NOTES

INTRODUCTION

1Kurt Schwitters, Das Literarische Werk, ed. Friedhelm Lach (Munich: Deutsche Taschenbuch Verlag, 2005), LW 5:335–336. Cited in Megan R. Luke, Kurt Schwitters: Space, Image, Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 4–5.

2Jane McAdam, “Disappearing States, Statelessness, and the Boundaries of International Law,” in Climate Change and Displacement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Jane McAdam (Oxford: Hart, 2010), 105–131. Patrick Sykes, “Sinking States: Climate Change and the Next Refugee Crisis,” Foreign Affairs, September 28, 2015.

3Countries that have signed on to the 1954 Convention agree not to deport anyone who would otherwise have nowhere else to go. Together with the 1961 Convention, the postwar agreements establish the particular obligations of signatory states toward stateless people. See Chandran Kukathas, “Are Refugees Special?,” in Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership, ed. Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 249–269.

4Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, July 28, 1951; Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (adopted September 28, 1954; entered into force June 6, 1960).

5Kristy Belton, “The Neglected Non-Citizen: Statelessness and Liberal Political Theory,” Journal of Global Ethics 7, no. 1 (2011): 59–71; Lindsay N. Kingston, “A Forgotten Human Rights Crisis: Statelessness and Issue (Non) Emergence,” Human Rights Review 14 (2013): 73–87; Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert, “Statelessness as a Human Rights Issue: A Concept Whose Time Has Come,” International Journal of Refugee Law 28, no. 4 (2016): 564–584.

6Judith Shklar, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 4.

7Compare to an ontological approach to statelessness, or to the idea that the consequence of category formation is to create a certain kind of person. See, for example, Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000). On the birth, life, or death of objects of research like “memory” or “the economy,” see Lorraine Daston, “Historical Epistemology,” in Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines, ed. James Chandler, Arnold Davidson, and Harry Harootunian (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 282–289.

8See for example Michael Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees from the First World War to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002); Claudena Skran, Refugees in Inter-War Europe: The Emergence of a Regime (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); John Torpey, The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship, and the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

9Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 380–387; Pieter Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016); Manu Goswami, “Colonial Internationalisms and Imaginary Futures,” American Historical Review 117, no. 5 (2012): 1461–1485; Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); Sunil Amrith, Crossing the Bay of Bengal: The Furies of Nature and the Fortunes of Migrants (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015); Adom Getachew, Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019). On the historical emergence of an imagined world of states, see David Armitage, Foundations of Modern International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Jennifer Pitts, Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).

10On the history of nationality and international law as fundamentally bottom-up, socio- legal or administrative, phenomena, compare Will Hanley, Identifying with Nationality: Europeans, Ottomans, and Egyptians in Alexandria (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017); Lauren Benton and Lisa Ford, Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016).

11Patrick Weil, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 6.

12See Franz Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer, The Rule of Law under Siege, ed. William E. Scheuerman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Roberto Unger, Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory (New York: Free Press, 1976); Duncan Kennedy, “The Disenchantment of Logically Formal Legal Rationality: Or, Max Weber’s Sociology in the Genealogy of the Contemporary Mode of Western Legal Thought,” in Max Weber’s Economy and Society: A Critical Companion, ed. Charles Camic, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Rubek (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005); Jürgen Habermas, “Law and Morality,” in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin, trans. K. Baynes, (Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 1988), 8:217–279.

13On the natural law foundations of Grotius’s theory of the law of nations, see Benjamin Straumann, Roman Law in the State of Nature: The Classical Foundations of Hugo Grotius’ Natural Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

14In 1925 Sterling E. Edmunds offered a concise description of the problem: “The position, or lack of position, of stateless members of society in international law is significant. They are objects of the Law of Nations in so far as they fall under the territorial supremacy of the state on whose territory they live. But since they are without nationality, the tie by which they could derive the benefits from international law is missing and therefore they lack the protection as far as such law is concerned.” The Lawless Law of Nations: An Exposition of Prevailing Arbitrary International Legal System in Relation to Its Influence upon Civil Liberty (Washington, DC: J. Byrne, 1925), 15.

15Peter Sahlins, Unnaturally French: Foreign Citizens in the Old Regime and After (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004); Hanley, Identifying with Nationality; Saskia Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 281. On the imperial, hierarchical dimensions of nationality, see, Lauren Benton, Adam Clulow, and Bain Attwood, eds., Protection and Empire: A Global History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017); Emmanuelle Saada, Empire’s Children: Race, Filiation, and Citizenship in the French Colonies, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012); Karen Knop, Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 8.

16Compare Will Hanley, “Statelessness: An Invisible Theme in the History of International Law,” European Journal of International Law 25, no. 1 (2014): 321–327.

17Compare Astrid Kjedlgaard-Pedersen, The International Legal Personality of the Individual (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Anne Peters, Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

18The history of cosmopolitan law has generally been told from the perspectives of the individuals who had the most to lose as diverse empires gave way to national states in the decade after the First World War. By creating law that encompassed all humanity, they sought to circumvent or combat the consequences of national exclusion and mass violence. According to this interpretation, their efforts contributed to the heroic establishment of law that defines the rights and obligations of individuals and groups beyond the limits of recognized sovereign states. See, for example, Philippe Sands, East West Street: On the Origins of “Genocide” and “Crimes against Humanity” (New York: Knopf, 2016); Seyla Benhabib, Exile, Statelessness, and Migration: Playing Chess with History from Hannah Arendt to Isaiah Berlin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018).

19Marc Vishniac, “Le statut international des apatrides,” Recueil des cours de l’Académie de la Haye 43 (1933): 217. (Generally cited as “Mark Vishniak” in this book).

20On the virtues of thick description for grasping historical transformation, see William Sewell, Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 184–185.

21Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books, 1951), 278. Arendt promoted the idea that until after the Second World War, the stateless were considered “legal freaks” without law.

22On the idea of bracketing the origins and foundations of fundamental conceptual and political boundaries, see Pierre Bourdieu, “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field,” trans. Loic J. D. Wacquant and Samar Farage, Sociological Theory 12, no. 1 (1994): 1–18.

1. FROM A SUBJECT OF FICTION TO A LEGAL REALITY

1The files on Stoeck v. Public Trustee are located in the National Archives, CO/323/857 and HO 144/11489.

2Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee, Annotated Law Reports, http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/19212Ch67.htm.

3Compare Erez Manela and Robert Gerwarth, eds., Empires at War, 1911–1923 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

4On an international order as a “matter of refined thought,” see Herbert Butterfield, “The Balance of Power,” in Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics, ed. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1966), 147.

5“Denationalized Germans under the Treaty of Peace,” Times Law Reports, April 29, 1921, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO. On the unique significance of Stoeck v. Public Trustee in subsequent debates on statelessness, see Paul Weis, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (London: Stevens, 1956); “Report by Mr. A Jaffe on ‘Statelessness in English Law,’” Grotius Society Committee for the Status of Stateless Persons, September 27, 1940, Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/GRSO 1, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford.

6Andreas Fahrmeir, “Passports and the Status of Aliens,” in The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War, ed. Michael Geyer and Johannes Paulmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 110; H. S. Q. Henriques, The Law of Aliens and Naturalization, including the Text of the Aliens Act, 1905 (London: Butterworth, 1906). For the larger story of migration from the German lands to Britain, see John R. David, Stefan Maz, and Margrit Schulte Beerbühl, eds., Transnational Networks: German Migrants in the British Empire, 1670–1914 (Leiden: Brill, 2012).

7See generally Adam McKeown, Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).

8Friedrich Nietzsche to Georg Brandes, April 10, 1888, in Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. Christopher Middleton (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996), 293. Nietzsche traveled with a Swiss letter of protection from the Basel canton, though he was not a Swiss citizen and could not have become one since he had violated the Swiss residency requirements by joining up as a medical orderly in the Prussian military in 1870. David B. Allison, Reading the New Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy, The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the Genealogy of Morals (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), 271.

9On the ideology of “connectivity talk” in the late nineteenth century, see Vanessa Ogle, The Global Transformation of Time, 1870–1950 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 204.

10David Feldman, “The Distinctiveness of Public Law,” in The Cambridge Companion to Public Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 17–37; Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Karen Knop, “Citizenship, Public and Private,” Law and Contemporary Problems 71, no. 3 (2008): 309–341. On the individual right to contract and property as the object of private international law jurisprudence in the nineteenth century, see Christopher Casey, Nationals Abroad: Globalization, Individual Rights, and the Making of Modern International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020); Martti Koskeniemmi Koskenniemi, “Nationalism, Universalism, Empire: International Law in 1871 and 1919” (paper presented at “Whose International Community? Universalism and the Legacies of Empire,” Columbia University, New York, NY, April 29–30, 2005).

11Stephen Kern, “Changing Concepts and Experiences of Time and Space,” in The Fin de Siècle World, ed. Michael Saler (London: Routledge, 2015), 74–91. By 1907, the passport system was described in a French dissertation as “a dead part of legal history.” Fahrmeir, “Passports and the Status of Aliens,” 105.

12“Two Electric Safety Lamps,” Coal Age Magazine, September 21, 1921.

13Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department, “Stoeck v. Public Trustee,” September 18, 1914, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

14On the creation of a new “crustacean type of nation” during the First World War, see Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston: Beacon, 1944), 122.

15Sara Abrevaya Stein, Extraterritorial Dreams: European Citizenship, Sephardi Jews, and the Ottoman Twentieth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 57–67; Salahi R. Sonyel, “The Protégé System in the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Islamic Studies 2, no. 1 (1991): 56–66.

16Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department, “Stoeck v. Public Trustee,” September 18, 1914, HO144/11489, TNA: PRO. On the process of “deglobalization” in the interwar era involving protectionism, restrictions on international lending, and antimigration policies, see Harold James, The End of Globalization: Lessons from the Great Depression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

17J. C. Bird, Control of Enemy Alien Civilians in Great Britain, 1914–1918 (New York: Garland, 1986), 17, 203.

18London Metropolitan Police report on Stoeck’s request for a certificate of naturalization on September 18, 1914, file: Alien Restrictions, Aliens Branch, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

19Bird, Control of Enemy Alien Civilians, 322.

20Coleman Phillipson, International Law and the Great War (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1915), 71; Michael Lobban, “Introduction: The Great War and Private Law,” Comparative Legal History 2, no. 2 (2014) 163–183; Geoffrey Jones, Multinationals and Global Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 286.

21Imprisonment was not the original goal. Parliament initially prioritized a form of population exchange. Bird, Control of Enemy Alien Civilians, 173. For estimates of the numbers of civilian enemy aliens in France, Britain, Germany, the United States, and Australia, see Eric Lohr, Nationalizing the Russian Empire: The Campaign against Enemy Aliens during World War I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 178. On the genealogy of the category of enemy aliens more generally, see Daniela Caglioti, “Waging War on Civilians: The Expulsion of Aliens in the Franco-Prussian War,” Past and Present 221, no. 1 (2013): 161–195; Caglioti, “Property Rights in Times of War: Sequestration and Liquidation of Enemy Alien Assets in Western Europe during the First World War,” Journal of Modern European History 12, no 4 (2014): 523–545. Also see J. M. Winter, “British National Identity and the First World War,” in The Boundaries of the State in Modern Britain, ed. S. J. D. Green and R. C. Whiting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 261–278. By an act of Parliament on April 7, 1915, France denaturalized many naturalized French citizens born in enemy countries except those living in Alsace-Lorraine who had been French citizens before the Prussian victory in 1871; the minister of justice could in accordance with his own judgment decide which naturalized Frenchmen were worthy of retaining their French nationality. On the discretion exercised by national bureaucracies in the determination of national status, see James Wilford Garner, “Treatment of Enemy Aliens: Measures in Respect to Personal Liberty,” American Journal of International Law 12, no. 1 (1918): 27–55.

22M. Stoeck to Richard Redmayne, August 1914, Aliens Branch, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

23M. Rouse to Prisoner of War Department, August 9, 1916, Aliens Branch, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

24Stoeck to Redmayne, August 1914.

25Rouse to Prisoner of War Department, August 9, 1916.

26“Denationalized Germans,” Times Law Reports.

27In a letter to Whitehall, Stoeck’s solicitors noted that “a very large number of cases depend upon the decision of this action.” Cruesemann and Rouse to Under Secretary of State, Whitehall, February 9, 1921, Aliens Branch, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO. Also see the decision of the Belgian Court of Cassation of January 10, 1921, in Procureur-General v. Schneider. The court upheld the right of an “alien of indeterminate nationality” to oppose the order to seize the movable property of enemy aliens. Also see the Court of Appeals of Ghent of February 1, 1924, in Belgian State v. Haupert and de Vuyst. Cited in André Colanéri, De la condition des “sans-patrie,” étude critique de l’heimatlosat (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1932), 176.

28“Denationalized Germans,” Times Law Reports.

29Memorandum, May 27, 1921, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO. A lawyer from Lincoln’s Inn reviewed the issue of “stateless” German nationals based on the Treaty of Peace in 1919 and offered some general remarks on the varying evidence requirements between those born stateless and those claiming to have lost their nationality due to the details of the German law, but added, “I do not pretend to be familiar with German law … the questions I have drafted should be submitted to someone in the Foreign Office better qualified than I am to deal with this subject.” BT 103/482.

30Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee.

31In the later nineteenth century, British courts had begun moving toward the establishment of a rule that recognition would be denied if a foreign judgment contravened rules of natural justice. See Peter North, “Private International Law in Twentieth Century England,” ed. Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann Jurists Uprooted: Émigré Lawyers in Twentieth Century Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 483–517.

32Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, “The Empire Effect,” Public Culture 24, no. 2 (2012): 239–247; Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Gerrit W. Gong, The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984); Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 174.

33File: Alien Restrictions, Aliens Branch, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

34Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee.

35Cruesemann and Rouse to Under Secretary of State, Whitehall, February 9, 1921, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

36Cruesemann and Rouse to Under Secretary of State, February 9, 1921. It only helped Stoeck’s claim that he had left before the passage of a law that allowed German subjects to retain their nationality even after settling elsewhere and to transmit German citizenship to their children. See Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 115–119.

37Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee. See Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood, 21, 195.

38He also cited the facts that the German military law of 1913 imposes the burden of military service on stateless persons and that the position of a stateless person is recognized in article 29 of the German Introductory Statute of 1896. Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee.

39“Denationalized Germans,” Times Law Reports.

40Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee.

41According to the British constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey, British judges should take into account the rules of a foreign government if the case demanded it, “distributing property for example as an Italian judge would.” Russell, by contrast, did not attempt to discern German law. Instead, he deferred to the testimony of the legal experts from Germany that Cruesemann and Rouse had brought before the court. Dicey, A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws (London: Stevens, 1908), 715.

42“Denationalized Germans,” Times Law Reports.

43Edmund Burke, “Inquiry into the Seizure of Private Property in St. Eustatius,” in The Speeches of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke in The House of Commons and in Westminster Hall (Piccadilly: Longman, 1816), 11:251. On Burke’s invocation of the law of nations in the case of the property seizure and banishment of the Jews of St. Eustatius, see Jennifer Pitts, Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2018), 98. On the context of imperial reform, see Richard Bourke, Empire and Revolution: The Political Life of Edmund Burke (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015), 434–438. On the concept of the outlaw in international thought generally, see Renée Jeffery, “The Wolf at the Door: Hospitality and the Outlaw in International Relations,” in Hospitality and World Politics, ed. Gideon Baker (London: Palgrave, 2013), 124–145.

44According to the corpus iuris civilis, the medieval codification of Roman law, Roman citizens deported as a punishment lost the rights and privileges that derived from a connection to civil law, but retained the rights that derived from the law of nations. See Cornelius M. Riethdorf, Citizenship, Exile, and Natural Rights in Medieval Roman Law, 1200–1400 (PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, 2016).

45Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795); James H. Keitner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 278–280. On nationality and its accompanying paperwork in the age of revolution, see Nathan Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors: Becoming American in the Age of Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2015).

46Jean-Pierre Tabin, Arnaud Frauenfelder, and Carola Togni, “The Recipients of Public Welfare: The Example of Two Swiss Cantons around 1890,” Social History 34, no. 3 (2009): 321–338.

47Jean Holloway, Edward Everett Hale: A Biography (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1956), 238.

48“A Man without a Country—a Curious Article,” The Atlantic Monthly, December 28, 1863. On statelessness in American history, see Linda Kerber, “The Stateless as the Citizen’s Other: A View from the United States,” American Historical Review 112, no. 1 (2007): 1–34.

49In 1865, Denmark ceded the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia. After the cession, the inhabitants of these provinces were granted the right to opt for either Danish or Prussian nationality. The children of those who had opted for Danish nationality but had not been expelled were regarded as stateless by the Prussian government and were required to be formally naturalized before being granted citizenship at the discretion of the Prussian government. Erik Goldstein, War and Peace Treaties: 1816–1991 (London: Routledge, 1992), 9.

50The development of nationality regulations allowed governments to expand their territorial control over populations that evaded incorporation such as the Roma in Central Europe and Native Americans in the United States. The Russian and Habsburg Empires encouraged “undesirable” populations to emigrate but developed new mechanisms for maintaining an increasingly tight grip on the subjects they wished to retain. David M. Crowe, “The International and Historical Dimensions of Romani Migration in Central and Eastern Europe,” Nationalities Papers 31, no. 1 (2003): 81–94; Tara Zahra, “‘Condemned to Rootlessness and Unable to Budge’: Roma, Migration Panics, and Internment in the Habsburg Empire,” American Historical Review 122, no. 3 (2017): 702–726. On the growth of state control over the territorial interior of states over the course of the nineteenth century, see Charles Maier, Leviathan 2.0: Inventing Modern Statehood (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014).

51The Ottoman nationality law of 1869 gave the Ottoman government the authority to adjudicate matters relating to nationality, often involving the legal status of the children and wives of foreigners, as well as of emigrants. David Gutman, “Travel Documents, Mobility Control, and the Ottoman State in an Age of Global Migration, 1880–1915,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 2 (2016): 347–368.

52In the mid-nineteenth century, the convenience of establishing clear agreements between countries over the recognition of each sovereign’s respective rules regarding naturalization led to the multiplication of treaties, such as the Bancroft Treaties, between the United States and other countries, governing the nationality of children born in foreign territories. Patrick Weil, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 83.

53Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood, 27.

54The role of this group in the creation of a hierarchical international order has been the focus of recent scholarship. See Pitts, Boundaries of the International. Rose Parfitt, The Process of International Legal Reproduction: Inequality, Historiography, Resistance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).

55Ludwig von Bar, The Theory and Practice of Private International Law, trans. G. R. Gillespie (Edinburgh: William Green, 1892), 111. Compare the definition of state in a German encyclopedia from the 1860s: “the collectivity of sedentary peoples that is united into a moral organic personality under the superior force driven by their common interest.” Cited in Holly Case, Between States: The Transylvanian Question and the European Idea during World War II (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 14.

56See Maier, Leviathan 2.0, 156; William Novak, Stephen Sawyers, and James Sparrow, “Toward a History of the Democratic State,” Tocqueville Review 33, no. 2 (2012): 7–18. See also, for example, Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Theory of the State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885). Theodore Woolsey’s Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1860 does not mention the term stateless, though he has one passing reference to persons of “no nationality” in the context of a discussion of belligerents and neutrals in the laws of war: “the neutral ought to discharge the duties of humanity to both belligerents, for these are still due even to an enemy, and are due to persons of no nationality.” (Boston: J. Munroe, 1860), 356.

57See Lauren Benton and Lisa Ford, Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016); Stuart Banner, Possessing the Pacific: Land, Settler, and Indigenous People from Australia to Alaska (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). On the partitioning of Africa among the colonial powers in 1884, see Koskenniemi, Gentle Civilizer of Nations, chap. 2.

58David Dudley Field, Outline of an International Code, 2nd ed. (New York: Baker, Voorhis, 1876), 130.

59See von Bar, Private International Law, 209; John William Burgess, Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law (Boston: Ginn, 1891), 52; Anthony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). On the emergence of the historical distinction between “the domestic and the foreign” or the “municipal and the international” in international thought, see David Armitage, Foundations of Modern International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 10.

60Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee.

61Abigail Green, “Intervening in the Jewish Question, 1840–1878,” in Humanitarian Intervention: A History, ed. Brendan Simms and D. J. B. Trim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 139–159; Abigail Green, “The British Empire and the Jews: An Imperialism of Human Rights?,” Past and Present 199, no. 1 (2008): 175–205; Constantin Iordachi, “The Unyielding Boundaries of Citizenship: The Emancipation of ‘Non-Citizens’ In Romania, 1866–1918,” European Review of History 8, no. 2 (2001): 157–186. On the history of humanitarian intervention, see Davide Rodogno, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815–1914 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012). Also see Max Kohler and Simon Wolf, Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan States: American Contributions toward Their Removal, with Particular Reference to the Congress of Berlin (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1916). Joshua Starr, “Jewish Citizenship in Rumania,” Jewish Social Studies 3, no. 1 (1941): 57–80.

62Duncan Kelly, “Popular Sovereignty as State Theory,” in Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective, ed. Richard Bourke and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 283. On international humanitarian law and the disciplining of democratic nationalism in the nineteenth century, see Eyal Benvenisti and Doreen Lustig, “Taming Democracy: Codifying the Laws of War to Restore the European Order, 1856–1874,” (Legal Studies Research Paper Series, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, June 2017).

63J. C. Bluntschli, Roumania and the Legal Status of the Jews in Roumania, an Exposition of Public Law (London: Anglo-Jewish Association, 1879), 17. On Romania as a symbol in Anglophone literature for legal inequality within a “civilized” state, see H. S. Q. Henriques and Ernest J. Schuster, “Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis?,” Problems of the War 3 (1917): 119–131.

