Author's note: I am grateful to the following people for providing comments on various drafts of this article or for answering my questions about their own work: Engin Akarlı, Virginia Aksan, Peter B. Brown, Michelle Campos, Kate Fleet, David Gutman, Peter Holquist, Tijana Krstić, John LeDonne, Jessica Marglin, Kelly O'Neill, Andrew Robarts, Jay Logan Rogers, Avi Rubin, Ehud Toledano, Maurits van den Boogert, Joshua White, and the participants in the Comité International des Études Pré-Ottomanes et Ottomanes meeting (Rethymno, 2012), the conferences “Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Passage to Modernity” (Beer-Sheva, 2012) and “Baltic and Black Sea Regions” (Târgovişte, 2011), and the Harvard Russian & East European History Workshop. I also thank the Skilliter Centre at the University of Cambridge; the Harvard–Cambridge Center for History and Economics; and Beth Baron, Sara Pursley, and three anonymous reviewers from IJMES. Finally, I thank the Gates Cambridge Trust for financial and logistical support and the staffs of the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi and the University of Cambridge and Yale Law libraries for their research assistance.

¹ Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (hereafter BOA), Hatt-ı Hümayun collection (hereafter HAT) 1164/46088.

² A parallel study emphasizing Russo-Ottoman cooperation, within a regional framework, is Roberts, Andrew, “Imperial Confrontation or Regional Cooperation?: Bulgarian Migration and Ottoman–Russian Relations in the Black Sea Region, 1768–1830s,” Turkish Historical Review 3 (2012): 149–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ See Kayaoğlu, Turan, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van den Boogert, Maurits H., The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System (Leiden: Brill, 2005)Google Scholar; Kasaba, Reşat, “Treaties and Friendships: British Imperialism, the Ottoman Empire, and China in the 19th Century,” Journal of World History 4 (1993): 215–41Google Scholar. For the advantages foreign subjecthood could bring in the Ottoman Empire (and Morocco), and the ways individuals tried to claim it, see Marglin, Jessica M., “The Two Lives of Masʿud Amoyal: Pseudo-Algerians in Morocco, 1830–1912,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 44 (2012): 651–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Artunç, Cihan, “The Protégé System and Beratlı Merchants in the Ottoman Empire: The Price of Legal Institutions,” working paper presented at New Perspectives in Ottoman History conference (Yale University, 9 November 2012)Google Scholar; and David Edward Gutman, “Sojourners, Smugglers, and the State: Transhemispheric Migration Flows and the Politics of Mobility in Eastern Anatolia, 1888–1908” (PhD diss., Binghamton University State University of New York, 2012), 217–39.

⁴ In thinking about identity under the capitulations from the “bottom up,” I am inspired by the perspectives of Will Hanley, “Foreignness and Localness in Alexandria, 1880–1914” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2007); Masters, Bruce, “The Treaties of Erzurum (1823 and 1848) and the Changing Status of Iranians in the Ottoman Empire,” Iranian Studies 24 (1991): 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gutman, “Sojourners, Smugglers, and the State.” Another look at the meaning of subjecthood for underprivileged foreigners in the Ottoman Empire is Fuhrmann, Malte, “Down and Out on the Quays of İzmir: ‘European’ Musicians, Innkeepers, and Prostitutes in the Ottoman Port-Cities,” Mediterranean Historical Review 24 (2009): 169–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ The famous English case R. v. Knowles, ex Parte Somerset (1772) Lofft 1, 98 E.R. 499, 20 S.T. 1, turned on the relationship between slavery and servitude when crossing intra-imperial borders; see Van Cleve, George, “Somerset's Case and Its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective,” Law and History Review 24 (2006): 601–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the responses to this article in the same issue by Daniel Hulsebosch and Ruth Paley. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 Howd.) 393 (1857), dealing with similar issues within the United States, has achieved popular infamy. For the French Atlantic, see Peabody, Sue, “There Are No Slaves in France”: The Political Culture of Race and Slavery in the Ancien Regime (Oxford: Oxford, 1996)Google Scholar; and Scott, Rebecca J., “Paper Thin: Freedom and Re-Enslavement in the Diaspora of the Haitian Revolution,” Law and History Review 29 (2011): 1061–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the Iberian Atlantic, see Younger, Joseph P., “‘Naturals of this Republic’: Slave Law, Sovereignty, and the Legal Politics of Citizenship in the Río de La Plata Borderlands, 1845–1864,” Law and History Review 30 (2012): 1099–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More broadly, my thinking about interimperial law is informed by Lauren Benton's work, particularly A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

⁶ Stanziani, Alessandro, “Serfs, Slaves, or Wage Earners? The Legal Status of Labour in Russia from a Comparative Perspective, from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Global History 3 (2008): 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ See Kolchin, Peter, Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁸ Shearer, I.A., Extradition in International Law (Manchester: University of Manchester, 1971), 9Google Scholar; Schapiro, L.B., “Repatriation of Deserters,” British Yearbook of International Law 29 (1952): 311–12Google Scholar. In late 19th-century customary international law, military desertion in and of itself became presumptively non-extraditable, as a “political offense,” but some states overcame this presumption through agreements explicitly requiring the return of deserters—for example, an 1832 United States–Russian commercial treaty, which the U.S. Supreme Court enforced as late as 1902. See Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424 (1902). Differing American and English legal understandings of subjecthood and its alienability also played a role in the famous impressment controversies that preceded the War of 1812; see Kettner, James H., “Subjects or Citizens? A Note on British Views Respecting the Legal Effects of American Independence,” Virginia Law Review 62 (1976): 945–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Keep, John L. H., Soldiers of the Tsar: Army and Society in Russia 1462–1874 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 161Google Scholar; see also Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling, From Serf to Russian Soldier (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Boeck, Brian J., “When Peter I Was Forced to Settle for Less: Coerced Labor and Resistance in a Failed Russian Colony (1695–1711),” Journal of Modern History 80 (2008): 506CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Quoted from Zaozerskaia, E. I. in Anisimov, E. V., “The Struggle with Fugitives during the Reform Period,” trans. Graham, Hugh F., Soviet Studies in History 28 (1989): 59Google Scholar.

¹² Wirtschafter, From Serf to Russian Soldier, 103–10; Keep, Soldiers; Smith, Alison K., “‘The Freedom to Choose a Way of Life’: Fugitives, Borders, and Imperial Amnesties,” Journal of Modern History 83 (2011): 265–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, Robert E., “Runaway Peasants and Russian Motives for the Partition of Poland,” in Imperial Russian Foreign Policy, ed. Ragsdale, Hugh and Ponomarev, Valerii Nikolaevich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 115Google Scholar. Military and civilian flight were linked, as whole families sometimes fled to avoid conscription of their male members.

¹³ Boeck, Brian J., Imperial Boundaries: Cossack Communities and Empire-Building in the Age of Peter the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Ibid., 230.

¹⁵ Levy, Avigdor, “The Contribution of Zaporozhian Cossacks to Ottoman Military Reform: Documents and Notes,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 6 (1982): 374–77Google Scholar; Andrew Robarts, “A Plague on Both Houses? Population Movements and the Spread of Disease across the Ottoman–Russian Black Sea Frontier, 1768–1830s” (PhD diss., Georgetown University, 2010), 34–35, 156; Bitis, Alexander, “The 1828–1829 Russo-Turkish War and the Resettlement of Balkan Peoples into Novorossiia,” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 53 (2005): 512Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Robarts, “A Plague on Both Houses,” 162.

¹⁷ Bitis, “Resettlement of Balkan Peoples,” 513.

¹⁸ Jones, “Runaway Peasants,” esp. 115–16.

¹⁹ Ibid., 114; Keep, Soldiers, 147.

