Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:21:23.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Origin of the System of Mandates Under the League of Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Pitman B. Potter
Pitman B. Potter
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present arrangements for the government of the colonial territories taken from Germany and Turkey in the World War, arrangements which may collectively be described as the system of mandates under the League of Nations, may work well or they may work badly. They may persist into an indefinite future, they may come to an abrupt termination and leave nothing of their own kind in their place, or, most probable of all, they may be progressively modified in one way or another with the passage of time and changes of circumstances. But, whatever happens hereafter, the present system is now an accomplished fact, and will necessarily be taken as the basis for any action in the future. The apparent inclination of at least one great power to insist upon all its rights in former German and Turkish territories now under mandate to other powers, and the firmness of the latter in defending their position under the mandate system, indicate, further, that the present system has already created rights, interests, and claims on one side and another which will call for constant consideration and regulation as time goes on.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , November 1922 , pp. 563 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1922

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 Covenant of the League of Nations, Article XXII.

2 See assertion that he favored a policy of annexation in Scott, A. P., Introduction to the Peace Treaties, Chicago, 1920, p. 68Google Scholar; it will also be noted later that Smuts did not, in his plans, extend his idea of mandates to the former German colonies (see text of Smuts plans, below, second suggestion). See also Baker, R. S., “War Spoils at Paris,” in New York Times, 28 May, 1922, sec. 7, p. 2, col. 1.Google Scholar

3 Smuts, J. C., The League of Nations: A Practical Suggestion, London, 1918Google Scholar, reprinted in the United States by The Nation Press, 1919. The plan was also circulated privately in mimeograph form among the leading representatives at Paris. The edition of The Nation Press is cited hereafter.

4 Smuts, pp. 9–19.

5 Wilson arrived at Brest on Friday, 13 December, 1918.

6 Wilson's plan was first made known to those near the President and ordered printed on 7 January, 1919, and at that time it did contain the “Supplementary Agreements” covering, among other things, colonies and mandates. But, as Lansing believes, and as we shall see by reference to internal evidence in the matter, these “Supplementary Agreements” had only recently been added to the draft. Lansing, R., The Peace Negotiations, New York, 1921, pp. 77–81, 82–83, 86.Google Scholar

7 Italics mine; the words italicized occur in the Smuts' proposals and in the same order in which they occur here.

8 For one important aspect of these conferences of 10–18 January see testimony of Bullitt, W. C., before United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 12 September, 1919, in United States, Senate, “Treaty of Peace with Germany,” being Senate Document No. 106, 66th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 1165, 1214.

9 Miller, D. H., “The Making of the League,” in House, E. M., and Seymour, C., What Really Happened at Paris, New York, 1921, pp. 411–412.Google Scholar

10 On 23 January; Baker, , “War Spoils,” as cited, New York Times, 28 May, 1922, sec. 7, p. 1, col. 1.Google Scholar

11 Miller, as cited, p. 412; also Hudson, M. O., “The Protection of Minorities.” in same, p. 225.

12 There were, of course, several plans for the league beside those of Smuts and Wilson. They are described, with what the present writer is compelled to believe are some errors, by Mr. Ray Stannard Baker in an article entitled “Beginning of the League Fight,” a chapter from his forthcoming work entitled “America and the World Peace,” printed in New York Times for 14 May, 1922, sec. 8.

13 Above, p. 565.

14 Above, p. 565.

15 Miller, p. 412; Lansing, p. 150.

16 Bullitt, pp. 1214, 1218.

17 United States, Senate, “League of Nations: American Draft,” being Senate Document No. 70, 66th Congress, 1st Session, Washington, 1919.

18 Miller, as cited, p. 402.

19 Fayle, C. E., The Great Settlement, New York (and London), 1915, pp. xii, xiii, 194, 195–196.Google Scholar

20 Brailsford, H. N., The War of Steel and Gold, New York (and London), 1915, p. 336 (3d edition).Google Scholar

21 Grant, A. J., and others, International Relations, London, 1916, Chap. V, by Kerr, P. H., pp. 170, 171, 179, 181.Google Scholar

22 Hobson, J. A., Towards International Government, New York (and London), 1915, pp. 138–141.Google Scholar

23 Hobson, p. 141.

24 Hobson repeated these ideas—less clearly, however, in 1916: Hobson, J. A. H., “The Open Door,” in Buxton, C. R., ed., Towards a Lasting Settlement, New York, 1916, pp. 85–109, esp. 106–107.Google Scholar

25 Smuts, work cited, pp. 14–16.

26 Above, pp. 565–566.

27 Above, pp. 566–567.

28 Bishop, J. B., Theodore Roosevelt, and his Time as told in his Correspondence, New York, 1920, pp. 489–491, 493–495, 495–497, 497–499.Google Scholar

29 Hobson, p. 141. The writer feels entitled to record the fact here that he was familiar with the Root-Sternberg correspondence, including its invention of the mandate system, before he read Mr. Hobson's reference to the Act of Algeciras.

30 Above, pp. 565–566.

31 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, “Official Statements of War Aims and Peace Proposals, December 1916 to November 1918,” being Pamphlet No. 31 of the Division, Comp. by Potter, P. B., pp. 234–239.

32 Same, pp. 225–233, especially p. 228.

33 In Points VI, VII, IX–XII; same, pp. 237, 238.

34 Wilson had said on 2 April, 1917, in asking the United States Congress to declare war on Germany.: “We desire no conquest, no dominion‥‥. We seek no indemnities We are‥‥ champions of the rights of mankind,” and these rights he had just described as “the rights of nations ‥‥ to choose their ways of life and obedience” (same, p. 91); and in asking for a declaration of war upon Austria Hungary on 4 December, 1917, he used “the formula ‘No annexations, no contributions, no punitive indemnities’” to express the war aims of the Allies (same, p. 195).

35 No official statement of war aims made before the address of April 2 comes anywhere near the formula; on May 19 there occurred in a statement of war aims made by the Russian Provisional Government the statement that that government did not seek “a peace with annexation or indemnity and based on the right of nations to decide their own affairs” (same, p. 102).

36 It has been claimed that Wilson's Fourteen Points (of 8 January, 1918) were devised directly to meet a demand for a restatement of allied aims cabled on 3 January to Washington by American propagandists in Russia. The evidence is inconclusive and the claim has been denied by Mr. George Creel, who is alleged to have been in charge of the action in Washington. On the other hand, the internal evidence in the address of 8 January is strong: the Russian negotiations at Brest-Litovsk are made the occasion for the speech and the share of Russia in the settlement is given great prominence, being placed ahead of Belgium and all other territorial questions. It is almost certainly true that the address, even if composed in the main as early as 1 January, as Mr. Creel says, was strongly influenced by the Russian situation. See The Nation, (New York), Vol. CXI, p. 30 (10 July, 1920); Russian-American Relations, New York, 1920, pp. 67–74. It may not be without point to note that the Fourteen Points also corresponded very closely to a Russian statement of peace aims made on 19 October, 1917; see Ross, E. A., The Russian Bolshevik Revolution, New York, 1920, Chap. XXIV.Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.