No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Japanese Foreign Office
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 July 2017
Extract
The Japanese Foreign Office is no exception to the similarity in structure that characterizes the foreign offices of most modern States. On paper, the organization of the Gaimusho (Foreign Office) has little to distinguish it from corresponding departments in other countries. A different picture, however, is offered by the constitutional mise en scène of this important office. The relations of the Gaimusho to the Cabinet, and through theCabinet to the Imperial Diet, to the Privy Council, and to the Army and Navy, sharply reflect the pattern of the Japanese polity and gives the Foreign Office of Nippon a character which is in marked contrast to the same department in most parliamentary régimes.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1936
References
2 Joseph, Barthélemy, Démocratie et politique etrangere (Paris, 1917), p. 153.Google Scholar
3 Compiled from data in the Gaimusho Nenkan, or Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Tokyo, 1933), pp. 274–275.
4 The reference is to Terauchi, Tanaka and Saito. It is true that previous to his taking office as Premier in 1916, General Count Terauchi had served as Foreign Minister in the second Katsura cabinet. But his service was only six weeks, from July 14 to Aug. 27, 1908, until such time that Count Komura could reach Tokyo from London. General Terauchi had been War Minister in the previous Saionji cabinet.
5 Compare the editorials in Japanese newspapers, in 1916, condemning General Count Terauchi for holding the portfolio of foreign affairs. Tokyo Asahi, Oct. 14, p. 3; Osaka Mainichi, Oct. 29, p. 3. See also press comments criticizing General Tanaka for holding the same portfolio. Tokyo Asahi, July 12, 1927, p. 3; Chugai Shogyo (Tokyo), July 10, 1927, p. 3; Hochi Shimbun (Tokyo), July 10, 1927, p. 2.
6 When General Katsura formed his third ministry in 1913, he took the portfolio of foreign affairs ad interim until Taka-aiiira Kato could be summoned from his post in London to preside over the Gaimusho.
7 It appears that Admiral Saito, when forming his “national cabinet,” took the portfolio of foreign affairs only as a temporary expedient until the political parties and the Army and Navy could agree upon a Foreign Minister. Admiral Saito and the politicians desired Count Uchida, who was then president of the South Manchuria Railway, while the militarists wanted Kohl Hirota. Compare the Tokyo Asahi, May 31, 1932, p. 1.
8 Compare Ito Ko Zenshu, or Life and Letters of Prince Ito (ed. by Midori Komatsu, 1928), Vol. I, pp. 301–311.
9 Compare Yosaburo Takekoshi, Toan-Ko, or Prince Toan (1929), Chs. XXIX—XXX.
10 Compare Jumpei Shinobu, Gaiko Sokumen-shi Kan, or Commentaries on Diplomatic History (Tokyo, 1927), pp. 258–304.
11 Count Taka-akira Kato was undoubtedly a professional diplomat when he held the portfolio of foreign affairs in the fourth Ito cabinet (1900–1901). In 1902, he became a “politician.”
12 In 1931, Premier Inukai held the portfolio of foreign affairs only until his nephew, Yoshizawa, could be summoned from Geneva. In 1932, Admiral Saito held the portfolio only seven weeks.
13 Compare an article by Tsunego Baba in Chuo Koron (June, 1932), No. 533, pp. 140–147.
14 This number does not include the ministries ad interim.
15 Théophile Delcasse presided over the Quai d’Orsay from June 28, 1898, to June 17, 1905; and from Aug. 26, 1914, to Oct. 29, 1915. Aristide Briand served from Oct. 29, 1915, to Nov. 16, 1917; from Jan. 16, 1921, to Jan. 15, 1922; from April 17, 1925, to July 21, 1926; and from July 23, 1926, to his death on March 7, 1932.
16 Horei Zensho, or Collection of Laws and Ordinances, 1869, pp. 255–257. Yamashinano-Miya was appointed in charge of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
17 Imperial Proclamation No. 69, Dec. 22, 1885. Nippon Ruiten, or Laws and Ordinances of Japan (1889), Vol. I, pp. 44–46.
18 Imperial Ordinances Nos. 1 and 2, Feb. 26, 1886. Nippon Ruiten (1889), Vol. I, pp. 83–94. An English translation of the second ordinance, laying down the rules governing all of the departments, as published in the Japan Daily Mail, April 3, 1886, pp. 326–327, is reprinted in W. W. McLaren, “Japanese Government Documents” in Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan (Tokyo, 1914), pp. 109–124.