²⁰ Jones, “Runaway Peasants,” 116, notes that the Russians and Poles had “distinct and incompatible ideas of statehood and government,” though it may be going too far to apply this to the Ottomans, given the similarities in imperial governance north and south of the Black Sea.

²¹ For an overview of the literature, see Will Smiley, “‘When Peace Is Made, You Will Again Be Free’: Islamic and Treaty Law, Black Sea Conflict, and the Emergence of ‘Prisoners of War’ in the Ottoman Empire, 1739–1830” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2012), introduction and chap. 1.

²² Erdem, Y. Hakan, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and Its Demise, 1800–1909 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Brower, Daniel and Layton, Susan, “Liberation through Captivity: Nikolai Shipov's Adventures in the Imperial Borderlands,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 6 (2005): 268CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ See Smiley, Will, “The Meanings of Conversion: Treaty Law, State Knowledge, and Religious Identity among Russian Captives in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire,” International History Review 34 (2012): 559–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Let Whose People Go? Subjecthood, Sovereignty, Liberation, and Legalism in Eighteenth-Century Russo-Ottoman Relations,” Turkish Historical Review 3 (2012): 196–228.

²⁵ The dictionary translation of firari is “fugitive” or “deserter.” In 18th- and 19th-century archival documents, it also described fugitive criminals or, more commonly, Ottoman soldiers who fled from combat. For other forms of migration, see Meyer, James H., “Immigration, Return, and the Politics of Citizenship: Russian Muslims in the Ottoman Empire, 1860–1914,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39 (2007): 15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fisher, Alan W., “Emigration of Muslims from the Russian Empire in the Years after the Crimean War,” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 35 (1987): 356–71Google Scholar; Gutman, “Sojourners, Smugglers, and the State”; and Robarts, “A Plague on Both Houses.”

²⁶ See esp. Bartlett, Roger P., Human Capital: The Settlement of Foreigners in Russia, 1762–1804 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, more generally, Montefiore, Simon Sebag, Potemkin: Catherine the Great's Imperial Partner (New York: Vintage, 2005)Google Scholar; and de Madariaga, Isabel, Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1981)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Smiley, “‘When Peace Is Made,’” 72–74.

²⁸ For the amnesty policy, see Smith, “‘The Freedom to Choose a Way of Life’”; see also Duran, James A., “Catherine II, Potemkin, and Colonization Policy in Southern Russia,” Russian Review 28 (1969): 29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ottoman officials translated, and sent to Istanbul, an even earlier amnesty issued on 28 March 1778, in Catherine's name, by the Russian commander of Kılburun/Kinburn: BOA, Divan-ı Hümayun Düvel-i Ecnebiye Evrakları collection 14/8.

²⁹ Noradounghian, Gabriel, ed., Recueil d'Actes Internationaux De l'Empire Ottoman (Paris: Pichon, 1897), 1:342Google Scholar. This was declared to be in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. As will be seen, that article did not mandate the forced return of any fugitives who arrived before peace was made.

³⁰ Fisher, Alan W., The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772–1783 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 109Google Scholar.

³¹ Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, Article 2: for the Ottoman Turkish text, see BOA, Divan-ı Hümayun Düvel-i Ecnebiyye Kalemi Defterleri collection (hereafter DVEd), defter 83/1, pp. 144–45; for the Russian, Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, 1649 Goda (hereafter PSZRI) (St. Petersburg, 1830), I/XIX:958–959 (#14,164). For a French translation, see Noradounghian, Recueil, 1:321.

³² BOA-DVEd 83/1, 151; PSZRI, 1/XIX:965–966 (#14,164); Noradounghian, Recueil, 1:331.

³³ See Smiley, “Let Whose People Go,” 207–12.

³⁴ Dvoichenko-Markov, Demetrius, “Russia and the First Accredited Diplomat in the Danubian Principalities, 1779–1808,” Études Slaves Et Est-Européennes/Slavic and East European Studies 8 (1963): 214Google Scholar.

³⁵ The amnesty provisions of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca arguably banned the punishment, but not the return, of wartime deserters. See Schapiro, “Repatriation of Deserters,” 314.

