Extraterritorial law as a colonial structure: Sir Robert Hart and his independence from British legal authorities in China (1870-1873)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the use of English law in British extraterritorial courts in China, drawing on the well-known Von Gumpach v Hart (1870) case. The argument put forth is that the application of English law in this context was shaped by the quasi-colonial circumstances of extraterritoriality in China’s treaty ports, and that it largely adapted to the social and political realities of this colonial setting. The paper contends that extraterritorial law can only be fully understood as a colonial phenomenon, reflecting a colonial worldview and power dynamics. In the particular case of Von Gumpach v Hart, the operation of extraterritorial law was influenced by the political and economic interests of British colonial elites in Shanghai, as well as by colonial assumptions, discourses, and value systems. Τhe paper draws on local newspaper reports of the case, legal documents and untapped sources such as the diaries of the defendant, Sir Robert Hart. During the relevant period, Hart served as the Inspector General of the Chinese governmental tax-collection agency, but also functioned as an advisor to the Qing government of China in foreign affairs. Hart’s dispute with von Gumpach unfolded during a period that his role Sino-British relations had come under scrutiny by the British community in China. The paper shows that the British political and commercial elites in China used the controversy as an opportunity to voice their concerns over Hart’s growing influence in Sino-British politics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".