Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Studies in International Law and History pp 24–102Cite as

Family of “Civilized” States and Japan: A Story of Humiliation, Assimilation, Defiance and Confrontation

  • Chapter

  • 221 Accesses

Part of the book series: Developments in International Law ((DIL))

Abstract

Modern international law is understood to be a law applicable among all the States in equal measure in their relations with each other. It is defined as “the body of rules which are legally binding on states in their intercourse with each other.”1 It contains “principles and rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe, and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other.”2 It is defined by scholars as a law, which makes no distinction between large and small States, east or west, north or south countries. As Oppenheim’s latest edition declares: “International law does not recognize any distinctions in the membership of the international community based on religious, geographical or cultural differences.”3 Despite all the differences in their size and economic strength, political orientation or religious and cultural identity, they are all bound by its rules and are supposed to conduct their international relations on the basis of its tenets. Indeed, sovereign equality of States is supposed to be a fundamental principle of international law. In spite of wide and glaring inequalities amongst States, the equality of States is one of the most familiar and frequently reiterated principles of modern international law. Indeed, equality is traditionally accepted, along with sovereignty and independence, as an “absolute” and “unquestionable” principle upon which international law is based. As Vattel, in his classical exposition, declared:

*The author gratefully acknowledges his deep appreciation and indebtedness to the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, especially to its Directors, Professor Doctor Jochen Abr. Frowein and Professor Doctor Rudiger Wolfrum for all their help in providing him with a scholarship and an opportunity to work at the Institute in the summer of 2001, and collect material for this paper which is part of his project on “A Fresh Look at the History of International Law: Asian Perspective.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. I, Peace (edited by Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts), 9th edn. (London, 1997), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Starke’s International Law, (edited by I. A. Shearer) 11th edn., (London, 1994), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Oppenheim, note 1, p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See quoted in R. P. Anand, “Sovereign Equality of States in International Law”, Recueil des cours, vol.197 (1986–11), p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Quoted in Anand, pp. 53–54.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oppenheim, note 1, p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid., pp. 87–88. R.P. Anand, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Starke, note 2, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., pp. 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ibid., p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See R.P. Anand, Origin and Development of the Law of the Sea: History of International Law Revisited, (The Hague, 1983), Chapter 2 on “Freedom of the Sea and commercial shipping in the Indian Ocean”, pp. 10–39.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See K. M. Panikkar, Asia and Western dominance (London, 1954), pp. 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  13. In the ancient world India was the only pepper producing country and had no rivals. It was only in later centuries that Indonesian Islands became famous as pepper-producing regions. See O. W. Wolfers, Early Indonesian Commerce (Ithaca, N.Y., 1967), p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See quoted in J. A. E. Morley, “The Arabs and the Eastern Trade”,Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Singapore Branch, vol. 22, part I (March 1949), p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See for details Anand, note 11, Chapter 3, pp. 40 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Auguste Toussaint, History of the Indian Ocean (Trans, by June Guicharnaud) (Chicago, 1966), p. 98; see also Panikkar, note 12, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See for a detailed discussion of the European motives and efforts to reach India Anand, note 11, chapter 3, pp. 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See for more details about the struggles and fighting amongst the European countries for domination in Europe and Asia, Anand, note 11, Chapter 4, pp. 72 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Gerrit W. Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization ’ in International Society (Oxford, 1984), pp. 130 et seq.; see how the Portuguese went to China but could not settle there and were thrown out in G. B. Sansom, The Western World and Japan (New York, 1951), pp. 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gong, ibid., pp. 136 et seq.; see also Daniel R. Headrick, The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), pp. 43 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Sansom, note 19, p. 168. Twice, in 1274 and 1281, the Mongol Emperor tried to invade Japan but failed for want of naval competence.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sansom, at p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., pp. 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid., p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Yohiyuki Noda quoted in A. J. G. M. Sanders, “The reception of western law in Japan”, The Comparative and International Journal of Southern Africa, vol. XXVIII, No. 2 (March 1995), pp. 286–287.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Sansom, note 19, pp. 106, 171.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Hidemi Suganami, “Japan’s entry into international society”, in Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984); p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See Sansom, note 19, pp. 172–173.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See F. C. Jones, Extraterritoriality in Japan and the Diplomatic Relations resulting in its Abolition 1853–1899 (New York, 1970), p. 6; Sansom, note 19, pp. 171–172.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Sansom, note 19, p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Suganami, note 27, p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See Jones, note 29, pp. 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See Suganami, note 27, pp. 186–187; J. E. Hoare, Japan’s Treaty Ports and Foreign Settlements: The Uninvited Guests 1858–1899 (Kent, 1994), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Suganami, note 27, pp. 187–189.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See W. G. Beasley, “The foreign threat and the opening of the ports”, Chapter 4 in Marius B. Jansen (ed.), The Cambridge History of Japan vol. 5,The Nineteenth Century, (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 267–268.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See President Fillmore’s letter in Jones, note 29, pp. 7–8; see also Jansen, note 35, p. 269.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Jones, note 29, pp. 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See Beasley, note 35, pp. 269–270.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Jones, note 29, pp. 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See Beasley, note 35, p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Quoted in ibid., p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Jones, note 29, pp. 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Sansom, note 19, pp. 282–283.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See ibid., p. 283.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See for a detailed and interesting account of Townsend Harris negotiations with the Japanese, Sansom, note 19, pp. 283–292; Gong, note 19, pp. 168–169; Jones, note 29, pp. 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See Gong, note 19, pp. 169; Sansom, note 19, p. 300–301.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Gong, note 19, p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Jones, note 29, p. 21; Sansom, note 19, p. 292.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sansom, note 19, p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See ibid., p. 297.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See ibid., pp. 298–299.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See Jonss, note 29, pp. 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sansom, note 19, pp. 299–300