³⁶ BOA-CDH 15872; BOA-CHR 8706.

³⁷ BOA-CHR 7713; BOA-CHR 7714.

³⁸ PSZRI, 1/XXI:940 (#15,757); Noradounghian, Recueil, 1:352.

³⁹ Van den Boogert, The Capitulations, 9.

⁴⁰ PSZRI, 1/XXIII:289 (#17,008).

⁴¹ BOA-HAT 131/5445.

⁴² BOA-CHR 1738.

⁴³ See Kahraman Şakul, “An Ottoman Global Moment: War of Second Coalition in the Levant” (PhD diss., Georgetown University, 2009). See also Valeriy Morkva, “Russia's Policy of Rapprochement with the Ottoman Empire in the Era of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1792–1806” (PhD diss., Bilkent University, 2010).

⁴⁴ Morkva, “Rapprochement,” 147, n. 13.

⁴⁵ The desertion article is found in a later, published, Ottoman version of the 1799 treaty but not in PSZRI or in Noradounghian, Recueil. The same article appears in the Muahedat and Noradounghian versions of the 1805 agreement, but that treaty is not found in PSZRI: PSZRI, 1/XXV:500 (#18,797). Mahmud Mesud, ed., Muahedat Mecmuası (Istanbul, 1876), 4:24–25, 4:46; Noradounghian, Recueil, 2:24–26, 2:74–77. Similar terms appear in the 1799 British-Ottoman treaty of alliance: Noradounghian, Recueil, 2:31.

⁴⁶ BOA-CBH 5946; Şakul, “Moment,” 125.

⁴⁷ Wheaton, Henry, Elements of International Law: With a Sketch of the History of the Science (Philadelphia, Pa.: Carey, Lea & Blanchard, 1836), 106Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ BOA-CHR 5464.

⁴⁹ BOA-CHR 4863.

⁵⁰ BOA-CHR 2483.

⁵¹ BOA-CHR 2483.

⁵² BOA-CHR 7756.

⁵³ BOA-CHR 5991.

⁵⁴ BOA-HAT 1070/43788.

⁵⁵ Noradounghian, Recueil, 2:87.

⁵⁶ BOA-HAT 1165/46092; BOA-HAT 1261/48331; BOA-CHR 4526.

⁵⁷ Bitis, Alexander, Russia and the Eastern Question: Army, Government, and Society, 1815–1833 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 109Google Scholar; Brewer, David, The Flame of Freedom: The Greek War of Independence, 1821–1833 (London: J. Murray, 2001), 60Google Scholar. British diplomats also believed that the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca was “certainly and most explicitly in favour” of the rebels’ return; see TNA-FO 78/100 #1.

⁵⁸ BOA-HAT 1164/46088.

⁵⁹ BOA-HAT 1164/46090D, E; BOA-HAT 1169/46242; BOA-HAT 1163/46022.

⁶⁰ BOA-HAT 1156/45869.

⁶¹ BOA-HAT 1038/42996; BOA-HAT 1038/42996A; BOA-HAT 1075/43939D; BOA-HAT 1079/43964J; HRMKT102/67; İHR 103/5044.

⁶² BOA-CHR 8112. Others did not return; see Slade, Adolphus, Records of Travels in Turkey, Greece, &c., 2nd ed. (London: Saunders and Otley, 1833), 495Google Scholar.

⁶³ BOA-AMKT 162/41; BOA-HAT 1167/46146; BOA-HAT 1170/46271; BOA-YB(21) 12/34.

⁶⁴ D'Ohsson, Mourdgea, Tableau Genéral De l'Empire Ottoman (Istanbul: Isis, 2001), 5:89, 6:3Google Scholar. According to some authorities, conversion must have preceded escape.

⁶⁵ BOA-DVEd 16/4, 78.

⁶⁶ Lohr, Eric, Russian Citizenship: From Empire to Soviet Union (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012), 17–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ Smiley, “Meanings of Conversion.”

