Navigating Nationality in the Emigration of Minorities between Bulgaria and Greece, 1919—1941

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodora Dragostinova
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
World War I ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
World War ◽  
Population Exchange ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Voluntary Exchange ◽  
Actual Exchange

The 1919 Convention for Emigration of Minorities between Bulgaria and Greece was an important prototype for minority handling and population exchange in Eastern Europe after World War I. Based on research in Bulgarian and Greek archives, this article offers a comparative analysis of the conflicting pursuits of the two countries and the multiple opinions of various groups affected by displacement. Despite the optimism of the League of Nations that the Convention would solve ethnic conflict by bolstering individual rights, people's unwillingness to prioritize nationality undermined the execution of voluntary exchange. Instead, emigration occurred as an “actual exchange,” and refugees fled their birthplaces under harsh circumstances. Yet individuals inventively navigated their nationality and often defied the priorities of the nation-states to further their personal strategies. Because of the failure of this first international experiment of voluntary exchange in Eastern Europe, future proponents of population management adopted the principle of compulsory exchange.

Minorities Treaties and Mandatory Regimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 332-339
Author(s):  
Laura Robson
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Fragile States ◽  
World War ◽  
Minority Protection ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
Racial Lines

Abstract The post–World War I treaties of Versailles, Sèvres, and Lausanne collectively created two related frames for ongoing Allied control over unreliable territory: a system of “minority protection” in the new and fragile states of eastern Europe, and a neocolonial regime of externally monitored “mandates” in the Mashriq and elsewhere, with both systems falling under the jurisdiction of the newly constructed League of Nations based in Geneva. This article explores how the architects of the peace agreements developed the concepts of minority rights and mandatory responsibilities in conjunction, as a way of codifying, formalizing, and legitimizing restrictions on sovereignty along immovable racial lines.

The French Mandate in Lebanon

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1689-1693
Author(s):  
Carol Hakim
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
French Mandate ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Islands for an Anxious Empire: Japan’s Pacific Island Mandate

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1699-1703
Author(s):  
Tze M. Loo
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of AHR “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Terrorism as a Global Wave Phenomenon: Anti-Colonial Wave

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Rapoport
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World War ◽  
Irish Republican Army ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Freedom Fighters ◽  
Overseas Territories

The Versailles Treaty ending World War I established a new international order by creating the League of Nations and, dividing the defeated empires in Europe into a number of nation-states. The overseas empires of the defeated became League of Nations mandates, which the victorious powers administered until they were sufficiently developed for “self -determination.” Ironically, the first terrorist campaign began in a victorious power’s territory when the Irish Republican Army produced the first success in global terrorist history though it did gain all territory sought. Campaigns emerged then in other mandates and overseas territories of the victorious powers but all failed. But the Atlantic Charter drawn in World War II made the self-determination principle more obligatory by pledging that the imperial territories of the defeated powers would be freed immediately. When the war was over, the victorious powers often dissembled portions of their empires. Elements not freed largely contained conflicting ethnic elements unable to agree on how to be governed. Successful terrorist campaigns materialized in those territories, and the wave ended when the energies of governments not terrorists dissipated! But most successes were incomplete because bloody tensions between ethnic divisions in the new states persisted. Important terrorist decisions helped their causes. The First Wave’s language tactics, strategy, and targets were changed and helped terrorists get less offensive media coverage and significant support from the international world, particularly the United Nations. They now described themselves as “freedom fighters” not terrorists. Assassination occurred rarely, violence was restricted to local territories and efforts to cooperate with group were abandoned. The police were the principal civilian element attacked, and warnings about attacks were often given to other civilians enabling them to seek safety.

The British Cameroons Mandate Regime: The Roots of the Twenty-First-Century Political Crisis in Cameroon

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1715-1722
Author(s):  
George N. Njung
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
First Century ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Betwixt and Between Colony and Nation-State: Liminality, Decolonization, and the South West Africa Mandate

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1704-1708
Author(s):  
Molly McCullers
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
South West ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power ◽  
South West Africa

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

“Sons of the Soil”: Cause Lawyers, the Togo-Cameroun Mandates, and the Origins of Decolonization

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1709-1714
Author(s):  
Meredith Terretta ◽  
Benjamin N. Lawrance
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

The Ottoman Empire: The Mandate That Never Was

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 1694-1698
Author(s):  
Yiğit Akın
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
World War ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Imperial Power

Abstract A century after the victorious Allied powers distributed their spoils of victory in 1919, the world still lives with the geopolitical consequences of the mandates system established by the League of Nations. The Covenant article authorizing the new imperial dispensation came cloaked in the old civilizationist discourse, entrusting sovereignty over “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” to the “advanced nations” of Belgium, England, France, Japan, and South Africa. In this series of “reflections” on the mandates, ten scholars of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the international order consider the consequences of the new geopolitical order birthed by World War I. How did the reshuffling of imperial power in the immediate postwar period configure long-term struggles over minority rights, decolonization, and the shape of nation-states when the colonial era finally came to a close? How did the alleged beneficiaries—more often the victims—of this “sacred trust” grasp their own fates in a world that simultaneously promised and denied them the possibility of self-determination? From Palestine, to Namibia, to Kurdistan, and beyond, the legacies of the mandatory moment remain pressing questions today.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document