Suchergebnisse

The Balta Limam Treaty of 1838, the Nanjing Treaty of 1842, and the events that led to them have epochal significance in the history of Britain's involvement in the Ottoman Empire and China. In addition to stipulating the principles according to which commercial relations were to take place between England and the Ottoman Empire and China, these treaties became the first in a series of international and domestic measures that marked a turn toward free trade and informal empire as distinct from the widespread use of formal methods of control that had characterized British policies in previous periods. As such, the treaties are also regarded as having a global significance. Furthermore, unlike previous unilateral grants by the Ottoman and Chinese governments that restricted the commerce and the residence of foreigners, the Balta Limam and Nanjing documents were drawn up as bilateral agreements that greatly expanded the foreigners' ability to trade and reside in the Ottoman Empire and China.

ABSTRACTThis article explores some of the consequences of open access (OA) for scholars in the global South, centring on what constitutes their equal participation in the global circuit of knowledge production. Building on critical reflections by contributors to the 'Power Shifts' project within the From Poverty to Power blog, the limitations of the OA model are shown to be tied to a series of structural features characteristic of the twin systems of academic research and publishing. What the challenges faced by many scholars in the global South demonstrate is that 'openness', or inclusion in this format, is not yet the guarantee for equality that many had hoped. The article frames this as a systemic knowledge issue at a global scale that cannot be remedied by a simple reform to academic publishing. The article points to some creative efforts by scholars to forge alternative models for scholarly communication that move away from a marketized and restrictive model of knowledge production, and towards epistemic justice. The authors conclude that while OA represents a positive step forward in making knowledge a public good, it is no substitute for a more comprehensive rethink to pluralize our ways of knowing.