European expansion of colonial
powers, even though they often note the historical coincidence of colonial expansion
and European state formation
The organizational form of the state and the practices of the state system are argued to
have spread to the rest of the world through direct colonial imposition and post-
colonial institutional mimicry
This article argues instead, that certain practices and ideas fundamental to modern
states and international relations appeared first in the colonial world, albeit in the
4
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
interactions of European polities operating there, and were only later applied to intra-
European political structures
This article’s contribution builds on these insights, arguing that our understanding of
the development of European states continues to be incomplete because important
aspects of what I have termed colonial reflection have been overlooked
The importance of colonial practices to later European political developments has
been noted by other studies, none of which, however, focuses on explaining the shift
to exclusive territoriality as a foundation for modern statehood
Sovereignty, territoriality, and the modern state
In short, the territorial statehood and linear boundaries that have defined international
politics since the 19th century first appeared in European colonial practices
The important characteristics of the international system include more than diplomatic
practices (which the English School emphasizes) or the anarchy–hierarchy distinction
(of neorealism). The characteristics of the actors themselves must be considered as
well, and these characteristics are fundamentally structured by ideas and practices of
sovereign authority
In this key dimension of state and system structure — the form of legitimate authority
— the modern state system differs fundamentally from other historical international
systems, both the medieval political structure that preceded it in Europe and the non-
Western political systems from various eras
The European medieval political world, for example, was structured by a mix of
territorial and jurisdictional or personal forms of authority, but outside of Western
Europe, political systems were often based on similar, non-modern forms of territorial
authority or personal quasi-kinship bonds
The modern state system, on the other hand, has been structured since the early 19th
century by exclusive territorial authority, with no other form of authority considered
legitimate
New World territoriality and European reflection
New World territoriality
o The ‘discovery’ of America in the 1490s was not easily incorporated into
European geographic and cosmological thinking
o Columbus’s traditional means of asserting authority on the spot — in his own
words, ‘by proclamation made and with the royal standard unfurled’ — was
insufficient for claiming a poorly understood territory
o Europeans found particularly useful the ideas built on techniques of mapping
newly rediscovered from the classical Greek author Ptolemy, whose work
contained instructions for mapping according to the now-familiar celestial
coordinate system of latitude and longitude
o Linear territorial claims were used in conjunction with other innovations in
order to delineate and justify New World possessions
o The cartographic basis for these large territorial claims in colonial charters
was then followed by the imposition of survey-based property mapping as a
key element in delineating and assigning colonial lands to settlers, often along
equally geometric lines
o In the Old World, filled with recognized authority structures and legal titles,
an invader could conquer a people and claim the same authority that the
previous ruler had held
o In the New World, the absence of recognized authorities demanded a new
means of claiming authority vis-á-vis other European powers: linearly defined
territoriality, expressed abstractly in maps or cartographic language
5
– –
, UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM EMPIRE, LAW AND REVOLUTIONS
Early modern European territoriality
o Contemporary with the implementation of territorial exclusivity in the political
claims and counterclaims of colonial powers in the New World, authority
relations within Europe remained relatively unchanged for several centuries
o Rulers continued to make political authority claims based on personal or
jurisdictional notions, as well as territorial claims built on the medieval idea of
territory as a series of places rather than a geometrically delineated space (this
is evident in the language used in major European peace treaties, which
provide one means of gauging the ideas held by leading political actors in the
early modern period)
o Nearly contemporary with Columbus and the Treaty of Tordesillas, late
medieval treaty settlements were built on notions of political authority very
different from those evident in New World claims
o Over a century later, in 1558–9, France, Spain, and England met to negotiate
an end to the Italian Wars, yielding the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis. In the
several treaties that resulted from these meetings, territorial trades and
cessions were once again made in the form of lists of towns
o Contrary to the conventional narrative in international relations theory about
the innovative and transformative nature of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648,
the treaties signed at Münster and Osnabrück demonstrated that territorial
authority continued to be understood in the medieval fashion, as a series of
differentiated places, and non-territorial authorities also continued to be
important
o What is also notable in 1648 is the continuing absence of cartographic or
geographic language of the kind being used in the New World
o Furthermore, these treaties contained numerous references to ‘rights’ and
‘privileges’ associated with particular places
o In short, Westphalia marked not the creation, let alone the consolidation, of
the modern state system, but instead continued the intra-European practices of
exchanging authority along medieval lines
The divergence between New World and Old World practices
Early modern peace treaties among European powers thus illustrate the disconnect
between linear territorial exclusivity in the New World and jurisdictional complexities
in the Old
For example, compare the place-focused territorial exchanges and jurisdictional
complexities of the cessions in the treaties of Westphalia with the cartographic
abstraction and linearity of English colonial charters from the same century
1713 Treaty of Utrecht: the emphasis placed on ‘limits,’ or boundaries, stands in stark
contrast to the focus on places, or centers, in intra-European territorial claims
Reflection of linear exclusive territoriality back onto Europe
The discrepancy between New World territorial practices and those used within
Europe was slowly narrowed and finally eliminated, beginning in the 18th century,
but culminating only after the defeat of Napoleon
In the treaty signed at the Congress of Vienna, for example, the redivision of the
Duchy of Warsaw among Austria, Prussia, and Russia was effected in an entirely
linear fashion
6
– –
