The Emergence of the Idea of ‘International Law’ in the Ottoman Empire before the Treaty of Paris (1856)
2014; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 50; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00263206.2013.870890
ISSN1743-7881
Autores Tópico(s)American Constitutional Law and Politics
ResumoAbstractThe literature on the Ottoman Empire's position in the European states system generally considers the Treaty of Paris as a landmark event for the European states’ recognition of the Ottoman participation in the European concert and the advantages of European international law. This article argues that this consideration overestimates the impact of the Treaty of Paris and reveals that before 1856, the Ottoman Empire was a part of the European states system and was subject to European international law both in terms of treaty-making practices and in the utilization of European customary law. Moreover, the article argues that the Ottomans were interested in the concept of international law before the Treaty of Paris. The existence of archival documents on Ottoman dealings with the European states and the publication of two translations from the European international law treatises before the Treaty of Paris indicate that the Ottomans interest in international law was to ensure the survival of the empire. NotesRegarding the dates, please note that both lunar (hijri) and solar (gregorian) calendar dates are provided for Ottoman books and documents. The dates in square brackets are solar calendar dates; the dates preceding them are lunar calendar dates.1. For the full text of the Treaty of Paris, see G. Noradounghian, Recueil d’Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman (Paris: Libraire Cotillon, F. Pichon, Successeur, 1902), Vol.3, pp.70–81. For the full text of the treaty in Turkish, see Muahedat Mecmuası (İstanbul: Ceride-i Askeriye Matbaası, 1293 [1877]), Vol.4, pp.242–58.2. During the 1990s, Turkey pushed for membership in the European Union and the Europeanness of Turkish identity became a debated topic. Some politicians and scholars began to emphasize 1856 as a landmark event. One example is the Independent Commission of Turkey, established by European policy-makers including Martti Ahttisaari, the former president of Finland and a Nobel peace laureate, and scholars including Anthony Giddens. The aim of the commission was to promote Turkish membership in the EU, and the commission issued a report in 2004 that was entitled ‘Turkey in Europe: More than a Promise?’ In this report the Treaty of Paris was referred to as a landmark event that indicated Turkish membership in the concert of Europe. See ‘Turkey in Europe: More than a Promise?’, Report of the Independent Commission of Turkey, September 2004, pp.10–11, http://www.independentcommissiononturkey.org/pdfs/2004_english.pdf. For this line of argumentation, also see M. Müftüler-Bac, Europe in Change: Turkey’s Relations with a Changing Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), pp.28–9; A.İ. Aydın, ‘Imagining the EU in the Turkish Mirror’, in C. Arvanitopoulos (ed.), Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy (Berlin: Springer, 2009), p.173.3. L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1: Peace, 3rd ed. (Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2008), p.34. 4. C. Badem, The Ottoman Crimean War, 1853–1856 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), p.403.5. O. Yasuaki, ‘When was the Law of International Society Born? An Inquiry of the History of International Law from an Intercivilizational Perspective’, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol.2, No.1 (2000), p.22.6. For a detailed analysis of the emergence of positivism and the applicability of this philosophy to international law, see R. Ago, ‘Positive Law and International Law’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.51, No.4 (Oct. 1957), pp.691–733; M.W. Janis, ‘Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of “International Law”’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.78, No.2 (April 1984), p.410; S. Hall, ‘The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism’, European Journal of International Law, Vol.12, No.2 (2001), p.271. For an analysis of the monopolization of international law by the Europeans, see Yasuaki, ‘When was the Law of International Society Born?’; G. Gozzi, ‘History of International Law and Western Civilization’, International Community Law Review, Vol.9, No.4 (Dec. 2007), p.356.7. For information regarding the Islamic character of the Ottoman Empire, see B. Lewis, The Middle East and the West (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964), pp.30–32; M.S. Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450–1919 (London: Longman, 1993), p.71; T. Naff, ‘Ottoman Diplomatic Relations with Europe in the Eighteenth Century: Patterns and Trends’, in T. Naff and R. Owen (eds.), Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977), pp.93–7.8. B. Aral, ‘An Inquiry into the Turkish “School” of International Law’, The European Journal of International Law, Vol.16, No.4 (Oct. 2005), p.771.9. H. Pazarcı, Uluslarararası Hukuk Dersleri (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi, 1985), Vol.1, p.65.10. For this line of argumentation, see T. Tetsuya, ‘L’aspect universaliste du droit international européen du 19ème siècle et le statut juridique de la Turquie avant 1856’, Journal of History of International Law, Vol.8, No.1 (2006), pp.19–37; Y. Altuğ, ’19. Yüzyıl Başındaki Bazı Türk Diplomatik Vesikalarına Göre Türkiye Tarafından Uygulanan Devletler Hukuku Kuralları‘, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, Vol.30, No.1–2 (1964), pp.13–20; J.C. Hurewitz, ’Ottoman Diplomacy and European State System', The Middle East Journal, Vol.15, No.2 (Spring 1961), pp.141–52.11. Hurewitz, ‘Ottoman Diplomacy and European State System’, p.152.12. For a critical analysis of the Islamic character of the Ottoman Empire and the implications of this characteristic of the empire for Ottoman diplomacy, see A.N. Yurdusev, ‘The Ottoman Attitude towards Diplomacy’, in A.N. Yurdusev (ed.), Ottoman Diplomacy: Conventional or Unconventional (London and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2004), pp.6–10; M. Khadduri, ‘The Impact of International Law upon the Islamic World Order’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.66, No.4 (Sept. 1972), pp.46–50.13. E. de Vattel, Hukuk-u Milel, trans. A. Muhammed (?) (National Library of Turkey, 06 Mil Yz A 1275, 1255 [1839]); O. Schlechta, Kitab-ı Hukuk-u Milel, 2 Vols. (Vienna: Matbaa-i Viyana, 1264 [1847–48]).14. For the Ottoman–French alliance against the Habsburgs in the sixteenth century, see D.L. Jensen, ‘The Ottoman Turks in Sixteenth Century French Diplomacy’, Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol.16, No.4 (Winter 1985), pp.451–70; for the Ottoman–English alliance against the Habsburgs, see E. Barton and E. Pears, ‘The Spanish Armada and the Ottoman Porte’, The English Historical Review, Vol.8, No.31 (July 1893), pp.439–66. For a detailed account of Ottoman capitulations, see N. Sousa, The Capitulatory Regime of Turkey: Its History, Origin and Nature (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933).15. For a list of these Quranic verses, see A.R. Turnagil, ‘İslamiyet ve Milletler Hukuku’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, Vol.8, No.3–4 (1942), p.374. For a brief analysis of the pacta sunt servanda principle in Islamic international law, see A. Zahid and J.R. Shapie, ‘Pacta sunt servanda: Islamic Perception’, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol.3, No.2 (Autumn 2010), pp.375–85.16. V. Panaite, The Ottoman Law of War and Peace: The Ottoman Empire and Tribute Payers (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), p.264.17. Ibid., p.320.18. The former treaties were referenced in the first article of the treaty. For the full text of the treaty, see Noradounghian, Recueil d’Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, Vol.1, pp.120–21.19. R.A.A. El-Haj, ‘Ottoman Diplomacy at Karlowitz’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.87, No.4 (Oct.–Dec. 1967), p.499.20. Ibid. For a historical analysis of the uti possidetis principle, see S. Ratner, ‘Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States’, American Journal of International Law, Vol.90, No.4 (Oct. 1996), pp.590–624.21. V.L. Menage, ‘Seven Ottoman Documents from the Reign of Mehemmed II’, in S.M. Stern (ed.), Documents from Islamic Chanceries, First Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp.82–3.22. G. Agoston, ‘Treaty of Karlowitz’, in G. Agoston and B. Masters (eds.), Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2009), p.309.23. Regarding border demarcation procedures, see M. Molnàr, ‘Karlofça Antlaşması’ndan Sonra Osmanlı-Habsburg Sınırı (1699–1701)', G. Eren (ed.), Osmanlı (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999), Vol.1, pp.472–9.24. K.H. Ziegler, ‘The Peace Treaties of the Ottoman Empire with European Christian Powers’, in R. Lesaffer (ed.), Peace Treaties and International Law in European History: From the Late Middle Ages to World War One, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.355.25. Ibid. See also A. Mikaberidze, ‘Constantinople, Treaty (1720)’, in A. Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011), Vol.1, p.250.26. Ziegler, ‘The Peace Treaties of the Ottoman Empire with European Christian Powers’, p.356.27. Ibid., p.358. For the full text of the treaty, see Noradounghian, Recueil d‘Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, Vol.2, pp.6–16.28. For the full text of the treaty, see Noradounghian, Recueil d’Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, Vol.2, pp.16–20.29. İ.H. Uzunçarşılı, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1983), Vol.5, pp.294–5.30. For the text of this report to the Sultan, see ibid., p.346.31. For the full text of the treaty of alliance with Sweden, see A.C. Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet (İstanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1273 [1858]), Vol.4, pp.289–91. For the full text of the treaty of alliance with Prussia, see ibid., pp.348–52.32. Uzunçarşılı, Büyük Osmanlı Tarihi, pp. 560–61, footnote 2.33. For the full text of the treaty, see Noradounghian, Recueil d‘Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, Vol.2, pp.24–34.34. Ibid., p.344, footnote 1 and p.351, footnote 2.35. General Directorate of State Archives, Department of Ottoman Archives, Imperial Rescripts, BOA HAT. 17/738, 29 Z 1158 [22 Jan 1746]. 36. A.Ş. Esmer, Siyasi Tarih (1919–1939) (Ankara: Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1953), pp.91–2.37. Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet, Vol.10, pp.175–6.38. For some of these reports, see the following archival documents: BOA HAT. 956/41022, 01 Ra 1229 [21 Feb. 1814]; BOA HAT. 956/41023, 07 B 1229 [25 June 1814]; BOA HAT. 956/41000, 23 L 1229 [8 Oct. 1814]; BOA HAT. 956/40993, 29 Z 1230 [2 Dec. 1815].39. R. Kaynar, Mustafa Reşid Paşa ve Tanzimat (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1958), p.331.40. J.W. Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon (İstanbul: A.H. Boyajian, 1890), p.2062.41. Ibid., p.194.42. The only reference to the concept of hukuk-u nas and hukuk-u ümem was in an excerpt from the translation of Vattel’s treatise where these phrases were used as synonymous with hukuk-u düvel (international law). See Vattel, Hukuk-u Milel, p.1. Moreover, a course was given at the Galatasaray School whose title included the phrase hukuk-u nas, but it is unclear whether this course addressed the personal rights of individuals or international law. See C.Y. Bilim, Tanzimat Devrinde Türk Egitiminde Çağdaşlasma (1839–1876) (Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1984), p.54.43. For instance, some Ottoman documents dated between 1652 and 1687 mentioned three Transylvanian nations (üç millet) as Madjar, Sigel and Saz. In the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji signed in 1774, English and French nations were also referred to as millet. M. Ursinus, ‘Millet’ in C.E. Bosworth et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Islam: New Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1962), Vol.7, pp.61–4.44. Janis, ‘Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of “International Law”’, pp.410–14.45. For the full text of this memorandum, see Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet, Vol.6, p.408–12. In the French translation of this memorandum, hukuk-u milel was translated as droit des nations. See B. Testa, Recueil des Traités de la Porte Ottomane avec les Puissances Étrangéres (Paris: Amyot, Éditeur des Archives Diplomatiques, 1864), Vol.1, p.551.46. Ibid., p.573.47. See Testa, Recueil des Traités de la Porte Ottomane, Vol.2, p.3.48. For the full text of this treaty of alliance, see N. Erim, Devletlerarası