The Marital Patchwork of Colonial South Asia: Forum Shopping from Britain to Baroda
The British Empire created channels for imperially intended movement. Commodities, bodies, and ideas flowed along axes structured by imperial law and technology. Unintended motion also occurred along these same planes. With every legal structure meant to promote one type of behavior came litigants d...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Law and history review 2010-11, Vol.28 (4), p.979-1009 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1009 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 979 |
container_title | Law and history review |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Sharafi, Mitra |
description | The British Empire created channels for imperially intended movement. Commodities, bodies, and ideas flowed along axes structured by imperial law and technology. Unintended motion also occurred along these same planes. With every legal structure meant to promote one type of behavior came litigants devising strategies to achieve the opposite. Collusion, bribery, forgery, and perjury were favorite ways to manipulate imperial law. The more permissible strategy of forum shopping was another. Forum shopping is the attempt to push one's case into a jurisdiction promising an optimal result when there is ambiguity over the controlling jurisdiction. It reveals the perception among litigants that bottom-up—and sideways—mechanics exist within legal systems. Unlike work on resistance to state law through extralegal means, I here examine the ways parties tried to work strategically within the confines of the legal system to reconfigure their marital situations. Rather than documenting the success of these maneuvers, however, I note their more common failure. The colonial courts usually saw through unconvincing attempts to forum shop. The fact that litigants continued to try reflects the ingenuity, arguably, of the “legal lottery” mechanism at work in British imperial law. Colonial law, and therefore colonial rule, reinforced its hold on subjects by dangling before them the possibility of individual relief through rule-of-law proceduralism. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S073824801000074X |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_rmit_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_25800902</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S073824801000074X</cupid><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20230921095642</informt_id><jstor_id>25800902</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25800902</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-d9e655031e9e56ca04a71583c2316b7731ad7a1e707efbee99c515d8c7ff7823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EEuXxASyQ_AOBsR3HMTta8ZJAULUCdpabOI1LE1e2K-DvSWhhg4Q3lubMvTNzETohcEaAiPMJCJbTNAcC3RPp6w4aEMlkIoHSXTTocdLzfXQQwgKAEMjTAZpMa4MftLdRL_GTjkX97vwbdhUeuaVrbVeduHWs8WWw-gJfO79u8KR2q5Vt57jyrsHDXmxbHB0eau9KfYT2Kr0M5nj7H6Lp9dV0dJvcP97cjS7vk4JRGZNSmoxzYMRIw7NCQ6oF4TkrKCPZTAhGdCk0MQKEqWbGSFlwwsu8EFUlcsoOEdnYFt6F4E2lVt422n8qAqoPRf0JpdPcbjS-sVHpuQ2rqILRvqiVbSv3XXZ-rkpnexvWrfLTRoEykJSA5Fnajz_dWC1CdP53NuU5QBd6x5MNtyGaj1-u_ZvKBBNcZTdj9TJmzyPGhwq6frY9Rzczb8u5UQu39m2X4D8HfQGan5Rw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Marital Patchwork of Colonial South Asia: Forum Shopping from Britain to Baroda</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Cambridge Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Sharafi, Mitra</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharafi, Mitra</creatorcontrib><description>The British Empire created channels for imperially intended movement. Commodities, bodies, and ideas flowed along axes structured by imperial law and technology. Unintended motion also occurred along these same planes. With every legal structure meant to promote one type of behavior came litigants devising strategies to achieve the opposite. Collusion, bribery, forgery, and perjury were favorite ways to manipulate imperial law. The more permissible strategy of forum shopping was another. Forum shopping is the attempt to push one's case into a jurisdiction promising an optimal result when there is ambiguity over the controlling jurisdiction. It reveals the perception among litigants that bottom-up—and sideways—mechanics exist within legal systems. Unlike work on resistance to state law through extralegal means, I here examine the ways parties tried to work strategically within the confines of the legal system to reconfigure their marital situations. Rather than documenting the success of these maneuvers, however, I note their more common failure. The colonial courts usually saw through unconvincing attempts to forum shop. The fact that litigants continued to try reflects the ingenuity, arguably, of the “legal lottery” mechanism at work in British imperial law. Colonial law, and therefore colonial rule, reinforced its hold on subjects by dangling before them the possibility of individual relief through rule-of-law proceduralism.