The article examines the relationship between colonialism and international law by focusing on late nineteenth century debates surrounding the sovereignty of the “princely states” of colonial South Asia. The princely states were ruled by indigenous rulers and were not considered to be British territory, but remained subject to British “influence;” as a result, there were numerous controversies over their legal status. During the course of jurisdictional disputes, a variety of interested players - British politicians, colonial officials, international lawyers, rulers and advisors of princely states - engaged in debates over the idea of sovereignty to resolve questions of legal status, the extent of rights and powers, and to construct a political order that supported their interests and aspirations. I focus on legal texts written by British international lawyers and colonial officials as well as material relating to two jurisdictional disputes (one between the state of Travancore and the British Government and another between the state of Baroda and the British Government) to trace two versions of sovereignty that were articulated in late nineteenth century South Asia - unitary and divisible. In doing so, I argue that international law, and the doctrine of sovereignty in particular, became the shared language for participants to debate political problems and a key forum for the negotiation of political power.

中文翻译：

---

争夺管辖权：19 世纪晚期南亚的主权与国际法

本文通过关注 19 世纪后期围绕南亚殖民地“诸侯国”主权的辩论来审视殖民主义与国际法之间的关系。诸侯国由土著统治者统治，不被视为英国领土，但仍受英国“影响”；因此，对其法律地位存在诸多争议。在管辖权争议过程中，各种感兴趣的参与者——英国政客、殖民官员、国际律师、统治者和王公国家顾问——就主权概念展开辩论，以解决法律地位、权利和权力范围等问题，并建立一个支持他们的利益和愿望的政治秩序。我专注于由英国国际律师和殖民官员撰写的法律文本以及与两起管辖权纠纷（特拉万科尔州与英国政府之间，另一场巴罗达州与英国政府之间）有关的材料，以追踪两个版本的在 19 世纪后期南亚明确表达的主权 - 单一和可分割的。在这样做的过程中，我认为国际法，特别是主权原则，成为参与者辩论政治问题的共同语言和政治权力谈判的关键论坛。