64On the rise of statelessness as a common issue in private law cases in Egypt, see William Hanley, “International Lawyers without Public International Law: The Case of Late Ottoman Egypt,” Journal of the History of International Law 18, no. 1 (2016), 98–119.

65Legal publicists began to address the status of people with no national status after a series of international scandals involving migrants from the Russian and Habsburg Empires. In 1879, George Cogordan, a French diplomat and advisor to the foreign ministry, drew particular attention to the Russian emigrants to Argentina, who were denied reentry to Russia, in his treatise La nationalité au point de vue des rapports internationaux. The case of the Russian emigrants in Buenos Aires appeared in a number of other treatises on the nature of nationality and protection and the obligation of the Russian government. Ludwig von Bar’s treatise on international private law from 1892 cited the examples of the Saratow colonists who emigrated to Brazil from Russia but eventually returned to Russia, despite Russia’s original unwillingness to accept them. Von Bar, Private International Law, 160, note 7. Tara Zahra, The Great Departure: Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World (New York: W. W. Norton, 2016).

66Chancery Division, Stoeck v. Public Trustee; William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1884); Franz Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechts: Auf Grundlage Europäischer (Berlin, 1885).

67See James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations: A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities, 2 vols. (London: W. Blackwood, 1883), 1:334–347; “Règles internationales sur l’admission et l’expulsion des etrangers, 9 September 1892 (1892–1894),” 12 Annuaire IDI, http://www.idi-iil.org/idiF/resolutionsF/1892_gen_01_fr.pdf.

68Von Bar, Private International Law. In his widely used treatise on international private law, the French jurist André Weiss, who had served as the legal advisor to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, cited possible causes of loss of nationality including: emigration, evasion of military duties, acceptance of service with foreign governments, loss of nationality as a penalty, and marriage. Weiss, Traité élémentaire de droit international privé (Paris: L. Larose & Forcel, 1890).

69See David Miller, Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 5. On refugee relief in British history, see Caroline Shaw, Britannia’s Embrace: Modern Humanitarianism and the Imperial Origins of Refugee Relief (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). On moral panics produced by immigration, see Saskia Sassen, Guests and Aliens (New York: New Press, 1999), chap. 6.

70U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); On the broader context of the case, see, Beth Lew Williams, The Chinese Must Go: Violence, Exclusion, and the Making of the Alien in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).

71Kai Raustiala, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); Christina Duffy Burnett and Burke Marshall, eds., Foreign in a Domestic Sense: Puerto Rico, American Expansion, and the Constitution (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001); Gerald Neuman, Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); Robert C. McGreevey, Borderline Citizens: The United States, Puerto Rico, and the Politics of Colonial Migration (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018).

72Frederick Coudert, “Our New Peoples: Citizens, Subjects, Nationals or Aliens,” Columbia Law Review 3, no. 1 (1903): 13–32.

73Coudert, “Our New Peoples,” 13–32; Frederick Coudert, “The Evolution of the Doctrine of Territorial Incorporation,” Columbia Law Review 26, no. 7 (1926): 823–850. Coudert’s conceptual gymnastics struck the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes as problematically contradictory in light of the widespread condemnation of Romania’s treatment of its Jewish subjects. In 1903, Holmes wrote to Frederick Pollock, a British legal theorist, about one of the US Insular Cases, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico owed allegiance to the United States but nonetheless remained alien. Holmes dryly commented, “The only parallel I can think of is the position assigned, in defiance of treaties, to the Jews in Roumania, against which the US has been protesting.” Oliver Wendell Holmes to Frederick Pollock, January 17, 1903, in Holmes-Pollock Letters: The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Sir Frederick Pollock 1874–1932, ed. Mark DeWolfe Howe (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1942), 111. The history of citizenship in the French metropole also revealed a core distinction between the active citizenship of male property owners and the more inclusive definition of French nationals in the first half of the nineteenth century. Peter Sahlins, Unnaturally French: Foreign Citizens in the Old Regime and After (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 312. In the British Empire, non-European British subjects and British protected persons could not become fully naturalized members of the British Empire. Daniel Gorman, Imperial Citizenship: Empire and the Question of Belonging (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), 164.

74See Mathias Schmoeckel, “The Internationalist as a Scientist and Herald: Lassa Oppenheim,” European Journal of International Law 11, no. 3 (2000): 699–712.

75Treatises divide between jurists who believe that international law functioned as the “gentle civilizer” of nations and the strict legal positivists who seek to place international law on more secure theoretical foundations. See Benedict Kingsbury, “Legal Positivism as Normative Politics: International Society, Balance of Power and Lassa Oppenheim’s Positive International Law,” European Journal of International Law 13 (2002): 401–436.

76Schmoeckel, “Internationalist as a Scientist and Herald.”

77Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1 (London: Longmans, Green, 1905). Also see Sir Francis Taylor Piggott, Nationality, including Naturalization and English Law on the High Seas and beyond the Realm (London: W. Clowes, 1906), 1; Piggott, Extraterritoriality: The Law Relating to Consular Jurisdiction and to Residence in Oriental Countries (London: Butterworth, 1907). Piggott was a British jurist who served as chief justice of Hong Kong from 1905 to 1912.

78Oppenheim, International Law, 1:366. Jurists debated the significance of the Romanian Jewish case for the meaning of the rights of humanity. See Fedor Martens, Traité de Droit International (Paris: Chevalier-Marescq, 1883); Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Droit International Codifié (Paris: Guillaumin, 1874).

79On the metaphor of the lawless sea, see Hans Blumenberg, Shipwreck with Spectator (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997); “A Man without a Country: Neither Cuba nor United States Will Have Him and Ward Line Is in Quandary,” New York Tribune, November 13, 1902.

80Piggott, Nationality, 1.

81J. Westlake and A. F. Topham, A Treatise on Private International Law: With Principal Reference to Its Practice in England (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1905); von Bar, Private International Law. See also Will Hanley, “Statelessness, an Invisible Theme in the History of International Law,” European Journal of International Law 25, no. 1 (2014): 326; Mary Lewis, Divided Rule: Sovereignty and Empire in French Tunisia, 1881–1938 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014).

82F. Meili, International Civil and Commercial Law as Founded upon Theory, trans. Arthur Kuhn (New York: Macmillan, 1905), 123.

83Will Hanley, “What Ottoman Nationality Was and Was Not,” Journal of Ottoman and Turkish Studies 3, no. 2 (2016): 277–298.

84E. S. Zeballos, La nationalité au point de vue de la législation comparée et du droit privé humain (Paris: Université de Buenos-Aires, 1914), 1155. In his work on nationality and private law, Zeballos developed the doctrine of the extraterritoriality of domicile in private law, which favored foreign companies in Latin America. He noted, however, that when it came to the status of a person without any national ties, “English law” was “silent on the subject.”

85Anonymous, “Notes,” Law Quarterly Review 37 (1921): 407; Anonymous, “Recent Decisions,” Michigan Law Review 50, no. 1 (1921): 139–170. On Stoeck and the legal foundations of “world citizenship,” see Edward A. Harriman, “Virginia’s Influence on International Law,” Virginia Law Review 12, no. 2 (1925–1926): 135–145; Chester Rohrlich, “World Citizenship,” St. John’s Law Review 6, no. 2 (1931–1932): 246–257.

86Edwin M. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (New York: Banks Law, 1915). Borchard cited legal treatises by Felix Stoerck, an Austrian professor of public law who coined the term volkerrechtsindigenat to define a “citizen of the world” who enjoyed rights by virtue of his or her humanity, and by Oppenheim and von Bar. On the emergence of a transatlantic civil-liberties movement during World War I, see John Witt, “Crystal Eastman and the Internationalist Beginnings of American Civil Liberties,” Duke Law Journal 54, no. 3 (2004): 705–763.

87“An Interned German’s Appeal,” The Times, July 27, 1915; Stoeck v. Public Trustee, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

88“A Claim to Be of No Nationality, Ex Parte Antonius Charles Frederick Weber,” The Times, February 18, 1916; Stoeck v. Public Trustee, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO.

89Similarly, in Simon v. Phillips, a case brought before the High Court of Justice in January 1916, Simon contended that he was not an enemy alien but a person of no nationality. Simon had received a discharge of nationality from Germany after emigrating to America in 1887. He was naturalized as an American citizen in 1894, but due to living and working in London until the outbreak of the war, he lost his status in the United States by failing to register with the American consulate until January 1915. When he claimed to be stateless, the magistrate agreed with the argument that the letter from the American consulate could not be admitted as legal evidence. See “A Claim to Be of No Nationality: Simon v. Phillips,” London Times, Law Report, January 19, 1916.

90“Protection of Egyptian Local Subjects by Foreign Powers,” November 5, 1915, Intelligence Department War Office, FO 141/468, TNA: PRO. In Simon v. Phillips, the court cited a treatise by Westlake on private international law stating that in the absence of the applicability of foreign law a person’s national status was to be determined in accordance with English law.

91“International Law. Nationality. Statelessness,” Yale Law Journal 27, no. 6 (April 1918): 840–841. See also Kornfeld v. Attorney General, Tribunal Civil de la Seine, June 20, 1915, reported in Clunet 44 (1917): 638.

92On comparative law and the field of nationality law, see Helen Silving, “Nationality in Comparative Law,” American Journal of Comparative Law 5, no. 3 (1956): 410–442.

93Public Trustee Office to Colonial Office, October 2, 1922, CO/323/898/18.

94Release of Property Hugo Hoffman, September 22, 1922, Miscellaneous Correspondence Colonial Office 1922, CO/323/898, TNA: PRO.

95Memo from the British Board of Trade on the case of P. G. Ernst, 1922, BT 58/2599, TNA: PRO. Pitt Cobbett’s Leading Cases on International Law cited Weber (1916), Liebmann (1916), and Stoeck v. Public Trustee (1921) on the question of discharge of nationality. Stoeck was acknowledged as a leading case in a 1925 dispute between a claimant, Otto Johann Ettinger, arguing that he was a stateless person—and British officials in Cairo—who maintained that the claimant remained a German subject and was therefore subject to property seizure according to the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty. Office of the Public Custodian to the Foreign Office, January 23, 1925, Nationality: Protection of Egyptian Local Subjects by Foreign Powers, FO 141/468, TNA: PRO.

96“The Advantage of No Nationality,” Times, July 11, 1922; Stoeck v. Public Trustee, HO 144/11489, TNA: PRO. In his essay Roman Catholicism and Political Form from 1923, the German jurist Carl Schmitt offered a neat formulation of the concept of sovereignty that mirrored Russell’s reasoning. According to Schmitt, “the power to decide who is sovereign would signify a new sovereignty.” See Carl Schmitt, Roman Catholicism and Political Form, trans. G. L. Ulmen (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996), 30.

97See for example Luther v. Sagor, English High Court (King’s Bench Division), December 21, 1920. On the public law nature of nationality legislation across interwar Europe, see Silving, “Nationality in Comparative Law.” On the novel emphasis among British imperial officials on the international order as one of formally sovereign states, see Frank Trentmann, Philippa Levine, and Kevin Grant, eds., Beyond Sovereignty: Britain, Empire and Transnationalism, 1880–1950 (New York: Palgrave, 2007); Susan Pedersen, “Getting Out of Iraq—in 1932: The League of Nations and the Road to Normative Statehood,” American Historical Review 115, no. 4 (October 2010): 975–1000. On the general absence of the term state in British political thought, see Janet McLean, Searching for the State in British Legal Thought: Competing Conceptions of the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

98“Recent Cases,” Harvard Law Review 35, no. 2 (1921–1922): 201–213.

99“Ueber doppelte Staatsangehörigkeit und Staatenlosigkeit nach englischem Recht,” Deutsche Juristen Zeitung 31, no. 6 (1926): 432–433.

100American Society of International Law Proceedings 19, no. 78 (1925): 80–81. Weil, Sovereign Citizen, 81. Vivek Bald, Bengali Harlem and the Lost Histories of South Asian America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 2. Between sixty and one hundred South Asians in the United States were deprived of naturalized US citizenship in the mid-1920s. Joan M. Jensen, Passage from India: Asian Indian Immigrants in North America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988). On Das, see Tappan Mukherjee, Taraknath Das: Life and Letters of a Revolutionary in Exile (Calcutta: National Council of Education in Bengal, 1997). On Mary Das, see Nancy F. Cott, “Marriage and Women’s Citizenship in the United States, 1830–1934,” American Historical Review 103, no. 5 (1998): 1467. Second-class citizenship in US history has often turned into formal noncitizenship for women and minorities. See Kunal Parker, Making Foreigners: Immigration and Citizenship Law in America, 1600–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

101B. Traven, The Death-Ship: The Story of an American Sailor, trans. Eric Sutton (London: J. Cape, 1934). Compare John Torpey’s analysis of The Death Ship. Torpey, “The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Passport System,” in Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World, ed. Jane Caplan and John Torpey (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 256–270. On Traven’s associations with the anarchist wing of the Munich Soviet in 1919 see George Woodcock, “Traven Identified,” London Review of Books 2, no. 13 (1980): 9–11. E. E. Hale, The Man without a Country (Boston: Little, Brown, 1898), 448–479. In his study on international law from 1925, Sterling Edmunds quoted Oppenheim when he described the person with no nationality as “an individual who may be forced to tolerate an existence without hope of setting his foot upon land again.” Edmunds, The Lawless Law of Nations: An Exposition of Prevailing Arbitrary International Legal System in Relation to Its Influence upon Civil Liberty (Washington, DC: J. Byrne, 1925), 248. In 1916, an American newspaper painted a particularly affecting portrait of Nathan Cohen, who “betrayed, insane, and speechless was tossed about the sea for 40,000 miles while every nation at whose door he knocked turned him away.” The newspaper reported that this man, who remained on a boat of the Lamport and Holt shipping line for over a year, was a “brooding haggard specimen of a man, without speech and without memory.” “Outcast Finds Home in Death,” New York Tribune, March 6, 1916, 16.

102Under the company name Concordia elektrizitats AG, Max Stoeck submitted a patent for “improvements in or relating to hand fire extinguishers” in 1927. UK Patent 288500-A, http://patent.ipexl.com/GB/288500ZZDASHZZA.html.

2. POSTIMPERIAL STATES OF STATELESSNESS

1“Protest by M. Jakob Sinnwell against his expulsion from the Saar Territory,” October 4, 1921, Société des Nations: Administrative Commission of the Saar Basin (R106), LNA.

2F. M. Russell, “The Saar Basin Governing Commission,” Political Science Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1921): 169–183. On plebiscites in the region, see generally, James Bjork et al., eds., Creating Nationality in Central Europe, 1880–1950: Modernity, Violence and (Be)longing in Upper Silesia (London: Routledge, 2016).

3Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Anthony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 188.

4On the many interwar experiments in politics and governance undertaken after World War I because tradition and dynastic legitimacy ceased to provide principles of public order, see J. W. Muller, Contesting Democracy: Political Ideas in Twentieth Century Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 50. As Manu Goswami has argued, internationalisms prospered in the interwar era because “situated between empire and nation, internationalist intellectuals offered multiple visions of a non- imperial future.” Goswami, “Colonial Internationalisms and Imaginary Futures,” American Historical Review 117, no. 5 (2012): 1484.

5W. E. B. Du Bois, “The African Roots of War,” The Atlantic Monthly 115 (May 1915): 707–714.

6For David Ben Gurion, who would later become the first prime minister of the State of Israel, one could only place bets on which empires would triumph. As of 1915 Ben-Gurion anticipated that the Ottomans would triumph over the British in the war and that Jewish autonomy would arise in the context of the Ottoman Empire. See Dmitry Shumsky, Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 185–186.

7Robert Gerwarth, The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016); Leonard Smith, Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Volker Prott, The Politics of Self-Determination: Remaking Territories and National Identities in Europe, 1917–1923 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

8Robert Lansing, The Peace Negotiations—a Personal Narrative (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921), 97, cited in Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 42.

9“Procès-Verbal of the First Meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, January 16, 1920,” League of Nations Official Journal (February 1920); Stephen Wertheim, “The League that Wasn’t: American Designs for a Legalist-Sanctionist League of Nations and the Intellectual Origins of International Organization, 1914–1920,” Diplomatic History 35, no. 5 (2011): 797–836.

10Joshua Keating, Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 82.

11On the expansion of mechanisms to enact popular sovereignty after World War I through the League, see Sarah Wambaugh, The Doctrine of National Self- Determination: A Study of the Theory and Practice of Plebiscite, with a Collection of Official Documents (London: Oxford University Press, 1919); Sarah Wambaugh, La pratique des plébiscites internationaux (Paris: Hachette, 1928); Nathaniel Berman, “Sovereignty in Abeyance: Self-Determination and International Law,” Wisconsin International Law Journal 51, no. 7 (1988) 51–105.

12See Pedersen, Guardians.

13Though contested in Western states, women’s suffrage was an important part of the interwar plebiscites. An international movement of women who sought emancipation in their home countries strategically used the associational zone created by international organizations to agitate for their cause. On Wambaugh, see Karen Knop, “Women and Self-Determination in Europe after World War I,” in Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 277–327. See also Nathaniel Berman, “‘But the Alternative Is Despair’: European Nationalism and the Renewal of International Law,” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 1792 (1993): 1793–1808 (especially n316).

14Carsten Stahn, The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration: Versailles to Iraq and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Compare Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, 188. As an innovative legal solution, the Saar Commission brought the untamable elements of international life into legible order. See Berman, “Sovereignty in Abeyance.” Ann Laura Stoler, “On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty,” Public Culture 18, no. 1 (2006): 125–146.

15“Question of Danzig,” October 26, 1920, FO 893/8, TNA: PRO.

16Patricia Clavin, Securing the World Economy: The Reinvention of the League of Nations, 1920–1946 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 14.

17Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea (New York: Penguin, 2012), ch. 5 passim.; Patricia Clavin, “Interwar Internationalism: Conceptualizing Transnational Thought and Action, 1919–1939,” in International Reconfigured: Transnational Ideas and Movements between the World Wars, ed. Daniel Laqua (London: I. B. Tauris, 2011), 1–15; Daniel Gorman, The Emergence of International Society in the 1920s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

18M. J. Landa, The Man without a Country (London: Herbert Joseph), 14. See Jeanne Morefield, Covenants without Swords: Idealist Liberalism and the Spirit of Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 177. Carl Schmitt’s Verfassungslehre from 1928 argued that much of the legal scholarship on the League of Nations failed to distinguish between “international” and “interstate” organization: “When one continues to confuse pacifism with a federation of people (in the vague sense of peace and understanding among peoples), on the one hand, one can easily draw imaginary consequences.” Carl Schmitt, Constitutional Theory, trans. Jeffery Seitzer (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), 382.

19Siegfried Weichlein, “Europe und der Foderalismus: Zur Begriffsgeschichte politischer Ordnungsmodelle,” Historische Jahrbuch 125 (2005): 133–152; Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, The Emperor’s Old Clothes: Constitutional History and the Symbolic Language of the Holy Roman Empire, trans. Thomas Dunlap (New York: Berghahn Books, 2015).

20Georg Jellinek, Das Recht der Minoritäten (Vienna: A. Hölder, 1898); Edmund Bernatzik, Über nationale Matriken (Vienna: Manz, 1910). The Czech nationalist movement of the nineteenth century, along with the Croatian and Slovenian national movements, the Ukrainian national movement in Galicia and Sub-Carpathian Russia, the Austro-Galician faction of the Polish national movement, the Romanian national movement in Hungarian Transylvania, fought for a Staatsrecht for the nation, which meant national territorial autonomy within the existing imperial framework—a United States of Great Austria. See Dmitry Shumsky, Beyond the Nation-State, 80.

21In his 1899 essay “State and Nation,” the Austrian socialist politician Karl Renner proposed internationalization and juridification as two solutions to the tension between national groups within the empire. Members of national groups would form personal associations with a distinctive legal status—like a corporation—that did not accord with any particular territorial jurisdiction. In areas that remained mixed, national minorities would receive protection from an imperial parliament possessing what amounted to sovereignty in international matters. International frontiers would define a multinational federation in which nations were constituted as peoples rather than states. A personal principle, in which individuals carry the legal rights of their national status wherever they travel within the wider state, would replace a territorial one. For Renner, the modern state defined by its ultimate sovereignty over a territory and the subjects within it had led to a condition of endless social conflict. Rather than creating equal rights, different nationalities struggled over mastery of the state. Karl Renner, “State and Nation,” in National Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics, ed. Ephraim Nimni (London: Routledge, 2005), 15–47.

22Janne Nijman, “Minorities and Majorities,” in Oxford Handbook of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 116–117. On national claims for extraterritorial rights and authority at the turn of the century, see Simon Rabinovitch, Jewish Rights, National Rites: Nationalism and Autonomy in Late Imperial and Revolutionary Russia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014).

23Pieter Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 272; Brigitte Mazohl, “‘Equality among the Nationalities’ and the Peoples (Volksstämme) of the Habsburg Empire,” in Constitutionalism, Legitimacy, Power: Nineteenth Century Experiences, ed. Kelly Grotke and Marcus Prutsch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 107–127.

24See Kelly Grotke and Marcus Prutsch, “Constitutionalism, Legitimacy, and Power: Nineteenth-Century Experience,” in Constitutionalism, Legitimacy, Power: Nineteenth Century Experiences, ed. Kelly Grotke and Marcus Prutsch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 3–23. On British analogues from this period, see Duncan Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860–1900 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008). On constitutionalism and its relation to democracy, see Richard Tuck, The Sleeping Sovereign: The Invention of Modern Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

25In cooperation with the Allies, the Czechoslovak National Council was given the right to raise an army and to form a government in exile. See David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 132.

26Cited in Andrew Barker, Fictions from an Orphan State: Literary Reflections of Austria between Habsburg and Hitler (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2012), 5.

