1 Introduction
At the end of March 1879, tensions between Japan and Chinaâs Qing Dynasty heightened following the Government of Japanâs abolishment of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Domain and establishment of Okinawa Prefecture (âRyÅ«kyÅ« Dispositionâ). The Qing Government demanded that Japan withdraw its disposition because the RyÅ«kyÅ« Kingdom was a tributary state of China, leading to increased tension between both countries over the attribution of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Kingdom (âRyÅ«kyÅ« Attribution Issueâ).
In May 1879 and thereafter, there were two inquiries and replies between the Qing Government and the Government of Japan, where the claims of each party were reciprocated, and running parallel to this, mediation1 was carried out by former US President Ulysses S. Grant. Both Qing and Japan responded to this mediation and explored a venue for direct negotiations, with preliminary negotiations commencing in March 1880 and official negotiations taking place between August 18 and October 21, 1880. These resulted in an agreement2 in
How was the Ryūkyū Attribution Issue perceived under international law by Japan, China and the Western powers that had entered the region?
This question concerns the âacceptance of international lawâ3 by Japan and Qing, but it also goes beyond that. From the 1860s to 1870s, Japan not only accepted international law in its relations with Western powers, but also attempted to apply it to its relations with the countries of East Asia. Meanwhile, it has been pointed out that Qing had also begun using international law in its relations with Western powers, but instead of applying this
The relationship between acceptance of international law and the traditional East Asian order has conventionally been described in formulaic terms, with the arrival of European powers in East Asia bringing a view of order based on modern international law to the region, which collided with the traditional East Asian order, and Qingâs loss during the Sino-Japanese War paving the way for its collapse.6 This perception is likely an appropriate one, but as this discussion seems to have emerged, connecting several major points over the course of time, it has created room for a more detailed analysis of this process of change.
For example, until the 1860s, Western powers demanded and established their relations with Japan and Qing respectively based on international law, but in the 1870s, they âbegan to pay attention to the relationships between Qing and the vassal states surrounding the Chinese Empire.â7 In this context, the questions of what, at a certain point in time, Western powers thought about the norms applicable to JapanâQing relations or the order underlying them, and how such perceptions evolved over time, together with the perceptions of Asian countries, including Japan and Qing, are expected to provide important clues for elucidating how the view of order in this region changed.8
In contrast, there are not very many papers or discussions focusing on international law regarding the Ryūkyū Attribution Issue.10 In addition, except
Prior to the RyÅ«kyÅ« Disposition, at a meeting with Minister of Internal Affairs Terashima Munenori, held on January 13, 1879, British Minister to Japan Harry Smith Parkes pointed out, âGenerally speaking, the RyÅ«kyÅ« Islands are believed to belong to both Japan and Qing.â In response, Terashima said, âThe islands do not belong to both countries. RyÅ«kyÅ« has merely dispatched missions to present gifts to the Qing Emperor on occasion and does not pay taxes to Qing.â However, Parkes added, âAs long as tribute is paid to Qing, the RyÅ«kyÅ« Islands will be considered to belong to Qing.â Terashima replied by again pointing out that no taxes had been levied by Qing and stated that the Taiwan Expedition made clear that RyÅ«kyÅ« did not belong to Qing. Parkes responded that he had seen the provisions exchanged between Japan and Qing during the Taiwan Expedition, and that it contained no such text.12
This critical stance towards Japan undergoes a reversal in a memorandum by Satow17 (hereinafter âthe Satow Memorandumâ) that was attached to a letter18 sent to the Foreign Secretary, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, by Acting British Minister to Japan John G. Kennedy, dated February 13, 1880. Kennedy, who sent the memorandum, viewed it in a positive light.19 This memorandum
What are the implications of these changes in the British Legation in Japan? Can this mean that Britainâs basis for assessing Sino-Japanese relations shifted from the traditional East Asian view of the world order to the view of order based on modern international law? Or should it be viewed as a change based on some more specific background? Regarding the Satow Memorandum, Kennedy pointed out that âMr. Satow, after stating the views of each writer, proceeds to weigh the evidence, and pronounces in favour of the arguments adduced on behalf of Japan,â22 but what, in the first place, was asserted in the âde facto dispute between Japan and Chinaâ that triggered the memorandum and what did Satow place importance on in reaching the above conclusion?
This chapter will first elucidate the scope of the Satow Memorandum, which has not received much attention to date, and, after organizing the arguments therein, shed light on how Satow summarized the views of each author and what exactly Satow focused on in arriving at his conclusion. Based on that, it will explore the background of this evaluation and touch upon the significance thereof.
2
2.1 Scope of the Satow Memorandum
According to the Satow Memorandum and Kennedyâs letter concerning it, the Satow Memorandum examined the debate that played out across an article entitled Audi Alteram Partem (Listen to the Voices of Others), which was believed to be representative of Chinaâs position, appearing in the Japan Gazette between November and December 1879,23 and a rebuttal article24 entitled Rebuttal published in Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun from the end of January to the beginning of February 1880.25 Although not mentioned in the Satow Memorandum and Kennedyâs letter, the article itself published in Japan Gazette was intended to refute the âofficial position of the Japanese Governmentâ published in the Tokio Times on October 11, 1879.26 Therefore, arranged chronologically, there is
2.2 Debate on Newspapers between Japan and Qing
The views of the Japanese Government in Tokio Times consist of I. Ancient and Medieval History, ii. Geographical Relations, iii. Language, Religion, Race, and Customs, iv. Medieval and Early Modern History, and a section without a heading (Summary).29 The Qing rebuttal published in Japan Gazette has a
2.2.1 Ancient and Medieval History
In relation to ancient history, the Tokio Times article pointed out that (1) RyÅ«kyÅ« was called âMinami-shimaâ (written with the same characters (
In response, the article published in Japan Gazette first pointed out that (1) the name âRyÅ«kyÅ«â or âOkinawaâ had been used since China discovered the islands in 608, and that âNantÅâ (written with the same characters
In response to these objections from the Qing side, the âRebuttalâ first (1) examined in detail what Minami-shima refers to under the heading âOkinawa and Minami-shima Names,â and concluded that âShikaki is the current Ishigaki, while Kumi is also known as Kume-yama,â and that Minami-shima âis without a doubt the name that collectively refers to present-day RyÅ«kyÅ« and the Satsuma Islands.â35 Next, (2) under the heading âImperial Tributes of the Minami-shima Islands,â it emphasized that, regardless of whether RyÅ«kyÅ« was discovered by the Chinese or given its name by the Chinese, the RyÅ«kyÅ« people were not submissive to China during the Sui, Tang, Song, and Yuan dynasties, and that they had been making imperial tributes to Japan since that time.36 Furthermore, (3) under the heading âConsiderations of RyÅ«kyÅ« as Descendants of Tametomo,â the Rebuttal asserted the validity of the legend of Minamoto no Tametomo while citing historical works, and refuted the Chinese claim associated with the Yuan Dynasty.37
