Introduction
In
recent years, scholars of criminal justice and policing have devoted much
attention to the growing impact of the interconnectedness of nations on
the control and management of crime. A considerable literature now exists
on the structures and processes of how police institutions and other agents
of social control define and respond to the flow of criminal activities
across national borders (e.g., Deflem 2001; Koenig and Das 2001; McDonald
1997; Nadelmann 1993; Passas 1999; Sheptycki 2002). International patterns
of policing have historical foundations that date back to at least the
19th-century development of national states, when police and government
authorities began to recognize the need for police cooperation across the
boundaries of national jurisdictions (Deflem 2002a, b, 2000, 1996).
Among the historical antecedents
of international police cooperation were various efforts, especially on
the European continent, to control the international spread of people and
organizations that were held to be opponents of established political systems,
such as socialists, democrats, liberals, and anarchists. It is the most
striking development of international police cooperation from the latter
part of the 19th century onwards that police institutions gradually began
to abandon the political objectives of early cooperation efforts to focus
on enforcement duties of a distinctly criminal nature. It would, however,
be incorrect to conclude that the shift towards criminal police cooperation
involved a radical break from earlier political cooperation efforts. On
the contrary, as I will show in this chapter, available historical evidence
shows that the development and growth of international police cooperation
for criminal enforcement duties was facilitated by prior practices of cooperation
that had been initiated for political reasons.
Drawing on archival data
on the history of international police cooperation from the mid-19th century
onwards, I will in this chapter analyze two case studies of police cooperation
that were planned at the intergovernmental level of international law concerning
matters of the control of anarchism and white slavery. These cases will
serve to substantiate the argument that the political nature of early efforts
to foster police cooperation paradoxically enabled the elaboration of international
police cooperation for criminal enforcement duties, because they promoted
a process of bureaucratization that would lead police institutions to independently
develop the means and objectives of cooperation across national borders.
I will first situate the case studies of the policing of anarchism and
white slavery in its proper historical context.
The Age of International
Police Cooperation
At the beginning of the 20th
century, international police cooperation was not yet structured on a broad
international scale, such as is the case today with the International Criminal
Police Organization (Interpol) (Deflem 2002a). In the United States, police
duties with international dimensions were mostly related to specifically
American circumstances associated with slavery, immigration, and the founding
of national borders on the north-American continent. Collaboration with
European and other police located outside the United States occurred only
on sporadic occasions. In Europe, international police practices were from
the middle of the 19th century onwards comparatively much more developed,
yet they were organized on a rather limited basis with appeal to police
institutions of a relatively small number of nations. Most European police
cooperation until the early 20th century also concerned political tasks
related to the protection of established conservative rule from suspected
subversive political activities. Such was most clearly the case with the
Police Union of German States, an international police organization that
was active from 1851 until 1866 to suppress the political opposition from
liberals, democrats, and socialists (Deflem 1996, 2002a:45-62). The Police
Union was able to attract cooperation only from police of seven German-language
nations that were ideologically closely akin and politically united in
a common federal union. Other efforts to formalize cross-border police
collaboration in the 19th century likewise remained too closely tied to
the political conditions within and among national states to garner broad
international support.
Throughout the 19th century,
attempts to promote international police cooperation on a broad multilateral
scale were mostly organized at the level of international law, rather than
at the administrative level of police institutions. An expansion of international
law was established through formal agreements reached between the governments
of national states, but such intergovernmental accords typically failed
to be a basis for practical cooperation between police. At best, such agreements
served as catalysts for the development of international policing if the
formal provisions of international law were accompanied by informal arrangements
separately worked out among police officials. International police collaboration
on political matters and cooperation efforts instituted at the level of
intergovernmental treaties share the characteristic that they will unavoidably
mirror the political conditions of international affairs among national
states and the characteristics of their diverse systems of law. Therefore,
such political and legal forms of cooperation plans pose severe limitations
to the scope of their international potential and do not allow participating
police to move beyond the jurisdictional authority sanctioned by their
respective governments.
However, even though international
legal agreements remained without much consequence for practical police
cooperation, there was towards the close of the 19th century also a distinct
trend noticeable in international police cooperation practices to focus
away from political crimes towards more distinctly criminal police duties.
Theoretically, this development can be conceptualized in terms of a bureaucratization
process that has historically influenced police institutions to gain institutional
independence from the governments of their respective states to develop
and share knowledge systems of international crimes that need to be responded
to through cooperation (Deflem 2002a:12-34). The influence of police bureaucratization
on international cooperation was clearly, albeit negatively, revealed in
1914, when the “First Congress of International Criminal Police” was held
in Monaco (Deflem 2002a:102-110). Although the meeting specifically aspired
to foster international police cooperation on criminal matters, the attempt
failed because it was still framed in terms of the provisions of international
law, rather than the bureaucratic model police institutions had by then
come to adopt. Not until the formation of the organization today known
as Interpol, the International Criminal Police Commission in 1923, would
international police cooperation be successfully organized on a more permanent
basis. The Commission was oriented at criminal enforcement duties and was
independently established by the representatives of police institutions
rather than their nations’ political authorities.
An increasing bureaucratization
of police institutions had in the decades preceding the formation of the
International Criminal Police Commission already begun to inspire new forms
of international police cooperation which did not rely on principles of
international law and which did not focus on political crimes. It may come
as somewhat of a surprise, then, that an important multilateral effort
to establish European-wide police cooperation would be attempted on a highly
political issue, when as late as 1898 an international conference was held
in Rome, Italy, to coordinate police measures against anarchism. Unveiling
the causes and implications of the anti-anarchist conference will help
explain this paradoxical development and will bring out the ironic finding
that international police cooperation for purposes of criminal enforcement,
such as they continue to exist until this day, have origins in distinctly
political efforts.
The Anti-Anarchist Conference
of Rome, 1898
In the final decade of the
19th century, violent incidents inspired by radical political ideas shook
the foundations of established autocratic regimes in Europe and accelerated
international police activities with political objectives. It was partly
in response to this “Decade of Regicide” —to borrow a term from historian
Richard Jensen (2001:16)— that new attempts were made to establish international
police cooperation with wide international representation in a form that
would overcome difficulties relating to national sovereignty. Though in
most respects these attempts were to be unsuccessful, they also signaled
an important transformation in the history of international police cooperation,
the impact of which would become clear during the first half of the 20th
century.
The 1890s witnessed a revival
of anarchist activities and, in response, police actions directed at suppressing
them (Jensen 2001; Liang 1992:155-163). In the course of the decade, alleged
anarchist incidents led to 60 killings and the wounding of some 200 people.
Between March 1892 and June 1894, eleven bombing incidents killed nine
people in Paris alone. In 1893, police from France intercepted news about
plans to assassinate Emperor Wilhelm II and Chancellor Caprivi of the German
Empire and passed the information on to Berlin police. That same year,
following bombings in Paris and Barcelona, negotiations were held between
the French and Spanish governments to establish an international police
organization against anarchism. But although authorities from England,
Austria, and the German Empire indicated interest to join the plan, it
never came to fruition. Other anti-anarchist police measures were restricted
to bilateral agreements. In 1898, for instance, French and Italian police
exchanged information through their respective consulates about the possible
connections between a bombing in Milan, a bank robbery in Paris, and a
case of dynamite theft in Switzerland. On September 10, 1898, Empress Elisabeth
of Austria was murdered by the Italian anarchist Luigi Lucheni, further
intensifying concerns over the anarchist menace. A week after the assassination,
the Austrian foreign minister, Goluchowsky, proposed to his Swiss colleague
to form an anti-anarchist ‘International Police League.’ The Austrian-Swiss
plan remained unexecuted, but few weeks later, on September 29, 1898, the
Italian government sent out invitations for an international conference
to be held in Rome in order to organize the fight against anarchism.
The ‘International Conference
of Rome for the Social Defense Against Anarchists’ was held from November
24 to December 21, 1898, and was attended by 54 delegates from no less
than 21 European countries, including all major powers such as Great Britain,
the German Empire, France, and Austria-Hungary (see Jensen 1981; Fijnaut
1979:930-933; Liang 1992:163-169). The gathering was mostly attended by
government representatives, but also present were police officials from
the participating countries. The Conference delegates discussed the formulation
of an appropriate concept of anarchism, legislative measures against anarchism,
and the development of international anti-anarchist police measures. The
British government was the sole dissenter in signing a final protocol that
was drafted at the meeting (Public Record Office [hereafter: PRO], FO 881/7372).
