6/7/2023 0 Comments Kupechestvo![]() The possibility to violate rules depended on the ports’ location and geography, so geography became one of the factors from which ports got their shape. If someone was not satisfied with the terms of trading in the port, disappointed actors (merchants, shipmasters) could violate port rules. At the same time, there were practices of concealment and agreements, as a reverse side of the agreement to join the port by commercial actors. From this point of view, accounting and recognition by customs was a self-translation process, and every port infrastructure was a kind of unknown vital entity or “black box”. State income depended on merchants’ profits and the state’s ability to manage these maritime “boundaries”.ĥThe empire’s role in accounting for and describing the commercial activities in the coastal space was not primary for the ports. The prosperity of all port actors reflected the ports’ fate. Ports were functioning not for someone’s profit, but because of common benefits. These hubs of commodities, networks, people and money were vital entities with their practices, laws and ways of development. It mostly consisted of people and their activities. 5ĤIf we change our point of view – from seeing ports as borderline to considering them at the central point of a vast area with multifaceted communications among various actors – allows to reveal special conditions and many specific ports and coastal practices. However, the view of port space as a border is limited and reflects only one perspective. Their objectives included the detection and registration of arriving ships, listing of goods on board, escorting goods to warehouses and settling affairs with ship captains on the one hand, and merchants on the other. Customs were the main instrument to tax goods and increase profits. As such, ports were the spearhead of power directed against the “outside” maritime world. The state granted borders and ports with customs for a certain purpose – to levy duties, to control and suppress smuggling. 5 Wenzlhuemer, 2016, p. 163-186 Jarvis, 2010 Alcalde, 2018, p. 553-567.ģThe consideration of ports as borders 4 is fully consistent with the goal of sovereignty.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |