It would not be an exaggeration to remark that the decorated history of the Russian-Ottoman rivalry has created a dazzling discourse in academia discussing the civilizational clash that has existed between them. Yet the intriguing nature of prisoners-of-war customs in both empires remains below peripheral research, even though it is important to understand how laws of warfare have evolved in eastern Europe from their unique civilizational lense. The book under the review presents an alternative narrative on the development of legal practices relating to the law of prisoners derived from constant the engagements of Ottoman and Russian empires. Most importantly, Will Smiley's seminal work unfolds the massive transformation that took place in Ottoman-Russian engagement regarding the notion of the prisoner. Based on his PhD research work at Cambridge, Smiley has made a compelling analysis of the status of war captives while examining the practices of Islamic juridical norms in Ottoman courts.
The book has been divided into five parts and each part consists of two chapters. In the first two chapters, while discussing the animosity that prevailed between Ottomans and Russians, Smiley provides an apt explanation narrating the status of prisoners in eighteenth-century Ottoman empire. The second chapter in particular deals with how Ottomans expanded into Ruski Mir, which resulted in enslaving many slaves known as Moskovlu (39). In the second part of the text, Smiley discusses Russia's imperial ascendency after Peter's modernization and its geopolitical confrontation with the Ottoman empire, which finally resulted in the 1768 war between Russians and Ottomans. In so doing he analyzes the treaty-making process between Ottomans and Russians that came into force after the humiliating defeat of Ottoman forces by Russian troops in 1773–74 as symbolic of Ottoman decline and the rise of Russia as a decisive land power. Russia went on to win subsequent wars in 1787, 1806, and 1828 (60).
Rules and customs regulating prisoners of war between the two empires reached its nadir with the revival of hostilities followed by war in 1786. The status of war prisoners in Ottoman custody was mainly decided under strict Islamic legal rules claiming them as “state slaves” (106). Smiley presents the whole mechanism of war prisoners under Ottoman rule, however, as a political strategy used by them against the Russian empire. In Chapter 5, the author provides a descriptive historical analysis of the concept of reciprocity between Ottomans and Russians on the battlefield. As an example, he gives historical details about how Ottomans executed Russian war prisoners when they realized holding Russians would make their position vulnerable. Chapter 6 unveils some interesting narratives about the attempts made by Russian prisoners under Ottoman captivity to make their conditions better through bribery and negotiation that often brought them successful results, since the Ottomans believed that treating them humanely would lead Russians to do the same for Ottoman war prisoners in their custody. (127)
The part IV of Smiley's work is important for legal historians interested in the development of international law. The author points out how nineteenth-century European adoption of common laws of war changed the Ottoman attitude toward prisoners based on Islamic jurisprudence. In the last part of his compelling work, Smiley brings up the issue of nineteenth-century political ambivalence, which persisted among the British and French towards Russia as they feared its emerging superiority might diminish their positions in the east. Following Russian success in the Greek War of Independence, Smiley emphasizes that British officials feared the consequences of a potential Russian conquest of Istanbul (188).
The concluding chapter of the book is an apt illustration that unfolds the status of the relationship between Ottomans and Russians in the decaying stage of their imperial strengths during the First World War. Yet the customs they maintained in treating captives and releasing them saw fewer changes as both Russian and Ottoman officials followed their customs and intellectual traditions, thus the European notion of the universality of international law was less significant against the regional systems maintained regarding laws and customs toward captives. Smiley has clearly stated how this regional system of international law continued as a judicial tool while keeping the balance between these two imperial rivals outside the European context (245).
In conclusion, this book is a timely contribution to the literature relating to the history of international law from a non-European perspective. However, too much elucidation and the vast technical jargon used by the author seems to be a discouraging factor for the general reader interested in the history of international law.
