Imperial Law versus Geopolitical Interest: The Reichshofrat and the Protection of Smaller Territorial States in the Holy Roman Empire under Charles VI (1711-1740)
According to historians prior to 1945, the dispensation of justice at the Holy Roman Empire’s Reichshofrat—one of the two supreme Imperial judicial tribunals—was exploited by the Habsburgs to further Austrian power-political aims. Later historians continued to claim that the Reichshofrat’s protection of territorial subjects and weak princes in particular was a tool used, albeit subtly, to serve the Emperor’s politico-strategic, dynastic and confessional interests. However, a new recognition has developed that a central feature of Vienna’s Imperial policy was the protection of imperilled territorial princes against predation by more powerful rulers within the Empire, and that this was a mechanism of key importance for upholding an order of peaceful legality and territorial plurality. general has seldom been accompanied by detailed analyses of relevant case-studies. On the basis of archival research into five important case-studies during the reign of Charles VI (1711–40), this article argues that, despite energetic protective interventions which often depended on a combination of political interests and moral-ideological incentives of legal protection and justice, the Reichshofrat cannot be viewed simply as an instrument of Habsburg strategic and confessional-dynastic interests. Notwithstanding the recognised long-term interest ensuring the survival and loyalty of the Emperor’s traditional clientele among weaker princes, protective action was not undertaken exclusively or even primarily in order to strengthen Austria’s position of political power.
Quelle: http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/130/545/831?rss=1
The Arab Legion and the 1948 War: The Conduct of ‚Collusion‘?
The partition of Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War proved to be one of the defining moments of the twentieth century and its continued contemporary resonance has helped maintain a lively historiography. One of the key contentions remains the question of ‘collusion’ between the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan and the Zionists, with the approval of Britain, to partition Palestine in contravention of the UN partition plan. Based on unprecedented access to the unofficial archive of the strongest of the Arab armies—Transjordan’s Arab Legion—this article seeks to further the debate by examining the conduct of the Arab Legion, during the first half of 1948. This new material has enabled a more thorough assessment of the Arab Legion’s aims and actions than ever before. In so doing, this article dampens the revisionist notion of a firm or even tacit Hashemite–Zionist agreement, but nonetheless supports the revisionist argument that negotiations between the parties helped to shape the 1948 war. It reveals that the Arab Legion was used to establish Hashemite–Zionist partition by occupying the Arab areas of Palestine when the mandate ended and acquiescing in the establishment of Israel. Moreover, this article illustrates a significant nuance, concerning the intense fighting that took place, particularly in Jerusalem, after the end of the mandate, differentiating between the influence of King Abdullah of Transjordan and the British commander of his army, Glubb Pasha, in dictating the Arab Legion’s conduct.
Quelle: http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/130/545/907?rss=1