1 Benton, L., Law and Colonial Cultures: legal regimes in world history, 1400–1900 (New York 2002)Google Scholar and A Search for Sovereignty: law and geography in European empires, 1400–1900 (New York 2010); Burbank, J. and Cooper, F., Empires in World History: power and the politics of difference (Princeton 2010)Google Scholar; Bang, P. F. and Bayly, C.A. (eds.), Tributary Empires in Global History (Basingstoke 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bang, P. F. and Kołodziejczyk, D. (eds.), Universal Empire: a comparative approach to imperial culture and representation in Eurasian history (Cambridge 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duindam, J. et al. (eds.), Law and Empire: ideas, practices, actors (Leiden 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benton, L. and Ross, R. J. (eds.), Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850 (New York 2013)Google Scholar; Benton, L. and Ford, L., Rage for Order: the British Empire and the origins of international law, 1800–1850 (Cambridge 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Koskenniemi et al. (eds.), International Law and Empire: historical explorations (Oxford 2017); M. Koskenniemi et al. (eds.), International Law and Religion: historical and contemporary perspectives (Oxford 2017); L. Benton et al. (eds.), Protection and Empire: a global history (Cambridge 2018).

2 Goffman, D. and Stroop, C., ‘Empire as composite: the Ottoman polity and the typology of dominion’, in Rajan, B. and Sauer, E. (eds.), Imperialisms: historical and literary investigations, 1500–1900 (New York 2004) 129–45Google Scholar; Kotkin, S., ‘Mongol Commonwealth? Exchange and governance across the post-Mongol space’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 8 (2007) 487–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mikhail, A. and Philliou, C. M., ‘The Ottoman Empire and the imperial turn’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 54 (2012) 721–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Melvin-Koushki, ‘Early modern Islamicate empire: new forms of religiopolitical legitimacy’, in A. Salvatore et al. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell History of Islam (Hoboken NJ 2018) 353–75.

3 P.-J. Luizard (ed.), Le choc colonial et l'islam: les politiques religieuses des puissances coloniales en terres d'islam (Paris 2006); M. Maussen et al. (eds.), Colonial and Post-Colonial Governance of Islam: continuities and ruptures (Amsterdam 2011); Sartori, P. and Shahar, I., ‘Legal pluralism in Muslim-majority colonies: mapping the terrain’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 55 (2012) 637–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tsitselikis, K., Old and New Islam in Greece: from historical minorities to immigrant newcomers (Leiden 2012)Google Scholar; Clayer, N. and Bougarel, X., Les musulmans de l'Europe du Sud-Est: Des empires aux états balkaniques (Paris 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Akiba, ‘Empires and the Shari‘a: a comparison of colonial Islamic legal systems’, in S. Tabata (ed.), Eurasia's Regional Powers Compared: China, India, Russia (Abingdon 2015) 171–87; D. Motadel (ed.), Islam and the European Empires (Oxford 2016); E. Račius and A. Zhelyazkova (eds.), Islamic Leadership in the European Lands of the Former Ottoman and Russian Empires: legacy, challenges and change (Leiden 2018).

4 İnalcık, H., Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet (İstanbul 2000)Google Scholar; Kermeli, E., ‘Central administration versus provincial arbitrary governance: Patmos and Mount Athos monasteries in the 16th century’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 (2008) 189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; K. Barkey, ‘Aspects of legal pluralism in the Ottoman Empire’, in Benton and Ross (eds.), Legal Pluralism and Empires, 83–107; A. Anastasopoulos, ‘Non-Muslims and Ottoman justice(s?)’, in Duindam et al. (eds.), Law and Empire, 275–92; G. Kármán and L. Kunčević (eds.), The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Leiden 2013); K. F. Schull et al. (eds.), Law and Legality in the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey (Bloomington 2016); R. Murphey, ‘Hybridity in Ottoman legal tradition as a source of flexibility in governing the empire: an overview with particular reference to the application of the ruler's executive judicial or örfi powers’, in R. Murphey (ed.), Imperial Lineages and Legacies in the Eastern Mediterranean: recording the imprint of Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman rule (New York 2017) 35–48; Ph. P. Kotzageorgis, ‘Δικαιικός πλουραλισμός (legal pluralism) στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: οι χριστιανοί στα οθωμανικά και εκκλησιαστικά δικαστήρια πριν το Tanzimat’, Βαλκανικά Σύμμεικτα 18 (2017) 7–28; M. Talbot, ‘Separating the waters from the sea: the place of islands in Ottoman maritime territoriality during the eighteenth century’, in A. Hadjikyriacou (ed.), Islands of the Ottoman Empire (Princeton 2018) 61–85; G. Kármán (ed.), Tributaries and Peripheries of the Ottoman Empire (Leiden 2020).

5 A. İ. Bağış, Osmanlı Ticaretinde Gayri Müslimler: Kapitülasyonlar, Avrupa tüccarları, beratlı tüccarlar, hayriye tüccarları (1750–1839) (Ankara 1998); İnalcık, H., ‘İmtiyâzât: Osmanlı dönemi’, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi 22 (2000) 245–52Google Scholar; de Groot, A. H., ‘The historical development of the Capitulatory regime in the Ottoman Middle East from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries’, Oriente Moderno 22 (2003) 575–604Google Scholar; van den Boogert, M. H., The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System: qadis, consuls and beratlıs in the 18th century (Leiden 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. Eldem, ‘Capitulations and Western trade’, in S. N. Faroqhi (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey vol. 3: The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839 (Cambridge 2006) 283–335; U. Özsu, ‘The Ottoman Empire, the origins of extraterritoriality, and international legal theory’, in F. Hoffmann and A. Orford (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law (Oxford 2016) 123–37; Hanley, W., Identifying with Nationality: Europeans, Ottomans, and Egyptians in Alexandria (New York 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein, S. A., Extraterritorial Dreams: European citizenship, Sephardi Jews, and the Ottoman twentieth century (Chicago 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fujinami, N., ‘Arbitrating Capitulations: small versus barbarous in the 1901 Greco-Ottoman Consular Convention’, Jus Gentium: Journal of International Legal History 5 (2020) 431–51Google Scholar.

6 Kymlicka, W., Multicultural Citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights (Oxford 1995) 156–8Google Scholar, 183–4; Walzer, M., On Toleration (New Haven 1997) 17–18Google Scholar; Karavaltchev, V. and Pavlov, P., ‘How just was the Ottoman Millet system’, Journal of European Baptist Studies 11 (2011) 21–30Google Scholar; J. Erk, ‘Non-territorial Millets in Ottoman history’, in T. H. Malloy and F. Palermo (eds.), Minority Accommodation through Territorial and Non-Territorial Autonomy (Oxford 2015) 119–31; Barkey, K. and Gavrilis, G., ‘The Ottoman Millet system: non-territorial autonomy and its contemporary legacy’, Ethnopolitics 15 (2016) 24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cakal, E., ‘Pluralism, tolerance and control: On the Millet system and the question of minorities’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 27 (2019) 1–32Google Scholar; Tamanaha, B. Z., Legal Pluralism Explained: history, theory, consequences (New York 2021) 36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Benjamin Braude's 1982 essay initiated the debate: ‘Foundation myths of the millet system’, in B. Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: the functioning of a plural society, vol. 1 The Central Lands (New York 1982) 69–88. For the recent discussions of the millet system, see the editor's introduction to B. Braude (ed.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: the abridged edition, with a new introduction (Boulder 2014) 1–49; E. Gara, ‘Conceptualizing interreligious relations in the Ottoman Empire: the early modern centuries’, Acta Poloniae Historica 116 (2018) 57–91, esp. 66–72; A. Hadjikyriacou, ‘Beyond the Millet debate: communal representation in pre-Tanzimat-era Cyprus’, in M. Sariyannis (ed.), Political Thought and Practice in the Ottoman Empire. Halcyon Days in Crete IX: a symposium held in Rethymno, 9–11 January 2015 (Rethymno 2019) 71–96, esp. 71–6; and H. Çolak and E. Bayraktar-Tellan, The Orthodox Church as an Ottoman Institution: a study of early modern patriarchal berats (İstanbul 2019) 19–60.

8 Z. Toprak, ‘From plurality to unity: codification and jurisprudence in the late Ottoman Empire’, in A. Frangoudaki and K. Çağlar (eds.), Ways to Modernity in Greece and Turkey: encounters with Europe, 1850–1950 (London 2007) 26–39; Ş. Mardin, ‘Heaven and the administration of things: some remarks on law in the Tanzimat era’, in H. Islamoglu and P. C. Perdue (eds.), Shared Histories of Modernity: China, India and the Ottoman Empire (New Delhi 2009) 255–72; M. Â. Aydın, Osmanlı Devleti'nde Hukuk ve Adalet (İstanbul 2014); Fujinami, N., ‘Hasan Fehmi Pasha and the birth of Ottoman international legal studies’, Jus Gentium: Journal of International Legal History 6 (2021) 145–63Google Scholar; E. Kaynar, ‘La question du légalisme dans l'histoire ottomane et turque’, in S. Akgönül (ed.), La modernité turque. Adaptations et constructions dans le processus de modernisation ottoman et turc (İstanbul 2021) 47–65. Bio-bibliographical surveys on modern Ottoman jurists are provided in H. B. Erk, Meşhur Türk Hukukcuları (n.p. 1958); Erozan, B., ‘Türkiye'de uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininin uzak tarihi: hukuk-ı düvel (1859–1945)’, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 11 (2014) 53–80Google Scholar; Palabıyık, M. S., ‘International law for survival: teaching international law in the late Ottoman Empire (1859–1922)’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 78 (2015) 271–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Aral, B., Ottoman, ‘The “school” of international law as featured in textbooks’, Journal of the History of International Law 18 (2016) 70–97Google Scholar.

9 Heraclides, A. and Dialla, A., Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century: setting the precedent (Manchester 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 H. Exertzoglou, ‘Το “προνομιακό” ζήτημα’, Τα Ιστορικά 16 (1992) 65–84; H. D. Kardaras, Το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο και ο Αλύτρωτος Ελληνισμός: μετά το Συνέδριο του Βερολίνου (Athens 1996) ch. 4; V. Kechriotis, ‘The modernization of the Empire and the community “privileges”: Greek Orthodox responses to the Young Turk policies’, in T. Atabaki (ed.), The State and the Subaltern: modernization, society and the state in Turkey and Iran (London 2007) 53–70.

11 Anastassiadou-Dumont, M., Les Grecs d'Istanbul au XIXe siècle: Histoire socioculturelle de la communauté de Péra (Leiden 2012) 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Yörük, A. A., ‘İlk hukuk lügatlerimiz (1870–1928)’, Türk Hukuk Tarihi Araştırmaları 2 (2006) 122–4Google Scholar.

13 M. G. M. Karavokiros, Lügat-ı Kavanin-i Osmaniye (İstanbul 1310r [1894]) 554–61.

14 M. G. M. Karavokiros, Κλεῖς τῆς συνήθους Ὀθωμανικῆς νομοθεσίας (Constantinople 1882) 113–62.

15 M. M. Kenanoğlu, Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: mit ve gerçek (İstanbul 2004). For the Orthodox Christians in particular, see also H. İnalcık, ‘The status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans’, Turcica 21–23 (1991) 407–36; Ph. P. Kotzageorgis, ‘About the fiscal status of the Greek Orthodox Church in the 17th century’, Turcica 40 (2008) 67–80; T. Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan: power, authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the early Ottoman centuries (Oxford 2015) and E. Gara and O. Olar, ‘Confession-building and authority: the Great Church and the Ottoman State in the first half of the seventeenth century’, in T. Krstić and D. Terzioğlu (eds.), Entangled Confessionalizations? Dialogic perspectives on the politics of piety and community building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th–18th centuries (Piscataway NJ 2022) 159–214.

16 Greene, M., The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, 1453 to 1768: the Ottoman Empire (Edinburgh 2015) esp. chs. 7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karabıçak, Y. Z., ‘Sultan's clergy: the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople between Serbian communities and Ottoman government, 1797–1813’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain 2 (2020) 115–28Google Scholar.