2.2.2 Geographical Relations As Well As Language, Religion, Race and Customs, etc.
(4) Each of the two countriesâ claims on geographical relations were brief.38 (5) With regard to its claims regarding language, religion, race, customs, etc., Japan only made a simple note that each of them had a strong connection with Japan.39 The Qing side refuted these issues in more detail, but also recognized that examining these points did not approach the âmain issue.â40 There was no refutation of this in the âRebuttal.â
2.2.3
Japanâs claims regarding medieval and early modern history focused on (6) the fact that in 1441 (the first year of Kakitsu) the RyÅ«kyÅ« Islands were bestowed to Shimazu Tadakuni by Ashikaga Yoshinori, became a dependency (Kakitsu Dependency), and belonged to Satsuma since then. As part of this, Japan stated that (7) as punishment for the failure of the RyÅ«kyÅ« King to pay tribute to Satsuma during the Sengoku Era, Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered Shimazu Iehisa to dispatch an expeditionary force to RyÅ«kyÅ« (i.e., to conquer it) and that RyÅ«kyÅ« belonged to Satsuma. It also pointed out that Shimazu Iehisa dispatched vassals to establish a tax collection system and issued a proclamation of 15 articles, and that ShÅnei along with the Council of Three took an oath to obey the proclamation.41
Regarding these points, the Chinese side first pointed out that, on the one hand, regarding (6) the Kakitsu Dependency, some historical sources improperly equated NantÅ with RyÅ«kyÅ«, and, on the other hand, also that there was no mention of this matter in other historical sources or that it could not access the historical sources on which Japan relied. Additionally, (7) regarding the abovementioned order by Tokugawa Ieyasu to dispatch an expeditionary force to RyÅ«kyÅ«, the Chinese side pointed out that Shimazu Tadatsune (Iehisa) asked Tokugawa Ieyasu for permission to dispatch military forces, RyÅ«kyÅ« was invaded by Satsuma soldiers in 1609, and the Amami Islands were placed under Satsuma control. Meanwhile, it also pointed out that tribute to the Ming Dynasty began during this period. The Chinese side also argued that there were problems with Japanâs translation of Shimazu Iehisaâs proclamation, and that the oaths taken by ShÅnei and the Council of Three were the product of barbaric times and did not constitute evidence of rule.42
In response to the point that the historical materials relied on by the Japanese side regarding the Kakitsu Dependency could not be accessed, the Rebuttal pointed out, under the heading (6) âConsideration of RyÅ«kyÅ« Affiliation with Satsuma during the Time of the Ashikaga Clan,â that this was an ancient record handed down by Satsuma. Developments after that were only very briefly touched upon.43
2.2.4
Based on the above points, the article in Tokio Times stated that âthere is no room to doubt the fact that RyÅ«kyÅ« has always been a dependency of Japan,â and proceeded to point out that (8) the abolition of RyÅ«kyÅ« and establishment of a prefecture was only a part of the administrative system arrangement following the Meiji Restoration and that (9) regarding the notion that RyÅ«kyÅ« paid tribute to Chinaâs dynasties, the latter had been deceived by the former. Furthermore, it stated that, (10) with regard to the claim that the disposition of RyÅ«kyÅ« violated the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Amity, in light of the facts that had heretofore been stated, namely the submission of RyÅ«kyÅ« to the military power of Japan and the fact that the rulers of Japan protected and ruled the RyÅ«kyÅ« people and created laws and taxed them, the claim that RyÅ«kyÅ« was Chinese territory âneeds no argumentative refutation,â and the above historical description was sufficient. (11) In response to the claim that RyÅ«kyÅ« belonged to both Japan and China, the article stated that the claim of âdual affiliationâ was not common, and pointed out again that the Chinese side had been deceived. It pointed out that China had only given purely nominal protection to RyÅ«kyÅ«, while Japan had exercised de facto sovereignty from time immemorial and had clarified its authority44 by military force. The article emphasized that Japan conquered RyÅ«kyÅ«, gave it its laws and a constitution, and bound its rulers. (12) The article also rejected the claim that RyÅ«kyÅ« was a semi-independent country, noting that Japan had never granted such independence to RyÅ«kyÅ«, and it pointed out that such claims were incompatible with the territorial ownership that the Sino-Japanese Articles of Amity was premised upon. In addition, touching upon recent developments, the article concluded the discussion by (13) pointing out that during the Taiwan Expedition, the right to dispatch military forces to punish the massacre of the people of RyÅ«kyÅ« by local people was not contested and was clearly permitted by the Qing Government, and finally, (14) emphasizing the importance of friendly relations between Japan and Qing.45
Meanwhile, the article in Japan Gazette first strongly condemned the suggestion that (9) China had been deceived by RyÅ«kyÅ« as a conspiracy by Satsuma. (11) It also refuted the claim that China was merely providing nominal protection to RyÅ«kyÅ« by citing the tribute from RyÅ«kyÅ«. Furthermore, it asserted that (15) (also related to (2)) âIf there is something like a âright to discovery,â ⦠that right belongs to China. If there is something like a right of conquest, â¦
In the âRebuttalâ published in response, what can be called a âsummaryâ was very brief. It only quoted and affirmed a passage from Xie Zhaozheâs Wuzazu that RyÅ«kyÅ« was a small country that could not maintain its independence, that it was awarded official status by China but also obeyed Japan, and that it could be easily attacked by Japan because of its proximity but China could assist it from across the ocean.47
3 Assessment of the Debate on Newspapers between Japan and Qing
The next issue is how Satow assessed the debate on newspapers between Japan and Qing. Before considering this point, the author would like to go on a slight tangent and present an overview of the assessment of this debate by Yamashita Shigekazu, a contemporary historian. This will make the significance of Satowâs assessment clearer.
3.1 Assessment by Yamashita Shigekazu
In an essay published in 2002, Yamashita Shigekazu examined the debate between Japan and Qing, and considered that âin terms of the debate over historical facts, the author of the Gazette article has by far the stronger argument.â48 In reaching this conclusion, Yamashita, in addition to a preliminary consideration, examined the basic structure of the debate by dividing the whole into âancient and medieval history,â âgeography, language, religion, race, and customs,â and âearly modern and modern history theory,â following the same basic structure as the debate. âEarly modern and modern historyâ corresponds to the history and summary of the medieval and early modern periods in Section 2 of this chapter.
Next, regarding âgeography, language, religion, race, and customsâ ((4) and (5) of the same section), Yamashita pointed out that, in response to the â[Japanese Government] notes,â which only âprovide a very brief descriptionâ of these topics, the Japan Gazette article âprovided a rebuttal from multiple angles, but Inoue Kowashiâs draft of the article did not respond to this at all.â52 In this regard, Yamashita pointed out that in the background was âthe dispute between the Chinese side, which insisted that the traditional tributary relationship with RyÅ«kyÅ« was one to be persistently maintained, and the Japan side, which insisted that the tributary system was merely a formal and ceremonial relationship,â and that Inoue Kowashi, who was well aware of this, âdeliberately did not delve into this issue, but emphasized only the substantive control of RyÅ«kyÅ« since the conquest by Satsuma.â53
Finally, with regard to âearly modern and modern history,â he first summarized the debate on the Kakitsu Dependency ((6) of the same section) and asserted that âfrom the current level of research, the Gazetteâs article pointed out that the Kakitsu Dependency was not a historical fact, and that the SatsumaâRyÅ«kyÅ« relationship had long been friendly and equal, which was far more plausible than Inoueâs rebuttal, which relied solely on the ancient records of Satsuma.â54
Based on these considerations, Yamashita concluded at the end of his paper that âit must be said that, in terms of the debate over historical facts, the author of the Gazette article has by far the stronger argument.â56 Without the need to reaffirm all the points, it can be said that Yamashita viewed the debate between Japan and China as âa debate over historical facts.â
3.2 Outline of the Satow Memorandum and Its Assessment
What was Satowâs assessment of the debate between Japan and Qing, compared with that of the contemporary historian Yamashita Shigekazu? First, the author would like to review the Satow Memorandum and then consider its assessment.
3.2.1 Overview of the Satow Memorandum and Summary by Satow
The Satow Memorandum was originally handwritten and spanned 31 pages.57 Here, the author would like to refer to the printed version published in bdfa2 for ease of review.58 In the memorandum, the summary of the article in Japan Gazette was very brief, while the introduction and summary of Japanâs claims in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun were more than three times the length. The assessment thereof was of almost the same length as the latter.59
At the beginning, the memorandum introduced the Japan Gazette article and enumerated the following five points which the articleâs author had aimed to make: (i) the Chinese origin of âRyÅ«kyÅ«â was older than the Japanese origin of âOkinawa,â and that NantÅ in ancient Japanese history books did not refer to
Furthermore, the purpose of the articleâs author was to show that the âright to discoveryâ and the âright of conquest,â if any, belonged to China ((15) of the same section), that China had exercised more than nominal protection of RyÅ«kyÅ« ((11) of the same section), and that Japanâs claim that it created the laws of RyÅ«kyÅ« was not supported by evidence ((10) of the same section).61
Meanwhile, the part corresponding to (i) above covered most of the summary of Japanâs claims, accounting for about two-thirds of the total. Next, Japanâs rebuttal related to (ii) and (iv) was summarized, and the summary concluded by referring to a passage from Xie Zhaozheâs Wuzazu.62 The summary generally reflected Japanâs claims appropriately.
3.2.2 Assessment by the Satow Memorandum
Satowâs assessment based on this summary followed the structure of (i) to (v) above.
First, regarding (i), Satow stated at the beginning of his assessment that the authors of the Japanese side, âis successful in proving that the islands belonging to the Loochoo group did in ancient times recognize the supremacy of Japan, and also that the latter country possessed some slight degree of authority in those islands as far as the erection of signposts goes.â He proceeded to state that, considering the reference to Ishigaki Island in the âRebuttal,â it would not be unfair to think that the people of RyÅ«kyÅ« had respect for the Japanese Imperial Court. On the other hand, however, the interactions between RyÅ«kyÅ« and the Japanese Imperial Court did not last very long, and in medieval times, the people of RyÅ«kyÅ« were able to maintain a more independent position. In contrast, the true authority of the Satsuma people over RyÅ«kyÅ« seemed to have begun with their invasion in the early 17th century, when they annexed the five islands under the control of the RyÅ«kyÅ« King.63
As for (iii) language, religion, race, and customs, Satow pointed out the closeness with Japan in a balanced manner, while considering the objections by Qing.65
(iv) With regard to doubts about the credibility of the assertions in the article in Japan Gazette on the Kakitsu Dependency, Satow found that the Qing sideâs debate prevailed in this respect.66
As for (v), Satow pointed out, regarding the lack of any points of refute in the âRebuttal,â that ânone is possible [in terms of refute].â67
It seems worth while to observe that the attitude of China in this question has been constantly misunderstood and misrepresented. She is frequently spoken of as laying a claim to sovereignty to Loochoo, and as disputing with Japan about proprietary rights. To exhibit the matter in this light is no doubt of great service to Japan, as the Chinese Government [has] never exercised any authority over the [RyÅ«kyÅ«] islands. The real position [of China] is that the Loochooans, finding their autonomy threatened by Japan, ⦠turned to China and besought her to use her influence to preserve them from being deprived of their independence. The justification for Chinaâs interference ⦠was the specific paternal relation, ⦠and China has simply supported their claim. The Loochooans, when ordered by Japan to break off their long-standing relations with China, refused to become guilty of what they considered would be base ingratitude [by severing ties], but offered to submit to incorporation in the Japanese Empire, if the Japanese Government would obtain by negotiation with that of China their release from the obligation.68
3.2.3 Key Aspects of the Assessment in the Satow Memorandum
The following points can be presented as the key aspects of Satowâs assessment.
