Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:01:37.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Aspects of the Japanese Pronouncement in Relation to China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Charles Cheney Hyde
Charles Cheney Hyde*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In April, 1934, Mr. Eiji Amau, understood to be the official spokesman of the Japanese Foreign Office, made public a statement of which, according to the New York Times of April 21, the following is said to be an authentic translation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 1934 , pp. 431 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1934

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 statement attributed to Mr. Saito, Japanese Ambassador at Washington, April 23, 1934, New York Times, April 24, 1934; address by Ambassador Saito at Chicago, May 21, 1934, id., May 22, 1934; statement by Mr. Hirota, Japanese Foreign Minister, given to the American Embassy at Tokyo, as reported in the New York Times, April 28, 1934.

2 No comment is sought to be made on Mr. Amau's words touching the relationship of his country to the League of Nations. 3 “Properly understood, it [the Monroe Doctrine] is opposed … to the acquisition in any manner of the control of additional territory in this hemisphere by any non-American Power.” (Charles E. Hughes, “Observations on the Monroe Doctrine,” this Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 615.)

3 “Properly understood, it [the Monroe Doctrine] is opposed … to the acquisition in any manner of the control of additional territory in this hemisphere by any non-American Power.” (Charles E. Hughes, “Observations on the Monroe Doctrine,” this Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 615.)

4 United States Treaties, Vol. III , pp. 2720-2722; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 12 (1918) p. 1. See also, Mr. Bryan, Sec , of State, to the Japanese Ambassador at Washington, March 13, 1915, U. S. For. Rel., 1915, pp. 105, 110.

5 United States Treaties, Vol. Ill, pp. 3825-3826; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 137.

6 See treaty between the United States and Haiti of Sept. 16, 1915, United States Treaties, Vol. III, p. 2673; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 10 (1916), p. 234. Also, in this connection, Inquiry into Occupation and Administration of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, Report of Senate Investigating Committee, S. Doc. No. 794, 67th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 335, 355, 393-394.

7 See Fifth Advisory Opinion of Permanent Court of International Justice in relation to Eastern Carelia, Publications of Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, p. 27.

8 See documents in U. S. Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 299 et seq. Also, Conference on the Limitation of Armament, S. Doc. No. 126, 67th Cong., 2d Sess., Report of the American Delegation, Feb. 9, 1922, pp. 783, 829.

9 The treaty became effective August 5, 1925. “The countries in respect of which the treaty is now in force as a result of ratification or adherence are the United States of America, British Empire (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa signing separately), Bolivia, Belgium, China, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden.” (Department of State, Treaty Information, Dec. 31, 1932, Supplement to Bulletin No. 39, Publication No. 436, p. 44.)

10 United States Treaties, Vol. Ill , p. 3122; this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 16 (1922), p. 64.

11 U. S. Treaties, ibid., p. 3125.

12 Compare statement of Mr. Saito, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, in Chicago, May 21,1934, as printed in New York Times, May 22,1934, p. 11, in which it was declared: “The question may be raised, What right has one nation, even if advanced andorderly, to interfere in the affairs of another, even if that other is in a badly disturbed condition? As I have already said, we have no intention or desire to interfere in the affairs of China. But when other Powers interfere in those affairs in a way that may lead to a disturbance of international peace, we, as the principal Power responsible for the peace of Eastern Asia, naturally object. “The recent assertion of our position is not, as it has been too frequently interpreted, a warning of pending action by us. It is very different. It is in the nature of a preventive measure taken only in a diplomatic way. Prevention is always preferable to cure.”

13 In the treaty of Nov. 5,1815, concluded by Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia, in relation to the Ionian Islands, those islands were referred to as forming “a single, free and independent state“; and that state was to be placed “under the immediate and exclusive protection of His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his heirs and successors.” Brit, and For. St. Papers, Vol. Ill , pp. 250, 254-255. See also, preamble of Convention of Ratification between the United States and the Dominican Republic of June 12, 1924, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 729, and this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 53; also, preamble of Convention and Protocol of Jan. 9, 1930, concluded by the United States with Great Britain and Iraq, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 835. See also, the British declaration of Feb. 28, 1922, in respect to Egypt, Egypt No. 1 (1922) [Cmd. 1592], 29.

14 See his dissenting opinion in the Case respecting the Interpretation of the Convention of 1919 Concerning Employment of Women During the Night, Nov. 15,1932, Publications, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A/B, No. 50, p. 383.

15 See Tobin, Harold J., The Termination of Multipartite Treaties (New York, 1933).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 It is, for example, difficult to conclude that the parties to the treaties of 1839, looking to the neutralization of Belgium, sought to create obligations in that regard that should live through and survive the occurrences on Belgian soil that were grimly recorded in 1914 and thereafter.

17 Dept. of State Press Release, April 30, 1934. It was added: “In the international associations and relationships of the United States, the American Government seeks to be duly considerate of the rights, the obligations and the legitimate interests of other countries, it expects on the part of other governments due consideration of the rights, the obligations and the legitimate interests of the United States. In the opinion of the American people and the American Government, no nation can, without the assent of the other nations concerned, rightfully endeavor to make conclusive its will in situations where there are involved the rights, the obligations and the legitimate interests of other sovereign states. “The American Government has dedicated the United States to the policy of the good neighbor and to the practical application of that policy it will continue, on its own part and in association with other governments, to devote its best efforts.”