17 P. Konortas, Οθωμανικές θεωρήσεις για το οικουμενικό πατριαρχείο: Βεράτια για τους προκαθήμενους της μεγάλης εκκλησίας (17ος – αρχές 20ού αιώνα) (Athens 1998); Çolak and Bayraktar-Tellan, The Orthodox Church.

18 J. Fairey, The Great Powers and Orthodox Christendom: the crisis over the Eastern Church in the era of the Crimean War (Basingstoke 2015). For more on the inter-imperial legal context, see also Koçunyan, A., ‘The millet system and the challenge of other confessional models, 1856–1865’, Ab Imperio 1 (2017), 59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 M. Kenanoğlu, ‘19. yüzyıl Osmanlı hukuk sisteminde gayrımüslim cemaatlere tanınan adlî yetkiler ve bakmaya yetkili oldukları davalar’, Türk Hukuk Tarihi Araştırmaları 5 (2008) 7–44; Ueno, M., ‘Religious in form, political in content? privileges of Ottoman non-Muslims in the nineteenth century’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 59 (2016) 408–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 D. Vovchenko, ‘Triumph of Orthodoxy in the age of nationalism: the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Sublime Porte, Russia, and Greece (1856–1890)’, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 28/29 (2012/13) 255–66, esp. 260.

21 Karavokiros, Κλεῖς, 128–9.

22 M. G. M. Karavokiros, ‘Τινὰ περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ γάμῳ ἐπισκοπικῆς ἀδείας ἐν Τουρκίᾳ πα ρ’ἅπασι τοῖς Ὀρθοδόξοις κατὰ τὸ κανονικὸν δίκαιον’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 22 (1902) 75–7, 83–6, 100–1, 119–21, 131–3, 141–4, 193–5.

23 Karavokiros, Κλεῖς, 162.

24 M. G. M. Karavokiros, Κῶδιξ τοῦ ἐξ ἀδιαθέτου καὶ ἐκ διαθηκῶν κληρονομικοῦ δικαίου (Constantinople 1889) and Le droit successoral en Turquie ab intestat et par testament, codifié d'après le Chéri et le droit byzantin (Constantinople 1898).

25 Karavokiros, M. G. M., Étude sur l'organisation de la justice en Turquie depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à nos jours (Paris 1903) 18–26Google Scholar.

26 Gradeva, R., ‘Orthodox Christians in the kadi courts: the practice of the Sofia Sheriat court, seventeenth century’, Islamic Law and Society 4 (1997) 37–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. Kermeli, ‘The right to choice: Ottoman justice vis-à-vis ecclesiastical and communal justice in the Balkans, seventeenth-nineteenth centuries’, in A. Christmann and R. Gleave (eds.), Studies in Islamic Law: a Festschrift for Colin Imber (Oxford 2007) 165–210; Kermeli, E., ‘Marriage and divorce of Christians and new Muslims in early modern Ottoman Empire: Crete 1645–1670’, Oriente Moderno 93 (2013) 495–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. Muntán, ‘Brokering Tridentine marriage reforms and legal pluralism in seventeenth-century northern Ottoman Rumeli’, in Krstić and Terzioğlu (eds.), Entangled Confessionalizations?, 701–23.

27 D. Stamatopoulos, ‘Confessionalization vs secularization paradigm? The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the problem of the management of the private sphere in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries’, in K. Sarris et al. (eds.), Confessionalization and/as Knowledge Transfer in the Greek Orthodox Church (Wiesbaden 2021) 375–90.

28 On İbrahim Hakkı, see C. V. Findley, Ottoman Civil Officialdom: a social history (Princeton 1989) 195–209 and N. Fujinami, ‘A constitutional reading of despotism: İbrahim Hakkı on Ottoman administrative law’, International Journal of Turkish Studies (forthcoming).

29 İbrahim Hakkı, Hukuk-ı İdare, 2nd edn, I (İstanbul 1312r [1897]) 312.