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Jones, note 29, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See Gong, note 19, p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sansom, note 19, p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Quoted in Jones, note 29, p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid., p. 47. 16

    Google Scholar 

  60. Quoted in Gong, note 19, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jones, note 29, p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See Gong, note 19, p. 173.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Sansom, note 19, pp. 378–385.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Hiarakawa Sukehiro, “Japan’s turn to the West”, in Marius B. Jansen,The Cambridge History of Japan vol. 5, The Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 448–460.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid., pp. 463–465.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See ibid., pp. 470–472.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Gong, note 19, pp. 186–187.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See Gong, note 19, pp. 14–35.

    Google Scholar 

  69. The French legal system was the one which first of all came to the attention of the Japanese when a Tokugawa official traveled to France in 1867 and praised it in his writings. They greeted the French law with enthusiasm and, in 1869, the Meiji Government ordered the translation of all five French law codes, hired an eminent French lawyer to adapt these laws in Japan and to teach Japanese lawyers, but later it was abandoned. See Sukehiro, note 64, pp. 473–75.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See A.J.G.M. Sanders, “The reception of Western law iili Japan”, The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, vol. 28, no. 2 (March 1995), pp. 281–283.

    Google Scholar 

  71. See for an interesting account of Harris’ negotiations with the Japanese Hirohiko Otsuka, “Japan’s early encounter with the concept of the ‘Law of Nations’”, in Japanese Annual of International Law, No. 13 (1969), pp. 42–43; Shigeru Kuriyama, “Historical aspects of the progress of international law in Japan”, Japanese Annual of International Law vol. 1 (1957), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ibid., p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See Fujio Ito, “One hundred years of International Law Studies in Japan”, Japanese Annual of International Law vol. 13 (1969), pp. 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Otsuka, note 71, p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  75. See Susumu Yamauchi, “Civilization and International Law in Japan during the Meiji Era (1868–1912)”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics vol. 24 (1996), p. 1–2; also Otsuka, note 71, p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See Otsuka, note 71, pp. 48–49.

