Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T00:33:11.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Ottoman variation on the state of siege: The invention of the idare-i örfiyye during the first constitutional period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2016

Noémi Lévy-Aksu
Noémi Lévy-Aksu*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Boğaziçi University, 34342 Bebek, İstanbul, Turkey, noemi.levy@boun.edu.tr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper focuses on a little-known aspect of the first constitutional period in the Ottoman Empire: the introduction of idare-i örfiyye (an equivalent of the state of siege) into the Ottoman legal system. With a name rooted in the Ottoman legal tradition and a definition clearly inspired by the nineteenth-century French “état de siège,” the idare-i örfiyye was a case of legal hybridization that combined the Ottoman political and legal tradition with transnational (or transimperial) legal circulation. This paper seeks to understand how and why different legal references were combined in order to make it possible, under exceptional circumstances, to suspend the ordinary legal order. At the same time, it analyzes the first application of the idare-i örfiyye, which occurred during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, to show how local and diplomatic reactions to this exceptional state of affairs were crucial for the further definition of the notion. Through a critical approach to legal texts and archival documents, the article discusses how various legal sources, the political context of the early Hamidian reign, and local experiences all shaped the notion of idare-i örfiyye, soon transforming it into a tool of government for exceptional and (more frequently) non-exceptional times.

Keywords

armyBalkansconstitutioncourt-martialidare-i örfiyyelawOttoman EmpireRusso-Turkish Warstate of siege
Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 55 , November 2016 , pp. 5 - 28
Check for updates
Copyright
© New Perspectives on Turkey and Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Author’s Note: This article is part of a broader research project, “Unexceptional Exceptions: The Örfi İdare in the Late Ottoman Empire,” supported by Boğaziçi University’s Fund for Scientific Research Projects (BAP-9102, 2014–2016). I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

