Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:55:45.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Prolonged Abrogation? The Capitulations, the 1917 Law of Family Rights, and the Ottoman Quest for Sovereignty during World War 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Kate Dannies Open the ORCID record for Kate Dannies [Opens in a new window]  and
Stefan Hock
Kate Dannies*
Affiliation:
Global and Intercultural Studies, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA
Stefan Hock
Affiliation:
Department of History, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; email: sgh28@georgetown.edu
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: danniekc@miamioh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1917 promulgation of a new Ottoman family law is recognized as a landmark moment in the history of Islamic law by scholars of women and gender in the Middle East. Yet the significance of the 1917 law in the struggle over religious jurisdiction, political power, and Ottoman sovereignty has been overlooked in the scholarship on both Ottoman legal reform and World War 1. Drawing on Ottoman Turkish, German, French, and English sources linking internal interpretations of the law and external reactions to its passage, we reinterpret adoption of the family law as a key moment in the geopolitics of World War 1. We demonstrate that passage of the law was a critical turning point in the wartime process of abrogating the capitulations and eliminating the last vestiges of legal extraterritoriality in the Ottoman Empire. The law is situated in its wartime political context and the geopolitical milieu of larger Europe to demonstrate that, although short-lived, the 1917 family law was a centerpiece of the wartime struggle to define extraterritorial rights of the Ottoman Empire, the Great Powers, and their protégés within the empire.

Keywords

capitulationsextraterritorialityIslamic lawMecelleOttoman Law of Family RightssovereigntyTanzimatWorld War 1
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 245 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Ottoman Circular Announcing the Abrogation of the Capitulations, 9 September 1914,” in Foreign Relations of the United States: 1914 (US Department of State), 1092–93; cited in The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Hurewitz, J. C., vol. 2: British-French Supremacy: 1914–1945 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979), 3–4Google Scholar.

2 On the history of the capitulations, see DeGroot, Alexander H., “The Historical Development of the Capitulatory Regime in the Ottoman Middle East from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries,” Oriente Moderno Nuova Serie 83, no. 3 (2003): 575–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an analysis of the contemporary Ottoman interpretation of this decision, see Ahmad, Feroz, “Ottoman Perceptions of the Capitulations, 1800–1914,” Journal of Islamic Studies 11, no. 1 (2000): 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ottoman legal plurality was a pretext for the maintenance of legal extraterritoriality. See Özsü, Umut, “Ottoman Empire,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Fassbender, Bardo et al. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012), 442Google Scholar. On the reestablishment of mixed courts and capitulatory rights during the Allied occupation of Istanbul, see MacArthur-Seal, Daniel-Joseph, “Resurrecting Legal Extraterritoriality in Occupied Istanbul: 1919–1923,” Middle Eastern Studies 54, no. 5 (2018): 769–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Low, Michael Christopher, “Unfurling the Flag of Extraterritoriality: Autonomy, Foreign Muslims, and the Capitulations in the Ottoman Hijaz,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 2 (2016): 322Google Scholar.

5 The name of the law is generally rendered in English as the Ottoman Law of Family Rights. In the Ottoman Parliament it was referred to by deputies as Hukūk-ı Aile Kanunu (the Family Law). The official title of the Ottoman law was Hukūk- ı Aile Kararnāmesi, Münākehāt–Müfārekat, or the Family Law Decree, Marriages–Divorces.

6 Can, Lâle, “The Protection Question: Central Asians and Extraterritoriality in the Late Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 48, no. 4 (2016): 680–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Berats, or letters of extraterritorial protection, were crucial to this effort.

7 On the concept of larger Europe, see Kieser, Hans-Lukas, Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018), 32–33Google Scholar.

8 Aksakal, Mustafa, The Ottoman Road to War in 1914: The Ottoman Empire and the First World War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 On the role of marriage and family legislation in shaping Ottoman-Iranian relations historically, see Kern, Karen M., Imperial Citizen: Marriage and Citizenship in the Ottoman Frontier Provinces of Iraq (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

10 See, for example, Üngör, Uğur Ümit, The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; al-Qattan, Najwa, “When Mothers Ate Their Children: Wartime Memory and the Language of Food in Syria and Lebanon,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 46, no. 4 (2014): 719–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gingeras, Ryan, Fall of the Sultanate: The Great War and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1922 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tanielian, Melanie S., The Charity of War: Famine, Humanitarian Aid, and World War I in the Middle East (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Law 3046, Hukūk-ı Âile Kararnâmesi, II. Tertip Düstur, Cilt 9 (25 Teşrinievvel 1333/25 October 1917), 762. Published in Takvim-i Vekayi on 31 Teşrinievvel 1333/31 October 1917. On 31 December, an amended version of the law, including administrative directives, was issued: Law 34, II. Tertip Düstur, Cilt 10 (30 Kanunuevvel 1333/31 December 1917), 52. Published in Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 Kanunusani 1334/1 January 1918.

12 Cin, Halil, İslam ve Osmanlı Hukukunda Evlenme (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1974), 305Google Scholar. Conservative Muslims critics during World War I were led by Sadreddin Efendi, a theology faculty member at the Darülfünun (renamed Istanbul University in 1933) who published prolifically in the newspaper Sebiülreşad. See Yazici, Abdurrahman, “Osmanlı Hukuk-i Aile Kararnamesi (1917) ve Sadreddin Efendi'nin Eleştirileri,” EKEV Akademi Dergisi 19, no. 62 (2015): 567–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Cankirli Sadreddin Efendi,” in Turkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. EK–1 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2016), 285–86; and Küçüktiryaki, Ahmet Yasin, Osmanlı Aile Hukuku: Gelenek ve Modern Arasında Hukuk-ı Aile Kararnamesi ve Sadreddin Efendi'nin Eleştirileri (Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2017)Google Scholar.

13 Berkes, Niyazi, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (New York: Routledge, 1998), 418Google Scholar.

14 On the adoption of the Swiss Civil Code, see Özsu, Umut, “‘Receiving’ the Swiss Civil Code: Translating Authority in Early Republican Turkey,” International Journal of Law in Context 6, no. 1 (2010): 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Miller, Ruth, “The Ottoman and Islamic Substratum of Turkey's Swiss Civil Code,” Islamic Studies 11, no. 3 (2000): 335–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Nihan Altınbaş, “Marriage and Divorce in Early Twentieth Century Ottoman Society: The Law of Family Rights of 1917” (PhD diss., Bilkent University, 2014), 154.

16 Aydin, M. Akif, İslam-Osmanlı Aile Hukuku (Istanbul: İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1985), 163Google Scholar. Bozkurt was a lawyer, member of the Ottoman Parliament, and minister of justice in the early Republican period who had an academic interest in the history of the capitulations. See Mahmut Esat (Bozkurt), Osmanlı Kapitülasyonları Rejimi Üzerine: Tarih ve Metinlerin Işığında Kapitülasyonlarin Hukuki Özellikleri (Ankara: Türk Hukuk Kurumu, 2008), a translation of Bozkurt's 1928 French-language doctoral dissertation from the Université de Fribourg. The commission's other members were the Fetvahane's chief clerk (mümeyyiz) and professor Hafiz Sevket Efendi, Mansurizade Said Bey of Mentese, Ali Bas Hanbe Efendi, a member of the Şura-yı Devlet and vakıf court judge Akhisarli Mustafa Fevzi Efendi. The Civil Code Commission, Family Code Commission, and Commercial Code Commission together were given 300,000 kuruş for their work. Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi (hereafter MMZC), Term 3 Year of Session 3, vol. 1 (11 Mart 1333/11 March 1917), 179.

17 Ünal, Mehmet, “Medeni Kanunun Kabulunden Önce Türk Aile Hukukuna İlişkin Düzenlemeler ve Özellikle 1917 Tarihli Hukuk-i Aile Kararnamesi,” Ankara Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi 34, no. 1–4 (1978): 210Google Scholar.