Hukuku ve Siyasi Tarih Metinleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1953), Vol.1, p.227–32.49. For the full text of this memorandum, see Noradounghian, Recueil d’Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, Vol.2, pp.79–80.50. A. Lutfi, Tarih-i Lûtfî (İstanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1290–92 [1873–75]), Vol.1, p.92.51. For the full text of this memorandum, see Kaynar, Mustafa Reşid Paşa ve Tanzimat, p.337.52. This excerpt was taken from R. Ata, ‘Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre 1839–1841 Arası Osmanlı-Mısır İlişkileri ve Düvel-i Muazzama’ (PhD thesis, Ankara University, 2011), p.94.53. C. Bilsel, ‘Devletler Hukuku Mu? Devletler Arası Hak Mı?’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası Vol.6, No.4 (1940), p.639; C. Bilsel, Devletler Hukuku: Giriş (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, 1940), pp.xxiv–xxix.54. S.L. Meray ‘Devletler Hukukunda Bazı Terim Meseleleri’, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.11, No.4 (1956), p.54; Pazarcı, Uluslarararası Hukuk Dersleri, Vol.1, p.65.55. C. Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’, The American Political Science Review, Vol.7, No.3 (Aug. 1913), p.395.56. Ibid., pp.406–8.57. Gozzi, ‘History of International Law and Western Civilization’, p.356.58. For a discussion of Vattel’s position within the school of natural law, see B. Kapossy, ‘Introduction: Rival Histories of Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations’, Grotiana, Vol.31, No.1 (2010), pp.5–21.59. S. Zurbuchen, ‘Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and the Principle of Non-Intervention’, Grotiana, Vol.31, No.1 (2010), p.69.60. Indeed, reference was made to Vattel’s treatise to protest European interventionism. In his article on the role of international law in European–Chinese relations in the nineteenth century, Li Chen wrote that Chinese officials cited translated passages from Vattel’s treatise in rejecting European demands regarding extra-territoriality on the eve of the First Opium War. L. Chen, ‘Universalism and Equal Sovereignty as Contested Myths of International Law in the Sino-Western Encounter’, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol.13, No.1 (2011), pp.103–4.61. H. İnalcık, ‘Koca Hüsrev Paşa’, in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 1999), Vol.19, pp.41–4.62. Ibid.63. Vattel, Hukuk-u Milel, p.222.64. İnalcık, ‘Koca Hüsrev Paşa’, p.4365. Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’, p.397.66. C. Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel II’, The American Political Science Review, Vol.8, No.3 (Aug. 1914), p.377.67. Fenwick, ‘The Authority of Vattel’, pp.398–9.68. Vattel, Hukuk-u Milel, p.1.69. For the biography of Ottokar Schlechta, see W. Killy et al. (eds.), Dictionary of German Biography (München: K.G. Saur, 2001–6), Vol.8, p.698.70. BOA A. AMD., 4/37, 12 Cemaziyülevvel 1264 [16 May 1848].71. Schlechta, Kitab-ı Hukuk-u Milel, Vol.1, pp.6–7.72. Bilsel, Devletler Hukuku, pp.xxix–xxx.73. For these German treatises, see K.H.L. Poelitz, Practisches (europaisches) Volkerrecht (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1824); F. Saalfeld, Handbuch des Positiven Völkerrechts (Tübingen: C.F. Osiander, 1833); A.W. Heffter, Das Europareische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (Berlin: E.H. Schroeder, 1844); and H.B. Oppenheim, System des Völkerrechts (Stuttgart and Leipzig: A. Kröner, 1845).74. Schlechta, Kitab-ı Hukuk-u Milel, Vol.1, pp.6–7.75. Ibid., p.8.76. Ibid., pp.8–9.77. Regarding international law courses in Ottoman higher education institutions, see M.A. Ayni, Darülfünun Tarihi (İstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2007), pp.32, 39; A. Çetinkaya, Mülkiye Tarihi ve Mülkiyeliler (Ankara: Mars Matbaası, 1968–69), Vol.1, pp.48, 53.78. For some of these Ottoman treatises on international law, see M. Tevfik, Muamelat-ı Düvel (İstanbul: Matbaa-yı Amire, 1291 [1874]); K. Said and C. Gregor, Hukuk-u Düvel (İstanbul: Matbaa-yı Ebüzziya, 1299 [1882]); H. Fehmi, Telhis-i Hukuk-u Düvel (İstanbul: Matbaa-yi Osmaniye, 1300 [1883]); İ. Hakkı, Medhal-i Hukuk-u Beyneddüvel (İstanbul: Karabet ve Kasbar Matbaası, 1303 [1886]); A. Şehbaz, Hukuk-u Düvel (İstanbul: Mülkiye-yi Şahane Litografya Destgahı, 1306 [1889].
Referência(s)