30 M. G. M. Karavokiros, ‘Τινὰ περὶ τῶν ἀπαιτουμένων ὅρων διὰ τὸ κῦρος διαθήκης χριστιανοῦ ὀρθοδόξου ὑπαγομένου εἰς τὸ Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχείον καὶ ὑπηκόου ὀθωμανοῦ’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 21 (1901) 187–90, 198–9; Karavokiros, ‘Τινὰ περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ γάμῳ ἐπισκοπικῆς ἀδείας’.

31 D. Stamatopoulos, ‘Η εκκλησία ως πολιτεία: αναπαραστάσεις του ορθόδοξου μιλλέτ και το μοντέλο της συνταγματικής μοναρχίας (δεύτερο μισό 19ου αι.)’, Μνήμων 23 (2001) 183–220.

32 Karavokiros, Κλεῖς, 141–2, 158.

33 Karavokiros, Κλεῖς, 128, 145.

34 Karavokiros, Κλεῖς, 140.

35 Karavokiros, ‘Τινὰ περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ γάμῳ ἐπισκοπικῆς ἀδείας’, 193–5; Karavokiros, Étude, 19; M. G. M. Karavokiros, ‘Zητήματα περὶ διαθηκῶν’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 23 (1903) 352–5.

36 H. Hatziiosif, ‘Η μπελ επόκ του κεφαλαίου’, in H. Hatziiosif (ed.), Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα: Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, I (Athens 1999) 309–49. On the Hamidian regime in general, see also S. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: ideology and legitimation of power in the Ottoman Empire 1876–1909 (London 1998) and Georgeon, F., Abdülhamid II: le sultan calife (1876–1909) (Paris 2003)Google Scholar.

37 Karavokiros, Lügat, 5–10; Karavokiros, Étude, 26–34, 56–70.

38 Karavokiros, Étude, 10–18.

39 E. Skopetea, Το ‘Πρότυπο Βασίλειο’ και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα: όψεις του εθνικού προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα (1830–1880) (Athens 1988) 309–24.

40 Ἐπιτροπὴ ἐπὶ τῆς συντάξεως διαθηκῶν, I. Ἔκθεσις δικαιολογητικὴ. ΙΙ. Σχέδιον ὁδηγιῶν πρὸς σύνταξιν, κατάρτισιν, επικύρωσιν, κατάθεσιν καὶ ἐκδίκασιν διαθηκῶν ὀρθοδόξων χριστιανῶν ὑπηκόων ὀθωμανῶν. ΙΙΙ. Ὑποδείγματα διαθηκῶν (Constantinople 1901).

41 D. Stamatopoulos, ‘Rum millet between vakıfs and property rights: endowments’ trials of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Mixed Council in the late Ottoman Empire (19th–20th c.)’, Endowment Studies 2 (2018) 58–81. Karavokiros wrote an anti-Joachimist pamphlet in this context: Οἱ παραβιασταὶ τῶν νόμων (Leipzig 1904).

42 N. P. Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου (Smyrna 1909). The French edition had been published a year before: Les privilèges du Patriarcat Oecuménique (Athèns 1908).

43 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 25–40.

44 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 14–15, 120–32, 232–6.

45 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 70–102, 151–68.

46 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 11–12, 135–47, 190–202.

47 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 238–58.

48 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 13, 26–30, 202–19, 258–60.

49 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 171–87, 237–8.

50 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 9–11, 18–19, 133–5, 147–51, 169–71, 187–90.

51 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 190–5.

52 N. P. Eleutheriadis, Μελέται μουσουλμανικοῦ δικαίου ὀθωμανικῆς νομοθεσίας καὶ δικαίων τῶν ἐν Τουρκίᾳ Χριστιανῶν (Mytilene 1912) 95.

53 N. P. Eleutheriadis, Λεξικὸν τουρκο-ἑλληνικὸν (Constantinople 1898).

54 N. P. Eleutheriadis, Ἡ ἀκίνητος ἰδιοκτησία ἐν Τουρκίᾳ (Athens 1903) 15–22.

55 Eleutheriadis, Ἡ ἀκίνητος ἰδιοκτησία, 84.

56 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 197–8, 213–32, 260–76.

57 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 5–9.

