Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Legal Regime of the South Atlantic World, 1400-1750: Jurisdictional Complexity as Institutional Order

The Legal Regime of the South Atlantic World, 1400-1750: Jurisdictional Complexity as... lauren benton New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University, Newark hat were the boundaries of the early modern world? Answers to this question rest upon assumptions about the nature of global interconnectedness. World-systems approaches have explicitly marked participation in global production networks as a criterion for inclusion in the world-economy of the sixteenth century, an emphasis that critics have noted leaves Africa and Asia oddly outside its boundaries.1 Highlighting trade is an alternative that leads toward different conclusions--for example, toward a greater emphasis on the importance of Asia in the global system.2 Yet as critics of world-systems history noted decades ago, understanding local-global connections through the analysis of trade invites inadequate attention to local conflicts that appear crucial in structuring regional incorporation in global markets.3 The alternatives, however, have always appeared badly 1 This criticism was raised in reviews in 1977 of the first volume of Wallerstein's trilogy on the world-system. For an overview of these critiques, see Benton, "From the World Systems Perspective to Institutional World History: Culture and Economy in Global Theory," Journal of World History 7 (1996): 261­95. 2 See A. G. Frank, ReOrient (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). 3 Mintz commented on http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of World History University of Hawai'I Press

The Legal Regime of the South Atlantic World, 1400-1750: Jurisdictional Complexity as Institutional Order

Journal of World History , Volume 11 (1) – Mar 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/the-legal-regime-of-the-south-atlantic-world-1400-1750-jurisdictional-I0OlijmiH4
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-8050
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

lauren benton New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University, Newark hat were the boundaries of the early modern world? Answers to this question rest upon assumptions about the nature of global interconnectedness. World-systems approaches have explicitly marked participation in global production networks as a criterion for inclusion in the world-economy of the sixteenth century, an emphasis that critics have noted leaves Africa and Asia oddly outside its boundaries.1 Highlighting trade is an alternative that leads toward different conclusions--for example, toward a greater emphasis on the importance of Asia in the global system.2 Yet as critics of world-systems history noted decades ago, understanding local-global connections through the analysis of trade invites inadequate attention to local conflicts that appear crucial in structuring regional incorporation in global markets.3 The alternatives, however, have always appeared badly 1 This criticism was raised in reviews in 1977 of the first volume of Wallerstein's trilogy on the world-system. For an overview of these critiques, see Benton, "From the World Systems Perspective to Institutional World History: Culture and Economy in Global Theory," Journal of World History 7 (1996): 261­95. 2 See A. G. Frank, ReOrient (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). 3 Mintz commented on

Journal

Journal of World HistoryUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Mar 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.