27Mark Levene, War, Jews, and the New Europe: The Diplomacy of Lucien Wolf, 1914–1919 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 179.

28Judson, Habsburg Empire, 266.

29The rise of a “minority congress” indicated a shared sense of political interest and fate. The minorities section of the League secretariat fielded frequent complaints about its administrative structure when minority groups protested their exclusion from investigatory and reporting processes. Zara Steiner, The Lights That Failed: European International History, 1919–1933 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 363–365.

30On the idea that the League’s minority protection regime provided the foundation for the expansion of internationally guaranteed human rights after World War II, see A. W. Brian Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), chap. 3. On the minorities of central Europe and the stateless as “cousins-germane” see Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 268.

31Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 19.

32On the concept of political stabilization, see Charles Maier, “The Two Postwar Eras and the Conditions for Stability,” American Historical Review 86, no. 2 (1981): 327–352; Charles Maier, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975). As Maier argued, a key strategy for stabilizing the European postwar order involved a careful delineation between matters defined as “political,” which called for political contestation over the allocation of resources and the nature of rule, and those defined as “technical,” dependent on procedures sequestered from political deliberation and conflict.

33Steiner, Lights That Failed, 365–366.

34The decree stated, “persons who left Russia after November 7, 1917, without the authorization of the Soviet authorities were to be deprived of the rights of Russian citizenship.” Eric Lohr, Russian Citizenship from Empire to Soviet Union (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 151–152; Richard Flournoy and Manley Hudson, A Collection of Nationality Laws of Various Countries as Contained in Constitutions, Statues, and Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1929), 511.

35Andre Prudhomme, “La Révolution bolchevique et le statut juridique des russes,” Journal de Droit International 51, no. 1 (1924): 5–7.

36Landa, Man without a Country, 12.

37Dzovinar Kévonian, Réfugiés et diplomatie humanitaire: Les acteurs européens et la scène proche-orientale pendant l’entre deux-guerres (Paris: Sorbonne, 2004), 388–391.

38Peter Gatrell and Jo Laycock, “Armenia: The ‘Nationalization,’ Internationalization and Representation of the Refugee Crisis,” in Homelands: War, Population, and Statehood in Eastern Europe and Russia, 1918–1922, ed. Nick Baron and Peter Gatrell (London: Anthem, 2004), 187.

39“Report by Dr. Nansen, Repatriation of Prisoners of War,” Volkerrecht, Ligen/Volkerbund, box 78, Archiv der Republik, Vienna.

40Peter Gatrell and Nick Baron, Homelands: War, Population, and Statehood in Eastern Europe and Russia, 1918–1922 (London: Anthem, 2004), 206.

41M. Butler to Col. Amery, March 1921, “Russian Refugees: Origins of the Question of Assisting Them,” R201/1, Correspondence on Russian Refugees 1920–1921, Series R (1921–1940), Archives of the International Labor Organization, Geneva.

42Catherine Gousseff, L’exil russe: La fabrique du réfugié apatride, 1920–1939 (Paris: CNRS, 2008), 22. By the end of 1921, about twelve thousand refugees had settled in Bulgaria, and in 1922 thirty thousand more joined their numbers. The Czechoslovak republic granted refuge to Cossacks and other peasant groups. Russian prisoners of war who had been concentrated in Poland and eastern Germany remained there. The largest group to escape from Soviet-controlled Russia was in the Manchurian town of Harbin.

43Fridtjof Nansen, “The Suffering People of Europe,” Nobel Lecture, 1922. See http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1922/nansen-lecture.html.

44Marit Fosse and John Fox, Nansen: Explorer and Humanitarian (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books, 2016), 22–23.

45W. E. Butler, “Russian International Lawyers in Emigration: The First Generation,” Journal of the History of International Law 3, no. 1 (2001): 235–241.

46Eric Lohr, Nationalizing the Russian Empire: The Campaign against Enemy Aliens during World War I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 149.

47In an essay from 1905, Max Weber cited the Zemstvo Congresses of the revolution as evidence that Russia had experienced a form of government more free than that found in a state with a more centralized bureaucracy. Weber, “On the Situation of Constitutional Democracy in Russia,” in Weber: Political Writings, ed. Peter Lassman and Ronald Speirs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 34.

48Henri Reymond to T. F. Johnson, October 10, 1923, “Russian Attacks against the High Commissioner, 1921–1930,” C1277, LNA. On the fascist faction among the diaspora community see Michael Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

49Lohr, Russian Citizenship, 142.

50Marsha L. Rozenblit, Reconstructing a National Identity: The Jews of Habsburg Austria during World War I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 66. Panikos Panayi and Pippa Virdee, eds., Refugees and the End of Empire: Imperial Collapse and the Creation of Refugees in Twentieth Century Europe (New York: Palgrave, 2011); Julie Thorpe, “Displacing Empire: Refugee Welfare, National Activism and State Legitimacy in Austria-Hungary in World War One,” in Panayi and Virdee, Refugees, 102–127. Kévonian, Réfugiés et Diplomatie Humanitaire, 263; Peter Gatrell, A Whole Empire Walking: Refugees in Russia during World War I (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999).

51Maureen Healy, Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 164; Nicole Phelps, U.S. Habsburg Relations from 1815 to the Paris Peace Conference: Sovereignty Transformed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) 4.

52Cited in Joshua Starr, “Jewish Citizenship in Rumania,” Jewish Social Studies 3, no. 1 (1941): 67.

53Joseph Reich, December 10, 1923, “Assistance judiciare au faveur des ‘Heimatlose,’” R1287, LNA.

54F. Levy to the Permanent Court at The Hague, November 15, 1923, “Assistance judiciare au faveur des ‘Heimatlose,’” R1287, LNA.

55Åke Hammarskjöld to Eric Drummond, November 19, 1923, “Assistance judiciare au faveur des ‘Heimatlose,’” R1287, LNA. Hammarskjöld was a member of the secretariat of the League of Nations. He worked with the Committee of Jurists, which met in The Hague in 1920 to draft the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. See Manley Hudson, “In Memoriam: Ake Hammarskjold,” American Journal of International Law 31, no. 4 (1937): 703–704.

56“Case of Persons without Nationality,” November 26, 1923, “Assistance judiciare en faveur des ‘Heimatlos,’” R1287, LNA.

57Eric Drummond added a handwritten note to the memo which simply read “minorities treaties” to suggest that the fledgling regime of international oversight might ameliorate the problem. Ibid.

58“Addendum to Case of Persons without Nationality,” November 26, 1923, “Assistance judiciare en faveur des ‘Heimatlos,’” R1287, LNA. The memo also cited André Weiss, Traité théorique et pratique de droit international privé (Paris: L. Larose and Tenin, 1907).

59Ralf Michaels, “Private Lawyer in Disguise: On the Absence of Private Law and Private International Law in Martti Koskenniemi’s Work,” Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 27, no. 2 (2012): 499–521. See Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann, eds. The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

60Norman Bentwich, “Nationality in Mandated Territories Detached from Turkey,” British Yearbook of International Law 7, no. 1 (1926): 109.

61Under the British mandate, Palestine did not develop clear rules about Palestinian nationality until 1925. Individuals over eighteen born in Palestine and with Ottoman nationality who had habitual residence abroad as of August 1, 1925, could opt for citizenship. This option had to be taken up within two years from the date of the order. To be naturalized, non-Ottoman citizens were required to have been resident since 1922 and had to surrender any passport or laissez-passer on receipt of citizenship. Nationality legislation in turn provoked further questions about national identification. See Lauren Banko, “Imperial Questions and Social Identities,” Revue des Mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 137, no. 1 (2015): 95–114. The British government and Palestine administration adapted nationality laws in ways that distinguished between Arab and Jewish immigrants. Mutaz M. Quafisheh, The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality: A Legal Examination of Nationality in Palestine under Britain’s Rule (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008).

62Mark S. W. Hoyle, “The Mixed Courts of Egypt, 1926–1937,” Arab Law Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1987): 357–389. On the League’s active role in the transformation of the demographic and political make-up of the former Ottoman territories, see Umut Özsu, Formalizing Displacement: International Law and Population Transfers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 72–73.

63Manley O. Hudson, Research in International Law: Harvard Law School (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 1932).

64Richard W. Flournoy Jr., “Suggestions Concerning an International Code on the Law of Nationality,” Yale Law Review 35, no. 8 (1926): 939–955.

65Gousseff, L’exil russe, 244. Hannah Arendt later referred to the Russian refugees, and the Armenian and Assyro-Chaldean refugees assimilated into their legal rubric, as the “aristocracy” of all European stateless people during the interwar period. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books, 1951), 281. See also “Russian, Armenian, Assyrian, Assyro-Chaldean and Turkish Refugees: Execution of the Recommendation of the Eleventh Assembly,” League of Nations—Official Journal 12, no. 6 (1931): 1005.

66Sixteen states signed the final accord certifying the Nansen passport in July 1922. By 1926, forty states recognized the passport. See Gousseff, L’exil russe, 56.

67Austrian delegation to High Commissioner for Refugees, September 17, 1923, “Protection juridique et affaires judiciares,” Delegation in Austria, C1282/44, LNA.

68In 1921, the League of Nations stepped in to rescue Austria from hyperinflation and remained a key economic player until it formerly bowed out of national economic intervention in 1926. The League’s financial assistance programs were creditor-imposed infringements on sovereignty, similar to earlier colonial precedents in Egypt. Newspapers reported on the dangers of Austrian dependence on foreign loans, which came with the threat of military intervention if the debts remained unpaid. See Nathan Marcus, Austrian Reconstruction and the Collapse of Global Finance, 1921–1931 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).

69“Protection juridique et affaires judiciares,” C1282/44, LNA.

70Red Cross to the League, “The ‘Heimatlos’ Problem,” August 20, 1926, R1287, LNA.

71Roger Picard, “Les ‘sans-patrie’ et la S.D.N,” La paix par le droit 36, no. 2 (1926): 97–99.

72“Rider A to Napier Report Nationality in the Succession States of Austria-Hungary,” Refugees, Statelessness 1925–1935, International Federation League of Nations Societies, P98, LNA.

73Ibid.

74K. de Drachenfels, “La Comité International de la Croix-Rouge et le problème des ‘Heimatlose,’” Revue international de la Croix Rouge 8, no. 95 (1926): 870–877.

75Relief efforts on behalf of migrants reflected perceived differences between so-called Western and Eastern Jews. German Jewish philanthropic organizations like the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden, for example, treated the refugees from the East in ways that prefigured later brutal methods—including transportation in sealed railroad cars and delousing. See Steven Aschheim, Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in German and German Jewish Consciousness, 1800–1923 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982), 32–58. On the emergence of Ottoman and Habsburg policy toward refugees, especially Muslim refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars beginning in 1878, see Jared Mansanek, “Protection, Repatriation and Categorization: Refugees and Empire at the End of the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Refugee Studies 30, no. 2 (2017): 301–317.

76Lucien Wolf, “Notes on Staatenlose Question,” 1928, ACC/3121/C11/ 3/5/2, London Municipal Archive.

77Lucien Wolf to Eric Drummond, “La situation des ‘Heimatlos,’” September 14, 1926, R1287, LNA. Wolf later described the Board of Deputies in Great Britain as the only Jewish body that took effective action on the statelessness question by working with the Red Cross to bring the problem before the League council. Lucien Wolf to N. Rabin, March 14, 1929, ACC 321/C/11/5/2, Board of Deputies, London Municipal Archives.

78Dr. Heimroth to T. F. Johnson, “Extensions des measures en faveur des réfugiés russes at armeniens en faveur l’autre categories de réfugiés,” November 2, 1926, 1282/44, LNA.

79Red Cross to the League, “The ‘Heimatlos’ Problem.”

80B. S. Nicolas to the League, 1927, R59, LNA.

81Response from December 28, 1927, R59, LNA.

82Mackinnon Wood, Minute Sheet, R59, LNA.

83Memo from Monsieur Catastini, December 7, 1927, R59, LNA.

84Mandates section, re: Mr. Nicolas claim to Turkish nationality, December 15, 1927, R59, LNA. In a case brought before the Supreme Court of Poland, Rajdberg v. Lewi, in 1927, the Supreme Court of Poland held that “the plaintiff who has been deprived under Soviet law of Soviet nationality, could not be considered a Soviet national by other states, least of all by States (such as Poland) which had recognized de jure the Soviet republic.” The court added, “The plaintiff’s plea that he is a stateless person living in Berlin under the protection of the League of Nations could not be disregarded.” See Paul Weis, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (London: Stevens, 1956), 121.

85Sigismund Gargas, Die Staatenlosen (Leiden: Brill, 1928), 7.

86“Homeless: Comité mondial pour la défense des interets des gens sans nationalité reconnu,” July 15, 1928, Heimatlose 1925–1945, Series B CR 163, Archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

87Romain Rolland, “Adresse aux ‘Sans Etats’ Réunis à Geneve,” September 8, 1930, Situation des Apatrides: Correspondence Diverse, R3589, LNA. On Gandhi and Rolland, see Ruth Harris, “Rolland, Gandhi and Madeleine Slade: Spiritual Politics, France and the Wider World,” French History 27, no. 4 (2013): 579–599.

88I. S. K. Soboleff, Nansen Passport: Round the World on a Motorcycle (London: G. Bell, 1936), 89.

89Anna Fries, Memoirs of a Stateless Person (Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2013), 17. See Mary D. Lewis, Boundaries of the Republic: Migrant Rights and the Limits of Universalism in France, 1918–1940 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 159.

90Vladimir Nabokov, Pnin (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 46, quoted in Tobias Brinkmann, “Permanent Transit: Jewish Migration during the Interwar Period,” in 1929: Mapping the Jewish World, ed. Hasia Diner and Gennady Estraikh (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 53–72. See also Anna Fries, Memoirs of a Stateless Person (Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2013), 17.

91Eileen Scully, Bargaining with the State from Afar: American Citizenship in Treaty Port China, 1844–1942 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); Gousseff, L’exil russe, 39; Manley Hudson, “The Rendition of the International Mixed Court at Shanghai,” American Journal of International Law 21, no. 3 (1927), 451–471; Par Kristoffer Cassel, Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Kon Balin, Born Stateless: A Young Man’s Story, 1923–1957 (Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2009), 24.

92M. K. Gandhi, “Without Nationality,” Young India, February 14, 1929, in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 45 of 98 (New Delhi: Publication Division Government of India, 1999).

93Ajay Skaria, “Gandhi’s Politics: Liberalism and the Question of the Ashram,” South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 4 (2002): 955–986; Shruti Kapila, “Self, Spender, and Swaraj: Nationalist Thought and Critiques of Liberalism, 1890–1920,” in An Intellectual History for India, ed. Shruti Kapila (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 98–117.

94Tara Zahra, The Great Departure: Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World (New York: W. W. Norton, 2016).

95“Memorandum Presented by the Committee of Experts of Russian and Armenian Jurists on the Legal Status of Russian and Armenian Refugees,” 1928, Extensions des measures en faveur des réfugiés russes at armeniens en faveur l’autre categories de réfugiés, C1282/44, LNA.

96On the importance placed in the League of Nations on the division between activities that qualified as “political” from those that were “technical,” see Pittman B. Potter, “Note on the Distinction between Political and Technical Questions,” Political Science Quarterly 50, no. 2 (1935): 264–271.

97On Wolf’s struggle with Jewish leaders who envisioned minority rights in terms of the rights of collectivities, rather than the rights of individuals as members of particular groups, see Carol Fink, Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and International Minority Protection, 1878–1938 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chap. 5. Gabriella Safran and Steven J. Zipperstein, The Worlds of S. An-sky: A Russian Jewish Intellectual at the Turn of the Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), 454. Lucien Wolf, “Notes on Staatenlose Question,” 1928, ACC/3121/C/11/ 3/5/2, Board of Deputies, London Municipal Archive.

98Lucien Wolf, Russo-Jewish Refugees in Eastern Europe: Report on the Fourth Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the High Commissioner for Russian Refugees of the League of Nations Held in Geneva on April 20, 1923 (London: Joint Foreign Committee, 1923); Nansen Office to Lucien Wolf, November 6, 1921, R201/26/2, Réfugiés Russes, Series R-Refugees (1921–1940), Archives of the International Labor Organization; Lucien Wolf, Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question: With Texts of Protocols, Treaty Stipulations, Public Acts and Official Documents (London: Jewish Historical Society, 1919).

99Lucien Wolf to Polish Foreign Ministry, December 9, 1926, Heimatlose 1925–1945, Series B CR 163, Archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

100Cited in Gousseff, L’exil russe, 227. On Mirkine-Guetzevitch, see Dzovinar Kévonian, “Question des réfugiés, droits de l’homme: Eléments d’une convergence pendant l’entre deux-guerres,” Matériaux pour l’histoire de notre temps 72 (2003): 40–49.

3. POSTIMPERIAL FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL ORDER

1Mark Vishniak, “Le statut international des apatrides,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de la Haye 43 (1933): 246. Robert Johnston, “New Mecca, New Babylon”: Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920–1945 (Kingston, ON: McGill Queen’s University Press, 1988), 20. Obituaries, “Mark Vishniak, Russian Expert,” New York Times, September 3, 1976, 14.

2I. G. Lipovano, L’Apatridie (Paris: Les Éditions Internationales, 1935), 27. On the idea that the invention of new terms such as apatride and stateless defined a new kind of mass vulnerability, compare Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914–1991 (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 50.

3Ibid., 2. The Trésor de la Langue Française affirms that “apatride” is a neologism dating to 1928. Trésor de la Langue Française: Dictionnaire de la langue du XIXe et du XXe siècle (1789–1960) vol. 3 (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1974), 202. On the idea of the status of individuals in international law as the “question of questions,” Lipovano cited Alfred de Lapradelle’s introduction to Paul Gramain’s Les droits internationaux de l’homme in reference to the Josef Kohler citation. See Alfred de Lapradelle, introduction to Les droits internationaux de l’homme, by Paul Gramain (Paris: Éditions Internationales, 1933), 11; Joseph Kohler, “International Law: A Treatise by Professor Oppenheimer,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 18 (1913): 117. Kohler (1849–1919) was a German legal philosopher associated with neo-Hegelianism and pacifism active in the period before World War I. Against the idea that only states represented the subjects of international law, Kohler defended the idea that private individuals and companies—railway companies, banks, international commissions—counted as legal agents within international society. See Kohler, Völkerrecht als Privatrechtstitel, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht 2 (1908): 209–230. Also see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 211–215, 314–315.

4Vishniak, “Le statut international des apatrides,” 246.

5Published as “Politik als Beruf,” [1921] in Gesammelte Politische Schriften (Munich: Drei Masken, 1921), cited in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 77–128.

6On Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political as the condition for the modern state and how his account skirts the question of how political communities are constituted in the first place, see Samuel Moyn, “Concepts of the Political in Twentieth-Century European Thought,” in The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt, ed. Jens Meierhenrich and Oliver Simons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 291–312.

7M. Herbert Croly, “The Future of the State,” New Republic, September 15, 1917, cited in Harold Laski, Introduction to Law in the Modern State, by Léon Duguit (New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1919), xxxi. On the “moral limitations of a purely national territorial state” in light of global war and the international consciousness around the League of Nations, see Radhakamal Mukerjee, Democracies of the East: A Study in Comparative Politics (London: P. S. King, 1923), v–vi, cited in Karuna Mantena, “On Gandhi’s Critique of the State: Sources, Contexts, Conjunctures,” Modern Intellectual History 9, no. 3 (2012): 535–563.

8V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2014), 37. On the turn to Hobbes in European thought in the 1920s, see Richard Hönigswald, Hobbes und die Staatsphilosophie (Munich: Reinhardt, 1924); Ferdinand Tönnies, Thomas Hobbes Leben und Lehre (Stuttgart: Fromann, 1925); Werner Becker, Die Politische Systematik der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes (thesis, Rheinisches Friedrich Wilhelms Universität zu Bonn, 1928); Adolfo Levi, La Filosofia di Tommaso Hobbes (Milano: Societa editrice Dante Alighieri, 1929). John P. McCormick, “Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany,” Political Theory 22, no. 4 (1994): 619–652; David Armitage, “Hobbes and the Foundation of International Thought,” in Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, ed. Annabel Brett and James Tully (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 219–235; Brian Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998).

9Leo Strauss, “Notes on Carl Schmitt,” in The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 99. See also Hugo Krabbe, The Modern Idea of the State, trans. George H. Sabine (New York: D. Appleton, 1922); Otto Hintze, Wesen und Wandlung des Modernen Staates (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931). On the state as the basic concept of jurisprudence, see Herman Kantorowicz, “The Concept of the State,” Economica 35 (1932): 1–21. On the prevalence of questions in the nineteenth century, see Holly Case, The Age of Questions, or A First Attempt at an Aggregate History of the Eastern, Social, Woman, American, Jewish, Polish, Bullion, Tuberculosis, and Many Other Questions over the Nineteenth Century, and Beyond (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018).

10David Armitage, “The Fifty Year’s Rift: Intellectual History and International Relations,” Modern Intellectual History 1, no. 1 (2004): 87–109; Michael Goebel, Anti-Imperial Metropolis: Interwar Paris and the Seeds of Third World Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

11Jean Spiropoulos (1896–1972) was a professor of international law in Salonica. Jean Spiropoulos, “L’individu et le droit international,” Recueil des Cours 30 (1929): 191–270.

12Herbert Glücksmann, Ausländer und Staatenlose als Kläger im Zivilprozess (Breslau: Charlottenburg, 1930). See also Schulim Segal, L’individu en droit international positif (Paris: Librarie du Recueil Sirey, 1932), 163.