19 The reorganization was described by Kei (Takashi) Hara in a book published in 1899 under the title of Gaikokan Ryojikan Seido, or The Diplomatic and Consular Services. It is reprinted in Hara Kei Zenshu, or Complete Works of Kei Hara (ed. by Asakichi Tanaka, Tokyo, 1929), Vol. I, pp. 978–1074.
20 See the basic ordinance, the Gaimusho Kwansei, or Ordinance Regulating the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 258 of 1898. It has been many times amended. Genko Horei Shuran (1931), Vol. I, Bk. III, pp. 38–39. The text is also published in the Gaimusho Nenkan, or Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1933), pp. 14–34.
21 See the Imperial Ordinance dated Oct. 19, 1935. Kwampo, Oct. 20, 1935, p. 8. The ambassadors to Manchoukuo, beginning in 1932, have been General Nobuyoshi Muto, General Takashi Hishikari, General Jiro Minami and General Kenkichi Ueda.
22 Compare Horei Zensho (1869), Vol. I, pp. 15–17. In the proclamation of Feb. 10, 1868, the first office mentioned was the Department of Shinto Religion.
23 Under Art. VIII of the Regulations Governing the Cabinet, in case of the incapacity of the Premier, the Cabinet designates to the Emperor the Premier ad interim. Usually, the senior member of the Cabinet is chosen, and frequently this is the Foreign Minister. Count Uchida served twice in this capacity, in 1921, after the assassination of Hara, and, in 1923, after the death of Admiral Kato. On Nov. 15, 1930, the day following the attack upon Premier Hamaguchi by an assassin, Baron Shidehara was chosen Premier ad interim and he continued in this post until March 9, 1931.
24 Because of its location, newspapers frequently refer to the Foreign Office as Kasumigaseki in the same manner as the French press refers to the French Foreign Office as the Quai d’Orsay.
25 Compare the Gaimusho Nenkan (1931), p. 6. Concerning the legal phases of departmental organization in modern Japan, the reader is referred to the standard treatises on administrative law, including Minobe, Gyoseiho Satsuyo, or Principles of Administrative Law (1927), Vol. I, pp. 214–269; Oda, Gyoseiho Kogi, or Lectures on Administrative Law (1922), Vol. II, pp. 1–74; Shimizu, Gyosei Hen, or Administrative Law (1920), pp. 297–588; Sasaki, Nippon Gyoseiho Ron, or Administrative Law of Japan (1924), pp. 132–228; and Shinaamura, Gyoseiho Yoron, or Outlines of Administrative Law (Tokyo), pp. 141–160.
26 See the Kwampo, June 1, 1934.
27 The term Tokyokusha-dan literally means “informal statement of the authorities.” Eiji Amau, who has held the post of Bu-cho since May, 1933, although frequently the purveyor of numerous sharp statements to the foreign press, has always maintained cordial relations with foreign correspondents.
28 While the communiqués issued by the Gaimusho are called kohyo, similar statements issued by the Home Ministry are generally called kokuji, or literally “formal communiqués.”
29 The series begins with the Kohyoshu of the year 1921 which is designated as No. 1. Occasionally, revised or second editions are published.
30 Created by Imperial Ordinance No. 527 of 1923. Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, p. 14.
31 See the Kwampo, Jan. 6, 1934.
32 Compare the Gaimusho Nenkan (1933), pp. 11–13.
33 Compare Jumpei Shinobu, Gaiko Sokumea-shi Kan, or Commentaries on Diplomatic History (Tokyo, 1927), pp. 239-242.
34 The American office charged with this not highly honorable task was abolished by Secretary Stimson in 1929, while the discharged chief of this service took his revenge upon the upright Secretary by exposing the former practice in the Department of State. See Herbert 0. Yardley, The American Black Chamber (Indianapolis, 1931).
35 See the Kinyu Jiko Sankosho, or Reference Book on Japanese Finance (ed. by the Rizai Kyoku Okurasho or Finance Bureau of the Department of Finance), 1935, pp. 278–281.
36 Yosan or the Budget, 1935, in the Kwampo gogai, March 27, 1935, pp. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8.
37 Ibid., pp. 2 and 5.
38 The Japanese reform in this respect preceded the American union of the two services, which was not accomplished until the enactment of the Rogers Act of 1924 Google Scholar.
39 For the rules of the Congress of Vienna, see de Martens and Geffcken, Le Guide diplomatique (Leipzig, 1886), Vol. I, pp. 53–54.