First, he clearly stated the superiority of Japanâs claims concerning the issue of sovereignty over RyÅ«kyÅ«.70 This contrasts with the negative stance taken toward Japanâs claims by the British Legation in Japan mentioned in Section 1 above.
Second, one of the factors that led to this assessment can be said to be a somewhat indifferent stance toward the âdebate over historical facts.â This is evident from the point about the debate over the ancestry of the RyÅ«kyÅ« kings ((ii) above), whereby Satow denied its very significance, stating that it âcan be of little practical importance in the determination of the present dispute.â
This stance can also be seen in (i) above regarding ancient and medieval history. It can be said that Satow supported Japanâs claims on the relationship between RyÅ«kyÅ« and the Japanese Imperial Court in ancient times, but that itself did not lead to his assessment of Japanâs claim of sovereignty. The exchanges seen in ancient times did not continue through to the Middle Ages, especially the Sengoku Era, and Satow acknowledged that RyÅ«kyÅ« was able to maintain a more independent position. On the other hand, about the Kakitsu Dependency ((iv) above), he considered the Qing side to have won the debate on this point, but that did not lead to his assessment of the overall claim by Qing. It can be said that Satow drew no conclusions from the debate over historical facts from ancient times and the Middle Ages.71 Rather than starting from there, he focused on Satsumaâs rule over RyÅ«kyÅ« since the early modern period, whereby Satsumaâs true authority over RyÅ«kyÅ« began with the invasion in the early 17th century.
Third, in relation to the preceding point, it can be noted that, with regard to Japanâs claim of sovereignty, Satow emphasized the exercise of authority.
Fourth, again related to the same point, it is considered that Satow, while having taken due account of the traditional East Asian view of the world order, âproclaimed the superiorityâ74 of Japanâs claims in terms of âasserting sovereignty.â In the last part of the assessment, Satow pointed out that China and RyÅ«kyÅ« maintained their traditional East Asian view of the world order, and that China did not make claims based on the view of the order under modern international law, such as âasserting sovereignty.â
Section 1 of this chapter stated that Parkesâ view of the attribution of RyÅ«kyÅ« up to September 1879 was premised on a traditional East Asian view of the world order.75 In contrast, Satow, in his memorandum, while considering not only the existence of such a view of order, but also the fact that China and RyÅ«kyÅ« held said view, nevertheless âproclaimed the superiorityâ76 of Japanâs claims based on the criteria of âsovereignty,â âproprietary rights,â and âauthority,â or in other words, based on the order based on modern international law.
4 Background to the Assessment by the Satow Memorandum
As discussed above, Satowâs assessment of the issue of the attribution of RyÅ«kyÅ« had several key aspects and it differed greatly from the assessment presented by the British Legation in Japan up to September 1879, including
As such a background factor, one might imagine that there was some ordinance from Britain that indicated or instructed a change in the basis of assessment, but the text of Confidential Print: Correspondence respecting the loochoo islands 1879â82 mentioned in supra note 11 did not contain any instructions or otherwise to that effect.77 Said text also included exchanges between the Minister to Japan and the Minister to Qing, but even then, there was no exchange of views related to the basis for assessing JapanâQing relations.
With that being the case, it is conceivable that the assessment in the Satow Memorandum or the shift to such an assessment was based on some specific factor within the British Legation in Japan, especially in close proximity to Satow. Several such factors are conceivable,78 but actually it is rather difficult
4.1 Ryūkyū Attribution Issue within International Dispute Resolution Procedures
4.1.1 Grantâs Mediation and International Dispute Resolution Procedures
As mentioned in Section 1, after the âRyÅ«kyÅ« Dispositionâ at the end of March 1879, Grant mediated the dispute settlement between the two countries at the request of the Qing side, almost at the same time as the exchange of claims by letter (inquiry and reply) that began in May between the Meiji and Qing Governments. When Grant visited China, the Qing Government requested a âpublic reviewâ (
Grant subsequently sent a letter dated August 13, when he was in Japan, to Yixin (Prince Kung) and Iwakura Tomomi, proposing that commissioners from both sides be sent to negotiate directly, and that if an agreement could not be reached through negotiation, the matter should be referred to arbitration.81 It is reasonable to assume that the commissioners referred to here means âcommissioners employed for special objects, such as the settlement of frontiers, supervision of the execution of a treaty, etc.â82 which is cited as one form of âagents of a state in its international relationsâ in Hallâs International Law published in 1880. In this way, Grantâs proposal was for a dispute resolution procedure83 within the framework of international law.
Upon receipt of this, the Zongli Yamen (Office for the General Management of Affairs Concerning the Various Countries) replied in a letter to Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru dated September 20 that Japan and China should follow Grantâs advice and send out members to negotiate the RyÅ«kyÅ« issue.84 The Japanese Government responded in a letter from Foreign Minister Inoue to the Zongli Yamen dated October 22 that it would accept the holding of negotiations.85
4.1.2 Perception of the British Legation in Japan
Reflecting these developments, the British Legation in Japan also came to perceive that the issue of the attribution of Ryūkyū was positioned within the framework of international dispute resolution procedures.
Grantâs actions were also mentioned in Parkesâ September 9, 1879 letter to Wade,88 where the word âmediationâ is also found. Subsequently, the letter from Kennedy to the Foreign Secretary, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, dated October 31 of the same year made clear mention of the relationship with dispute resolution procedures, reporting, for example, that âboth parties [have] agreed to appoint Commissioners with a âview of coming to some settlementââ and that âthe Chinese Government act upon the advice conveyed to them by General Grant, to whose mediation they had submitted the Loochoo dispute during the Generalâs visit to China.â89 In the same letter, Kennedy also reported that he had received, from the Foreign Minister of the Japanese Government, copies of a letter from the Zongli Yamen to Foreign Minister Inoue dated September 20 and a letter from Foreign Minister Inoue to the Zongli Yamen dated October 22, and attached translations thereof.90 As mentioned above,
In addition, a letter from Kennedy to the Foreign Secretary, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, dated December 19, 1879 stated that Foreign Minister Inoue, who had visited Kennedy the day before (18th), had told him that the rumor that the US Government offered to mediate the Ryūkyū issue was unfounded, and that Japan had no intention of referring the matter to another country. The letter communicated that, in any case, no offer of mediation or arbitration had been made to Japan.91
Furthermore, after the Satow Memorandum, the subject of this chapter, was written, Kennedyâs letter to Salisbury dated February 26, 1880, reported on his meeting with Minister of Home Affairs ItÅ the previous day (25th). When Kennedy asked ItÅ about the letter by John Russell Young (who was accompanying Grant) published in The Times on December 19, 1879,92 which Kennedy said provided more detailed information on the RyÅ«kyÅ« question than previously published, ItÅ acknowledged that the letter was largely correct, and said, âLast summer General Grant was asked by the Chinese Government to arbitrate the Loochoo question. This office he declined, but promised his good offices with Japan. After hearing the Japanese case, ⦠[he] recommended the appointment of Commissioners on both sides.â93
In this way, between September 1879 and the time when the Satow Memorandum was written in February 1880, the British Legation in Japan was aware that the Ryūkyū issue was being discussed within the framework of international dispute resolution procedures, partly due to information provided by the Japanese Government, and that the possibility of referral to arbitration had been mentioned in the process.