    Google Scholar 

  77. He had even been unsuccessfully invited by the Government of Japan to become its legal advisor. SeeYamauchi, note 75, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Thomas Erskine Holland, Lectures on International Law (London, 1933), p. 88. Also quoted in Yamauchi, note 75, pp. 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  79. William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law 8th edn. (Oxford, 1924), p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law (The Literal Reproduction of the Edition of 1866 by Richard Henry Dana, Jr.), (Oxford, 1936), p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law with a Sketch of the Science 1st edn. (1836), p. 44, quoted in Mark Weston Janis, “American versions of the International Law of Christendom: Kent, Wheaton and the Grotian Tradition”, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. XXXIX (1992/1), pp. 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wheaton, p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  83. James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1883), pp. 1101–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  84. See Yamauchi, note 75, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  85. See Iwakura Ko Jikki or The Record of Duke Iwakura, quoted in an excellent historical paper by Onuma Yasuki, “’Japanese International Law’ in the Prewar Period - Perspectives on the Teaching and Research of International Law in Prewar Japan”, in Japanese Annual of International Law, no. 29 (1986), pp. 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Quoted in Hisashi Owada, “Japan, International Law and the International Community”, in Nisuke Ando (ed.), Japan and International Law: Past, Present and Future, (The Hague, 1999), p. 353; see also Onuma Yasuki, note 85, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See’ibid., pp. 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See ibid., pp. 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See Gong, note 19, pp. 177–180.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Quoted in Gong, note 19, p. 190.

    Google Scholar 

  92. The Korean peninsula was regarded by the Japanese “as a dagger pointed at Japan’s heart, a source of constant irritation and menace to Japan’s security”, Hidemichi Akagi, “Japans’s Foreign Relations, 1542–1936”, quoted in M. A. Aziz, Japan’s Colonialism and Indonesia (The Hague, 1955), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  93. See Akira Iriye, “Japan’s drive to great-power status”, in The Cambridge History of Japan vol. 5, Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1989), chapter 12, pp. 745–746.

    Google Scholar 

  94. See ibid., p. 747.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See Mark R. Peattie, “The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945” in Peter Duus, The Cambridge History of Japan vol. 6, The Twentieth Century (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 224–225.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Akira Iriye, note 93, pp. 766–767.

    Google Scholar 

  97. See ibid. p. 756.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Quoted in Yamauchi, note 75, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  99. See Fukuzawa Yxikichi, quoted in Yamauchi, note 75, pp. 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Uchimura Kanzou, quoted 4n Yamauchi, note 75, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  101. See Sakuye Takahashi, Cases on International Law during the Chino-Japanese War (Cambridge, 1899), p. 2; Takahashi later wrote another book in Japanese, The Precedent Practices of the War-Time International Law (1904), and came to be regarded as “the founder of international law studies in Japan”.See Fujio Ito, note 73, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  102. See quoted in Yamauchi, note 75, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ibid., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Takahashi, note 101, p. viii.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ibid., p. 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ibid., p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Ibid., pp. xv-xvi.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ibid., p. vi.

    Google Scholar 

  109. T. E. Holland, Studies in International Law (Oxford, 1898), pp. 113–115.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Ibid., pp. 128–29.

    Google Scholar 

  111. See Gong, note 19, pp. 185–186.

    Google Scholar 

  112. See Fujio Ito, note 73, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  113. See note 97 above and text relating thereto.

    Google Scholar 

  114. See Gong, note 19, p. 195.

    Google Scholar 

  115. See quoted in ibid., p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Ibid., pp. 197–198.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Storry, Japan and Decline of the West in Asia, p. 29, quoted in Gong, note 19, pp. 196–97.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Storry, A History of Modern Japan, p. 127, quoted in Gong, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  119. See Gong, note 19, p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  120. See quoted in Hisashi Owada, note 86, pp. 354–355.

