Archives de catégorie : Journées d’études

Matières à transfaire: Espaces-temps d’une globalisation (post-)ottomane

Affiche colloque final transfaire

Matières à transfaire
Espaces-temps d’une globalisation (post-)ottomane

Colloque international

Paris, 7-9 septembre 2016

École des hautes études en science sociales
96 boulevard Raspail
75006 Paris
Salle Maurice et Denys Lombard

Contacts organisateurs :

Marc Aymes : marc.aymes@gmail.com

Anouck Gabriela Côrte-réal Pinto : cortecorto@yahoo.fr

Sümbül Kaya : kayasumbul@hotmail.com

 

Programme

MERCREDI 7 SEPTEMBRE 2016

 

Après-midi (13h30 à 18h)

Introduction générale
Marc Aymes, Anouck Gabriela Corte-réal Pinto et Sümbül Kaya

 

            Autorités savantes et politiques : dominations et dissidences                

Présidence :
Pascale Rabault-Feuerhahn
(CNRS, Paris)

Benjamin Gourisse (Université Paris-Dauphine) : Le champ du pouvoir kémaliste

Despina Magkanari (EHESS) : Aux origines sinologiques de la turcologie française

Emmanuel Szurek (EHESS) : Les enjeux de la fondation du Centre d’études turques (Sorbonne, 1935)

Marie Bossaert (Ecole française de Rome) : Circulations italo-ottomanes. Les Arméniens et l’étude de la langue turque en Italie

Olivier Bouquet (Université Paris Diderot) : Ponctuation : suite et fin

Yohanan Benhaïm (Université Paris 1) : Militaires, diplomates et experts dans la production d’un savoir au service de la politique étrangère turque sur le Kurdistan d’Irak (1994-2008)

 

 JEUDI 8 SEPTEMBRE 2016

 

Matin (9h30 à 13h)

            Institutions éducatives et pluralisme religieux          

Présidence :
Matthieu Rey
(CNRS)

Alexandre Toumarkine (Orient-Institut Istanbul / Max Weber Stiftung) : Une pluralité religieuse scolaire négociée ? Les écoles « missionnaires » dans la Turquie kémaliste (1923-1938)

Benjamin Bruce (El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Monterrey) : Les politiques de l’enseignement islamique en France : l’histoire de l’éphémère faculté de théologie turque à Strasbourg

Gabrielle Angey (EHESS, Paris) : L’expérience du mouvement musulman turc de Fethullah Gülen en Afrique du Sud et au Sénégal : stratégies d’invisibilisation et de visibilisation du religieux dans le champ éducatif

Fabio Giomi (CNRS, Paris) : Pluralité religieuse et éducation dans la Yougoslavie de l’entre-deux-guerres : le cas des acteurs catholiques.

Nathalie Clayer (CNRS / EHESS, Paris) : Pluralité religieuse et écoles catholiques dans l’Albanie de l’entre-deux-guerres : de la contestation du contrôle de l’État à un contrôle contesté

Tassos Anastassiadis (École française d’Athènes) : Pluralité religieuse et écoles « étrangères » en Grèce durant l’entre-deux-guerres : trans-faire les champ religieux et éducatif à la « frontière ».

 

Après-midi (14h30 à 18h)

            Normes en chantier          

Présidence :
Baudouin Dupret
(CNRS, Paris)
&
Burak Onaran
(Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Istanbul)

 

Aylin Koçunyan (Bilgi Üniversitesi, Istanbul) : D’une histoire constitutionnelle de réformes juridiques vers une historiographie du droit constitutionnel en tant que « science sociale » : quelques études de cas

Dilek Sarmis (EHESS, Paris) : « Éthique et politique » du traduire philosophique dans l’histoire de la Turquie

Elen Le Chêne (IEP Aix-en-Provence) : Gérer les frontières de l’Europe. Circulations de normes et logiques d’État en Turquie

Marc Aymes (CNRS, Paris) : L’enquête au microscope : Une profession de matérialisme méthodologique.

 

VENDREDI 9 SEPTEMBRE 2016

 

Matin (9h30 à 13h)

            Circulations culturelles et savoir local          

Présidence :
Céline Barrère
(École nationale supérieure d’architecture et de paysage de Lille)
&
Shirine Hamadeh
(Rice University)

 

Clémence Scalbert-Yücel (University of Exeter) : La fabrique des politiques culturelles locales entre circulations, adaptations et contingences. Le cas du Yesil Yayla Festival (Rize-Artvin)

Erdal Kaynar (Van Leer Jerusalem Institute) : Quand les Ottomans découvrent la société : changement épistémologique et invention d’une notion

Lydia Zeghmar (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) : Institutionnaliser la danse traditionnelle. Le zeybek, du jeu dansé à la compétition sportive

Muriel Girard et Jean-François Polo (ENSA Marseille et IEP Rennes) : L’analyse des politiques culturelles au prisme du transfaire

Ségolène Débarre (Université Paris 1) : Comment Franz Babinger fit collection de photographies

 

Après-midi (14h30 à 18h)

            Turquie-UE, au-delà de l’alignement               

Anouck Gabriela Côrte-réal Pinto (Institut français d’études anatoliennes, Istanbul) : Fabrique et circulation du modèle européen fictif des relations civilo-militaires à l’épreuve de la Turquie

Claire Visier et Işıl Erdinç (IEP de Rennes et Université Paris 1) : Droits syndicaux et dialogue social : grandeur et décadence d’une notion

Élise Massicard (CNRS, Paris) : Quand les acteurs domestiques sont déterminants. Relire les réformes territoriales dans la Turquie des années 2000

                                     ______ Conclusions et Perspectives_____

« Faire le droit dans l’espace ottoman, 1800-1914 », 26-27 mai 2015

The Making of Law in the Ottoman Space, 1800-1914
Interdisciplinary/International Workshop

Postcard coded as AHISTBEYO002, Collection of Salt Research, Istanbul
Postcard coded as AHISTBEYO002, Collection of Salt Research, Istanbul

Date  : May 26th and 27th, 2015

Place  : Collège de France, salle Lévi Strauss, 52 rue Cardinal Lemoine, Paris, 5ème.

Access:

Subway: line 10, station Cardinal Lemoine or line 7, station Place Monge
Bus: line 47 & line 89 (bus stop Cardinal Lemoine)

The workshop is a part of the project entitled “Trans-acting Matters: Areas and Eras of a (Post-)Ottoman Globalization”, funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-12-GLOB-003) and supervised by Marc Aymes (CNRS, CETOBAC, Paris).

Pour télécharger le programme au format PDF : programme

Pour télécharger le résumé des communications  : résumés

PROGRAMME/Program

TUESDAY May 26th, 2015

09:00-09:30 Welcoming and registration
09:30-09:45 Welcoming address: Marc Aymes, Sümbül Kaya and Aylin Koçunyan
09:45-10:00 Marc Aymes
“Trans-acting Matters: Areas and Eras of a (Post-)Ottoman Globalization”

10:00-10:10 Coffee break
– SESSION I: 10:10-12:00
Transformation of the Legal Order and Reforms
Hümeyra Bostan, İstanbul Şehir University
New Means of Providing Justice in a Distant Province: Ottoman Judicial Reform in Yemen (1872-1918)

Ebru Aykut, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University
Revisiting the Basic Legal Principles of the Tanzimat in Light of a Customary Practice: House-Burning and Usul-i Cibal

Ileana Moroni, University of Basel
The Parliament as Law-Maker in the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the 1908 Revolution
Discussant: Nathalie Clayer, CETOBAC, EHESS
12:00-13:30: Lunch break
– SESSION II: 13:30-15:20
Law, Encounters and Hybridizations
Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Boğaziçi University
Codifying –or not Codifying- the Exception: the 1877 İdare-i Örfiye Kararnamesi

Wolfgang Egner, University of Constanz
The Negotiation of Entangled Law: The Global Context of Ottoman Law in Cyprus

William Smiley, Princeton University
Sovereignty, Sharia, and the Şeyhülislam in the Age of Revolutions
Discussant: François Georgeon, CETOBAC, EHESS
15:20-15:40 Coffee break
– SESSION III: 15:40-17:30

Law and the Multi-Ethnic Imperial Context

Aylin Koçunyan, CETOBAC, EHESS
French Impact on the Legal Transformation of the Millet System in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1865

Dzovinar Derderian, University of Michigan
Marriage Law as a Site of Resistance, 1840s-1870s
Yusuf Ziya Karabıçak, McGill University
Greek Associations and Ottoman Legality in Late Nineteenth Century
Discussant: Bernard Heyberger, CEIFR, EHESS

WEDNESDAY May 27th, 2015

-SESSION IV: 10:00-11:50
Law and Particular Social Landscapes

Ahmad Amara, New York University
State Making and Jurisdictional Tensions: The Beersheba Kaza as an Anomalous Legal Zone

Fatma Öncel, Boğaziçi University
Law and Struggle in Ottoman Rural Society: Çiftliks of Trikala

Christian Sassmannshausen, Freie Universität
When the Court Visited Home: Legal Out-of-Court Sessions and the Manzūl in Late Ottoman Tripoli
Discussant: Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Boğaziçi University

11:50-13:00 Lunch Break
– SESSION V: 13:00-14:20
Law, Legal Language and Content
Omar Y. Cheta, Bard College
“Wakil” and “Avukatu”: On the Politics of Legal Language in Late Ottoman Egypt

Sami Erdem, İstanbul Şehir University
From Fiqh Book to Legal Text: Revisiting Continuity and Change in the Majalla as a Model for Traditional Content in Modern Form
Discussant: Virginia H. Aksan, McMaster University
14:20-14:30 Coffee break

