You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the Journal of World History online. About 623 words from this article are provided below; about 17143 words remain.
 
If you are a subscriber to the Journal of World History, you may:
• login here if you have already registered for online access.
• Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.

If you are not a subscriber to the Journal of World History, you can:
• subscribe here.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of World History.

Instititutions can:
• Subscribe to the journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.
Richard S. Horowitz | International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century | Journal of World History, 15.4 | The History Cooperative
15.4  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
December, 2004
Previous
Next
Journal of World History

Table of Contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 
 


International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century


RICHARD S. HOROWITZ
California State University, Northridge



"THE KING is a man no doubt wonderfully self-instructed, but that he should appreciate the great truths of political science, one could hardly expect." Thus wrote Sir John Bowring on 7 April 1855 about King Mongkut of Siam.1 He wrote this curious line during his month-long stay in Bangkok to negotiate a treaty of friendship and commerce between Great Britain and Siam. An intimate of political philosopher Jeremy Bentham, a former member of parliament, and an inveterate traveler and a prolific writer, Bowring was a specialist on the management of those parts of "the East" beyond the direct control of the British Empire but very much in the sights of her merchants. From 1837 to 1838 Bowring served as a special commissioner sent by Lord Palmerston to investigate the commercial situation of Egypt and Syria, and he played an active role in policy debates during the "Eastern crisis" of the time. The resolution of the crisis, which resulted in Ottoman acceptance of unequal treaties and free trade in exchange for British support against the renegade Egyptian regime of Muhammad Ali, was not entirely to Bowring's liking (he advocated Ali's cause). Nevertheless Palmerston continued to find diplomatic uses for him. In 1847 Bowring was appointed British Consul in Canton, and in 1854 he became the governor of Hong Kong. In China Bowring was deeply involved in the creation of the semi-colonial treaty system—pressing for the establishment of a foreign customs service to collect taxes on international trade, and in 1856 playing a key role in turning the manufactured Arrow incident into the casus belli of what is often referred to as the Second Opium War.2 1
      At this time, Bowring was also the accredited British representative to the courts of Japan, Siam, Korea, and Vietnam. In that role he went to Bangkok in March of 1855. King Mongkut's reputation for scholarship and his familiarity with English language and history led Bowring to expect an easy resolution. But while Mongkut proudly displayed figurines of Victoria and Albert in his private apartments, he was stubbornly reluctant to accede to Bowring's demands, leading to the frustrated entry in the British envoy's journal. A sharp increase in the pressure placed on Siamese negotiators followed, and within a few days Bowring was able to obtain what he felt was a satisfactory agreement.3 2
      What exactly did Sir John mean by the "great truths of political science"? The diplomatic record offers some clues. The Bowring Treaty established foreign diplomatic representation in Bangkok, extraterritoriality, and rules of international trade aimed at opening Siam's markets. The agreement, along with the supplementary Parkes treaty signed in 1857, bore a striking resemblance to the semicolonial systems already in existence in the Ottoman Empire and partially in place in China. They began Siam's integration into the European-dominated international society in precisely the way that the settlements of 1838–1840 had done to the Ottoman Empire and as the agreements of 1843, 1858, and 1860 would do in Qing China. Clearly, Bowring had in mind the benefits of free trade—an enduring theme through his career—and the necessity and appropriateness of British diplomatic dominance. But surely Bowring's "truths" included the practices of international law that he was forcing a reluctant Siamese court to accept. The agreements signed with Siam were articulated within the conceptual universe of European international law and the patterns of diplomatic behavior it embodied. This marked a sharp break from Asian practices of interstate relations. These treaties and the patterns of relations they set out would come to form a fundamental infrastructure of semicolonial political systems. . . .

There are about 17143 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.