13“Crises” dominated a range of intellectual fields from philosophy to literature in interwar Europe. Peter Gordon, Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 43–52 passim. On the political role of international lawyers in the late nineteenth century, see Mark Mazower, Governing the World: The History of an Idea (New York: Penguin, 2012), 77–81. Aimee M. Genell, “The Well-Defended Domains: Eurocentric International Law and the Making of the Ottoman Office of Legal Counsel,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 2 (2016): 255–275. International lawyers trained in France had seen their scholarly output as a contribution to French constitutional thought and to shoring up state authority in the face of social and economic crisis. David Bates, “Political Unity and the Spirit of Law: Juridical Concepts of the State in the Late Third Republic,” French Historical Studies 28, no. 1 (2005): 69–101.

14Benjamin Coates, Legalist Empire: International Law and American Foreign Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016); Stephen Wertheim, “The League of Nations: A Retreat from International Law?” Journal of Global History 7, no. 2 (2012): 210–232. David Kennedy, Of War and Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 68–83; Koskenniemi, Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 237.

15Mathias Schmoeckel, “Lassa Oppenheim and His Reaction to World War I,” in Peace Treaties and International Law in European History: From the Late Middle Ages to World War One, ed. Randall Lesaffer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 270–288.

16Isabel Hull, A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014); James W. Garner, International Law and the World War (London: Longmans, Green, 1920); Mark Lewis, The Birth of the New Justice: The Internationalization of Crime and Punishment, 1919–1950 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 33.

17On this point see Debora R. Coen, Vienna in the Age of Uncertainty: Science, Liberalism, and Private Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 88–90. See generally James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

18On Ben Gurion’s legal studies in Salonika, see Simon Rabinovitch, “Diaspora, Nation, and Messiah: An Introductory Essay,” in Jews and Diaspora Nationalism: Writings on Jewish Peoplehood in Europe and the United States, ed. Simon Rabinovitch (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012), xxxi.

19Piotr Wandycz, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795–1918 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1974), 350.

20Philippe Sands, East-West Street: On the Origins of “Genocide” and “Crimes against Humanity” (New York: Knopf, 2016), 76–79.

21Hersch Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law: With Special Reference to International Arbitration (London: Longmans, Green, 1927), 82n2. On the idea that the legality of international legal order depends on the fact that its guardians are lawyers who “create certain categories of orderly behavior and state expectations,” see Nicholas Onuf, “International Legal Order as an Idea,” American Journal of International Law 73, no. 2 (1979): 266.

22Philip Jessup to Edwin Borchard, October 5, 1926, box A4, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress. See Mark Weston Janis, America and the Law of Nations, 1776–1939 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 206; Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of Global Order, 1916–1931 (London: Penguin, 2015).

23Quincy Wright, “Sovereignty of the Mandates,” American Journal of International Law 17, no. 4 (1923): 691–703; Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), ch. 7, passim; James Garner, “Limitations on National Sovereignty in International Relations,” American Political Science Review 19, no. 1 (1925): 1–24.

24Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), vii.

25Segal, L’individu, 163–164.

26M. Korowicz, “The Problem of the International Personality of Individuals,” American Journal of International Law 50, no. 3 (1956): 533–562.

27Edwin Borchard, “International Law,” in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (London: Macmillan, 1932).

28Clyde Eagleton to Manley Hudson, September 2, 1929, box 52, Manley O. Hudson Papers, Harvard University Law School Library.

29Lassa Oppenheim, The League of Nations and Its Problems: Three Lectures (London: Longmans, Green, 1919), 75.

30Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books, 1951), chap. 9; Quentin Skinner “The Sovereign State: A Genealogy,” in Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present, and Future of a Contested Concept, ed. Hent Kalmo and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 26–47; see Janne Nijman, The Concept of International Legal Personality: An Inquiry into the History and Theory of International Law (The Hague: Asser Press, 2004).

31The American Supreme Court justice John Marshall referred to the private corporation as a “mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers on it.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). On the way that “the fictions of corporate personality and ship personification have strained to incorporate anthropocentric properties” see D. Lind, “The Pragmatic Value of Legal Fictions” in Legal Fictions Theory and Practice, ed. Maksmilian Del Mar and William Twining (Heidelberg: Spring, 2015), 99; Frederic Maitland, Political Theories of the Middle Ages, trans. Otto von Gierke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), xxx; David Runciman, Pluralism and the Personality of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 52, 90.

32See Jonathan Levy, “Accounting for Profit and the History of Capital,” Critical Historical Studies 1, no. 2 (2014): 171–214; James Livingston, Pragmatism and the Political Economy of Cultural Revolution, 1850–1940 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997).

33Frederic Maitland, “Trust and Corporation,” in Maitland: State, Trust, and Corporation, ed. David Runciman and Magnus Ryan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Gregory S. Alexander, “The Transformation of Trust as a Legal Category, 1800–1914,” Law and History Review 5 (1987): 303–350.

34Maitland, “Trust and Corporation,” 126.

35Ibid. Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat, for example, from 1896 envisioned the state as a joint-stock communal partnership. Ulrich E. Bach, Tropics of Vienna: Colonial Utopias of the Habsburg Empire (New York: Berghahn Books, 2016). On the legal world of merchants and corporations, and the commodification of sovereignty in the era of high imperialism, see Steven Press, Rogue Empires: Contracts and Conmen in Europe’s Scramble for Africa (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017).

36Though compare Morton Horwitz on the direct relationship between natural entity theory, or the theory of the “real” personality of corporations and the legitimation of big business in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century. Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 72 and chap. 3. On the neglected significance of the pluralists for comprehending the contested nature of sovereignty in the twentieth century, see Jeanne Morefield, “Political Theory as Historical Counterpoint: The Case of Schmitt and Sovereignty,” Theory and Event 19, no. 1 (2016); Karuna Mantena, “On Gandhi’s Critique of the State: Sources, Contexts, Conjunctures,” Modern Intellectual History 9, no. 3 (2012): 535–563; Duncan Bell, “Beyond the Sovereign State: Isopolitan Citizenship, Race, and Anglo-American Union,” Political Studies 62 (2014): 418–434.

37David Runciman and Magnus Ryan, “Introduction,” in Maitland: State, Trust and Corporation, ed. David Runciman and Magnus Ryan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xxvi; Marc Stears, Progressives, Pluralists, and the Problems of the State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

38Josef Kohler, Philosophy of Law, trans. Adalbert Albrecht (Boston: Boston Book Company, 1914), 68.

39P. W. Duff, “The Personality of an Idol,” The Cambridge Law Journal 3, no. 1 (1927): 42–48; H. Rheinfelder, Das Wort “Persona” Geschichte seiner Bedeutungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des frazösischen und italienischen Mitaelalters (Halle: Niemeyer, 1928); Edwin DeWitt Dickinson, “The Analogy between Natural Persons and International Persons in the Law of Nations,” Yale Law Journal 26, no. 7 (1916–17): 564–591; Hugo Krabbe, The Modern Idea of the State, trans. George H. Sabine (New York: D. Appleton, 1922).

40John Dewey, “The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality” Yale Law Journal 35, no. 6 (1926): 655–673; W. M. Geldart, “Legal Personality,” Law Quarterly Review 27 (1911): 90–109. The status of law and the legal state dominated political and legal debate in the United States as a growing number of administrative agencies began to take over the regulation and distribution of public services. See C. H. McIlwain, “Sovereignty Again,” Economica, no. 18 (1926): 253–268.

41Dewey, “Historic Background,” 655. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (New York: Henry Holt, 1927), 6. See also Livingston, Pragmatism and the Political Economy, 197–200.

42See Stuart Banner, Who Owns the Sky? The Struggle to Control Air Space from the Wright Brothers On (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 36–37; John Haffenden, William Empson: Among the Mandarins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 47–48.

43Max Radin, “The Endless Problem of Corporate Personality,” Columbia Law Review 32, no. 4 (1932): 643–667; Robert E. Cushman, “Judicial Decisions on Public Law,” American Political Science Review 11, no. 3 (1917): 545–555. In the American context, Adolf A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means argued that modern corporations had begun to compete with states as a result of their command of economic power. See Dalia Tsuk Mitchell, “From Pluralism to Individualism: Berle and Means and 20th Century American Legal Thought,” Law and Social Inquiry 30, no. 179 (2005): 179.

44Harold Laski, The Foundations of Sovereignty and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1921), 314. In their studies on corporate and state personality in the history of political thought, Quentin Skinner and David Runciman have both argued that the risk of losing sight of the philosophical question about what the state is, and where it comes from—what is distinctive about it as a particular kind of human association—is that the loss of this perspective coincides with a more general disavowal of the idea that states are agents who bear important responsibilities for collective life. See Skinner, “The Sovereign State: A Genealogy”; Runciman, Pluralism and the Personality of the State.

45Quoted in Peter C. Caldwell, “The Citizen and the Republic in Germany, 1918–1935,” in Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth Century Germany, ed. Geoff Eley and Jan Palmowski (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 41. On Jellinek and state theory, see Duncan Kelly, “Revisiting the Rights of Man: Georg Jellinek on Rights and the State,” Law and History Review 22, no. 3 (2004): 493–529.

46Edward Borchard, “The Access of Individuals to International Courts,” American Journal of International Law 24, no. 359 (1930): 359–365; Jasper Yeates Brinton, The Mixed Courts of Egypt (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1930); Nathan J. Brown, “The Precarious Life and Slow Death of the Mixed Courts of Egypt,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 25, no. 1 (1993): 33–52.

47Catherine Gousseff, L’exil russe: La fabrique du réfugié apatride, 1920–1939 (Paris: CNRS, 2008), 238.

48Roger Picard, “Les ‘Sans-Patrie’ et la S.D.N.,” La Paix par le Droit 37, no. 1 (1927): 97–99.

49Ibid, 99. Politicians and publicists sympathetic to the plight of the stateless proposed international forms of protection that would likewise place the stateless in a tutelary role. Charles Evans Hughes, the American secretary of state from 1922 to 1925, argued that the Russian exiles would require “moral tutelage” as long as they were deprived of their “natural sovereignty.” Quoted in Alexandre Gorovtsev, “La problème de la protection des ‘Sans Patrie’ par la S.D.N au point de vue juridique,” La Paix par le Droit 37, no. 1 (1927): 113.

50Giuseppe Nitti, La situation juridique des émigrés italiens en France (Paris: Pedone, 1929), 74; Giuseppe Nitti, “La situation juridique des émigrés italiens en France,” Revue generale de droit international public 36 (1929): 742; Susan Treggiari, “Social Status and Social Legislation,” in The Cambridge Ancient History (New York: Macmillan, 1996), 10:874.

51Tristan S. Taylor, “Social Status, Legal Status, and Legal Privilege,” in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, ed. Clifford Ando, Paul J. du Plessis, and Kaius Tuori (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 349–362. For the idea that the descriptions of the world produced by jurists regulate social reality, and how law constructs reality by creating what it merely claims to describe, see Clifford Ando, Law, Language, and Empire in the Roman Tradition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

52J. G. A. Pocock, “The Ideal of Citizenship since Classical Times,” Queen’s Quarterly 99, no. 1 (1992): 33–55. On Karl Marx’s rejection of law’s mediation of social existence, see Donald Kelley, “The Metaphysics of Law: An Essay on the Very Young Marx,” American Historical Review 83, no. 2 (1978): 350–367.

53The article he submitted attempts to analyze the idea of “objective right” through an examination of the social phenomenology of possession. Alexandre Gorovtsev, “A New Conception of the Right of Property as Considered from the Point of View of the ‘Principiology of the Law.’” MS sent to Roscoe Pound, August 28, 1928, Roscoe Pound Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

54Gorovtsev committed suicide in Paris in the Bois de Boulogne in 1933 after failing to find work in Paris or the United States. G. S. Starodubtŝev, Mezhdunarodno-pravovaiâ nauka rossiĭskoĭ ėmigratŝii: 1918–1939 (Moscow: Kniga i biznes, 2000). I’m grateful to Philippa Hetherington for identifying this source.

55Gorovtsev, “La problème de la protection des Sans Patrie par la S.D.N au point de vue juridique,” 115; Alexandre Gorovtsev, “La notion d’object en droit international en son role pour la constructions juridique de cette discipline,” Review de droit international et de la législation comparée 6 (1925): 173–202. See also Anthony Pagano, “Personnalité juridique et représentation légale de l’incapable,” Revue internationale de la théorie du droit 2 (1927/1928): 1–11.

56Mark Vishniak, “In Two Worlds,” in The Russian Century: A Hundred Years of Russian Lives, ed. George Pahomov and Nickolas Lupinin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2008), 95–103.

57Mark Vishniak, La protection des droits des minorités dans les traités internationaux de 1919–1920 (Paris: J. Povolozky, 1920), 63–64.

58The section of the League secretariat assigned to minority protection fielded frequent complaints about its administrative structure when minority groups protested their exclusion from investigatory and reporting processes. Zara Steiner, The Lights That Failed: European International History, 1919–1933 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 363–365.

59Vishniak, “Le statut international des apatrides,” 105.

60Ibid., 121.

61Record of conversation with Sir Willoughby Dickinson and Sir Walter Napier, “The ‘Staatenlose’ Problem,” September 6, 1926, R1287, LNA.

62“Rider A to Napier Report Nationality in the Succession States of Austria- Hungary,” Refugees, Statelessness 1925–1935, International Federation League of Nations Societies, P98, LNA; also see Sir Walter John Napier, Staatenlosigkeit: Being a Report of the Condition of Statelessness in Which the Subjects of the Former Austro-Hungarian Empire Are Left under the Peace Settlement (Brussels: General Secretariat and Offices of the Federation, 1926).

63“Nationality in the Succession States of Austria Hungary, Memorandum by Sir Walter Napier,” November 12, 1925, Refugees, Statelessness 1925–1935, International Federation League of Nations Societies, P98, LNA.

64Michael Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees from the First World War to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002), 95.

65Hans Kelsen, Die Staatslehre des Dantes Alighieri (Vienna: Franz Deuticke, 1906). On Strisower, see Mónica García-Salmones Rovira, The Project of Positivism in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 186.

66Hans Kelsen, Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre, entwickelt aus der Lehre vom Rechtssatze, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

67Hans Kelsen, “Autobiographie,” in Hans Kelsen im Selbstzeugnis, ed. Matthias Jestaedt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 49, 52.

68According to John Boyer, the revolution in Austria in 1918 was characterized by the move to a democratically legitimate state, whose ethos was pluralistic and tried to remain above the ideological fray. John Boyer, Culture and Political Crisis in Vienna: Christian Socialism in Power, 1897–1918 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 453. Robert Kann, cited in Boyer, Culture and Political Crisis in Vienna, 453.

69Clemens Jabloner, “Kelsen and His Circle: The Viennese Years,” European Journal of International Law 9, no. 2 (1998): 368–385; N. B. Ladavac, “Hans Kelsen: Biographical Note and Bibliography,” European Journal of International Law 9, no. 1 (1998): 391–400.

70Hans Kelsen, Der soziologische und der juristiche Staatsbegriff: kritische Untersuchung des Verhaltnisses von Staat und Recht, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1928); Andrew Spadafora, “Georg Jellinek on Values and Objectivity in the Legal and Political Sciences,” Modern Intellectual History 14, no. 3 (2015): 1–30.

71Carl Schmitt, Constitutional Theory, trans. Jeffrey Seltzer (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008).

72Christopher Tomlins and John Comaroff, “‘Law As …’: Theory and Practice in Legal History,” UC Irvine Law Review 1, no. 3 (2011): 1039–1079; Hermann Heller, Die Souveränität: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des Staats und Völkerrechtes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927).

73Hans Kelsen, “Les rapports de système entre le droit interne et le droit international,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 14, no. 4 (1926): 227–331; Hans Kelsen, Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theories des Völkerrechts: Beitrag zu einer Reinen Rechtslehre (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1928). See also Peter Langford and Ian Bryan, “Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory of Monism: A Critical Engagement with the Emerging Legal Order of the 1920s,” Journal of the History of International Law 14, no. 1 (2012): 51–86.

74Hans Kelsen, Allgemeiner Staatslehre (Berlin: Springer, 1925).

75David Dyzenhaus, Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, and Hermann Heller in Weimar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 155–156.

76Eugen Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law, trans. Walter Moll (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1936), 9. On finding law in communal practices, see Georg Gurvitch, L’idée du droit social (Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1932).

77Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles; Bart Van Klink, “Facts and Norms: The Unfinished Debate between Eugen Ehrlich and Hans Kelsen,” in Living Law: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich, ed. Marc Hertogh (Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2009), 127–156.

78Allan Janik and Stephen Toulmin, Wittgenstein’s Vienna (New York: Touchstone, 1973), 271.

79On law’s various sources of authority, see generally J. G. A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957).

80Hans Kelsen, “Selbstdarstellung,” in Hans Kelsen im Sebstzeugnis, ed. Matthias Jestaedt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 1927.

81Coen, Vienna, 88–90.

82William Johnston, The Austrian Mind: An Intellectual and Social History, 1848–1938 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 97.

83Johnston, Austrian Mind, 106; Karl Renner, “State and Nation (1899),” in National Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics, ed. Ephraim Nimni (London: Routledge, 2005), 15–47.

84Gerhard Stourzh, “The Multinational Empire Revisited,” in From Vienna to Chicago and Back: Essays on Intellectual History and Political Thought in Europe and America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 145; John Deak, Forging a Multinational State: State Making in Imperial Austria from the Enlightenment to the First World War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015).

85In a short autobiographical essay from 1927, Kelsen claimed that neo-Kantian philosophy had been “there for me from the beginning.” Kelsen, “Selbstdarstellung,” 23. On neo-Kantianism, see Gordon, Continental Divide, 52–69; Thomas Williey, Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social and Historical Thought, 1860–1914 (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1978).

86Hans Kelsen, “On the Theory of Juridic Fictions: With Special Consideration of Vaihinger’s Philosophy of the As-If,” trans. Christophe Kletzer, in Legal Fictions in Theory and Practice, ed. Maksmilian Del Mar and William Twining (Heidelberg: Spring, 2015), 18.

87Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law, trans. Max Knight (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 288. On the distinction between the juridical and the sociological, and its relation to the normativity of law, see Stephen P. Turner, Explaining the Normative (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2010), ch. 3.

88Hans Kelsen, “The Conception of the State and Social Psychology with Special Reference to Freud’s Group Theory,” International Journal of Psycho-analysis 5, no. 1 (1924): 1–38.

89Ibid., 3.

90Helen Silving-Ryu, Helen Silving: Memoirs (New York: Vantage, 1988), 75, 85. Also see Albert Ehrenzweig, “Preface,” California Law Review 59, no. 3 (1971): 609–616.

91Silving, Memoirs, 88. Egon Wellesz, Kelsen’s neighbor and a student of the composer Arnold Schoenberg, recalled that in Vienna after World War I, “they did not like Kelsen, he abolished the state.” Quoted in A. W. B. Simpson, Reflections on the Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 113.

92Quoted in Fredrik Lindstrom, Empire and Identity: Biographies of the Austrian State Problem in the Late Habsburg Empire (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2008), 272. See also Josef Redlich, Austrian War Government (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1929).

93Gary B. Cohen, “Our Laws, Our Taxes, and Our Administration: Citizenship in Imperial Austria,” in Shatterzones of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands, ed. Omar Bartov and Eric Weitz (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 117.

94Pieter Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 387–388.

95Hans Kelsen, “La naissance de l’état et la formation de sa nationalité: Les principes de leur application au cas de la Tchéchoslovaquie,” Revue de droit international 4, no. 1 (1929): 612–641.

96Prager Tagblatt, “Our Stateless,” October 11, 1930, via “Situation des Apatrides: Correspondence Diverse,” R3589, LNA.

97“Wer keinem Staate als Bürger angehört, ist völkerrechtlich vogelfrei.” Hans Kelsen, “Geleitwort,” in Die Staatenlosen, by Heinrich Englander (Vienna: Schriften der österreichischen Liga für Menschenrechte, 1930), 6.

98Hans Herz, “La problème de la naissance de l’état et la decision du Tribunal Arbitral Mixte germano-polonais du August 1929,” Revue de la droit international et de législation comparée 3, no. 1 (1936): 1–27; Hans Herz, “Le sujet de droit en droit international public,” Revue international de la théorie du droit 10, no. 2 (1936): 100–111. The Polish jurist Krystina Marek carried the Vienna School tradition forward in her 1954 treatise, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (Geneva: Libraire E. Droz, 1954). See also James Crawford, “The Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” British Yearbook of International Law 48, no. 1 (1976): 93–182. Mikulas Fabry, Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States since 1776 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), chap. 4.

99John Herz, “On Human Survival: How a View Emerged,” box 2, John Herz Papers, German and Jewish Intellectual Émigré Collection, State University of New York at Albany.

100Josef L. Kunz, Die Völkerrechtliche Option (Breslau: F. Hirt, 1926).

101Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Record Group 10.2—Fellowship recorder cards, Discipline 5—Humanities, box 3, Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, NY.

102Josef L. Kunz, “The ‘Vienna School’ and International Law,” New York University Law Quarterly Review 11, no. 3 (1934): 370–422. Among the well-known scholars who followed the Vienna School of Legal Theory were Adolf Merkel, Alfred Verdross, Felix Kaufmann, Fritzer Sander, Erich Voegelin, Alf Ross, Charles Eisenman, Franz Weyr, Leonidas Pitamic, Josef Laurenz Kunz, Rudolf Aladar Metall, Helen Silving-Ryu, Leo Gross, and John Herz. Jabloner, “Kelsen and His Circle.” On Kelsen’s theory, see Hans Kelsen, “Legal Formalism and the Pure Theory of Law,” in Weimar: A Jurisprudence of Crisis, ed. Arthur J. Jacobson and Bernhard Schlink (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 76–84, originally published as Kelsen, “Juristischer Formalismus und reine Rechtslehre,” Juristische Wochenschrift 58, no. 23 (1929): 1723–1726. See also Kelsen, Allgemeiner Staatslehre, 1925; R. A. Métall, Hans Kelsen: Leben und Werk (Vienna: Deutike, 1969); Peter Caldwell, “Sovereignty, Constitutionalism, and the Myth of the State,” in The Weimar Moment: Liberalism, Political Theology, and Law, ed. Leonard Kaplan and Rudy Koshar (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012), 345–371. Compare Josef L. Kunz, Völkerrechtswissenschaft und reine Rechtslehre (Leipzig: F. deutlicke, 1923); Michael Stolleis, A History of Public Law in Germany, 1914–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 63.