18 Elmacı, Mehmet Emin, İttihat Terakki ve Kapitülasyonlar (Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi, 2005), 109Google Scholar. Also see Kulunk, Muhammet Emin, Kapıtülasyonların Kaldırılması (1914) (Istanbul: Yeditepe, 2011)Google Scholar.

19 Martykanova, Darina, “Matching Sharia and ‘Governmentality’: Muslim Marriage Legislation in the Late Ottoman Empire,” in Institutional Change and Stability: Conflicts, Transitions and Social Values, ed. Gémes, Andrea, Peyrou, Florencia, and Xydopoulos, Ioannis (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2009), 168–70Google Scholar; and Altinbas, “Marriage and Divorce,” especially chs. 4 and 5.

20 Tucker, Judith, “Revisiting Reform: Women and the Ottoman Law of Family Rights, 1917,” Arab Studies Journal 4, no. 2 (1996): 4–17Google Scholar. Also see Brownson, Elizabeth, “Reforms or Restrictions? The Ottoman Muslim Family Law Code and Women's Marital Status in Mandate Palestine,” in Middle Eastern and North African Societies in the Interwar Period, ed. Fleet, Kate (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 239–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Cin, İslam, 292–305; Ünal, “Medeni Kanunun,” 195–231; Yurtseven, Yılmaz, “1917 Tarihli Hukuk-i Aile Kararnamesi ve Osmanlı Aile Hukukuna Getirdiği Yenilikler,” Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 11, no. 1–2 (2003): 199–250Google Scholar; Yazıcı, “Osmanlı Hukuk-i Aile Kararnamesi,” 567–84.

22 Metinsoy, Elif Mahir, Ottoman Women during World War I: Everyday Experiences, Politics, and Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 188–91Google Scholar. On wartime economic pressures that contributed to the HAK, see Küçüktiryaki, Ahmet Yasin, “Osmanlı Devletinde Tanzimat Sonrası Aile Hukuku Alanındaki Gelişmeler ve Hukuk-i Aile Kararnamesi,” Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 13 (2014): 185–87Google Scholar.

23 Agmon, Iris, Family & Court: Legal Culture and Modernity in Late Ottoman Palestine (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2006), 5Google Scholar.

24 Martykánová, “Matching Sharia,” 166.

25 See Van Os, Nicole, “Taking Care of Soldiers’ Families: The Ottoman State and the Muinsiz Aile Maaşı,” in Zürcher, Erik Jan, ed. Arming the State: Military Conscription in the Middle East and Central Asia, 1775–1925 (London: I.B. Tauris, 1999)Google Scholar and Kate Dannies, “Breadwinner Soldiers: Gender, Welfare, and Citizenship in the Ottoman First World War” (PhD diss., Georgetown University, 2019).

26 Toprak, Zafer, “The Family, Feminism, and the State during the Young Turk Period, 1908–1918,” in Première Rencontre Internationale sur l'Empire Ottoman et la Turquie Moderne, ed. Eldem, Edhem (Istanbul: Édition ISIS, 1991), 449–52Google Scholar.

27 On the codification of Ottoman civil, criminal, and commercial codes under the Mecelle commission in the 19th century, see Osman Metin Öztürk, Osmanlı Hukuk Tarihinde Mecelle (Istanbul: İslâmî İlimler Araştırma Vakfı, 1973).

28 Emanuel Emanuelidi Efendi (d. 1943 in Athens) was an Ottoman Greek lawyer and politician born in Kayseri. He represented Aydın in the Ottoman Parliament on a CUP ticket from 1911 to 1918 and was a member of the pro-Ottomanist faction in the parliament. After 1922 he was a member of Eleftherios Venizelos’ Greek Liberal Party and served as governor of Western Macedonia and in Venizelos’ cabinet as Minister of Social Care from 1928–1931. For a recent interpretation of Emanuelidi Efendi's role between Ottomanist and Greek Irredentist politics in the Late Ottoman Empire see Kechriotis, Vangelis, “On the Margins of Nationalist Historiography: The Greek İttihatçı Emmanouil Emmanouilidis--Opportunist or Ottoman Patriot?” in Untold Histories of the Middle East: Recovering Voices from the 19th and 20th Centuries, ed. Singer, Amy et al. (New York: Routledge, 2010), 124–42Google Scholar.