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0738-2480</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9022</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S073824801000074X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Attorneys ; British colonies ; Colonial law ; Colonies ; Divorce law ; Forum shopping ; FORUM: MANEUVERING THE PERSONAL LAW SYSTEM IN COLONIAL INDIA ; Hindu law ; Hindus ; Husbands ; Jurisdiction ; Law and legislation ; Legal polycentricity ; Marriage ; Marriage law ; Zoroastrianism</subject><ispartof>Law and history review, 2010-11, Vol.28 (4), p.979-1009</ispartof><rights>Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2010</rights><rights>2010 American Society for Legal History, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-d9e655031e9e56ca04a71583c2316b7731ad7a1e707efbee99c515d8c7ff7823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-d9e655031e9e56ca04a71583c2316b7731ad7a1e707efbee99c515d8c7ff7823</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25800902$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S073824801000074X/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,803,27923,27924,55627,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharafi, Mitra</creatorcontrib><title>The Marital Patchwork of Colonial South Asia: Forum Shopping from Britain to Baroda</title><title>Law and history review</title><addtitle>Law hist. rev</addtitle><description>The British Empire created channels for imperially intended movement. Commodities, bodies, and ideas flowed along axes structured by imperial law and technology. Unintended motion also occurred along these same planes. With every legal structure meant to promote one type of behavior came litigants devising strategies to achieve the opposite. Collusion, bribery, forgery, and perjury were favorite ways to manipulate imperial law. The more permissible strategy of forum shopping was another. Forum shopping is the attempt to push one's case into a jurisdiction promising an optimal result when there is ambiguity over the controlling jurisdiction. It reveals the perception among litigants that bottom-up—and sideways—mechanics exist within legal systems. Unlike work on resistance to state law through extralegal means, I here examine the ways parties tried to work strategically within the confines of the legal system to reconfigure their marital situations. Rather than documenting the success of these maneuvers, however, I note their more common failure. The colonial courts usually saw through unconvincing attempts to forum shop. The fact that litigants continued to try reflects the ingenuity, arguably, of the “legal lottery” mechanism at work in British imperial law. Colonial law, and therefore colonial rule, reinforced its hold on subjects by dangling before them the possibility of individual relief through rule-of-law proceduralism.</description><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>British colonies</subject><subject>Colonial law</subject><subject>Colonies</subject><subject>Divorce law</subject><subject>Forum shopping</subject><subject>FORUM: MANEUVERING THE PERSONAL LAW SYSTEM IN COLONIAL INDIA</subject><subject>Hindu law</subject><subject>Hindus</subject><subject>Husbands</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Law and legislation</subject><subject>Legal polycentricity</subject><subject>Marriage</subject><subject>Marriage law</subject><subject>Zoroastrianism</subject><issn>0738-2480</issn><issn>1939-9022</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EEuXxASyQ_AOBsR3HMTta8ZJAULUCdpabOI1LE1e2K-DvSWhhg4Q3lubMvTNzETohcEaAiPMJCJbTNAcC3RPp6w4aEMlkIoHSXTTocdLzfXQQwgKAEMjTAZpMa4MftLdRL_GTjkX97vwbdhUeuaVrbVeduHWs8WWw-gJfO79u8KR2q5Vt57jyrsHDXmxbHB0eau9KfYT2Kr0M5nj7H6Lp9dV0dJvcP97cjS7vk4JRGZNSmoxzYMRIw7NCQ6oF4TkrKCPZTAhGdCk0MQKEqWbGSFlwwsu8EFUlcsoOEdnYFt6F4E2lVt422n8qAqoPRf0JpdPcbjS-sVHpuQ2rqILRvqiVbSv3XXZ-rkpnexvWrfLTRoEykJSA5Fnajz_dWC1CdP53NuU5QBd6x5MNtyGaj1-u_ZvKBBNcZTdj9TJmzyPGhwq6frY9Rzczb8u5UQu39m2X4D8HfQGan5Rw</recordid><startdate>201011</startdate><enddate>201011</enddate><creator>Sharafi, Mitra</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201011</creationdate><title>The Marital Patchwork of Colonial South Asia: Forum Shopping from Britain to Baroda</title><author>Sharafi, Mitra</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-d9e655031e9e56ca04a71583c2316b7731ad7a1e707efbee99c515d8c7ff7823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>British colonies</topic><topic>Colonial law</topic><topic>Colonies</topic><topic>Divorce law</topic><topic>Forum shopping</topic><topic>FORUM: MANEUVERING THE PERSONAL LAW SYSTEM IN COLONIAL INDIA</topic><topic>Hindu law</topic><topic>Hindus</topic><topic>Husbands</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Law and legislation</topic><topic>Legal polycentricity</topic><topic>Marriage</topic><topic>Marriage law</topic><topic>Zoroastrianism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharafi, Mitra</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Law and history review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharafi, Mitra</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Marital Patchwork of Colonial South Asia: Forum Shopping from Britain to Baroda</atitle><jtitle>Law and history review</jtitle><addtitle>Law hist. rev</addtitle><date>2010-11</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>979</spage><epage>1009</epage><pages>979-1009</pages><issn>0738-2480</issn><eissn>1939-9022</eissn><abstract>The British Empire created channels for imperially intended movement. Commodities, bodies, and ideas flowed along axes structured by imperial law and technology. Unintended motion also occurred along these same planes. With every legal structure meant to promote one type of behavior came litigants devising strategies to achieve the opposite. Collusion, bribery, forgery, and perjury were favorite ways to manipulate imperial law. The more permissible strategy of forum shopping was another. Forum shopping is the attempt to push one's case into a jurisdiction promising an optimal result when there is ambiguity over the controlling jurisdiction. It reveals the perception among litigants that bottom-up—and sideways—mechanics exist within legal systems. Unlike work on resistance to state law through extralegal means, I here examine the ways parties tried to work strategically within the confines of the legal system to reconfigure their marital situations. Rather than documenting the success of these maneuvers, however, I note their more common failure. The colonial courts usually saw through unconvincing attempts to forum shop. The fact that litigants continued to try reflects the ingenuity, arguably, of the “legal lottery” mechanism at work in British imperial law. Colonial law, and therefore colonial rule, reinforced its hold on subjects by dangling before them the possibility of individual relief through rule-of-law proceduralism.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S073824801000074X</doi><tpages>31</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0738-2480 |
ispartof | Law and history review, 2010-11, Vol.28 (4), p.979-1009 |
issn | 0738-2480 1939-9022 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_jstor_primary_25800902 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Cambridge Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Attorneys British colonies Colonial law Colonies Divorce law Forum shopping FORUM: MANEUVERING THE PERSONAL LAW SYSTEM IN COLONIAL INDIA Hindu law Hindus Husbands Jurisdiction Law and legislation Legal polycentricity Marriage Marriage law Zoroastrianism |
title | The Marital Patchwork of Colonial South Asia: Forum Shopping from Britain to Baroda |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T13%3A05%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_rmit_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Marital%20Patchwork%20of%20Colonial%20South%20Asia:%20Forum%20Shopping%20from%20Britain%20to%20Baroda&rft.jtitle=Law%20and%20history%20review&rft.au=Sharafi,%20Mitra&rft.date=2010-11&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=979&rft.epage=1009&rft.pages=979-1009&rft.issn=0738-2480&rft.eissn=1939-9022&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S073824801000074X&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_rmit_%3E25800902%3C/jstor_rmit_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S073824801000074X&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20230921095642&rft_jstor_id=25800902&rfr_iscdi=true |