4.2 Applicability of International Law
4.2.1 Perception Concerning the Intent of Japan and Qing
Even if the Ryūkyū Attribution Issue is positioned within the framework of international dispute resolution procedures and the possibility of referral to arbitration is recognized, the parties to the dispute can designate an alternative standard by agreement, and international law may not necessarily be the
First, in an inquiry to Foreign Minister Terashima dated August 22, 1879, the Zongli Yamen stated, âIn these days, as the nations of the world are like the members of a family, and fixed rules of law are imposed for their obedience, some great and wise men would necessarily appear before us to dictate what is equity and justice.â94 This letter to Terashima was translated by the Japanese Government and personally delivered to Kennedy by ItÅ on October 23 of the same year.95
Going slightly further back in time, a letter from Qing Minister to Japan He Ruzhang to Foreign Minister Terashima dated October 7, 1878, also condemned Japanâs disposition of RyÅ«kyÅ« âin light of public law.â96 A translation of this letter was also attached to a letter from Parkes to the Foreign Secretary, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury dated August 1, 1879. It is clearly translated as âin the light ⦠of international law.â97 Regardless of whether directly
Thus, given that he encountered the letter of He Ruzhang dated October 7, 1878 and the inquiry of the Zongli Yamen dated August 22, 1879 or the translation thereof, there is at least some evidence to suggest that when Satow positioned the Ryūkyū Attribution Issue within the framework of international dispute resolution procedures, he sought international law as a standard, rather than the traditional East Asian view of the world order.
4.2.2 Satowâs Knowledge of International Law
Nevertheless, questions may arise as to whether Satow had the ability to make an assessment based on international law. If books on the subject had been referenced in the debate on newspapers between Japan and Qing, it is conceivable that his assessment would have been based on them, but they were not referenced in the debate. In addition, the Satow Memorandum did not refer to any books related to international law. The author intends to conduct a full-fledged examination of this point in future works but, for now, will provide below a sketch of the aspects of Satowâs career that are of relevance to this point and explore the possibility that Satow used international law as a standard.
Satow graduated in 1861 with a degree from University College London, and although there is no record of him studying law or international law, he is believed to have begun studying law in 1875 during his administrative leave, attended lectures on Roman law at the University of Marburg in Germany in 1876, passed the British bar examination in 1883, and qualified as a barrister in 1887.99
Furthermore, Satowâs A Guide to Diplomatic Practice published in 1917 dealt with many issues in international law, with a focus on diplomatic law and the law of treaties.102 In addition to listing several manuals of international law in Appendix i (List of Works Referred to),103 it also featured a detailed list of works, primarily manuals, by British, American, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Russian, Portuguese, Brazilian, and Spanish-speaking South American essayists, together with annotations, in Appendix ii (International Law Literature for Diplomatists).104 In light of this, it can be assumed that Satow had a wealth of knowledge of international law at the time of its publication.
However, this does not necessarily indicate that Satow had a wealth of knowledge of international law in 1880. Moreover, the fact that Satow had begun studying law in the late 1870s suggests that he was in the process of acquiring a certain level of legal knowledge at the time of the memorandum, but the extent of this and the state of the intellectual environment105 around Satow at that time must be examined in future works.
Here, the author would like to introduce a work that was very readily available to Satow and concerned a subject that was very close to him, as well as a manual of international law referenced therein.
The former work is Is Aboriginal Formosa a part of the Chinese Empire?: An Unbiased Statement of the Question, with Eight Maps of Formosa, which was
The latter work is one by Bluntschli referred to in the former. Le Gendre merely stated, âMr. Bluntschli says [International Law, codified, page 165, §281,]â and gives no exact bibliographic information, but as far as the author knows, it is Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt,109 published in 1868 by Johann Casper Bluntshli. In fact, page 166, §281 of the same book pointed out that âno state has any right to incorporate more territory, uninhabited or inhabited by other states, than she has the ability (Macht) to civilize or politically organize.â110 The book is also listed in Appendix ii (International Law Literature for Diplomatists) of Satowâs A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, with the edition unspecified.111
These findings are consistent with Satowâs focus on sovereignty and authority, which he used as the basis for his assessment. It is not possible to clarify here whether Satow referred to these works, but the former was published also in Yokohama, and it can be said that such discussions occurred around Satow, who had been stationed in Japan since that time. Here, the author wishes to present this only as a hypothesis and to address this matter, including establishing Satowâs background and the intellectual environment around him in 1880, in future works.
5
The author has examined Ernest Satowâs memorandum on the RyÅ«kyÅ« Attribution Issue. As a result, it has become clear that Satow, having taken into consideration the de facto dispute between Japan and China, supported Japanâs claims by focusing on the exercise of authority, without delving deeply into the significance of imperial tributes or the theory of dual affiliation within the historical debate. It can be said that this memorandum was based on the order under modern international law, rather than the traditional East Asian view of the world order such as imperial tributes and dual affiliation as seen in the prior views expressed by Parkes and Satow.
However, it cannot be said that the Satow Memorandum represented or reflected a shift in Britainâs basis for assessing Sino-Japanese relations. Although the memorandum reflected Japan and Qingâs position on the specific case of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Attribution Issue, it concerned the debate on newspapers between Japan and Qing and was written by Satow in his position as a secretary of the British Legation in Japan, and no instructions from the British Government regarding a shift in the basis of assessment have been found to the best of the authorâs knowledge. Nor is it the case that the Satow Memorandum indicated that Qing recognized the application of international law in Sino-Japanese relations.112
On the other hand, it is thought that Satow, who had sufficient knowledge of the traditional East Asian view of the world order, wrote this memorandum against a backdrop of this issue coming to be positioned in the context of international dispute resolution procedures under the order based on modern international law, which was prompted by the involvement of former US President Grant, and the British Legation in Japan also being aware of this development. If that is indeed the case, it can be said that the fact that the assessment in the memorandum was made in accordance with the order based on modern international law, together with its background, offers a snapshot of the changing view of order in and related to East Asia.
As pointed out in Section 1 of this chapter, in the past, such changes in the view of order have been discussed in a way that connects several major points over time. While such macroscopic discussions are important, it is also
Furthermore, the importance of examining the process of change more precisely seems to apply to historical examinations of international law in general. For certain concepts and institutions, there is room to look more closely at the process of change, at least from the standpoint of historical research. How such concepts and systems were understood at a particular time may also be important in relation to, for example, specific territorial disputes.114
There are documents that position Grantâs involvement as âgood offices.â However, good offices and mediation are more or less the same in the sense that they are non-binding on the parties to the dispute, and it has been pointed out âthe two are often used interchangeably in positive lawâ (Yamamoto SÅji
This agreement was originally scheduled to be signed 10 days after the conclusion of the agreement with the approval of the Emperor of the Qing Dynasty. However, the Qing side later withdrew its agreement to the signing. On March 5 of the following year, 1881, the Qing side issued an imperial order to renegotiate, and rescinded the draft amendment to partition the islands. For the Ryūkyū Disposition, including the development leading up to it, see Watanabe Miki
There is much literature on the subject. For leading Japanese works in the field of international law, see Yanagihara Masaharu, âSignificance of the History of the Law of Nations in Europe and East Asia,â Recueil des Cours de lâAcademie de droit international de la Haye, vol. 371 (2015), 317â349; and Hamamoto ShÅtarÅ, âInternational Law, Regional Developments: East Asia,â in The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), vol. 5, 907â926; for diplomatic history, see Higashi Ajia Kindaishi
Kawashima Shin
Suzuki ShÅgo argued, regarding attribution issues of RyÅ«kyÅ«, that âthe abolition of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Kingdom and the subsequent dispute between China and Japan are the early clashes of two disparate international systems,â (Suzuki ShÅgo, Civilization and Empire: China and Japanâs Encounter with European International Society (London: Routledge, 2009), 161).
See Ånuma Yasuaki, âWhen was the Law of International Society Born? â An Inquiry of the History of International Law from an Intercivilizational Perspective,â Journal of the History of International Law, vol. 2 (2000), 1â66, esp., 30â32, 51â54; Suzuki, supra note 5, 175.
Motegi Toshio
Matsui hints at many discussions on this topic. See Matsui, supra note 2, 113 et seq.
On these points, see Aoyama Harutoshi
In addition to Ueda Toshio
Britain had compiled a booklet of âconfidentialâ information from letters and public telegraphs between its ministers to Japan and Qing and its Foreign Secretary (Confidential Print: Correspondence respecting the loochoo islands. 1879â82. Printed for the use of the Foreign Office. February 1883 (The National Archives (UK), fo881/4718)), which indicates that Britain had great interest in the matter. In addition, as will be mentioned later, the Japanese Government also actively provided information to the British Minister and Acting Minister to Japan (see infra notes 27, 90 and corresponding text to infra notes 91, 93, 95, 97).
âMeiji 12 Nen 1 Gatsu 13 Nichi Eikoku KÅshi RaishÅ GaimukyÅ tono Taiwa Ryakki (RyÅ«kyÅ«han Ikken)â
fo881/4718/5 (fo46/247, no. 140).
fo881/4718/5(iv) (fo46/247, no. 140(iv); Ian Nish (ed.), British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, Part i, From the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the First World War, Series E, Asia, 1860â1914, vol. 2, Korea, the RyÅ«kyÅ« Islands, and North-East Asia, 1875â1888 (Federick: University Publications of America, 1989) (hereinafter, bdfa2), 62â68). See also, Suzuki, supra note 5, 157.
fo881/4718/13 (fo46/247, no. 163).
