1

JURISDICTIONAL

ACCUMULATION

ANEARLYMODERNHISTORYOFLAW,EMPIRES,

ANDCAPITAL

MaïaPal

OxfordBrookesUniversity

CambridgeUniversityPress

2

ABSTRACT

This book links law, empires, and capital through a PoliticalMarxist history of earlymodern extraterritoriality framed by the new concept of jurisdictional accumulation.Based on secondary and primary material, the concept reveals new aspects of theSpanish,French,English/BritishandDutchearlymodernempiresthroughtheircolonialanddiplomaticpracticesandsocialpropertyrelations.GoingbeyondtheclassicfocusonembassychapelsinNorthernEuropeshowstheinadequacyofconventionalnarrativesofextraterritorialityfordefiningthemoderninternational legalorder.Theearlymodernwasjurisdictional,butnotonlybecauseofthepluralityandoverlappingofjurisdictionalregimes.Theearlymodernwasjurisdictionalbecauseoftheuseofjurisdictionalrights,titles, and functions as institutions and subjectivities, used as means of imperialownershipandruleoverindigenousgroupsandagainstcompetingempires.Avarietyofactorsusedjurisdictionaldevicesandargumentsthatshapedimperialexpansioninwaysdefined here as extensions, transplants and transports of authority. Jurisdictionalaccumulation contrasts to mercantilism and capitalism, and constitutes a significantmodeofexpansionthatbringsambassadors,consuls,merchants,andlawyersoutoftheshadowsofempireandontothemainstageoftheconstructionofmoderninternationalrelationsandinternationallaw.

3

Uneoncedejurisdictionvautplusqu'unelivred'or

(Anounceofjurisdictionisworthmorethanapoundofgold)

MottoofafifteenthcenturyjuristfromVisé,atownatthecrossroadsofFlandersandWallonia(indeSchepper,2007:187)

4

CONTENTS

Introduction

Jurisdiction,Empires,andCapital:StoriesofAccumulation

Theproblemofearlymodernextraterritoriality

Contextandargument

Methods

Definitions

Chaptersummaries

Chapter1EarlyModernExtraterritoriality

Theneglectofearlymodernextraterritorialityandthechallengeofconsuls

Classicdiplomatichistory,IR,andinternationallaw

Grotius,ambassadors,andembassychapels

Conclusion:anewapproachtoextraterritoriality?

Chapter2HistoricalSociology,Marxism,andLaw

Part1:HistoricalSociologyandtheproblemofEurocentrism

Foundations

Againstatheoryof'theinternational'andforanegativeandoutwardmethodologicalinternalism

Methodologicalhumilityandepistemologicalchoices

Revisitinginternalism

Internationalandimperiallegalhistory

Classichistoriesofinternationallaw

Theturnininternationallegalhistory

Part2:MarxismandLaw

Foundations

Transnationalmerchantlawandthelegitimacycrisis

FromPashukanistoMiéville

Ahistoricalandtheoreticalcritiqueofthecommodityformtheory

Thequestionofmercantilism

‘Sharedcharacteristics’andtheindividual-stateanalogy

PoliticalMarxismandjurisdictionalagency

Foundations

AgainstEnglishexceptionalism

5

Conclusion

Chapter3SocialPropertyRelations

RevisitingIberianabsolutism

Jurisdictionalfragmentation

Paradoxesofcentralisationandtheimpactoftheempire

'NewWorld'socialpropertyrelations

RevisitingFrenchabsolutism

Containingjurisdictionalspaces

Containinglegalorders

Colonialsocialpropertyrelations

England’stransitiontocapitalism,privateproperty,andlaw

Enclosuresandso-calledprimitiveaccumulation

Englishstateformationandthecommonlaw

TheDutchRepublicandtheproblemoftransition

Stateformation

Legalactors

ThedebateontheDutchtransitiontocapitalism

Conclusion

Chapter4Ambassadors

Personalrepresentationandimmunity

Debatesindiplomatictheoryandhistoriography

Cases

England'sgentryandparliamentariandiplomats

TheDutchRepublicanditsdiplomaticdiversity

Franceandtheriseofaristocraticdiplomacy

Spain’saristocraticdiplomacyascollaborationagainstdecline

Conclusion

Chapter5Consuls

Functionsandprivileges

Generalremarks

Jurisdictionalfunctions

6

TheFrenchprohibitiontotrade

Policiesandstrategies

TheFrenchconsularservice

TheEnglishandDutchconsularservices

Socialoriginsandcompositionofconsularservice

Consulsandtradingcommunities

Relationshipbetweenambassadorsandconsuls:thecaseofConstantinople

Conclusion

Chapter6ColonialPracticesofJurisdictionalAccumulation

Iberiantransplantsofauthority

The‘NewWorld’

Mercantilismandcommercial-legalinstitutions

English,FrenchandDutchtransportsofauthority

Onsimilaritiesanddifferences

TheclassiccaseofFrenchmercantilism

TheDutchandEnglishtradingcompanies

Jurisdictionaldifferencesregardingsettlement

Chapter7AnalyticalCrossroads:Dominium,Consuls,andExtraterritoriality

Dominiumandjurisdictionalaccumulation

Ownershipandruleoverpeople:Spanishtransplantsofauthority

Ownershipasprivateproperty:Englishtransportsofauthority

Consulardiplomacyanditshistoriographicalneglect

Theseparationbetweenthepoliticalandeconomic

TheseparationbetweenChristianandnon-Christianlegalspaces

Conclusion

7

Introduction

Jurisdiction,Empires,andCapital:StoriesofAccumulation

IntheEasternandSouthernportsoftheearlymodernMediterranean-inAlgiers,Tunis,Tangier,Tripoli inLibya,andon theLevantineshoresof theOttomanempire - foreignmerchantsandsailorswere forbidden to frequent the ale houses of the port inwhich they disembarked. Inexchange, theywere allowed 'national' ale houses, a nation in this case referring to the localcommunityorcolonyofmerchantsandresidentsbelongingtoaparticularcountryandpresentin a foreign port or trading city. These ale houses were privileges attached to each nation’sconsulate,whichconsistedinanofficerunbyaconsulastherepresentative,judge,andsolicitorforthenation’stradingandresidentialaffairs.

The stories, disputes, andnegotiations thatmusthavebeen conductedwithin the confinesofthese ale houses - betweenmerchants, captains, factors, and sailors fromMarseille, London,Copenhagen,Amsterdam,Malta,Venice,Livornoandothermajortradingcities–remaintodayelusive.Thisisapity,sincetheywouldundoubtedlyhelpustobetterunderstandearlymodernempiresandthelegalmechanismsdevelopedtosecureandexpandtradinginterestsontheNorthAfricanandLevantinecoast.

IfthespecificroleofforeignalehousesintheearlymodernMediterraneanisnotthesubjectofthisbook,thisexampleillustratesthetypesofspacesandinstitutionsthatthisbookisconcernedwith. These spaces or institutions could be considered, albeit anachronistically, asextraterritorial;orperhapsas 'preparingmen'smindstoaccept[the]extraordinaryfiction'ofextraterritorialsovereignty(Mattingly,1955:242).Inotherwords,thisbookisconcernedwithhowcertainjurisdictionalactorsincertainspacesandinstitutionsshapedkeypoliticalprinciplesandmechanismsofearlymodernlegalorders,principlesandmechanismsthatremainpresentorresonateinourcontemporaryorder.

Yetwhenreferringtosuchspaces,MattinglyemphasisestheroleofembassychapelsinNorthernEuropean cities such as London, Paris, and Amsterdam, as the first ‘little islands of aliensovereignty’ (1955: 244). These little islands enabled by embassy chapels became essentialstagingpostsfortheemergenceofpermanentambassadorialpracticesandterritoriallydefinedstates.Thus,Mattingly’saccountofextraterritorialitybecamehighlyinfluentialinthedisciplineof InternationalRelations(IR) forexplainingtheemergenceofmodern territorialsovereignty(Ruggie,1993).1

Incontrast,thisstudyexploresarangeofotherspacesindifferentinstitutionalandgeographicalsettings, such as the ports of the Mediterranean and the colonies of the Americas. Thesecharacterised the jurisdictional complexities of diplomatic and economic relations betweenleadingEuropeanempiresandcontestthedominantfocusonembassychapelsasmarkingtheinvention of extraterritoriality and considered necessary to the emergence of territorialsovereignty.