    Google Scholar 

  121. See Akira Iriye, note 93, p. 769; Aziz, note 92, pp. 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  122. See ibid., pp. 769–770.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Ibid., pp. 773–774.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Ibid., pp. 774–775.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Seven professors from the prestigious Tokyo Imperial University asserted in a memorial they submitted to the Prime Minister Katsura Taro in June 1903 that “a fundamental settlement” of the Manchurian problem was needed if Japan were to secure its position in Korea. See Akira Iriye, note 93, p. 775.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Ibid., pp. 775–777.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Dr. Ariga wrote La Guerre Russo-Japanaise us point de vue continental et la droit international in 1908 with a preface by Professor Paul Fauchille, which he later translated into Japanese in 1911. Likewise, Takahashi wrote International Law applied to the Russo-Japanese War with the Decisions of the Japanese Prize Court in 1908. See Fujio Ito, note 73, pp. 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Viscount Kikujiro Ishii, “The Permanent Bases of Japanese Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs,V61. II, No. 2 (January 1933), p. 225.

    Google Scholar 

  129. See Akira Irye, note 93, p. 777; Aziz, note 92, p. 6; Mark R. Peattie, “ The Japanese Colonial Empire 1895–1945”, Chapter 5 in Peter Duus (ed.), note 95, pp. 226–229.

    Google Scholar 

  130. See quoted in B.V.A. Roling, International Law in an Expanded World (Amsterdam, 1960), p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  131. See Gong, note 19, p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  132. L. Oppenheim, International Law (London, 1905), pp. 32, also quoted in Gong, note 19, p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Wheaton,Elements of International Law, 6th edn. (1929), p. 30. See also Gong, note 19.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Wheaton,Elements of Intenational Law, 4th edn. (London, 1904), pp. 22–23. See also Gong, note 19, pp. 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  135. See Aziz, note 92, pp. 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Gong, note 19, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Koreans were effectively deprived of freedom of assembly, association, press and speech. It was said by a Japanese journalist in Korea that “so completely were the people’s liberties restricted that the entire peninsula could be said to have militarized”. See quoted in Peattie, note 95, p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Aziz, note 92, p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Ibid., pp. 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Japanese colonial policy was said to be “European in origin and orientation, and its adoption by Japanese administrators and publicists had much to do with the fact that Japan entered its colonial tasks at the zenith of European colonialism. Its characteristics thus stemmed from the assumptions and predilections common to the ‘New Imperialism’ of the late nineteenth-century Europe and derived largely from European colonial empires whose territories were geographically dispersed and racially diverse.” Peattie, note 173, p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  141. See for a general description of Japan’s colonial policy Peattie, note 73, pp. 244–270.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Onuma, note 85, p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  143. See ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  144. See Ikuhiko Hata, “Continental Expansion 1905–1941”, Chapter 6 in Peter Du us, note 95, p 280.

    Google Scholar 

  145. See Peattie, note 95, pp. 227–228.

    Google Scholar 

  146. See quoted in Gong, note 19, p. 174.

    Google Scholar 

  147. See Akira Iriye, note 93, pp. 777–779.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Quoted in Aziz, note 92, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  149. See Hata, note 144, p. 280.

    Google Scholar 

  150. T. Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire, (New York, 1935), p. 189, quoted in Aziz, note 92, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  151. George W. Keeton, China, the Far East and the Future (London, 1949), p. 147, quoted in Aziz, note 92, pp. 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  152. See Hata, note 144, pp. 280–281.

    Google Scholar 

  153. See Aziz, note 92, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  154. See George H. Blakeslee, “The Japanese Monroe Doctrine”, Foreign Affairs vol. II, no. 4, (July 1933), pp. 673–674.

    Google Scholar 

  155. See Hata, note 144, p. 281 ; Aziz, note 92, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Quoted in Blakeslee, note 157, p. 671.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Quoted, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Quoted, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Ishii, note 128, pp. 224–225.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Ibid., p. 227.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Ibid., p. 228.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Blakeslee, note 157, p. 675.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Ibid., pp. 675–676.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Ibid., p. 676.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  166. See ibid., pp. 680–681.