For the concept of tribute and dual affiliation in the traditional East Asian view of the world order, see Motegi, supra note 7, 61â65; for the plurality of such views of order, see Arano Yasunori
fo881/4718/50(i) (fo46/256, no. 26(i); bdfa2, supra note 14, 70â74).
fo881/4718/50 (fo46/256, no. 26; bdfa2, supra note 14, 69â70).
See text corresponding to infra note 22.
It was not the official opinion of both countries that was published in the newspapers. Nevertheless, since the articles were written by the government affiliates of each country, this was described as a âde facto dispute between Japan and Qing.â See infra notes 23, 24, 26.
fo881/4718/50(i) (fo46/256, no. 26(i); bdfa2, supra note 14, 70â74).
fo881/4718/50 (fo46/256, no. 26; bdfa2, supra note 14, 69â70).
Published in parts across November 29, 1879, December 6, 1879, December 20, 1879, and January 10, 1880. The author referred to âAudi Alteram Partem â A Critique, The Japan Gazette, 1879,â in The Demise of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Kingdom: Western Accounts and Controversy, Yamaguchi Eitetsu and Arakawa YÅ«kÅ (eds.) (Ginowan: YÅjushorin, 2002), 27â61 (hereinafter, âAudi Alteram Partemâ) as a summary of these. According to the Satow Memorandum and Kennedyâs letters on this topic, the article is believed to have been written by an American interpreter (Dr. McCartee) working at the Chinese Legation in Japan.
Published in parts on January 28, 29, 31 and February 9, 1880. A rough draft written by Inoue Kowashi at the request of ItÅ Hirobumi remains (âYokohama Shimbun Bakuron SÅkÅâ
fo881/4718/50 (fo46/256, no. 26; bdfa2, supra note 14, 70); fo881/4718/50(i) (fo46/256, no. 26(i); bdfa2, supra note 14, 70â71).
âAudi Alteram Partem,â supra note 23, 27. The article published in Tokio Times is included as âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«, The Tokio Times, 1879â (hereinafter, âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«â) in Yamaguchi and Arakawa (eds.), supra note 23, 12â26. While the expression âthe official statement of the Japanese Governmentâ is seen in the article published in Japan Gazette, the article published in Tokio Times is in fact almost identical to Memorandum upon the Claim of Japan to the Absolute and Undivided Sovereignty of the Riu Kiu Islands, with Reference to the Opposing Claims of the Government of China (July 1879) (fo881/4718/20(ii) (fo46/248, no. 187(ii)) published by the Japanese Government (hereinafter, âJapanese Government memorandumâ). The same memorandum is a translation of âShina Seifu no KÅron ni Taishite Waga Nihon ni RyÅ«kyÅ«tÅ o SenryÅsuru no Syuken Aru no Oboegakiâ
The aforementioned âJapanese Government memorandumâ note 26, which is almost identical to the article, was passed from the Japanese Government (Minister of Home Affairs ItÅ Hirobumi) to the British Legation in Japan (Acting Minister Kennedy), (fo881/4718/20 (fo46/248, no. 187)), with Satow being in a position where he may have come across it.
For an examination of the abovementioned Tokio Times article, Japan Gazette article, and Inoue Kowashiâs draft of the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun article, see Yamashita, supra note 24. The same work, as will be described later, suggested that âin terms of debate over historical facts, the author of the Gazette article has by far the stronger argumentâ (ibid., 89). This chapter does not delve into âhistorical disputes,â but rather focuses on Satowâs assessment with regard to the debate. Meanwhile, Satowâs assessment is also introduced in Zhang, supra note 10, 23. However, said article does not discuss in detail the debate in the news articles nor Satowâs assessment thereof. This chapter, however, does focus on these points.
Here, it is described as a âsummary,â but as will be seen later, it was not simply a summary of the preceding assertions; rather, it also touched on the relationship between the assessment of RyÅ«kyÅ«âs dual affiliation, the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Amity, and the dispatch of troops to Taiwan. The volume of the summary in the Tokio Times article is comparable to the total of i to iv excluding the reference material section.
I. (Reexamination of History), ii. (Geographical Relationship), iii. (Language, Religion, Race, Customs), iv. (Early Modern History), v. (Shimazu Iehisaâs Ordinance), Summary. Parts i to iv comprises over 90% of the total, while the Summary makes up less than 10%.
The Tokio Times article, as laid out in Yamaguchi and Arakawa, supra note 23, comprises 60 lines for i, 16 lines for ii, 43 lines for iii, 58 lines for iv, plus 102 lines for reference materials (Shimazu Iehisaâs Ordinance, Oath of Shou Ning, Oath of the Council of Three), and 187 lines for summary. The Japan Gazette article, following the same layout, comprises 321 lines for i, 34 lines for ii, 286 lines for iii, 296 lines for iv, 51 lines for V, and 94 lines for summary. The latter is 2.3 times as long as the former with the reference materials included; if reference materials are excluded for the former, the latter is about 3 times the volume of the former.
âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«,â supra note 26, 12â13. There are records of rank conferment in 707, arrival of islanders from Minami-shima and other islands at the Japanese Imperial Court in 715, dispatch of the Dazai-shi (Chief of the Dazaifu local government office) to Minami-shima and erection of a stone monument with inscription of the islandâs name in 735, and the words âMinami-shima is under the jurisdiction of Dazaifuâ in the Engishiki (a Japanese corpus of laws and regulations compiled in 927).
Ibid., 13. The son of Minamoto no Tametomo (Sonton) named himself ShuntennŠand became the first Ryūkyū king. The lineage ended for a time but was later revived.
âAudi Alteram Partem,â supra note 23, 27â37.
âBakugi Dai 1 Penâ
âBakugi Dai 2 Henâ
âBakugi Dai 3 Penâ
For Japanâs claim, see âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«,â supra note 26, 14. For Chinaâs claim, see âAudi Alteram Partem,â supra note 23, 37â38.
âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«,â supra note 26, 14â15.
âAudi Alteram Partem,â supra note 23, 38â47. Early modern history, which will be reviewed next, is part of the âmain issueâ (ibid., 47).
âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«,â supra note 26, 16â17. The proclamation and oath are included afterwards (ibid., 17â21).
âAudi Alteram Partem,â supra note 23, 51â58.
âBakugi Dai 4 Penâ
It is described as âsovereigntyâ in the Japanese Government notes (âJapanese Government notesâ supra note 26, 347).
âJapan and RyÅ«kyÅ«,â supra note 26, 21â26.
âAudi Alteram Partem,â supra note 23, 58â61.
âBakugi Dai 4 Penâ
Yamashita, supra note 24, 89. Also see supra note 28.
See supra note 26.
This refers to âYokohama Shimbun Rebuttal Draftâ by Inoue Kowashi, supra note 24.
Yamashita, supra note 24, 65â70.
Ibid., 72. This point is not mentioned in the âRebuttalâ published in Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun.
Ibid., 72â75.
Ibid., 76â80.
Ibid., 80â86.
Ibid., 89. Yamashita proceeded with his argument based on the premise that Inoue Kowashiâs draft was not published (ibid., 86â93). However, as stated above, it was published in Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun (see supra note 24).
fo46/256, no. 26(i).
bdfa2, supra note 14, 70â74 (see supra note 18). The same notes span four pages in appearance.
The former was 28 lines, the latter was 97 lines. It is reasonable to assume that the difference was due to the latter being written in Japanese. The assessment section was 99 lines long.
bdfa2, supra note 14, 70â71 (fo881/4718/50(i); fo46/256, no. 26(i)).
Ibid., 71.
Ibid., 71â72.
Ibid., 72â73.
Ibid., 73.
Ibid. On this note, it is recalled that Satow had published the discussion of âNote on Loochooâ in 1874 in Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. 1, 1â9 (the same study was published in Patrick Beillevaire (ed.), RyÅ«kyÅ« Studies Since 1854, vol. 2 (London: Curzon Press, and Tokyo: Edition Synapse, 2002)).
bdfa2, supra note 14, 73 (fo881/4718/50(i); fo46/256, no. 26(i)).
Ibid.
Ibid., 73â74. For RyÅ«kyÅ«âs position, see Satow Memorandum dated July 6, 1879 (fo881/4718/5(iv); fo46/247, no. 140(iv); bdfa2, supra note 14, 66).
bdfa2, supra note 14, 74 (fo881/4718/50(i); fo46/256, no. 26(i)).
Satow stated, âTo exhibit the matter in ⦠light [of sovereignty] is no doubt of great service to Japan.â (See text corresponding to supra note 68.) See text corresponding to supra note 22 for Kennedyâs evaluation of this point.
Regarding the dispute over language, religion, race and customs ((iii) above), while Satow noted closeness to Japan, that did not lead to his assessment of Japanâs claims (bdfa2, supra note 14, 73 (fo881/4718/50(i); fo46/256, no. 26(i))).
