The rise and decline of Western legal imperialism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries suggests a different period and perspective to understand “Westphalian” sovereignty. Essentially, “Westphalian” sovereignty is related to two nineteenth-century developments: the dominance of legal positivism and European colonial expansion. Contrary to the Eurocentric consenus, sovereignty was not developed and consolidated solely within Western thought and practices, but rather in the encounters of Western colonial – particularly British – powers with Asian states. In the process of creating the British Empire's territorial rule in the forms of colonies, dependencies, and protectorates, and extraterritorial rule in the form of extraterritorial jurisdiction over British citizens, subjects, and corporations in Asia, British imperial practices clarified, crystallized, and consolidated the sovereignty doctrine. These practices were embedded in a legal episteme that excluded non-Western entities and understandings from the sphere of law and sovereignty. The conceptual gerrymandering of inclusion and exclusion around normatively powerful concepts such as law, courts, and sovereignty was intimately tied to imperial politics.

This chapter links the rise and decline of extraterritoriality to the rise and decline of positive law and British hegemony from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. I develop my argument in three sections. First, I describe the rise of extraterritoriality and the denial of non-Western law and sovereignty. I also discuss how explanations solely grounded on material power and culture overlook the crucial role the legal episteme and domestic legal institutions played in nineteenth-century imperialism. Second, I detail how non-Western hostility toward extraterritoriality replaced the prior non-Western rulers’ reluctant cooperation with Western states over extraterritoriality.