In the protocol, anarchism was defined as any act “having as its aim the
destruction, through violent means, of all social organization” (PRO, FO
45/784). The protocol’s other resolutions included the introduction of
legislation in the participating countries to prohibit the illegitimate
possession and use of explosions, membership in anarchist organizations,
the distribution of anarchist propaganda, and the rendering of assistance
to anarchists. It was also agreed that governments should try to limit
press coverage of anarchist activities and that the death penalty should
be mandatory punishment for all assassinations of heads of state.
On matters of practical policing,
the protocol from the Rome Conference included provisions to encourage
participating governments to have police keep watch over anarchists, to
establish in every participating country a specialized surveillance agency
to achieve this goal, and to organize a system of information exchange
among these national agencies. Furthermore, the countries that signed the
final Conference protocol agreed to adopt the ‘portrait parlé’ method
of criminal identification. A more sophisticated version of the bertillonage
system invented by Alphonse Bertillon, the portrait parlé (spoken
picture) was a method of identification that classified criminal suspects
on the basis of measurements of parts of their head and body. Bertillonage
measurements were expressed in numbers, which could be transmitted across
nations by means of telephone and telegraph. Additionally, the Conference
also approved a provision to extradite persons who had attempted to kill
or kidnap a sovereign or head of state. The provision was referred to as
the ‘attentat’ (assassination) clause or Belgian clause and had first been
introduced in Belgium in 1856 following a failed attempt to murder Napoleon
III in 1854.
In November 1901, Russian
authorities used the assassination of U.S. President McKinley by an anarchist
in September of that year as a basis to revive the anti-anarchist program
of the Rome Conference. Co-sponsored by the German government, Russian
officials sent out a memorandum to hold an international meeting on anarchism
to the governments of various European countries as well as the United
States. The initiative led to a second anti-anarchist meeting, held in
March 1904 in St. Petersburg, then the capital of Russia, where the representatives
of ten countries, including Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Denmark, agreed
upon a ‘Secret Protocol for the International War on Anarchism’ (Jensen
1981, 2001). The agreement was later also adhered to by the governments
of Portugal and Spain. While France and Great Britain did not sign the
St. Petersburg Protocol, the authorities of these countries did express
their willingness to provide assistance with other states on police matters
relating to anarchism. The United States government did not participate
in the St. Petersburg meeting and declined to follow its provisions, although
President Theodore Roosevelt had called for an international treatise to
combat anarchism after the assassination of his predecessor.
The Depoliticization of
International Policing
The anti-anarchist meetings
of Rome and St. Petersburg occurred at a time when international police
cooperation for political purposes had slowly but steadily been in decline
(Deflem 2002a:65-77). In order to explain this paradoxical situation, one
must consider more precisely the manner in which the topic of anarchism
was treated at the intergovernmental level and the actual consequences
of the intergovernmental treaties in terms of legislation and police practice.
The fight against anarchism
was evidently a matter of a decidedly political nature, especially because
and when it included policies reaching beyond the control of criminal incidents
inspired by anarchist motives. Aware of the politically sensitive nature
of anarchism, the anti-anarchist meetings in Rome and St. Petersburg purposely
conceived of anarchism as a strictly criminal matter, the enforcement of
which was to be handled at the administrative level by police institutions.
The Italian government’s invitation to the meeting downplayed the delicate
and divisive issues involved with drawing up appropriate legislation and
instead emphasized the practical police aspects involved, for which reason
the invitation explicitly stated that “technical and administrative staff”
would also be invited to the meeting (in Liang 1992:162). After the delegates
at the Rome Conference had spent considerable time discussing a proper
definition of anarchism, they ultimately settled on a broad and imprecise
concept that sought to avoid any associations with political ideology.
In the final protocol of the Rome Conference, it was stated that anarchism
had “nothing in common with politics” and was not “under any circumstance
to be regarded as a political doctrine” (PRO, FO 45/784).