However, Satow did not go into the details of Satsumaâs rule of RyÅ«kyÅ« since the early modern period. As Yanagihara pointed out in supra note 2 (âShioki, FuyÅ, Zokkoku and Sovereigntyâ), 5, the positioning of RyÅ«kyÅ« in the early modern period can be thought of as âa very ambiguous situation, when viewed from present perspectives, â¦, which cannot be grasped from the perspective of modern law and modern international law.â It seems that Satow also suggested a disconnect between the modern period and the Meiji Era in the memorandum created on July 6, 1879. (See text corresponding to supra note 14).
See supra note 32.
See supra note 70.
See text corresponding to supra note 16.
See supra note 70.
Of the documents on which this booklet (fo881/4718) was based, the author has not been able to comprehensively examine the documents sent from Japan to the Legation in Japan (fo262) and those addressed to the Legation in Qing (fo228), and intends to address this in future works. As for items addressed to Japan from the Legation in Japan and the Legation in Qing (fo17 and fo46), the author has conducted a comprehensive examination of the items for the period covered by fo881/4718 and included all items that deemed to be important.
For example, one of the reasons could be the fact that Kennedy served as the Acting Minister while Minister Parkes was back in Britain in February 1880. (See Frederick Victor Dickens (Takanashi Kenkichi
Another reason could have been that the danger of a war between Japan and Qing had been avoided between the end of 1879 and the beginning of 1880. In the letter to which the Satow Memorandum was attached, Kennedy showed agreement with Satowâs view that there was almost no doubt that Japan and Qing would resolve this issue peacefully, and requested the Foreign Secretary to especially consider this point (fo881/4718/50 (fo46/256, no. 26; bdfa2, supra note 14, 70)). At the time, the avoidance of war or armed conflict in the region was important for Britain from the standpoint of maintaining its trade with China. As such, it is conceivable that Britainâs viewpoint changed from a time of crisis (or when one was perceived) and a time when the crisis had been averted.
The meaning of
Hakoda, supra note 2, 5â8. See supra note 1 regarding âgood officesâ and âmediation.â
âAugust 13, 1879: To Prince Kung and Iwakura Tomomi,â in John Y. Simon (ed.), The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, vol. 29: October 1, 1878-September 30, 1880 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008), 213â215. See Hakoda, supra note 2, 5â6.
Hall, supra note 1, 251.
See supra note 1.
ââRyÅ«kyÅ« Shozoku ni Kanshi Nisshin RyÅkoku Fungi Ikkenâ 104 (1879 Nen) 9 Gatsu 20 Ka Shinkoku SÅri Kakkoku Jimu Å Daijin yori GaimushÅ Ate (RyÅ«kyÅ« Anken KaishÅ ni Kansuru Ken)â ã
ââRyÅ«kyÅ« Shozoku ni Kanshi Nisshin RyÅkoku Fungi Ikkenâ 107 (1879 Nen) 10 Gatsu 22 Nichi Inoue GaimukyÅ yori Shinkoku SÅri Kakkoku Jimu Å Daijin Ate (RyÅ«kyÅ« Anken KaishÅ ni Kansuru MÅshide ni Taishi KaitÅ no Ken)â ã
For the Japanese Governmentâs longstanding wariness about arbitration by Grant, see Hakoda, supra note 2, 7â8, 11â16.
See supra note 79 for the ambiguity of
fo881/4718/16(iii) (fo46/247, no. 161(iii)).
fo881/4718/19 (fo46/248, no. 194; bdfa2, supra note 14, 26).
fo881/4718/19(i)(ii) (fo46/248, no. 194(i)(ii)). However, the former is dated September 22 and the latter is dated October 20. In addition, the Japanese Government passed important exchanges with Qing concerning this matter along to Britain, including the letter from the Qing Minister in Japan to Japanese Foreign Minister Terashima dated October 7, 1878, the inquiry dated May 10, 1879, review dated July 16, 1879, and the inquiry dated August 22, 1879.
fo881/4718/38 (fo46/248, no. 205).
It is believed to be December 17, 1879 (see John Russell Young, âThe RyÅ«kyÅ« Question, The Times, 1879,â in Yamaguchi and Arakawa (eds.), supra note 23, 75â79).
fo881/4718/51 (fo46/256, no. 36; bdfa2, supra note 14, 29).
ââRyÅ«kyÅ« Shozoku ni Kanshi Nisshin RyÅkoku Fungi Ikkenâ 103 (1879 Nen) 8 Gatsu 22 Nichi Shinkoku SÅri Kakkoku Jimu Å Daijin yori Shinkoku ChÅ«taisatsu Shishido KÅshi Ate (RyÅ«kyÅ« Shozoku o Ronji Waga Haihan Chiken ni KÅgi MÅshide no Ken)â ã
fo881/4718/20, fo881/4718/20(iv) (fo46/248, no. 187, and no. 187(iv)).
ââRyÅ«kyÅ« Shozoku ni Kanshi Nisshin RyÅkoku Fungi Ikkenâ 124 (1878 Nen) 10 Gatsu 7 Ka Shinkoku KÅshi yori Terashima GaimukyÅ Ate (RyÅ«kyÅ« wa Ganrai Shinkoku no Hanzoku Jichi no Kuni Naruni Naze Nihon wa Sono ShinkÅ o Sashitometaruka no Ken)â ã
fo881/4718/5 and fo881/4718/5(i), (fo46/247, no. 140 and no. 140(i)).
In addition, regarding the debate within Qing on the use of international law in dealing with the RyÅ«kyÅ« issue, see Hakoda, supra note 2, 4; Zhang Tian-en, supra note 10, 29â32; Nishizato, supra note 2, 301â305. In a meeting with Grant during his visit to China, Lee Hongzhang said that the disposition of RyÅ«kyÅ« âwould violate public law,â and that he urged attention to international law regarding the RyÅ«kyÅ« issue (ibid. (Nishizato), 325; Okamoto, supra note 96, 92). The record of this meeting written by Young, who accompanied Grant, was published in the New York Herald (âAround the World: General Grantâs Mediation between China and Japan,â in New York Herald, Aug. 16, 1879, 4), in which the words âinternational lawâ are used several times. It is conceivable that the British Legation in Japan was also aware of this information.
Ian C. Ruxton (ed.), The Diaries and Letters of Sir Ernest Mason Satow (1843â1929): A Scholar-Diplomat in East Asia (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998) 437 note 20, 109, 111, 153, 172. From the point of interest of this paper, it is worth noting that he started studying law in the late 1870s, but the significance of these matters will be left for future research.
Harold W. V. Temperley, âSatow, Sir Earnest Mason (1843â1929),â in John R. H. Weaver (ed.), The Dictionary of National Biography: 1929â1930 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937), 748â749. See Ruxton, supra note 99, 349â351.
Ibid. See appendix (1) and 363 (âPublished Worksâ).
Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice (London: Longman, Green & Co., 1917).
Ibid., vol. 2, 363â369.
Ibid., 370â374.
For example, it is noted that Vattelâs work (Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires des nations & des Souverains (London: Apud Liberos Tutior, 1758)) was frequently referred to for diplomatic relations in the 19th century, particularly the first half of the century (Arthur Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (London: Macmillan, 1947), 161). Whether Satow referred to it or to other books related to international law should be the subject of future works.
Anonymous (Charles Le Gendre), Is Aboriginal Formosa a Part of the Chinese Empire?: An Unbiased Statement of the Question, with Eight Maps of Formosa (Shanghai, Hongkong and Yokohama: Lane, Crawford & Co.; Foochow: Hedge & Co.; Amoy: Wilson, Nichols & Co., 1874). For author, see Robert Eskildsen, âAjia no Naka no Amerikajinâ
See the works cited in note 9 above regarding the fact that Japan incorporated Le Gendreâs opinion in formulating this logic.
Anonymous (Le Gendre), supra note 106, 8.
Johann Casper Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1868), 166.
Ibid. Same as in the second edition published in 1872 (169), and the third edition published in 1878 (170).
Satow, supra note 102, vol. 2, 373.
See the text corresponding to note 68 above. In addition, in the process of negotiating an agreement once reached between Japan and Qing regarding the resolution of this issue, the Qing side strongly desired that Ryūkyū remain its vassal state, and in that respect, it is thought that Qing maintained its traditional East Asian view of order (see the documents listed in note 2 above).
In this respect, Hakoda Keikoâs research (supra note 2, note 79, and âShinmatsu ChÅ«goku no Shimbun, Zasshi ni Miru ChÅ«sai Saibankanâ
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Japanese
âBakugi Dai 1 Penâ é§è°ç¬¬ä¸ç·¨ [Rebuttal Part 1]. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbunæ±äº¬æ¥æ¥æ°è, January 28, 1880.