    Google Scholar 

  167. The Four-Power Treaty was concluded between Great Britain, United States, France and Japan; the Five-Power Treaty between Great Britain, United States, Japan, France, and Italy; the Nine-Power Treaty between Great Britain, United States, Japan, France, Italy, China, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. See Aziz, note 92, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  168. See ibid., pp. 26–27; Hata, note 144, pp. 282–283.

    Google Scholar 

  169. See quoted in Hata, note 144, p. 283.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Quoted in Aziz, note 92, p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  172. See ibid., pp. 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  173. See quoted in ibid., p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  174. See Hata, note 144, pp. 290–295.

    Google Scholar 

  175. See for details about the establishment of the so-called State of Manchukuo and its relations with Japan, Aziz, note 92, pp. 30–45; Hata, note 144, pp. 296–298.

    Google Scholar 

  176. See Hata, note 144, pp. 295–297.

    Google Scholar 

  177. See ibid., pp. 297–298.

    Google Scholar 

  178. See Peattie, note 95, pp. 243–244.

    Google Scholar 

  179. See ibid., pp. 263–266.

    Google Scholar 

  180. See quoted in Aziz, note 92, p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Quoted in Aziz, ibid. pp. 51–52; see also C. J. Chacko, “The Japanese Monroe Doctrine”, Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1953, pp. 114–115.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Aziz, note 92, pp. 52–56.

    Google Scholar 

  183. See Hata, note 144, pp. 300–302.

    Google Scholar 

  184. See Aziz, note 92, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Hata, note 144, p. 302.

    Google Scholar 

  186. See Hata, note 144, pp. 302–305.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Hata, ibid., pp. 306–307.

    Google Scholar 

  188. See Aziz, note 92, pp. 65–66.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Ibid., pp. 77–78.

    Google Scholar 

  190. See Alvin D. Coox, “ The Pacific War”, Chapter 7 in Peter Duus, note 95, pp. 338–339.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Quoted in ibid., p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Besides loss of nearly half of the 231 US Army and 89 naval aircraft in Oahu, eight battleships damaged or sunk, several destroyers and other ships crippled, American casualties numbered 4,575. See Coox, note 190, pp. 342–343.

    Google Scholar 

  193. See scathing criticism of the attitude of the Japanese Government during the 1930s and 1940s by eminent Japanese scholar of international law, Onuma Yasuki note 85.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Ibid., pp. 345–346.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Ibid., pp. 347–348.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Ibid., pp. 348–349.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Ibid., pp. 370–377.

    Google Scholar 

  198. See Charles L. Kades, “Introduction: Representative Government in Japan”, Political Reorientation of Japan, September 1945 to September 1948, Report of the Government Section Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (1949), p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  199. See Yasuo Ishimoto and Kazuya Hirobe, “Development of Post-war Japanese Studies in Public International Law, Part 1: 1945–1964”, Japanese Annual of International Law, vol. 30 (1987), pp. 93–95.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Quoted in Kades, note 198, p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  201. See Ishimoto and Hirobe, note 199, p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Yasuaki Onuma, “Japanese War Guilt, the ‘Peace Constitution1, and Japan’s Role in Global Peace and Security”, in Machael K. Young and Yuji Iwasawa (eds.), Trilateral Perspectives on International Legal Issues: Relevance of Domestic Law and Policy (1996), p. 525; see also Ishimoto and Hirobe, note 199, pp. 96–97.

    Google Scholar 

  203. See Ishimoto and Hirobe, note 199, p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  204. See Lawrence W. Beer, “Peace in theory and practice under Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution”, Marquette Law Review, vol. 81 (Fall 1998) pp. 816–818; Kades, note 198, pp. xiii-xiv.

