American Imperial Sovereignty and Militarised Land Dispossession During the Korean War
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 3948698 |
|---|---|
| Autores | B Martins (0000-0003-1961-8188, Korea Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2023 |
| Volumen | 28 |
| Número | 5 |
| Páginas | 2111-2141 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2023-10-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | No |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Geopolitics (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1465-0045 • E-ISSN: 1557-3028 |
| Editorial | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/14650045.2022.2124159 |
| OpenAlex | W4301585914 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 3 |
| Referencias citadas | 37 |
During the Korean War (1950-53), the American-led United Nations Command requisitioned vast areas of land and property in Korea for the purpose of constructing military infrastructures. Requisitions occurred not only in the war’s combat zone, but also in parts of the country understood by the United States to be under the sovereign control of the Republic of Korea. Many of these requisitions formed the basis of a permanent US military base network in Korea. This article responds to conventional scholarship on militarization and military bases and engages critical conceptions of territory and sovereignty to examine the constellation of forces that made American militarized dispossessions possible during the Korean War. It draws on archival evidence to show that the United States and Korea never reached a bilateral agreement on land or property requisitioning during the war, but that the US military nonetheless wove its own system of requisitioning through a certain conception of Korean sovereignty even in the face of contestation from the Korean government. The US military mobilized Korean forces under its operational control through the UN Command to carry out civilian land expropriations while contending that the Korean soldiers under its control were agents of their own state acting in accordance with domestic law. It then portrayed militarized dispossessions as Korean domestic problems and domestic liabilities. Evidence from the Korean War opens broad questions about the nature of American imperial sovereignty and territory both through and beyond the spatial unit of the military base
Ancient history · Economic history · Economics · Economy · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · History · Japanese History and Culture · Korean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies · Law · Vietnamese History and Culture Studies
Theft Is Property!
The Interrogation Rooms of the Korean War
Contracting States
How to Hide an Empire
Base Politics
Case Analysis of the R.O.K.-U.S. Alliance Burden-Sharing through Theoretical Approaches to the Evolution of an Asymmetric Alliance
After the Korean War
Spaces of Contention
Embattled Garrisons
Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests
Sovereignty
The United States and the Curious History of Self-Determination
How Not to Write the History of U.S. Empire
How Should We Do the History of Territory
Archipelagic rhetoric
Pusan at War
Settler Garrison
Bases of empire? The logic of overseas U.S. military base expansion, 1870–2016
The power of terrain
Independence without Liberation
The Empire Will Compensate You
Base Closings
De facto, displaced, tacit
Sovereign excesses? Portraying postcolonial sovereigntyscapes
Rethinking Territory
The territorial trap
Secure the volume
Three-dimensional security
Regimes of Dispossession
Beyond the 'Weak State
Base Built in the Middle of 'Rice Fields
Foreign Military Presence and the Changing Practice of Sovereignty
The Edges of Empire and the Limits of Sovereignty
On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty
| Obras citantes distintas | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 1,5 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 2 |