âBakugi Dai 2 Henâ é§è°ç¬¬äºç·¨ [Rebuttal Part 2]. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbunæ±äº¬æ¥æ¥æ°è, January 29, 1880.
âBakugi Dai 3 Penâ é§è°ç¬¬ä¸ç·¨ [Rebuttal Part 3]. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun æ±äº¬æ¥æ¥æ°è, January 31, 1880.
âBakugi Dai 4 Penâ é§è°ç¬¬åç·¨ [Rebuttal Part 4]. Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun æ±äº¬æ¥æ¥æ°è, February 5, 1880.
Inoue Kowashi Denki Hensan Iinkai äºä¸æ¯ å³è¨ç·¨çºå§å¡æ, ed. Inoue Kowashi den. ShiryÅ hen no. 5äºä¸æ¯ å³ å²æ編第5 [Life of Kowashi Inoue, Historical Materials, vol. 5]. Tokyo: Kokugakuin University Library, 1975.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ed. Nihon GaikÅ Bunshoæ¥æ¬å¤äº¤ææ¸ [Diplomatic Documents of Japan], vol. 11, 12. Tokyo: United Nations Association of Japan, 1950, 1949.
Yokoyama, Manabu 横山å¦, ed. RyÅ«kyÅ« Shozoku Mondai Kankei ShiryÅççæå±åé¡é¢ä¿è³æ [RyÅ«kyÅ« Attribution Issue Related Documents], vol. 4. Tokyo: HonpÅ Shoseki, 1980.
Western Language
âAround the World: General Grantâs Mediation between China and Japan.â New York Herald, August 16, 1879.
Nish, Ian, ed. British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, Parti, From the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the First World War, Series E, Asia, 1860â1914, vol. 2, Korea, the RyÅ«kyÅ« Islands, and North-East Asia, 1875â1888. Federick: University Publications of America, 1989.
Nish, Ian, ed. British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, Parti, From the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the First World War, Series E, Asia, 1860â1914, vol. 21, Treaty Revision and Sino-Japanese Dispute over Taiwan, 1868â1876. Federick: University Publications of America, 1989.
Simon, John Y., ed. The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, vol. 29: October 1, 1878âSeptember 30, 1880. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.
The National Archives of the UK. fo17/676; fo46/247; fo46/248; fo46/256; fo881/4718.
Secondary Sources
Japanese
Aoyama, Harutoshi é山治ä¸. âTaiwan Shuppei Jikenâ å°æ¹¾åºå µäºä»¶ [Taiwan Expedition Incident]. In Handobukku Kindai ChÅ«goku GaikÅshiãã³ãããã¯è¿ä»£ä¸å½å¤äº¤å² [Handbook of Modern Chinese Diplomatic History], edited by Okamoto Takashi 岡æ¬éå¸ and Hakoda Keiko ç®±ç°æµå. Tokyo: Minerva ShobÅ, 2019.
Arano, Yasunori èéæ³°å ¸. Kinsei Nihon to Higashi Ajiaè¿ä¸æ¥æ¬ã¨æ±ã¢ã¸ã¢ [Modern Japan and East Asia]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1988.
Dickens, Frederick Victor. PÄkusu Den â Nihon ChÅ«zai no Hibiãã¼ã¯ã¹ä¼ â æ¥æ¬é§å¨ã®æ¥ã [The Life of Sir Harry Parkes: Minister Plenipotentiary to Japan]. Translated by Takanashi Kenkichi é«æ¢¨å¥å. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1984.
Eskildsen, Robert. âMeiji 7 Nen Taiwan Shuppei no Shokuminchiteki Sokumenâ ææ²» 7å¹´å°æ¹¾åºå µã®æ¤æ°å°çå´é¢ [Colonial Aspects of the 1874 Taiwan Expedition]. In
Meiji Ishin to Ajiaææ²»ç¶æ°ã¨ã¢ã¸ã¢ [Meiji Restoration and Asia], edited by Meiji Ishin Shigakukai. Tokyo: Yoshikawa KÅbunkan, 2001. Eskildsen, Robert. âAjia no Naka no Amerikajinâ ã¢ã¸ã¢ã®ä¸ã®ã¢ã¡ãªã«äºº [Americans in Asia]. In Meiji Ishin to GaikÅææ²»ç¶æ°ã¨å¤äº¤ [Meiji Restoration and Diplomacy], edited by Meiji Ishin Shigakukai ææ²»ç¶æ°å²å¦ä¼. Tokyo: YÅ«shisha, 2017.
Hakoda, Keiko ç®±ç°æµå. âRyÅ«kyÅ« Shobun o Meguru Nisshin KÅshÅ to ChÅ«sai Saiban Seidoâ ççå¦åããããæ¥æ¸ 交æ¸ã¨ä»²è£è£å¤å¶åº¦ [The Arbitration System and the Sino-Japanese Negotiation over the Annexation of RyÅ«kyÅ«]. ShisÅ å²çª 77 (2020): 1â23.
Hakoda, Keiko ç®±ç°æµå. âShinmatu ChÅ«goku ni Okeru ChÅ«saisaibankan â 1860, 70 Nendai o ChÅ«shin niâ æ¸ æ«ä¸å½ã«ããã仲è£è£å¤è¦³ â 1860ã70年代ãä¸å¿ã« [The Understanding of Arbitration in Late Qing: Focusing on the Decades of the 1860s and 70s]. KyÅto Joshi Daigaku Daigakuin Bungaku KenkyÅ«ka KenkyÅ«kiyÅ Shigakuhen京é½å¥³å大å¦å¤§å¦é¢æå¦ç 究ç§ç 究ç´è¦å²å¦ç·¨ 17 (2018): 1â32.
Higashi Ajia Kindaishiæ±ã¢ã¸ã¢è¿ä»£å² no. 2 (1999).
Higashi Ajia Kindaishiæ±ã¢ã¸ã¢è¿ä»£å² no. 3 (2000).
Ichinose, Norie ä¸ç¬åæµ. âMeiji Shoki ni okeru Taiwan Shuppei Seisaku to KokusaihÅ no TekiyÅâ ææ²»åæã«ãããå°æ¹¾åºå µæ¿çã¨å½éæ³ã®é©ç¨ [Taiwan Expedition Policy and Application of International Law in the Early Meiji Era]. Hokudaishigakuå大å²å¦ 35 (1995): 23â49.
Kawashima, Shin å·å³¶ç. ChÅ«goku Kindai GaikÅ no Keiseiä¸å½è¿ä»£å¤äº¤ã®å½¢æ [Formation of Modern Chinese Diplomacy]. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press, 2004.
Kobayashi, Takao å°æé夫. âTaiwan Jiken to RyÅ«kyÅ« Shobun â Rujandoru no Yakuwari SaikÅ â (2)â å°æ¹¾äºä»¶ã¨ççå¦å â ã«ã¸ã£ã³ãã«ã®å½¹å²åè â (2) [Taiwan Incident and RyÅ«kyÅ« Disposition: Reconsidering the role of Le Gendre (2)]. Seiji Keizai Shigaku æ¿æ²»çµæ¸å²å¦ 341 (1994): 13â32.
Kobayashi, Takao å°æé夫. 19 Seiki Igirisu GaikÅ to Higashi Ajia 19ä¸ç´ã¤ã®ãªã¹å¤äº¤ã¨æ±ã¢ã¸ã¢ [19th Century British Diplomacy and East Asia]. Tokyo: SairyÅ«sha, 2012.
Kurihara, Jun æ åç´. âTaiwan Jiken (1871â1874 Nen) â RyÅ«kyÅ« Seisaku no Tenki to Shiteno Taiwan Shuppeiâ å°æ¹¾äºä»¶(1871â1874å¹´) â ççæ¿çã®è»¢æ©ã¨ãã¦ã®å°æ¹¾åºå µ [Taiwan Incident (1871â1874): Dispatch of troops to Taiwan as a turning point in RyÅ«kyÅ« policy]. Shigaku Zasshi å²å¦éèª 87, no. 9 (1978): 60â85.
Matsui, YoshirÅ æ¾äºè³é. KokusaihÅ gakusha ga Yomu Senkaku Mondaiå½éæ³å¦è ãããå°é£åé¡ [The Senkaku Issue as Read by International Law Scholars]. Tokyo: Nippon HyÅronsha, 2014.
Mitani, Hiroshi ä¸è°·å. Nihonshi no Naka no âFuhenâæ¥æ¬å²ã®ãªãã®ãæ®éã [Searching for Generalities in Japanese History]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 2020.
Motegi, Toshio èæ¨æ夫. âChÅ«kateikoku no âKindaiâ teki Saihen to Nihonâ ä¸è¯å¸å½ã®ãè¿ä»£ãçåç·¨ã¨æ¥æ¬ [The Modern Reorganization of the Chinese Empire and Japan]. In Iwanami KÅza Kindai Nihon to Shokuminchi 1 Shokuminchi Teikoku Nihon岩波è¬åº§è¿ä»£æ¥æ¬ã¨æ¤æ°å° 1 æ¤æ°å°å¸å½æ¥æ¬ [Iwanami Lectures Modern Japan and Colonies vol. 1 Colonial Empire Japan], edited by Åe Shinobu 大æ±å¿ä¹å¤«, et al. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1992.