103Josef Kunz, Untitled Memoir, December 17, 1959, Hans Kelsen Institut Archive; Josef L. Kunz, Bibliographie der Kriegsliteratur: Politik, Geschichte, Philosophie, Völkerrecht, Friedensfrage (Berlin: H. R. Engelmann, 1920); Josef L. Kunz, Gaskrieg und Völkerrecht (Vienna: Springer, 1927).

104Kunz, Untitled Memoir, December 17, 1959, Hans Kelsen Institut, Vienna.

105J. L. Kunz, “L’option de nationalité,” Hague Recueil 31, no. 1 (1930): 1–31.

106Karl F. Geiser, review of Handbuch des Völkerrechts, II, 4: Die Staatenverbindungen, by Josef L. Kunz, American Journal of International Law 24, no. 2 (1930): 417–418. See also Josef L. Kunz, Die Anerkennung von Staaten und Regierungen im Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: W. Wohlhammer, 1928).

107Legal and administrative succession in Poland represented a particularly complex issue since the Polish state inherited its laws and bureaucracies from three distinct empires. On the reemergence of the Polish state in international law, see C. H. Alexandrowicz, “Recognition of New States in International Law,” in The Law of Nations in Global History, by C. H. Alexandrowicz, ed. David Armitage and Jennifer Pitts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 400.

108Hersch Lauterpacht, “Sukcesja państw w odniesieniu do zobowiązań prywatnoprawnych” Glos Prawa 5, no. 6 (1928): 18–33, translated as “Succession of States with Respect to Private Law Obligations,” in International Law being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, vol. 3, ed. Eli Lauterpacht (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 121–138.

109This formulation borrowed directly from a 1910 decision of the administrative court in Vienna, determining that ethnic attribution in a local municipal dispute could rest on a municipality’s assessment of the “tangible evidence” indicating the ethnicity of the individual in question. Gerald Stourzh, “Ethnic Attribution in Late Imperial Austria: Good Intentions, Evil Consequences,” in From Vienna to Chicago and Back: Essays on Intellectual History and Political Thought in Europe and America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 169.

110Benjamin Akzin, “Les sujets du droit international,” Revue de droit international 3, no. 4 (1929): 451–489.

111“Lyon Juridical Commission Meeting,” June 27, 1924, International Federation League of Nations Societies Papers 1924–1927, P93, LNA.

112“Commission Juridique Vienna,” April 1924, International Federation League of Nations Societies Papers 1924–1927, P93, LNA.

113Ibid.

114Dzovinar Kévonian, “Les Juristes juifs russes en France et l’action internationale dans les années vingt,” Archives Juives 34, no. 2 (2001): 72–94. On jurists and legalism in the late Russian Empire, see Peter Holquist, “Dilemmas of a Progressive Administrator: Baron Boris Nolde,” Kritika 7, no. 2 (2006), 241–273. See generally Richard Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976).

115As a Russian diplomat in Constantinople in the decade before World War I, Mandelstam proposed an internationalist solution to the so-called “Armenian question” in the Ottoman Empire, in which a single Armenian province in the empire would be administered by a governor-general who would be either an Ottoman citizen of the Christian faith or a “European” nominated by the sultan. Later, during the war, Mandelstam was responsible for adjudicating the legal questions surrounding prisoners of war before he was promoted to principal legal advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after the liberal revolution in Russia in early 1917. Helmut Philipp Aust, “From Diplomat to Academic Activist: Andre Mandelstam and the History of Human Rights,” European Journal of International Law 25, no. 4 (2015). Mandelstam began his study Le Sort de L’Empire Ottoman with the statement “This book is a work by a liberal Russian, a jurist who loves the law, and who has passed sixteen years in an Empire which has declared eternal war on law.” Le Sort de L’Empire Ottoman (Paris: Payot, 1917).

116Bruno Cabanes, The Great War and the Origins of Humanitarianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 168.

117A. N. Mandelstam, “La protection international des droits de l’homme,” Recueil des Cours 38, no. 4 (1931): 129–131.

118A. N. Mandelstam, “La protection des droits de l’hommes,” Les minorités nationales 5, no. 4 (1932): 65–75; A. N. Mandelstam, “La géneralisation de la protection internationale des droits de l’homme,” Revue droit international et de législation comparée 11, no. 2 (1930): 297–326. On this group of émigré jurists, see Dzovinar Kévonian, “Exilés politiques et avènement du ‘droit humain’: La pensée juridique d’André Mandelstam (1869–1949),” Revue d’histoire de la Shoah 117–118 (2001): 245–273.

119See Boris-Mirkine Guetzevitch, “Das Menschenrechte der Heimatlosen,” Die Freidens-Warte 30, no. 7/8 (1930): 213–215. For a similar view, though with an emphasis on rights within the boundary of “civilization,” see Paul Gramain, Les droits internationaux de l’homme (Paris: Éditions Internationales, 1933).

120Vishniak, “Le statut international des apatrides,” 165–166.

121On Mandelstam as part of the “solidarist vogue” in France, see Dzovinar Kévonian, “La protection des minorities et l’internationalisation des droits de l’hommes,” in Revisiting the Origins of Human Rights, ed. Pamela Slotte and Miia Halme-Tuomisaari (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 57–72.

122Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 201. Kelsen encouraged his students to compare him and Duguit in their dissertations. Silving-Ryu, Memoirs, 88.

123For an analysis of the weakness of this approach in resisting fascism, see Nathaniel Berman, “‘But the Alternative Is Despair’: European Nationalism and the Renewal of International Law,” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 1792 (1993): 1793–1808; Carl Schorske, Fin de Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Knopf, 1979). On this interpretation of Austrian liberalism, compare Coen, Vienna; Malachi Hacohen, Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

124Silving-Ryu, Memoirs, 83.

125There he discussed the future of the discipline with George Scelle, William Rappard, Paul Mantoux, Paul Guggenheim, and Hans Wehberg, among others. Yael Paz, A Gateway between a Distant God and a Cruel World: The Contribution of Jewish German-Speaking Scholars to International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhof, 2012), 182; Rudolf Aladar Metall, Hans Kelsen: Leben und Werk (Wien: Franz Deuticke, 1969), 70–72.

126Robert Musil, The Man without Qualities, vol. 1, trans. Sophie Wilkins (New York: Random House, 1995), 29. See also Marjorie Perloff, Edge of Irony: Modernism in the Shadow of the Habsburg Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).

127Johnston, Austrian Mind, 98. On the failure of the Habsburg constitution to confront social reality, see Janik and Toulmin, Wittgenstein’s Vienna, 271–272. The French historian of science Georges Canguilhem described Kelsen’s theory as “powerless to absorb political fact into juridical fact.” The Normal and the Pathological, trans. Carolyn Fawcett (New York: Zone Books, 2007), 249. See also Steven Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867–1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991), 236.

128Michael Gubser, Time’s Visible Surface: Alois Riegl and the Discourse on History and Temporality in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna (Detroit, MI: Wayne State Press, 2006). In Kelsen’s own words, “considering the Austrian state which was made up of so many different racial, linguistic, religious and historical groups, theories that tried to found the unity of the state on some socio-psychological or socio-biological contexts of the persons legally belonging to a state clearly proved to be fictions. To the extent that this theory of state is an important part of the Pure Theory of Law, the Pure Theory of Law can be seen as a specifically Austrian theory.” Hans Kelsen, “Autobiographie,” in Hans Kelsen im Selbstzeugnis, ed. Matthias Jestaedt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 62. Judith Shklar, Legalism: Law, Morals, and Political Trials (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), 41. See also Jabloner, “Kelsen and His Circle”; Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 211.

129See for example Richard Falk, “Revisiting Westphalia, Discovering Post-Westphalia,” Journal of Ethics 6, no. 4 (2002): 311–352. Casper Sylvest, “Realism and International Law: The Challenge of John H. Herz,” International Theory 2, no. 3 (2010): 410–445; Nicolas Guilhot, After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in the Mid-Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

4. THE REAL BOUNDARIES OF MEMBERSHIP

1Oskar Brandstaedter to the League, February 24, 1934, R5671, “Staatenlosen: Various Correspondence with Individuals and Organizations,” LNA.

2Oskar Brandstaedter to the League, October 4, 1935, R5671, LNA.

3Claudena Skran, Refugees in Inter-War Europe: The Emergence of a Regime (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 48.

4Karl Schlögel, In Space We Read Time: On the History of Civilization and Geopolitics, trans. Gerrit Jackson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 93–96. Discussed in Mark Mazower, “Endless Exodus: 3,000 Years of Fearing and Depending on Refugees,” Financial Times, February 10, 2017.

5Noël Vindry wrote his 1925 dissertation in France on l’apatridie. He went on in the 1930s to write a series of successful detective novels. Noël Vindry, L’apatride (Aix: Impremerie-Libraire A. Makaire, 1925). See Bruno Cabanes, The Great War and the Origins of Humanitarianism, 1918–1924 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 138.

6Eric Ambler, Epitaph for a Spy (New York: Vintage, 2002), 22. See also Eric Ambler, A Coffin for Dimitrios (New York: Knopf, 1939).

7John Maynard Keynes, “National Self-Sufficiency,” Yale Review 22, no. 4 (June 1933): 755–769.

8On asylum policy in the liberal state, see Frank Caestecker and Bob Moore, eds., Refugees from Nazi Germany and the Liberal European States (New York: Berghahn Books, 2012); Arieh Tartakower and Kurt Grossmann, The Jewish Refugee (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress, 1944); Tommie Sjöberg, The Power and the Persecuted: The Refugee Problem and the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, 1938–1947 (Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press, 1991); Barbara McDonald Stewart, United States Government Policy on Refuges from Nazism, 1933–1940 (New York: Garland, 1982); Vicky Caron, Uneasy Asylum: France and the Jewish Refugee Crisis, 1933–1942 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999); Louis London, Whitehall and the Jews, 1933–1948: British Immigration Policy, Jewish Refugees, and the Holocaust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). On expulsion from democratic states, see Daniel A. Gordon, “The Back Door of the Nation-State: Expulsion of Foreigners and Continuity in Twentieth-Century France,” Past and Present 186, no. 1 (2005): 201–232.

9Acts of the Conference for the Codification of International Law, Issue 14, League of Nations, 1930.

10Ibid., 15.

11American minister to the Netherlands, Hague Conference, January 21–April 22, 1930, Herbert Hoover, 1929–1933, FRUS 1 (1945), 504.418A2/159.

12David Hunter Miller, “Nationality and Other Problems Discussed at The Hague,” Foreign Affairs 8, no. 4 (1930): 632–640. See Richard W. Flourney, ed., A Collection of Nationality Laws of Various Countries, as Contained in Constitutions, Statutes, and Treaties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929).

13Miller Telegram, Hague Conference, January 21–April 22, 1930, Herbert Hoover, 1929–1933, FRUS 1 (1945), 504.418A2/159.

14Edwin M. Borchard, “The Hague Codification Conference,” The Nation 131, no. 3394 (1930): 94–95.

15Mackinnon-Wood to F. P. Walters, March 9, 1931, “Codification of International Law: Correspondence with the Faculty of the Harvard Law School,” R2056, LNA.

16The policy of contingent female citizenship first appeared in a statutory instrument of the Napoleonic Civil Code of 1804. The principle of conditional marital nationality captured in the code applied across Napoleonic Europe, and by the mid- nineteenth century it was followed in most of the world. Carol Miller, “Geneva—the Key to Equality: Interwar Feminists and the League of Nations,” Women’s History Review 3, no. 2 (1994) 219–245; John Witt, “Crystal Eastman and the Internationalist Beginnings of American Civil Liberties,” Duke Law Journal 54, no. 3 (2004): 705–763; Helen Irving, Citizenship, Alienage, and the Modern Constitutional State: A Gendered History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016); Melissa Feinberg, Elusive Equality: Gender, Citizenship, and the Limits of Democracy in Czechoslovakia, 1918–1950 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006), 74.

17Candice Lewis Bredbenner, A Nationality of Her Own: Women, Marriage, and the Law of Citizenship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), chap. 6.

18Catherine Seckler-Hudson, Statelessness, with Special Reference to the United States: A Study in Nationality and Conflict of Law (Washington, DC: American University, 1934).

19Patrick Weil, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 90. On the expansion of federal authority to regulate internal migration and immigration in the 1930s, see Elisa Minoff, “Free to Move? The Law and Politics of Internal Migration in Twentieth-Century America” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2013); Karen Tani, States of Dependency: Welfare, Rights, and American Governance, 1935–1972 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

20Seckler-Hudson, Statelessness. Seckler-Hudson also reviewed Lipovano for the American Journal of International Law. Catherine Seckler-Hudson, “L’Apatridie, by I. G. Lipovano,” American Journal of International Law 30, no. 4 (1936): 743–744. See also Waldo Emerson Waltz, The Nationality of Married Women: A Study of Domestic Policies and International Legislation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1937).

21“Notes on the Points Discussed,” 1930, Nationality Law, DO 35 104/2, TNA: PRO.

22Ibid.

23See Arnulf Becker Lorca, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), chap. 9.

24League of Nations Union to John Simon, April 6, 1934, Measures for Regulating Position of Stateless, League International Office for Refugees, HO 45/20528, TNA: PRO. Also see Jacques Scheftel, “L’apatridie des refugies russes,” Journal de Droit International 61, no. 1 (1934): 36–69.

25Unsigned memoranda, 1934, Measures for Regulating Position of Stateless, League International Office for Refugees, HO 45/20528, TNA: PRO.

26Unsigned memoranda, 1934, Measures for Regulating Position of Stateless, TNA: PRO.

27See Emma Haddad, The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Guy Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

28Gilbert Jaeger, “On the History of the International Protection of Refugees,” Review of the International Committee of the Red Cross 83, no. 843 (2001): 727–737. Also see Michael Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees from the First World War to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002), 161–164, 170–172.

29See “Provisional Arrangement Concerning the Status of Refugees Coming from Germany, July 4, 1936” and “Convention Concerning the Status of Refugees Coming from Germany, February 10, 1938,” cited in James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), 4.

30League of Nations, Convention Concerning the Status of Refugees Coming from Germany, February 10, 1938, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 192, no. 4461, p. 59, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8d12a4.html.

31Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Nationality of Denationalized Persons,” in International Law, Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, vol. 3, ed. Eli Lauterpacht (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 392. Originally published as Lauterpacht, “The Nationality of Denationalized Persons,” Jewish Yearbook of International Law 1, no. 1 (1949): 164–185. On the transformation of the basis for refugee status from the juridical to the social and finally to the individual fear of persecution, see J. C. Hathaway, “Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law, 1920–1950,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 33, no. 384 (1984): 348–380. Compare Jane McAdam, “Rethinking the Origins of ‘Persecution’ in Refugee Law,” International Journal of Refugee Law 25, no. 4 (2013): 667–692.

32Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, vol. 1, The Years of Persecution (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 146.

33Durward V. Sandifer, “A Comparative Study of Laws Relating to Nationality at Birth and to Loss of Nationality,” American Journal of International Law 29, no. 2 (1935): 248–279; John Wigmore, “Domicile, Double Allegiance, and World Citizenship,” Illinois Law Review 21, no. 8 (1927): 761–770; Egidio Reale, “Passport,” in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1934), 12:13–16.

34Bushe to Dowson, November 15, 1933, Nationality Law, DO 35 104/2, TNA: PRO.

35Dowson to Bushe, November 17, 1933, Nationality Law, DO 35 104/2, TNA: PRO.

36Claus von Stauffenberg, “Die Entziehung der Staatsangehorigkeit und das Volkerrecht, Eine Entgegnung,” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 4 (1934): 261–276, cited in Detlev Vagts, “International Law in the Third Reich,” American Journal of International Law 84, no. 3 (1990): 661–704. See also James Q. Whitman, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017).

37Georges Scelle, “A propos de la Loi allemande du 14 juilet 1933 sur la déchéance de la nationalité,” Révue critique de droit international 29, no. 1 (1934): 63–76; Stauffenberg, “Die Entziehung der Staatsangehörigkeit und das Völkerrecht, Eine Entgegnung,” 261–276.

38James W. Garner, “Recent German Nationality Legislation,” American Journal of International Law 30, no. 1 (1936): 96–99.

39Lawrence Preuss, “International Law and Deprivation of Nationality,” Georgetown Law Journal 23, no. 2 (1935): 250–276. Also see Maximilien Philonenko, “Expulsion des Heimatlos,” Journal de droit international 60 (1933): 1161–1187; John Fisher Williams, “Denationalization,” The British Yearbook of International Law 8, no. 3 (1927): 45–62.

40Preuss, “International Law,” 250–276.

41Todd Shepard, The Invention of Decolonization: The Algerian War and the Remaking of France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), 169–170.

42Patrick Weil, How to be French: Nationality in the Making since 1789 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), 126–129.

43Mark Mazower, “The Strange Triumph of Human Rights, 1933–1950,” Historical Journal 47, no. 2 (2004): 388.

44“Petition in Support of the Letter of Resignation of James G. McDonald and Concerning the Treatment of Jews and Non-Aryans by the German Government: Addressed to the XVIIth Plenary Assembly of the League of Nations,” 1–2, Assistance International aux Réfugiés Allemandes, R5720, LNA. Hersch Lauterpacht, Neville Laski, and the London legal scholar Vladimir Idelson advised on the draft, along with two experts on the minority protection treaties, Oscar Janowsky and Melvin Fagin. See Monty Noam Penkower, “Honorable Failures against Nazi Germany: McDonald’s Letter of Resignation and the Petition in Its Support,” Modern Judaism 30, no. 3 (2010), 268; James G. McDonald, Advocate for the Doomed: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald, 1932–1935, ed. Richard Breitman, Barbara McDonald Stewart, and Severin Hochberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007), 57.

45Compare Gary Bass, Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Knopf, 2008); Brendan Simms and D. J. B. Trim, eds., Humanitarian Intervention: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 139–15; Davide Rodogno, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815–1914 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), ch. 2.

46McDonald, Advocate for the Doomed, 104.

47Lauterpacht to Laski, March 25, 1935, ACC/3121/C11/ 3/5/2, Board of Deputies, London Municipal Archives.

48Seckler-Hudson, Statelessness. Seckler-Hudson also reviewed Lipovano for the American Journal of International Law. Seckler-Hudson, “L’Apatridie.”

49Cyrus Adler to Morris Waldman, April 11, 1935, ACC/3121/C11/ 3/5/2, Board of Deputies, London Municipal Archives.

50See Alison Bashford, Global Population: History, Geopolitics, and Life on Earth (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014).

51H. Donnedieu de Vabres, “Rapport sur le problème de l’expulsion des apatrides,” Travaux du Comité français de Droit International Privé 1, no. 2 (1935): 64.

52Arthur Kuhn, “International Measures for the Relief of Stateless Persons,” American Journal of International Law 30, no. 3 (1936): 495–499.

53Ibid., 498.

54De Vabres, “Rapport sur le problème de l’expulsion des apatrides,” 64.

55Caron, Uneasy Asylum, 16. Also see Vicky Caron, “The Politics of Frustration: French Jewry and the Refugee Crisis,” Journal of Modern History 65, no. 2 (1993): 311–356.

56France sought to internationalize the refugee problem to reduce the pressure on its ability to absorb newcomers. Caron, Uneasy Asylum, 28.

57J. L. Rubenstein, “The Refugee Problem,” International Affairs 15, no. 5 (1936): 716–734. A similar sentiment animated Lawford Childs, “Refugees—a Permanent Problem in International Organization,” in War Is Not Inevitable, Problems of Peace (London: International Labor Office, 1938). Louise Holborn publicized the definition of refugees promulgated by the Institut de Droit International at its Brussels session in 1936. “Refugees” were those “who have left or been forced to leave their country for political reasons, who have been deprived of its diplomatic protection and have not acquired the nationality or diplomatic protection of any other state.” See Louise W. Holborn, “The Legal Status of Political Refugees, 1920–1938,” American Journal of International Law 32, no. 4 (1938): 680–703.

58Sir Herbert Emerson, address to members of the Executive Committee of the Intergovernmental Committee dealing with refugee problems, Washington, DC, October 17, 1939. Printed as “Postwar Problems of Refugees,” Foreign Affairs 21, no. 2 (January 1943): 211.

59John Hope Simpson, The Refugee Problem: Report of a Survey (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 2. Also see Dorothy Thompson, Refugees: Anarchy or Organization? (New York: Random House, 1938), 10–11; Holborn, “Legal Status of Political Refugees.”

60Marc Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 24.

61Simpson, Refugee Problem, 3–4.

62Hans Morgenthau, La réalité des normes, en particulier des normes du droit international (Paris: Librarie Félix Allcan, 1934).

63Paul Leon, “H. Morgenthau, La réalité des normes,” Archives de philosophie du droit et de sociologie juridique 4 (1934): 271–273.

64Jürgen Habermas, “Law and Morality,” in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin, trans. K. Baynes (Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 1988), 8:217–279; David Rabban, Law’s History: American Legal Thought and the Transatlantic Turn to History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 474. On the different trajectories of continental and American legal realism, see Katharina Schmidt, “Law, Modernity, Crisis: German Free Lawyers, American Legal Realists, and the Transatlantic Turn to ‘Life,’ 1903–1933,” German Studies Review 39, no. 1 (2016): 121–140.