– SESSION VI: 14:30-15:50

Law and Social Categories

Ceyda Karamürsel, University of Pennsylvania
Race, Ethnicity and the Making of Law in the Post-Circassian Expulsion Ottoman Empire

İlkay Yılmaz, Istanbul University
Stamping the Outsider Subjects Inside: The Passport Regulations in the Hamidian Period

Discussant: Dina Khoury, George Washington University
15:50-16:00 Coffee break
16:00-16:30 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Résumés des communications/Abstracts

ABSTRACTS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Boğaziçi University
Codifying –or not Codifying- the Exception: the 1877 İdare-i Örfiye Kararnamesi

My paper aims to discuss the legal, political and social configuration that shaped the 1877 regulation of idare-i örfiye (or örfi idare), the untranslatable Ottoman equivalent of the state of siege. First mentioned in the 1876 Constitution and first applied during the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878, the örfi idare consisted in the suspension of the ordinary legal order in exceptional circumstances. Its scope and modalities of application were codified in September 1877 by a decree composed of 13 articles. The Ottoman kararname was a case of legal hybridization that combined the translation of some articles of the 1849 French law on the “état de siège” and references to the Ottoman political and legal systems. Relying on the French and Ottoman legal texts, as well as documents from the military archives in Ankara and the Başbakanlık archives, I will attempt to analyze this codification of the örfi idare both as the product of textual encounters and as the result of political and social dynamics involving a wide range of local, governmental and foreign actors in the context of the Russo-Ottoman war. I will also discuss the lack of precision of this regulation on several crucial aspects, arguing that the confrontation to the social realities did not only shape the process of codification but also contributed to define what was to remain unspoken in the law. Theses lacunae left room for tensions and negotiations between the different parts active in or affected by the örfi idare, especially the different institutions of the central government, the provincial military authorities and the foreign powers. By its contents and its gaps, the 1877 regulation sheds light on the mechanisms that transformed the örfi idare into a tool of government for exceptional and (most often) non exceptional times in the late Ottoman period and, later on, during the Republican era.

Ahmad Amara, New York University
State Making and Jurisdictional Tensions: The Beersheba Kaza as an Anomalous Legal Zone

Throughout the process of founding and administering the Beersheba town and kaza (1900) in southern Palestine, the Ottoman officials had emphasized the ‘special circumstances’ of the region. Their actions and administration were guided by these circumstances. In 1902 the local administrative council was allowed to sit as a Court of First Instance (bidayet mahkemesi). What was applied however, were mostly the local laws and customs, and the judges serving in the court were local Bedouin sheikhs. The year after, the şurayı devlet (The Ottoman Council of State) allowed the council to look also into land dispute cases, to be resolved also according to tribal local customs. Despite the Ottoman land reform and attempts to register Bedouin held lands since the 1880s, the şurayı devlet had justified its decision by the then-existing local practices. The decision noted that lands in the region were not registered and land transactions (rehin ve ferağ) were being conducted according to the local custom and tradition (örf ve âdet), whereas disputes were resolved through sulh ve hüküm (mediation and ruling). The Ottoman government sought to make a gradual change in southern Palestine without imposing its own official laws, and justified its decision by the fact that the Bedouin were not educated of the judicial rules and laws of the nizamiye courts.

However, at the outset questions of law and jurisdiction began to arise. One plaintiff complained that the nizamiye court in Gaza did not accept appeals on decisions of the Beersheba council, while another asked the Jerusalem administrative council to serve as an appeal forum, and a third plaintiff requested the şurayı devlet to set as a cessation court. In some cases, both the Jerusalem council and the şurayı devlet looked into appeals, however their action received some criticism from different Ottoman departments as being incompatible with the legal provisions. On the ground, people were conducting forum shopping to achieve their best results.

The Beersheba experience represented one case of state-society relationships, which embodied the tensions and workings between the Ottoman goal to creating an integrated system of rule and the creation of new accommodating legal system. Nevertheless, looking into the imperial legal orders, even after the tanzimat, we see that accommodating legal cultures were not rare. The jurisdictional tensions signified the complexity of the socio-economic affairs of the region and its environs, as well as the shifting understandings and categorizations of specific legal, spatial, and social realities by governmental and social actors (including courts, judges, regional governors, tax and land registry staff, inhabitants and local leaders). The legal culture that had evolved continued in the post-Ottoman period and impacted the later British Mandatory judicial system in the region.

(The research utilizes archival resources from the Ottoman Basbakanlik Archives; the Israel State Archives; Personal Papers; and Interviews).

Ebru Aykut, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University
Revisiting the Basic Legal Principles of the Tanzimat in Light of a Customary Practice: House-Burning and Usul-i Cibal

The two of the fundamental tenets of the Tanzimat’s legal project were the principles of personal criminal liability and legality according to which no one could be punished for an act without standing trial and before his/her guilt was proven in line with the kanun and sharia. This paper aims to revisit these premises by focusing on a particular local customary practice that had reportedly been in force since time immemorial among Albanian highland communities.

Setting fire to the house of a murderer, who took flight after his act, was part of the ancient Albanian customary law known as the Kanun of Lek Dukagin or Usul-i Cibal (Mountain Law). In such cases, fire was a means of extinguishing collective outrage, an extra-judicial punishment carried out usually by the village community and warranted by local governments. The house-burning custom had been outlawed in 1854 by the Ottoman state for the obvious reason that punishing the innocent families of murderers along with the perpetrators without due process of law was against the very principles of the Tanzimat. It should also be recalled that the punishment for the crime of arson was death penalty according to the 1858 Penal Code. Nevertheless, the archival evidence suggests that this custom did not disappear because the killers, in most cases, could not be captured and arrested and even if they were captured, the local people preferred a quick restitution of justice by fire without delay rather than seeking official punishment to be inflicted on the perpetrator that could take a long time. In other words, the deterrent and immediate effect of the custom could not be substituted by any other means and thus, it remained legitimate in the eyes of the local communities as well as local authorities who had no choice but to acknowledge its force and benefits to maintain public security and order in the area.
Focusing on this particular component of the customary law in the context of nineteenth-century legal reforms, this paper aims to highlight the complexity of the legal order in the Ottoman Empire and the role of popular understandings of justice and local dynamics in shaping the practice of law which did not necessarily require a consistency with the letter of the law. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency, or rather the existence of multiple legal spheres in an era marked by centralization, codification, and standardization efforts, resulted in contentions between the imperial center and the provincial governments, but at the same time provided the families of the murderers with a legitimate ground to raise their voices against the custom and ask for the implementation of justice in accordance with the kanun and sharia.

Hümeyra Bostan, İstanbul Şehir University
New Means of Providing Justice in a Distant Province: Ottoman Judicial Reform in Yemen (1872-1918)

This paper deals with the introduction of a new judicial organization in the Province of Yemen after 1872 when the second Ottoman conquest of the region took place. Examining the ebbs and flows in the process of the establishment of the new Ottoman court system called the nizamiye courts, I argue that the Ottoman state did not insist in uniform policies but had flexibility to use interim formulas to provide for the gradual transformation of the judicial system of Yemen.
The Ottoman state transformed gradually its legal organization after the promulgation of Gülhane Rescript in 1839. A codification of Islamic principles and an adaptation of Western laws followed along with a new system of courts. However, the consolidation of the new legal organization in Yemen took some time. The Ottoman government established nizamiye courts in the provincial center and in most sub-provinces and districts by 1879. Because the Yemenis were unaccustomed to applying to courts, the state reorganized the court system with some modifications and then decided to abolish the nizamiye courts but sustained the şer‘iyye courts in 1889. Subsequently, the government transformed the şer‘iyye courts in ways that authorized them to implement nizami law. This study examines how “legal reform” was instituted in Yemen and how or to what extent these new legal categories and institutions facilitated Ottoman rule. This complicated and multi-dimensional story of the court organization in Yemen indicates the Ottoman state’s commitment to its principle of flexibility and toleration in providing justice to all its subjects.

Omar Y. Cheta, Bard College
“Wakil” and “Avukatu”: On the Politics of Legal Language in Late Ottoman Egypt

This paper is an attempt to contribute to the study of legal language in the Ottoman Empire through revising the history of the legal profession in late Ottoman Egypt.
From the 1830s onwards, the Ottoman Empire witnessed a period of intense legal transformation. Simultaneously, Egypt, a largely autonomous province within the Empire, was the site of parallel legal experiments that resembled those being formulated in the Ottoman center. In both Istanbul and Cairo, a novel legal infrastructure consisting of Ottoman and continental European components was being constructed, elaborated on and frequently revised. This infrastructure would gradually become the primary field upon which Ottoman subjects, as well as, in certain cases, foreign residents and travellers, negotiated the resolution of their disputes in accordance with legally sanctioned procedures. The language that elucidated the contours and mechanisms of this infrastructure was marked by tensions between the apparent meanings of legal concepts and categories, and the meanings of these same categories as understood and deployed by the numerous individuals who navigated the sphere of law.
This paper explores this tension through focusing on the category of “legal practitioners”; a category that was re-conceptualized during the nineteenth century. Through systematically exploring the roles carried out by individuals who held the titles of “wakil” and “avukatu” inside nineteenth courtrooms, the paper will trace the emergence and transformation of a particular kind of legal practitioner, namely, the professional lawyer. The geographical focus of the paper is Cairo, arguably, the alternative center of legal experimentation in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire. In terms of sources, the paper will draw on both Istanbul and Cairo-issued legislations, a host of commercial and civil disputes litigated in Cairo (in both state-enacted courts and European (esp. British) consulates), as well as contemporaneous commentaries, such as travel accounts and memoirs.