1ThedisciplineofInternationalRelationswillbereferredtoas‘IR’,whereastheexpression‘internationalrelations’willberetainedtorefertotheensembleofsocialrelationsthatcrosstheboundariesofsovereignorotherwiseindependentpoliticalentitiesandsocialgroupings.Asisbroadlyacceptedfromitswideusage,themeaningoftheterm‘international’inthisexpressionhasgonebeyondtheactualhistoricallimitsofitscomponents(i.e.itisnotlimitedtorelationsbetweennation-states,strictosensu,butequatesinsteadtotranshistoricaltermssuchas‘inter-societal’or'trans-societal').

8

Consular establishments are some of these particularly neglected spaces in internationalhistoriography. Ports and consulates were frequented by individuals of a much lower socialorder,status,andfunctionthanambassadorsandwithalessdirectrelationtothehistoricallyfetishised institution of the modern state. The neglect of consuls also relates to the lack ofconsideration of socio-economic factors in grand diplomatic and international relationsnarratives.Thishistoriographicallacunaisneverthelesssurprising,sinceifanyplaceweretobesignificantforillustratingextraterritorialfictions,theportsoftheMediterraneanwithconsularrepresentatives–aswellasmostportssubjecttocolonialandimperialexpansion-maybemoreobviouscandidatesthanembassychapelsinafewcitiesinNorthernEuropemostlywitnesstoconfessionalstruggles.

These ports were characterised by multiple overlapping and conflicting jurisdictionalarrangementsinvolvingawiderangeofcommercial,political,religious,linguistic,cultural,andjudicialencounters.Arangeofprofessionsfrequentedconsulateportsand,insomecases,neededauthorisationstodoso-merchantsobviously,butalsopriestsandotherecclesiastics,artisanssuchasbakers,hairdressers,servants,tailors,cooks,clerks,surgeons,etc.Thevarietyofthesemigrants indicates the broader social impact these mixed jurisdictional spaces had on theeverydaylivesandmobilityoflocalpopulationsaswellasonpeopleintheirhomedestinations.

If the comparison between consular ale houses and embassy chapels remains anecdotal, andperhaps amusing, it nevertheless points to a key question about the relation betweenambassadorialandconsularspaces.Howdidambassadorsandconsulsdifferentlyrelatetotheroyal, commercial, and imperialelitesand institutions theydependeduponandwereused toenhance and enrich? Answering this question reveals something new about the history ofextraterritoriality and early modern empires. Exploring the relations between Europeanambassadorsandconsuls,andotherjurisdictionalactorsusedforimperialexpansion,opensawindowintotheworldofjurisdictionalaccumulation,aworldwithamuchwiderrangeofearlymodernjurisdictionalspacesandactors.Thesespacesandactorshavebeenundulyneglectedasfactorsoflarge-scalesocialchange.

Specifically,jurisdictionalaccumulationisaconceptualdevicethatrevealshowcertainactorsofimperial expansion were extending, transporting, and transplanting the authority of theirsovereign, while also, when possible, improving their own social status. Jurisdictionalaccumulationthusreferstoboththeaccumulationofclaims,rights,titlesandfunctions,andtheaccumulationofrevenuefromthoselegalrequestsandprivileges.Itemphasisesthedifficultiesin dissociating - for these actors and during this period - the accumulation of property,jurisdictionandwealth.

Thisanalysishelpstoovercomesomeofthepuzzlesandproblemsofperiodisingearlymodernextraterritorialitybyemphasising jurisdiction insteadof territorialityorsovereigntyasmajordriversofearlymodernsocialchange,asarguedinconventionalnarrativesfollowingscholarssuchasMattingly.Jurisdictionalaccumulationcapturesanewnarrativeonthe'socialpropertyrelations'ofearlymodernempiresandcapital,notablythroughthesocialoriginsandlegalmeansofsettlement,negotiation,andtradeofvarioussub-sovereigndiplomaticandimperialactors.

Thefollowingintroducestheproblemofearlymodernextraterritoriality,followedbythecontext,argument,andmethodsused for tackling thisproblem.Beforeclosingwithasummaryof thefollowingchapters,thisintroductorychapterdefinestheproject’sthreemainaxes;law,empires,andcapital.Inparticular,itdiscusseswhyweneedtoseparatelyconceptualiselawintermsof

9

jurisdiction,whyweneedanotherbookonearlymodernEuropeanempires,andwhyweneedtoincludecapitalfromaMarxistperspectiveinahistoricalsociologyofinternationallaw.

Theproblemofearlymodernextraterritoriality

Generally,extraterritorialityisunderstoodasaformorpracticeofjurisdictionassociatedwiththeassertionofauthoritybeyondtheterritorial limitsof thatauthority.Historyhasproducedmany cases and typesof extraterritorial jurisdiction. Somehistorians tracea common threadfromancienttreatiesintheMediterraneanbasin,toearlymoderncapitulationsintheOttomanempire,andtoEuropean,AmericanandRussianextraterritorialcourtsinlatenineteenthcenturyMiddleEast,Asia,andAfrica.

In the twentieth century, and most affirmatively since the 1980s, extraterritoriality hasreappeared as part of a transnational regulatory boom mostly driven by acts and disputesemerging fromthe foreignapplicationofUnitedStates (US) lawand thuscharacteristicofUShegemony (Raustiala, 2009; Ryngaert, 2015; Putnam, 2016). However, it is also a practicedevelopedbyvariousotherstatesandorganisations.Consideredalegalprincipleusedinjuridicalarguments,aswellasageopoliticaldeviceorpractice(Haskell,2019),extraterritorialityaffectslegaldomainsofcommerciallaworantitrust,intellectualproperty,investment,anti-corruption,criminal or environmental law, as well as human rights. It raises issues concerning theresponsibilityofstatesunderinternationallawandcreatesvarioustypesofdisputesinthelegalanddiplomaticrealms.

Thislatestriseofextraterritorialargumentsandpracticeshasencouragedlegalhistorianstolookat the various appearances of this concept in international history. Legal histories ofextraterritorialityhave largelyfocuseduponitsvariousmanifestations inthe 'semi-sovereign'statesandcoloniesofthelatenineteenthcentury,whereitwasusedbytheGreatPowers-France,Britain,Germany,theUnitedStates,Russia-asapowerfultoolofimperialdominationthroughthe establishment of extraterritorial courts and unequal treaties. The nineteenth centurywitnessedtheemergenceandwidespreadusageoftheterm‘extraterritoriality’,alsoknownas'exterritoriality' in this period, leading to the most substantial, global, and structuringmanifestationsandeffectsofthispractice.2

Thisbookcontrastswiththisfocusonnineteenthcenturyextraterritorialitybyexpandingonthefewexceptionsthathavestudieditsearlymodernwidereffects,andcontestingtheconventionalnarrativeofferedbydiplomatichistory.Accordingtothelatter,earlymodernextraterritorialityhasmostlybeenassociatedwith theemergenceofambassadorialprivileges roughly fromthesixteenthcenturyonwards.Thishighlightsacrucialneglectinhistoriesofinternationallawandinternational relations concerning the role of consular jurisdiction and other jurisdictionalpracticesoftheearlymodernworld.Thisneglectquestionstheroleattributedtotheshiftfrompersonal to territorial concepts of sovereignty, considered central to the construction of theEuropean qua international legal order through the evolving practices of ambassadorialimmunityinNorthernEurope.Ineffect,awidersetofoftenmaritimeandmore‘private’practicesofextraterritorialityandjurisdictionalextensionsofauthority,inSouthernEuropeandacrosstheAtlantic,havebeenexcludedorlefttothemarginsofinternationalhistory.