However, although anarchism
was formally depoliticized in order to accommodate many, politically diverse
national states, and although the Conference attendants promised to enact
in their respective countries appropriate legislation, only few countries
actually passed new legislation based on the provisions of the Rome and
St. Petersburg protocols. The aspiration to treat anarchism as a criminal
matter could not be maintained at the level of the various national governments
where the international treaties had to be ratified, because there the
initiatives were injected into the ideological battles of intra-national
politics and their international implications. The official response from
the French government to the Rome Conference, for instance, declined to
approve any intergovernmental accord sanctioning international police cooperation
on anarchism because of stated difficulties “from the political point of
view” (in Jensen 1981:345). In the French case, new legislation on anarchism
was also redundant because France in many instances already had such legislation
in place. Likewise indicating the political limitations of intergovernmental
treaties, the main reason why the U.S. government did not participate in
the international accord of the St. Petersburg meeting was the political
animosity that existed among U.S. officials against Germany and Russia
because of those countries’ perceived imperialist tendencies.
Next to the failure of the
Rome and St. Petersburg treaties to influence anti-anarchist legislation
in the various participating states, ideological divisions in international
political affairs also posed certain limits to international police cooperation
plans developed in function of those treaties. Most clearly, the participants
of the Rome and St. Petersburg meetings could not agree upon the creation
of a central anti-anarchist intelligence bureau through which the exchange
between the various national bureaus could be coordinated. Nationalist
sentiments in Europe were too intense to accept the creation of a central
bureau that would put the one country in which it was to be located at
a marked advantage, as the central bureau would be in the advantageous
position of being the only one office that would be connected with all
other national bureaus. Instead, only a system of direct facilitation exchange
between the various participating states was agreed upon. In the case of
the United States, even this system was too ambitious in the early 20th
century because no federal U.S. police existed that would be sufficiently
equipped to participate in such a cooperative arrangement (Deflem 2002a:78-96;
Jensen 2001; Nadelmann 1993).
Thus, ideological-political
differences among the governmental powers of Europe prevented anti-anarchist
legislation from being passed at the national levels and restricted the
practical implications of related plans to foster international police
cooperation. It is therefore correct to state that the international anti-anarchist
treaties failed to influence legislation in the states that signed the
accord because “national self-interests and rivalries edged out international
concerns” (Jensen 1981:340). Yet, it is equally important to observe in
which manner the Rome and St. Petersburg meetings did contribute to enhance
practices of direct police communications across nations, the necessity
of which was widely recognized. It is typical, for instance, that although
the British government did not sign the Rome protocol, one of the British
representatives at the Conference, Howard Vincent, the former head of the
Criminal Investigations Division at Scotland Yard, also acknowledged that
direct police communications were beneficial “if only by forming reciprocal
friendships leading to greater cooperation” (in Jensen 1981:332). Among
the few realities that harmonized with the agreements reached at the meetings,
indeed, was the fact that anti-anarchist intelligence bureaus were set
up in the several of the participating states. Police of Italy and Greece,
for example, had such systems of information exchange up and running until
the eve of World War I.
The relative success of the
international anti-anarchist treaties in matters of international police
practices is explained by the fact that the suggested system of information
exchange was to be instituted and coordinated at the administrative level
by police agencies. These provisions were conceived in technical and bureaucratic
terms and not coined in the legal language of most of the other provisions.
This was no coincidence, for while the delegates at the Rome and St. Petersburg
meetings were mostly diplomats and other governments representatives who
negotiated with one another in a language of formal systems of law rooted
in jurisdictional authority, the anti-anarchist methods of information
exchange that had successfully been worked out had been decided upon by
police officials meeting separately in informal gatherings on several days
when the Conference took place (PRO, FO 881/7179). The success of the administrative
means of the international fight against anarchism, in other words, was
enabled because of the attained level of expertise and professionalism
in police institutions rather than because of any willingness on the part
of the governments of national states to legislate anti-anarchist policies.