29 MMZC Term 3, Year of Session 4, vol. 1 (15 Teşrinisani 1333/15 November 1917), 30.

30 The National Archives, London (hereafter TNA) WO 106/1419, transcript of Congres General du Comite Union et Progres de 1333.

31 On the role of 19th-century state secularism in reproducing religious difference through the creation of “minorities” and the persistent nature of this dynamic in post-Ottoman states, see Mahmood, Saba, Religious Difference in a Secular Age: A Minority Report (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018)Google Scholar, especially chapter 1.

32 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in Sabri Şakir Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü Münasebetiyle Eski Aile Hukukumuza bir Nazar (Ankara: İstiklal Matbaacılık ve Gazetecilik Kollektif Ortalığı, 1952), 19. For the full text of the Justificatory Memorandum, see Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü, 18–31.

33 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü, 18.

34 Elmacı, İttihat Terakki ve Kapitülasyonlar, 113. On the Decree on Shariʿa Judicial Procedure, see Akman, Ahmet, “Tanzimat Sonrası Osmanlı Usûl Hukukunda Gelişmeler,” MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 8, no. 1 (2019): 431–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 “The Attempt of Turkey to Abrogate the Capitulations,” American Journal of International Law 8, no. 4 (1914): 873–876. Also see Brown, Philip Marshall, Foreigners in Turkey: Their Juridical Status (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1914)Google Scholar and Dyck, Edward van, Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire since the Year 1150 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1881)Google Scholar.

36 Özsü, “Ottoman Empire,” 433.

37 Wood, Hugh McKinnon, “The Treaty of Paris and Turkey's Status in International Law,” The American Journal of International Law 37, no. 2 (1943): 262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Genell, Aimee, “Autonomous Provinces and the Problem of ‘Semi-Sovereignty’ in European International Law,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 6 (2016): 535–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir, vol. 1, ed. Cavid Baysun (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1953), 62.

40 Zandi-Sayek, Sibel, Ottoman Izmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan Port, 1840–1880 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012), 57Google Scholar.

41 Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 162.

42 Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir, 63.

43 Mixed courts were a major feature of this system. See Rubin, Avi, “British Perceptions of Ottoman Judicial Reform in the Late Nineteenth Century: Some Preliminary Insights,” Law & Social Inquiry 37, no. 4 (2012): 991–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On extraterritoriality with specific reference to Ottoman Jews, see Sarah Abrevaya Stein, Extraterritorial Dreams: European Citizenship, Sephardi Jews, and the Ottoman Twentieth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).

44 Quoted in Mardin, Şerif Arif, “Some Explanatory Notes on the Origins of the “Mecelle” (Medjelle),” The Muslim World 51, no. 3 (1961): 276Google Scholar.

45 Zürcher, Erik Jan, Turkey: A Modern History, 2nd ed. (London: I. B. Tauris, 2004), 76Google Scholar.

46 Findley, Carter Vaughn, Turkey, Islam, Nationalism, and Modernity: A History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 150–57Google Scholar.

47 Minawi, Mostafa, The Ottoman Scramble for Africa: Empire and Diplomacy in the Sahara and the Hijaz (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016), 9–10Google Scholar.

48 Genell, Aimee, “The Well-defended Domains: Eurocentric International Law and the Making of the Ottoman Office of Legal Counsel,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 2 (2016): 255–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 168–72.

50 Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter HHStA) PA XII 467, no. 94/B (17 November 1917).

