DEADLINE EXTENDED: Identity, Citizenship and Legal History. XXVth Annual Forum of Young Legal Historians (Brussels, 5-8 JUN 2019); DEADLINE 15 FEB 2019

Identity, Citizenship and Legal History

XXVth Annual Forum of Young Legal Historians

Brussels, 5 – 8 June 2019

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Historically, the concept of citizenship encompassed three distinct, yet interconnected dimensions. The first and foremost dimension was of a legal nature: citizenship was a legal status which allowed one to act freely in accordance with the law and, when necessary, to claim its protection. In its second dimension citizenship presupposed one’s active participation in society’s political institutions. And last, though certainly not least, citizenship was closely linked to membership of a specific community that provided a distinct source of identity. All three dimensions were closely related to each other. This can perhaps be most aptly exemplified in the ancient boast of ‘Civis romanus sum!’, which encapsulated simultaneously a plea for legal rights, a republican sense of duty, and a distinctly Roman feeling of the imperial pride. Since the nineteenth century, these dimensions have been linked predominantly to the modern nation-state, a model which is nowadays increasingly challenged on the internal as well as the external level. Internally, many states are seen to be struggling with federalism, separatist movements, legacies of colonialism and right-wing identity politics. Externally, today’s governments are confronted with issues, such as climate change, demographic shifts, migration streams and a global and interdependent economic system, that require international cooperation or even supranational institutions.

The XXVth Annual Forum of the Young Legal Historians aims to shed light on these questions by looking at the legal history of the closely intertwined concepts of citizenship and legal history. Throughout history, citizenship and identity has been defined in different ways and at different levels. For instance, in antiquity the often smallish Greek poleis could hardly be compared to the expansive Roman Empire. Medieval life in Europe consisted of a feudal patchwork of kingdoms, principalities and free city-states, yet all were considered part of Christendom. Identity could also be determined by social class (e.g. aristocratic families) or by profession (e.g. the guilds). The nineteenth century saw the rise of nationalism and revolution, whilst at the same time European powers expanded their colonial empires. Despite these evolutions, it cannot be denied that there is also much continuity to be found. Although diversity and globalisation have reached an unprecedented scale and form today, these phenomena are not entirely new. Each era has had its international relations, its trades, wars, economic discrepancies, migrants and refugees.

There is, in short, enough reason to expect that we can learn from history. Such an endeavour necessitates a multidisciplinary approach since legal constructions can be fully appreciated only when combined with insights from the related fields of history, philosophy, political science and sociology. Therefore, the organizers welcome both traditional approaches in legal history and methodologically innovative research.

If you would like to present a paper during the conference, please send an application including an abstract of not more than 250 words and your CV to aylh2019@gmail.com before 15 February 2019. It is also possible to apply for a full panel. In that case, your proposal should also include, in addition to individual paper proposals, an abstract introducing the theme of the panel. Presentations have to be in English and should not exceed 20 minutes each. The conference fee will be € 100,- and does not include accommodation. Further information about the upcoming forum can be found at the website of the conference. Information about the Association of Young Legal Historians and the past Annual Forums is available at the AYLH-website.

CALL FOR PAPERS: The Crimean War, the first european modern war? (Paris, 7-9 NOV 2019); DEADLINE 30 JAN 2019

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Summary:

The Crimean War marked, with the Civil War (1861-1865), a great historical and anthropological turning point in military history, witnessing profound transformations not only in the way of fighting, but also in the relations between societies and war, during and after the conflict. This conference will aim in putting the Crimean War in this new historiographical approach to military conflicts by highlighting three fundamental aspects: The anthropological approach, the transnational dimension, the sociocultural dimension of the conflict, and its memory.

Announcement:

This International conferenc is organized by the 19th century history center, the LabEx EHNE and the Slavs history research center (UMR SIRICE) and will be held at Paris-Sorbonne from 7 to 9 November 2019.

