This chapter focuses on micro encounters engendered by the Yale Peruvian Expedition, exploring via textual and photographic evidence the racial scientific research that shaped encounters in Peru between expedition members and Indigenous and Mestizo peoples, some of whom served as the expedition’s workers and assistants. Reading these sources in relation to the broader context of rural unrest in the Cusco region, the emergence of an urban and university-based indigenista movement that promoted the study of Indigenous peoples, and the rise of American-led expedition science, Warren questions how different groups imagined and contested the moral and ethical dimensions of such work. He argues that when measured and photographed, Indigenous and Mestizo research subjects ultimately subverted the expedition’s efforts to document accurate visual depictions of racial types. Drawing on the concept of ethnographic refusal in Indigenous Studies while also identifying other forms of engagement, Warren criticizes the univocal conception of moral fields as the possession of imperial researchers but not of Indigenous and Mestizo people subjected to their gaze.

This chapter works through multiple valences of queerness in relation to blackness. Alongside the presence of non-normative sexual practices, intimacies, and identifications within black literatures this chapter looks at ways that blackness is often posited as already queer, part of the residue of having been hailed as property. In this reading, blackness destabilizes or “queers” the category of the person. This happens through the blurring of the categories of person and object as well as the possibility of making a distinction between an individual and a collective social identity. We might consider this person-object blurriness to be one of the effects of the processes of commodification that enslavement entailed. This estrangement from personhood though enfleshment, objectification, and loss of the mother also introduces literary possibilities of resistance in a queer register, including movements to mourn and re-find the mother, sonic resistance, and other uses of the flesh to produce forms of embodiment that evade traditional forms of capture. Here, queerness is related to finding different ways to describe orientations toward the world and pleasure.

The authors begin by observing that most obligations of international law are still regarded as ‘based’ on State consent. There are good reasons for this, especially from a democratic legitimacy perspective. Still, the principle of State consent, even in its qualified version of ‘democratic State’ consent, suffers from important shortcomings that call for correctives. The chapter starts by accounting for the democratic value of State consent in International Organizations (hereafter IOs) before addressing some of its democratic deficits. It then articulates several institutional proposals to correct or, at least, complement the role of equal State consent in the institution, the operation and the control of IOs. The authors develop a non-ideal normative argument for the latter’s political re-institution. That re-institution has to start with the replacement of the principle of equal State consent by that of equal public participation in IOs: this does not only avoid reducing State consent in IOs to State veto or refusal rights, but it also extends the personal scope of those participatory rights to other non-State public institutions.

The conclusion explores the wider meaning and significance of the antipolitics of refusal. Drawing on recent scholarship by Fred Moten, Saidiya Hartman, and Bonnie Honig, I move towards an understanding of the antipolitical – not as an escape from, or return to, the polis – but as a project of building autonomy, care, and horizontalism beyond racial capitalism, the state, and their violent terms of order.

Performative inquiry – studies of doing and its consequences for being – is a prominent feature of research projects in exploring gender and sexuality, especially when gender and sexuality are closely tied to linguistic practices. Moreover, because performativity of doing unfolds in specific social and temporal contexts, performative inquiry shows how gender and sexuality become inflected variously in relation to intersectionalities and inequalities, and how language use connected to gender and sexuality becomes inflected in similar terms, as well. Performative inquiry is also concerned with assumptions about normative (or ideological) assumptions that regulate “commonsense” distinctions between valued and not-so-valued practices of doing and being. This chapter’s case studies and discussion show how gender and sexuality are shaped by performative practices and how language use is entailed within these gendered and sexual performative formations.

Indigenous women carry forward intergenerational histories of transmuting trauma into what Leanne Betasamosake Simpson calls “a gorgeous generative refusal of colonial recognition.” Drawing on methodologies by Indigenous scholars Dian Million, Daniel Justice, Leanne Simpson and Audra Simpson, this essay traces an intergenerational literary praxis that highlights models of critical kinship, felt theory, and refusals. More specifically, Indigenous relational frameworks bring greater visibility to intergenerational connections linking diverse Indigenous women writers and artists over a nearly two-hundred-year span. Such connections honor the power of intergenerational memory to confront and resist settler sexual and gender violence. Across a range of creative and critical expression, generations of Native women writers--both those well-known today in the US literary canon and others less visible--refuse and redirect violence to human and more-than-human kin, to lands, and to knowledges. At the same time, their persistent acts of intergenerational witness, memory, and story-sharing imagine alternative Indigenous futures.

The USSR was one of the first states to ratify the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.1 The Soviet organizations complied with the foreign arbitral awards by strictly following the rules of contract and procedural discipline appropriate to a centralized economy. With the demise of Soviet Union, the need for procedural means of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the national procedural law arose. A 1988 Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet2 officially implemented provisions of the New York Convention into national law. In 1993, the Russian Federation adopted International Commercial Arbitration Law (hereinafter ICAL) based on the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985.3 The ICAL granted competence to arbitration associations over disputes between companies with foreign participation and those disputes between such companies and Russian companies.4 The disputes between Russian companies were not subject to the New York Convention. This was addressed by the enactment of the 2002 Russian Federation Commercial Procedure Code (CPC) on arbitral tribunals, which established a legal framework for domestic arbitration that followed international rules on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.5 With the adoption of the CPC, the Russian system of international and domestic arbitration was made comprehensive.6