51 On the development of marriage registration policies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, see Duben, Alan and Behar, Cem, Istanbul Households: Marriage, Family and Fertility 1880–1940 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 107–109Google Scholar and Mutlu, Cengiz, “Milli Mücadele'de Türkiye'de Azalan Nüfus ve İzdivac Meselesi,” Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi 85 (2013): 169–205Google Scholar.

52 The Hedaya, or Guide; A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, Vol. I, trans. Charles Hamilton (New Delhi: Nusratali Nasri, 1985), 95–96. The HAK reiterated the fundamental principle of kefâet in Muslim marriage. See articles 45–51 in II. Tertip Dustur, Cilt 9 (25 Teşrinievvel 1333/25 October 1917), 767–768. On the importance of kefāet in the preservation of social stratification, see Siddiqui, Mona, “Law and the Desire for Social Control: An Insight into the Hanafi Concept of Kafa'a with Reference to the Fatawa ‘Alamgiri (1664–1672),” in Feminism and Islam: Legal and Literary Perspectives, ed. Yamani, Mai (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 49–68Google Scholar.

53 Nadolski, Dora Gildewell, “Ottoman and Secular Civil Law,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 8, no. 4 (1977): 517–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 On the 19th century, see Sonyel, Salahi R., “The Protégé System in the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Islamic Studies 2, no. 1 (1991): 56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Ergil, Doğu, “A Reassessment: The Young Turks, their Politics and Anti-Colonial Struggle,” Balkan Studies 16, no. 2 (1975): 39Google Scholar.

56 Kayaoğlu, Turan, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 HHStA PA XII 466 Liasse LII, no. 8371 (15 August 1916).

58 HHStA PA XII 466 Liasse LII, no. 7907 (31 October 1916).

59 Morgenthau, Henry, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1918), 116Google Scholar.

60 Quoted in Ergil, “A Reassessment,” 68.

61 TNA FO 195/2460/4475, no. 5218 (1 October 1914). For contemporary French critiques of the abrogation, see Abi-Chahla, H., L'extinction des Capitulations en Turquie et dans les régions arabes (Paris: Picart, 1924)Google Scholar.

62 Sousa, Nasim, The Capitulatory Régime of Turkey: Its History, Origin, and Nature (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1933), 195Google Scholar. In 1907, with the consent of European governments, the Ottomans raised tariffs on imports from 8 to 11 percent.

63 Djemal Pasha, Memories of a Turkish Statesman – 1913–1919 (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1919), 129.

64 Pamuk, Şevket, “The Ottoman Economy in World War I,” in The Economics of World War I, eds. Mark Harrison and Stephen Broadberry (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 126Google Scholar.

65 Trumpener, Ulrich, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 1914–1918 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968), 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 47.207 (18 December 1917), appended to HHStA PA XII 467, no. 229/P (18 December 1917).

67 Kunke, Max, Die Kapitulationen der Türkei, deren Aufhebung und die Neuen Deutsch-türkischen Rechtsverträge (Munich: J. Schweitzer Verlag, 1918), 139Google Scholar.

68 Ibid., 145.

69 Trumpener, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 122.

70 Kieser, Talaat Pasha, 333.

71 Will, Alexander, Kein Griff nach der Weltmacht: Geheime Dienste und Propaganda im deutsch-österreichisch-türkischen Bündnis 1914–1918 (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dündar, Fuat, Modern Türkiye'nin Şifresi: İttihat ve Terakki'nin Etnisite Mühendisliği (1913–1918) (Istanbul: İletişim, 2008), 204–7Google Scholar. See also Beşikçi, Mehmet, The Ottoman Mobilization of Manpower in the First World War (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Thayer, Lucius Ellsworth, “Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire and the Question of Their Abrogation as It Affects the United States,” The American Journal of International Law 17, no. 2 (1923): 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Özsü, “Ottoman Empire,” 444.

74 Trumpener, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 129.

75 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 94/B (17 November 1917).

76 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 6 (19 January 1918).

77 Trumpener, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 271–84

78 See ibid., chapter VI.

79 Hanley, Will, Identifying with Nationality: Europeans, Ottomans, and Egyptians in Alexandria (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017), 143–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts, Berlin (hereafter PAAA) Konstantinopel 289/R4146 (25 June 1918).

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 417–18. The HAK is exemplary of how shari`a law has historically been dynamic in its response to contemporary social, political, and economic issues; but its significance as a code has been overstated. Historical iterations of shari`a law are all codes unto themselves; the HAK marks a turning point into greater legal stagnation on issues of family law than had been witnessed up to the point of its passage.

84 Halil Menteşe'nin Anıları, ed. İsmail Arar (Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları, 1986), 227.

85 Supplement to HHStA PA XII 467, no. 6 (19 January 1918), “Takrir et Memorandum du Patriarcat Oecumeénique relatifs à la question des mariages.”

86 II. Tertip Düstur, Cilt 9 (25 Teşrinievvel 1333/25 October 1917), 763.

87 For regulations specific to Jews, see articles 20–26 in II. Tertip Düstur, Cilt 9 (25 Teşrinievvel 1333/25 October 1917), 764–65 and for Christians, see articles 27–32 in ibid., 765. On divorce policies specific to Jews, see articles 59–62 in ibid., 769 and to Christians see articles 63–68 in ibid. and 78–79 in ibid., 771.

88 Ibid., 766.

89 On kefāet see articles 45–51 in ibid., 767–8. For dowry, see articles 80–91 in ibid., 771–72.

90 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü, 18.

91 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in ibid., 21.

92 Ibid. On the role of secularism in framing clerical involvement in family life, see chapter 4 in Mahmood, Religious Difference.

93 HHStA PA XII/467, no. 94/B (17 November 1917).

94 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 1 (12 January 1918).

95 Supplement to HHStA PA XII 467, no. 6 (19 January 1918), “Takrir et Memorandum du Patriarcat Oecumeénique relatifs aà la question des mariages.”

96 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü, 19.

97 Supplement to HHStA PA XII 467, no. 6 (19 January 1918), “Takrir et Memorandum du Patriarcat Oecumeénique relatifs aà la question des mariages.”

98 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 6 (19 January 1918).

99 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü, 20.

100 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 160.

101 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 94/C (17 November 1917).

102 II. Tertip Düstur, Cilt 9 (25 Teşrinievvel 1333/25 October 1917), 767. Pallavicini's critique can be found in HHStA PA XII/467, no. 94/B (17 November 1917).

103 Mazza, Roberto, “Churches at War: The Impact of the First World War on the Christian Institutions of Jerusalem, 1914–20,” Middle Eastern Studies 45, no. 2 (2009): 216–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Vatican was not an independent state until 1929, but worked alongside and through the Great Powers towards its political aims.

104 PAAA Konstantinopel 289/R7030 (8 December 1917).

105 PAAA Konstantinopel 289/R2595 (2 December 1917).

106 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 94/C (17 November 1917).

107 Trumpener, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 163.

108 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 105 (22 December 1917).

109 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 6 (19 January 1918).

110 Esbab-ı Mucibe Lāyihası, in Ansay, Medeni Kanunumuzun 25 inci Yıldönümü, 21.

111 HHStA PA XII 467, no. 94/C (17 November 1917).

112 Ahmad, “Ottoman Perceptions,” 18.

113 Elmacı, İttihat Terakki ve Kapitülasyonlar, 47.

114 Arıkan, İbrahim, Osmanlı Ordusunda bir Nefer: Bir Mehmetçiğin Çanakkale-Galiçya-Filistin Cephesi Anıları (Istanbul: Timaş, 2010), 21Google Scholar.

115 Quoted in Ahmad, “Ottoman Perceptions,” 18.

116 “The Attempt of Turkey to Abrogate the Capitulations,” American Journal of International Law 8, no. 4 (Oct. 1914): 873.