In contrast to previous “short-term” states established as a result of Khwajas’ rebellions the realm of Yaqub Beg was strong and controlled practically all the territory of Eastern Turkestan. In a short time, this ruler was able to secure his state from Qing authorities’ attempts to restore their control over the region as well as to subjugate most of self-declared states in Eastern Turkestan. The most powerful of them was Yettishar (“Seven cities”) founded in 1864 by the amir Yaqub Beg originated from the Khanate of Khoqand in Central Asia. The Manchu authorities were expelled, and several self-declared states were established there. However, in the first part of 1860s next mighty anti-Chinese rebellion flared up in the North-Western part of the Qing Empire. All these attempts were unsuccessful: Khwajas had an opportunity to establish their control only over the part of their former state and, at best, for several months (Valikhanov, 1985:141-156). But during the next century representatives of deposed dynasty (so-called Khwajagan or “White Mountain Khwajas”) occasionally excited rebellions and called local Muslim inhabitants to overthrow the rule of “infidel” Manchu dynasty. In the mid of the 18th century, Eastern Turkestan was conquered by the Qing Empire. The origins of this instability have long-standing history and, consequently, influenced the policy of states which had political and economic interests in Central Asia including relations with neighboring peoples, countries and regions. Introduction The reason for studying the issue rests in the desire to comprehend the historical experience of the policy of “world powers” in Central Asia and, in particular, the territory of the Eastern Turkestan which is a part of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. The results of the research to a certain extant correlate with modern approaches in the policy of Russian and western powers in Central Asia in terms of political situation in the region as well as political, legal and cultural traditions of Central Asian states and peoples. Also author used the methods of legal anthropology and general history. The study is mainly based on the formal-legal, historical legal and comparative-legal methods. Author attempts to clarify if treaties of 18 confirmed recognition by both empires of Yettishar as a subject of international relations and how these legal documents reflected confrontation of Russia and England in the region.

The purpose of the article is a historical-legal analysis of above-mentioned treaties and comparative-legal analysis of them with the similar treaties signed by Russia and England with other Central Asian states during the same period. The trade treaties of Yattishar with the Russian Empire of 1872 and with the British Empire in 1874 became a legal reflection of these approaches and are of great interest within the context of the historical experience of the legal status of unrecognized states and positions of the rival “world powers” towards such states. The relations of the Russia and Britain with the self-declared state of Yettishar was a striking example of different approaches of two empires to the states and peoples of the Central Asian regions within so called “Great Game’, i.e.

Another word for ruler of nations