Joseph O'Mahoney – författare

British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality examines whether colonial rule is responsible for the historical, and continuing, criminalization of same-sex sexual relations in many parts of the world. Enze Han and Joseph O’Mahoney gather and assess historical evidence to demonstrate the different ways in which the British empire spread laws criminalizing homosexual conduct amongst its colonies. Evidence includes case studies of former British colonies and the common law and criminal codes like the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and the Queensland Criminal Code of 1899. Surveying a wide range of countries, the authors scrutinise whether ex-British colonies are more likely to have laws that criminalize homosexual conduct than other ex-colonies or other states in general They interrogate the claim that British imperialism uniquely ‘poisoned’ societies against homosexuality, and look at the legacies of colonialism and the politics and legal status of homosexuality across the globe.

British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality examines whether colonial rule is responsible for the historical, and continuing, criminalization of same-sex sexual relations in many parts of the world. Enze Han and Joseph O’Mahoney gather and assess historical evidence to demonstrate the different ways in which the British empire spread laws criminalizing homosexual conduct amongst its colonies. Evidence includes case studies of former British colonies and the common law and criminal codes like the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and the Queensland Criminal Code of 1899. Surveying a wide range of countries, the authors scrutinise whether ex-British colonies are more likely to have laws that criminalize homosexual conduct than other ex-colonies or other states in general They interrogate the claim that British imperialism uniquely ‘poisoned’ societies against homosexuality, and look at the legacies of colonialism and the politics and legal status of homosexuality across the globe.

Why do so many states adopt a position of non-recognition of gains from war?Despite being proven ineffective as a coercive tool or deterrent, the international community has actively withheld recognition in numerous instances of territorial conquest since the 1930s. Joseph O'Mahoney systematically analyses 21 case studies including the Manchurian Crisis, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Russia's annexation of Crimea to explore why so many states have adopted a policy of non-recognition of the spoils of war. By drawing on historical sources including recently declassified archival documents, he evaluates states' decision-making. He develops a new theory for non-recognition as a symbolic sanction aimed at reproducing common knowledge of the rules of international behaviour.Key FeaturesChapter-length case studies of two major instances of non-recognition: the Japanese conquest of Manchuria and the establishment of Manchukuo in the 1930s, and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the subsequent declaration of the Turkish Republic of Northern CyprusIncludes discussion of cases including Russia's annexation of CrimeaCompares non-recognised cases with two cases where force was used but the results were recognised as legitimate: the Italian conquest of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935 and the Indian invasion of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971Challenges conventional IR theory that symbolic sanctions are either failed attempts at coercion or mere posturing for domestic audiencesElucidates a model of rule maintenance, combining rationalist and constructivist insights, which could be applied to other fields in international politics