Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:12:28.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beneath Sovereignty: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Internationalism in Nineteenth-Century Egypt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2018

David Todd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rise of extraterritoriality in the nineteenth-century has been described as a transitional phase that laid the ground for the construction of territorial sovereignty. Yet in Egypt, where a particularly extensive extraterritorial regime emerged in the mid-century, the expansion of European jurisdiction underneath national sovereignty became entrenched with the creation of international mixed courts in the 1870s. This outcome, the article argues, was the product of a complex compromise between European empires, which upheld different conceptions of extraterritoriality, and the government of Egypt. While Britain refashioned its own extraterritorial judicial system as a means of promoting legal reforms in the Ottoman world, France aggressively pursued the expansion of extraterritorial rights as an instrument of informal domination and economic exploitation. The creation of an international type of jurisdiction, less susceptible to French political pressures but applying a French system of law, proved acceptable to all parties, although it severely constrained Egyptian sovereignty from within, even after Britain took over the reins of government in 1882. Extraterritoriality was not merely a transition, but an original feature of the global legal order, arising out of modern imperialism and imperial rivalry and yet conducive to the forging of new instruments of international law and governance.

Type
Original Article
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 105 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

He is grateful to the much-missed Christopher Bayly, Andrew Arsan, Emma Rothschild, and the anonymous reviewers for Law and History Review for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article, and to Omar Cheta for making available the text of his important doctoral dissertation on Egyptian commercial tribunals in the nineteenth century.

References

1. “Cahier des charges. Causes et conditions spéciales à la concession du droit d'exploitation d'un établissement de brasserie,” May 1, 1871; Delphine Golf, veuve Escoffier, to the French consul in Cairo, September 3, 1873; French consul in Cairo to Albert de Broglie, Minister of Foreign Affairs, October 13, 1873; Marquis de Cazaux, Consul General in Alexandria, to Albert de Broglie, October 16, 1873; La Courneuve, Archives Diplomatiques (hereafter AD), Contentieux, 254, folder “Escoffier.” Joseph Elzéar Escoffier was born in Apt (Vaucluse) in 1824, the son of a farmer, and had been in Egypt for some time, as he was almost certainly the Joseph Escoffier who had been caught up in a suit and a countersuit after he rented out an ice cream making machine to a Russian subject; see “Décès de Joseph Elzéar Escoffier,” AD, Etat civil des français de l’étranger, Le Caire, 4, December 9, 1873; birth certificate no. 245 dated December 1824, in birth register for the year 1824 at http://archives.vaucluse.fr/documents-numerises/ (August 11, 2016); and Escoffier v. Swawinsky, August  30, 1864, Nantes, Centre des Archives Diplomatiques de Nantes (hereafter CADN), PO/20/1.

2. For example, Jules Rosé was the lawyer of the milliner Olympe Clément in her suit for assault against Lucie Gervais, taylor, before the consular court of Cairo in 1868, Aix-en-Provence, Archives Départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône, 2 U1 1489, folder 7; on Rosé’s witnessing of civil registration acts, see AD, Etat civil des français de l’étranger, Le Caire, 4, passim.

3. Abu-Lughod, Janet, “Tale of Two Cities: The Origins of Modern Cairo,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 7 (1965): 429–57Google Scholar; Wilkinson, Alix, “Gardens in Cairo Designed by Jean-Pierre Barillet-Deschamps,” Garden History 38 (2010): 124–49Google Scholar.

4. Raymond, André, Egyptiens et Français au Caire, 1798–1801 (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1998), 108–9Google Scholar.

5. Delphine Golf to the French consul in Cairo, September 3, 1873, AD, Contentieux, 254, folder “Escoffier.”

6. Benton, Lauren, “Constructing Sovereignty: Extraterritoriality in the Republic of Uruguay,” in Law and Colonial Culture: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 210–52Google Scholar; see also Horowitz, Richard S., “International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of World History 15 (2004): 445–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Kayaoglu, Turan, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

8. Omar Cheta, “Rule of Merchants: the Practice of Commerce and Law in Late Ottoman Egypt, 1841–1876” (PhD diss., New York University, 2014).

