This article reviews Alex Anievas and Kerem Nişancıoğlu’s How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism (2015). It argues that the book offers a stimulating and ambitious approach to solving the problems of Eurocentrism and the origins of capitalism in growing critical scholarship in historical sociology and International Relations. However, by focusing on the ‘problem of the international’ and proposing a ‘single unified theory’ based on uneven and combined development, the authors present a history of international relations that trades off methodological openness and legal complexity for a structural and exclusive consequentialism driven by anti-Eurocentrism. By misrepresenting the concept of social-property relations in terms of the internal/external fallacy, and by confusing different types of ‘internalism’ required by early-modern jurisdictional struggles, the book problematically conflates histories of international law and capitalism. These methodological problems are contextualised by examples from the Spanish, French and British empires’ conceptions of sovereignty and jurisdiction and their significant legal actors and processes.
BessonSamantha2012‘The Extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights: Why Human Rights Depend on Jurisdiction and What Jurisdiction Amounts to’Leiden Journal of International Law254: 857–884.
HankeLewis1974All Mankind Is One: A Study of the Disputation between Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginès de Sepúlveda on the Religious and Intellectual Capacity of the American IndiansDeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
OwensJ.B.2005‘By My Absolute Royal Authority’: Justice and the Castilian Commonwealth at the Beginning of the First Global AgeRochester, NY/Martlesham: University of Rochester Press/Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
PalMaïa2013The Politics of Extraterritoriality: A Historical Sociology of Public International LawDoctoral thesis (PhD)The University of Sussexavailable at: <http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.574962>.