Empires and protection

Making interpolity law in the early modern world

Lauren Benton, Adam Clulow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)74-92
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Global History
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017

Keywords

  • borderlands
  • empire
  • international law
  • piracy
  • protection

Cite this

Benton, Lauren ; Clulow, Adam. / Empires and protection : Making interpolity law in the early modern world. In: Journal of Global History. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 74-92.
@article{3413f212030d47fe8f4964f9d1046de6,
title = "Empires and protection: Making interpolity law in the early modern world",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "borderlands, empire, international law, piracy, protection",
author = "Lauren Benton and Adam Clulow",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S1740022816000346",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "74--92",
journal = "Journal of Global History",
issn = "1740-0228",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

Empires and protection : Making interpolity law in the early modern world. / Benton, Lauren; Clulow, Adam.

In: Journal of Global History, Vol. 12, No. 1, 01.03.2017, p. 74-92.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empires and protection

T2 - Making interpolity law in the early modern world

AU - Benton, Lauren

AU - Clulow, Adam

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - borderlands

KW - empire

KW - international law

KW - piracy

KW - protection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012188086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S1740022816000346

DO - 10.1017/S1740022816000346

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 74

EP - 92

JO - Journal of Global History

JF - Journal of Global History

SN - 1740-0228

IS - 1

ER -