Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:27:31.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Status of the Inhabitants of Mandated Territory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Quincy Wright
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 1924 , pp. 306 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1924 

References

1 The methods employed gave rise to severe criticism in the Assembly (Levermore,League of Nations Year Book, 1923, Vol. 3, p.276), and to a lengthy investigation by the Permanent Mandates Commission, as a result of which the commission drew attention to the failure of the mandatory itself to make a “ complete and authoritative inquiry” (Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess., 1923, p. 291) and to the harshness of the methods of suppression and the insufficiency of the remedial measures. (Ibid., p. 294.) Thecommission likewise deplored the unfortunate relations which the report disclosed between the white population and a large proportion of the natives of the mandated territory. (Ibid., p.325.)

2 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess.,1923, p. 295.

3 Christian v Rex,Supreme Court of South Africa, Cape Times, Dec. 1,1923.

4 In support of this distinction, the court noticed that in the genuine cessions of territory the successor was burdened with a part of the German pre-war debt (Art. 254) and Germany was given reparations credit for public property in the territory. (Art. 256.) This was not true of the territory put under mandate. (Arts. 120, 257.)

5 An analogy may be noted to the power of the States of the United States to punish persons for treason against themselves though they lack sovereignty as understood by international law ( Wharton, ,Criminal Law, sec. 1812 Google Scholar), and of military governments to punish for “ war treason” the inhabitants of occupied territory over which they have only temporary jurisdiction (U. S. Rules of Warfare, 1914, secs. 202, 203, 207; Oppenheim, International Law, 3rd ed., sec. 162).

6 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess., 1923, annex 2, pp. 216-239.

7 Rolin, M. R. E., “ Les systemes des mandats coloniaux,” Rev. de droit int. et de lég. comp., 1920, p. 329.Google Scholar

8 Harris, John H., “ The Challenge of the Mandates,” Contemporary Review, 1921;Google Scholar British League of Nations Union, A plan for government by mandates in Africa, 1921; Kol, M., “Colonial Mandates and the League of Nations,”Preliminary Documents of the Twentieth Interparliamentary Union, p. 76.Google Scholar See also Wright, , “ Sovereignty of the Mandates,” this Journal, 17:695, Oct. 1923. Google Scholar

9 As argued by Schucking and Wehberg, Die Satzung des VoUeerbundes, Berlin, 1921, p. 423. See also Wright, op. cit., p. 697, and D’Andrade, , Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 1st sess., 1921, pp. 41-42.Google Scholar

10 See Rappard, M., Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 2nd sess., p. 42;Google Scholar Wright,op. cit., pp. 697, 699.

11 Supra, note 4.

12 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess., p. 221. See also pp. 21,162,195.

13 Ibid., pp. 107, 325.

14 Ibid., p. 30.

15 I.e., the former mandatory would not have any claim to continued title to or to compensation for public property left in the territory. (Ibid., p. 30.) The A mandates expressly secure to some extent the financial rights of the mandatory in the territory in case of termination of the mandate. ( , Keith,Joum. of Com/p. Leg., 3rd ser. 4:80;Google Scholar Wright, op. cit., 17:700.) The distinction can be illustrated by considering the Shantung articles of the Treaty of Versailles. By these articles Germany ceded to Japan political privileges, concessions, public archives and “ movable and immovable property owned by the German state in the territory of Kiau Chau.” Germany had acquired these rights as a result of the lease agreement with China of 1898. Had her rights in the leased territory of Shantung been analogous to the mandatory's rights in mandated territory under M. van Bees's theory, it would seem that she could not cede them to Japan, because upon the termination of her administration of Kiau Chau they would automatically revert to China. China in fact made this contention. (Chinese representative Koo at Washington Conference, December 3, 1921, 67th Cong., 2d sess., Sen. Doc. 126, p. 539; Quigley, , “Legal Phases of the Shantung Question,”Minn. Law Rev., April, 1922, p. 383.)Google Scholar

16 Great Britain was unable to obtain most-favored-nation treatment for goods from Tanganyika (Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess., 1923, p. 27) and South Africa was unable to obtain such treatment for goods from Southwest Africa.( Ibid., p.110.)