⁶⁸ Druzhinina, E. I., Kiuchuk-Kainardzhiiskii Mir 1774 Goda: Ego Podgotovka i Zakliuchenie (Moscow: Nauka, 1955), 233Google Scholar; Noradounghian, Recueil, 1:323; Aktepe, M. Münir, ed., Şem'dânî-Zâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi Mür'i’t-Tevârih (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1976), 3:19–20Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ The National Archives of Great Britain (hereafter TNA), Foreign Office Papers collection (hereafter FO), 8/15 #6 (26/3/1794); Aktepe, Şem'dânî-Zâde, 2B:53, 3:39.

⁷⁰ Habesci, Elias, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire (London: R. Baldwin, 1784), 405–406Google Scholar.

⁷¹ TNA-FO 78/8 #16.

⁷² TNA-FO 78/15 #6. He explicitly compared it to the recent Polish embassy, but not to the last Russian mission.

⁷³ BOA-CDH 15871.

⁷⁴ The next two paragraphs are based on BOA-HAT 178/7897. For Kochubei's background, see Morkva, “Rapprochement,” 84–87.

⁷⁵ PSZRI, 1/XXV:500 (#18,797); Mesud, Muahedat, 4:24–25, 4:46; Noradounghian, Recueil, 2:76.

⁷⁶ Noradounghian, Recueil, 2:20; Mesud, Muahedat, 4:11; PSZRI, 1/XXIII:291, #17008.

⁷⁷ BOA-CBH 5946.

⁷⁸ See Smiley, “Meanings of Conversion,” 12.

⁷⁹ BOA-HAT 1169/46251A; BOA-HAT 1169/46251B. It is unclear whether they were actually returned. The Ottoman state accepted Muslim deserters during the 1828 War: BOA, Cevdet Askeriye collection (hereafter CAS) 48925.

⁸⁰ Rozalion-Soshal'skii, A. G., Zapiski Russkogo Ofitsera, Byvshego v Plenu u Turok v 1828 i 1829 Godakh (Kiev: Kharkovskii Chastnyi Muzei Gorodskoi Usad'by, 2006), 33Google Scholar.

⁸¹ BOA-HAT 1445/59435.

⁸² Toledano, Ehud R., As If Silent and Absent: Bonds of Enslavement in the Islamic Middle East (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007), 25Google Scholar.

⁸³ See Slade, Records of Travels, 492–93.

⁸⁴ See Meyer, “Immigration.”

⁸⁵ Lohr, Russian Citizenship, 20.

⁸⁶ PSZRI, 1/XXI:942–943 (#15,757). The reference came in an article banning the enslavement of Russian subjects.

⁸⁷ In modern terms, all Russian subjects, when abroad, were Russian “nationals”—sharing membership of the same state, regardless of their status within that state. See Weis, Paul, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law, 2nd ed. (Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1979), 3–7Google Scholar; and Hanley, “Localness.”

⁸⁸ BOA-HAT 178/7897.

⁸⁹ BOA-CHR 1510.

⁹⁰ Ibid.

⁹¹ BOA-CHR 1510; BOA-CHR 6546.

⁹² BOA-CHR 6546; BOA-HAT 259/14932. Puzzlingly, slightly different dates appear in BOA-CHR 2119 and BOA-CHR 7775. For Tomara's background, see Morkva, “Rapprochement,” 127–30.

⁹³ BOA-CHR 5991.

⁹⁴ BOA-CHR 7756.

⁹⁵ See Aksan, Virginia H., “Whose Territory and Whose Peasants? Ottoman Boundaries on the Danube in the 1760s,” in The Ottoman Balkans, 1750–1830, ed. Anscombe, Frederick F. (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Wiener, 2006), 61–87Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ BOA-CHR 7775; BOA-CHR 6546.

⁹⁷ BOA-CHR 6546; BOA-CHR 7775.

⁹⁸ BOA-HAT 259/14932.

⁹⁹ BOA-CHR 1171.

¹⁰⁰ BOA-CHR 2483.

¹⁰¹ BOA, İrade Hariciye collection (hereafter İHR) 100/4918.

¹⁰² “Ḏjizya,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/djizya-COM_0192 (accessed 26 September 2012). For an earlier controversy over this precise issue, see Tijana Krstić, “Contesting Subjecthood and Sovereignty in Ottoman Galata in the Age of Confessionalization: The Moriscos and the Carazo Affair, 1613–1617,” Oriente Moderno (forthcoming).

¹⁰³ BOA-CHR 8173.

¹⁰⁴ BOA-CHR 2118.

¹⁰⁵ See, for example, BOA-CHR 1738.

¹⁰⁶ Anisimov, “The Struggle with Fugitives,” 64.

¹⁰⁷ Stanislawski, Michael, Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1825–1855 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983), 13–34, 169Google Scholar; Petrovsky-Shtern, Yohanan, Jews in the Russian Army, 1827–1917 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Meyer, “Immigration,” 28.

¹⁰⁸ BOA, Hariciye Nezareti Tercüme Odası collection (hereafter HRTO) 7/325.

¹⁰⁹ BOA-HAT 1072/43867. For recruiting, see Aksan, Virginia H., “The Ottoman Military and State Transformation in a Globalizing World,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 27 (2007): 267–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nicholas I himself saw Jews as “suspicious and unscrupulous,” but stereotypes of their “glorious reputation as warriors,” along with Nicholas's hopes that the army could “teach the unruly Jews the spirit of order, civic behavior, and obedience,” led him to conscript them. Stanislawski, Nicholas I and the Jews, 34–35.

¹¹⁰ BOA-HRTO 328/45.

¹¹¹ Gutman, “Sojourners, Smugglers, and the State,” 62–63, 115–18, 125. The word is still used to refer to foreign asylum-seekers who leave their assigned cities of residence in Turkey: see Helsinki Citizens Assembly, Information for People Applying for Refugee Status in Turkey (Istanbul: Helsinki Citizens Assembly, 2007), 13Google Scholar.

¹¹² Campos, Michelle, Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2011), 61Google Scholar.

¹¹³ See generally Boeck, Boundaries.

¹¹⁴ Paralleling this argument, Eric Lohr has recently contrasted the Russian state's external, geographic boundaries with its internal “citizenship boundary.” Lohr, Russian Citizenship, 1.

¹¹⁵ See Greene, Molly, Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Smith, Rhona K.M., Textbook on International Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 248–52Google Scholar; Bederman, David J., International Law Frameworks (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 98Google Scholar; Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (London: Longmans, Green, 1905), 1:346–47Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ See “Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery,” United Nations Treaty Series 266 (1956): 3, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/f3scas.htm (accessed 26 September 2012).

¹¹⁸ “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” United Nations Treaty Series 999 (1983), 171, Art. 8(3)(c)(i); Jones, J. Mervyn, “Modern Developments in the Law of Extradition,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 27 (1941): 185Google Scholar; Smith, International Human Rights, 252; Knott, Lukas, “Unocal Revisited: On the Difference between Slavery and Forced Labor in International Law,” Wisconsin International Law Journal 28 (2010–2011): 201–33Google Scholar. Flight from conscription, however arduous, is generally not recognized as grounds for refugee protections under international law. See United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Geneva: United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees, 2011), 33–34Google Scholar. In the late 20th century, Soviet deserters—without formal legal protections—integrated into Afghan society in order to escape military service during that conflict. See Alissa J. Rubin, “Russians Seek Fate of Missing in Afghan War,” New York Times, 22 October 2012.

¹¹⁹ As the title suggests, the recent account in Kurtynova-D'Herlugnan, Liubov, The Tsar's Abolitionists: The Slave Trade in the Caucasus and Its Suppression (Leiden: Brill, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is more sympathetic to the motivations of the Russian state when dealing with slavery within its own empire.