Namihira, Tsuneo 波平æç·. Kindai Higashi Ajiashi no Nakano RyÅ«kyÅ« HeigÅ â ChÅ«ka Sekai Chitsujo kara Shokuminchi Teikoku Nihon eè¿ä»£æ±ã¢ã¸ã¢å²ã®ãªãã®ççä½µå â ä¸è¯ä¸ç秩åºããæ¤æ°å°å¸å½æ¥æ¬ã¸ [The Disposition of RyÅ«kyÅ« in the History of Modern East Asia: From the Chinese World Order to the Colonial Empire of Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2014.
Nishizato, KikŠ西éåè¡. Shinmatsu ChÅ« RyÅ« Nichi Kankeishi no KenkyÅ«æ¸ æ«ä¸çæ¥é¢ä¿å²ã®ç 究 [A Study of Relations between China, Ryukyu and Japan in Late Qing Period]. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press, 2005.
Okamoto, Takashi 岡æ¬éå¸. ChÅ«goku no TanjÅä¸å½ã®èªç [The Birth of China]. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press, 2017.
Åkubo, Yasuo å¤§ä¹ ä¿æ³°ç«. BowasonÄdo to KokusaihÅ â Taiwan Shuppeijiken no TÅshizuãã¯ã½ãã¼ãã¨å½éæ³ â å°æ¹¾åºå µäºä»¶ã®éè¦å³ [Boissonade and International Law: Perspective of the Taiwan Expedition]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2016.
Toyota, Tetsuya è±ç°å²ä¹. â19 Seiki Higashi Ajia to KindaikokusaihÅ no KokkachÅ«shinshugi no Keiseiâ 19ä¸ç´æ±ã¢ã¸ã¢ã¨è¿ä»£å½éæ³ã®å½å®¶ä¸å¿ä¸»ç¾©ã®å½¢æ [19th-century East Asia and the Formation of State-Centrism in Modern International Law]. KokusaihÅ GaikÅ Zasshiå½éæ³å¤äº¤éèª 116, no. 4 (2018): 1â19.
Ueda, Toshio æ¤ç°æ·é. âRyÅ«kyÅ« no Kizoku o Meguru Nisshin KÅshÅâ ççã®å¸°å±ãç¹ãæ¥æ¸ äº¤æ¸ [Sino-Japanese Negotiations Concerning the RyÅ«kyÅ« Attribution]. TÅyÅ Bunka KenkyÅ«syo KiyÅ æ±æ´æåç 究æç´è¦ 2 (1951): 151â201.
Yamamoto, SÅji å±±æ¬èäº. KokusaihÅå½éæ³ [International Law]. Tokyo: YÅ«hikaku, 1994 (New Edition).
Yamashita, Shigekazu å±±ä¸éä¸. ââJapan Gazettoâ Ronsetsu no RyÅ«kyÅ« Shobun Hihan to Inoue Kowashi no Hanronâ ãã¸ã£ãã³ã»ã¬ã¼ãããè«èª¬ã®ççå¦åæ¹å¤ã¨äºä¸æ¯ ã®åè« [Criticism of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Disposition in the Japan Gazette Article and Kowashi Inoueâs Counterargument]. Kokugakuin HÅgakuåå¸é¢æ³å¸ 40, no. 1 (2002): 53â94.
Yamashita, Shigekazu å±±ä¸éä¸. Zoku RyÅ«kyÅ« Okinawashi KenkyÅ« Josetsuç¶ ççã»æ²ç¸å²ç 究åºèª¬ [Continued Introduction to RyÅ«kyÅ« and Okinawan History Research]. Tokyo: Ochanomizu ShobÅ, 2004.
Yanagihara, Masaharu. âNihon ni okeru Kindai YÅroppa KokusaihÅ no JuyÅâ æ¥æ¬ã«ãããè¿ä»£ã¨ã¼ãããå½éæ³ã®å容 [Reception of Modern European International Law in Japan]. In Kokusai HÅgaku no ShosÅå½éæ³å¦ã®è«¸ç¸ [Aspects of International Law Studies], edited by EtÅ Junichi æ±è¤æ·³ä¸. Tokyo: Shinzansha, 2015.
Watanabe, Miki 渡辺ç¾å£. ââRyÅ«kyÅ« Shobunâ to RyÅ«kyÅ« Bunkatsu KÅshÅ â Nisshin Kankei no Tenkiâ ãççå¦åãã¨ççåå²äº¤æ¸ â æ¥æ¸ é¢ä¿ã®è»¢æ© [RyÅ«kyÅ« Disposition and Negotiation on RyÅ«kyÅ« Partitioning: Turning Point of JapanâQing Relations]. In Handobukku Kindai ChÅ«goku GaikÅshiãã³ãããã¯è¿ä»£ä¸å½å¤äº¤å² [Handbook of Modern Chinese Diplomatic History], edited by Okamoto Takashi 岡æ¬éå¸ and Hakoda Keiko ç®±ç°æµå. Tokyo: Minerva ShobÅ, 2019.
Zhang, Chixiong å¼µåé. âNisshin Gokan JyÅyaku ni Oite RyÅ«kyÅ« no Kizoku wa Kettei Saretaka?âæ¥æ¸ äºææ¢ç´ã«ããã¦ççã®å¸°å±¬ã¯æ±ºå®ãããã [Did the Sino-Japanese Treaty Determine the Attribution of RyÅ«kyÅ«?]. Okinawa Bunka KenkyÅ«æ²ç¸æåç 究 19 (1992): 95â129.
Zhang, Tian-en 張天æ©. âRyÅ«kyÅ« Mondai o Meguru Nisshin KÅshÅ to KokusaihÅâ ççåé¡ããããæ¥æ¸ 交æ¸ã¨å½éæ³ [Sino-Japanese Negotiations and International Law over the RyÅ«kyÅ« Issue]. Socio-scienceã½ã·ãªãµã¤ã¨ã³ã¹ 26 (2020): 18â39.
Western Languages
Anonymous (Charles Le Gendre). Is Aboriginal Formosa a Part of the Chinese Empire?: An Unbiased Statement of the Question, with Eight Maps of Formosa. Shanghai, Hongkong and Yokohama: Lane, Crawford & Co.; Foochow: Hedge & Co.; Amoy: Wilson, Nichols & Co., 1874.
Beillevaire, Patrick, ed. Ryūkyū Studies Since 1854, vol. 2. London: Curzon Press and Tokyo: Edition Synapse, 2002.
Casper, Johann Bluntschli. Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt .Munich: C. H. Beck, 1868.
Hall, William Edward. International Law .Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880.
Hamamoto, ShÅtarÅ. âInternational Law, Regional Developments: East Asia.â In The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 5, edited by Rüdiger Wolfrum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Nussbaum, Arthur. A Concise History of the Law of Nations. London: Macmillan, 1947.
Ånuma, Yasuaki. âWhen was the Law of International Society Born? â An Inquiry of the History of International Law from an Intercivilizational Perspective.â Journal of the History of International Law 2 (2000): 1â66.
Ruxton, Ian C., ed. The Diaries and Letters of Sir Ernest Mason Satow (1843â1929): A Scholar-Diplomat in East Asia. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998.
Satow, Ernest. A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. London: Longman, Green & Co., 1917.
Suzuki, ShÅgo. Civilization and Empire: China and Japanâs Encounter with European International Society. London: Routledge, 2009.
Temperley, Harold W. V. âSatow, Sir Earnest Mason (1843â1929).â In The Dictionary of National Biography: 1929â1930 edited by John R. H. Weaver. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937.
Yamaguchi, Eitetsu and YÅ«kÅ Arakawa, eds. The Demise of the RyÅ«kyÅ« Kingdom: Western Accounts and Controversy. Ginowan: YÅjushorin, 2002.
Yanagihara, Masaharu. âSignificance of the History of the Law of Nations in Europe and East Asia.â Recueil des Cours de lâAcademie de droit international de la Haye 371 (2015): 317â349.
Yanagihara, Masaharu. âShioki, FuyÅ, Zokkoku and Sovereignty.â The Japan Institute of International Affairs, 2021. https://www.jiia-jic.jp/en/resourcelibrary/pdf/Shioki_Fuyo_Zokkoku_and_Sovereignty.pdf.
Yanagihara, Masaharu. âSome Thoughts on the Concept of Territory in the Late Edo and Early Meiji Periods.â The Japan Institute of International Affairs, 2021. https://www.jiia-jic.jp/en/resourcelibrary/pdf/Shioki_Fuyo_Zokkoku_and_Sovereignty.pdf.