Dzovinar Derderian, University of Michigan
Marriage Law as a Site of Resistance, 1840s-1870s

The multi-confessional setting in the eastern Ottoman provinces provided a number of legal venues for the local inhabitants to contest the regulations of their confessional communities. In the proposed paper I focus on marriage law and ask how and why marriage presented a central domain for contesting power. During the era of the Tanzimat (1839-1876) the Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul attempted to gain full control of the Ottoman Armenian Apostolic communities. The centralization of the patriarchate— linked to the centralization of the Ottoman state—was challenged in the provinces. Marriage was a domain in which the Istanbul Patriarchate sought to enforce the letter of the law, but faced multiple difficulties in doing so. I argue that by regulating marriage the patriarchate aimed to demarcate ethno-confessional boundaries and centralize its power in the provinces.
Petitions sent from Van and Erzurum to the Armenian Patriarchate and the Sublime Porte in Istanbul, as well as the Armenian Catholicosate in the Russian Empire from the 1840s to the 1870s, constitute the main archival sources of the proposed paper. I will also examine the reports, decrees, and public discourses (i.e., periodicals) regarding marriage. In this paper I question how individuals in the provinces of Erzurum and Van bended the boundaries of marriage law to resist the centralization of the patriarchate. Individuals looked for new legal avenues in cases of divorce, marriage of underage girls, marriage between relatives and limitations on the number of spouses. The petitions confirm that the Protestants and Catholic communities, the Kurdish sheikhs and Islamic courts provided individuals belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church the opportunities to challenge their confessional legal boundaries of marriage. The existence of different centers of the Armenian Church provided an additional medium for trespassing marriage law. I ask how and why priests facilitated the violation of the Armenian Church’s marriage law.

Wolfgang Egner, University of Constanz
The Negotiation of Entangled Law: The Global Context of Ottoman Law in Cyprus

The occupation of Cyprus by the British Empire established an exceptional case of international law that had a major impact on the local law in Cyprus. A contract with the Ottoman Sultan allowed “the Island of Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England”. In the annex of this convention the British diplomat Layard accepted to perpetuate the local religious tribunals. But like in many colonial cases, the British at the same time wanted to introduce a new law inspired by the Indian code as part of a larger plan for reforming the island.

Thus the Medjlis-i Idare was replaced in its legislative function by a new legislative council that created new laws in Cyprus. But formally the island was still under Ottoman legislation and for many British lawyers Ottoman law nonetheless prevailed. The provincial Daavi Courts continued their work under the British administration but could be overseen by a district commissioner, who was entitled to overrule the judgment. The High Court of Justice was established as a new court for foreigners continuing the dual jurisdiction, but also mixing both jurisdictions by sending cases in which foreigners accused locals (Ottoman subjects) to the Daavi courts. There are many more examples for the coexistence of different legal norms in Cyprus, which created hybrid forms of law and legal practice.
In this talk I focus on the question of how the local Ottoman law was shaped by the interconnected system of the British Empire and by a comparison with other similar cases under foreign administration such as Bosnia-Hercegovina and Tunisia. The local and international negotiation process changed the law itself and at times even to the benefit of local jurisdiction.

Sami Erdem, İstanbul Şehir University
From Fiqh Book to Legal Text: Revisiting Continuity and Change in the Majalla as a Model for Traditional Content in Modern Form

The Ottoman Majalla represents the first attempt at a transition from a conception of law based on fiqh texts to that of law as a codified code in Islamic history. Codifying a portion of Islamic civil law and consisting of sixteen chapters, this corpus was prepared by a committee comprised by fiqh ulema and headed by Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, before being gradually brought into force between 1869 and 1876. The Majalla was highly important not just for the Ottomans but also for many Islamic societies in the formerly-Ottoman territories (most significantly, Egypt) as it either served as the model for codification, or was directly adopted in these countries during the 20th century. Although it was abolished in Turkey in 1926, it continued to function as the main source of codification in the area of civil law in many other Muslim societies. Moreover, the Majalla’s significance went beyond codification processes, influencing experts’ understanding of Islamic fiqh as manifested in the relevant literature.

This paper revisits the significance of the Majalla in two inter-related respects. The first concerns the formal/morphological novelty that the Majalla carried as an experience/experiment in switching from text-based understanding of Islamic law to that of legal application based on the idea of codified law. The committee preparing the corpus presented it as a modern fatwa collection and a new fiqh text containing the most respected legal opinions of the Hanafi school, further insisting that it maintained the traditional assumptions and principles of law in order to avoid the legitimation problem for this novel form in the eyes of the traditional ulema. Thus, the Majalla’s formal novelty came to represent the main reference for later reforms, serving as a model for (re)producing the traditional content in a modern form.
Secondly, I will examine the Majalla’s presentation of the notion of “change” as a basis of its legitimacy as fiqh text with a new form that was compatible with the modern(izing) society. The idea of change was a highly significant theme in both the committee reports during the Majalla’s preparation phase and the narratives of its authors (particularly in Ahmed Cevdet Pasha’s anecdotes in his memoirs) as well as in its content. However, despite its bold promises, it failed to satisfy the expectations regarding the scale and depth of change in modernizing the Ottoman civil law, for it did not entail concrete and radical propositions or solutions in terms of the notion of change. Still, however, the very positive attitude toward “change” and the significance attached to it by the Majalla came to form the main reference point (and a legitimizing role) for later codification attempts.
Therefore, this paper discusses the tension between form and content in the Majalla in terms of the transition from fiqh text to legal text on the one hand, and the nature and future of the idea of change in it, paying attention to the interaction between law makers and socio-political context as well as to the Majalla’s epistemological references, on the other.

Yusuf Ziya Karabıçak, McGill University
Greek Associations and Ottoman Legality in Late Nineteenth Century

The first Greek educational association in the Ottoman Empire was founded in 1861 in Istanbul. The first Ottoman Law of Associations was promulgated in 1909. It is hard to imagine that associations, regardless of the community their founders belonged to, acted in a legal chaos for 48 years. In fact, they did not. Although there was no law, the associations were bound and regulated by a certain number of government activities and discourses that gave them legality in the eyes of Ottoman officials. These activities and discourses allowed Ottoman officials to permit some activities while banning others. This paper discusses the ways in which Greek associations became legal and acceptable in this environment.
Essential elements for this discussion are the words Ottoman official documentation used to describe associations (cemiyet, kulüp, biraderlik), the prerequisites the Ottoman officials asked from an association, and the way they dealt with each case. Legality of associations in the Ottoman Empire was determined through actions and correspondences for a very long time. Far from being a non-legal environment, this was a process of inclusion/exclusion which gave a freer hand to Ottoman officials and especially to local authorities. Reading these correspondences will help us reconstruct Ottoman officials’ expectations to a certain extent.
In this paper, I will make use of Ottoman documentation surrounding Greek educational and philanthropic associations from 1860 to 1900s, to examine how Ottoman officials decided on the legality of public activities and what kind of a vocabulary they used to talk about it. This work benefits from studies done by François Georgeon, George A. Vassiadis, Haris Exertzoglou, Nadir Özbek and others on associations while addressing a hitherto neglected aspect of these activities: their legality.

Ceyda Karamürsel, University of Pennsylvania
Race, Ethnicity and the Making of Law in the Post-Circassian Expulsion Ottoman Empire

In 1861, a Nogay prince named Canpolat, expelled from the Caucasus and settled near Constanza in today’s Romania, wrote to the Ottoman officials to complain about the “rebellious behaviour” of his five slaves that he brought with him. Canpolat Bey was one of many Caucasian noblemen who were dislocated from their native Caucasus lands during the Russo-Circassian war and settled in the Ottoman domains. Like many other Caucasian slave holders at the time, he sought ways to suppress his slaves’ pursuit of freedom, inspired particularly by the abolition of trade in African slaves effected a few years prior. When Canpolat Bey submitted his formal complaint however, he was asked to pay a pençik tax for the slaves he owned. Utterly perplexed, he objected, claiming that pençik tax was not known to them in their native lands in Kuban. Nor was his ownership of the slaves a Şer‘i matter, he contended, which could be litigated or settled at the court, for in Canpolat Bey’s « transplanted » perception of law, his ownership of his slaves was regulated primarily by customary law, known as adat in the Caucasus. His slaves were either obtained through such practices as blood money, princely plunder or were inherited from his family, whereas for the Ottoman state, slavery was regulated by Şer‘i law, and accordingly slave or free status were determined at the Şer‘i courts. For the slaves themselves, on the other hand, it was a whole different matter, which had the newly emerging international anti-slavery law as its focus that had already effectively bent Şer‘i law and brought an end to the trade in African slaves. If the Şer‘i law could be abrogated once for the African slaves, why would it not bend for the Circassians? Using Ottoman state archives, court records and British consular documents, this paper aims to explore how different legal systems interplayed with or worked against each other in determining the limits of slavery and freedom, which concomitantly delineated the categories of race and ethnicity more explicitly in the late Ottoman Empire.