ArgumentSo far, the Crimean War has been rather neglected in French military history. It has only been the subject of a synthesis, quite traditional in its views, and was associated with the Second Empire whose trace, according to the historiography of the Third Republic, was to be erased. The strongest and most recent study was written by Alain Gouttman. However, although this work is very scientific and objective, it remains deeply marked by a tropism for the history of the battle. This situation is all the more regrettable as today the Crimean War is being rewritten in other countries, particularly in Britain, in the context of a revised history of conflicts, increasingly studied in a multidisciplinary approach.Indeed, the Crimean War marked, with the Civil War (1861-1865), a great historical and anthropological turning point in military history, witnessing profound transformations not only in the way of fighting, but also in the relations between societies and war, during and after the conflict.This conference will aim in putting the Crimean War in this new historiographical approach to  military conflicts by highlighting three fundamental aspects:1) The anthropological approach to modern warfare as a key to understand struggles, strategies, experiences and feelings of combatants and the relationship between war and societies.2) The transnational dimension, introducing a comparison of the conflict history. The confrontation of cross-sources  will make it possible to leave the compartmentalization imposed by purely  national approaches. Above all, the Crimean War should not be seen from the West and has to be  evaluated, regarding  its perception and its repercussions,  in the Russian world as well as in the Ottoman one.3) The sociocultural dimension of the conflict, and its memory. The Crimean War influences the society also because of medical, economical and symbolical involvement of State, army and citizens.Having in mind this  methodological approach,  the conference will be structured along four major topics:I) Diplomacy and warHere, it will be about the origins of the war, belligerents’ motivations and consequences of the conflict on diplomacy. The Crimean War will be replaced in a double context that is the one of the so-called “concert of nations” and the other around the Eastern Question. If the religious origins of the conflict may have been overestimated, on the contrary, economic reasons and the control of the Straits, (generally underestimated) could be replaced in the core of European diplomacy issues.II) Experiencing the warThe Crimean War marks important upheavals in the soldiers’ experience of fights. New weapons and techniques (striped cannon rifle, explosive shells..) and military strategy evolutions (appearing of trench war) increase risks, corporal infringements and lethality. New injuries appear, while the cholera decimates troops. This new context gives birth to new medical structures and initiatives (as shown by role of Florence Nightingale, Valérie de Gasparin and Elena Pavlovna). People were also mobilizing at the back, as demonstrated by the numerous subscriptions raised for helping the families of dead and injured soldiers in France and England or by Anatole Demidov’action in favor of war prisoners in Europe.III) Economy, society and public opinionThe Crimean War impact exceeds very far away the frame of the military operations. A  War economy develops thanks to loans and the rise of war contractors. In the Ottoman case, the military involvement gives birth to the creation of the Ottoman Imperial Bank and then to the the tutelage of European powers on the overindebted Sublime Porte. Societies also live at the rhythm of the war. A real « sacred union » appeared in all the States, well powered by governments who try to mobilize their public opinion against the enemy. Indeed, public opinion is playing an increasing role, reinforced by telegraph and photography.IV) Pictures, representations and memoryNew Perceptions and representations of war emerge and it is  useful to refer to cultural  and art history and well as to history of collective and social imaginaries. During and after the war, although the heroical officer cult (Saint-Arnaud in France, Gorchakov in Russia) is maintained, ordinary troop soldiers are honored,  as demonstrated by numerous monuments dedicated to them. Last the Crimean War has also a very strong memorial dimension, as expressed by toponymy and its place in historical references of nowadays different political leaders.Submission guidelinesA paper proposal with a title, a short summary (2000 signs), and a curriculum vitae must be sent to this address : francfigeac@yahoo.frbefore January 30, 2019Languages of the conference : French, EnglishImportant Datesa) Submission of paper proposals: 30 January 2019.b) Responses : February-march 2019.c) Notification of the final programme : 15 May 2019.d) Conference: 7-9 November 2019.Organization committee

• Marie-Pierre Rey (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, SIRICE)

• Éric Anceau (Sorbonne Université, LabEx EHNE)

• Jean-François Figeac (Sorbonne Université, Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle)

Scientifiv committee

• Éric Anceau (Sorbonne Université, LabEx EHNE),

• Jacques-Olivier Boudon (Sorbonne Université, Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle),

• Yves Bruley (Ecole pratique des hautes études),

• Walter Bruyère-Ostells (IEP d’Aix-en-Provence),

• Lorraine de Meaux (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne),

• Hervé Drévillon (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, directeur de la recherche historique au SHD),

• Anne-Laure Dupont (Sorbonne Université, Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle),

• Edhem Eldem (Collège de France, chaire d’histoire turque et ottomane),

• Jean-François Figeac (Sorbonne Université, Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle),

• Orlando Figes (Birkbeck College de Londres),

• Hubert Heyriès (Université Paul Valéry/ Montpellier III),

• Catherine Horel (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, SIRICE),

• Dominique Kalifa (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, Centre d’histoire du XIXèmesiècle),

• Jean-Noël Luc (Sorbonne Université, Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle),

• Silvia Marton (Université de Bucarest),

• Nicolae Mihai (Université de Craiova),

• Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen (Sorbonne Université, Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle),

• Marie-Pierre Rey (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, SIRICE),

• Odile Roynette (Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté),

• Özgür Türesay (Université de Galatasaray).