Further indicating that international
anti-anarchist intelligence work was influenced more by established international
police culture than by intergovernmental legality is the fact that the
two provisions of the Rome Conference which applied to all crimes and not
only to anarchism —the portrait parlé system of identification and
the Belgian clause of extradition— were among the few Conference proposals
that were effectively put into law in several European countries in the
years following the meeting (Jensen 1981:331-333). Legislation on these
international police measures was successfully accomplished because of
developments in matters of international police organization and police
technique that had already begun many years before. Whether focused on
anarchism or not, police institutions had indeed been exchanging information
on a regular basis throughout the 19th century and has thus de facto forged
a network of international police experts (Deflem 2002a:70-77). The fact
that practical police measures were effectively legislated in the aftermath
of intergovernmental accords shows that police authorities sometimes succeeded
in having their activities perceived by their respective national governments
as purely administrative in nature. The Rome and St. Petersburg treaties,
therefore, promoted the expansion of international police practices that
had already been set up and developed by police institutions.
The anti-anarchist conference
of Rome in 1898 and its follow-up meeting in St. Petersburg in 1904 represent
remarkable threshold cases in the history of international policing. On
the one hand, these efforts clearly have a foot in the 19th century as
they remained largely framed in a politically sensitive framework of international
law. But, on the other hand, they also reveal the growing influence of
a developing police culture that was moving in the direction of instituting
international police practices on the basis of professional expertise.
It is for this reason appropriate to consider international treaties on
white slavery during the early 20th century in the same context as the
anti-anarchist accords.
The Social Defense against
White Slavery
Anarchism and white slavery
share the characteristic that they were perceived by government and police
authorities to be problems of an international nature. When after the assassination
of Empress Elisabeth of Austria, the Austrian foreign minister called for
the establishment of an international police league, he referred to anarchists
as “wild beasts without nationality,” who were a menace “to all persons”
(cited in Liang 1992:160). The broad international representation at the
Rome Conference, with countries as diverse in ideological persuasion as
France, England, the German Empire, and Switzerland, reveals the extent
to which the notion of anarchism’s internationality was accepted. The problem
of white slavery, likewise, was perceived by police and government representatives
from the viewpoint of its international dimensions (Decker 1979; Petrow
1994). The very terms white slavery and white slave trade are meant to
indicate that “movement between brothels was at the very heart of the system”
(Bristow 1983:29). Regular clientele demanded variety in supply, venereal
diseases caused unemployment and required replacement, and the deliberate
removal of women from their familiar surroundings strengthened the control
powers of their employers. During the 19th century, the traffic in prostitutes
had increasingly assumed an international scope, within Europe as well
as beyond, especially towards South America (Decker 1979:63-66). As the
President of the Austrian League for the Suppression of White Slavery stated
in 1904, “There exists an international organization which in many places
of the earth has its general terminals; the export is so regulated that
women of particular countries of origin are always send to those centers
where they are especially appreciated” (in Schmitz 1927:13). The trafficking
in prostitutes was recognized to have become an international business
that had to be tackled internationally.
The international implications
of white slavery occupied private groups, governments, and police institutions
at national and international levels for some time in the second half of
the 19th century (Bristow 1983; Decker 1979; Petrow 1994). As early as
1869, Austrian authorities requested information from a number of European
governments about their laws regarding the transportation of prostitutes
across national borders. The request aimed to harmonize anti-prostitution
laws in Europe, but the attempt was not successful. Subsequent privately
planned international efforts to control prostitution included the ‘International
Congress on the White Slave Traffic’ organized by the National Vigilance
Association in London in 1899. The meeting led to the creation of an ‘International
Bureau for the Suppression of White Slavery’ in London, and produced a
follow-up meeting, the ‘Second International Congress on the International
Fight Against the White Slave Traffic,’ held in Frankfurt, Germany, in
1902.