58 X., ‘Βιβλιολογία’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 30 (1909) 340–1.

59 N. Fujinami, ‘Privileged but equal: the privilege question in the context of Ottoman constitutionalism’, in D. Stamatopoulos (ed.), Balkan Nationalism(s) and the Ottoman Empire, III (İstanbul 2015) 33–59.

60 E.g. Kostantin Çiçiliki, ‘Devlet-i Osmaniye'de müsademe-i hukuk ve Roma hukuku,’ İlm-i Hukuk ve Mukayese-i Kavanin Mecmuası, 17 (1326r [1910]), 380–90; 21–22 (1327r [1911]), 685–91; 23–24 (1327r), 902–6. Note his reliance on Eleutheriadis’ 1909 book.

61 Fujinami, N., ‘Georgios Streit on Crete: international law, Greece, and the Ottoman Empire’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 34 (2016) 321–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fujinami, ‘Arbitrating Capitulations’.

62 See M. I. Gedeon, Βραχεία σημείωσις περὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἡμῶν δικαίων (Constantinople 1909) and its sequel, Αἱ φάσεις τοῦ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ ζητήματος (Constantinople 1910).

63 Gedeon, Βραχεία σημείωσις, 97–101.

64 D. Stamatopoulos, Το Βυζάντιο μετά το έθνος: το πρόβλημα της συνέχειας στις βαλκανικές ιστοριογραφίες (Athens 2009) 41–50, 89–127. On Galata bankers, see also H. Exertzoglou, Προσαρμοστικότητα και πολιτική ομογενειακών κεφαλαίων. Έλληνες τραπεζίτες στην Κωνσταντινούπολη: το κατάστημα »Zαρίφης-Zαφειρόπουλος«, 1871–1881 (Athens 1989) and M. Hulkiender, Bir Galata Bankerinin Portresi: George Zarifi (1806–1884) (İstanbul 2003).

65 Gedeon, Βραχεία σημείωσις, 39–50.

66 D. Stamatopoulos, Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση: προς μια ανασύνθεση της ιστορίας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου τον 19ο αιώνα (Athens 2003).

67 P. Karolidis, Ἱστορία τοῦ ΙΘ΄ αἰώνος μετ’ εἰκόνων, II (Athens 1892) 45–7; P. Karolidis, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἔθνους, VI (Athens 1932) 87–9, 306–7.

68 E. Kofos, ‘Patriarch Joachim III (1878–1884) and the irredentist policy of the Greek State’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4 (1986) 107–20; Kardaras, Το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο, ch. 3; Anagnostopoulou, S., The Passage from the Ottoman Empire to the Nation-States: a long and difficult process, the Greek case (İstanbul 2004)Google Scholar.

69 F. Benlisoy and S. Benlisoy, ‘“Karamanlılar”, “Anadolu ahalisi” ve “aşağı tabakalar”: Türkdilli Anadolu Ortodokslarında kimlik algısı’, Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklaşımlar 11 (2010) 7–22.

70 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 236–7.

71 P. Karolidis, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Athens 1925) 218–21, 287–8.

72 E.g. A. Heidborn, Manuel de droit public et administratif de l'Empire Ottoman, I (Vienne 1909) 37–40.

73 E.g. F. van den Steen de Jehay, De la situation légale des sujets ottomans non-musulmans (Bruxelles 1906). On privileged provinces, see Genell, A. M., ‘Autonomous provinces and the problem of “semi-sovereignty” in European international law’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18 (2016) 533–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar and N. Fujinami, ‘Between sovereignty and suzerainty: history of the Ottoman privileged provinces’, in T. Okamoto (ed.), A World History of Suzerainty: a modern history of East and West Asia and translated concepts (Tokyo 2019) 41–69.

74 M. I. Gedeon, Ἐπίσημα γράμματα τουρκικὰ, ἀναφερόμενα εἰς τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ ἡμῶν δίκαια (Constantinople 1910) 8, 101–10; M. G. M. Karavokiros, ‘Τῶν Σποράδων νήσων τὰ δίκαια καὶ προνόμια’, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 33 (1912) 381–8, 397–406, 419–24, 427–32, 467–8; N. P. Eleutheriadis, Οἱ μουσουλμάνοι ἐν Ἑλλάδι (Athens 1913) 6, 16–17, 35. But see also V. Seirinidou, ‘Communities’, in P. M. Kitromilides and C. Tsoukalas (eds.), The Greek Revolution: a critical dictionary (Cambridge 2021) 84–6 for the reality of what these Greek jurists regarded as autonomy.

