Search

This article addresses the question of Iraq's emergence as a state in the context of the First World War with a special focus on the interplay between British imperialism and Shiʿi activism. By the twentieth century, the majority of people who lived in the territory that would become the Iraqi state were Shiʿi Muslims. Largely ignoring the activism of Iraqis, there is a line of thinking in English-language scholarship which suggests that the process of state formation in Iraq was completely driven by British imperialists. Indeed, Britain established a military presence in the Ottoman vilayets of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul during and after the First World War, and the empire was awarded an internationally sanctioned mandate for this territory in 1920. In an effort to decolonize the history of Iraq, this paper argues that the inhabitants of Iraq, especially Shiʿi activists, played a significant role in the formation of the new state. Research for this paper is based on the writings of Shiʿi activists with a special focus on clerical leaders, as well as British government officials. Challenging historical accounts that reflect British imperialist narratives, this paper argues that Shiʿi activists (and British responses to them) significantly influenced the course of state formation in Iraq. This is not to say that Britain was not influential in the creation of Iraq; in fact, British imperialists clearly had the upper hand. However, they did not operate in a vacuum, unaffected by the inhabitants of the Iraqi state that they wished to create. Instead of assuming that British imperialists single-handedly created Iraq or that ethno-sectarian divisions are the natural order in Iraq, this paper suggests that the relationship between Britain and Shiʿism played a critical role in the formation of the Iraqi state. Although many scholars consider Islamic sectarianism and Britain's colonial legacy in Iraq to be at the heart of the country's socio-political system, the relationship between Britain and Shiʿism in Iraq has not received ample scholarly attention. The intersection of British imperialism and Shiʿi activism resulted in several foundational threads that were woven into the fabric of the Iraqi state. The 1920 Shiʿi revolt against the British mandate for Iraq and the British counter-revolt became the outward manifestation of the British-Shiʿi divide. British officials installed a Sunni-run government in Iraq for fear of Shiʿi dominance, which could have resulted from democratic institutions. Anti-British resistance led by Shiʿi clerics completely changed the calculus of Iraq's emergence as an independent state and alienated much of the Shiʿi community from Iraq's political establishment. This process radically altered the roles that Shiʿi and British leaders hoped to play in post-Ottoman Iraq. This state of affairs was not inevitable given that the continuation of British-Shiʿi alliances that began to emerge during the First World War would have produced a profoundly different state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is something particularly depressing about the current moment—when the possibility of thriving as a geography academic in British academia seems incompatible with anything else, be that a life outside work, a family, activism, or even sleep. What connects these multiple intensifications of demands on academics, and many of the external crises we are living through (the climate emergency, wage deflation, cost of living, the COVID pandemic etc.) is how we value, use and understand time. The non‐linearity of time is a useful way to understand how we work in academia. In this paper, I explore how can we change how we use our time. I propose three responses, which each play with time as non‐linear, multiple rhythms, and as having a lack of balance or stability. First, the possibility of working with the delight of shifting pace in helping us to enjoy our working time more. Second, in acting in collaboration, solidarity, and being alongside each other in ways where shared time is more expansive than individual time. Finally, in how we can collectively and structurally re‐order our time together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study began with the hypothesis that British law has an advantage in regulation over Kuwaiti law regarding penalties related to companies or legal persons. This study raised several questions regarding several penalties and measures (fines, compensation orders, corrective orders, restitution orders, publication orders, Judicial rulings, submitting periodic financial reports, and dismissing company directors). To answer its questions, this study used the analytical approach by analyzing the texts of British law and how they are applied before the courts. The study compared that with the texts currently existing in the Kuwaiti legal system and the extent to which the penalties found in British law can be applied. In the State of Kuwait. Indeed, it became clear from this study that there is an advantage, but it is partial. This study found that there are penalties regulated by the British legislator that the Kuwaiti legislator did not know about, and there are penalties regulated by the British legislator in a more detailed and deeper manner than Kuwaiti law in a manner consistent with the nature of the legal person (companies). Finally, the study concluded that the Kuwaiti legislator should benefit from the experience of the British legislator about criminal corporate penalties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Iberian Studies is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Like most English press reports on the first partition of Poland, the author of an opinion piece from 1773, published in the Public Advertiser under the pseudonym "Tullius", believed that of the three powers dividing Poland, the Prussian interest could be the most dangerous both for the national interest of Britain and for the future of the European balance of power. It is significant that in almost all cases where the interests of Britain and the question of intervention were invoked in English opinion pieces, the defence of the continent's political balance appeared as a strong argument. Through a critical discourse analysis of relevant opinion pieces published in London newspapers between 1771 and 1774, I point out how the authors used similar or different balance-of-power rhetoric, while occasionally deeper, polemical balance-of-power discourse to reflect their views. I illustrate that the authors of these articles have applied the concept essentially in relation to the following three themes: (1) the "diabolical alliance" of the partitioning powers, (2) the issue of British intervention, and (3) the criticism of the idle British government. One of the main conclusions of my analysis is that the balance-of-power discourse is most prominent in relation to the third issue, sometimes even leading to a general questioning of the legitimacy of the contemporary balance-of-power policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the summer of 1939, Anglo-Japanese relations were extremely tense. A major change in the situation occurred with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War Two. These events completely remodeled the existing system of alliances. Britain and Japan started to seek the possibility of rapprochement. However, due to a conflict of interests in China, the anti-Japanese attitude of the United States and general distrust in both countries towards each other, a reset in Anglo-Japanese relations could not be reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]