Research centers

• Centre d’histoire du XIXème siècle, LabEx EHNE

• Centre de recherches en histoire des Slaves (UMR SIRICE)

Partners

• Fondation Napoléon, Service historique de la Défense

(source: Calenda)

SSRN PAPER: Oona HATHAWAY & Scott SHAPIRO, "International Law and Its Transformation Through the Outlawry of War", forthcoming in International Affairs

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Abstract:

The First World War was the last great war of what we have called the “old world order” — the legal regime that European states adopted in the seventeenth century and spent the next three centuries imposing on the rest of the globe. This order formed the basis of what scholars call “classical international law.” But this body of rules differed starkly from the ones that governs today: The old world order did not just sanction war, it relied on and rewarded it. States were permitted to wage war to right any legal wrong, and the right of the victors to extract territory and treasure from the losers was legally guaranteed. That all began to change when the nations of the world decided to outlaw war in the 1928 Kellogg-Briand treaty. As a result, the rules governing international behaviour have transformed radically — indeed, they are the polar opposite of what they once were. This article describes the decision to outlaw war and the transformation it unleashed in the world order generally, and in international law specifically. We argue that a simple but perplexing fact—that modern international law prohibits states from using force to enforce international law — is key to understanding international law and state behavior in the modern era.

Download the fulltext here.

(source: Legal History Blog)

JOURNAL: Jus Gentium: Journal of International Legal History III (2018), No. 2

(image source: ILReports)

• Articles
• S. Harris, Arbitration at Vienna: Recasting the History of International Dispute Resolution
• V.I. Ivanenko, The Rising Generation of International Lawyers at St. Petersburg University: Zaremba and Spasovich
• Mark W. Podvia, The Baltimore Incident and American Naval Expansion
• O.O. Merezhko, The 1917 Russian Revolution and International Law
• K.O. Savchuk & I.M. Protsenko, The Development of the Science of International Law at the Koretsky Institute of State and Law
• J. Anderson, Currency Control, Exchange Contracts, and War: Boissevain v. Weil
• Isaac Schaphorst, Brown v. United States and Confiscation of Enemy Property
• Notes and Comments
• V.I. Ivanenko, Kronid Malyshev and the Renaissance of Private International Law
• W.E. Butler, On Teaching the History of International Law
• I.O. Kresina & O.V. Kresin, The People as a Subject of International Law
• Documents and Other Evidence of State Practice
• P. Macalister-Smith & J. Schwietzke, Brief Calendar of International Practice for Spain and Portugal, 1641 to 1818

This journal can be accessed through HeinOnline.

More information with the Lawbook Exchange.

(source: International Law Reporter)

BLOG: Alexander MURPHY on William Penn's Peace Plan at 325 (OUPBlog, 21 DEC 2018)

(image source: OUP)

First paragraph:

2018 marks the 325th anniversary of the publication of William Penn’s Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe, which proposed, among other things, the establishment of a European Parliament. Best remembered as the founder of Pennsylvania, Penn spent most of his life in England and remained deeply concerned about the fate of religious and political liberty across Europe. He proposed his “European Diet, Parliament, or Estates” as a way of promoting peaceful coexistence and breaking out of the cycle of nearly constant European war. A fresh look at Penn’s Essay is a task well worth undertaking, as refugee crises, fears of autocracy in Hungary and Poland, and the future of Brexit continue to roil European waters.

Read more here.

REVIEW ARTICLE: John A. THOMPSON, "American Power and Interwar Internationalism" (The Historical Journal LXI (2018), No. 4, 1137-1148)

(image source: Cambridge Core)

Extract:

Two central features of global history over the past century have been the pre-eminent power of the United States in world politics and the growth of international organizations. The relationship between these phenomena has been variously interpreted, in ways that reflect theoretical and methodological commitments as well as political perspectives. The Realist school, for whom power relationships are always determinative, have followed Carl Schmitt and E. H. Carr in seeing international institutions, and the norms and laws they uphold, as instruments through which dominant powers seek legitimacy as well as influence. By contrast, liberal theorists have viewed the pursuit of a rule-governed world order, and the development of the idea of a ‘world community’, as a more autonomous and broadly based enterprise, one spurred by increased interdependence and greater concern with matters of common interest to all nations – not least that of avoiding the devastating effects of great power warfare in the modern era. As is usually the case with such analytically sharp distinctions, neither of these positions conveys the whole truth

Read more here.

