Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-05T22:27:14.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Japanese Mandate Naval Base Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Luther H. Evans
Luther H. Evans
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Public opinion in support of the efficacy of collective efforts for the preservation of peace has been considerably weakened by the events of the past three or four years. While it is exceedingly doubtful whether much success will attend whatever other courses of action nations may adopt to secure themselves against the world's turmoil, students of international affairs must accept the fact that we are now in an eddy of the current of progress. But there is slight justification for despair. Indeed, much has come through the wreckage of the sanctions failure almost undamaged. In certain large fields of action, there has been success in the attempts of the League and allied institutions to create a better world of international relations. Among other successes, the mandates system stands unchallenged as a large advance in the supervision of colonial administration.

Type
International Affairs
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , June 1935 , pp. 482 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See my article, “Would Japanese Withdrawal from the League Affect the Status of the Japanese Mandate?,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, pp. 140–142 (January, 1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and authorities there cited.

2 The statement by Martin, M. William was as follows: “Violant tous les traités internationaux, les Japonais ont installé des bases sous-marines dans les ties sur lesquelles ils exerçent un mandat de la Société des nations.” Journal de Genève, Feb. 11, 1932, p. 1Google Scholar. The article is entitled “Harakiri,” bears the date of Feb. 10, 1932, and deals with various aspects of the “suicidal” policy of the Japanese government.

3 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes (hereafter cited P.M.C., Mins.), 22, pp. 114–115Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 115.

5 Ibid., p. 179.

6 Ibid., pp. 319–320 (letter from M. Ito containing the declaration of the Japanese government), and p. 299 (discussion in the Commission).

7 Official Journal, 1933, pp. 187–192Google Scholar.

8 New York Times, Feb. 15, 1933.

9 Ibid., Mar. 25, 1933.

10 Ibid., Nov. 6, 1934. P.M.C., Mins., 26, pp. 90–94Google Scholar. In its report to the Council, the Commission indicated a belief that the expenditure on harbors was “somewhat disproportionate to the volume of commercial activity” (p. 206).

11 Texts in MacMurray, , Treaties and Agreements With and Concerning China, II, pp. 1167–1168Google Scholar; New York Times, April 22, 1919, 2: 4–5.

12 Article 119 provides as follows: “Germany renounces in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions.” These Powers were Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States.

13 Article 5 provides: “All matters of procedure at meetings of the Assembly or of the Council, including the appointment of committees to investigate particular matters, shall be regulated by the Assembly or by the Council and may be decided by a majority of the Members of the League represented at the meeting.”

14 There is a large literature on this subject. See Wright, Quincy, Mandates Under the League of Nations (Chicago, 1930), p. 519 ff.Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.