At the intergovernmental
level of states, an important anti-prostitution initiative was taken when
an international conference on white slavery was organized by the French
authorities in Paris on July 15, 1902 (League of Nations 1927; Palitzsch
1926). The participants of the Paris meeting agreed upon a final protocol
that criminalized prostitution and specified extradition treaties and several
administrative arrangements on the matter. The recommended police measures
included government-authorized observations of procurers and suspicious
foreigners in railway stations and ports (Petrow 1994:163-164). At a follow-up
meeting in Paris in 1904, the ‘International Agreement for the Suppression
of White Slave Traffic’ was signed by the governments of 12 European countries,
including France, Germany, Great Britain, and Russia. Some non-European
states, among them Brazil, China, India, and the United States, did not
sign the accord but nonetheless agreed to adhere to its provisions (League
of Nations 1927:197). The nine-article Agreement specified, amongst other
things, that governments should police all persons involved with prostitution
at railway stations and ports. It was also decided to create intelligence
bureaus on prostitution in all participating countries and for these bureaus
to be in direct contact with one another. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement
provided that governments should arrange to report foreign prostitutes
residing in their respective countries to the authorities of the prostitutes’
country of origin and to repatriate them upon request from foreign authorities.
At a subsequent meeting in
Paris on May 4, 1910, the ‘International Convention for the Suppression
of the White Slave Traffic’ was signed by 13 nations, including most of
the countries that signed the 1904 Agreement, as well as Austria-Hungary
and Brazil. The United States was among the countries that no longer adhered
to the new treaty (League of Nations 1927:197-200). The Convention reaffirmed
the provisions of the 1904 Agreement, additionally regulating a system
of information exchange between the participating states. Specifically,
international police communications on prostitution were recommended to
be conducted either through diplomatic channels or directly between the
appropriate police authorities.
While the international agreements
on white slavery dealt with a non-political issue, the agreements reached
in Paris were like those on anarchism decided upon at the intergovernmental
level and framed in the language of formal international law. Yet, unlike
the Rome Conference on anarchism, the international meetings on white slavery
had no police authorities separately working on issues of practical control,
but instead subsumed all policy measures, legislative and administrative,
under one accord of international law. In consequence, the white slavery
accords did not significantly influence the course and outcome of international
police strategies and other practical aspects of prostitution policy. Instead,
police activities in the area of white slavery developed as part of national
policies and on the basis of the international networks police institutions
had established outside the context of intergovernmental agreements (Decker
1979). Efforts to control the trafficking of prostitutes into the United
States, for example, were largely conducted on the basis of national U.S.
legislation. In 1908, the U.S. Immigration Commission conducted an investigation
on the ‘Importation and Harbouring of Women for Immoral Purposes,’ which
led to changes in U.S. immigration laws and the passing of the White Slave
Traffic Act on June 23, 1910 (League of Nations 1927:7). Introduced in
Congress by Republican Representative James Robert Mann of Illinois, the
federal law came to be known as the Mann Act and its enforcement was assigned
to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation.
Conclusion
The bureaucratization theory
of international police cooperation holds that police institutions need
to be sufficiently autonomous from the political dictates of their sanctioning
governments to independently devise the means as well as objectives of
international police work (Deflem 2002a:17-23). Relying on professional
knowledge systems on international crime problems and the appropriate measures
for their control, police institutions can then establish international
cooperation arrangements with wide international appeal. Over the course
of history, these conditions were gradually met in more successful ways
as international police cooperation increasingly moved beyond the formal
legal systems of national states on the basis of professional standards
of efficient policing. The relevance of the professionalism that was shared
among bureaucratic police institutions would be manifested most clearly
in 1923 when the International Criminal Police Commission, the organization
today known as Interpol, was formed as the most ambitious international
police organization on a wide multilateral scale. Despite several ups and
downs in the course of its 80-year history, the organization has continued
to exist until today as the most successful exponent of the trend towards
the internationalization of the police function. The 19th-century antecedents
of Interpol, however, concerned international police activities that were
largely driven by the political dictates of national governments and/or
framed in the language of international law. The international developments
concerning anarchism and prostitution that were discussed in this paper,
therefore, need to be seen in terms of the complex dynamics between intergovernmental
arrangements, on the one hand, and international police practices, on the
other.
Socio-political conditions
at the turn of the 20th century prevented broad support for intergovernmental
agreements that attempted to formalize international police cooperation
at the level of international law and also set boundaries to the scope
of police objectives which remained too closely tied up with the political
directives of national governments. Accomplishments in effective practical
police cooperation, even when cooperation was achieved in the wake of formal
intergovernmental treaties, was not governed top-down by governments and
the treaties they had been able to agree upon, but was worked out from
the bottom up at the level of a developing cross-national police culture
of experts. While the Rome and St. Petersburg meetings could not effectively
dictate the international police response against anarchism, they did provide
an arena for heads of police to formalize developments of international
cooperation in practical police methods that had already begun many years
earlier. In contrast, the international treaties on white slavery dealt
with a distinctly criminal matter but did not take into account achieved
accomplishments in police professionalization and bureaucratization (Deflem
2002a:23-26).
The ironic conclusion to
the impact of the anti-anarchist measures is that an elaboration of international
police practices was achieved on criminal matters although they had originally
been conceived in relation to the political issue of anarchism. Equally
ironic is that the white-slavery agreements were unsuccessful in fostering
international police cooperation, although they concerned a clearly non-political
crime. The reason is that the international accords on white slavery were
planned by the political authorities of national states at the level of
international law without much regard for practical issues of policing.
With respect to fostering international police relations, the white slavery
treaties were less important than the anarchist accords and cannot be regarded
as a critical antecedent of international police cooperation. In terms
of the enforcement of the international laws on anarchism and white slavery,
attention should go to the relative success of the Rome conference in a
manner that was de-politicized and the relative failure of the anti-white
slavery initiatives despite their concern for a criminal issue.
References
Bristow, Edward J. 1983.
Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery, 1870-1939.
New York: Schocken Books.
Decker, John F. 1979. Prostitution:
Regulation and Control. Littleton, CO: Rothman & Co.
Deflem, Mathieu. 2002a. Policing
World Society: Historical Foundations of International Police Cooperation.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
____. 2002b. “Technology
and the Internationalization of Policing: A Comparative-Historical Perspective.”
Justice Quarterly 19(3):453-475.
____. 2001. “International
Police Cooperation in Northern America.” Pp. 71-98 in International
Police Cooperation: A World Perspective, edited by Daniel J. Koenig and
Dilip K. Das. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
____. 2000. “Bureaucratization
and Social Control: Historical Foundations of International Policing.”
Law & Society Review 34(3):601-640.
____. 1996. “International
Policing in 19th-Century Europe: The Police Union of German States, 1851-1866.”
International Criminal Justice Review 6:36-57.
Fijnaut, Cyrille. 1979. Opdat
de Macht een Toevlucht Zij? Een Historische Studie van het Politieapparaaat
als een Politieke Instelling. (2 volumes). Antwerp, Belgium: Kluwer.
Jensen, Richard B. 1981.
“The International Anti-Anarchist Conference of 1898 and the Origins of
Interpol.” Journal of Contemporary History 16(2):323-347.
____. 2001. “The United States,
International Policing and the War against Anarchist Terrorism, 1900-1914.”
Terrorism and Political Violence 13(1):15-46.
Koenig, Daniel J., and Dilip
K. Das, eds. 2001. International Police Cooperation: A World Perspective.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
League of Nations. 1927.
Report of the Special Body of Experts on Traffic in Women and Children,
Part One. Geneva: Publications of the League of Nations.
Liang, Hsi-Huey. 1992. The
Rise of the Modern Police and the European State System from Metternich
to the Second World War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, William F., ed.
1997. Crime and Law Enforcement in the Global Village. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1993.
Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Palitzsch, H. 1926. Die Bekämpfung
des internationalen Verbrechertums. Hamburg: Otto Meissners Verlag.
Passas, Nikos, ed. 1999.
Transnational Crime. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Petrow, Stefan. 1994. Policing
Morals: The Metropolitan Police and the Home Office, 1870-1914. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Public Record Office (PRO),
National Archives, Kew, England, Records created and inherited by the Foreign
Office. FO 45/784. General Correspondence before 1906, Italy, Sir P. Currie,
1898.
____. FO 881/7179. Correspondence
respecting the Anti-Anarchist Conference Held in Rome in 1898.
____. FO 881/7372. Further
Correspondence respecting the Anti-Anarchist Conference held at Rome, 1899.
Schmitz, Hans. 1927. Das
internationale Verbrechertum und seine Bekämfung. Inaugural-Dissertation:
Universität Köln (Selbstverlag des Verfassers).
Sheptycki, James, ed. 2000.
Issues in Transnational Policing. London: Routledge.
