International law and ‘humanity’ in the making and unmaking of European solidarity, 1830–1915

Abstract

The Janus-faced character of nineteenth-century Europe presents unique challenges to historians. Concurrent to spiralling industrial growth, working-class revolts, transatlantic migration and imperialism, the stark social and economic upheaval of the period has virtually belied the solidarity achieved on the Continent. In recent years, however, a number of superlative scholarly studies have excavated and illuminated the intellectual, legal and technological revolutions that ushered in an era of promise and potential unity. In this article, the author examines the degree of interdependence and interconnectedness across the Continent and the world by melding extant scholarship, introducing primary-source research, and offering new perspectives on the relationship of the increasingly globalized world and the European efforts to harness its potential by attempting to create lasting norms for peace and prosperity through international law and the benchmark concept of ‘humanity’.     

Carl Schmitt on land and sea

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), one of the leading conservative legal thinkers of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, is best known today for his critique of liberalism. Between the late 1930s and mid-1950s, Schmitt wrote numerous articles and two books addressing the mythical and geopolitical significance of land and sea. In recent years, these texts have begun to attract attention from historians as well as theorists. This article reconstructs the origins of Schmitt's theories about land and sea, and shows how they developed in the context of his efforts to delegitimize the British Empire and justify the persecution of Jews. It also explains how Schmitt selectively misread the history of maritime law in order to critique the ‘freedom of the seas.’ Finally, it reveals that the meaning Schmitt ascribed to ‘the opposition of the elements of land and sea’ changed dramatically to suit his political needs. For all their evocative qualities and insights, Schmitt's texts on land and sea do not constitute a coherent theory, but rather a shifting field of polemical positions in search of theoretical support.     

John Campbell’s Present State of Europe (1750): Toryism and balance of power

John Campbell’s Present State of Europe has been viewed, particularly by Guido Abbattista, as a change in Campbell’s view on British intervention on the continent. Campbell certainly alters his position from a conventional ‘Country’ and ‘Tory’ critique of British interventionism to acceptance, but this shift aligns him more closely with the Bolingbrokean political philosophy that undergirds much of his early thought as he accommodates this political philosophy to the dominant theory of foreign policy of his day, ‘balance of power’. Campbell articulates a moderate, Tory view of balance of power by drawing upon Samuel Pufendorf’s idea of states-system, which allows Campbell to extend his ‘Country’-Bolingbrokean philosophy from inside to outside the state. By extending his views outside the state, Campbell indicates how continental intervention not only may be required based upon a nation’s fluctuating, indeterminate circumstances but also may be needed to protect far-flung subjects within an expanding British Empire.     

Decolonizing geographies of travel: Reading James/Jan Morris

Travel writing can produce critical 'in-between' spaces, which contribute to broader cultural politics of postcolonialism, by transgressing and in a preliminary sense deconstructing imperial binaries. These imperial binaries structure subjectivities, on the one hand, and material geographies, on the other. This paper examines such a project, through a reading of travel writing by James/Jan Morris, which shows how processes of decolonizing subjectivities and material geographies may be recursively related. Morris is known for newspaper coverage of the 1953 Everest expedition, for a trilogy on the British Empire, for the autobiographical account of a sex change, and for many travel books and articles; all of which foreground themes of gender and imperialism. The paper argues that Morris's decolonizations have charted and created in-between spaces of subjectivity and material geography, ambivalent spaces with critical potential. The ambivalence of these spaces can constitute a critical limitation, but also an opportunity; in response, the conclusion redirects some critical attention away from writers and textual spaces to readers and interpretations, and thus points towards a postcolonial (and wider) politics of reading.     

论权力寻租及其法律制约

权力寻租是当前社会产生腐败的主要原因之一。权力寻租有其产生的必然性,它严重危害国家和杜会,已成为当今世界政治中的一大顽症。制约权力寻租最有效的方法是法律制约,但是法律制约权力寻租还必须有合适的环境为支撑。     

康天顺与镇远第二俘虏收容所管理工作的改进

在全面抗战开始后,南京国民政府将战场俘获之日军集中收容,并分别在陕西宝鸡与贵州镇远集中收容。贵州镇远是战时中国最大的俘虏收容所,在初期的收容过程中,收容所中存在一定问题。在中共安排下,康天顺来到俘虏收容所,对所内事务进行改革,较好地执行了日内瓦公约,并获得红十字国际委员会的高度评价。     