40 Sakutaro Tachi, Heiji Kokusai-Koho Ron, or Public International Law of Peace (Tokyo,. 1930), pp. 281–282; and Tetsu Motoji (Izumi), Kokusai-ho Gai Ron, or Treatise on International Law (Tokyo, 1926), p. 232.
41 Gaimush,o Nenkan (1935), pp. 276–298.
42 Kwampo, May 18, 1935, p. 1. It should be remarked that beginning with the year 1913 the Japanese minister to China has been of ambassadorial grade although he has ranked only as a minister.
43 Imperial Ordinance No. 37 of 1887. Horei Zeneho, or Compilation of Laws and Ordinances (Tokyo, 1887), Vol. I, pp. 124–129. Compare Hajime Hoshi, Kanri Gaku, or Studies in Officialism (Tokyo, 1918–1923), Vol. II, pp. 83–104; Wada, Kanshoku Yokai, or Commentaries on Official Duties (Tokyo, 1926), pp. 121–125.
44 Minobe, Gyaseiho Satsuyo (1927), Vol. I, p. 221; Shimizu, Gyosei Hen (1920), pp. 315–320; Sasaki, Nippon Gyoseiho Ron (1924), pp. 142–144. Compare McGovern, Modern Japan, pp. 142–160.
45 Compare Okuma-ko Hachiju-go Nen Ski, or History of Eighty-Five Years of Marquis Okuma (ed. by Kenkichi Ichijima, 1926), Vol. II, pp. 131–137; Takeshige Kudo, Meiji Kensei Shi, or Constitutional History of the Meiji Era (Tokyo, 1914-1922), Vol. II, pp. 48–51.
46 The three ordinances are cited as Imperial Ordinances Nos. 61, 62 and 63 of 1899. Horei Zensho (1899), Vol. I, pp. 68–78.
47 Imperial Ordinance No. 261 of 1913. Genko Horei Shuran (Tokyo, 1927), Vol. I, Bk. p. 349.
48 See the Sonin Bunkwan Tokubetzu Nino Rei, or Ordinance Regarding the Special Appointment of Civil Officials of Sonin Rank, dated May 15, 1919. Imperial Ordinance No. 160 of 1919. Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, pp. 349–350. Compare Takeshige Kudo, Taisho Kensei Shi, or Constitutional History of the Taisho Era (1927), pp. 254–255.
49 The Koto Shiken Rei was issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 7 of 1918 and amended by Imperial Ordinance No. 15 of 1929. Genko Horei Shuran (1932), Vol. I, Bk. III, p. 381. The Futsu Shiken Rei was issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 8 of 1918. Ibid. (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, p. 385.
50 See the Koto Shiken oyobi Futsu Shiken Iin Kansei, or Ordinance Concerning the Higher Civil Service and the Ordinary Civil Service Examination Commissions. Imperial Ordinance No. 9 of 1918, as later amended. Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, p. 4.
51 See Art. 14 of the Koto Shiken Rei.
52 Compare the Gaimusho Nenkan (1931), pp. 255–256.
53 See the Fara Shiken Rei, or Ordinance Concerning the Ordinary Civil Service Examination. Imperial Ordinance No. 8 of 1918. Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, p. 385. Compare Minobe, Gyoseiho Satsuyo (1927), Vol. I, pp. 421–422.
54 See the Kato Shiken oyobi Futsu Shiken lin Sansei, or Ordinance Concerning the Organization of the Higher Civil Service and the Ordinary Civil Service Examination Committees. Imperial Ordinance No. 9 of 1918. Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, p. 4.
55 New York Times, June 14, 1934.
56 See Pooley, A. M., The Secret Memoirs of Count Tadasu Hayashi (London, 1915), p. 506.Google Scholar
57 The Bunkan Bungen Rei was issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 62 of 1889 and has been amended. See Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, pp. 428–429. The Bunkan Chokai Rei was issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 63 of 1899 and later amended. Ibid., Vol. I, Bk. III, pp. 434–435.
58 The Kanri Fukumu Kiritsu was issued as Imperial Ordinance No. 39 of 1887. See Genko Horei Shuran (1927), Vol. I, Bk. III, pp. 446–447.
59 Compare Shinobu, Gaiko Sokumen-shi Kan, pp. 236–237.
60 See Taketora Ogata, “The Real Hirota” in Contemporary Japan (March 1934), Vol. II, pp. 623–624.
61 Compare Shinobu, Gaiko Sokumen-ahi Katt, pp. 404–410.