65Felix S. Cohen, “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,” Columbia Law Review 35, no. 6 (1935): 809–849.

66Wilhelm Grewe, “Gnade und Recht” (Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1936), 5, cited in Bardo Fassbender, “Stories of War and Peace: On Writing the History of International Law in the ‘Third Reich’ and After,” European Journal of International Law 13, no. 2 (2002): 488–489. On the discourse of “realism” in the 1930s, see Nathaniel Berman, “Beyond Colonialism and Nationalism? Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and ‘Peaceful Change,’” Nordic Journal of International Law 65, no. 421 (1996): 421–479.

67Peter C. Caldwell, “The Citizen and the Republic in Germany, 1918–1935,” in Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany, ed. Geoff Eley and Jan Palmowski (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 40–57. Carl Schmitt organized a conference in October 1936 entitled “Jewry in German Law” in which Kelsen’s formalism was attributed to his Jewish background. Quoted in Detlev Vagts, “Carl Schmitt in Context: Reflections on a Symposium,” Cardozo Law Review 23, no. 6 (2002): 2157–2164.

68Casper Sylvest, “Realism and International Law: The Challenge of John H. Herz,” International Theory 2, no. 3 (2010), 410–445; Nicolas Guilhot, After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in the Mid-Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 3–4. On Schmitt’s influence on the development of postwar international relations realism, see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 459–474.

69The field of international relations theory constituted itself in opposition to Kelsen’s critique of sovereignty. William Scheuerman, “Professor Kelsen’s Amazing Disappearing Act,” in Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations: A European Discipline in America?, ed. Felix Rösch (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 81–103.

70John Herz, “Expropriation of Alien Property: An Inquiry into the Sociology of International Law,” Social Research 8, no. 1 (1941): 63–78; John Herz, “Einige Bemerkungen zur Grundlegung des Völkerrechts,” Internationale Zeitschrift für Theories des Rechts 13, no. 1 (1939): 275–300.

71Morgenthau, La réalité des normes.

72William Scheuerman, Morgenthau (Cambridge: Polity, 2009), 12–14.

73Alfred Zimmern, “The Decline of International Standards,” International Affairs 17, no. 1 (1938): 3–31. On Zimmern, see Jeanne Morefield, Covenants without Swords: Idealist Liberalism and the Spirit of Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).

74Max Radin, review of “The Personality Conception of the Legal Entity,” by Alexander Nekam, Harvard Law Review 52, no. 4 (1938): 706–707. See also Cohen, “Transcendental Nonsense.”

75Hans Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law (1934), 178.

76Ibid., 191.

77E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (New York: Perennial, 1939). See Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998). Mark Mazower, “An International Civilization? Empire, Internationalism, and the Crisis of the Mid-Twentieth Century,” International Affairs 82, no. 3 (2006): 553–566.

78Robert R. Wilson, “Gradations of Citizenship and International Reclamations,” American Journal of International Law 33, no. 1 (1939): 146–148.

79Oscar Janowsky and Melvin M. Fagen, International Aspects of German Racial Policies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1937).

80H. W. Goering, “Decree Imposing Atonement Fine on Jewish Subjects (November 12, 1938),” in The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History, ed. Paul Mendes-Flohr and Yehuda Reinharz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 653.

81Martin Dean, “The Nazi Development and Implementation of Nazi Denaturalization and Confiscation Policy up to the Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 16, no. 2 (2002): 217–242.

82Hans-Christian Jasch, “Civil Service Lawyers and the Holocaust: The Case of Wilhelm Stuckart,” in The Law in Nazi Germany: Ideology, Opportunism, and the Perversion of Justice, ed. Alan Steinwies and Robert Rachlin (New York: Berghan, 2013), 49.

83Judith Shklar, “A Life of Learning,” in Liberalism without Illusions: Essays on Liberal Theory and the Political Visions of Judith N. Shklar, ed. B. Yack (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 263–279.

84Wilson, “Gradations of Citizenship.”

85The Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Record Group 10.2—Fellowship recorder cards, Discipline 5—Humanities, box 3, Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, NY.

86“The Problem of Statelessness (People Deprived of Nationality): Some Facts, Arguments, and Proposals Presented to the International Conference Called by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom” (Geneva, September 1930); “Statenlosen: Correspondence with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” R3589/25612, LNA; Anna Askenazy, “The Problem of Statelessness,” and Emma Cadbury, “The Problem of Statelessness from the Humanitarian Side,” R3589/25612, LNA; Josef L. Kunz, Die Völkerrechtliche Option (Breslau: F. Hirt, 1926).

87Josef Kunz, “The ‘Vienna School’ and International Law,” NYU Law Quarterly Review 11, no. 3 (1933–1934): 370–422.

88Koessler statement to the Social Science Research Council, January 1941, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress.

89Koessler to Lindsay Rogers, May 12, 1942, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress.

90Koessler noted that the US Nationality Act of 1940 distinguished between citizens and nationals. He also cited the German Reichsbuergergesetz from 1935 distinguishing between citizens and nationals. An examination of the special position of the “dediticii” under Roman law, who were subjects but not citizens of the Roman state, would also be a crucial part of his prospective study. Koessler statement to the Social Science Research Council, January 1941, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress.

91Koessler to Lindsay Rogers, May 12, 1942, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress.

92Koessler statement to the Social Science Research Council, January 1941, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress.

5. A CONDITION OF WORLD ORDER

1Grotius Society Committee for the Status of Stateless Persons, September 27, 1940, Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/GRSO 1, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford.

2Martin Conway, “Legacies of Exile: The Exile Governments in London during the Second World War and the Politics of Post-War Europe,” in Europe in Exile: European Exile Communities in Britain, 1940–1945, ed. Martin Conway and José Gotovitch (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), 256.

3For example, see Daniel G. Cohen, “The Holocaust and the ‘Human Rights Revolution’: A Reassessment,” in The Human Rights Revolution, ed. Akira Iriye, Petra Goedde, and William I. Hitchcock (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 53–73; Ruti Teitel, Humanity’s Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Elizabeth Borgwardt, A New Deal for the World: America’s Vision for Human Rights (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 71; Dieter Grimm, Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), 83–85.

4Josef Kunz Memoir, draft, December 17, 1959, Hans Kelsen Archive.

5Elihu Lauterpacht, The Life of Hersch Lauterpacht (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 115–118. Lauterpacht reported during his tour that in his lectures on the subject of the “Reality of International Law,” “I attached importance to lecturing before law students and, occasionally, before wider audiences on these related aspects of international law at a time when it is assailed by many well-meaning but disappointed persons.” Lauterpacht, Life of Hersch Lauterpacht, 117.

6E. Lauterpacht, Life of Hersch Lauterpacht, 133; Manley Hudson memo to Philip Jessup, October 4, 1940, box 113, Manley Hudson Papers, Harvard Law School. Jessup was at that time promoting American neutrality. Philip C. Jessup, “The Monroe Doctrine in 1940,” American Journal of International Law 34, no. 4 (1940): 704–711; E. Lauterpacht, Life of Hersch Lauterpacht, 106.

7E. Lauterpacht, Life of Hersch Lauterpacht, 106.

8“Mark Vishniak, Russian Expert,” New York Times, September 3, 1976, 14.

9Marc Vishniak, The Legal Status of Stateless Persons (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1945).

10“Draft of the Legal Status of the Stateless,” 1941–1945, Mark Vishniak Papers, box 18, Hoover Institution Archives. In his 1941 polemical study, Gerhart Niemeyer, a conservative German émigré political philosopher, asked, “What happened? Why should international law, which was vigorously surging upward only twenty years ago, have become almost a dead letter now?” Gerhart Niemeyer, Law without Force: The Function of Politics in International Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1941), 14.

11“Draft of the Legal Status of the Stateless,” 1941–1945, Mark Vishniak Papers, box 18, Hoover Institution Archives.

12The Atlantic Charter: The Eight-Point Declaration of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941 (New York: Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, 1941). On the ideological origins and afterlife of the Atlantic Charter, see Borgwardt, New Deal for the World, 14–46.

13Atlantic Charter.

14Tamara Ehs and Miriam Gassner, “Hans Kelsen, Legal Scholar between Europe and the Americas,” Transatlantic Perspectives, accessed June 29, 2018, http://www.transatlanticperspectives.org/entry.php?rec=132.

15Published as Hans Kelsen, Law and Peace in International Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), 73.

16Hans Kelsen, “Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations,” American Journal of International Law 35, no. 605 (1941): 605–617.

17See Jeremy D. A. Telman, “The Reception of Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory in the United States: A Sociological Model,” Law Faculty Publications 7 (2008), http://scholar.valpo.edu/law_fac_pubs/7. On the tension between Austrian legal and political philosophy and the American intellectual environment, see Erich Hula, “Austrian Legal and Political Thought in the United States: Lecture at the Austrian Institute, 5 December 1958,” box 2, Erich Hula Papers, German and Jewish Intellectual Émigré Collection, State University of New York at Albany. In his reflections on the foundation of an international organization based on the principle of sovereign equality, Kelsen argued that the meaningfulness of the concept of “sovereign equality” depended on submission to international law (“a body of slowly and steadily changing norms”) because only international law could guarantee the coexistence of states as sovereign and equal communities. Logic, he argued, demanded it. Hans Kelsen, “The Principle of Sovereign Equality of States as a Basis for International Organization,” Yale Law Journal 53, no. 2 (1944): 207–220.

18Carl Friedrich, “The Deification of the State,” Review of Politics 1, no. 1 (1939): 18–30. On Friedrich’s Weberian view of the state and political responsibility, see Udi Greenberg, “Germany’s Postwar Re-education and Its Weimar Intellectual Roots,” Journal of Contemporary History 46, no. 1 (2011): 10–32; Greenberg, The Weimar Century: German Émigrés and the Ideological Foundations of the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).

19Heinz H. F. Eulau, “The Depersonalization of the Concept of Sovereignty,” Review of Politics 4, no. 1 (1942): 3–19.

20On the revision of the relationship between democracy and legality among European émigrés intellectuals, see Anne Mira Kornhauser, Debating the American State: Liberal Anxieties and the New Leviathan, 1930–1970 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015).

21Christian Fleck, Transatlantic History of the Social Science: Robber Barons, the Third Reich and the Invention of Empirical Social Research (London: Bloomsburg Academic, 2011), 59.

22Erich Hula, “Sovereignty under Attack,” unpublished paper, 1942, box 10, series 5, Erich Hula Papers, German and Jewish Intellectual Émigré Collection, State University of New York at Albany.

23Erich Hula, “National Self-Determination Reconsidered,” Social Research 10, no. 1 (1943): 1–21. Hula promoted a legalist vision of international order throughout his career and defended international law from its realist detractors such as Hans Morgenthau. Hans Morgenthau to Erich Hula, February 14, 1943, box 2, Correspondence, Erich Hula Papers, German and Jewish Intellectual Émigré Collection, State University of New York at Albany.

24Otto Kirchheimer, “In Quest of Sovereignty,” Journal of Politics 6, no. 2 (1944): 139.

25James Minor Ludlow, “Postulates, Principles, Proposals for the International Law of the Future,” January 1, 1943, James Minor Ludlow Papers, box 5, Hoover Institution Archives. In his 1933 essay, “Forms of Modern Imperialism in International Law,” Carl Schmitt argued that the new age of American dominance would be characterized by the principle of the sovereign equality of states, with American power dictating the legal vocabularies that all states would be forced to speak. Carl Schmitt, “Forms of Modern Imperialism in International Law,” (1933), trans. Matthew Hannah, in Spaciality, Sovereignty and Carl Schmitt: Geographies of the Nomos, ed. Stephen Legg (London: Routledge, 2011), 29–46. On the postwar invention of the “Westphalian” order with its clear delineation between the domestic and the international and its presumption of equality rather than hierarchy among political entities, see Peter Stirk, “The Westphalian Model and Sovereign Equality,” Review of International Studies 38, no. 3 (2012): 641–660.

26Grotius Society Committee for the Status of Stateless Persons, September 27, 1940.

27Paul Weis curriculum vitae, 1967, PW/PR/HCR/BSN/14/38, Paul Weis Papers, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford.

28Paul Weis to W. R. Bisschop, December 30, 1941, Weis Papers, PW/PR/GRSO 1, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford.

29Erwin Loewenfeld, “Status of Stateless Persons,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 27, no. 1 (1941): 59–112.

30“Revised Draft of the Proposed Rules Regarding Nationality and the Prevention of Statelessness,” n.d., Grotius Society, Committee on Status of Stateless Persons, Weis Papers, PW/PR/GRSO 1, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford. See also “Proposed Nationality Rules in Connection with Statelessness,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 28, no. 1 (1942): 157–158.

31Eric G. M. Fletcher to W. R. Bischop, July 28, 1942, Weis Papers, PW/PR/GRSO 1, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford.

32Memorandum by H. R. Pyke, Committee for the Status of Stateless Persons, Weis Papers, PW/PR/GRSO 1, Social Sciences Library, University of Oxford.

33Frederick Dunn and Alwyn V. Freeman, “The International Rights of Individuals,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 35, no. 1 (April 24–26, 1941): 14–22; Frederick Dunn, The Protection of Nationals: A Study in the Application of International Law (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932).

34Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Subjects of International Law,” in International Law Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, vol. 1, ed. Eli Lauterpacht (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 297.

35The Grotius Society, Nationality (Draft Report), PW/PR/GRSO 1.

36René Cassin, “La nouvelle conception du domicile dans le règlement des conflits de lois,” Recueil des cours 34 (1930): 659–663.

37On the idea that Cassin’s speech aimed primarily to desacralize state sovereignty, compare Jay Winter, Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the Twentieth Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 108.

38Moria Paz, “A Most Inglorious Right: Rene Cassin, Freedom of Movement, Jews and Palestinians,” in The Law of Strangers: Jewish Lawyering and International Legal Thought, ed. James Loeffler and Moria Paz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 177–203.

39Patrick Weil, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 128.

40Patrick Weil, “The History and Memory of Discrimination in the Domain of French Nationality: The Case of Jews and Algerian Muslims,” International Social Science Review 6, no. 1 (2005): 56.

41Commision pour l’étude des problèmes d’après-guerre d’ordre juridique et intellectual, sous-section des droits de l’homme, November 21, 1942, France Combattante, 382 AP 58, René Cassin Papers, National Archives of France.

42The Beveridge Report circulated among the governments in exile in London and was parachuted into occupied Europe. Jay Winter and Antoine Prost, René Cassin and Human Rights: From the Great War to the Universal Declaration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 143; Conway, “Legacies of Exile,” 256; Commision pour l’étude des problèmes d’après-guerre d’ordre juridique et intellectual, section de la refome de l’etat, sous-section des droits de l’homme, March 9, 1943, 382 AP 58, René Cassin Papers, National Archives of France.

43Vladimir Idelsen et al., “The Law of Nations and the Individual,” Transactions of the Grotius Society 30, no. 1 (1944): 50–82; R. Graupner and P. Weis, The Problem of Statelessness (n.p.: World Jewry Congress Publications, 1944).

44Idelsen et al., “Law of Nations.”

45See Duncan Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860–1900 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 267. On federation as a common solution offered in nineteenth-century Europe to resolve conflicting national political aspirations and the tension between nation and empire, see Holly Case, The Age of Questions, or A First Attempt at an Aggregate History of the Eastern, Social, Woman, American, Jewish, Polish, Bullion, Tuberculosis, and Many Other Questions over the Nineteenth Century, and Beyond (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018), chap. 4.

46Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century (New York: Vintage, 1999), 205.

47Max M. Laserson, “On Universal and Regional Federalism,” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 2, no. 82 (1943): 82–93; J. O. Hertzler, “Some Basic Queries Respecting World Regionalism,” Social Forces 22, no. 4 (1942–1943): 371–387. On the particular Central European context that fostered regionalist visions of world order, see Holly Case, Between States: The Transylvanian Question and the European Idea during World War II (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009).

48James A. Junker, The Idea of World Government: From Ancient Times to the Twenty- First Century (New York: Routledge, 2011), 50–52; Or Rosenboim, The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939–1950 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017).

49Wilfried Loth, “Sources of European Integration: The Meaning of Failed Interwar Politics and the Role of World War II,” in Crises in European Integration: Challenges and Responses, 1945–2005, ed. Ludger Kühnhardt (New York: Berghahn Books, 2009), 24.

50“Draft of the Legal Status of the Stateless,” Mark Vishniak Papers, box 18, Hoover Institution Archives, 112. Rosika Schwimmer, a Hungarian Jewish feminist organizer, initiated the Campaign for World Federal Government in 1937, motivated by the European refugee crisis and by her own statelessness. Schwimmer lost her Hungarian citizenship after Bela Kun’s communist revolution in Hungary. Stateless and in exile in the United States, Schwimmer was denied American citizenship on the grounds of her pacifist affiliations and suspected socialism. See Glenda Sluga, Internationalism in the Age of Nationalism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 76.

51Omer Bartov and Eric D. Weitz, eds., Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 72.

52Robinson to Vishniak, undated, Series C. Institute of Jewish Affairs, C95/13 Post War Planning 1941–1946, World Jewish Committee Collection, United States Holocaust Museum Memorial.

53It was in the service of this question that a number of the émigré jurists, including Vishniak, worked together to produce the volume on the minorities treaties. See Jacob Robinson et al., Were the Minorities Treaties a Failure? (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1943).

54Tara Zahra, “Going West,” East European Politics and Societies 25, no. 4 (2011): 787.

55On the preservation of European empires after World War II, see Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945–1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984); Frederick Cooper, “Alternatives to Empire: France and Africa after World War II,” in The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, ed. Douglas Howland and Luis White (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 94–124; Todd Shepard, The Invention of Decolonization: The Algerian War and the Remaking of France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006).

56Frederick Cooper, “Alternatives to Empire,” 94–124; Shepard, Invention of Decolonization.

57Frederick Cooper, “Reconstructing Empire in British and French Africa,” Past and Present 210, suppl. 6 (2011): 196–210.

58Jessica Reinisch, “Internationalism in Relief: The Birth and Death of UNRRA,” Past and Present 210, suppl. 6 (2011): 258–289.

59Michael Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees from the First World War to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002), 297–298.

60“Division of Duties between UNRRA and Existing Group Indicated in London,” New York Times, November 22, 1943. See UNRRA: Organization, Aims, Progress (Washington, DC: United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, 1945); United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, The Story of UNRRA (Washington, DC: UNRRA Office of Public Information, 1948).

61On the relation between the history of refugees and postwar reconstruction and nationalization, see David Feldman, Mark Mazower, and Jessica Reinisch, eds., Post-War Reconstruction in Europe: International Perspectives, 1945–1949 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Pamela Ballinger, “At the Borders of Force: Violence, Refugees, and the Reconfiguration of the Yugoslav and Italian States,” Past and Present, suppl. 6 (2011): 158–176; Jessica Reinisch and Elizabeth White, eds., The Disentanglement of Populations: Migration, Expulsion and Displacement in Postwar Europe, 1944–1949 (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); Tara Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’: Europe’s Displaced Children between Nationalism and Internationalism,” Past and Present, suppl. 6 (2011): 332–350; Zahra, The Lost Children: Reconstructing Europe’s Families after World War II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011).

62Tara Zahra, “Prisoners of the Postwar: Expellees, Displaced Persons, and Jews in Austria after World War II,” Austrian History Yearbook 41, no. 1 (2010): 191–215. On the nationalist ideals animating the refugee policies undertaken in the name of human rights, see Zahra, Lost Children.

63Daniel G. Cohen, In War’s Wake: Europe’s Displaced Persons in the Postwar Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 20–21.

64Note from Col. MG, May 29, 1945, DPs and Stateless Persons, FO 1052/278, TNA.

65Ibid. “Stateless Displaced Persons Centers,” June 7, 1945, DPs and Stateless Persons, FO 1052/278, TNA. On displaced persons in Germany, see Atina Grossman and Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Auslander: Die Displaced Persons in Westdeutschland, 1945–1951 (Gottingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1985).

66Stephen King-Hall, “A State for the Stateless,” National News-Letter, and Harry Gregson, “Stateless,” Central European Observer, cited in “The Postwar ‘Stateless,’” Social Science Review 20, no. 3 (1946): 404.

67Cited in “The Postwar ‘Stateless,’” 403–406.

68Andrei Matlos, “Apatrides,” memo, July 17, 1946, NUOI 1944–1959, box 298, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, La Courneuve.

69Ibid.

70Matlos, “Apatrides.”

71Maximilian Koessler, “‘Subject,’ ‘Citizen,’ ‘National,’ and ‘Permanent Allegiance,’” Yale Law Journal 56, no. 1 (1946): 75–76.

72Ibid.

73Cited in A. W. B. Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 141.

74Kaeckenbeeck was a lawyer in the Belgian foreign ministry after World War I and a member of the legal section of the League of Nations secretariat from 1919 to 1922. Georges Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia: A Study in the Workings of the Upper Silesian Settlement, 1922–1937 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952).

75Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Nationality of Denationalized Persons,” Jewish Yearbook of International Law 1, no. 1 (1948): 179.

76Ibid., 185.

77Joseph P. Chamberlain to Martha Biehle, May 15, 1946, YIVO Archives, RG 278/23, Papers of Joseph P. Chamberlain, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.

78Sunil Khilnani, “Nehru’s Judgment,” in Political Judgment: Essays for John Dunn, ed. Richard Bourke and Raymond Geuss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 254.

79Karuna Mantena, “Popular Sovereignty and Anti-Colonialism,” in Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective, ed. Richard Bourke and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 316.

80Samuel Moyn, Christian Human Rights (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015); Marco Duranti, The Conservative Human Rights Revolution: European Identity, Transnational Politics, and the Origins of the European Convention (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

81Jacques Maritain, “Philosophical Examination of Human Rights,” in Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations, a Symposium Edited by UNESCO, July 25, 1948.

82Dunn and Freeman, “International Rights of Individuals,” 14–22.

83Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Grotian Tradition in International Law,” British Yearbook of International Law 23, no. 1 (1946): 1–53.

84“The Cassin Draft: Suggestions Submitted by the Representative of France for Articles of the International Declaration of Human Rights,” in Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: Random House, 2001), app. 2, 278. Glendon does not examine the significance of Cassin’s specific formulation, though she cites his departure from Humphrey’s draft of the declaration. See Glendon, World Made New, 64. On the nationalist and welfarist premise of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, see Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), chap. 2.

85Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, Intent (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 80.

86“UN Body Rejects Plan for Stateless,” New York Times, June 5, 1948, 4.

87H. F. Van Panhuys, The Role of Nationality in International Law: An Outline (Leiden: A. W. Sythoff, 1959), 221.

88UN General Assembly, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” December 10, 1948, 217, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html.

89Cited in Winter and Prost, René Cassin and Human Rights, 249.

90Eduard Reut-Nicolussi, “Displaced Persons and International Law,” Recueil des cours 73 (1948): 19–64, cited in Cohen, In War’s Wake, 82.

91Mark Greif, The Age of the Crisis of Man: Thought and Fiction in America, 1933–1973 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015), 79; Garry Davis, The World Is My Country: The Autobiography of Garry Davis (New York: Putnam, 1961). On world federalism, see Sluga, Internationalism in the Age of Nationalism; Rosenboim, Emergence of Globalism.

92Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford, CA: Zone Books, 1998).

93Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Law of Nations and the Individual.”

94Hersch Lauterpacht, An International Bill of the Rights of Man (New York, 1945), 7; H. Lauterpacht, “Grotian Tradition”; H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights (New York, 1950), 347–348.

95H. Lauterpacht, “Nationality of Denationalized Persons.”

96H. Lauterpacht, “Grotian Tradition”; H. Lauterpacht, International Bill, 7.

97Philip C. Jessup, “The Subjects of a Modern Law of Nations,” Michigan Law Review 45, no. 4 (1947): 383–408.

98Ibid.

99In January 1940, Hans Morgenthau had written to Jessup about the “disrepute” of international law and suggested that it would not have fallen into such dire straits “had not certain schools of thought imbued public opinion with illusions for which now public opinion takes international law as a whole to account.” Morgenthau to Jessup, January 4, 1940, Philip Jessup Papers, Library of Congress.

100His article had come out of a graduate seminar he taught at Columbia University in international law where students had written on “the equality of states as dogma and reality” and “the evolution of the equality of states in the inter-American system.” Jessup, “Subjects of a Modern Law,” 397n52.

101Philip C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations: An Introduction (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 69.

102In early 1948 in New York, Lauterpacht drafted a version of the Israeli Declaration of Independence with Shabtai Rosenne, the future legal advisor to the Israeli government after independence. The creation of the state of Israel proved, moreover, to be a special case for Lauterpacht, and he generally advised that if national sovereignty was to be a force in the postwar world, its birth should be dictated and carefully monitored by international institutions. When an Indian principality looking to assert its independence both from Britain and from independent India approached him for advice, Lauterpacht recommended that they seek recognition from the International Court of Justice. He advised the Jewish Agency in Palestine to avoid the international court. See James Loeffler, “The ‘Natural Right of the Jewish People’: Zionism, International Law, and the Paradox of Hersch Zvi Lauterpacht,” in The Law of Strangers: Jewish Lawyering and International Legal Thought, ed. James Loeffler and Moria Paz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 21–42. Lauterpacht produced a lengthy text entitled “Declaration of the Assumption of Power by the Provisional Governments of the Jewish Republic” in which he elaborated a legal argument for the recognition of the new state. Yoram Shachar, “Jefferson Goes East: The American Origins of the Israeli Declaration of Independence,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 10, no. 2 (2009): 589–618; E. Lauterpacht, Life of Hersch Lauterpacht, 305–306. Josef Kunz harshly criticized Lauterpacht for a 1948 treatise in which he argued that new states came into existence without the primary recognition of an international legal norm. Their debate turned on whether the creation of the independent state of Israel rested on the state’s own declaration of its existence or on whether other states recognized it as such. Josef L. Kunz, “Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht’s ‘Recognition in International Law,’” The American Journal of International Law 44, no. 4 (1950): 713–719.

103Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 107.

104Hannah Arendt, “We Refugees,” Menorah Journal 31, no. 1 (1943): 69–77; Arendt, “The Stateless People,” Contemporary Jewish Record 8, no. 2 (1945): 137–153.

105Lawrence Preuss, “International Law and Deprivation of Nationality,” Georgetown Law Journal 23, no. 2 (1935): 250–276; Arendt papers, “Excerpts and Notes,” Minority Statelessness, Hannah Arendt Papers, Library of Congress.

106Karl Renner, “Die Nation: Mythos und Wirklichkeit,” trans. S. Pierre-Caps and C. Tixador, in La nation, mythe et réalité (Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1998).

107Koppel Pinson, “Simon Dubnow: Historian and Political Philosopher,” in Nationalism and History: Essays on Old and New Judaism, ed. Koppel Pinson (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1958).

108Hannah Arendt, “Concerning Minorities,” Contemporary Jewish Record 7, no. 4 (1944): 353–368.

109Arendt, “Stateless People.”

110Arendt, “Stateless People”; Gil Rubin, “From Federalism to Binationalism: Hannah Arendt’s Shifting Zionism,” Contemporary European History 24, no. 3 (2015): 393–414; William Selinger, “The Politics of Arendtian Historiography: European Federation and the Origins of Totalitarianism,” Modern Intellectual History 13, no. 2 (2014): 1–30; Douglas Klusmeyer, “Hannah Arendt’s Case for Federalism,” Publius 40, no. 1 (2010): 31–58; Wolfgang Heuer, “Europe and Its Refugees: Arendt on the Politicization of Minorities,” Social Research 74, no. 4 (2007): 1159–1172. Compare Roy T. Tsao, “Arendt and the Modern State: Variations on Hegel in ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism,’” Review of Politics 66, no. 1 (2004): 105–136. On the federalist imaginary, see Gary Wilder, Freedom Time (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015); Adi Gordon, Toward Nationalism’s End: An Intellectual Biography of Hans Kohn (Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2017).

111Hans Morgenthau reviewed the same work and arrived at the same conclusion. See Hans Morgenthau, review of Nationalities and National Minorities, by Oscar I. Janowsky, Harvard Law Review 59, no. 2 (1945): 301–304; Hannah Arendt, review of Nationalities and National Minorities, by Oscar I. Janowsky, Jewish Social Studies 8, no. 3 (1946): 204. See also Oscar Janowsky, Nationalities and National Minorities (with Special Reference to East-Central Europe) (New York: Macmillan, 1945); Janowsky, The Jews and Minority Rights, 1898–1919 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933).

112Arendt, review of Nationalities and National Minorities.

113Hannah Arendt, “The Nation,” Review of Politics 8, no. 1 (1946): 138–141. See Istvan Hont, “The Permanent Crisis of a Divided Mankind,” in Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 498. On the affinities between Arendt and Hegel in The Origins of Totalitarianism on the role of the modern state, see Tsao, “Arendt and the Modern State.” On the idea of an “enlightenment state” against nationalism, see Faisal Devji, Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). See Ira Katznelson, Desolation and Enlightenment: Political Knowledge after Total War, Totalitarianism, and the Holocaust (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). On the idea that the “state without qualities” served as the foundation for Cold War liberalism by providing the promise of value neutralism, see David Cieply, “Why the State Was Dropped in the First Place: A Prequel to Skockpol’s ‘Bringing the State Back In,’” Critical Review 14, no. 2 (2000): 157–213.

114Arendt to Broch, September 9, 1946, in Hannah Arendt—Hermann Broch Briefwechsel, 1946–1951, ed. Paul Michael Lützeler (Frankfurt: Jüdischer, 1996), 14. See also Elisabeth Gallas, “The Struggle for a Universal Human Rights Regime: Hannah Arendt and Hermann Broch on the Paradoxes of a Concept,” S.I.M.O.N 4, no. 2 (2017): 123–130.

115Note by Byron Dexter to Letter Mary Stevens, April 22, 1949, Correspondence, box 3, Hamilton Fish Papers, Mudd Library, Princeton University Library; Hannah Arendt, “The Rights of Man: What are They?,” Modern Review 3, no. 1 (1949): 24–37. The essay appeared in Modern Review, perhaps because the managing editor at Foreign Affairs, Byron Dexter, suggested a number of substantive changes to the piece.

116Arendt, “Rights of Man.” The German translation retitled the piece to reflect the idea that the right to have rights amounted to the only meaningful human right. Hannah Arendt, “Es gibt nu rein einziges Menschenrecht,” Die Wandlung 4 (1949): 754–770. The German title was suggested by Dolf Sternberger. See Christophe Menke, Birgit Kaiser, and Kathrin Thiele, “The ‘Aporias of Human Rights’ and the ‘One Human Right’: Regarding the Coherence of Arendt’s Argument,” Social Research 74, no. 3 (2007): 739–762; Justine Lacroix, “The ‘Right to Have Rights’ in French Political Philosophy: Conceptualizing a Cosmopolitan Citizenship with Arendt,” Constellations 22, no. 1 (2015): 79–90.

117Arendt, “Rights of Man.” On the polemical nature of Arendt’s singular appeal to the concept of rights within her wider oeuvre, see Samuel Moyn, “Arendt and the Right to Have Rights,” in The Right to Have Rights, ed. Alastair Hunt et al. (London: Verson, 2017), 118–148.

118Faisal Devji, Muslim Zion: Pakistan as a Political Idea (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

119Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books, 1951), 128.

120Ibid., 41.

121Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 292.

122Arendt relied especially on Lawrence Preuss. See Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 278; Preuss, “International Law.” She also cited John Fischer Williams, “Denationalisation,” British Yearbook of International Law 8, no. 3 (1927): 45–62. See Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 284n36. In his study of the “man without a country” from 1946, the English journalist M. J. Landa wrote, “Until the end of the first world-war the term ‘stateless’ was unknown … it had not gained admission into the ordinary dictionaries. Even the lawyers could not say precisely what it meant, or implied, though it soon became patent to those who had to take cognizance of it that it referred to a new type of refugee, of lower degree, one of the ‘lesser breeds without the law.’” M. Landa, The Man without a Country (London: Herbert Joseph, 1946), 8.

123Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 291–292. On Arendt’s presumption of a disconnect between the Western political tradition and European imperialism and pan-nationalism, see Dirk Moses, “Das römische Gesprāch in a New Key: Hannah Arendt, Genocide, and the Defense of Republican Civilization,” Journal of Modern History 85, no. 4 (2013): 867–913; Karuna Mantena “Genealogies of Catastrophe: Arendt on the Logic and Legacy of Imperialism,” in Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt, ed. Seyla Benhabib, Roy T. Tsao, and Peter Verovsek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 83. For criticism of Arendt’s presentation of law in relation to the idea of humanity, see Samera Esmeir, Juridical Humanity: A Colonial History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012).

124Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, ix.

125Ibid.

126Immanuel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” in Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History: Immanuel Kant, ed. Pauline Kleingeld, trans. David Colclasure (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 82. Arendt quoted this in her 1970 lectures on Kant. Hannah Arendt, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 75.

127On the role of the territorial state for the enforcement of rights in Kant’s political thought, see Anna Stilz, “Nations, States, and Territory,” Ethics 121, no. 3 (2011): 572–601.

6. NATIONALIZING INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

1Hélène Batresco to UN Secretary-General, October 21, 1960, SOA 261/41, United Nations Office at Geneva. For memoirs by stateless people, see Kon Balin, Born Stateless: A Young Man’s Story, 1923–1957 (Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2009); Liliane Willens, Stateless in Shanghai (Hong Kong: Earnshaw Books, 2011); Victor Brombert, Trains of Thought: Memories of a Stateless Youth (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002); Anna Fries, Memoirs of a Stateless Person (Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2013).

2Hélène Batresco to UN Secretary-General, October 21, 1960, SOA 261/41, United Nations Organization Library.

3Patrick Murphy Malin, “The Refugee, a Problem for International Organization,” International Organization 1, no. 3 (1947): 443–459. A different study from the previous year drew attention to the technical difference between refugees and the stateless but emphasized statelessness as a broad category that should encompass both those without a formal connection to any state and those refugees who did not wish to return home. Jane Perry Clark Carey, “Some Aspects of Statelessness since World War I,” American Political Science Review 40, no. 1 (1946): 113–123.

4“Stateless Persons Win Inquiry by UN,” New York Times, February 21, 1948, 4.

5Economic and Social Council resolution 116 (6) D of March 1–2, 1948 (E/777).

6United Nations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949: Summary Records and Documents of the First Session Including the Report to the General Assembly (New York: United Nations, 1956), 281.

7“Position Paper,” June 10, 1949, box 3, RG59, General Records of the Department of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs, ECOSOC Special Subject Files 1945–1955, National Archives and Records Administration. On the resistance in the United States to asylum provisions, see Gil Loescher and John A. Scanlan, Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America’s Half-Open Door, 1945–Present (New York: Free Press, 1986).

8Laura Madokoro, Elusive Refuge: Chinese Migrants in the Cold War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016).

9R. Campbell to Ernst Bevin, May 27, 1949, Fraternity of Cypriots in Egypt and Stateless Persons of Cypriot Origin, FO 371/73669, TNA: PRO.

10Confidential Memo Chancery Cairo Africa Department, August 7, 1949, Fraternity of Cypriots in Egypt and Stateless Persons of Cypriot Origin, FO 371/73669, TNA: PRO.

11“Comments on the Disadvantages of Extending British Nationality to Stateless Persons of Cypriot Origin in Egypt,” August 7, 1949, Fraternity of Cypriots in Egypt and Stateless Persons of Cypriot Origins, FO 371/73669, TNA: PRO.

12United Nations Department of Social Affairs, A Study of Statelessness (Lake Success, NY: United Nations Department of Social Affairs, 1949).

13Ibid., 11.

14J. G. A. Pocock, “The Ideal of Citizenship since Classical Times,” in Theorizing Citizenship, ed. Ronald Biener (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 29–53.

15Paul Weis to G. G. Kullman, January 19, 1950, Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/IRO/6, Social Science Library, Oxford University.

16Russian émigré jurists involved in advocating for the Russian stateless since the 1920s complained to Weis that the International Refugee Organization protected only those who became refugees after 1939 and that the new convention would exclude stateless refugees from before the war, including Russians and Armenian carriers of the Nansen passport. J. Rubenstein to P. Weis, February 3, 1950, Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/IRO/6, Social Science Library, Oxford University.

17P. Weis to G. G. Kullman, January 19, 1950, Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/IRO/6, Social Science Library, Oxford University.

18“Délégation française étude de la situations des apatrides,” 1949, Apatrides, 1947–1959, box 298, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, La Corneuve. On the turn to psychological explanations for the refugee experience in this period, see Tara Zahra, The Lost Children: Reconstructing Europe’s Families after World War II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011).

19Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, “Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons—Memorandum by the Secretary General” (Statelessness Conference, January 3, 1950, www.unhcr.org/3ae68c280.html).

20“Complete Rendering of Debates on ‘Apatridie,’” box 298, Apatrides, 1947–1959, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, La Corneuve.

21“Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems: Personal Summary Records of the Fourth Meeting,” January 10, 1950, box 17, files of Durward V. Sandifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs, 1944–1954, RG59, National Archives and Records Administration.

22“Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness—Position Paper,” June 10, 1950, ECOSOC SD/E/448, box 3, RG59 General Records of the Department of State, National Archives and Records Administration.

23Ibid.

24UN General Assembly, “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,” July 28, 1951, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx.

25On the distinction between asylum and non-refoulement, see James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 300–302.

26On recent refugee historiography identifying a more insidious relationship between humanitarian actors and postwar national homogenization, see Pamela Ballinger, “Impossible Returns, Enduring Legacies: Recent Historiography of Displacement and the Reconstruction of Europe after World War II,” Contemporary European History 22, no. 1 (2013): 127–138. Also see Mark Mazower, Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe (New York: Penguin, 2008), 602–603.

27“Is Statelessness an Evil? A Collection of Opinions, Statements, Declarations,” box 4, Ivan S. Kerno Papers, Hoover Institution Archives. A lifelong international civil servant, Kerno began working at the Czechoslovak Foreign Service at the Paris Peace Conference and later became a member of the secretariat of the League of Nations. Before that, he studied law in Budapest and Paris. After the war, he became the assistant secretary-general for the UN Legal Department, and in this capacity he supervised the work of the International Law Commission. He drafted his legal reflections on statelessness at the same time that he faced the precariousness of his own status as a suspected communist who sought asylum in the United States. Kerno Travel Pass, box 2, Ivan S. Kerno Papers, Hoover Institution Archives. “Czech Ex Official of UN Says He Will Stay in US as an Exile,” Herald Tribune, September 30, 1952, box 1, Ivan S. Kerno Papers, Hoover Institution Archives.

28“Commentary on G. Scelle,” Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/IRO/6, Social Science Library, Oxford. On Lauterpacht’s postwar faith in a transcendent international legal order, see Surabhi Ranganathan, “Between Philosophy and Anxiety: The Early International Law Commission, Treaty Conflict and the Project of International Law,” British Yearbook of International Law 83, no. 1 (2013), 82–114.

29Georges Scelle, “Le Problème de L’apatridue devant la Commission du Droit international de l’O.N.U.,” Die Friedens-Warte 52 (1953/55): 142–153.

30H. Lauterpacht to P. Weis, March 5, 1951, Paul Weis Papers, PW/WR/PUBL/9, Social Science Library, Oxford.

31H. Lauterpacht to Cordova, September 17, 1953, Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/IRO/6, Social Science Library, Oxford.

32“Commentary on G. Scelle,” Paul Weis Papers, PW/PR/IRO/6, Social Science Library, Oxford. Budislav Vukas, “International Instruments Dealing with the Status of Stateless Persons and of Refugees,” Revue Belge de Droit International 8, no. 1 (1972): 142–144.

331954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, New York, September 28, 1954 (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1960).

34US State Department officials described the convention as one of “principal interest to European states.” Durward V. Sandifer to M. Hickerson, January 16, 1950, Statelessness: Ad Hoc Convention, box 17, RG 59, General Records of the Department of State, National Archives and Records Administration.

35See David Kennedy, A World of Struggle: How Power, Law, and Expertise Shape Global Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), 238. See generally, Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).

36Ann Orford, “Constituting Order,” in Cambridge Companion to International Law, ed. Martti Koskenniemi and James Crawford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 286.

37“Karl Marx and the Tradition of Western Political Thought,” Christian Gauss Seminar in Criticism, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, Speeches and Writings File, 1923–1975, Hannah Arendt Papers, Library of Congress. Aristide Zolberg, “The Formation of New States as a Refugee Generating Process,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 467, no. 1 (1983): 24–38.

38Hannah Arendt, Denktagebuch: 1950–1973, bk. 17, ed. Ursula Lutz (Munich: Piper, 2002), 420.

39On Arendt’s response to American denationalization of suspected communists, see Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 274–275.

40“UN Asked to Call Stateless Parley: Meeting of the Last Twenty Nations to Discuss Plight of Vast Group Sought,” New York Times, October 17, 1954, 9. Excerpts and Notes, Minority statelessness, Speeches and Writings File, 1923–1975, Hannah Arendt Papers, Library of Congress.

41Hannah Arendt, “Statelessness,” lecture, 1955, Speeches and Writings File, 1923–1975, Hannah Arendt Papers, Library of Congress.

42Ibid.

43Ibid.

44On Arendt’s general aversion to legal formalism, see Christian Volk, “From Nomos to Lex: Hannah Arendt on Law, Politics, and Order,” Leiden Journal of International Law 23, no. 4 (2010): 759–779.

45On the postwar conflation of civil society, external security, and sovereignty, see Charles Maier, Leviathan 2.0: Inventing Modern Statehood (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014). For the recent revisionist literature in American legal history criticizing the presumed opposition between state and civil society, see Jeremy Kessler, “The Struggle for Administrative Legitimacy,” Harvard Law Review 129, no. 3 (2016): 718–783. On the creation of a bourgeois public space distinct from and in opposition to the state apparatus, and the reintegration of state and society in the welfare state, see Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991).

46The British theorist of the postwar welfare state T. H. Marshall developed the idea of “social citizenship,” which likewise portrayed formal membership in a less favorable light. T. H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950).

47In a letter to her former mentor Karl Jaspers from December 1953, Arendt expressed her doubts on the durability of the American republic, worrying that it was being “dissolved from within by the democracy” and that “society is overwhelming the republic.” Intellectuals, she wrote, were confused about these matters, and the blame for this confusion “lies with the sociologists and psychologists in whose conceptual swamp everything founders and sinks.” Hannah Arendt to Karl Jaspers, December 21, 1953, in Hannah Arendt / Karl Jaspers: Correspondence, 1926–1969, ed. Lotte Kohler and Hans Saner (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992), 236.

48Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958); Dorothy Ross, “Changing Contours of the Social Science Disciplines,” in The Cambridge History of Science: The Modern Social Sciences, vol. 7, ed. Dorothy Ross and Theodor Porter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 205–238. Social scientists frequently came under attack in her writing for failing to comprehend the radically new understanding of human behavior required by the revelation of the concentration and extermination camps. See, for example, Arendt, “Social Science Technique and the Study of Concentration Camps,” Jewish Social Studies 12, no. 1 (1950): 49–64.