9. This view in the scholarly literature originates with the account of a former American judge on the mixed court of appeal, Brinton, Jasper Y., The Mixed Courts of Egypt, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 1–24 Google Scholar; see also Hoyle, Mark S. W., Mixed Courts of Egypt (London: Graham & Trotman, 1991), 1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Brown, Nathan, “The Precarious Life and Slow Death of the Mixed Courts of Egypt,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 25 (1993): 33–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Cannon, Byron, Politics of Law and the Courts of Nineteenth-Century Egypt (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988), 37–88 Google Scholar; see also Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures, who noted that in Egypt “[t]he mixed-court system … made international legal influence ‘quasi-permanent,’” 246.

11. Benton, Lauren, “From International Law to Imperial Constitutions: the Problem of Quasi-Sovereignty, 1870–1900,” Law and History Review 26 (2008), 595–619 Google Scholar; see also Benton, Lauren and Ford, Lisa, Rage for Order: the British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016)Google Scholar, esp. 18–24.

12. An exception is Lewis, Mary D., Divided Rule: Sovereignty and Empire in French Tunisia, 1881–1938 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013)Google Scholar; on the layering of sovereignty, see Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick, Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

13. Panzac, Daniel and Raymond, André, eds. La France et l'Egypte à l’époque des vice-rois, 1805–1882 (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 2002)Google Scholar.

14. MacCoan, James Carlile, Consular Jurisdiction in Turkey and Egypt (London: G. Norman, 1873), 42Google Scholar.

15. The decision was also grounded in a stipulation of the lease signed by Joseph Escoffier, which renounced consular jurisdiction, a self-denial of extraterritoriality which the French ministry's legal advisers did not wish to condone; see the minister of foreign affairs to the consul general in Alexandria, November 19, 1873, AD, Contentieux, 254, folder “Escoffier.” On the adoption of French commercial legislation by the Ottoman Empire in the 1850s, see Rubin, Avi, Ottoman Nizamiye Courts: Law and Modernity (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011), 26Google Scholar.

16. Ahmad, Feroz, “Ottoman Perceptions of the Capitulations, 1800–1914,” Journal of Islamic Studies 11 (2000): 1–20 Google Scholar; van der Boogert, Maurits H., The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System: Qadis, Consuls, and Beratıcs in the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2005)Google Scholar; Barkey, Karen, “Aspects of Legal Pluralism in the Ottoman Empire,” in Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850, eds. Benton, Lauren and Ross, Richard J. (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 83–107 Google Scholar.

17. Will Hanley, “Foreignness and Localness in Alexandria, 1880–1914” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2007), 15.

18. Keene, Edward, “The Treaty-Making Revolution in the Nineteenth Century,” International History Review 34 (2012), 475–500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. See, for example, Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 6 (1953): 11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kasaba, Reşat, “Treaties and Friendships: British Imperialism, the Ottoman Empire, and China in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of World History 4 (1993): 215–41Google Scholar. On the limited tariff implications of Balta Liman, see Pamuk, Şevket, The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820–1913 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 28–31 Google Scholar.

20. Hertslet, Lewis, ed. A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, and Reciprocal Regulations, at Present Subsisting between Great Britain & Foreign Powers, 31 vols. (London: Butterworth, 1827–1940), V:506–10Google Scholar; compare with article 4 of the Treaty of 1809, in ibid., II:370–77.

21. de Clercq, Jules, ed. Recueil des traités de la France, 23 vols. (Paris, 1864–1907), IV:439–43Google Scholar, article 1; compare with articles 2 and 3 of the Peace Treaty of 1802, in ibid., I:588–90.

22. On the status of the Ottoman Empire in international law, see Pitts, Jennifer, “Boundaries of Victorian International Law,” in Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century-Political Thought, ed. Bell, Duncan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 72–73 Google Scholar, and Rodogno, Davide, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815–1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 47–54 Google Scholar.

23. Clancy–Smith, Julia, Mediterraneans: North-Africa and Europe in an Age of Migration, c. 1800–1900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011)Google Scholar; and Galizia, Paul Caruana, Mediterranean Labor Markets in the First Age of Globalization: An Economic History of Real Wages and Market Integration (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015)Google Scholar.

