The International Relations of Police Power in Settler Colonialism: The “civilizing” mission of Canada's Mounties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to narratives by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the United Nations, and some scholars that international police assistance is a relatively recent phenomenon, we argue that Canada's Mounties have always been international. To develop this argument, we examine three dimensions of police power in international relations historically and with respect to the role of the Mounties specifically. First, we discuss the concept of police power and its central role in giving rise to another concept: civilization. The concept of civilization gained considerable traction as a rationale for police power in Britain's colonies, including Canada. Second, we turn to a discussion of imperial policing in the colonial settlement of Canada involving an elaborate array of “civilizing” techniques, some of which are still in operation today. Since Confederation, the Mounties have been involved in wide-ranging state-building missions with the purpose of securing Canadian sovereignty, in part through land and resource acquisition, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignties. Third, we show that the Mounties' contributions to settler colonialism played a role in shaping international relations from the twentieth century. In particular, the Mounties were central in constituting Canada as a member of the globally dominant Anglo-Saxon community of states. In conclusion, we suggest that current international policing practices in the global periphery are not novel phenomena, but are rooted in international police powers that made possible the colonial settlement of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".