75 Eleutheriadis, Τὰ προνόμια, 16; M. G. M. Karavokiros, Μελέτη συγκριτικὴ τοῦ κληρονομικοῦ Οθ. δικαίου πρὸς τὰ κληρονομικὰ ρωμαϊκὸν καὶ γαλλικὸν δικαία (Constantinople 1915) 8.

76 J. G. Rahme, ‘Namık Kemal's constitutional Ottomanism and non-Muslims’, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 10 (1999) 23–39; M. Arai, ‘Citizen, liberty and equality in late Ottoman discourse’, in N. Clayer and E. Kaynar (eds.), Penser, agir et vivre dans l'Empire ottoman et en Turquie: Études réunies pour François Georgeon (Louvain 2013) 3–13.

77 Fujinami, ‘A Constitutional Reading’.

78 Fujinami, N., ‘“Church Law” and Ottoman-Greeks in the Second Constitutional Politics, 1910’, Études Balkaniques 43 (2007) 107–32Google Scholar.

79 N. Fujinami, ‘Hellenizing the Empire through historiography: Pavlos Karolidis and Greek historical writing in the late Ottoman Empire’, in D. Stamatopoulos (ed.), Imagined Empires: tracing imperial nationalism in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (Budapest 2021) 29–55.

80 V. Kechriotis, ‘On the margins of national historiography: the Greek İttihatçı Emmanouil Emmanouilidis – opportunist or Ottoman patriot?’, in A. Singer et al. (eds.), Untold Histories of the Middle East: recovering voices from the 19th and 20th Centuries (London 2011) 124–42.

81 M. G. M. Karavokiros, Τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου τὰ δίκαια καὶ προνόμια (Constantinople 1913) 103–4.

82 M. G. M. Karavokiros, Τῶν ἐν Τουρκίᾳ Πατριαρχείων Οἰκουμενικοῦ, Ἀλεξανδρείας, Ἀντιοχείας καὶ Ἱεροσολήμων τὰ δίκαια καὶ προνόμια (Constantinople 1914) 6, 117–19; Τὰ δίκαια (νόμοι), τὰ δικαστήρια καὶ αἱ διμολογήσεις (Constantinople 1915) 60.

83 Karavokiros, Τὰ δίκαια, 8.

84 Karavokiros, Τὰ δίκαια, 53–8.

85 Karavokiros, Étude, 34–49; Karavokiros, Τῶν ἐν Τουρκίᾳ, 130.

86 Karavokiros, Τὰ δίκαια, 110–85.

87 Karavokiros, Μελέτη.

88 Dannies, K. and Hock, S., ‘A prolonged abrogation? The Capitulations, the 1917 Law of Family Rights, and the Ottoman quest for sovereignty during World War 1’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 52 (2020) 245–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Toprak, Z., Türkiye'de Milli İktisat 1908–1918 (İstanbul 2012)Google Scholar.

90 A. Alexandris, The Greek Minority of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish Relations 1918–1974, 2nd edn (Athens 1992); E. Macar, Cumhuriyet Döneminde İstanbul Rum Patrikhanesi (İstanbul 2003); Kamouzis, D., Greeks in Turkey: elite nationalism and minority politics in late Ottoman and early Republican Istanbul (Abingdon 2021)Google Scholar.

91 Eleutheriadis, Μελέται, 7–8.

92 Eleutheriadis, Μελέται, 30–41.

93 Eleutheriadis, Μελέται, 54–65.

94 These issues date back to the Greek War of Independence, but the Balkan Wars marked a new phase in the legal history of modern Greece. See Tsitselikis, Old and New Islam and G. Glavinas, ‘Η πολιτική της Ελληνικής διοίκησης απέναντι στη μουσουλμανική γαιοκτησία των Νέων Χωρών την περίοδο 1912–1922’, in Ελληνική Ιστορική Εταιρεία, Πρακτικά ΚZ΄ Πανελληνίου Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου 26–28 Μαΐου 2006 (Thessaloniki 2007) 461–77.