24. Théodore Roustan, Consul General in Tunis, to Louis Decazes, Minister of Foreign Affairs, July 18, 1876, AD, 752SUP/114.

25. Féraud-Giraud, Louis, De la juridiction française dans les échelles du Levant et de Barbarie, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Paris: A. Durand, 1866), I:iii–iv Google Scholar.

26. “Statistique des jugements rendus par les tribunaux consulaires de Constantinople et d'Alexandrie,” [1863?], AD, 752SUP/113.

27. However, consulates with very few national residents, such as that for the United States, appear to have continued to grant jurisdictional protection on a more extensive scale; see Fahmy, Ziad, “Jurisdictional Borderlands: Extraterritoriality and ‘Legal Chameleons’ in Precolonial Alexandria, 1840–1870,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 55 (2013), 305–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On protection in general, see Sonyel, Salahi, “The Protégé System in the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Islamic Studies 2 (1991): 56–66;Google Scholar on the distinction between political and jurisdictional protection, see Artunç, Cihan, “The Price of Legal Institutions: The Beratlı Merchants in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Economic History 75 (2015): 727 Google Scholar; and Rodogno, Against Massacre, 30.

28. See, for example, the Ottoman “Règlement relatif aux consulats étrangers,” [August 8] 1863, which restricted jurisdictional protection to eight employees per consulate general, six per consulate, and four per vice-consulate, beyond which numbers a dispensation from the Ottoman ministry of justice was required, in CADN, 92PO/A/331.

29. Anonymous, Our Consuls in the East: A Parliamentary Inquiry into their Proceedings Imperative (London: Pigott, 1855), 19–20 Google Scholar.

30. “Liste des protégés du Consulat général de Beyrout [sic] et des agences qui en relèvent,” October 30, 1864, and comments by Marquis de Moustier, Ambassador in Constantinople to Eugène Poujade, Consul General in Beirut, November 29, 1864, CADN, 92PO/A/331; on French influence in Lebanon, see Arsan, Andrew, “‘There is, in the Heart of Asia … an Entirely French Population’: France, Mount Lebanon, and the Workings of Affective Empire in the Mediterranean, 1830–1920,” in French Mediterraneans: Transnational and Imperial Histories, eds. Lorcin, Patricia M. E. and Shepard, Todd (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2016), 76–100 Google Scholar.

31. Edmund Hornby, Judge at the Supreme Consular Court of Constantinople, to Lord Russell, Foreign Secretary, September 15, 1863, in Kew, The National Archives (hereafter TNA), FO 780/334; “Statistique des Français résidant à l’étranger d'après les documents transmis par les agents diplomatiques et consulaires,” 1874, AD, 28ADP, 11. Both figures, based on undependable methods such as voluntary registration, almost certainly underestimated the number of permanent residents, and did not take into account large numbers of temporary residents; unlike the British figure, the French one excludes native protégés.

32. Christelow, Allan, Algerians without Borders: the Making of a Global Frontier Society (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012), 50–81 Google Scholar.

33. Daly, Martin W., The Cambridge History of Egypt, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), II: 274Google Scholar; the Klondike metaphor was coined by Landes, David, Bankers and Pashas: International Finance and Economic Imperialism, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper, 1958), 69Google Scholar.

34. The other largest European communities were the Greeks (35,000 residents) and the Italians (15,000); see Brinton, Mixed Courts, 18.

35. “Statistique des Français résidant à l’étranger,” 1874, AD, 28/ADP/11; see also detailed figures per consulate in “Turquie,” AD, 28/ADP/14.

36. Hanley, “Foreignness and Localness,” 285.

37. Goldberg, Jan, “On the Origins of Majālis al-Tujjār in Mid Nineteenth-Century Egypt,” Islamic Law and Society 6 (1999): 193–223 Google Scholar; and Cheta, “Rule of Merchants,” 31–53.

38. Calvert to Hornby, June 8, 1861, and Calvert to Colquhoun, July 12, 1861, TNA, FO 141/44; MacCoan, Consular Jurisdiction, 21–22, also stated that British consulates were the last to embrace actor sequitur forum rei, “in 1860.”

39. Platt, Donald C. M., Cinderella Service: British Consuls since 1825 (London: Longman, 1971), 125–79Google Scholar.

40. On extraterritoriality as laying the ground for territorial expansion, see Spagnolo, John P., “Portents of Empire in Britain's Ottoman Extraterritorial Jurisdiction,” Middle Eastern Studies 27 (1991): 256–82Google Scholar; for a persuasive rebuttal, see Pennell, Richard, “The Origins of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and the Extension of British Sovereignty,” Historical Research, 83 (2010): 465–85Google Scholar; on the control of nationals as a major goal of extraterritorial jurisdiction, see Scully, Eileen P., Bargaining with the State from Afar: American Citizenship in Treaty Port China, 1844–1942 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

41. “Mr Hope-Scot's memorandum on British Jurisdiction in Foreign States,” in Jenkyns, Henry, British Rule and Jurisdiction Beyond the Seas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), 260Google Scholar.

42. “Order of Her Majesty in Council for the Regulation of Consular Jurisdiction in the Dominions of the Sublime Ottoman Porte,” August 27, 1857, in Hertslet, A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, X:1024–35.

43. Hornby, Edmund (ed. Murray, David L.), An Autobiography , (London: Constable, 1929), 6Google Scholar.

44. Finer, Samuel E., “The Transmission of Benthamite Ideas, 1820–1850,” in Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government, ed. Sutherland, Gillian (London: Routledge, 1972), 11–32 Google Scholar.

45. Clarendon to Hornby, September 18, 1857, TNA, FO 780/367.

46. Hornby, Autobiography, 183.

47. Hornby to Russell, September 2, 1862, TNA, FO 780/333.

48. Hornby, Autobiography, 97.

49. Hornby to Russell, July 7, 1862, TNA, FO 780/333.

50. Hornby to Russell, September 19, 1863, TNA, FO 780/333.

51. de Goey, Ferry, Consuls and the Institutions of Global Capitalism, 1783–1914 (London: Routledge, 2015), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Virginie, “Devenir diplomate en Révolution: naissance de la ‘carrière diplomatique’?” Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, 63 (2016): 110–35Google Scholar.

52. Report of the Select Committee on Consular Service and Appointments (House of Commons Parliamentary Papers, 1857–1858), VIII.1 617, 677.

53. Hornby to Russell, August 17, 1859, TNA, FO 780/333.

54. Hitzel, Frédéric, “L'institution des Jeunes de langue de Constantinople au début du XIXe siècle,” in De Samarcande à Istanbul: étapes orientales, ed. Schiltz, Véronique (Paris: CNRS, 2015), 203–19Google Scholar.

55. Findley, Carter Vaughn, Ottoman Civil Officialdom: A Social History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 164–68Google Scholar, 170–72; Hunter, F. Robert, Egypt under the Khedives, 1805–1879: From Household Government to Modern Bureaucracy (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1984), 80–122 Google Scholar.

56. On Dervieu, see Landes, Bankers and Pashas, 102–27.

57. Auriant [Hadjivassiliou, Alexandre], François Bravay, ou le nabab (Paris: Mercure de France, 1943), 29–30 Google Scholar.

58. “Rapport [sur le comité du contentieux] au directeur des affaires politiques,” December 26, 1867, AD, 752SUP/118; Baillou, Jean, Lucet, Charles, and Vimont, Jacques, Les Affaires Etrangères et le Corps Diplomatique français, 2 vols. (Paris: CNRS, 1984), I:584–85Google Scholar, 647, 716–22, and II:49–52, 104–6.

59. “Réorganisation des Tribunaux consulaires en Orient,” n. d. [1862] and “Réorganisation des tribunaux consulaires dans le Levant,” [1863?]], in AD, 752SUP/113.

60. Régnier, Philippe, Les Saint-Simoniens en Egypte (Cairo: Banque de l'Union Européenne, 1989)Google Scholar.

61. See, for example, Ziadeh, Fahrat, Lawyers, the Rule of Law and Liberalism in Modern Egypt (Stanford: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, 1968)Google Scholar.