Aylin Koçunyan, CETOBAC, EHESS
French Impact on the Legal Transformation of the Millet System in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1865

The Crimean War (1853-56) had an important impact on the transformation and institutionalization of the millet-system in the Ottoman Empire. The conflict broke out due to a dispute between Catholic and Orthodox clergy over the control of the Holy Places in Palestine and triggered the religious clientelism of the Great Powers. In order to preserve its sovereignty in the governance of non-Muslim communities, the Ottoman state had to conceive a new legal framework that would guarantee their religious freedom and privileges. Hence, community regulations were proclaimed by the Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Jewish communities in the period extending from 1862 to 1865. Another consequence of the Crimean War was the admission of the Ottoman Empire to the Concert of Europe, a process which necessitated the conciliation of the principles governing the Ottoman/non-Muslim communal sphere with those of their European counterparts. The project pays attention to the restructuration of the Ottoman Armenian and Jewish communities in a period that followed the Crimean War and the promulgation of the 1856 Reform Decree, which invited them to revise their community regulations. On the one hand, it tries to reconstruct the impact of the French consistorial system (a body created in1808 by Napoleon I and governing the Jewish congregations of France) on the transformation of the Ottoman Jewish community in the 1860s and the agency of the transnational communal networks behind the process. On the other hand, it shows how the Armenian intelligentsia which drafted the Armenian regulation tried to adapt the elements of French constitutionalism to the Ottoman context for the administration of their communal sphere. The research combines many sources including the Ottoman Archives, the French national and diplomatic archives, those of the Alliance israélite universelle and of the Israelite Central Consistory of France and of the Bibliothèque Noubar.

Ileana Moroni, University of Basel
The Parliament as Law-Maker in the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the 1908 Revolution

In this paper, I will discuss the Parliament as law-maker during the first year of the Second Constitutional Period, 1908-09.

The 1908 revolution profoundly affects the Ottoman political system. Following the restoration of the 1876 Constitution, and the opening of the newly elected Parliament in December 1908, sovereignty is transferred from the sultan to the nation, and the Parliament becomes the key political institution of this period. Even though the influence of extra-parliamentary and extra-legal methods, as well of as of social dynamics, on the law-making process, should not be downplayed, laws are henceforth discussed and decided upon in the Parliament, a representative institution which asserts sovereignty in the name of the nation, and which utterly also defines the limits of legitimacy in the new political system.
I will first briefly present the conditions within which the Parliament is convened, how deputies are elected, and what the prerogatives of this legislative body are, according to the 1876 Constitution. Then, I will examine within which conditions, through which procedures, and based on which precepts the Ottoman Parliament acts as a legislator. Deputies see their assembly as a revolutionary Parliament; in addition, more than on the letter of the Constitution and on the Parliament’s internal regulation, they base their practice and their arguments on what they call the “spirit” of the constitutional regime, on European examples, as well as on the need to act swiftly in order to safeguard “order”, “unity” (key concepts in their discourse), and, utterly, the nation.
Thus, even though law-making is now supposed to rely on the written rules set by the Constitution, parliamentary practice points, more than to rule of law, to a kind of “state of exception” in which a “revolutionary” Parliament is allowed to make whatever decisions it sees fit for the “salvation of the nation”.

Fatma Öncel, Boğaziçi University
Law and Struggle in Ottoman Rural Society: Çiftliks of Trikala

In this paper, I propose to discuss the making of law regarding land and property in the Ottoman countryside during the nineteenth century. As a part of my PhD research, I intend to focus on competing legal and social claims on agrarian lands in the Ottoman Balkans. Challenging the normative approaches to law, I will discuss the relationship between legal and social spheres both in conceptual and empirical means. Conceptually, an institutional approach to the making of nineteenth-century Ottoman land law is proposed based on the idea of legal pluralism; as the interests of competing social groups were institutionalized within multiple legal claims. Making of law is regarded here as an institution with its own dynamics, transcending legal reforms of the period. Also from a revisionist class-based analysis, I will discuss the mutual reproduction of law and society. Empirically, I intend to show the coexistence and competition between different legal claims on land raised by the peasantry, local nobility, and centralising state power. For that purpose, I examine a number of çiftliks at Trikala (Thessaly, Greece) during c. 1820s-1870s. These çiftliks belonged to different legal frameworks as miri and vakıf, and their records (“defters”) were kept for various purposes, such as enlisting possessions and revenues of çiftliks after confiscations, or account books comparing claims of peasants and vakıf deputies. These records included extensive information about land and about people working on it. Moreover, they presented details of contracts between peasants and landlords, and obligations of landlords to the central authorities. Therefore, I intend to highlight differences of legal claims in two layers; first, the ones due to rent and labour relations within çiftliks; and second, the ones due to legal status of çiftlik lands.

Christian Sassmannshausen, Freie Universität
When the Court Visited Home: Legal Out-of-Court Sessions and the Manzūl in Late Ottoman Tripoli

The making of law in the Ottoman Empire was a complex process based on various legal sources, institutions, and practices on both the imperial and local level. Nineteenth-century Ottoman reforms further differentiated the legal landscape, adjusting the basis of law, its institutions and establishing at least nominal legal equality of all citizens. Yet for all we know about Ottoman law on a theoretical level, we know remarkably little about how it actually worked in practice.

This paper focuses on local legal spaces and their interplay with the Islamic court in late Ottoman Tripoli (Greater Syria). In out-of-court sessions held mostly in manzūls, the reception halls of Muslim and Non-Muslim families, petitioners from very different social backgrounds (often from the same mahalle) settled a variety of legal cases. These out-of-court sessions, although still held under the auspices of the Islamic court, were led not by the judge but by the local court scribe (kātib). As such, the manzūl functioned as an exclusively local legal space, attended by a local kātib functioning as a judge, the hosts of the manzūl as well as local petitioners and witnesses. What’s more, most of the scribes in charge of such sessions were sons or close relatives of influential hosts of the reception halls. These semi-private court sessions, held in almost every quarter of the city, thus constituted a complementary legal space that excluded externally-appointed judges in favor of locally based court scribes with close ties to the manzūl’s hosts. As such, imperial policies in the legal sphere intending to contain the accumulation of local power – in this case, the more frequent rotation of judges – were incorporated into pre-existing forms of mediation outside of the court. Out-of-court sessions allowed the hosts of manzūls to safeguard particular legal decisions in the city. This strengthened the influence of informal mediation and allowed for the application of local notions of justice. The importance and longevity of these complementary legal spaces gives us new insight into the many layers of Ottoman legal culture and offer a new paradigm for how we understand local legal culture in practice.

William Smiley, Princeton University
Sovereignty, Sharia, and the Şeyhülislam in the Age of Revolutions

This paper takes up the relationship between political power and legal authority in the tumultuous decades that followed Selim III’s Nizam-ı Cedid reforms, but preceded the sweeping legal reforms of the Tanzimat. In this period, the Ottoman state was faced with internal turmoil throughout the Balkans, most notably in Serbia and Greece. The state responded by elaborating and applying the Hanafi law of rebellion to draw shifting lines between those who could and could not be killed and enslaved. At the same time, the state asserted, in the context of international diplomacy, that these rebellions were strictly within the Ottomans’ own sovereign jurisdiction. Both state assertions and juristic opinions were constructed with attention to the Islamic legal tradition, the gendered economies of Ottoman slavery, military necessities, and diplomatic considerations.
The paper traces the interplay between these factors, in order to untangle how political motivations informed, but were also shaped by, Islamic legal reasoning. Ultimately, I argue, the Ottomans redefined Islamic law to fit this moment—but did so within certain boundaries, themselves set by the legal tradition. The paper draws on a number of fetvas, on imperial orders invoking them, and on rescripts (Hatt-ı Hümayuns), all from the Başbakanlık archives, as well as on diplomatic correspondence from the British National Archives.
In telling this story, the paper aims to challenge common assumptions about the relationship between şeyhülislams and sultans, and more broadly, between the Islamic legal tradition and political authorities. At the same time, it situates the Ottoman Empire in the broader global context of the “Age of Revolutions,” arguing that the new definitions of sovereignty the Ottomans articulated through Islamic law had much in common with concepts of international law that emerged from the Atlantic World amidst North and South American independence movements and the U.S. Civil War.

İlkay Yılmaz, Istanbul University
Stamping the Outsider Subjects Inside: The Passport Regulations in the Hamidian Period

This paper aims at analyzing the international (1884 and 1894) and internal (1887) passport (mürür tezkeresi) regulations which are highly indicative of the political elite’s perception of security as well as the emerging infrastructural power tools of the modern state. The study tries to explain the disciplinary modern power mechanisms developed by the Ottoman political elite through the analysis of the administrative practices and regulations on geographical mobilization in everyday life as surveillance techniques.

In the Hamidian Era (1876-1908) the geographical mobilization is one of the burning issues of the Ottoman political elite as a part of security policies. The new threat perceptions of the political elites, mainly based on political problems, directed their attention to the Armenians, Bulgarians, seasonal workers, foreign workers and members of secret societies. Besides this, the new legislative and administrative security reforms are also influenced by the anarchist fear in Europe and the anti-anarchist regulations against “propaganda by deed”.
The threat perceptions thus shaped the security discourse of the political center. The new articulations of “vagrant” (serseri) and “mischief” (fesad) create a discursive link to pejorative understandings of “anarchism” and “anarchist” in official correspondences. This security discourse also refers to the concept of social order and the pan-Islamic discourse of the Hamidian regime that is disseminated to obtain legitimacy in domestic and international spheres. It also refers to the security ideology which dwells on the intention of unifying the Empire against “internal and external enemies”. The aim of the study consists in examining the relation between these emergent threat perceptions of the political center and the new regulations on geographical mobilization.

List of Participants (in alphabetical order)
Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Boğaziçi University, levy.noemi@gmail.com
Ahmad Amara, New York University, ahmadamara@gmail.com
Ebru Aykut, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, ebruaykut74@gmail.com
Marc Aymes, CETOBAC, EHESS, marc.aymes@gmail.com
Hümeyra Bostan, İstanbul Şehir University, humeyrabostan@std.sehir.edu.tr
Omar Y. Cheta, Bard College, ocheta@bard.edu
Dzovinar Derderian, University of Michigan, dzovinar@umich.edu
Wolfgang Egner, University of Constanz, wolfgang.egner@uni-konstanz.de
Sami Erdem, İstanbul Şehir University, samierdem@sehir.edu.tr
Yusuf Ziya Karabıçak, McGill University, yusuf.karabicak@mail.mcgill.ca
Ceyda Karamürsel, University of Pennsylvania, ceyda@sas.upenn.edu
Aylin Koçunyan, CETOBAC, EHESS, aylin.besiryan@eui.eu
Ileana Moroni, University of Basel, ileanamoroni@gmail.com
Fatma Öncel, Boğaziçi University, fatma.oncel@boun.edu.tr
Christian Sassmannshausen, Freie Universität, christian.sassmannshausen@fu-berlin.de
William Smiley, Princeton University, will.smiley@aya.yale.edu
İlkay Yılmaz, Istanbul University, ilkay.ylmz@gmail.com

List of Discussants (in alphabetical order)

Virginia H. Aksan, McMaster University, vaksan@mcmaster.ca
Noémi Lévy-Aksu, Boğaziçi University, levy.noemi@gmail.com
Nathalie Clayer, CETOBAC, EHESS, nathalie.clayer@ehess.fr
François Georgeon, CETOBAC, EHESS, georgeon@ehess.fr
Bernard Heyberger, CEIFR, EHESS, bernard.heyberger@ehess.fr
Dina Khoury, George Washington University, dikhy@gwu.edu

Team of the project “Trans-acting Matters: Areas and Eras of a (post-)Ottoman Globalization” involved in the workshop:

Marc Aymes, coordinator, CETOBAC, EHESS, marc.aymes@gmail.com
Sümbül Kaya, post-doctoral researcher, CETOBAC, EHESS, kayasumbul@hotmail.com
Aylin Koçunyan, associated researcher, CETOBAC, EHESS, aylin.besiryan@eui.eu

 

logos transfaire

 

Pluralité religieuse dans et à partir de l’espace ( post-)ottoman

Programme de la journée d’études

 « La gestion de la pluralité religieuse dans et à partir de l’espace (post-)ottoman »

 

pluralité religieuse

Le 10 février 2015, Collège de France, 52, rue du Cardinal Lemoine 75231 Paris.

La journée d’étude se propose de mener une réflexion collective sur les modalités à travers lesquelles la pluralité religieuse a été gérée, nommée et habitée au fil du XX siècle dans et à partir de l’espace ottoman et post-ottoman. Le sujet sera approché de façon variée, incluant la production normative étatique et son implémentation sur le terrain, les négociations des politiques religieuses avec les acteurs religieux et non-étatiques plus en général, la circulation transnationale des modèles de gestion du religieux, les pratiques de traduction/appropriation/domestication des termes et des concepts liés à la pluralité religieuse. Même si les différents cas d’étude portent sur des contextes assez diversifiés d’un point de vue spatio-temporel, ils sont reliés par une sémantique commune :

1) Ils se concentrent sur des acteurs religieux, minoritaires, et transnationaux
2) Ils voient dans l’éducation un champ d’analyse privilégié

Notre problématique commune sera la suivante : Comment les acteurs religieux minoritaires transnationaux font-ils l’expérience des tendances de régulation et de dérégulation étatique dans ou à partir de l’espace ottoman et post-ottoman dans le domaine de l’éducation ?

Programme de la journée d’études :

Anastassios (Tassos) Anastassiadis (McGill University), « Les acteurs catholiques dans la Grèce de l’entre-deux-guerres ».

Gabrielle Angey (CETOBaC), « Le mouvement Gülen en Afrique du Sud et Sénégal aujourd’hui ».

Benjamin Bruce (CERI –Science Po Paris), « Le rôle du Diyanet en France et Allemagne aujourd’hui ».

Nathalie Clayer (EHESS, CETOBaC), « Les acteurs catholiques dans l’Albanie de l’entre-deux-guerres ».

Fabio Giomi (CNRS, CETOBaC), « Les acteurs catholiques dans la Yougoslavie de l’entre-deux guerres ».

Alexandre Toumarkine (Orient-Institut Istanbul), « Les missionnaires protestants en Turquie dans l’entre-deux-guerres ».

Buket Türkmen (Galatasaray Üniversitesi), « Les Alévis en Turquie aujourd’hui ».

logo-transfaire.jpg

« Fabrique des politiques culturelles en Turquie et dans les espaces (post-)ottomans », 16-17 avril 2015

Deux journées d’études “Fabrique des politiques culturelles en Turquie et dans les espaces (post-)ottomans » se tiennent à Istanbul à l’Université de Galatasaray et à l’Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes respectivement le 16 et 17 avril 2015, avec la participation du programme “Matières à transfaire. Espaces-temps d’une globalisation (post-)ottomane” (ANR-12-GLOB-003).

To download the program in English: Program Making of Cultural Policy

To download the CFP:CFP Making of Cultural Policy 2015

 

PROGRAMME

        La fabrique des politiques culturelles en Turquie et dans les espaces post-ottomans.

16 avril 2015 – Université Galatasaray

(en français – traduction en anglais)

9h-9h15 : Accueil-café-inscription

9h30 – 10h15 :

Ouverture des journées d’études

Mots de bienvenue

– Anouck Corte-Real, IFEA/EHESS, Istanbul, Présentation de l’ANR TRANSFAIRE.

– Muriel Girard, INAMA/ENSA-Marseille, Introduction des journées d’études.

10h15-12h30

Panel 1 : Acteurs et échelles de la patrimonialisation.

Discutante : Muriel Girard, INAMA/ENSA-Marseille, Marseille

– Ridha Moumni, Centre Camille Juillan, MMSH, Aix/Marseille Université :

Ministres, diplomates et collectionneurs: le rôle des mamelouks du Bey dans la construction d’une politique patrimoniale dans la Régence de Tunis (1850-1880).

– Julien Boucly, EHESS, Paris :

Le paysage culturel de Diyarbakir, une construction transnationale et transinstitutionnelle du patrimoine en Turquie.

– Lydia Zeghmar, IFEA, Istanbul, Université Paris-Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense:

Construction de localité par l’action culturelle. Eléments d’une enquête ethnographique dans le champ de la culture zeybek à Tire (Turquie).

12h30-14h00:

Pause déjeuner

14h00-15h30

Panel 2 : Circulations Grèce-Turquie

Discutant :Vangelis Kechriotis, History Department, Boğaziçi University, RCAC fellow

– Cilia Martin, Université de Harokopio, Athènes, IFEA, Istanbul :

L’hellénisme au prisme de l’action mémorielle et touristique à Istanbul.

– Olivier Givre, EVS-CREA, Université Lyon II et Pierre Sintès, TELEMME, Université Aix-Marseille :

Entre tourisme et politique. Visibilité et hybridité des lieux de mémoire de Mustapha Kemal Atatürk en Grèce et en République de Macédoine.

15h30-15h45 : Pause

15h45h-17h15

Panel 3 : Modèles d’action publique

Discutante : Anouck Corte Real, IFEA, ANR Transfaire, EHESS Paris.

– Dilek Yankaya, WAFA-IREMAM, Aix-en-Provence, CERI, Paris :

La « Nouvelle Turquie » de la bourgeoisie islamique : des politiques culturelles au service des ambitions internationales.

– Jean-François Polo, Université Galatasaray, Istanbul :

La politique culturelle turque, à la recherche d’un modèle ?

 

                              17 avril 2015 – Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes

( en anglais)

10h00 Café – accueil

10h30-12h00.

Panel 4 : Festival, localité, identité

Discutant: Jean-François Polo, Université Galatasaray

– Ülker Sözen, University Mimar Sinan, Istanbul:

Collective effervescence and political strife in Dersim: the case of the Munzur festival.

– Clémence Scalbert-Yücel, IFEA, Istanbul, Université d’Exeter, Exeter:
Circulations, adaptations and contingencies in the making of local cultural policies: the case of summer festivals in the Eastern Black Sea Region.

 

12h00 – 14h 00

Pause déjeuner

14h00-15h45

Panel 5 : Ingénierie culturelle : Circulations, dynamiques et conversions

Discutante: Banu Karaca, Sabanci University, Istanbul

-Ümit Fırat Açıkgöz, Rice University, Houston:

Negotiating Heritage, Space, and Culture: Early Republican Politics of Historical Monuments in Istanbul (1923-1950).

-Bengü Aydın, research assistant Izmir University of Economics, PhD candidate Université Galatasaray:

Homeland Tours (1938-1943) as a World War II Policy of Kemalist Turkey: Circulation of concepts, Humanism and Classicism.

-Ayca İnce, Independent researcher, Istanbul:

Converted spaces, converted meanings. Revealing the establishment of new spaces of culture in Istanbul as a function of constructing cultural policies.

15h45-16h Pause

16 h 00- 17 h 00

Discussion générale – Conclusion


Comité d’organisation
:

Muriel Girard, INAMA/ENSA-Marseille

Cilia Martin, Université Harokopio, Athènes, IFEA, Istanbul Jean-François Polo, Université de Galatasaray, Istanbul
Clémence Scalbert-Yücel, IFEA, Istanbul, Université d’Exeter, Exeter Füsun Üstel, Université de Galatasaray
Lydia Zeghmar IFEA, Istanbul, Université de Paris-Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense

Adresses:

Université de Galatasaray
Salle Aydın Dogan
Çırağan Caddesi no 36
34349 Ortaköy

Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes
Palais de France
Nur-i Ziya Sokak, 10 P.K.54
Beyoğlu – Istanbul

 

Pour télécharger le programme des journées d’études: Fabrique des politiques culturelles 16-17.04.15.