Exploringextraterritorialityfromahistoricalsociologyperspectiveallowsustoretrievethesepractices and also ask the question of continuity and rupture in long-term perspectives of

2Fora recent collectionofhistorical studiesonextraterritoriality, seeMargolies,Öszu,Pal&Tzouvala(2019).

10

international legal orders. To what extent do the different forms of extraterritoriality (e.g.consularjurisdiction,treaties,settlements,ambassadorialprivileges,courts)differintheirusebygeopoliticalactors?Whoaretheactorsthatdrivetheseprocessesindifferenthistoricalperiods?Andfinally,whatdotheseprocessestellusaboutthestandarddriversofinternationalchangeintheearlymodernperiod, suchas states,monarchies, cities,ports, empiresand theirdynastic,military,andcommercialelites?

Contextandargument

To guide us through these questions, the stars have recently aligned for an in-depth andsecondary study of earlymodern imperial and jurisdictional history. In the last fewdecades,social sciences scholarship has significantly turned its attention to the topic of earlymodernimperialexpansion.Somewouldevencallitthe'goldenage'forstudiesofempires(Lachmann,2018:1127).Simultaneously,afterbeingmostlyinactiveduringthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury, the field of international legal history has been significantly prolific in the last twodecades.Manyrecentcontributionsreflectabroad interdisciplinarity in thesocialsciences interms of method, theoretical concepts, and geographical focus. There is also an increasinglyundisputedconsensustorevisit thenearexclusivefocusonterritorialstatesaskeydriversofinternational legalchange,whichhas ledtoanincreaseof legalhistoriesofearlymodernandmodernempires.ThisturnisfinallyinfluencingtheIRdiscipline(Wallenius,2019;Pitts,2018),whichasidefromafewexceptions(Ruggie,1993;Cutler,2003;Keene,2002;Raustiala,2009),remainedlimitedinitsunderstandingandincorporationoflegalhistory.

This book is inspired by various counter-narratives to the classic rise of the European quainternational legal order, aswell asbya revival ofMarxisthistorical sociologyandof criticalhistoriesandtheoriesofinternationallaw.ItfocusesonthestudyofEuropeanimperialpracticesby takingup the challengeof revealingoneof theunderlyingmodesof expansion thatdroveEuropeansintoaworldtheylegallycolonisedandexploited.

Thismodeorsetofpracticesisinnovativelycalled'jurisdictionalaccumulation',anewconceptdevelopedbythisproject,whichdistinguishesthefollowingnarrativefromtheclassicstoryofEuropeanexpansionbyrevealing thepracticesofaneglectedsetof sub-sovereignactorsandprocessesinthehistoryofinternationalrelationsandinternationallaw.Theseconsistof,forthemost part, ambassadors, consuls, lawyers, parliamentarians,magistrates, theologians, certainclergy,andmerchants.Theirpracticesaresetinthecontextoftheirsocialorigins–orclass-andtheirroleinshapingnewlegalinstitutionsandmechanismsofimperialorderingandexpansion.

The key argument of the book is, most simply, that themajority of European early modernempires-theCastilian,French,DutchandEnglish/British-arebestcharacterisedasdevelopingpracticesofjurisdictionalaccumulation.Thesepracticesaredistinguishedbythethreecategoriesofextensions,transports,andtransplantsofauthority,andthisbookismostlyconcernedwithvariousdiplomatic and colonial agentswhich enabled the transports and transplants of theirsovereign’sauthority.Throughthesehistoricalanalyses,thebookconsistsintwomajoranalyticalcontributions. It is firstly an exercise in conceptual innovations, based, secondly, on aninterdisciplinarymixofmethodologicalangles.Theseintertwinedcontributionsenableustogobeyond common binaries (structure/agency, internal/external, specificity/similarity,territory/sovereignty)inbothconventionalandcriticalhistoriesofinternationalrelationsandinternationallaw.

IRtheoryhasassumedthatearlymodernjurisdictionalcomplexitynaturallyledtoWestphalianmodernity-andhowthepost-Westphalianperiodofso-calledabsolutesovereignterritoriality

11

andstateformationemergedtoresolvetheoverlypersonalformsandjurisdictionaloverlapsofearly modern polities. Instead, jurisdictional accumulation emphasises the constitutive, suigeneris, and self-sustaining character of early modern modes of jurisdictional expansion. Ittherefore breaks up the historical link between jurisdiction and sovereignty accepted byconventionalIRtheoryasagivenornaturalcauseoftheoriginofterritoriality.

In sum, jurisdictional accumulation is a device that breaks apart the linear and EurocentrichistoriesofterritorialsovereigntythatcontinuetodominateIR,byrevealingtheextenttowhichtheearlymodernworldwas'upforgrabs'andthemyriadlegalwaysimperialactors'grabbed'it.

Acrucialimplicationofdislodgingtheroleofstatesandterritorialsovereigntyaskeydriversofsocial change in the early modern period is the focus on empires. In addition, the focus onjurisdictionalaccumulationshowshow theperiod'smultiple jurisdictional claims reflecteachempire’s specific socialproperty relations.These contested structures arise fromstruggles intheirrespectivelocalcontexts,aswellasfromstrugglesarisingfromtheattemptstoconquerandcontainforeignandindigenoussocialpropertyrelations.Thus,socialpropertyrelationsareatthebasisofthisstudy,andinformthetypologyofjurisdictionalaccumulationinvariousways.

Extensionsofauthorityconcernallempiresandrefertothelegalincorporationofland(andthepeoplelivingonthatland)thatiscontiguousorinternaltotheexpandingauthority.Extensionsinclude the colonial expansionofEngland into theBritish Isles, theattemptsatunificationofIberia's fragmented kingdoms or reinos, the various laws and collaborations pursued by theFrench monarchy to centralise and expand royal authority, and the struggles of the DutchprovincestoemergeasaconfederationrecognisedbyotherEuropeanpowers.Thesecasesofextensionarediscussedinthefollowingchapter3focusedonsocialpropertyrelations,butthecategoryofextensionsremainssecondarytothemainfocusofthisprojectwhichisthedistinctionbetween transportsand transplantsofauthority.Theseconsist in thediplomaticandcolonialpracticesofexpansionthatweredeployedbeyondtheinternalandimmediatefrontierzonesandbordersofeachempire,andwhichthereforepresentedeachempirewithspecificdifficultiesandopportunities related to jurisdictional incorporation and more innovative extraterritorialstrategies.

Transplants of authority consist in conquests of people and territory, by a sovereign and itsrepresentatives, through the creation and development of jurisdictional institutions thatorganicallydevelop(ashybridsocialpropertyrelations)intheircolonialsetting.Thesepracticesrelyon theattributionof jurisdictionalsubjectivities to indigenousgroupsand to theiruseofjudicialinstitutions,basedonabroadmeaningofjurisdictionordominiumasownershipandruleoverbothpeopleandterritory.TheclassiccaseoftransplantingauthorityisillustratedbytheCastilianempireinthe'NewWorld'.

In contrast, theFrench,Dutch, andEnglishempiresaremostly characterisedby transports ofauthority,thatistheoutsourcingofthesovereignauthoritytoconquer,own,andtradeoverlandand resources. This outsourcing is mostly driven by commercial interests and by charteredcompaniesandsettlers.Itreferstoarestrictedconceptionofdominiumfocusedonownershiporproperty - rather than rule - for which the subjugation of people through jurisdictionalincorporationisnottheprimarymeansandaimofcolonisation.

Thesedistinctionsareanalyticalgeneralisationsandthereforehave importantexceptionsandnuances.Specifically,theyoverlapacrossempireswhentryingtodistinguishbetweentheiruseofdiplomaticactors.ThearistocratisationofFrenchambassadors(largelycopiedbytheSpanish)andtheFrenchmonarchy'sdevelopmentofauniqueconsularmodel(relentlesslyusedtocontrol

12

and regulate most effectively its agents in the Mediterranean) are better understood astransplants of authority. French consuls had wide jurisdictional functions and were directrepresentatives of the king. They were political and economic actors, that shaped FrenchmercantilismintheMediterraneanasajurisdictionalmodeofproduction.Theycreatedorganiccolonies and transplanted the authority of their sovereign in ways that also escaped thejurisdictionoftheirsovereignandcreatedtheirownzonesofinfluence.Moreover,theirneglectin histories of diplomacy and international law contributed to the separation of political andeconomic spheres, as well as to the shaping of Christian and non-Christian legal zones ofexclusion.