References

References

Primary Sources Google Scholar
Archival Sources Google Scholar
ATASE (Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt; Archives of the General Staff, Ankara): ORH 10/71, 71/103; I.DH 825/66506, 839/67446, 0748/611.Google Scholar
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA): Y. PRK. BŞK 1/14; HR.TO 475/47.Google Scholar
National Archives (UK), Foreign Office: 78/2570; 78/2571; 195/1145; 195/1150.Google Scholar
Published Primary Sources Google Scholar
Düstur. I. Tertip, Vol. 4. İstanbul: 1299 (1881/1882).Google Scholar
Noradounghian, Gabriel Effendi. Recueil d’actes internationaux de l’empire Ottoman. Vol. 3. Paris: Librairie Cotillon, 1902.Google Scholar
Vakit. March 18, 1928.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Abu-Manneh, Butrus. “The Islamic Roots of the Gülhane Rescript.” Die Welt des Islams 34, no. 2 (1994): 173–203.Google Scholar
Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Blauvelt, Timothy. “Military-Civil Administration and Islam in the North Caucasus, 1858–83.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 11, no. 2 (2010): 221–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, Lauren. A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Benton, Lauren and Ross, Richard, eds. Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850. New York: New York University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Berkes, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill University, 1964.Google Scholar
Boyar, Ebru. Ottomans, Turks and the Balkans: Empire Lost, Relations Altered. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2007.Google Scholar
Caglioti, Daniela. “Waging War on Civilians: The Expulsion of Aliens in the Franco-Prussian War.” Past and Present 221, no. 1 (November 2013): 161–195.Google Scholar
Clayer, Nathalie. Aux origines du nationalisme albanais. Paris: Karthala, 2007.Google Scholar
Daver, Bülent. Fevkalâde Hal Rejimleri (Türkiye’de-Yabancı Memleketlerde). Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1961.Google Scholar
Devereux, Robert. The First Ottoman Constitutional Period: A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Donlan, Sean Patrick. “Remembering: Legal Hybridity and Legal History.” Comparative Law Review 2, no. 1 (2011): 1–35.Google Scholar
Duve, Thomas, ed. Entanglements in Legal History: Conceptual Approaches. Frankfurt am Main: Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, 2014.Google Scholar
Edelstein, Dan. The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, and the French Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Grotke, Kelly and Prutsch, Markus, eds. Constitutionalism, Legitimacy and Power: Nineteenth-Century Experiences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Herzog, Christoph and Sharif, Malek, eds. The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy. İstanbul: Orient-Institut, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holquist, Peter. “The Russian Empire as a ‘Civilized State’: International Law as Principle and Practice in Imperial Russia, 1874–1878.” Unpublished paper presented at the conference Entangled Empires: Humanitarianism in the Last Ottoman Century. Center for International History, Columbia University, 2007.Google Scholar
İslamoğlu, Huricihan, ed. Constituting Modernity: Private Property in the East and West. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004.Google Scholar
Kili, Suna and Gözübüyük, A. Şeref, eds. Türk Anayasa Metinleri. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, 1985.Google Scholar
Kılıç, Selda. “1876 Anayasası’nın Bilinmeyen İki Tasarısı.” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM) 4 (1992): 557–635.Google Scholar
Kırmızı, Abdülhamid. “Authoritarianism and Constitutionalism Combined: Ahmed Midhat Efendi Between the Sultan and the Kanun-ı Esasi.” In The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy. Edited by Christoph Herzog and Malek Sharif. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2010. 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köksal, Osman. “Osmanlı Devletinde Sıkı Yönetim ile İlgili Mevzuat Üzerine Bir Deneme.” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi 12 (2001): 157–171.Google Scholar
——. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Sıkıyönetimin Doğuşu ve İlk Uygulamaları.” Askeri Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 1, no. 1 (2003): 15–30.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart, Friedman, Lawrence and Mertz, Elizabeth, eds. Law in Action: A Socio-Legal Reader. Foundation Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Mardin, Şerif. The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought. Princeton: Syracuse University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
de Mari, Eric. La mise hors de la loi sous la Révolution française (19 mars 1793 - an III) - Une étude juridictionnelle et institutionnelle. Paris: LGDJ, 2015.Google Scholar
Miller, Ruth. Legislating Authority: Sin and Crime in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. New York: Routledge, 2005.Google Scholar
Mirzoyan, Sonya and Badem, Candan. The Construction of the Tiflis-Aleksandropol-Kars Railway (1895–1899). The Hague: The Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation, 2013.Google Scholar
Noyer, Alain. La sûreté de l’Etat (1789–1965). Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1966.Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun. The Constitutional System of Turkey: From 1876 to the Present. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.Google Scholar
Raeff, Marc. Mikhail Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1957.Google Scholar
Reinach, Théodore. De l’état de siège: étude historique et juridique. Paris: François Pichon, 1885.Google Scholar
Rubin, Avi. Ottoman Nizamiye Courts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.Google Scholar
Saint-Bonnet, François. L’Etat d’exception. Paris: PUF, 2001.Google Scholar
Sarıca, Ragip. Fransa’da ve Türkiye’de Örfi İdare Rejimi. İstanbul, 1941.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Translated by G. Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl——. “Diktatur und Belagerungszustand: Eine staatsrechtliche Studie.” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 38 (1917): 138–162.Google Scholar
Şensoy, Naci. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Sıkı Yönetime Müteallik Mevzuatı Üzerinde Sentetik bir Deneme.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası (İÜHFM) 13, no. 1 (1947): 95–114.Google Scholar
Somel, Selçuk Akşin. The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire, 1839–1908. Leiden: Brill, 2001.Google Scholar
Stilt, Kristen. Islamic Law in Action. Authority, Discretion, and Everyday Experiences in Mamluk Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Thompson, E.P. Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act. London: Allen Lane, 1975.Google Scholar
Tuğ, Başak. “Gendered Subjects in Ottoman Constitutional Agreements, ca. 1740–1860.” European Journal of Turkish Studies, 18 (2014). http://ejts.revues.org/4860.Google Scholar
Waldron, Peter. “States of Emergency: Autocracy and Extraordinary Legislation, 1881–1917.” Revolutionary Russia 8, no. 1 (1995): 1–25.Google Scholar