<<
>>

Conclusion

This chapter has argued that Roman treaties - to wit, ancient instruments of international law - offer a significant lens onto the forms of power that Rome sought to exercise in the passage from a multipolar to a unipolar word, and from hegemony to empire.

In a pre-imperial world, Roman treaties bound no­tionally independent states to Rome, and Rome to them. Although the treaties were often bilateral, in aggregate they created networks of alliance, undergird­ed by processes of recognition that resisted the transformation of allies into subjects. What is more, these early treaties were interventions into a world of unnamed others; indeed, they were often interventions against unnamed oth­ers. But the mere mention of (underspecified) enemies amounted to a recogni­tion of the further sovereignty of (hostile) states in the same international space.

The creation of the Roman empire out of this world was accomplished through the creation of so-called provinces, large territorial units of adminis­tration to which Rome dispatched a supervisory governor. But within provinc­es, Roman rule operated not through the direct administration of persons or households. Instead, in many instances, it continued to strike treaties with se­lect cities, into whose power and control were delivered the communities in what became their hinterlands. Put otherwise, provinces were subdivided into territories, in each of which one city alone was recognized as superordinate and named a polity; networks of such city-states were then aggregated so as to encompass the totality of land and persons within the province. The commu­nities excluded from treaty relations were perforce excluded from politics. The ongoing performance of elaborate rituals of recognition - the regular renewal of treaty relations - was thus an act of exclusion that amounted to act of domination.[231] [232]

The use of treaties, and the instrumentalisation of local political communi­ties more broadly, to construct the empire is also revealing of the nature and limits of Roman power.

Communities that Rome recognised as juridically- constituted peoples were regularly granted the right to use their own law­making and law-applying institutions - the treaty with Plarasa-Aphrodisias, according to which its citizens were �to enjoy their own traditional laws and those which they pass among themselves hereafter', is a case in points9 In this way, the empire was tessellated into multiple systems of �local' law. I place the term �local’ in scare quotes because these systems of law were democratically legitimated only in respect of the polities that generated them. They were not �local’ or �traditional’ to the peoples whom Rome delivered into the control of its friends. On this reading, the legal pluralism of the Roman empire was an artefact of how the empire came to be, and a preeminent expression of how it functioned. It was also a symptom of the limits of the Roman state’s infrastruc­tural power: Rome continued to treat with each province’s network of city­states because it needed them to rule over those populations that were too distant (as it were) for Rome to reach on its own.

<< | >>
Source: Cavanagh Edward (ed.). Empire and Legal Thought: Ideas and Institutions from Antiquity to Modernity. Brill,2020. — 634 p.. 2020

More on the topic Conclusion: