Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:05:26.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sovereignty and the Laws of War: International Consequences of Japan's 1905 Victory over Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2011

Douglas Howland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Russo–Japanese War (1904–1905), recently commemorated with several international conference volumes, is identified by a majority of contributors as the first modern, global war. In making such a judgment, these scholars note its scale, its nationalism, its colonialism and geopolitical repercussions. What is surprising, however, is that no one has remarked on another significance: it was the first war in which both belligerents pledged to adhere to the international laws of war. In that regard, the Russo–Japanese War marks a culmination of the tireless international diplomacy to secure legal limitations on warfare in the nineteenth century. In 1904, both Russia and Japan justified their operations according to international law, for the benefit of an international audience who had five years earlier celebrated some progress with the signing of The Hague Conventions in 1899.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 53 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2011

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. The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War, ed. Rotem Kowner (London: Routledge, 2007); Kenshō: Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Yomiuri shinbunsha shuzaidan (Tokyo: Chūōkōron shinsha, 2005); Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai (Tokyo: Kinseisha, 2004–2005), vol. 1, Kokusaiteki bunmyaku [pub. as Gunji shigaku 40. 2–3 (2004)] and vol. 2, Tatakai no shosō to isan [pub. as Gunji shigaku 41.1–2 (2005)]; Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, vol. 1, Rotem Kowner, ed., Critical Perspectives, and vol. 2, John W. M. Chapman and Inaba Chiharu, eds., The Nichinan Papers (Folkstone, Kent: Global Oriental, 2007); Der Russisch-Japanische Krieg (1904/05), ed. Josef Kreiner (Göttingen: V&R Unipress; Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2005); Der Russisch-Japanische Krieg, 1904/05: Anbruch einer Neuen Zeit?, ed. Maik Hendrik Sprotte, Wolfgang Seifert, and Heinz-Dietrich Löwe (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2007); Der Russisch-Japanische Krieg 1904/05 im Spiegel deutscher Bilderbogen/Yōroppa kara mita Nichi-Ro sensō: Hangashinbun, ehagaki, nishikie, ed. Inaba Chiharu and Sven Saaler (Tokyo: Deutsches Institut für Japanstudien, 2005); The Russo-Japanese War in Cultural Perspective, 1904–05, ed. David Wells and Sandra Wilson (Basingstoke: Macmillan; N.Y.: St. Martin's, 1999); The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero, vol. 1, ed. John W. Steinberg, Bruce W. Menning, David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, David Wolff, and Shinji Yokote (Leiden: Brill, 2005) and vol. 2, ed. David Wolff, Steven G. Marks, and Bruce W. Menning (Leiden: Brill, 2007); and The Treaty of Portsmouth and its Legacies, ed. Steven Ericson and Allen Hockley (Hanover: Dartmouth College Press, 2008). See the review articles by Yōko, Katō, “What Caused the Russo-Japanese War—Korea or Manchuria?,” Social Science Japan Journal 10 (1) (2007): 95–103Google Scholar; and Yokote Shinji, “Nichi-Ro sensō ni kansuru saikin no Ō-Bei no kenkyū,” in Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai, vol. 1, 277–91.

2. Higgins, A. Pearce, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences Concerning the Laws and Usages of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 43Google Scholar; and Hershey, Amos S., The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1906), 295Google Scholar.

3. See Edström, Bert, Japan's Fight for Great Power Status in the Meiji Period (Stockholm: Center for Pacific Asia Studies, 1989), 8f.Google Scholar; Iriye, Akira, “Japan's Drive to Great Power Status,” Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 5, The Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 768Google Scholar; T.G. Otte, “The Fragmenting of the Old World Order,” in The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War, 91–108; Peter Duus, “If Japan Had Lost the War,” in The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War, 47–58; and two articles by Rotem Kowner, “Between a Colonial Clash and World War Zero,” and “The War as a Turning Point in Modern Japanese History,” both in The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War, 1–25 and 25–46 respectively.

4. See W.Gong, Gerrit, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984)Google Scholar; Suginami, Hidemi, “Japan's Entry into International Society,” in The Expansion of International Society, ed. Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 185–99Google Scholar; and the important critique of this interpretation by Suzuki, Shogo, Civilisation and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with European International Society (London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar.

5. See, for example, Merry, Sally Engle, Colonizing Hawai'i: The Cultural Power of Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; and Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004)Google Scholar.

6. See the recent review of approaches by Craven, Matt, “Introduction: International Law and Its Histories,” in Time, History and International Law, ed. Craven, Matthew C. R., Fitzmaurice, M., and Vogiatzi, Maria (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2007), 1–25Google Scholar.

7. See Burkman, Thomas W., Japan and the League of Nations (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

8. Carty, Anthony, Philosophy of International Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), ch. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, ch. 2.

9. Connolly, William E., The Terms of Political Discourse, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; and Foucault, Michel, The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. Smith, A. M. Sheridan (London: Tavistock: 1972), 65fGoogle Scholar.

10. Kant, Immanuel, “Perpetual Peace,” in Political Writings, ed. Reiss, H.A., 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 102–5;Google Scholar and Austin, John, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Rumble, Wilfrid E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 123–25, 171, 175fGoogle Scholar.

11. Hull, William Isaac, The Two Hague Conferences and their Contributions to International Law (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1908), 119–24Google Scholar; and Scott, James Brown, ed., The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, 3d. ed. (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1918), 171, 179Google Scholar.

12. Westlake, John, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 238–44Google Scholar; Phillipson, Coleman, International Law and the Great War (London: Fisher Unwin, 1915), 27–38Google Scholar; Neff, Stephen C., War and the Law of Nations: A General History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 239–41Google Scholar; Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli ac Paci Libri Tres, trans. Kelsey, Francis W. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 599f.Google Scholar; and Pufendorf, Samuel, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, trans. Carew, (London, 1729; repr. Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange, 2005), 202–12Google Scholar.

13. Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd. ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920) 1:214–21Google Scholar; Rodick, Burleigh Cushing, The Doctrine of Necessity in International Law (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1928), 1–25, 47, 119Google Scholar; and Bowett, D.W., Self-Defense in International Law (N.Y.: Praeger, 1958), 3–10Google Scholar. Westlake insinuated this point as early as 1894; see Chapters on the Principles of International Law, 266.

14. Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 1. See also Michael Lobban, “English Approaches to International Law in the Nineteenth Century,” in Time, History and International Law, ed. Craven et al., 65–90.

15. Yōko, Katō, Sensō no ronri: Nichi-Ro sensō kara taiheiyō sensō made (Tokyo: Keisō shobō, 2005), 34–75Google Scholar; this has been abridged in translation as “Japan Justifies War by the ‘Open Door’: 1903 as Turning Point,” in The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero, vol. 2: 205–24. See also Okamoto, Shumpei, The Japanese Oligarchy and the Russo-Japanese War (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1970), 63–67Google Scholar.

16. Valliant, Robert B., “The Selling of Japan: Japanese Manipulation of Western Opinion, 1900–1905,” Monumenta Nipponica 29 (4)(1974): 415–38Google Scholar; Yomiuri shinbunsha shuzaidan,ed., Kenshō: Nichi-Ro sensō,161–71; and Howland, Douglas, “The Sinking of the S.S. Kowshing: International Law, Diplomacy, and the Sino-Japanese War,” Modern Asian Studies 42 (4) (2008): 678Google Scholar.

17. See Morinosuke, Kajima, Nichi-Ro sensō [= Nihon gaikōshi, vol. 7] (Tokyo: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1970), 120–27Google Scholar; Yomiuri shinbunsha shuzaidan, ed., Kenshō: Nichi-Ro sensō, 24–28; Masayoshi, Matsumura, Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō: kōhō gaikō no kenkyū, rev. and enlarged ed. (Tokyo: Shin'yūdō, 1987), 13–15, 40, 110f., 140f., 491Google Scholar; Masayoshi, Matsumura, “Yōroppa ni okeru ‘kōhō dantō daishi’ toshite no Suematsu Kenchō,” in Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. shigakkai, Gunji, vol. 1: 125–40Google Scholar; Nish, Ian, “Suematsu Kencho: International Envoy to Wartime Europe,” International Studies Discussion Papers (STICERD, London School of Economic and Political Science) May 2005: 12–24Google Scholar; Valliant, “The Selling of Japan,” 422–29; White, John Albert, The Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 156–63Google Scholar; and Kenchō, Suematsu, The Risen Sun (London: Archibald Constable & Co., 1905), vii–ixGoogle Scholar.

18. Kaneko, Kentaro, “The Far East After the War,” The World's Work 9 (February 1905): 5868–71Google Scholar; Kaneko, Kentaro, “The Yellow Peril is the Golden Opportunity for Japan,” North American Review 179 (November 1904): 641–48;Google Scholar and Takahira, Kogoro, “Why Japan Resists Russia,” North American Review 178 (March 1904): 321–27Google Scholar. See also Ienaga, Toyokichi, “Japan's Claims Against Russia,” The Independent 56 (Feb. 11, 1904): 303–4Google Scholar; Hashiguchi, Jihei, “Japan's Fitness for a Long Struggle,” The World's Work 9 (2) (November 1904): 5526–31Google Scholar; and Okuma, Shigenobu, “Japanese Problems,” North American Review 180 (February 1905): 161–65Google Scholar.

19. Patrick Beillevaire, “The Impact of the War on the French Political Scene,” in The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War, ed. Kowner, 124–36.

20. See Matsushita Sachiko, “Nichi-Ro sensō ni okeru kokusaihō no hasshin: Ariga Nagao o kiten to shite,” in Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai, vol. 1,195–210; Masao, Ichimata, Nihon no kokusaihōgaku o kizuita hitobito (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai mondai kenkyūjo, 1973), 67–80;Google Scholar and Nagao, Ariga, The Japanese Red Cross Society and the Russo-Japanese War: A Report (London: Bradbury, Agnew, & Co., 1907)Google Scholar.

21. Kaneko Kentarō recollected explaining to news reporters in the United States that a declaration of war was not required by international law, in Nichi-Ro sen'eki hiroku (Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1929), 50. See also Howland, Douglas, “Japan's Civilized War: International Law as Diplomacy in the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895),” Journal of the History of International Law 9 (2) (2007): 179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Asakawa, Kan'ichi, The Russo-Japanese Conflict: Its Causes and Issues (1904; repr. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1970), 342–44Google Scholar; Harukazu, Nagaoka, “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international,” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, 2nd series, vol. 6 (1904): 461–79Google Scholar; Suematsu, The Risen Sun, 64–70, 92–97; Yasutoshi, Teramoto, Nichi-ro sensō igo no Nihon gaikō (Tokyo: Shinzansha, 1999), 15–30Google Scholar; and Gaimushō, Nihon gaikō monjo, repr. ed. (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai rengō kyōkai, 1950–63), vol. 51,1–4, 139–55. I abbreviate this last work as NGM herein.

23. Rey, Francis, “Japon et Russie – guerre [Part 3],” Révue générale de droit international public 13 (1906): 612–27Google Scholar.

24. Leroux, Charles, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise (Paris: Pedone, 1911), 3–12Google Scholar; Sakue, Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War (London: Steven & Sons, 1908), 22–25Google Scholar; Nagao, Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise au point de vue continental et le droit international (Paris: Pedone, 1908), 30–32;Google Scholar and C.J.B. Hurst and F.E. Bray, Russian and Japanese Prize Cases (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1912–13), vol. 2:1–11.

25. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 6–14. Note that the Russian emperor issued a second manifesto, similar in content to the first, on February 18,1904.

26. Ibid., 13; and NGM, vol. 51: 66–71; 77–80.

27. Howland, “The Sinking of the S.S. Kowshing.”

28. Maurel, Marius, De la déclaration de guerre (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1907), 106Google Scholar; and A. Mérignhac, “Préface,” in Maurel, xiii.

29. Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre, 290–93; and Leroux, Le droit international, 4–11. On problems created for neutral powers in the absence of a declaration of war, see Féraud-Giraud, Louis, “De la neutralité,” Revue générale de droit international public 2 (1895): 291–96Google Scholar.

30. Martens, Frédéric de, “Les hostilités sans déclaration de guerre – à propos de la guerre Russo-Japonaise,” Revue générale de droit international public 11 (1904), 148–50Google Scholar; and Leroux, Le droit international, 9f. See also Nys, Ernest, “La guerre et la déclaration de guerre - quelques notes,” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, 2nd series vol. 7 (1905): 517–42Google Scholar. German jurists differed as to whether a declaration of war was necessary prior to the opening of hostilities; more typically “continental” was Ullmann, Emanuel von, “Der Krieg in Ostasien und das Völkerrecht,” Die Woche (Berlin) 6(8) (1904): 322–23Google Scholar; and more sympathetic to Japan was [Dr.] Siehl, , “Der Angriff der Japaner gegen Russland im Lichte des Völkerrechts,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 9 (6) (1904): 281–85Google Scholar.

31. Nagaoka, “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international,” 475–79; and Harukazu, Nagaoka, “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise au point de vue du droit international,” Revue générale de droit international public 12 (1905): 603–5Google Scholar. See also Maurice, J.F., Hostilities without Declaration of War (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1883)Google Scholar.

32. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 23–32. Two recent analyses of military intelligence concur that the Russians were not likely surprised; see Bruce W. Menning, “Miscalculating One's Enemies: Russian Intelligence Prepares for War,” and Aizawa Kiyoshi, “Differences Regarding Tōgō's Surprise Attack on Port Arthur,” both in The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero, vol. 2, 45–80 and 81–104 respectively. For a variant of the latter, see Aizawa Kiyoshi, “Kishū dankō ka iryoku teisatsu ka? – Ryojunkō kishū sakusen o meguru tairitsu,” in Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai, vol. 2, 68–83.

33. “Commencement de la guerre au XXe siècle: déclaration de guerre,” Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 34–36Google Scholar.

34. Suematsu, The Risen Sun, 99.

35. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 58–61, 66–70; Lawrence, T.J., War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1904), 26–36Google Scholar; and F.E. Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, N.W., International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War (London: Fisher Unwin, 1905), 51–58Google Scholar.

36. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 20–25; see also Leroux, Le droit international, 10f.

37. Stowell, Ellery C., “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities,” American Journal of International Law 2 (1) (1908): 52fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Ebren, Henri, “Obligation juridique de la déclaration de guerre,” Revue générale de droit international public 11 (1904): 133–48Google Scholar; Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre, 124–45. See also Dupuis, Charles, “La déclaration de guerre,” Revue générale de droit international public 13 (1906): 734Google Scholar; and Pillet, Antoine, “La guerre doit-elle être précédée d'une déclaration?” Revue politique et parlementaire 40 [no. 118] (1904): 50–57Google Scholar.

39. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 263.

40. Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 96.

41. Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 48–53.

42. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 264f.; Scott, James Brown, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907: A Series of Lectures Delivered Before the Johns Hopkins University in the Year 1908 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909)Google Scholar, vol. 1: 519f.; and Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Actes et documents (La Haye: Nijhoff, 1908), vol. 3: 172–78.

43. Report of Andrew White, quoted in Scott, , The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 179Google Scholar; Stowell, “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities,” 55; see also Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 205.

44. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 6; and Westlake, John, “The Hague Conferences,” in Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914)Google Scholar, 540f.

45. Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 522; and Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 205.

46. See Yotaro Soughimoura [sic], i.e., Yōtarō, Sugimura, De la déclaration de guerre au point de vue du droit international public (Paris: A. Rousseau, 1912), 289Google Scholar; Wolff, Christian, Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum, trans. Drake, J.H. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1934), 366f.Google Scholar; Woolsey, Theodore D., Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed. (N.Y.: Charles Scribner & Co, 1874), 442–46Google Scholar; and Baty, Thomas, International Law (London: John Murray,1909), 246–49Google Scholar.

47. Sugimura, De la déclaration de guerre, 190f., 212f., 264f., 284-88.

48. Report of Andrew White, quoted in Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 179; and Stowell, “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities,” 55.

49. Sugimura, De la déclaration de guerre, 284–308.

50. Ibid., 420–27, 441–61.

51. Dupuis, “La déclaration de guerre,” 732f.; see also his comments in the Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 21 (1906), 41f.

52. See the 1905 committee report in the Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 23, 63.

53. Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 20 (1904): 64, 68; Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 29, 44, 46, 49, 70, 276; and Dupuis, “La déclaration de guerre,” 733f.

54. Sugimura, De la déclaration de guerre, 210–15; see also Leroux, Le droit international, 261f.

55. Burkman, Japan and the League of Nations, 111–18, 172.

56. Howland, Douglas, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century: International Law and Transcultural Process,” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010):14–37Google Scholar. See http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/transcultural/article/view/1927. Takahashi reminds readers of the issue in International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 422f.

57. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 20f.

58. Nagaoka, “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international,” 490f.; and Seiji G. Hishida, The International Status of Japan as a Great Power (N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1905), 70f.

59. Leroux, Le droit international, 194. Japanese diplomacy regarding Korean neutrality, first raised on January 16 with the Italian minister, is reprinted in NGM, vol. 47: 310–32.

60. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 46–53; and Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre, 173f.

61. NGM, vol. 51: 95–127, 129–38; Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 112–16; Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 462–66; Jean-Marie de Lanessan, Les enseignements maritime de la guerre Russo-Japonaise (Paris: F. Alcan, 1905), 197f.; United States Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: 1904 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905), 780–85Google Scholar.

62. Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2d. ed., 63-76, 81f.; Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 116; Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 66–70; Matsumura, Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō, 12–14; and Leroux, Le droit international, 194–98, 205f.

63. Convention X, Articles 12–14, in Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 170.

64. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 124–26; Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 608–10; Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 390; and Leroux, Le droit international, 206f.

65. Seaman, Louis Livingston, From Tokio through Manchuria with the Japanese (N.Y.: Appleton & Co., 1905), 174–93Google Scholar; NGM, vol. 52: 102–81; Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 437–44; and Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: 1904: 139f.

66. Matsumura, Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō, 152–56; and Kajima, Nichi-Ro sensō, 173–85.

67. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 260–65; Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 292–96; and Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 116f.

68. Seaman, From Tokio through Manchuria with the Japanese, 175f.

69. Ibid., 425; and Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 442–44.

70. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 505–8; and Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 441f. A rare supporter of Japan was Maxey, Edwin, “The Russo-Japanese War and International Law,” American Law Review 39 (1905): 344Google Scholar.

71. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 440; and U. S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: 1905 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906): 760Google Scholar.

72. Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 625; Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 463.

73. Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 133, 209.

74. Ibid., 133; and Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 291.

75. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 202–4; and Scott, , The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 54–45Google Scholar.

76. Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 621.

77. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 149f.; Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 621–25; and Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 210.

78. Lindley, M.F., The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1926), 143–48Google Scholar.

79. Ibid., v–vi, 47.

80. Ibid., 32–46, 169–77; and Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 67–82, 93–96. See also Fenwick, Charles G., Wardship in International Law (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919)Google Scholar; and Keal, Paul, “Just Backward Children: International Law and the Conquest of Non-European Peoples,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 49 (2) (November 1995): 191–206Google Scholar.

81. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory, 217–19; and Leroux, Le droit international, 195–99.

82. Toru, Terao, “La question coréenne,” Revue politique et parliamentaire 1 (1894): 449–57Google Scholar; see also Agrawal, Brahm Swaroop, “The Opening of Korea and the Kanghwa Treaty of 1876,” Korean Observer 11 (1980): 139–55Google Scholar.

83. The English texts of the Anglo-Japanese agreements are available in John M. Maki, ed., Conflict and Tension in the Far East: Key Documents, 1894–1960 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961), 16–18.

84. Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 23.

85. McKenzie, F. A., The Tragedy of Korea (London: 1908; repr. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1969), 209–40Google Scholar. See also the statement of Mr. Stevens, American advisor to the Korean government, on February 14, 1905, in NGM, vol. 49, 631–34, and reports of United States rejections of Korean complaints in NGM, vol. 49, 669–72.

86. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 72; see also Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 274–85; and Kim, C.I. Eugene and Kim, Han-Kyo, Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 1876–1910 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 125–28Google Scholar. Wolfgang Seifert discusses the German support for Japan's actions in “Japan Großmacht, Korea Kolonie – völkerrechtliche Entwicklungen vor und nach dem Vertrag von Portsmouth 1905,” in Der Russisch-Japanische Krieg 1904/05, ed. Sprotte, et al., 55–82 (esp. 72–78).

87. Kim Ki-Jung, “The War and US-Korean Relations,” in The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero, vol. 2, 467–89. See also Claude MacDonald to the British Foreign Office, December 29, 1903, in British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, Part I, Series E, Volume 8, Ian Nish, ed., The Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905 (n.p.: University Publications of America, 1993), 159; Dennett, Tyler, Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War (Garden City: Doubleday, Page, & Co., 1925), 96–117Google Scholar; the Katsura-Taft Agreement of July 1905 in NGM, vol. 49, 448–52; Teramoto, Nichi-ro sensō igo no Nihon gaikō, 116–27; and United States Secretary of State Elihu Root's note to Japanese authorities on United States severance of relations with Korea in NGM, vol. 49, 673–75.

88. According to Ariga Nagao, Korea would have signed the protocol a month earlier, had Russia not protested; see La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 56. Japanese diplomatic records of the February 23 agreement are reprinted in NGM, vol. 47, 333–49.

89. English translations of the agreements are available in McKenzie, The Tragedy of Korea, 269–310; and The Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Korea: Treaties and Agreements (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 1921)Google ScholarPubMed, Pamphlet Series no. 43. Japanese versions and diplomatic records are reprinted in NGM, vol. 47, 350–79, and vol. 49, 519–89. The diplomacy is reviewed in Kajima, Nichi-Ro sensō, 230–70.

90. Huajeong Seok, “Russo-Japanese Negotiations and the Japanese Annexation of Korea,” in Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, vol. 2, 401–12; Teramoto, Nichi-ro sensō igo no Nihon gaikō, passim; and Yasutoshi Teramoto, “Japanese Diplomacy Before and After the War,” in The Treaty of Portsmouth and Its Legacies, ed. Ericson and Hockley, 24–40.

91. Rey, Francis, “La situation international de la Corée,” Revue générale de droit international public 13 (1906): 40–58Google Scholar. A recent critique of the treaties likewise raises formal errors; see Fukuju, Unno, “Kankoku heigō jōyaku-tō kyū-jōyaku mukōsetsu to kokusaihō – jōyaku no keishiki to teiketsu teitsuzuki nitsuite,” Nihon shokuminchi kenkyū 14 (June 2002): 21–33Google Scholar.

92. Murase, Shinya, “The Presence of Asia at the 1907 Hague Conference,” in Actualité de la Conférence de La Haye de 1907, Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ed. Daudet, Yves (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008), 85–101Google Scholar; Dudden, Alexis, Japan's Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2005), 7–20Google Scholar; and Kim and Kim, Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 144f. By 1919, the protectorate status of Korea was an unproblematic fact in international law, in spite of United States President Wilson's rhetoric encouraging an independence movement in Korea; see Willoughby, W. W. and Fenwick, C. G., Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919), 55f.Google Scholar; and Manela, Erez, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2007), 119–35, 197–213Google Scholar.

93. Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 461; and NGM, vol. 51, 450–53. The Japanese–French diplomacy is reprinted in NGM, vol. 51, 443–599.

94. de Lapradelle, Albert, “La nouvelle thèse du refus de charbon aux belligérants dans les eaux neutres,” Revue générale de droit international public 11 (1904): 531–64Google Scholar; Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 129f.; Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 202f.; Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 126–32; and Nagaoka, “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise,” 630.

95. Hall, William Edward, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 724–27Google Scholar; and Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed., vol. 2, 453–56.

96. Benton, Elbert J., International Law and Diplomacy of the Spanish-American War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1908), 190–94Google Scholar; and Scott, James Brown, ed., Resolutions of the Institute of International Law Dealing with the Law of Nations (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1916)Google Scholar, 154f.

97. Foreign Office to MacDonald, November 9, 1904, in British Foreign Office Archives, F.O. 46/634: [149f.]; Foreign Office to MacDonald, December 14, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [266f.]; “Memorandum Communicated to Viscount Hayashi,” December 13, 1904, in F.O. 46/636: [246]; and NGM, vol. 51, 690–704.

98. For Denmark, see Foreign Office to Lieck (?), December 10, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [170]; on Spain, see Algerton (?) to Foreign Office, December 22, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [440]; MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 15, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [476-81]; and Lansdowne to Nicolson, March 1, 1905, in F.O. 46/637: [240f.].

99. NGM, vol. 51, 487–506; MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 17, 1904, in F.O. 46/634: [257]; and MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 15, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [476–81]. See also Patrick Beillevaire, “Preparing for the Next War: French Diplomacy and the Russo-Japanese War,” in Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-05, vol 2, 73–87; and Kajima, Nichi-Ro sensō, 195–218.

100. See translation from Jiji shimpō, November 11, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [482–86]; MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 17, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [487f.]; and translation from Tokyo Asahi, November 17, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [489].

101. MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 15, 1904, in F.O. 46/635: [476–81].

102. Suematsu, The Risen Sun, 298–311.

103. Monson to Lansdowne, November 19, 1904, in F.O. 46/636: [22]; and Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 194–97.

104. Lapradelle, “La nouvelle thèse du refus de charbon,” 537f. (esp. 538n5); Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 197; Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 120–24; Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 459–63; T. Martens, “Extract from the Journal de Saint-Pétersbourg,” May 10, 1905, in F.O. 46/639: [115f.], and Prime Minister Alfred Balfour, in “The Appropriation Bill,” Times (London), August 12, 1904, 5.

105. Nagaoka, “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise,” 625–30.

106. NGM, vol. 51, 506–10, 518–34; Bunsen to Lansdowne, January 6, 1905, in F.O. 46/636: [86]; Lansdowne to Bertie, January 11, 1905, in F.O. 46/636: [160]; Lansdowne to MacDonald, January 11, 1905, in F.O. 46/636: [166]; MacDonald to Lansdowne, January 17, 1905, in F.O. 46/636: [183]; and Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 192–94. On the passage and demise of the Baltic Fleet, see Herwig Lorenz, Krieg im Gelben Meer: Der Russisch-Japanische Krieg 1904-1905 (n.p., 2005),104–46, 156–76; Saburō, Toyama, Nichi-Ro kaisen shinshi (Tokyo: Tokyo shuppan, 1987), 205–24Google Scholar; Westwood, J. N., Russia against Japan, 1904-05 (London: Macmillan, 1986), 137–51Google Scholar; and Yasushi, Toyoda, Nisshin - Nichi-Ro sensō [Nihon no taigai sensō: Meiji] (Tokyo: Bungeisha, 2009), 339–43, 360–63Google Scholar.

107. Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Actes et documents, vol. 3, 460–63.

108. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 150–56; and Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1, 634–44.

109. Scott, , The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 213Google Scholar.

110. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, and Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, understandably praise Japanese conduct, but see also Paul Fauchille, “Préface,” in Ariga, vii; Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy, 301, 319–24; and Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted, 8f.