JOURNAL: Grotiana XXXIX (2018), Issue 1 (December)

(image source: Brill)

An Unpublished Letter from Herbert of Cherbury to Grotius on the Expeditio in Ream Insulam: Commentary, Text, and Translation (Felix Waldmann)
Abstract:

The following article presents the text and translation of an unpublished letter to Grotius from Edward Herbert (1582?–1648), Lord Cherbury. The letter pertains to Cherbury’s The expedition to the Isle of Rhé or Expeditio in Ream Insulam – his manuscript account of the duke of Buckingham’s abortive siege of the Isle of Ré in July–October 1627.

Grotius, Dio Chrysostom and the ‘Invention’ of Customary ius gentium (Francesca Iurlarlo)
Abstract:

This article tackles the issue of whether and how Hugo Grotius conceives of custom as a formal source of the law of nations. The main claim of it is that not only custom plays a fundamental role in Grotius’s thought, but that his reflections mark a fundamental turning point for the history of customary international law. A crucial role in this process of re-conceptualization is played by Grotius’s reading of Dio Chrysostom, whose oration On custom provides him with an integrated account of custom as a ‘normative practice’ based on rhetorical judgment (as opposed to the Scholastic interpretation of custom as reiteration of voluntary acts). Consequently, I argue that Dio Chrysostom’s text helps Grotius to transpose the question of the normative legitimacy of custom from a moral to an interpretative level. To conclude, I will show that Grotius adopts two different rhetorical strategies to prove the existence of customary norms of ius gentium.

 States and Patrimonial Kingdoms: Hugo Grotius’s Account of Sovereign Entities in The Rights of War and Peace (Emile Simpson)
Abstract:

In this article I set out Hugo Grotius’s account of sovereign entities in the De Iure Belli ac Pacis (The Rights of War and Peace, 1625). In so doing, I seek to challenge a claim not uncommonly encountered in the recent historiography of the work, namely, that Grotius had no account of the state therein. In challenging that claim, I will make a further claim that while Grotius did have an account of the state, it was only one of two forms of sovereign entity, the other being the patrimonial kingdom. While this last claim is occasionally encountered in terms of a distinction between forms of government, I go further, on the basis that the distinction identifies a fundamental conceptual difference between free and unfree nations, which speaks not only to the form of government, but to the nature of the sovereign entity itself. Furthermore, it is my contention that through the patrimonial kingdom, Grotius was able to account for empire.

 A Reply to Grotius’s Critics. On Constitutional Law (Gustaaf van Nifterik)
Abstract:

It is not always easy to interpret Grotius’s constitutional theory that lies hidden within his book on the law of war and peace. After a very concise discussion of this constitutional framework, this study turns to various interpretations and conclusions by contemporary scholars that sit awkwardly within the theory. The interpretations of Richard Tuck, Peter Borschberg, Knud Haakonson, Frank Grunert, Deborah Baumgold, Marco Barducci, Daniel Lee and Gustaaf van Nifterik are discussed critically. 

An Introduction to the Smaller Bodies of Water in Hugo Grotius’s Legal Theory (Laurelin Middelkoop)
Abstract:

Around the same time as his writing of De iure belli ac pacis, Hugo Grotius wrote a short tract: Introduction to the jurisprudence of Holland. He was the first to offer a systematic account of the substantive law of Holland, with a specific focus on rights over laws. I propose that by drawing a comparison between the Introduction and his other major law treatises, the key elements and differences of his argument in Mare liberum become clearer. Secondly, it shows a different side of Grotius as a legal theorist, one concerned with smaller legal issues surrounding property relations in Holland, where potential conflicts stemming from water damage are particularly common and likely. By focusing on how Grotius handles categories of smaller bodies of water, in Introduction but also in ibp and De iure praedae, his understanding of what makes some water susceptible to ownership is drawn out.

 Book reviews:

• The Historical Foundations of Grotius’ Analysis of Delict [Legal History Library 24], written by Joe Sampson (Eltjo Schrage)
• Scriptural Authority and Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Golden Age: God’s Word Questioned, edited by Dirk van Miert, Henk J. M. Nellen, Piet Steenbakkers, and Jetze Touber (Nicholas Hardy)
• Hugo Grotius and the Modern Theology of Freedom: Transcending Natural Rights, written by Jeremy Seth Geddert (Andrew Blom)
• Hugo Grotius and the Century of Revolution 1613–1718: Transnational Reception in English Political Thought, written by Marco Barducci (Marco Barducci)
• Criticism and Confession. The Bible in the Seventeenth Century Republic of Letters, written by Nicholas Hardy (Sarah Mortimer)
• Necessity in International Law, written by Jens David Ohlin & Larry May (Ioannis D. Evrigenis)

Bibliography (Rens Steenhard)

More information with Brill.

(source: ESCLH Blog)