论历史性权利在海洋划界中的作用

历史性权利在海洋划界中作用的法律基础既包括条约法也包括国际习惯法。历史性权利分属不同的法律基础,使其在海洋划界中发挥不同的作用。以《联合国海洋法公约》为代表的条约法,规定了历史性所有权或历史性海湾在领海划界中的优先作用,明确了历史性所有权、历史性水域在海洋划界争端解决程序中具有任择性例外的作用,并确立了历史性捕鱼权在群岛水域划界中具有特别适用的功能;而国际习惯法确立的历史性权利规则在海洋划界中的作用,虽然目前国际法上尚无明确规定,但在国际实践上,其主要以并行适用方式发挥作用。历史性权利在海洋划界中的不同作用,为未来我国与周边国家尤其是南海周边国家海洋划界提供国际适法导引。     

国际法视角下的1972年《中日联合声明》

1972年的《中日联合声明》掀开了两国关系新的一页。然而,时至今日,国内学界对这份文件的研究仍停留在表面。本文从国际法的角度,探讨了这份《声明》的法律性质,并且分析了《声明》中关于“战争状态结束”的条款,以及台湾条款和赔偿条款。本文最后得出结论：台湾问题是影响中日邦交正常化谈判的关键因素,日本通过很多外交手段为其对台政策留下了回旋的余地。     

从"开门通商"到"厚集洋债,以均势力"—徐世昌与东北外交策略的变化

在东北实行均势外交 ,打破日俄垄断地位 ,是清政府的基本方针。东三省改制前后 ,均势外交策略经历了由全面引进外资的“开门通商”之策 ,到将精力全部集中到以铁路外债为核心的“厚集洋债 ,以均势力”的转变。徐世昌作为东三省首任总督 ,在这种转变中 ,很无奈地担任了执行者和过渡者的角色。     

政治和法治的钟摆——以国家观念(文化)史为视角

法治是人类经过长期的探索,才得以确立政府应该负责的一种信念。历史上,法治从对宗教自由和公德心的承认发展而来。国家在认可个人的宗教自由和公德心的同时规定了对自身的基本限制。西方现代法治进一步延伸了宪法控制政府行为的观念。法律制定是国家权力的明显体现,而被制定的法律是国家政策转化为行动的中介并对整个政府行为均具有约束力。这意味着政府当局不能采取任何与议会或宪法相抵触的行动,意味着法律优先于任何的、所有的其他政府手段,受到立法机关法律的、政治的首要性的支持。借助国家观念史的演进历史来分析,可以说明政治和法治的钟摆始终是在回答为什么必须使用国家权力,然后才是如何防止权力的滥用(即权力守法)这两个问题所代表的倾向之间摆动。     

Punishing wars of aggression: conceptualising Nazi State criminality and the US policy behind shaping the crime against peace, 1943-1945

This paper refocuses attention on what has been seen as one of the most important limbs of the Nuremberg Charter – the crime against peace, or aggressive war. It looks at the legal and political dimensions that motivated such a characterisation by figures behind the debate, and the various, at times uncertain steps, in bringing forth the designation based on breaches of the Kellogg–Briand Pact within the milieu of other traditional offences. Particular attention is given to the philosophical underpinnings of the crime against peace regarding individual German guilt, notably members of the Nazi leadership, with an examination of influences that proved critical in creating a punishable crime at international law. This paper argues that, despite being of continuing interest to civic groups, such an offence continues to trouble legislators and lawyers, rooted as it is in the focus on war as itself criminal.     

‘Human and nothing but human’: How Schmittian is Hannah Arendt's critique of human rights and international law?

Recently legal theorists have pointed out that whereas members of their profession often assume that post-war scholarship had broken with the past completely, political theorists have paid far more attention to questions of influences and continuities in their discipline. This also holds regarding the legacy of Carl Schmitt whose case both as a jurist and political writer is particularly pressing not only for intellectual historians, but also for discussants across a broad range of fields in law and political science. It is in this context that my paper examines Hannah Arendt's immediate critique of the Declaration of Universal Human Rights in 1948. I will juxtapose Schmitt's and Arendt's critiques, arguing that these display more than superficial parallels and yet conflict in their basic contentions. I also hope to show that discussing Arendt's critique in conjunction with Schmitt's allows us to pose some more general questions about the relevance and meaning of intellectual backgrounds and influences.