 

« Transfaires impériaux : Turquie, Russie », 15 avril 2015

Une journée d’études « Transfaires impériaux : Turquie, Russie » se tient le 15 avril 2015 à l’Université Paris Diderot, bâtiment Olympe de Gouges, salle 870.

Avec la participation du programme « Matières à transfaire. Espaces-temps d’une globalisation (post-)ottomane » (ANR-12-GLOB-003).

Pour télécharger le programme  de la journée d’études : programme transfaires impérieux

Pour télécharger l’affiche de la journée d’études : Affiche Transfaires impérieux

Pour télécharger l’argumentaire de la journée d’études : Transfaires_Russie_Turquie

 Programme des interventions

9h – Accueil des participants : Véronique DUPONT (directrice adjointe du CESSMA)

9h15 – Présentation : O. BOUQUET, M. AYMES (coord. ANR TRANSFAIRE)

Première partie : Sociétés de frontière

Président de séance : Zacarias MOUTOUKIAS

9h40 – Étienne PEYRAT (IEP Paris) :
Kars, au hasard de la frontière (1900-1918)

10h10 – Zaur GASIMOV (Orient-Institut, Istanbul) :
Entre science et politique. Ahmet Caferoðlu comme « agent de transformation », linguiste et public intellectual

10h40 – Anouche KUNTH (CNRS, Migrinter) :
Vers une histoire en mouvement des relations entre empires russe et ottoman : le prisme des migrations arméniennes (XIXe-XXe siècles)

11h10 – Pause

Deuxième partie : Noblesses d’Empire

Présidente de séance : Sophie COEURÉ

11h30 – Wladimir BERELOWITCH (EHESS, CERCEC), Le multilinguisme des élites russes à l’époque impériale : fonctions et usages

12h00 – Olivier BOUQUET (Université Paris Diderot, Université de Galatasaray) La langue de l’autre empire : le russe des Ottomans (XIXe-XXe siècles)

12h30 – Katarzyna PAPIEZ (IFEA, Istanbul) Évolution et rôle des frontières dans les échanges culturels entre la Pologne et l’Empire
ottoman

13h00-14h30 – Déjeuner

Troisième partie : Transfaires culturels

Président de séance : Wladimir BERELOWITCH

14h30 – Güneş IŞIKSEL (Université de Galatasaray, Collège de France) :
L’art de la duplicité : négociations osmano-rourikides pour le sort d’Astrakhan dans le troisième quart du XVIe siècle

15h00 – Elena ASTAFIEVA (CNRS, CERCEC) :
Étudier « l’Orient chrétien » en Russie impériale, ou la spécificité russe des relations entre
savoir, religion et pouvoir (fin du XIXe-début du XXe siècle)

15h30 – Özgür TÜRESAY (Université de Galatasaray) :
La Russie vue par un réformiste ottoman occidentaliste : quelques notes sur le Şimâl hâtıraları (1912) de Celâl Nuri

16h00 – Marc TOUTANT (VU University Amsterdam) :
Les enjeux du legs chaghatay : examen des stratégies d’appropriation dans l’Ouzbékistan soviétique et la Turquie moderne

16h30 – Pause

17h00 – Conclusions et perspectives

Modèles et instruments d’administration publique en Europe

Congrès AFSP 2015 (ST 44)

Modèles et instruments d’administration publique en Europe : l’Union européenne au prisme des phénomènes de circulation internationale

 

Candidature jusqu’au 15 octobre 2014.

 

Claire Visier, Marie Curie Fellow, European Institute-Istanbul Bilgi University, clairevisier@bilgi.edu.tr

 

Magdaléna Hadjiisky, Enseignant-chercheur en Science Politique, Université de Strasbourg, SAGE (UMR 7363)

 

Si la littérature sur les transferts de politiques publiques au niveau européen est riche et variée, les travaux interrogeant les administrations étatiques au prisme de l’intégration européenne restent assez rares. A l’exception notable de la décentralisation territoriale, le rôle de l’Union européenne (UE) dans les réformes administratives des Etats européens contemporains est peu étudié, même si le sujet a nourri des travaux marquants concernant les Etat-membres (Wright, Cassese 1996 ; Knill 2001 ; Eymeri 2008) ou les pays candidats (Dimitrova 2005 ; Goetz, Dimitrov, Wollmann 2006 ; Börzel, Risse 2012). Cette retenue scientifique trouve une explication partielle dans la lettre des Traités de l’UE, puisque l’administration publique des Etats-membres ne fait pas partie des compétences juridiques de l’Union.

Pourtant, depuis les années 1990, les signes sont nombreux d’un investissement communautaire dans le domaine longtemps sanctuarisé de l’administration publique. Après avoir contribué à l’introduction d’une conditionnalité inédite concernant la « capacité administrative » des pays candidats (Dimitrova 2005), la Commission européenne (CE) a tracé les contours d’une bonne « gouvernance européenne » (Georgakakis, de Lassalle 2007). Le Traité de Lisbonne encourage la « coopération administrative » entre Etats-membres (art. 197), ce qui tend à valider la notion d’« espace administratif européen » (Olsen 2003). Le contexte actuel de crise des « dettes souveraines » tend enfin à créditer les institutions internationales d’un droit de regard sur le fonctionnement des administrations nationales des pays de la zone Euro.

Au plan international, les thématiques de la « réforme » et la « modernisation » de l’administration ne sont toutefois pas un terrain vierge en attente d’une fertilisation par les idées venues des institutions de l’UE. Ces thématiques ont été investies, au moins depuis les années 1980, par nombre d’acteurs internationaux, tels la Banque Mondiale, l’OCDE (Saussois 2006 ; Pal 2012), mais aussi les OING, les cabinets d’experts et de consultants (Saint-Martin 2004). L’investissement tardif et institutionnellement fragile de l’UE sur le terrain des administrations étatiques entre donc en interaction avec celui d’autres organisations aux intérêts potentiellement divergents. Dès lors, une question se pose : dans quelle mesure l’UE peut-elle être considérée comme l’instance principale d’encouragement et/ou d’accompagnement à la « réforme de l’Etat » des pays membres, candidats voire du voisinage ?

Pour y répondre, la Section thématique analysera l’intervention des acteurs internationaux dans la fabrication de modèles et d’instruments d’administration publique, en l’envisageant  comme un processus faisant intervenir des acteurs différents et des intérêts variés.

Cette perspective se distingue du courant des policy transfer studies (Dolowitz, Marsh 2000), qui comporterait ici le risque de présenter les logiques de dissémination et d’emprunts selon une vision top-down (Bulmer et alii 2007) et de réifier les modèles transférés, considérés comme fixes, indépendamment des usages qu’en font les acteurs (Dumoulin, Saurugger 2010 ; Delpeuch 2008, Hassenteufel, De Maillard 2013). Plutôt que la notion de transfert, qui présuppose l’adoption intentionnelle d’un message univoque d’un émetteur vers un récepteur, la ST propose donc d’explorer le rôle des acteurs communautaires comme participant d’un processus de circulation internationale, phénomène non-linéaire et équivoque dont ils ne sont pas nécessairement les principaux initiateurs.

Empiriquement fondées, les contributions pourront aborder certains des questionnements suivants :

Les acteurs de la circulation internationale des modèles d’administration publique

Dans le domaine de l’administration publique, le terrain européen n’est pas le lieu de diffusion d’un modèle unifié reconnu, mais plutôt un espace d’interaction et de concurrence entre des acteurs multilatéraux et nationaux divers. Quelles configurations d’acteurs se mettent en place entre ces acteurs ? Les communications sont invitées à travailler l’identification des divers acteurs influents dans le phénomène circulatoire étudié,  en mettant en évidence leurs rôles respectifs, tout en rendant compte de la position des divers acteurs institutionnels de l’UE dans le processus. Les acteurs étudiés forment-ils des réseaux consolidés ? Constituent-ils des connections plus informelles ? Constate-t-on des formes d’externalisation vers les marchés de l’expertise ?…

Définitions, variations, glissements des modèles d’administration publique

L’une des hypothèses actuelles de la littérature internationale inspirée des administrative studies concerne l’émergence d’un nouveau type d’« Etat néo-wébérien » (Pollitt, Bouckaert 2004), que certains travaux présentent comme ayant constitué l’horizon implicite des recommandations communautaires auprès des pays candidats depuis les années 1990 (Meyer-Sahling 2011).

Les processus de préadhésion contemporains (Europe centrale et orientale, Turquie, Europe du Sud-Est) amènent-ils la Commission Européenne à favoriser la création d’un « acquis non formalisé » dans le domaine de l’administration publique (Verheijen 2003 ; Tragl 2005) ? Si tel est le cas, quelle part y occupent les instruments forgés sous l’étiquette du « New Public Management » et ceux présentés comme étant de « bonne gouvernance » ? A l’inverse, l’« espace européen administratif » se réduit-il aux vœux pieux d’experts surtout intéressés par la transférabilité des recommandations qu’ils diffusent ?

Une attention particulière sera portée aux modalités pratiques de l’action communautaire, à travers l’analyse de ses instruments. Comment et jusqu’où les instruments (benchmarking, agencification, RIA, audit externe, etc.) participent-ils à la fabrique de « modèles » administratif ? Les contributions pourront porter sur divers pans de l’action publique, tant il est vrai que les instruments préconisés dans un secteur (tels les finances publiques : Barzelay et alii 2010 ; Bézès, Siné 2011) peuvent avoir une conséquence transversale sur l’ensemble du fonctionnement étatique.