62. Pasha, Nubar, “Note on the future regulation of the legal and judicial relations between the foreign and native population of Egypt,” in The Judicial Organization in Egypt and its Reform (London: Spottiswoode and Co., 1868), 3, 12Google Scholar.

63. Pasha, Nubar (ed. Ghali, Mirrit Boutros), Mémoires , (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1983), 318Google Scholar, 374.

64. Ibid., 192; in his 1867 memorandum, Nubar also mentioned that indemnities paid to settle dubious foreign claims had cost the Egyptian Treasury “£2,880,000” (c. 72,000,000 francs) in four years, Nubar, “Note,” 4.

65. Nubar Pasha, Mémoires, 197.

66. Colquhoun to Zulficar Pasha, Egyptian Foreign Secretary, August 8, 1861, enclosed in Colquhoun to Russell, August 12, 1861, TNA, FO78/1591; see also Colquhoun to Russell, February 24, 1865, TNA, F0 78/1871, on how Nubar's 1862 proposal “followed” from his 1861 project.

67. Cheta, “Rule of Merchants,” 228–84.

68. Colquhoun to Russell, August 12, 1861, TNA, FO78/1591; Henry Calvert to Colquhoun, October 17, 1861, TNA, F0 141/44.

69. Nubar, “Note,” 7.

70. Comité du Contentieux, “Avis,” May 111869, AD, 752 SUP/119.

71. R. Magnier, J. Grévy, G. Nogent-St-Laurent,  and V. Lefranc, “Consultation pour M. Carbonnel” February  18, 1869, and cutting from the Gazette des Tribunaux, November 15, 1873, in AD, Contentieux, 252, folder “Affaire Carbonel”.

72. As, for example, in Histoire de la grandeur et de la décadence de César Birotteau (1837) and La Maison Nucingen (1838), in Honoré de Balzac, La Comédie Humaine, 12 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1976–1981), VI.

73. Mémoire à messieurs les consuls généraux pour le commerce européen d'importation, Alexandria, 1866, 18, 22, copy in AD, Contentieux, 252, folder “affaire du bazar.”

74. Eugène Poujade, Consul General in Alexandria, to Marquis de Moustier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, December 18, 1868, in AD, Contentieux, 252, folder “affaire du bazar.”

75. “Tableau des réclamations contre le gouvernement égyptien, terminées au 21 décembre 1868,” n.d., AD, Contentieux, 254, folder “Koenig.”

76. “Memorial of British merchants in Alexandria,” June 15, 1868, TNA, FO 407/4.

77. Nubar, Mémoires, 321–22.

78. Maunoury, Paul, Réforme de l'organisation judiciaire en Egypte (Marseille: Vve M. Olive, 1868), 6–9 Google Scholar.

79. Paul Maunoury, “Note,” “Note supplémentaire,” and “Annexe”; and Direction du Contentieux, “Note pour le sous-secrétaire d”Etat,” in AD, Contentieux, 255, folder “Maunoury. Honoraires pour son concours dans l’œuvre de la réforme judiciaire égyptienne;” on al-‘Arusi, see Gesink, Indira Falk, Islamic Reform and Conservatism: Al-Azhar and the Evolution of Modern Sunni Islam (London: Tauris, 2010), 48–51 Google Scholar.

80. Petition of Ferdinand de Lesseps, December 17, 1869, AD, 752SUP/114; Lesseps, Charless [Ferdinand's son], Les capitulations et la réforme judiciaire en Egypte. Sa nécessité. Son urgence (Paris, 1867), 64–65 Google Scholar; see also Lavallée, Charles, “La réforme judiciaire en Egypte,” La Revue des Deux Mondes 7 (1875): 657–77Google Scholar; and Silvestre, Henri, La réforme judiciaire d'Egypte devant l'assemblée nationale (Marseille, 1875)Google Scholar.

81. Nubar Pasha to Colonel Stanton, Consul General in Alexandria, August 23, 1867, TNA, FO 78/2742; see also Nubar, Mémoires, 277–79, 321.

82. Nubar, Mémoires, 326; the book in question was De la juridiction française dans les échelles du Levant (see note 25), first published in 1859 and re-edited in 1866.

83. Rapport par la commission instituée à l'effet d'examiner les propositions faites par le gouvernement égyptien pour réformer l'administration de la justice en Egypte (Paris, 1867), 14, copy in Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, Archives Nationales (hereafter AN), 20020495/21.

84. Lord Lyons, Ambassador in Paris, to Clarendon, Foreign Secretary, April 29, 1870, TNA, FO 407/5.

85. “Note,” in AD, Contentieux, 255, folder “Maunoury.”

86. Philip Francis, Supreme Consular Judge, to Henry Elliot, Ambassador in Constantinople, March 3, 1873, TNA, FO 407/5; see also “Procès-verbaux et rapports de la commission” in Constantinople, enclosed in Elliot to Lord Granville, Foreign Secretary, March 4, 1873, TNA, FO 407/5.

87. Vicomte de Vogüe, Ambassador in Constantinople, to Charles de Rémusat, Minister Of Foreign Affairs, March 11, 1873, in Ministère des affaires étrangères, Négociations relatives à la réforme judiciaire en Égypte (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1875), 157–58; and Elliot to Granville, March 7, 1873, TNA, FO 407/5.

88. Anonymous, Observations sur une brochure anonyme intitulée la Réforme judiciaire en Egypte (Paris: Pogin, 1875), 11Google Scholar.

89. Lyons to Lord Derby, Foreign Secretary, May 22, 1874, TNA, FO 407/5; Lyons to Thomas Lister, Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, October 5, 1874, TNA, FO 407/6.

90. On legal aspects of this hardening after 1870, see Christelow, Allan, Muslim Law Courts and the French Colonial State in Algeria (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 7.

91. Gavillot, Aristide, Essai sur les droits des Européens en Turquie et en Egypte. Les capitulations et la réforme judiciaire (Paris: Dentu, 1875), 180–82Google Scholar, 268–69, 380.

92. de Marafy, L. Maillard, La réforme judiciaire en Egypte devant l'Assemblée nationale, 2nd ed. (Paris: Imprimerie nouvelle, 1875), 61Google Scholar; see also de Marafy, L. Maillard, De l'intérêt français dans la question de la réforme judiciaire en Egypte (Paris: Guérin, 1873)Google Scholar.

93. La République française, November 13, 1875, enclosed in Lyons to Derby, November 13, 1875, TNA, FO 407/6; see also the anonymous republican pamphlet Mémoire, notes et documents contre le projet de réforme judiciaire (Paris: Goupy, 1875).

94. Lyons to Derby, December 18, 1875, TNA, FO 407/6.

95. Memorandum by Auckland Colvin, Comptroller General in Egypt, enclosed in Edward Malet, Consul General, to Lord Granville, Foreign Secretary, July 20, 1881, TNA, FO 407/29; see also “The International Court of Egypt,” Albany Law Journal, 19 (1879): 290 Google Scholar.

96. Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nation: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 11–97 Google Scholar.

97. See, for example, Renault, Louis, Etude sur le projet de réforme judiciaire en Egypte (Paris: Cotillon, 1875)Google Scholar; Carpi, Arturo, Della giurisdizione consolare in Levante e della riforma guidiziaria in Egitto (Florence, 1875)Google Scholar; Twiss, Travers, Our Consular Jurisdiction in the Levant (London: William Clowes, 1880)Google Scholar; and Hall, William, A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894), 152–53Google Scholar.

98. Martens, Friedrich, “La question égyptienne et le droit international,” Revue de droit international, 14 (1882): 355–402 Google Scholar.

99. Lorimer, James, Of the Denationalisation of Constantinople and its Devotion to International Purposes (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1876)Google Scholar; and The Institutes of the Law of Nations , 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1883), II:264–69Google Scholar; on Lorimer's ardent imperialist and racialist views, see Koskenniemi, Martti, “Race, Hierarchy and International Law: Lorimer's Legal Science,” European Journal of International Law, 27 (2016): 415–29Google Scholar.

100. Ruskola, Teemu, Legal Orientalism: China, the United States and Modern Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

101. Farjasse, Dominique, De la réforme judiciaire en Egypte (Paris: Le Clère, 1875), 4, 9Google Scholar.

102. Haakman, Jacobus A., Droit international. L'Egypte et les traités internationaux sur la réforme judiciaire (Paris: Durand, 1877), 7Google Scholar.

