English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

As Julie Evans, Margaret Allen and Cindy McCreery have argued in this section of Transnational Ties, concepts of empire provided powerful ways of mediating the ‘authority’ of trans-colonial governance, images of gender and competing identities for Australians in the nineteenth century. Moving into the twentieth century, however, and with the accelerating pressures of mobility, communication and consumption—in short, of modernity—empire became a less exclusive way of experiencing the authority of Australia’s transnational ties. Akira Iriye has noted the extent to which an idea of international society came to define forms of conduct, activism, intervention and accountability early in the twentieth century. These forms in turn seemed—so H. G. Wells observed—to summon ‘a new kind of people’, a ‘floating population’ of figures associated with an increasingly formalised sector of international organisations.1 The authority these figures invoked in their ideals, and exercised in setting ‘standards’ and ‘processes’, continues to underpin much of the discursive power of the ‘international’ and the experience of transnationalism.

Enacting the international: R. G. Watt and the League of Nations Union