However,thedeploymentofambassadorsandconsulsbytheEnglishandDutchempiresisbetterunderstoodinsteadastransportsofauthority.Althoughtheseactorsplayedimportantroles,theywere less jurisdictionallyautonomous,andplayeddifferent functions fortheirsovereignsandprovincesthanFrenchconsulsandambassadors,asisseenthroughtheroleoftradingcompaniesintheirappointmentandregulation,intheseactors'distinctsocialorigins(lessaristocraticandemerging fromgentry andmerchant class), and througheach case's social property relationsshapingthosefunctionsaccordingtospecificlimitationsandmotivations.

If social property relations are considered analytically primary and help to explain thespecificitiesofeachcase,theydonotrevealalogicofcausalitythatcanexplainsimilaroutcomes.For example, although theFrench,English, andDutchare analysedasbeing characterisedbytransportsofauthorityintermsoftheirstrategiesforcolonialjurisdictionalaccumulation,theyeachhaddifferentsocialpropertyrelationsthateventually ledtothisoutcome.Moreover,theFrench case is themost complex in this typologybecause it is characterised as transplantingauthority through its diplomatic actors in the Mediterranean and transporting its authoritythroughcompaniesandsettlersinNorthAmerica.Thepointhereisnottoprovideatheoryofjurisdictionalaccumulation,withaclearpatternofcausesandoutcomes,buttorevealdifferentpaths and transitions, entanglements and encounters, based on a methodological choice forunderstanding different movements of jurisdictional expansion according to the method ofoutwardinternalism.

Simplyqualifyingtheearlymodernageasjurisdictionalisalreadywidelyacceptedandpresentin the historical literature. However, the contribution of this project is firstly, to analyticallysituateanddevelopthisconceptofjurisdictionasaconstitutiveandindependentfactor,ratherthanasanadjectiveoraddendumtoexistinginstitutitonsandactors;andsecondly,tofocusonpractices rather than ideas of jurisdictional accumulation. Most literature on the history ofinternationallawhasfocusedondoctrineandfailstosatisfactorilylinksocial,geopoliticalanddoctrinalfactors.Instead,thisstudyonlyreferstodoctrinewhenitisrelevanttothesepracticesorifitconcernsspecificjurisdictionaldebates.Forexample,inthecaseoftheroleoftheIberiankingdomsinthehistoryofinternationallaw,doctrinearguablyplayedamoreimportantroleforpracticethaninothercasesandisthereforeanunavoidablepartofthestory.

Thebook'scentralargumenthas thustwomajor implications.Ontheonehand,mapping ‘thejurisdictional’ into the existing typology of modes (i.e. feudalism, mercantilism, absolutism,capitalism, but also more specific types such as the dynastic, agrarian, or theological) is anadditionalwaytounderstandthecomplexprocessesthatshapeearlymoderninter-andtrans-societal relations, i.e. betweenandacrossvariouspolities and jurisdictionalborders. Inotherwords,theargumentbringsspecificityandcomplexitytotheearlymodernperiod.Ontheotherhand,ithelpstobetterunderstandakeysimilaritybetweenEuropeanempiresandregimesof

13

socialpropertyrelationsoverlappingbetweendifferentmodes,withoutclaimingstrictcausalandlinear links between these modes, and in particular betweenmercantilist, jurisdictional andcapitalist accumulation. The aim is to raise the question of this distinct set of practices as asignificantcharacteristicofearlymodern imperialexpansion, listsomeof thekeypracticesofjurisdictional accumulation, and give a general introductory picture of its contribution tohistoriesofinternationallawandinternationalrelations.

Inotherwords,thekeyanalyticalpayoffoftheargumentistoincorporatetheseempires'internalspecificitieswithoutcompletelylosingsightofexternalsimilaritiesthatenableawiderpictureoftheperiod’sfundamentaltransformations.Thisavoidsthevagueandinadequatenotionsofthe‘international’andthe‘global’todescribetheearlymodernperiodandestablishesjurisdictionand accumulation as inescapable but contextualised and constitutive terms for earlymodernimperialism.

Methods

Theresearchinvolvesamixofprimaryandsecondaryresearchmethodsdevelopedinthecontextof a historical sociology approach. This implies a comparative framework and the search forhistoricalpatternsandrupturesdrawnfromasampleofin-depthcases.Thesearesetinalong-termandlarge-scalenarrativeofthedevelopmentofextraterritorialityfocusedonsub-sovereignactorsgroundedineachempire’skeysetsofcontestedsocialpropertyrelations.

Thebookthusdefendsananalytically-drivenapproachto internationalhistorywithout losingsightofthediverse,diffuse,specific,andunintendedconditionsofsocialrelations.Thisanalysisis open-endedand theoretically inquisitive rather thandefinitiveand targetedatone specificdisciplinaryaudienceortheoreticaldebate.ItisprimarilydrawnfromhistoricalmaterialismbutalsoacknowledgestheneedformoremethodologicalpositioningandquestioningoftheMarxistapproachtohistoricalsociology. Itdrawsfromcriticalhistoriesof international lawandfromnewhistoriesofempireanddiplomacytoenrichthisapproach.

Thedifferent researchmethods applied in this book consist, firstly, in a reviewof secondarysourcesontheemergenceandroleofextraterritorialityinthehistoryofmoderninternationalrelations and international law.This analysis – introduced in chapter1 anddeveloped in thesubstantialchapters3to7-revealsanearlymoderninternationalhistoryofactorscompetingandcollaboratingforjurisdictionalauthority,i.e.rights,titles,andfunctions,aswellassovereignscompeting and collaborating for the determination of overlapping or separate orders anddomainsofjurisdictionalactivity.Thesepracticescanbedistinguishedastransplants,transports,andextensionsofauthority.Thistypologyhelpstocompareasetofcriss-crossingsimilaritiesanddifferencesthatcharacterisedifferentstrategiesemanatingfromCastile,theDutchRepublic,EnglandandFrance.

Secondly,thebookbuildsaconceptualframeworktocomparethesemulti-facetedpracticesofextraterritoriality across the four cases. Jurisdictional accumulation is proposed as a conceptbuildingoninternationallegalhistoriesbutgroundedinahistoricalmaterialistapproachbasedontheconceptofcontestedsocialpropertyrelations.Thisconceptualframeworkisespeciallyimportantsincethepoliticaleconomyofbothextraterritorialityanddiplomaticactorshasbeenlargelyignored.

Thirdly,thebookengagesinaselectiveexaminationofprimarysourcestotestakeyargumentemergingfromthesecondarycomparativeanalysis,i.e.thecontrastbetweenthearistocratisationof French ambassadors and the deployment of a unique consularmodel as two strategies of

14

Frenchjurisdictionalaccumulation.Thecasesofambassadorsandconsulsareattheheartofthebook'sresearchproblem,i.e.theroleofextraterritorialityinshapingterritorialsovereigntyandits specific diplomatic context. These cases are thus investigatedmore thoroughly thanotherpractices of jurisdictional accumulation, and the questions posed in this casewhere: howdoconsular and ambassadorial strategies of expansion relate and what type of jurisdictionalaccumulationcantheybeidentifiedas?

