My reading has taken some odd turns in recent weeks, stretching from disease to sovereignty and finally to a (now technically obsolete) document. This document banned the use of explosive projectiles under 400g for being both inhumane and providing no reasonable military advantage.
The importance of this document within the history of international law has been heavily studied by scholars of International Relations. However, this has been done almost exclusively from a state centric perspective, largely ignoring the actions of the delegates from each state and the transnational intellectual currents which informed the development of this treaty. Consequently, my current aim is to write a project which interweaves discussions on the text of the document with the perspectives of individual delegates, those of their governments and the transnational transfer of ideas. I will try to determine how and why the St. Petersburg Declaration was able to come together at the time, place and in the manner that it did.
My first steps along this path have been shaky, but I have definitely enjoyed them. My initial challenge has been finding out which representatives attended St. Petersburg. Whilst I have had little luck locating them in traditional scholarship, I have so far identified the British representative and am seeking out the Prussian representative. These are two of the most important figures for the project I am currently planning to write. The British representative, because he was the key force behind some of the most interesting drafting decisions in the text. The Prussian representative, because I know that key members of the Prussian military establishment opposed this treaty and want to engage with the intellectual debates that were playing out between various transnational actors such as Swiss Professor Bluntschli and Prussian general Moltke.
At present, I have found a digitalised version of the ‘Nouveau recueil général de traités, conventions et autres transactions remarquables,’ which contains a section on the agreement. I hope this will be a strong source for me, allowing me to identify some more key players. I have been using google translate and my meagre French to get the measure of the text. Whilst fully aware this will not give me a perfect rendition of the text’s original meaning, I feel that I can very clearly understand what is being recorded, especially because of how formulaic some of the language is. Overall, the most interesting individual actors to me other than the Prussians and British delegates are the Russian diplomats behind the meeting, and I am hoping this text will shed some insight on them. Beyond the individuals, I will be looking at the transnational development of thoughts on race, humanitarianism, utility, national tradition and violence embodied by this 1866 document.
However, this research can be time consuming and I am hoping to have enough done by mid-way through this week to forward a coherent and well thought through thesis for the upcoming project proposal.