On April 8, 2009, pirates attacked a US-flagged cargo vessel, the Maersk Alabama, about five hundred kilometers off the Somali coast. The ship, which carried a crew of twenty US nationals, including their now famous captain Richard Phillips, was on its way to Mombassa in Kenya with a cargo of soya, maize and cooking oil destined for the UN World Food Program. In the early hours of the morning, a group of four teenage gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles, the ubiquitous tools of African conflict, boarded the 17,000 tonne ship using grappling hooks. When the unarmed but well-trained crew put up stiff resistance, the pirates were forced to retreat to one of the Maersk Alabama's lifeboats, taking with them Captain Phillips as a hostage. He was subsequently rescued five days later when US navy snipers aboard the USS Bainbridge shot dead three of the pirates and captured the fourth alive.

Historians have been remarkably incurious about the legal dimensions of “informal empire.” This article shows that legal practices in fact created and sustained sovereign indeterminacy. Our focus is Pitcairn, a small, remote island in the Pacific settled in 1789 by a handful of Britons and Tahitians after the mutiny on the Bounty. British officials, legal professionals, island sojourners, and historians have advanced a jumble of claims, each attached to a particular timeline, about how Pitcairn became British. One prominent view is that a single British navy captain took possession of the island in 1838. We challenge this and other prevailing accounts by showing how repeated reconfigurations of island-imperial connections kept Pitcairn from being either enfolded into the empire or established as an independent entity. Intermittent visits by British naval officers gradually constituted a makeshift legal system, while rival factions of islanders steered imperial agents to support local schemes, including bids for island rule. For a century and a half, these processes held Pitcairn on the threshold of the empire. The significance of the narrative recounted here extends beyond one small island. This microhistory illustrates broad processes of interpolity ordering and locates the origins of sovereign indeterminacy in the “legal circuitry” of nineteenth-century empire.

Les historiens ont fait preuve d’une étonnante indifférence à l’égard des dimensions juridiques de l’« empire informel ». Cet article montre que les pratiques juridiques ont en réalité créé et soutenu une indétermination de souveraineté. Nous nous intéressons à Pitcairn, une petite île isolée du Pacifique, peuplée en 1789 par une poignée de Britanniques et de Tahitiens après la mutinerie du Bounty. Administrateurs britanniques, professionnels du droit, voyageurs et historiens ont avancé un enchevêtrement de revendications, chacune liée à une chronologie particulière, sur la manière dont Pitcairn est devenue britannique. Une des thèses qui ressort de ces controverses est qu’un capitaine de la marine britannique aurait pris possession de l’île en 1838. Nous remettons en question cette version ainsi que d’autres récits prédominants en montrant comment les multiples reconfigurations des liens entre l’île et l’empire ont non seulement empêché la première d’être absorbée dans le second, mais également de devenir une entité indépendante. Les visites intermittentes des officiers de la marine britannique ont progressivement constitué un système juridique improvisé, tandis que des factions rivales parmi les habitants de l’île ont orienté les agents impériaux dans le soutien de projets locaux, y compris des tentatives de prise de pouvoir sur l’île. Pendant un siècle et demi, ces processus ont maintenu Pitcairn au seuil de l’empire. La portée de cette histoire dépasse largement le cas de ce minuscule territoire. En nous appuyant sur une étude micro-historique de Pitcairn afin d’éclairer plus largement l’agencement des relations entre entités politiques, nous montrerons que cette souveraineté indécise a pour origine ce que nous proposons d’appeler les « circuits juridiques » de l’empire au xixe siècle.

Challenging the common assumption that legal misunderstanding was pervasive, this article analyzes jurisdictional politics as an element of “interpolity law”—a broad framework for legal interactions across polities and regions in the early modern world. It draws on recent research on jurisdictional politics to show how such an approach allows historians to avoid some of the familiar pitfalls associated with studies of legal pluralism. This approach provides clear methodological advantages over the study of global legal history as a function of multi-normativity. Political communities across the globe centered on internal and external conflicts on the nature and reach of legal authority. By focusing on jurisdiction as a touchstone of legal action and tracing how legal authority was produced through conflict, our approach treats legal pluralism as a valuable descriptive term rather than an analytical framework. The study of jurisdictional politics portrays state authority as potentially one among many forms of legal authority, and it brings into sharp focus continuities within and across pluri-political regions. By tracking broad institutional shifts that occurred when empires and states moved to assert power over multi-jurisdictional orders, the perspective informs new narratives about trajectories of regional and global legal order.