This researchwas conducted in the archives of the Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie deMarseille (CCIM), which contain rich and underexplored resources for early modernMediterraneandiplomaticandmaritimehistory.Theprimaryresearch(discussedinchapter5)looksataselectionofcorrespondenceandmemorandabetweenroyalauthorities,theChambrede Commerce deMarseille (CCM) - as itwas called in the seventeenth century – and Frenchmerchants in the Mediterranean. The selection is concerned with the French embassy inConstantinoplefromthemid-tolateseventeenthcentury,andmorespecificallywiththeissueofthe replacement of the ambassadorwith a consul or resident in the 1660s. This unique butillustrative case reveals the potential of comparing ambassadorial and consular practices ascontestedyetintertwinedjurisdictionalformsofaccumulation.Specifically,itshowshowColbertand the CCMwere both keen to maintain Mediterranean diplomacy as consular rather thanambassadorial,andpoints to thedevelopmentofcontrastingyetcomplementarystrategiesofdiplomaticdeploymentinNorthernandSouthernEuropeastransplantsratherthantransportsofauthority.

Aside fromthisspecific foray intoprimarymaterial, thebook'sgeneralrelianceonsecondaryresearchinevitablyrunsintovariouslimitations.Thefirstconcernsthefourempireschosenforthis project, and which are discussed only in terms of their Mediterranean, Southern andNorthernAmericancontexts.3TheMediterraneanisanareaoffocusparticularlyjustifiedbytheterms of the enquiry, i.e. achieving a better understanding of extraterritoriality in the earlymodernperiod.ThisareaofEnglishempireremainsunderstudied,asisthecasefortheroleoftheDutchintheregion.IftheFrenchempire'shistoryintheMediterraneanbenefitsfromawiderscholarship,albeitlessfromanAnglophoneperspective,thisbookcontributestothishistorybycomparingtheFrenchjurisdictionalapproachtothatoftheEnglish,Dutch,andIberianempires.

Another important limitation concerns the analysis of the Dutch case, which consequentlyemergesasmoreperipheral intheoverallproject.Thisperipheralstatusdoesnotnecessarilyreflectitscomparativehistoricalimportance,evenintermsofjurisdictionalpractices.Themajorriskistoaccentuatealreadyexistingproblematicassumptionsduetotheneglectofthiscasein

3 A number of early modern empires are not dealt with in this study, such as most importantly thePortuguese,Chinese,Japanese,PersianandMughalempires.TheOttomanempireisalsoonlyreferredtointhe context of the European empires under scrutiny. This is justified by the initial aimof this study inaddressingtheclassicnarrativeofdiplomacy, international lawandinternationalrelationsbasedontheEuropeancases,andtheabsenceorrelativelackofinformationaboutdiplomaticinstitutionsintheseothercases (e.g. the Ottoman empire did not establish permanent consuls or ambassadors until the lateeighteenth-nineteenth century, in spite of hosting Europeans from the seventeenth century). TheEurocentricconsequencesofthischoicearediscussedinmoredetailinchapter2.However,consideringthisstudyalsodevelopsamethodologyforanalysingthejurisdictionalnatureofearlymodernempires,italso remainsopen towhether furtherprojectsmight find the frameworkof jurisdictional accumulationrelevantfortheseothercontexts,as itremainscommittedtobeingbasedoneachcase'ssocialpropertyrelations.Theirexclusionisalsojustifiedbyalackofsourcesandtextsonwhichasecondaryanalysissuchasthefollowingcouldsatisfactorilyrest.Moreover,thisbooklimitsitselftocoloniesintheMediterranean,NorthandSouthAmerica,forreasonsofclarity,coherence,andavailabilityofsecondarysources.

15

historiography.However,fornow,analysisofthiscasewillhavetoremainlimitedbecauseoftherelative lackof research regarding theDutchempire’s socio-legalhistory, the complexity anddiversityofitsvariousprovinces,andthevastdisagreementsonhowtocategoriseandexplainitsuniquestructure,emergence,andrapidsuccessanddecline.Therefore,thepropositionsfortheDutchRepublicremainmoremodestandfocusonexistingdebatesregardingthetransitiontocapitalismandthejurisdictionalimpactoftheprovinces’socialpropertyrelations.However,thediscussioncontributesaneglectedjurisdictionalanglethatprovidesusefulstartingpointsforfurtherstudies.

ThecontrastofEngland'sagrarian,diplomaticandimperialhistoryisimportant,butthisstudyisnotoneofEnglishexceptionalism.Invariousways,eachcasehasitsownspecificities.NeitheristheanalysisconstructedbythechronologicalandsequentialriseandfalloftheIberian,French,Dutch,andBritishempires,ashasbeencharacteristicofhistoriographyformostofthetwentiethcentury.4 Instead, revealing jurisdictional accumulation requires the interweaving of imperialexpansion, jurisdictional politics, and capital, as axes that have not been simultaneouslysystematisedintoacoherentanddiachronicframework.Thisisthebook’smajormethodologicalchallengeandcontribution.Itimpliesfocusingonthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthesepolities’jurisdictionalstrategieswithoutassumingateleologicalpath-dependencygovernedbythesearchforcausallinksortheoriginsofcapitalismormodernity.Inotherwords,itdefendsaprocessual-agenticratherthanconsequentialistapproachtohistory.Theapproachisreflectedinthebook’sstructure,asthehistoricalnarrativeisconductedbyitsanalyticalandagenticangles,eachchapterdiscussingeveryempireboth in turnandsimultaneouslyaccordingtoanalyticalpatternsandrupturessoastoresistthemethodologicalnationalismthatremainsdominantinmainstreamandcriticalhistories.

In sum, the present study of extraterritoriality provides an alternative genealogy of thetransitionsbetweeninternationallegalorders.Itputsthespotlightonactorsandprocessesatthepolitical and historiographical margins of international law and international relations.Historicisingextraterritorialityshowshowmerchants,aswellasmembersoflowerordersofthenobility and risinggentry, andeven in somecases commoners,wereat the forefrontof earlymodern European imperial expansion through the processes of jurisdictional accumulation.These individuals mainly consisted of lawyers, jurists, theologians, priests, merchants,magistrates,ambassadors,envoys,consuls,sailors,andvaryinglyobscuretypesofadventurers.

Specifically,thestrategiescharacterisingearlymodernEuropeanempires-andusedbyimperialagentstoextendtheirjurisdictionalreach,asindividualsorforthosetheyrepresent-provideconcreteandvariedexamplesofthespecificityofmercantileanddynasticelites,aswellastheroleoflower-ordersocialgroupsininternationalrelationsandinternationallaw.Forexample,wefindempiresdevelopingnewtypesofdiplomaticactors,collaboratingwithregionalelites,negotiating treatieswithMediterranean rulers, allowing and controlling colonial elites in the‘NewWorld’throughcomplexlegalmechanisms,ornegotiatingjurisdictionalarrangementswithindigenouspopulations.

Tracingthedifferencesbetweenthesestrategiesenrichestheconceptsofaccumulationusuallyfoundinhistoricalsociology(primitive,geopolitical,commercial,capitalist)tounderstandthebigsocialandpoliticalchangesoftheearlymodernperiod.Moreover,itsituatesthesestrategiesintheAtlanticandtheMediterraneanasparticularsiteswhereEuropeanempireshadtodevelop

4ClassicexamplesincludeGrewe,2000;Schmitt,2003;Bull&Watson,1984.

16

alternativepracticestocompeteandsecuretradingandpoliticalinterests.Theydidsointhefaceof, on the one hand, a more powerful and jurisdictionally challenging trading partner, theOttomanempire;and,ontheother,adifferentsetofchallengesandopportunitiesforcolonisationandsettlementcross-Atlantic.ThisalternativegenealogyputsthespotlightontheMediterraneanas a particularly important space for jurisdictional accumulation and jurisdictional conflictsbetweenearlymodernempires.Thisregionhastendedtobeneglectedinrecentinternationalhistory, in comparison to the emphasis on the Atlantic and Pacific as sites of early modernaccumulation,dispossessionandlegalordering.

Definitions

Somekeyterms–theproject’sguidingaxes–needtobedefined.Firstly,concerningthelegalaxis,thecentralcontributionistheneedtodifferentiatejurisdictionfromlawasasetofpracticesthatdeservesmoresustainedandindependenthistoricalandconceptualanalysis.

Jurisdiction today is generally understood in its technical dimensions as thede facto right toexercisejustice,the‘orderingoflegalauthority’,leadingmostlegalliteratureonextraterritorialjurisdictiontobeconcernedwithconflictsoflawsandjurisdictions(Dorsett&McVeigh,2012:4-6).However,evenfromatechnicalanddisputeorcase-basedapproach,jurisdictionpointstothede facto, practical, and constitutive dimension of the law which should concern historicalsociologyasthestudyofsocialchange.5

In effect, jurisdiction remainsmostly ignored in historical sociologies in IR and not deemedworthyofmoreindepth,systematicorreflectiveanalysis.IthasbeenacceptedforsometimenowthatIRscholarsneedtobecomebetterhistorians,byeitherengagingmorewithprimarysourcesorwithawiderrangeofsecondarysources.Yetthenarrativeoftheuniversalstandardofsovereignstatehoodisstillclaimedbymostoftheconventionalliteraturetohavearisenwiththe 1648 treaties of Westphalia and to have gradually been established worldwide by thenineteenthcentury.ThecontinuingimportanceofWestphaliaasabenchmarkforthehistoryofthemodernstateinspiteofthemanycritiquesofsuchausesincethelate1980s,showsthattheearlymodern–andhencethejurisdictional-hasalwaysbeenpresentintheclassicnarrativesofthe history of international relations and international law. However, the ‘earlymodern’ hasremainedjustthat,i.e.apreludetomodernterritorialandstate-basedpoliticalinstitutionsandprinciples,andhasnotbeensufficientlyunderstoodsuigeneris.

Agrowingandcritical'jurisdictional'literaturehasemergedfromscholarssuchasRush(1997),Ford (1999), Goodrich (2008), Orford (2009), Benton (2010), Tomlins (2010), Dorsett andMcVeigh(2012),andPahuja(2013).Someofthesescholarshavelamentedthelackof'atheoryof jurisdiction' (Ford, 1999: 922)6 while others have elaborated on the various historicalmanifestationsofjurisdictionanditsroleinstateformation,empireandcolonisation.ThisprojectsituatesitselfsomewhereinbetweenFord’stheoryofjurisdictionandPahuja’sillustrativeuseofjurisdictionas‘orientation’andas‘jurisdictionalthinking’(2013:69).Itprovidesaframeworkthattakesasstartingpointthetransformative,contested,andlayereddefinitionofjurisdiction,aswellasthefocusonjurisdiction'sdeclarativeandpre-constitutiveroleinrelationtolawandtosovereignty(Dorsett&McVeigh,2012).

5Ininternationalhumanrightslaw,jurisdictionisdefinedasthe'actualexerciseofcontrolandauthoritybyastate'(Milanovic,2011:8)andas'defactopoliticalandlegalauthority;thatistosay,practicalpoliticalandlegalauthoritythatisnotyetlegitimateorjustified'(Besson,2012:864).6Ford’s theoryof jurisdiction isbasedon itsdefitinionas 'arelationshipbetweenthegovernmentandindividuals,mediatedbyspace'(Ford,1999:904).

17

This book provides different examples of actors and institutions concerned with the legalordering of authority – in the technical sense - yet it also explores a more critical sense ofjurisdiction, which ‘activelyworks to produce something’ (Dorsett &McVeigh, 2012: 6), andwhich reverses the technical definition according to which ‘jurisdiction is an exercise ofsovereignty’ (Pahuja, 2013: 69); instead, it is as, if not more, important to account for how‘sovereigntyisapracticeofjurisdiction’(Pahuja,2013:70)sincejurisdictionis‘thepracticeofpronouncingthelaw’,andthusdeclaringits‘existence’and‘theauthoritytospeakinthenameofthelaw’(Dorsett&McVeigh,2012:4).Acriticalapproachtojurisdictionisthusconcernedwiththe de facto, pre-legal phase of the enunciation of rules and laws and its potential forunderstanding theroleof law incontributing to thesocialconstructionofmajorprinciplesofinternationalrelationsandinternationallaw.

Thiscriticalapproachisfundamentalinhighlightingthewaysinwhichnon-criticalapproacheshavestrippedjurisdictionofitshistoricity,andofitspotentiallyconstitutiveforce,leavingitbareandneutralisingitspotentialasamaterialfactorofsocialchangeinhistoriography,as'timeless,natural and indeed inevitable' (Ford, 1999: 929). This manifests itself in narratives of earlymodernEuropewidelyconsideredastheclassicperiodorgoldenageofjurisdictionalencountersand conflicts. However, it is used there in a descriptive sense to denote the elusive andoverlappingboundariesoftheearlymodernperiod.Itisnotexploredasadeterminingagencyorstructure–andaspatternorrupture–andthetermisnotconsideredtosignificantlyshift inmeaningspatiallyortemporally.

Instead, this book revisits the potential of a spatio-temporally differentiated narrative ofjurisdictionaswellasitsanalyticalpotentialtoexplainthemessierimbricationoflaw,politics,and economics in processes of early modern imperial ordering. Westphalian narratives arecontestedbyfocusingontheenduranceofthejurisdictionalmodeofexpansionpresentupuntilthe nineteenth century and fundamental to a different interpretation of the dynastic politicsshapingtheWestphalianera.

It is crucial to separate early modern jurisdictional practices from sovereign and territorialpracticessoastoqualifythesetermsaccordingtoearlymodernactorsratherthanaccordingtotheir modern equivalents or to the consequentialist history of modern sovereignty andcapitalism.Presentismremainsaprobleminlegalandinternationalrelationshistory.

Western legal histories are frequently presented as simple tales. The stories told have, from theperspectiveofthepresent,asenseofWhiggishinevitabilityastheymoveacrosstimetowardsusandour more familiar forms. To avoid complication, such accounts highlight and often exaggerate theimportanceofthelawsthathavebecomedominantovertime.Theyneglectbothawidevarietyofotherlawsandnormativeorders.(Donlan&Heirbaut,2015:9).

Thisprojecttherebycontributestohighlightingtheactors,practicesandordersthatmaynothavebecome dominant over time. If it relies on notions of jurisdiction as constitutive of powerrelations,thesearepotentiallyandnotnecessarilydrivingtheconstructionof‘materiallegalformsofsovereign,stateandterritory’ (Dorsett&McVeigh,2012:5). Inotherwords, it iscrucial toensure that this constitutive function of jurisdiction remains a potentiality determined byhistorical specifities. Jurisdictional practices are thus grounded in the set of contested socialpropertyrelationsspecifictoeachempireunderdiscussion.

Secondly,regardingtheimperialaxis,contemporaryIRandinternationallegalhistorians-inthecontextoftherisinginfluenceofpostcolonial,decolonialandanti-Eurocentricapproaches-areincreasinglyexploringnewwaystounderstandEuropeanandnon-Europeanhistory.However,

18

beyond current methodological debates regarding types of Eurocentrism – and discussed inchapter 2 - the study of the expansion of legal orders andmechanismshas beenparticularlyproblematicordifficulttoprovincialiseorde-centre.Sincetheauthorityofcommonandcivillawsystemsremainsmostlyundisputed,theirconquestofmajorpartsoftheworldhasbeenmetwithmuch less controversy than other aspects of European imperial expansion. For example, it iscommonforcontemporaryhistoriansofBritishempiretoexpresshowtheruleoflawwasagiftto the world, the jewel in the crown of British imperialism, an exception that redeems theenterprise. The law thus plays a key function in today's various revisionist and nostalgicexhibitions of why we should retain the glorious and forget the bloody past. Similarly, forhistoriansoftheFrenchempire,thepotentialprimacyandexceptionofFrenchlegalcodesandconstitutional system over absolutist monarchies, enlightening the world since 1789, isunderstoodasauniversalgoodthatallshouldbenaturallyproudofandcelebrate.

Animportantobjectiveofthisstudyisthereforetocontributetoscholarshipthatfocusesonearlymodernempiresandtheirpracticesofexpansion,competition,plunder,andexploitation.Itdoesso by reconnecting legal, imperial, and diplomatic history to the socio-economic histories ofEuropeanempires.Theintellectual,military,andreligioushistoriesofEuropeanempiresremainobviouslycrucial,andthepointisnottoignorethese.However,theyhavebeenvastlyfavouredinhistoriographytothedetrimentoftherelationsbetweenthedomainsfocusedonhere.

Thebook'sthirdmajoraxis–capital-emphasisesitshistoricalmaterialistapproach.CapitalisthusunderstoodintheMarxistsenseofcontestedsocialrelationsbetweenvariousactorsandinstitutions that structure the access to, and possibilities for the accumulation of, resourcesnecessaryforsocialreproduction.Thesestructuresareidentifiedas ‘socialpropertyrelations’andareusedastheanalyticalstartingpointforthisstudy.

Most simply, historicalmaterialism consists in amethod that seeks 'to encompass historicalspecificity,aswellashumanagency,whilerecognizingwithinitthelogicofmodesofproduction'(Wood, 1995: 59). This angle questions how earlymodern empires sought to establish theirauthority-i.e.throughwhichagencyandlogics-byexpandingthroughlawandthesearchforwealth,andinsomecases,throughnewlyemergingcapitalistsocialrelations.

Thechoiceoftheterm‘accumulation’inevitablyreferstootherMarxistconceptsofaccumulationand thus to the large-scale expansion and reproduction of resources. The aim is therefore todistinguishaswellasconnectjurisdictionalaccumulationtootherprocessescharacterisingthisperiodandwhichhavebeenusedtounderstandtheearlymodernhistoryofinternationallaw,suchasprimitiveaccumulation(Neocleous,2012)orgeopoliticalaccumulation(Teschke,2003).However,jurisdictionalaccumulationinthisprojectrefersmostlytotheaccumulationofrights,functions, and titles. Revenue or wealth acquired from jurisdictional accumulation remainsdifficulttoascertainanddissociatefromothersourcesofrevenue,suchascommercialcapital.Providingevenonlyaverygeneralassessmentofthisrevenueisbeyondthescopeofthisstudyand requires a separate research project. Nevertheless, it is certain that consuls, corsairs,charteredcompanies,settlers,etc.extractedsignificantrevenuefromthejurisdictionalprivilegestheyacquired,thoughtheyalsohadsignificantcosts,whichtheyoftentriedtoclaimbackfromtheirsovereignsthroughthelegalprivilegestheyhadacquiredorthoughttheydeserved-hencethe book’s focus on jurisdictional accumulation as primarily the search to accumulate thosefunctions,rights,andtitlesasmeanstoacheivepropertyandsovereignty.

Thisfocusisalsojustifiedbythewayinwhichearlymodernity,whenseenthroughthelensofjurisdictionalaccumulation,isnotprimarilydeployedtobetterexplaintheriseofmodernityand

19

theoriginsof - or transitions to - capitalism.This concept is firstof allput forward tobetterunderstand thehistoricalphaseduringwhichEuropeexpanded itscontrolonan increasinglyglobalscaleandtohighlightitsspecificities.

Thedifficultyhereliesinaccountingfortheshiftingmeaningandpracticesof'capital'inaperiodofconflictingandoverlappingmodesofproductionandexpansion.Ineffect,thequestionofthetransitiontocapitalismcannotbeignored,evenifitisnottheprimaryresearchproblemhere,sincethesemodesofexpansioninevitablyco-existedandinsomecasesoverlappedsuchasinEnglish/BritishAmerica.

Moreover, a significant focus in the vast literature on the earlymodern period has been ondefining itasmercantilist.Recentdebateson the transition tocapitalismhave focusedon theissueofwhethermercantilismisastructurallynecessaryandsufficientmodeofexpansionoraccumulation for the transition to capitalism,nationally andglobally. This issue also remainscontested inMarx’swork,whooscillatedon thispointdependingon theperiodsand left thequestionopeninhisunfinishedmanuscripts.Thisbookproposestoshifttheterrainofthedebatetowards providing a more nuanced picture of these modes and by adding the notion ofjurisdictionalaccumulationtoquestionthehomogeneoususeoftheterm‘mercantilism’whenidentifyingearlymodernstrategiesandactors.

Marxisthistoriographyhas also ignored the significanceof the conceptof jurisdiction, and inresponseitisusedheretoemphasisetheimportanceofmaritimeandmercantilespacesforthedevelopmentof(geo)politicalclassdynamicsandreproduction.Thepresenceofthesevariousmodesforthedevelopmentofspecificpracticessuchasambassadorialrepresentationandtherole of jurisdictional actors is illustrated by the neglected role of maritime consuls, at thecrossroadsofmercantileandgeopoliticalexpansion.

When approached from this angle, capital is understoodwidely, and thebookplayswith thenotionofjurisdictionasaformofcapital,asthemottousedasepigraphdenotes.Thisimpliesthere are different types of capital determined by contested social property relations. TheseshapethedivergingsocialoriginsofleadingEuropeanimperialactors,suchasambassadorsandconsuls,andthesocial implicationsofcontendingdiplomaticandexpansioniststrategies.Thisunderstanding of capital avoids falling prey to a structural concept of capitalism that canultimately only provide an approach of ahistorical materialism to understand the importantgeopolitical,economicandlegaltransitionsoftheearlymodernperiod.

Thus, if this book draws on aMarxist conceptual framework, it is notwritten primarily as adefenceandexpositionofMarxisminIRandinternationallaw.Theprimarydriveishistoricalandconcernedwithlegalrupturesandpatterns.Nevertheless,thebookdoesdefendthewaysinwhichhistoricalmaterialismprovidesoriginalandnecessaryquestionstoexploreearlymodernjurisdictionsthatwouldnotbegeneratedbyusinganalternativeconceptualmatrixortheoreticalframework,suchasaWeberian,constructivist,orpost-colonialapproachtohistoricalsociology.

Chaptersummaries

The following chapters 1 and 2 expand on these definitional, theoretical andmethodologicalproblems. Chapter 1 problematises the classic history of diplomacy in relation toextraterritorialityandpresentsthekeydebatesinIRandinternationallawtowhichthisstudycontributes.Thischapterfurthershowsthatclassicdiplomatichistory'sfocusonembassiesandGrotius to historicise extraterritoriality has contributed to theWestphalian imaginaries thatremain dominant and maintain linear trajectories of the shift from personal to territorial

20

conceptsofsovereignty.Ifarangeofnewstudiesarealsocontestingthisapproachandaccountof earlymodern jurisdiction, theynevertheless remain limited in termsof not fundamentallyquestioningthelinkbetweenextraterritorialandterritorialsovereigntybasedontheanalysisofambassadorialimmunityandtheshiftfromthepersonal–theambassador-totheterritorial–theemabssy.Theselimitationscallfornewapproachestothishistory.

Chapter2discusseshistoricalsociologyastheframeworkadoptedtodevelopanewapproachtoearly modern jurisdictions. The project aims to enrich diplomatic history's institutional andcultural paradigm through a more productive engagement with new legal histories ofextraterritoriality and historicalmaterialist approaches.Debates regarding Eurocentrism andhow to conceptualise imperial agency in historical sociology are discussed, and an outwardmethodologicalinternalismisproposedasrequiredbytheresearchproblemposedinchapter1,namely the problem of narrow and linear sources of the means of imperial expansions ofauthoritysuchasambassadorial immunities.Toframethismethodology,thecommodityformtheoryoflawisdiscussedasapowerfulbutoverlystructuralapproachtoprocessesofexpansionthatconflatesmercantilismandcapitalism.Inresponse,themethodologyisframedinsteadbyPoliticalMarxism,asamoreagency-basedandhistoricistapproachtointernationalhistory,thatreliesontheconceptofsocialpropertyrelations.

Chapter3beginsthesubstantialempiricalanalysisbyfocusingonthesocialpropertyrelations–classandlegalinstitutions–ofeachcaseunderexamination.Itbuildsonsocialhistoriesofthesecases, broadly but not exclusively from the Political Marxist tradition, by engaging with(international)legalhistory.Thischapterlaysthegroundworkforthefollowingchaptersintermsofpresentingthemajorinstitutions,actors,andjurisdictionaldisputesthatarenecessarytobuildthe following contributions to diplomatic and legal history. The analysis of social propertyrelationsinchapter3providessomebasestounderstandthelocalspecificitiesoftheCastiliankingdomanditsAmericancolonies,emphasisingthebroaderIberianfragmentedassemblageandtheroleoftheologiansintheparticularpolitico-religiousformofempirelinkedtoprinciplesofmoralityandlaw.InFrance,thefocusisonthereignofLouisXIVandhisministersintryingtocontainthevariousjurisdictionalregimesandconceptionsofspace,aswellasitslegalactorsandorders.ThedebateontheroleofEngland’ssocialpropertyrelationsisdiscussedinrelationtotheroleof thecommonlawandofenclosures inprimitiveaccumulationandthetransitiontocapitalism.Finally,thesectionontheDutchRepublicalsohighlightstheproblemoftransitionandthe specific jurisdictional context of its confederation, as well as the role of merchants andmagistratesinshapingitspolitics.Althoughitisnotthemainfocusofthischapter,itimplicitlydescribespracticesthatcouldbeconsideredasextensionsratherthantransportsortransplantsofauthority.

Both chapters 4 and 5 contribute to rejecting simplistic linear accounts of the gradualmodernisingof thediplomaticprofession,which isclaimedtoprovide thebasis foramodernsystemofinternationalrelationsandaccompaniesWestphaliannarrativesoftheinternationalorderandofextraterritoriality.Thechaptersmapkeychangesandgeographicalpatternsinthesocial origins and composition of early modern diplomatic and jurisdictional actors. Theyquestionhowthesediplomaticactorsmightmapontothetypologyofjurisdictionalaccumulationadoptedinthisstudy,andwhatneglectedaspectsoftheirhistoryitmayreveal.

Chapter4linksanalysesofsocialpropertyrelationstoscholarshiponthesocialoriginsofthediplomaticcorpsandthearistocratisationofambassadorsfromthelateseventeenthcentury.Itpresentsthedebatesindiplomatictheoryandhistoryregardingthesocialoriginsorfunctionsof

21

actors regarded as necessary or ideal to fulfil diplomatic duties. The chapter argues that thearistocratisationofambassadorsledbyFranceandSpaincanbeunderstoodasajurisdictionalstrategyofcollaborationbetweennobleclassesandsovereignstosustainan'oldregime'Europe.Moreover, thechapterproposes toseparate thecasesofSpainandFrance, leading this trend,fromthoseofEngland/BritainandtheDutchRepublic,whichuseddiplomatsandtheimportanceof their social origins and functions according to different criteria leading to differentextraterritorial strategies. Thus, the typology of jurisdictional accumulation can be used tocontrastFrenchandSpanishstrategiesofambassadorialrecruitmentastransplantsofauthority,withEnglishandDutchcounterpartstrategiesastransports.Transplantsmarktheformer’smoreembodiedandorganic relianceon theprestigeof thepersonof theambassador,whereas thelatter favoured the potential utility and political requirements of theirmoremerchant-basedimperialagentsinshapingthesocialdiversityoftheirambassadorialcorps,andthereforecanbeidentifiedthroughthemorefunctionalconceptoftransports.

Chapter5’sstudyofthepracticesofDutch,French,andEnglishconsulsintheMediterraneanisat the heart of the book's argument for jurisdictional accumulation since it illustrates keyrelations of jurisdictional collaboration and conflict between sovereigns, merchants, tradingcompanies,andregionalinstitutions.Itdiscusseswhatwasexpectedofconsulsandtherangeoftheir jurisdictional functions, the policies and strategies developed such as the restrictiveregulationsincreasinglyputinplacefortheFrenchserviceanditsuniquemodelofsalariedandcommissionedconsuls, aswell as thedifferentpractices found inChristianandnon-Christianparts of the Mediterranean. Through a selection of archive material regarding events in theFrench embassy in Constantinople from the 1660s to 1680s, the analysis reveals a moreinterdependentrelationbetweenambassadorsandconsulsinshapingso-calledextraterritorialandjurisdictionalspacesintheearlymodernperiod.Incorporatingthesechallenges-basedonclass differences or social origins - formulates new research questions regarding the role ofconsulardiplomacy,itsconnectiontothearistocratisationofambassadorialdiplomacy,andthedevelopmentofdifferentformsofearlymodernmercantilism.Forsimilarreasonstothoseraisedintheconclusionoftheprecedingchapter,theanalysisofconsulsconcludesthatFrenchconsularpracticesarebettercategorisedastransplantsofauthority,incontrasttothelessjurisdictionallyautonomousroleofEnglishandDutchconsularattemptstotransporttheirsovereign’sauthority.Theseconditionspavethewayfordiscussingcolonialpracticesofjurisdictionalaccumulationinchapter6.Theseconsist,intheIberiancase,oftherequerimiento,encomiendas,audiencias,andthevariousjurisdictionalopportunitiesprovidedbytheaboveinstitutionsandpractices,leadingto jurisdictional competition and subjectivities in colonial New Spain. The open question ofSpain’smercantilismisalsodiscussedinrelationtoitsgovernanceandadministrativestructuresand commercial-legal institutions. These practices are considered transplants of authoritybecausetheycreateorganicandautonomousinstitutionsthatremainhybridslinkedtotheroyalauthorityatthecentreoftheempire,andrelyonthejurisdictionalincorporationofbothsettlersandNative American subjectivities. In otherwords, Castilian practices of imperial expansiontransplantCastilianauthority andareprimarily concernedwith authorityoverpeople,whichprovides both jurisdictional opportunities of contestation and subjugation. A different set ofpractices of jurisdictional accumulation are then presented relating to the French,Dutch andEnglish/Britishempires.Thesemostlyrelatetotradingandcharteredcompaniesandsettlementsprimarilyconcernedwithauthorityoverlandandresources,aprocessforwhichtheinhabitantsof thecolonised landneedtobeexcludedrather than jurisdictionally incorporated.Themorecommercial, indirect and outsourced practices of these empires are discussed through the

22

debates on mercantilism and the practices of corsairing, which produced conditions forjurisdictionalaccumulationastransportsofauthority, i.e. focusedontheuseofintermediariesandajurisdictionaldistancingbetweentheimperialcentresandtheircolonies.

Chapter7concludesthebookbydiscussinginmoredetailtheconceptualandhistoriographicalimplications of the analysis of consuls in chapter 5 and of the jurisdictional practices ofaccumulationinchapter6.Exploringdifferentmeaningsofjurisdictionforthedoctrineofthelawof nations in Spain and for England’s famous Calvin’s Case - both focused on cross-Atlanticcolonisation - reveals the importanceof thedifferencebetween transplantsand transportsofauthorityasshapedbydifferentnotionsofdominium.Ineffect,transplantsofauthorityrefertonotionsofdomimiunthatincorporatebothownershipofthingsandpeopleandruleorjudicialauthorityoverthingsandpeople.Incontrast,transportsofauthorityrefertoamorerestrictednotionofdominiumfocusedontheownershipofthings,orwhatsomemightidentifyasprivateproperty.Finally, intheMediterranean, jurisdictionalaccumulationrevealshowearlymodernconsuls, as themost significant andneglectedof jurisdictional actors,were shapingkey legalfictions (political/economic and Christian/non-Christian) that were maintained in the laternineteenth century’s construction of modern international law, and which contributed toexcludingpeoplesfromthestandardsofcivilisation.Thus,thebookconcludeswiththeseremarksaimedatopeningdebatesonthesignificanceandpotentialfutureoftheconceptofjurisdictionalaccumulation.Ifnothingelse,thisconceptwillhavecontributedtothegrowingscholarshiponthesharedhistoriesof internationalrelationsandinternatonal law.EchoingChristopherHill’swiseadvicetofellowhistorians,italsohopestocontributetothisgeneration’sneedtorewriteitshistoryasitrelivesdifferentaspectsofitspredecessors’experiences;namely,thoseofempireandaccumulation.