This book addresses a number of concerns that have emerged in recent scholarship on the nineteenth century. It contributes to existing dialogues that consider how the nineteenth century can be thought about and critically rethought through literature and other kinds of textual production. The book offers a theoretical consideration of the concept of the nineteenth century by considering Walter Benjamin's famous work The Arcades Project, focusing on Arnold Bennett's entitled 'The Rising Storm of Life'. It outlines how recent developments in Gothic studies have provided new ways of critically reflecting upon the nineteenth century. The book draws attention to the global scope of Victorian literature, and explores the exchanges which took place between Indian and British cultures. It argues that attending to the fashioning of American texts by British publishers enables people to rethink the emergence of American literature as a material as well as an imaginative phenomenon. The relationship between literature and the European anatomical culture is carried out by exploring nineteenth-century narratives from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in the first decades of the nineteenth-century to Charles Dickens's fiction in the 1860s. Historical fiction writers' persistent fascination with the long nineteenth century enacts a simultaneous drawing near to and distancing from the period, the lives of its inhabitants and its cultural icons, aesthetic discourses and canonical works. Adaptive practice in the neo-Victorian novel, applied both to Victorian literary precursors and the period more generally, may be better described as adaptive reuse or, perhaps appropriative reuse.
This book is an attempt at a comprehensive presentation of the history of humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century, the heyday of this controversial doctrine. It starts with a brief presentation of the present situation and debate. The theoretical first part of the book starts with the genealogy of the idea, namely the quest for the progenitors of the idea in the sixteenth and seventeenth century which is a matter of controversy. Next the nineteenth century ‘civilization-barbarity’ dichotomy is covered and its bearing on humanitarian intervention, with its concomitant Eurocentric/Orientalist gaze towards the Ottomans and other states, concluding with the reaction of the Ottomans (as well as the Chinese and Japanese). Then the pivotal international law dimension is scrutinized, with the arguments of advocates and opponents of humanitarian intervention from the 1830s until the 1930s. The theoretical part of the book concludes with nineteenth century international political theory and intervention (Kant, Hegel, Cobden, Mazzini and especially J.S. Mill). In the practical second part of the book four cases studies of humanitarian intervention are examined in considerable detail: the Greek case (1821-1831), the Lebanon/Syria case (1860-61), the Balkan crisis and Bulgarian case (1875-78) in two chapters, and the U.S. intervention in Cuba (1895-98). Each cases study concludes with its bearing on the evolution of international norms and rules of conduct in instances of humanitarian plights. The concluding chapter identifies the main characteristics of intervention on humanitarian grounds during this period and today’s criticism and counter-criticism.
Humanitarian intervention – that is,
military intervention aimed at saving innocent people in other countries from massive
violations of human rights (primarily the right to life) –
entered public consciousness around 1990 as never before in the course of the
twentieth century. It has earned a central place in scholarly research and in the
preoccupations of decision-makers and international organizations and has captured the
imagination of the wider public in a
France has been a central actor in human protection, yet the existing literature has too often focused on Anglo-Saxon states or states that are wary of its development. In order to address this gap, this book provides an original and much-needed account of France’s relationship to human protection since the 1980s. It analyses a ‘tale of two norms’ using an innovative theoretical framework: The first is ‘France’s domestic norm of human protection’, and the second is the dominant international principle or norm of human protection at the time (chiefly humanitarian intervention in the 1990s and the responsibility to protect (R2P) in the 2000s). Through this ‘tale of two norms’, and also thanks to interviews with key actors such as Gareth Evans and Bernard Kouchner and analysis of fourteen case studies, the book reshapes our understanding of the development and influence of key principles and norms of human protection. It also corrects prevailing assumptions about France’s foreign policy and allows us to anticipate its future foreign policy more accurately. Last but not least, by showing how important it is to pay more attention to the interplay between domestic and international norms and building an innovative framework that can be used beyond the analysis of France and human protection, the book makes a key contribution to the literature on norms and International Relations theory more generally. The book is therefore an essential read for anyone interested in human protection, peace studies, France, foreign policy analysis, International Relations and norm diffusion.
This volume is concerned with the ways in which bioprecarity, here understood as the vulnerabilization of people as embodied selves, is created through regulations and norms that encourage individuals to seek or provide bodily interventions of different kinds. We explore this in particular in relation to intimacy and intimate labour, such as in the making of families and kin and in various forms of care work. Advances in biotechnology, medical tourism and the visibilization of minoritized communities have resulted in unsettling the norms around the gendered body, intimate relations and intimate labour. Bodily interventions have sociocultural meanings and consequences both for those who seek such interventions and for those who provide the intimate labour in conducting them. The purpose of this volume is to explore these. This exploration involves sociocultural questions of boundary work, of privilege, of bodily ownership, of the multiple meanings of want (understood both as desire, for example the desire to have children or to change one’s bodily appearance; and as need – as in economic need – which often prompts people to undertake migration and/or intimate labour). It also raises questions about different kinds of vulnerabilities, for those who engage, and those who engage in, intimate labour. We use the term ‘bioprecarity’ to analyse those vulnerabilities.
Contrary to international law, international
political theory and political philosophy paid scant attention to the ethics of
intervention in the long nineteenth century. 1 As for humanitarian intervention per se, there is nothing,
apart from cursory remarks by John Stuart Mill and Giuseppe Mazzini. On the wider
question of intervention and non-intervention we will refer to their views and to
those of Kant, Hegel and Cobden.
Based on today’s distinction
Advocates and opponents of humanitarian
From the 1860s onwards, international law
became an academic discipline in its own right in Europe and the Americas, taught
separately from philosophy, natural law or civil law, and came to be written by
professional academics or theoretically inclined diplomats. 1 Until then what existed was the droit public de
l’Europe or ‘external public law’. Britain in particular
The second intervention in the nineteenth
century on humanitarian grounds is regarded the great power intervention in Lebanon
and Syria, headed by France. 1 Both were
at the time provinces of Greater Syria, within the Ottoman Empire, which included
today’s Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
When the intervention in Lebanon and Syria took place in
1860–61, the debate among publicists on humanitarian
The intervention of Britain, Russia and France
in the Greek War of Independence is regarded as the first armed intervention on
humanitarian grounds in world history (as depicted by publicists from Wheaton
onwards) and it took place prior to the appearance of the new concept of
humanitarian intervention. As such it was pace-setting.
From the Congress of Vienna (1814–15) until the
outbreak of the Greek War of Independence
sufficient justification, (5) costs and evil from the war not greater
than the good that would come about from the war, and (6) war as a
last resort. Grotius, like his predecessors, was also concerned with the jus in
bello aspect. Unjust causes were the desire to acquire rich lands and conquer
others on the pretext that it is for their own good. 19
Against tyranny: the monarchomachs,
Bodin, Vitoria, Gentili, Grotius
Humanitarian intervention’s possible