Les instruments n’étant pas politiquement et socialement  neutres (Lascoumes, Le Galès 2005), leur étude pourra contribuer à dégager des lignes de légitimation de la mise en comparaison des administrations nationales, potentiellement variées en fonction des contextes (motif censément « universel » – droits de l’homme, sustainability, lutte contre la corruption- ou motif lié à une technicité processuelle – mise en indicateurs ou en « standards », définition de benchmarks et de procédures de suivi…).

Soft Power

Beyond soft power: The stakes and configurations of the influence of contemporary Turkey in the world : 8-9/1/14

This worshop benefited from a support of the French National Agency of Research (ANR) with the reference ANR-12-GLOB-003, « Matières à transfaire. Espaces-temps d’une globalisation (post-) ottomane »

PROGRAM 

DAY 1 /  January 08th 2014

09:00   Opening to the public
09:30   Opening of the workshop by : Élise MASSICARD / CNRS – IFEA
////////   1st PANEL :   Private actors producing and receiving Turkish soft power : relationships to the Turkish state
10:00    Moderator : Talha KÖSE / Istanbul Şehir University
10:05    Charly DELMAS TSAFACK / International relations institute of Cameroon :
The Amity International school network in Cameroon
10:30    Jan MUŚ / Center for Eastern Studies –
Catholic University of Lublin – Warsaw School of Social Science and Humanities :
10:55    coffee break
11:35    Moderator’s speech
11:45    Questions of the public
12:15    Lunch break
////////   2d PANEL :    Diffusion, circulation and backfires of Turkey’s influence          
14:00    Moderator : Zeynep ATALAY  / St. Mary’s College of California
14:05    Gabrielle ANGEY  / EHESS – IFEA :
            “African students’ mobilities in Turkey: A Challenge for the Gülen Movement
14:55    Jérémie MOLHO  / Angers University – IFEA :
            Regional networks in an emerging art market area : positionning Istanbul as a Hub
15:10    coffee break
15:25    Elshan MUSTAFAYEV  / Sciences Po Lyon – IFEA :
            Major assets for Turkish diplomacy in the Caucasus and question of the « background »
15:50    Behar SADRIU / School of Oriental and African Studies – University of London :
            Networks of Influence: Reconceptualising Soft Power
16:15    Moderator’s speech
16:25    Questions of the public
17:00    Dinner with the speakers

DAY 2 / January 09th 2014

09:00   Opening to the public
////////   3rd PANEL :   Diversity of the Turkish soft power’s vectors                   
09:30    Moderator : Ayhan  KAYA / Bilgi University
09:35    Kimberley BOWEN ÇOLAKOĞLU / Istanbul Technical University :
            Magnificent Century: Turkish Soap Opera as a Source of Soft Power
10:00    Janna JABBOUR / Sciences Po – CERI :
            « An illusionary ‘power of seduction’: an assessment of Turkey’s soft power capacity in the Arab World« 
10:25    coffee break
10:40    Julien PARIS / EHESS – IFEA  :
            Turkish series exportation market and its counterflow ‘soft power’ effects
11:05    Jean-Francois POLO / Sciences Po Rennes – CRAPE – Galatasaray University  :
            « Turkish sport diplomacy as a tool for a renewed power ? Success and limits to Turkish “soft power« 
11:30    Moderator’s speech
11:40    Questions of the public
12:10    Conclusion by : Kerem ÖKTEM / University of Oxford
12:45    Lunch break
15:00    End of the 3rd panel / Round table and synthesis and future plans /
Discussion of the speakers with the moderators

PRESENTATION

This project consists in the organization of 3 half-day research workshops on the theme of Turkish political and cultural influence in the world at the French Institute for Anatolian Studies (IFEA) in January 2014. The language used will be English.

Today Turkey differentiates itself by its growing diplomatic and cultural influence. This influence, even if it is not comparable with that of China or the USA, has been expanding for several decades in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia, even in Africa and is also noticeable in Ankara’s involvement in international organizations. This increasing influence has been highlighted by the Arab Spring, which has created an environment conducive to the idealization of Turkey’s model of governance (the « Turkish model ») and to its promotion by Western powers. Turkey’s attractiveness is also based on its substantial economic development contrasting with the economic crisis European countries are suffering from, and on its increasing cultural presence in the media (notably through the broadcasting of TV shows outside Turkey), especially in neighboring countries who share cultural affinities with Turkey. However, this influence used by Ankara within the framework of a self-promoting discourse has started to be questioned in the past few months due to both regional and domestic developments. Indeed, the degradation of the situation in Syria and in Iraq has limited the influence of Ankara on neighboring actors while the Gezi park demonstrations and its repression are casting doubts on Turkey’s ability to be a source of inspiration for the region.

How can analytical tools help us characterize today’s Turkey’s influence and its limits? The concept of “soft power” created by Joseph Nye in 1990 was an attempt to theorize mechanisms and conditions of this kind of influence, contesting the idea that war was the only source of power of the nation-states. It was highlighting the use by states of non- coercive means in conflict resolution, in decision-making in the international sphere, or in order to gain economical attractiveness. This concept was widely used in academic research, media, and in the public sphere. Yet, this concept received several types of criticism among which two can be emphasized concerning our case study. Firstly, the core of the concept of “soft power” mainly focuses on the role of the State, in particular because the theory, at the time it was created, applied to the USA. Thus the State is considered as the main actor and beneficiary from such an influence, and makes “soft power” dependent on the ability of the State to use diverse tools in order to expand its influence. This state-centered perspective, in which the State remains the only instigator of the interest of the country, has been strongly criticized. Such an analysis denies both the role and the capacity of private initiative and transnational dynamics to influence international relations. The second criticism addressed to the concept of soft power concerns the consequences of its success: the term “soft power” is now used to characterize tools, practices, or groups of actors through multi or antagonistic meanings. Therefore its interest as a concept would be undermined by its own polysemy.

The methodological and analytical consequences we could draw from these statements are that such uses of the concept of “soft power” tend to maintain and create shortcuts where the limits between concept and ideology become blurred, where the labelization of a dynamic as “soft power” becomes a political stake, and where analysis, causes and effects, actors and vectors, scales and contexts, theoretical and empirical dimensions are not distinguished. This workshop project intends to answer the need for a redefinition of the concept of “soft power” and its value as an analytical concept. It will also be an opportunity to characterize the different types and modalities of Turkey’s influence, which could lead to the production of new conceptual tools, more adapted to Turkey’s current situation.

This workshop aims at raising several questions: To what extent is the concept of “soft power” adequate to characterize Turkey’s influence and its weaknesses both on the international stage and towards its neighboring countries? Reciprocally, how can the analysis of the different patterns of Turkey’s influence help us question the concept of “soft power”, and to come up with other notions?In the framework of this workshop, we will propose to explore the influence of Turkey through several axes (which are not exhaustive):

  • The discourse of soft power within Turkish diplomacy and para-diplomacy;
  • State institutions promoting Turkey’s influence abroad;
  • The role of private actors and civil society in Turkish influence abroad;
  • The territorial logics of Turkish soft power: the role of infranational and
  • supranational entities;
  • The economic dimension of Turkish “soft power”;
  • Various instruments of Turkish “soft power”: education, culture, media…;
  • Religion in Turkish foreign policy;
  • Regional and domestic limits of Turkey’s “softpower”

ABSTRACTS :

Please click on the titles of the panelists in the program above, or click here to have a full view of the abstracts 

Click here to download the program in pdf format

SCIENTIFIC AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEE :

Élise Massicard (CNRS/IFEA/OVIPOT)
Gabrielle Angey (EHESS/IFEA)
Julien Paris (EHESS/IFEA)
Jérémie Molho (Université d’Angers/IFEA)
Elshan Mustafayev (Sciences Po Grenoble/IFEA)
Yohanan Benhaïm (Paris I/IFEA)

Appel à communications The Making of Law

Call for Papers

The Making of Law in the Ottoman Space, 1800-1914

Interdisciplinary/International Workshop

Centre d’Études Turques, Ottomanes, Balkaniques et Centrasiatiques (CETOBAC, UMR 8032), Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences sociales, Paris.

logo transfaire

May 25-26, 2015

Deadline: 15/02/2015

This 2-day workshop will bring together historians, anthropologists and linguists working on the making of law in the Ottoman space. The aim of the workshop is to problematize the legal phenomena from a multidisciplinary aspect and beyond the normative and descriptive dimensions of laws and legislations. Considering law as a multi-layered dynamic process, presentations may include but will not be limited to the following topics :

a) Law as a social process: we intend to explore here the complex relationship between law, legal institutions and social dynamics ranging from culture to religion and from community to the wider society. We aim to problematize law within the social landscape and the particular cultural settings in which it emerges within a multi-ethnic imperial context. This aspect also includes the investigation of law in relation to a variety of social actors (lawyers, judges, jurists, bureaucrats, diplomats, consuls, scholars, intellectuals, journalists, etc.).

b) Law as an epistemological process: normative approaches investigating Ottoman law only understand it within the context of legal reforms and are far from reflecting the public debate and the epistemological process, which preceded the final textual production. Without leaving aside the making of state laws and other forms of normativity, the epistemological dimension of the workshop aims to focus on law in all its variety, in the form of ideas, ways of reasoning, doctrines emerging in textbooks, erudite journals or monographs and to analyze the role of education in the development of legal thought in the Ottoman space.

c) Local laws/universal discourses: local laws often refer to universal ideals in order to gain more prestige in the eyes of the people they rule as well as in the international arena. The relationship between local laws/universal discourses implies to investigate how local actors make sense of universality in their statements. This relationship also necessitates the investigation of legal transfers and cultural translations in the Ottoman space in relation with global contexts without neglecting the contemporary legal culture of the surrounding geography (Russia, Iran, the Balkans, etc.).

d) Local laws and global contexts: this aspect of the workshop will highlight the impact of global movements (such as constitutionalism), diplomatic turning points, dynamics of imperialism, revolutions, etc. on the making of Ottoman law.

e) Studies of legal language: Law is not only what legal authorities communicate to us as directives. Departing from the relationship between language and legal philosophy, we intend to investigate the role of language in articulating a certain understanding of law beyond its authoritative statements. Our objective is to explore the ways in which language and political terminology frame the terms and spirit of legal codification, reflect references to time and modernity, the ideologies and emotions of lawmakers and their political culture. By examining the making of law as a linguistic process as well as a social process, we aim to highlight the changing equivalents of legal concepts in accordance with particular cultural settings as bearers of a certain legal philosophy. We also aim to approach the issue of vagueness in normative frameworks and how linguistic ambiguity gives way to new negotiations, interpretations and compromises between legal authorities and the various segments of the society.

Practical Information

The languages of the workshop will be English and French. Please email proposals of approximately 300 words with updated CVs for a 20-minute paper to Aylin Koçunyan (aylin.besiryan@eui.eu) no later than February15th, 2015. E-mails should be entitled “Making of Law Submission”. Proposals should be in Word format with the following information and in this order: a) author(s), b) affiliation as you would like it to appear in the program, c) email address, d) title of abstract, e) body of abstract.

Participants will be notified of the Steering Committee’s decision in early March. The Steering Committee is composed of the following members: Nathalie Clayer (Centre d’Etudes Turques, Ottomanes, Balkaniques et Centrasiatiques, EHESS, Paris), Benjamin Fortna (SOAS, University of London), Bernard Heyberger (Centre d’Etudes Interdisciplinaires des Faits Religieux, EHESS, Paris), Huricihan İslamoğlu (Bosphorus University, Istanbul), Dina Khoury (Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University), Laurent Mignon (Oriental Institute, Oxford University), Avi Rubin (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), Kent Schull (Binghamton University, SUNY, New York), Michel Tissier (University Rennes 2-Centre de Recherches historiques de l’Ouest/Collegium of Lyon).

We intend to publish selected papers from the workshop as a themed-hard copy collective volume. Consequently, if an abstract is accepted for the workshop, a full draft paper should be submitted by May 15th, 2015.

Limited help with travel funding is available on application to postgraduate students and early career researchers, who will submit a paper. If you would like to be considered for funding, please inform us when you submit your abstract.

The workshop is a part of the project entitled “Trans-acting Matters: Areas and Eras of a (post-)Ottoman Globalization”, funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-12-GLOB-003) and supervised by Marc Aymes (CNRS, CETOBAC, Paris). To know more about the project, see http://cetobac.ehess.fr/index.php?1257.

Pour télécharger l’appel à communications en anglais cliquer sur le lien suivant  : Making of law

 

Appel à communication

Faire le droit dans l’espace ottoman, 1800-1914

Atelier interdisciplinaire et international

Centre d’Études Turques, Ottomanes, Balkaniques et Centrasiatiques (CETOBAC, UMR 8032), Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences sociales, Paris.

Mai 25-26, 2015

Date-limite: 15/02/2015

Cet atelier de 2 jours réunira des historiens, anthropologues et linguistes, qui étudient la production du droit dans l’espace ottoman. L’objectif de l’atelier est de cerner le phénomène juridique dans une perspective multidisciplinaire et au-delà des dimensions normative et descriptive des lois et législations. Considérant le droit comme un processus dynamique à multiples facettes, les propositions de présentations pourront traiter, sans s’y limiter, des thèmes suivants:

a) La production du droit en tant que processus social: notre but est d’explorer ici la relation complexe entre le droit, les institutions juridiques et les dynamiques sociales, qui s’étendent de la culture à la religion, de la communauté à la société plus large. Nous visons à cerner la question des rapports entre le droit et les lieux socio-culturels de sa fabrication dans un contexte impérial multiethnique. Cet aspect nécessite également l’étude du droit en relation avec une variété d’acteurs sociaux (avocats, juges, juristes, bureaucrates, diplomates, consuls, savants, intellectuels, journalistes, etc.).

b) La production du droit en tant que processus épistémologique: les approches normatives du droit ottoman l’appréhendent uniquement dans le contexte de réformes légales et ne reflètent pas assez le débat public et le processus épistémologique, qui précèdent les productions textuelles finales. La dimension épistémologique de l’atelier vise à mettre l’accent sur le droit dans toutes ses formes: idées, raisonnements, doctrines émergeant dans les manuels académiques, journaux spécialisés ou monographies. Ce faisant, l’étude porte aussi bien sur les normes de l’Etat que sur d’autres formes de normativité et le rôle de l’éducation dans le développement de la pensée juridique dans l’espace ottoman.

c) Lois locales et discours universels: les lois locales se réfèrent souvent à des idéaux universels afin d’acquérir plus de prestige aux yeux de la population qu’elles gouvernent aussi bien que dans l’arène internationale. En discutant la relation entre « lois locales et discours universels », l’atelier explorera comment les acteurs « locaux » interprètent le principe d’universalité dans leurs énoncés. L’étude de cette relation nécessite également de mettre l’accent sur les questions du transfert juridique et des traductions culturelles dans l’espace ottoman en relation avec des contextes globaux sans négliger la culture juridique contemporaine des espaces voisins (Russie, Iran, les Balkans, etc.).

d) Lois locales et contextes globaux: cet aspect de l’atelier mettra l’accent sur l’impact des mouvements globaux (tels que le constitutionalisme), des tournants diplomatiques, des dynamiques d’impérialisme, des révolutions, etc. sur la production du droit ottoman.

e) L’étude du langage juridique: la loi n’est pas simplement ce que les autorités légales nous communiquent en tant que directives. Partant de la relation entre le langage et la philosophie du droit, nous visons à explorer le rôle du langage dans l’articulation d’une certaine compréhension du droit au-delà de son message d’autorité. L’objectif est d’explorer comment le langage et la terminologie politique « cadrent » les termes et l’esprit des législations, reflètent des références au temps et à la modernité, les idéologies et émotions des législateurs ainsi que leur culture politique. Tout en analysant la production du droit comme un processus linguistique aussi bien que social, nous nous proposons de mettre l’accent, dans un empire multi-ethnique, sur les équivalents changeants des concepts juridiques selon des lieux culturels particuliers, qui sont en même temps les porteurs d’une certaine philosophie du droit. Nous visons également à aborder la notion d’ambiguïté linguistique en contexte normatif et à explorer comment cette ambiguïté donne lieu à de nouvelles négociations, interprétations et compromis entre les autorités juridiques et les différents segments de la société.

Informations pratiques

L’anglais et le français seront les langues de travail de l’atelier. Nous vous remercions d’adresser, par courrier électronique, une proposition de communication d’environ 300 mots (pour une présentation de 20 minutes), avec un CV actualisé, à Aylin Koçunyan (aylin.besiryan@eui.eu) avant le 15 février 2015. Les messages électroniques doivent être intitulés “Proposition de contribution – Faire le droit”. Les propositions doivent être au format Word avec les informations suivantes et dans l’ordre indiqué: a) auteur(s), b) affiliation comme elle devra apparaître dans le programme, c) courrier électronique, d) titre de la proposition, e) résumé de la proposition.

Les participants recevront notification de l’avis du comité de sélection au début mars. Le comité de sélection sera composé des membres suivants: Nathalie Clayer (Centre d’Etudes Turques, Ottomanes, Balkaniques et Centrasiatiques, EHESS, Paris), Benjamin Fortna (SOAS, Université de Londres), Bernard Heyberger (Centre d’Etudes Interdisciplinaires des Faits Religieux, EHESS, Paris), Huricihan İslamoğlu (Université du Bosphore, Istanbul), Dina Khoury (Elliott School of International Affairs, Université George Washington), Laurent Mignon (Oriental Institute, Université d’Oxford), Avi Rubin (Université Ben-Gourion du Néguev), Kent Schull (Université de Binghamton, SUNY, New York), Michel Tissier (Université Rennes 2-Centre de Recherches historiques de l’Ouest/Collegium de Lyon).

Nous considérons la publication d’une sélection de communications dans un volume collectif thématique. Par conséquent, si une proposition est acceptée pour l’atelier par le comité de sélection, une version préparatoire de la communication entière doit être soumise avant le 15 mai 2015.

Nous disposons d’un budget limité pour prendre en charge les frais de voyage des doctorants ou post-doctorants le cas échéant. Les intervenants souhaitant obtenir un financement doivent l’indiquer au moment de la soumission de leur proposition de communication.

L’atelier est proposé dans le cadre du projet intitulé « Matières à transfaire. Espaces-temps d’une globalisation (post-)ottomane », financé par l’Agence nationale de la recherche (anr-12-glob-003), sous la coordination scientifique de Marc Aymes (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CETOBAC, Paris). Pour plus d’informations sur le projet, consulter le lien http://cetobac.ehess.fr/index.php?1257 .

 Pour télécharger l’appel à communications en français cliquer sur le lien suivant : Faire le droit