Stefan Amirell and Birgit Tremml-Werner are the convenors of the panel Negotiating Imperialism at the Seventh ENIUGH Conference in The Hague.

Participants

Martine van Ittersum, University of Dundee

André Johannes Krischer, University of Freiburg

Janne Lahti, University of Helsinki

Michael Talbot, University of Greenwich

Abstract

Between the seventeenth and early twentieth century, so-called unequal treaties were a crucial instrument of imperial expansion. In recent years, researchers have increasingly turned to treaties and treaty-making in order to understand of how colonial domination was established and of how imperial expansion was linked to the development of international law. What has thus far been less frequently investigated, however, is how the treaties were perceived and negotiated on the ground and how they were forged in inter-cultural encounters often characterised by competition and conflict as well as by accommodation and compromise.

By focusing on the processes of treaty-making, rather than treaties in themselves, the panel seeks to provide a more detailed and nuanced of how imperialism was negotiated and established in various inter-cultural contexts. In doing, so it aims to highlight the role and agency of the men and women ’on the spot’, including a variety of actors beyond the state level and of different national and cultural backgrounds.

The panel explores treaty-making in comparative global historical perspective, gathering  five papers dealing with treaties and treaty-making in different colonial or imperial contexts. Some of the questions asked are: What role did treaty-making play in different asymmetrical contexts? How did treaty-making practices in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania differ from the legal theoretical debates in Europe? How did the treaty-making practices change over time? What are the similarities and differences in relation to different local political and cultural contexts and the practices of different colonial powers? How can the degree of inequality, fraudulence, manipulation be assessed in different treaty-making contexts? How can how can the comparative study of treaty-making in global history nuance our take on current developments in international relations?