49See Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012). Arendt famously worried that the questions of redistribution at the heart of the welfare state could not sustain the realm of public citizenship. See Dana Villa, “Introduction: The Development of Arendt’s Political Thought,” in The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 1–25; Hanna Pitkin, The Attack of the Blob: Hannah Arendt’s Concept of the Social (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998); Steven Klein, “Fit to Enter the World: Hannah Arendt on Politics, Economics, and the Welfare State,” American Political Science Review 108, no. 4 (2014): 856–869; Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960).

50Rogers Brubaker noted in his classic comparative study of citizenship in France and Germany that formal citizenship, the legal connection that binds individuals to particular states, has been largely neglected in the postwar social sciences. Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 21–22. On this point also see Peter Sahlins, Unnaturally French: Foreign Citizens in the Old Regime And After (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), xii.

51Cited in Ayelet Shachar, “The Marketization of Citizenship in an Age of Restrictionism,” Ethics and International Affairs 32, no. 1 (2018): 3–13.

52Robert D. Sloane, “Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International Legal Regulation of Nations,” Harvard International Law Review 50, no. 1 (2009): 4; Cindy G. Buys, “Nottebohm’s Nightmare: Have We Exorcised the Ghosts of WWII Detention Programs or Do They Still Haunt Guantanamo?,” Chicago Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law 11, no. 1 (2011): 1–76.

53“Nottebohm Case (Second Phase),” I. C. J. Reports, 1955, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/18/2676.pdf.

54J. Mervyn Jones, “The Nottebohm Case,” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 5, no. 2 (1956): 244.

55Legal scholars have described the ruling as part of a “romantic period of international relations” by affirming the principle that nationality should reflect a social fact of attachment. See Karen Knop, “Statehood, Territory, People, Government,” in The Cambridge Companion to International Law, ed. James Crawford and Martti Koskenniemi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 95–117. On decolonization generating an antiformalistic international law, see Umut Ozsu, “Determining New Selves: Mohammed Bedjaoui on Algeria, Western Sahara, and Post-Classical International Law,” in The Battle for International Law in the Decolonization Era, ed. Jochen von Bernstorff and Philipp Dann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 341–358.

56“Nottebohm Case (Second Phase),” I. C. J. Reports, 1955.

57On the creation of new states during decolonization through the recognition of international society, see Matthew Connelly, A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria’s Fight for Independence and the Origins of the Post–Cold War Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

58The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, interview conducted by Wayne Wilcox and Aisle T. Embree for Columbia University (Maple, Canada: Oriental, 2004), 188–190.

59“American Department—Guatemala,” January 6, 1953, FO 371/103358, TNA: PRO.

60Annex to the memorandum from Mr. Schwelb to M. De Seynes of February 24, 1955, on the Right of Self-Determination, SOA 317/1/03 A.

61“Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Guggenheim),” International Court of Justice Reports of Judgments 4, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1955, 59–60.

62Elihu Lauterpacht, The Life of Hersch Lauterpacht (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 383.

63Henry Franklin Butler et al., “The Draft Conventions on Statelessness of the International Law Commission,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting, 6th session (April 27, 1956), 173. On Soubbotich’s interwar work on legal nationality, see Ivan Soubbotich, Effets de la dissolution de l’Autriche-Hongrie sur la nationalité de ses ressortisants (Paris: Rousseau, 1926).

64Butler et al., “Draft Conventions,” 175–176.

65Paul Weis, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (London: Stevens, 1956), 3.

66Paul Weis, “The International Protection of Refugees,” American Journal of International Law 48, no. 2 (1954): 193–221.

67Weis, Nationality and Statelessness, 3.

68Ibid., xvii. See also Nissim Bar-Yaacov, Dual Nationality (London: Stevens, 1961). Bar Yaacov’s book is based on a dissertation supervised by Lauterpacht at Cambridge University and traces the principle of effective nationality back to court cases at the turn of the twentieth century.

69“Denmark: Memorandum with Draft Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,” 1955, A/CONF.9/4, http://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1959_statelessness/vol1.shtml.

70See United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Second Committee: Summary Records of Meetings and Annexes, February 24–April 27, 1958, 4, http://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1958/vol/english/2nd_Cttee_vol_IV_e.pdf. Under the guise of securing the sea as a “common heritage of mankind,” the UN Convention licensed bringing 40 percent of the ocean’s surface under national control. Martti Koskenniemi, “The Future of Statehood,” Harvard International Law Journal 32, no. 2 (1991): 397–410. Debates over the boundaries of sovereignty in relation to airspace and outer space in this period likewise reflect the broader trend of nationalization. See Philip C. Jessup and Howard J. Taubenfeld, Controls for Outer Space and the Antarctic Analogy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959); Stuart Banner, Who Owns the Sky? The Struggle to Control Air Space from the Wright Brothers On (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), chap. 9. On the uniformity of migration law produced by postcolonial states from the 1940s to the 1970s as a crucial dimension of modern global convergence, see Alison Bashford, “Immigration Restriction: Rethinking Period and Place from Settler Colonies to Postcolonial Nations,” Journal of Global History 9, no. 1 (2013): 26–48.

71Josef L. Kunz, “The Nottebohm Judgment (Second Phase),” American Journal of International Law 54, no. 3 (1960): 536–571.

72On the broader crisis of formalism in the international legal profession and in legal thought more generally, see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Judith Shklar, Legalism: Law, Morals and Political Trials (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964); David Kennedy, The Dark Side of Virtue: Reassessing Modern Humanitarianism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 210–211; Kennedy, World of Struggle, 234; Rosalyn Higgins, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963). Legal scholars from the global south endorsed the turn away from classical legal positivism as a way to empower non-European states. Umut Özsu, “‘In the Interest of Mankind as a Whole’: Mohammed Bedjaoui’s New International Economic Order,” Humanity 6, no. 1 (2015): 129–143.

73Ian Brownlie, “The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law,” British Year-book of International Law 39, no. 284 (1963): 284–264.

74Ian Brownlie, “The Individual before International Tribunals,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1962): 701–720.

75Josef Kunz, “The Distinctiveness of the International Legal System: Comparison and Contrast,” Ohio State Law Journal 22, no. 3 (1961): 449. Marek St. Korowicz, a Polish scholar of international and constitutional law who had studied at the Jagiellonian University in Lviv before the Second World War, concluded that the proliferation of international and transnational legal instruments reflected the ultimate disintegration of international law into a dizzying number of branches from maritime and air law to international crimes. Marek St. Korowicz, Introduction to International Law: Present Conceptions of International Law in Theory and Practice (The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, 1959), 21. Also see M. Korowicz, “The Problem of the International Personality of Individuals,” American Journal of International Law 50, no. 3 (1956): 533–562.

76Robert Kann, The Habsburg Empire: A Study in Integration and Disintegration (New York: Octagon, 1957). “National equality without the social basis of equal rights is a mere travesty that reduces supranational compromise to an empty formula.” Robert A. Kann, “Die Habsburgermonarchie und das Problem des ubernationalen Staaten,” in Die Habsburger Monarchie, 1848–1918, ed. Adam Wandruszka and Peter Urbanitsch, vol. 2 (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science Press, 1975), 22, cited in Gerald Stourzh, “Multinational Empire Revisited,” in From Vienna to Chicago and Back: Essays on Intellectual History and Political Thought in Europe and America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 135.

77In his article on the legal aspects of the trial, Hans Baade registered the controversy over the Nottebohm decision, citing Josef Kunz’s disagreement with the ruling. Hans W. Baade, “The Eichmann Trial: Some Legal Aspects,” Duke Law Journal 1961, no. 3 (1961): 400–420.

78Yosal Rogat, The Eichmann Trial and the Rule of Law (Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1961), 24; Book annotations, The Eichmann Trial and the Rule of Law, General, 1938–1976, Rogat, Yosal, Correspondence File, 1938–1976, Hannah Arendt Papers, Library of Congress.

79Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York: Viking Press, 1963), 238. See Roy T. Tsao, “Arendt and the Modern State: Variations on Hegel in ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism,’” Review of Politics 66, no. 1 (2004): 133.

80Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Viking, 1963), 108–109. Arendt shared an interest in the mysteries of legal personality at this particular moment with Ernst Kantorowicz, the author of The King’s Two Bodies, a work published in 1957 that developed out of an earlier reflection on the mystical medieval origins of sovereignty from a shorter essay written for a festschrift for Max Radin, a legal philosopher who developed some of the central twentieth-century legal writing on the subject of corporate legal personality. Kantorowicz argued that medieval corporation theory built on Roman legal conceptual foundations but acquired a deeper conception of the immortality of legal constructions like corporations, and later states, from its medieval ideas about the eternal life of angels and the doctrine of corpus Christi, entities that maintain their identity in spite of change. See Ernst Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957). On the connection to Radin’s writings, see Robert Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz: A Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017), 344.

81On the neoliberal conception of “Xenos Rights” originating in the post-Habsburg imperial setting, see Quinn Slobodian, The Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018). On Arendt’s criticism of “the social” and a comparison of her thought with that of Hayek, see Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West (New York: Columbia University Press, 2019). William Davies, The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty, and the Logic of Competition (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2017), 8.

82On the postwar US cases, see Patrick Weil, The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), chap. 11. See Sigal Ben-Porath and Rogers Smith, eds., Varieties of Sovereignty and Citizenship (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013).

83Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958); Trop v. Dulles, October Term 1957, box 104 folders 14–18 to box 105 folders 1–4, series 1, 20, reel 34, Felix Frankfurter Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

84In his opinion, Warren cited the UN’s Study of Statelessness, as well as works from the interwar era on the subject of statelessness written from a comparative and international legal perspective, including Edwin M. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (New York.: Banks Law, 1915); Catherine Seckler-Hudson, Statelessness, with Special Reference to the United States: A Study in Nationality and Conflict of Law (Washington, DC: American University, 1934). An unsigned article by Stephan Pollack for the Yale Law Review on the Expatriation Act of 1954 first suggested the application of the Eighth Amendment to the expatriation cases. Pollack drew heavily on Arendt’s discussion of statelessness. Weil, Sovereign Citizen, 160; “The Expatriation Act of 1954,” Yale Law Review 64, no. 8 (1955): 1164–1200; Trop v. Dulles, October Term 1957, 104–14 to 105–4, series 1, 20, Felix Frankfurter Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

85Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 125 (1958).

86Trop v. Dulles, October Term 1957, 104–14 to 105–4, series 1, 20, Felix Frankfurter Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

87Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 111–112 (1958).

88Unlike the 1954 conference, which the United States did not participate in, the United States joined the 1959 proceedings and took a stronger interest in shaping the convention. M. Wilcox to M. Becker, January 29, 1959, UN Elimination and Reduction of Future Statelessness, box 365, A1 5536, National Archives and Records Administration. Stavropoulos to Liang, April 20, 1959, International Conference of Plenipotentiaries to Conclude a Convention on the Reduction or Elimination of Future Statelessness, SO 261/41, United Nations Office at Geneva. Nehemiah Robinson, July 1, 1960, box 96, file 5, World Jewish Committee Collection, United States Holocaust Museum Memorial; Nehemiah Robinson, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (A Magna Charta for Stateless Persons) (New York: Institute of Jewish Affairs, World Jewish Congress, 1954).

89Paul Weis, “The United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 11, no. 4 (1962): 1073–1096; Alison Kesby, The Right to Have Rights: Citizenship, Humanity, and International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 49. On the emphasis in the 1961 Convention on factual connection and evidence of allegiance, and the influence of the Nottebohm decision, see Peter Mutharika, The Regulation of Statelessness under International Law (New York: Oceana, 1977), 120; Norman Bentwich, “Human Rights and the Reduction of Statelessness,” Contemporary Review 201, no. 1153 (1962): 57–60; J. M. Ross, “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis?,” in Studies in the History of the Law of Nations, ed. C. H. Alexandrowicz (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970), 22.

90Peter Gatrell, The Making of the Modern Refugee (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

91See, for example, Vazira Fazila-Yaccobali Zamindar, The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); Emma Haddad, The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Guy Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

92Frederick Cooper, Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and French Africa, 1945–1960 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).

93In a 1966 essay Martin Wight, a British scholar of international relations, related that the “urgent problem of stateless persons” underscored the limits of the doctrine that only states had international legal personality. Martin Wight, “Western Values in International Relations,” in Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, ed. Martin Wight and Herbert Butterfield (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966), 101; Rosalyn Higgins, “Conceptual Thinking about the Individual in International Law,” British Journal of International Studies 4, no. 1 (1978): 1–19.

94On the retention of the legal properties of statehood even under conditions of colonialism or occupation, see C. H. Alexandrowicz, “New and Original States: The Issue of Reversion to Sovereignty,” in The Law of Nations in Global History, ed. David Armitage and Jennifer Pitts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 375–384. Also see Matthew Craven, “The Problem of State Succession and the Identity of States under International Law,” European Journal of International Law 9 (1998): 142–162.

95For a survey of the populations that have become the object of the campaign to end statelessness, see Greg Constantine’s website Nowhere People, http://www.nowherepeople.org/.
   For the history of statelessness in Kenya, see Julie MacArthur, “Decolonizing Sovereignty: States of Exception along the Kenya-Somali Frontier,” American Historical Review 124, no. 1 (2019): 108–143.

96HO 213/2360, Sierra Leone: Commonwealth Citizenship to Reduce Statelessness, TNA: PRO.

97HO 213/2345, Stateless in Zanzibar, 1964, Letter Solicitor Murgatroyd to O’Connor, Nationality and Consular department, July 8, 1965. People of Indian origin, who became registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies when Zanzibar was still a protectorate, exchanged that citizenship for citizenship of Zanzibar when it became an independent commonwealth country in 1963, and were deprived of their citizenship by the revolutionary government in January 1964 so that they became stateless. On the fact that the United Kingdom continued to deploy complex legal arrangements as the empire transferred sovereignty, see Steven Krasner, Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 230; Oliver Lissitzyn, “Territorial Entities Other than States in the Law of Treaties, vol. 125,” in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (1968); Vishnu D. Sharma, F. Wooldridge, “Some Legal Questions Arising from the Expulsion of the Ugandan Asians,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 23, no. 397 (1974): 397–425; HO 213/2360, Sierra Leone: Commonwealth Citizenship to Reduce Statelessness, TNA: PRO. Letter October 14, 1965.

98Seth Anziska, Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018); Paul Thomas Chamberlin, The Global Offensive: The United States, The Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Lydia Walker, “Decolonization in the 1960s: On Legitimate and Illegitimate Nationalist Claims-Making,” Past and Present 242, no. 1 (2019): 227–264.

99Peter Mutharika, The Regulation of Statelessness under International and National Law (New York, 1977). The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness took twelve years to secure the necessary ratifications, and now has only fifty-five state parties. For some exceptions to general scholarly neglect, see Myres McDougal, Harold Lasswell, and Lung-chu Chen, “Nationality and Human Rights: The Individual and External Arenas,” Yale Law Journal 83 (1974): 900–998; Dorothy Jean Walker, “Statelessness: Violation or Conduit for Violation of Human Rights?,” Human Rights Quarterly 3, no. 1 (1981): 106–123, cited in The State of the World’s Refugees, http://www.unhcr.org/3eb7ba7d4.html; T. R. Subramanya, “Problem of Statelessness in International Law,” International Studies 26, no. 337 (1989): 337–350.

CONCLUSION

1Matthew Seet, “The Origins of the UNHCR’s Global Mandate on Statelessness,” International Journal of Refugee Law 28, no. 1 (2016): 7–24; Mark Manly and Santosh Persaud, “UNHCR and Responses to Statelessness,” Forced Migration Review 32 (2009): 7; Andras Fehervary, “Citizenship, Statelessness and Human Rights: Recent Developments in the Baltic States,” International Journal of Refugee Law 5, no. 3 (1993): 392–423.

2Printed as J. G. A. Pocock, “The Politics of History: The Subaltern and the Subversive”, in Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method, ed. Pocock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 256. On the normative tension between human rights and sovereign equality, see Jean Cohen, Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). For an acute analysis of how the “globalization narrative” portrays a new era of globalization, transnational interaction, and privatization emerging in the 1970s that reconfigures borders, and generates new configurations of postnational membership and deterritorialized identities, see Adam Mckeown, Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).

3See for example Gidon Gottlieb, Nation against State: A New Approach to Ethnic Conflicts and the Decline of Sovereignty (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993). For a critical perspective on these proposals, see Nathaniel Berman, “Legalizing Jerusalem or, Of Law, Fantasy, and Faith,” Catholic University Law Review 45, no. 3 (1996): 823–836.

4Miranda Johnson, The Land Is Our History: Indigeneity, Law, and the Settler State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); S. James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Benedict Kingsbury, “Indigenous Peoples in International Law: A Constructivist Approach to the Asian Controversy,” American Journal of International Law 92, no. 414 (1998).

5See for example Quentin Skinner and Bo Strath, “Introduction,” in States and Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects, ed. Skinner and Strath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 2.

6In the work of the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, inspired by Arendt’s writings on the stateless, the figure of the excluded person who is still subject to power is the essence of a previously concealed political sovereignty. Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford, CA: Zone Books, 1998).

7Lauren Benton, Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), chap. 6.

8See Atossa Abrahamian, The Cosmopolites: The Coming of the Global Citizen (New York: Columbia Global Reports, 2015).

9Statement by António Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Third Committee of the General Assembly, 68th Session, November 6, 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/52a83ce99.html. Brad Blitz and Caroline Sawyer provide a comprehensive overview of contemporary literature. See Caroline Sawyer and Brad K. Blitz, Statelessness in the European Union: Displaced, Undocumented, Unwanted (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Legal analysis interprets international agreements to overcome the protection gap through legal ingenuity and analysis—drawing on the UDHR, the ICCPR, The Convention on the Rights of the Child. See Carol Batchelor, “Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection,” International Journal of Refugee Law 7, no. 2 (1995): 232–259; Batchelor, “Transforming International Legal Principle into National Law: The Right to a Nationality and the Avoidance of Statelessness,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2006): 8–25; Laura Van Waas, “Nationality Matters, 5 Years On: How Far Statelessness Has Travelled,” November 28, 2013, http://statelessprog.blogspot.hu/2013/11/nationality-matters-5-years-on-how-far.html.

10UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees: A Humanitarian Agenda (1997), chap. 6 “Statelessness and Citizenship,” http://www.unhcr.org/3eb7ba7d4.html. Also see Margaret Somers, Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness and the Right to Have Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Jacqueline Bhabha, ed., Children without a State: A Global Human Rights Challenge (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011); Tendayi Bloom, Katherine Tonkiss, and Phillip Cole, eds., Understanding Statelessness (London: Routledge, 2017). According to James Hathaway, an expert on international refugee law, “it is not enough … that the claimant carries a second passport from a nonpersecutory states if that state is not in fact willing to afford protection against return to the country of persecution.” James Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (United Kingdom: Buttersworth Canada, 1991), 59.

11See Guy Goodwin Gill on the potential for the Nottebohm case to have relevance beyond its limited context, https://www.ejiltalk.org/statelessness-is-back-not-that-it-ever-went-away/.

12Hamsa Murthy, “Sovereignty and Its Alternatives: On the Terms of (Illegal) Alienage in US Law,” in Who Belongs? Immigration, Citizenship, and the Constitution of Legality, ed. Austin Sarat (Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2013), 1–29; William E. Conklin, Statelessness: The Enigma of an International Community (Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2014); Eric Fripp, Nationality and Statelessness in the International Law of Refugee Status (Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2016); Linda Bosniak, “Being Here: Ethical Territoriality and the Rights of Immigrants,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8, no. 2 (2007): 389–410.

13Conklin, Statelessness, 223.

14On the general neglect of the outward dimensions of citizenship and belonging in the social sciences and in political theory, see Linda Bosniak, The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006); Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Though more recently, see Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi, eds., Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Anna Stilz, Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). For an example of how the postwar agreements provide the basis for normative reflection on refugees and stateless persons, see for example David Owen, “On the Normative Basis of the Institution of Refugeehood,” in Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership, ed. Fine and Ypi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); M. J. Gibney “The Rights of Non-Citizens to Membership,” in Statelessness in the European Union: Displaced, Undocumented, Unwanted, ed. C. Sawyer and B. Blitz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 45.

15Melissa Lane, “Positivism: Reactions and Developments,” in The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, ed. Richard Bellamy and Terence Ball (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 321–342. On postwar liberal political philosophy, see Katrina Forrester, In The Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019).

16Bruce Mazlish and Alfred Chandler, Leviathans: Multinational Corporations and the New Global History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Kim Rubenstein and Daniel Adler, “International Citizenship: The Future of Nationality in a Globalized World,” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 7, no. 2 (2000): 519–548; Turkuler Isiksel, “The Rights of Man and the Rights of Man-Made,” Human Rights Quarterly 38, no. 2 (2016): 308; Jose Alvarez, “Are Corporations ‘Subjects’ of International Law?,” Santa Clara Journal of International Law 9, no. 1 (2011). It is moral personality that some hope to extend to nonnatural persons, based on the idea that trees and landmarks, wilderness, corporations, states, and other artificial persons also have moral standing comparable to that of human beings. Christopher Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

17Charles Maier, Once within Borders: Territories of Power, Wealth, and Belonging since 1500 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017).

18Marija Dobrić, “Rising Statelessness Due to Disappearing Island States: Does the Current Status of International Law Offer Sufficient Protection?,” Statelessness and Citizenship Review 1, no. 1 (2019): 42–68; Heather Alexander and Jonathan Simon, “No Port, No Passport: Why Submerged States Can Have No Nationals,” Washington International Law Journal 26, no. 2 (2017); Paulina Ochoa Espejo, “Taking Place Seriously: Territorial Presence and the Rights of Immigrants,” Journal of Political Philosophy 24, no. 1 (2016): 67–87; Espejo, “People, Territory, and Legitimacy in Democratic States,” American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 2 (2014): 466–478.