17 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess., 1923, p. 310. With this ruling, countries like the United States, which, because of non-membership in the League, are not entitled to equal treatment in the mandated areas by the terms of the Covenant and the mandates, can not be sure of such treatment through most-favored-nation clauses with the mandatory unless the latter expressly apply to the mandated areas. The United States has in fact endeavored to conclude such special agreements. See statement of Secretary of State Hughes, Foreign Affairs, Supp., Vol. 2, No. 2, Feb. 1924, p. xix.)

18 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 3rd sess., p. 310. See also pp. 90, 171, 176, 194. This recommendation has been endorsed by the Council.(League of Nations Monthly Summary, 3: 306.) For reference to the interest of the United States in equality of economic opportunity in the mandated areas see Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 1st sess., 1921, p. 21; 3rd sess., 1923, p. 27.

19 Ibid., 2nd sess., pp. 20, 66, 68; League of Nations Official Journal, 4:568.

20 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 1st sess., 1921, p. 24; 3rd sess., 1923, pp.26, 157, 196, 311, 319.

21 Ibid., report on 2nd sess., 1922, p. 6; Minutes, 3rd sess., 1923, pp. 256-279, 309, 311.

22 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 2nd sess., 1922, pp. 15, 36, 76; League of Nations Official Journal, 3: 604,606; 4: 200, 211,298; Wright, this JOURNAL, 17:702.

23 Treaty of Versailles, Art. 127; League of Nations Official Journal, 3: 594, 608; 4: 658;

24 Supra, note 3.

25 Wilson and Tucker, International Law, 8th ed., p. 131; Hyde, ,International Law, 1:610;Google Scholar Luria v. U. S., 231 U. S. 9, 1913; Tunis case, Permanent Court of International Justice,Acts and Documents, Vol. 2, p. 116.

26 As to inhabitants of protectorates, see opinion of Sir John Salmond of New Zealand,May 11, 1920, Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 2nd sess., p. 69. For other classes of non-nationals who have been given protection, see Borchard, , Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, pp. 463-478, 568-574.Google Scholar

27 In the United States treason laws may be applied against domiciled aliens. (Pomeroy,Constitutional Law, sec. 432.)

28 See resolution II, infra, note 43.

29 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 2nd sess., 1922, p. 67. See also opinion of Sir John Salmond, May 11,1920, including statement that the Samoans had the right under the peace treaty “ to become incorporated in the British Empire if they so desired.” ThePermanent Mandates Commission put itself on record as unable to understand this. Ibid.,p. 68.

30 Ibid., 2nd sess., 1922, p. 92.

31 Letter of July 4,1922, to M. Rappard, ibid., 2nd sess., p. 91.

32 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 1st sess., 1921, p. 41.

33 Ibid., 2nd sess., 1922, p. 85. Minutes of 14th session of the Council, p. 125.

34 Report, League of Nations Official Journal, 3: 589-608.

35 Ibid., 3: 592.

36 Ibid., 3: 592.

37 Ibid., 3: 593,598.

38 Report, League of Nations Official Journal, 3: 593-595.

39 Ibid., 3: 594,600-607.

40 Ibid., 3: 524.

41 Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes, 2nd sess., 1922, pp. 16-19, 86. The commission also reached the conclusion that, under general principles of international law, Germans in the mandated areas did not automatically lose their German nationality. Ibid., p. 17.

42 Ibid., 2nd sess., 1922, pp. 19, 65-68,73; League of Nations Official Journal, 4: 659.

43 League of Nations Official Journal, 1923,4-604. The distinctstatus which the United States accords the nationals of the Philippines was referred to as a precedent for the proposed status of inhabitants in the mandated territories. Ibid., 4: 569.

44 League of Nations Official Journal, 1923, 4:568-572.

45 Ibid., 4:659.

46 Ibid., 4: 603.

47 See for instance, statement of Sir Edgar Walton, representative of South Africa before the subcommittee on national status: “ The Union of South Africa had not yet taken any decision as to the nationality of these inhabitants, but it would be extremely grateful to the Council of the League of Nations if it would authorize the government to offer them British nationality.” League of Nations Official Journal, 8: 593, 598.

48 This Journal, 17: 698.