103. Jozon, Paul, Etude sur l'organisation des nouveaux tribunaux égyptiens (Paris: Société de législation comparée, 1877), 473–74Google Scholar.

104. Wood, Leonard, Islamic Legal Revival: Reception of European Law and Transformations in Islamic Legal Thought in Egypt, 1875–1952 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 153–99Google Scholar; see also Goldberg, Jan, “Réception du droit français sous les Britanniques en Egypte: un paradoxe?” Egypte. Monde arabe, 34 (1998), 67–80 Google Scholar.

105. Liebesny, Herbert J., The Law of the Near and Middle East: Readings, Cases, and Material (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1975), 71–76 Google Scholar.

106. Landrevie-Tournan, Isabelle, “The Development of Relations between the Mixed Courts and the Executive Authority in Egypt (1875–1904),” in Judges and Political Reform in Egypt, ed. Bernard-Maugiron, Nathalie (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2008), 27–44 Google Scholar.

107. Law Officers of the Crown to Lord Derby, August 1876, TNA, F0 407/8; and Jozon, Etude, 479.

108. Wood, Islamic Legal Revival, 27.

109. “Projet de décret,” May 1882, AN, 20020495/22.

110. “Fiche individuelle: Aristide Horace Letourneux”; Algiers state prosecutor to Adrien Tailhand, Minister of Justice, January 28, 1875; Tailhand to Louis Decazes, Minister of Foreign Affairs, February 4, 1875; and folder “Rapports de M. Vacher, 1876–1884,” in AN, 20020495/22.

111. Milner, Alfred, England in Egypt, 2nd ed. (London: Edward Arnold, 1894), 71–72 Google Scholar; see also a more balanced assessment by the main judicial advisor of the British administration, Scott, James H., The Law Affecting Foreigners in Egypt, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: William Green, 1908)Google Scholar. On extraterritoriality in Tunisia, see Clancy-Smith, Mediterraneans, 199–246 and Lewis, Divided Rule, 28–60.

112. Earl of Cromer, Modern Egypt, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1908), II:428, 441–42.

113. du Rausas, Gérard Pélissié, Le régime des capitulations dans l'empire ottoman, 2 vols. (Paris: A. Rousseau, 1902–1905), II:483–84Google Scholar.

114. Pupikofer, Maxime, Les juridictions mixtes d’Égypte 1876–1926: Livre d'or (Alexandria: Journal des Tribunaux mixtes, 1926), 239–301 Google Scholar.

115. Brinton, “Preface to the first edition,” The Mixed Courts, x.

116. Brinton, The Mixed Courts, 193–99; Daly, The Cambridge History of Egypt, II:294–95.

117. de Morant, Georges Soulié, Exterritorialité et intérêts étrangers en Chine (Paris: Greuthner, 1925), 126–227 Google Scholar; Cassel, Pär Kristoffer, Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 54, 63–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Singaravélou, Pierre, Tianjin Cosmopolis: une autre histoire de la mondialisation (Paris: Le Seuil, 2017)Google Scholar.

118. Rothschild, Emma, “Language and Empire, c. 1800,” Historical Research 78 (2005): 208–29Google Scholar; Daughton, James P., “When Argentina was ‘French’: Rethinking Cultural Politics and European Imperialism in Belle-Epoque Buenos Aires,” Journal of Modern History 80 (2008): 831–64Google Scholar; Todd, David, “Transnational Projects of Empire, c. 1815–c. 1870,” Modern Intellectual History 12 (2015), 265–93Google Scholar. Conversely, French legal theorists were particularly critical of justifications of formal conquest based on international law; see Fitzmaurice, Andrew, Sovereignty, Property and Empire, 1500–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 288–301 Google Scholar.

119. Benton and Ford, Rage for Order, esp. 148–79.

120. Mazower, Mark, No Enchanted Place: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), esp. 28–65 Google Scholar; and Pedersen, Susan, The Guardians: the League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

121. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer, 155–66.