95 N. P. Eleutheriadis, Τὰ δίκαια τῆς πολιτείας ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ Ἠπείρῳ γαιῶν (Athens 1915); Τὰ μετὰ τὴν συνθήκην τῶν Ἀθηνῶν περὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς νέαις χώραις ἐγκαταλελειμμένων κτημάτων (Athens 1915) and Γνωμοδοτήσεις περὶ κτηματικῶν ζητημάτων καὶ διαφορῶν ἐν ταῖς Νέαις Χώραις (Athens 1916).

96 Th. A. Tsironis, Εκκλησία πολιτευομένη. Ο πολιτικός λόγος και ρόλος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος (1913–1941) (Thessaloniki 2010).

97 Eleutheriadis, Οἱ μουσουλμάνοι, 3–13, 19–46; quotation from 11. The status of waqfs remains a thorn in the side of both Greece and Turkey: see K. Tsitselikis, Τα βακουφία των ελληνορθοδóξων κοινοτήτων στον ευρωπαϊκό δρόμο της Τουρκίας (Athens 2011).

98 Eleutheriadis, Οἱ μουσουλμάνοι, 13–16.

99 N. P. Eleutheriadis, Πελασγικὴ Ἑλλάς: οἱ Προέλληνες (Athens 1931).

100 Anastassiadou-Dumont thinks differently when she argues that ‘Dès les dernières décennies du XIXe siècle, il était manifeste que […] les spécialistes de la médiation entre les divers systèmes juridiques qui cohabitaient au sein de l'Empire n'auraient bientôt plus de raison d’être’ (Les Grecs, 204–5).

101 Whereas D. G. Apostolopoulos refers to the Ottomans’ ‘raisons politiques’ like Karavokiros in his ‘La coexistence de deux espaces juridiques dans l'Empire ottoman (xve-xvie siècles)’, Études Balkaniques 19–20 (2013–14) 89–100, D. Papastathi comes close to Eleutheriadis with her focus on Islamic law in her ‘Observations sur la culture juridique des Grecs orthodoxes sous la domination ottomane (milieu du XVe – milieu du XIXe siècle)’, Études Balkaniques 19–20 (2013–14) 101–34.

102 Gong, G. W., The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford 1984)Google Scholar. For more recent studies, see Allain, J., ‘Orientalism and international law: the Middle East as the underclass of the international legal order’, Leiden Journal of International Law 17 (2004) 391–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allain, J., International Law in the Middle East: closer to power than justice (Aldershot 2005)Google Scholar; Anghie, A., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Koskenniemi, M., ‘Race, hierarchy and international law: Lorimer's legal science’, The European Journal of International Law 27 (2016) 415–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Y. Z. Karabıçak does so when he analyses the confusion in the use of the term millet in the context of the Serbian and Greek uprisings in the early nineteenth century: ‘Ottoman attempts to define the rebels during the Greek War of Independence’, Studia Islamica 114 (2020) 316–54.

104 Russian and Habsburg examples are particularly interesting. See Crews, R. D., For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge 2006)Google Scholar; J. Burbank, ‘The rights of difference: law and citizenship in the Russian Empire’, in A. L. Stoler et al. (eds.), Imperial Formations (Santa Fe 2007) 77–111; M. Schulze Wessel, ‘Religion, politics and the limits of imperial integration: comparing the Habsburg Monarchy and the Russian Empire’, in J. Leonhard and U. von Hirschhausen (eds.), Comparing Empires: encounters and transfers in the long nineteenth century (Bristol 2012) 337–58; Werth, P. W., The Tsar's Foreign Faiths: toleration and the fate of religious freedom in Imperial Russia (Oxford 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. A. Poole and P. W. Werth (eds.), Religious Freedom in Modern Russia (Pittsburgh 2018) and Wheatley, N., The Life and Death of States: Central Europe and the transformation of modern sovereignty (Princeton 2023)Google Scholar.