    Google Scholar 

  205. See Kade, note 198, pp. 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  206. Mac Arthur suggested at the time that the Constitution had been drafted by the Japanese, over a period of five months, involving “painstaking investigation and frequent conference between the Japanese Government and his headquarters”. See “Political Reorientation of Japan”, note 189, p. 657; see also Koseki Shoichi, The Birth of Japan’s Postwar Constitution, (ed. and transi, by Ray A. Moore), Oxford, (1997), pp. xii, 4ff.

    Google Scholar 

  207. Philip Alston, “Transplanting Foreign Norms: Human Rights and other International Legal Norms in Japan”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10 (1999), pp. 628–629.

    Google Scholar 

  208. “Japan’s Commission on the Constitution: The Final Report”, quoted in Alston, note 207, p. 630.

    Google Scholar 

  209. Some 130 constitutions were ratified since 1970. See Lawrence W. Beer, “Peace in theory and practice under Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution”, Marquette Law Review, vol. 82 (1998), p. 818.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Quoted in Wakamizu Tsutsui, “Conceptions of Japan’s Security affecting cooperation with the United Nations”, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review vol. 27, no. 1 (April 1997), pp. 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Tsutsui, note 210, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  212. See ibid., pp. 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  213. Ishimoto and Hirobe, note 199, pp. 102–103.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Ibid., pp. 110–113.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Ibid., p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  216. See quoted in Yoshiro Matsui, “United Nations activities for peace and the Constitution of Japan”, in Machael K. Young and Yuji Iwasawa (ed.),Trilateral Perspectives on International Legal Issues: Relevance of Domestic Law and Policy (1996), p. 496.

    Google Scholar 

  217. See Onuma, note 202, p. 530.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Ibid., p. 529.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Ibid., p. 530.

    Google Scholar 

  220. See Yoshiro Matsui, note 216, p. 499, quoting the opinion of Yashaki Onuma. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Ibid., pp. 499–500.

    Google Scholar 

  222. See quoted ibid., p. 596 fn.

    Google Scholar 

  223. See quoted ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  224. See Beer, note 204, p. 821.

    Google Scholar 

  225. See discussion on the basis of several Japanese cases, Beer, note 204, p. 821.

    Google Scholar 

  226. See for an extensive discussion of the Sunakawa case, Kisaburo Yokota, “Renunciation of War in the new Japanese Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Sunakawa case”, Japanese Annual of International Law, vol. 4 (1960), pp. 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  227. Matsui, note 216, p. 497.

    Google Scholar 

  228. Onuma, note 202, p. 531.

    Google Scholar 

  229. See quoted in Matsui, note 207, p. 498.

    Google Scholar 

  230. Quoted ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  231. See Robert M. Uriu, “Japan in 1999: Ending the century on an uncertain note”, Asian Survey, vol. 40, no. 1 (Jan-Feb. 2000), pp. 147–149;see also Michael J. Green and Katsuhisa Furukawa, “New ambitions, old obstacles: Japan and search for an arms control strategy”, Arms Control Today (July-August 2000), p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  232. See Uriu, note 231, p. 147; Green and Furkawa, note 222, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  233. Quoted in Matsui, note 2 J 6, p. 500.

    Google Scholar 

  234. Ibid., p. 500.

    Google Scholar 

  235. See Akiho Shibata, “Japanese Peacekeeping Legislation and recent developments in UN Operations”, Yale Journal of International Law, vol. 19 (1994), p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  236. See ibid., p. 308; see also Onuma, note 202, pp. 532–533.

    Google Scholar 

  237. Matsui, note 216, pp. 505–506.

    Google Scholar 

  238. See Professor John H. Jackson, “Western View of Japanese International Law Practice for the Maintenance of International Economic Order”, in R. P Anand, “Japan and International Law in Historical Perspective”, in Nisuke Ando, note 86, p. 395.

    Google Scholar 

  239. Yasuki Onuma, note 202, p. 528.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. R. P. Anand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 R.P. Anand

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anand, R.P. (2004). Family of “Civilized” States and Japan: A Story of Humiliation, Assimilation, Defiance and Confrontation. In: Studies in International Law and History. Developments in International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13859-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-5600-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation