Advertisement

International Legal Grounds for State Sovereignty

  • Douglas Howland

Abstract

International law in the nineteenth century was an assemblage of multiple forms of law: the natural law of nations (the “natural” inclusion of all polities as well as state will and self-defense in warfare), the legal positivism of multilateral treaties, and the novelty of international administrative law. Under a regime of unfair treaties, Japan was forced into European international society in the 1850s, and the new Meiji state after 1867 proceeded to westernize, to industrialize, and to internationalize. Contrary to versions of history promoted by legal positivism, the English School of international relations, and the fitfulness of treaty revision conferences, Japan was neither victim nor fool but engaged all three forms of international law as it asserted its sovereignty and achieved parity with the great powers.

Keywords

Nineteenth Century Sovereign State State Sovereignty Global Order Legal Positivism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998), 47–54, 61–6; and Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of Legal Argument [reissue edition] (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 132, 225. But see the critique of David Kennedy, “International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion,” Quinnipiac Law Review 17 (1997): 99–138 (esp. 122–5).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana ([1866] repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 27f, 44, 75f; Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co., 1874), 50; James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1883–84), vol. 1: 139–56; Carlos Calvo, Dictionnaire manuel de diplomatie et de droit international public et privé (Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht [etc.], 1885), 401f; T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 56f; John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 86–90, 110–20; William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 50f, 55–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stephen D. Krasner, “Problematic Sovereignty,” in Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities, ed. Stephen Krasner (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 1–23; see also Martti Koskenniemi, “Conclusion: Vocabularies of Sovereignty—Powers of a Paradox,” in Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present, and Future of a Contested Concept, ed. Hent Kalmo and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 222–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lauri Mälksoo, “The Context of International Legal Arguments: ‘Positivist’ International Law Scholar August von Bulmerincq (1822–1890) and His Concept of Politics,” JHIL 7.2 (2005): 181–209; and Alexander Orakhelashvili, “International Law, International Politics, and Ideology,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Alexander Orakhelashvili (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011), 328–75 (esp. 345–53).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amnon Lev, “The Transformation of International Law in the 19th Century,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Orakhelashvili, 118 [111–42]. James L. Hevia notes the ways that sovereignty was manifested in both diplomatic protocol and territorial assumptions in the conflicts between Britain and China; see English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 61–6, 144–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 84f, 137f; and Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 132–6. More recently, Arnulf Becker Lorca has done more to include Japan in a global history of international law: Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otherwise excellent surveys of the Japanese engagement with international law treat the nineteenth century in passing and focus on the material that appears here in Chapter 5. See Shinobu Junpei, “Vicissitudes of International law in the Modern History of Japan,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 50.2 (1951): 196–234; Itō Fujio, “Kokusaihō,” in Kindai Nihon hō-shisōshi, ed. Noda Yoshiyuki and Aomi Jun’ichi, (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1979), 461–502; Ōnuma Yasuaki, “Japanese International Law in the Prewar Period,” JAIL 29 (1986): 23–47; R. P. Anand, “Family of ‘Civilized’ States and Japan: A Story of Humiliation, Assimilation, Defiance, and Confrontation,” JHIL 5 (2003): 1–75; Akashi Kinji, “Japan-Europe,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 724–43; and Urs Matthias Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 1919–1960 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013), 48–84.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For example, both Kōzai Shigeru (“Japan’s Early Practice of International Law: The Law of Neutrality,” [Osaka Gakuin Daigaku] Kokusaigaku ronshū 7.1 [1996]: 17) and Okagaki Tomoko (The Logic of Conformity: Japan’s Entry into International Society [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013], 59) claim that Japanese failed to “truly understand” the international legal concept of neutrality at the time of the Franco-Prussian War. I make a different argument in Chapter 2 of this book.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yokota Kisaburō, “Wagakuni ni okeru kokusaihō no kenkyū,” in his Kokusaihō ronshū (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1976), vol. 1: 247–60; Itō Fujio, “One Hundred Years of International Law Studies in Japan,” JAIL 13 (1969): 19–34; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Seiō kokusaihōgaku no Nihon e no inyū to sono tenkai,” Hōritsu ronsō 42.4–5–6 (1969): 343–70; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō no dōnyū,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 71.5–6 (1973): 33–58; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō ishiki,” Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 48.2 (1975): 1–31; John Peter Stern, The Japanese Interpretation of the “Law of Nations,” 1854–1874 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979); Satō Tōru, Bakumatsu-Meiji shoki goi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1986), 161–97, 356–93; Kōzai Shigeru, “Japan’s Early Encounter with the Western Law of Nations,” (Osaka Gakuin Daigaku) Kokusaigaku ronshū 5.2 (1994): 75–96; Douglas Howland, Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002); Douglas Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century: International Law and Transcultural Process,” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010): 14–37. More refined work in this vein has explored the complex connections, on the one hand, between indigenous Confucian ideas of “Heaven’s” or “natural” law and European natural law, and on the other hand, in the shift from natural law to positive law as Japan engaged the discipline of international law. See Ohira Zengo, “Japan’s Reception of the Law of Nations,” Annals of the Hitotsubashi Academy 4.1 (1953): 55–66; Kuriyama Shigeru, “Historical Aspects of the Progress of International Law in Japan,” JAIL 1 (1957): 1–5; Yamamoto Soji, “Japanese Approaches and Attitudes towards International Law,” JAIL 34 (1991): 115–24; Murase Shinya, “Nihon no kokusaihōgaku ni okeru hōgenron no isō,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 96.4–5 (1997): 175–203.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akashi Kinji, “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations: A Brief History of International Law in Japan c. 1853–1900,” in East Asian and European Perspectives on International Law, ed. Michael Stolleis and Masaharu Yanagihara (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004), 1–21; Akashi Kinji, “Methodological Aspects of Japan’s Encounter with the Modern Law of Nations,” Keiō Law Review 11 (2010): 2–4, 11f.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Yasuoka Akio, “Bankoku kōhō to Meiji gaikō,” Seiji keizai shigaku 200 (1983): 188–200; Miyazaki Shigeki, “History of the Law of Nations—Regional Developments: Far East,” in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rudolf Bernhardt and Peter Macalister-Smith, (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992–2000), vol. 2: 802–9; Akashi, “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations,” 7–9; Morita Tomoko, Kaikoku to chigaihōken (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005); Mitani Hiroshi, “The Transformation of Diplomatic Norms in East Asia during the Nineteenth Century: From Ambiguity to Singularity,” Acta Asiatica 93 (2007): 89–105; and Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 161–7; K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 18–27, 144–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 15.
    Michele Acuto and Simon Curtis, eds., Reassembling International Theory (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Christian Bueger and Frank Gadinger, International Practice Theory: New Perspectives (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    Hidemi Suganami, “Japan’s Entry into International Society,” in The Expansion of International Society, ed. H. Bull and A. Watson, 185–99; and Gerrit Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). A prominent precursor to this argument was Alexander von Siebold, Japan’s Accession to the Comity of Nations, trans. Charles Lowe (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1901).Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Turan Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Shogo Suzuki, Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society (London: Routledge, 2009); Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Brett Bowden, The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 20.
    Barry Buzan and George Lawson, “The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly 57.3 (2013): 620–34; Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000), 20f. Buzan and Lawson make an excellent differentiation between “Western-centric” history and the expansion of a European power advantage in The Global Transformation: History, Modernity, and the Making of International Relations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 21.
    Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 9–11; Shogo Suzuki, “Japan’s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society,” European Journal of International Relations 11.1 (2005): 137–64; Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 22.
    See Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 3, Global Empires and Revolutions, 1890–1945 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 100–27, 384–97.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Iokibe Kaoru, Jōyaku kaiseishi: hōken kaifuku e no tenbō to nashonarizumu / Meiji Treaty Revision: The Prospect for a Unified Jurisdiction and Nationalism (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 2010), 3–9, 17–9; Iokibe Kaoru, “Independence and Opposition: Consequences of Treaty Revision in Meiji Japan,” University of Tokyo Journal of Law and Politics 9 (2012): 63–80. My argument in Chapter 3 disagrees with this interpretation.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    See recent works by Fujiwara Akihisa, Nihon jōyaku kaiseishi no kenkyū: Inoue, Okuma no kaisei kōshō to Ō-Bei rekkoku, (Tokyo: Yūshōdō shuppan, 2004); Inoue Yuichi, “From Unequal Treaty to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1867–1902,” in The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations, vol. 1, The Political-Diplomatic Dimension, ed. Ian Nish and Yoichi Kibata (New York: St. Martin’s; London: Macmillan, 2000), 131–58; Komiya Kazuo, Jōyaku kaisei to kokunai seiji (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2001); Ōishi Kazuo, Jōyaku kaisei kōshōshi, 1887–1894 (Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 2008); Louis G. Perez, Japan Comes of Age: Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the Unequal Treaties (Cranberry, NJ: Associated University Presses; Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    While my approach to legal positivism is largely informed by Anglo-American legal scholarship, P. H. Kooijmans (The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States: An Inquiry into the Foundations of International Law [Leyden: A. W. Sythoff, 1964], 90f) and Tetsuya Toyoda (Theory and Politics of the Law of Nations: Political Bias in International Law Discourse of Seven German Court Councilors in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries [Leiden: Nijhoff, 2011], 149–60) take a different approach informed by German scholarship. They identify Johann Jakob Moser (1701–85) as an early positivist because of Moser’s rejection of a state of nature and natural equality, and linkage of equality to the sovereignty of states. For an alternative assessment of Moser, see Martti Koskenniemi, “International Law and raison d’état: Rethinking the Prehistory of International Law,” in The Roman Foundations of the Law of Nations: Alberico Gentili and the Justice of Empire, ed. Benedict Kingsbury and Benjamin Shaumann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 297–339 (esp. 331f).Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 43–46. See also Benjamin Lahusen, Alles Recht geht vom Volksgeist aus: Friedrich Carl von Savigny und die moderne Rechtswissenschaft (Berlin: Nicolai, 2013), Chapter 2. I am grateful to Richard Reitan for alerting me to this work.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    Eli T. Sheppard, Extra-territoriality in Japan, ([Tokyo ]: n.p., 1879), 1–4, 18.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Andrew Fitzmaurice, “The Resilience of Natural Law in the Writings of Sir Travers Twiss,” in British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier, ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 137–59; Kooijmans, The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States, 57–86 passim; Alexander Orakhelashvili, “The Relevance of Theory and History—The Essence and Origins of International Law,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Orakhelashvili, 3–22. Cf. Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, The European-African Encounter: A Study in Treaty-Making (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973), 10–12, 19, 31f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 31.
    “Extract from Dispatch of Alcock to Medhurst,” as enclosure in Terashima to Parkes, 1873,12.20, in Great Britain, Foreign Office Archives 881/2504: 30. Hereafter cited FO. See also Juliane Kokott, “States, Sovereign Equality,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), online edition accessed March 2012, www.mpepil.com.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    See Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 40–55; and Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth—in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, trans. G. L. Ulman (New York: Telos Press, 2003), 134.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 35f; Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 115; Tetsuya Toyoda, “L’aspect universaliste du droit international européen du 19ème siècle et le statut juridique de la Turquie avant 1856,” JHIL 8 (2006): 22–32.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Stephen Hall, “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order, and the Limits of Legal Postivism,” European Journal of International Law 12.2 (2001): 269–307; Jörg Fisch, “The Role of International Law in the Territorial Expansion of Europe, 16th–20th Centuries,” ICCLP Review 3 (2000): 5–15; Blandine Kriegel, “The Rule of the State and Natural Law,” in Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty, ed. Ian Hunter and David Saunders (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 13–26; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 4th ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 43–4, 152–3, 197–8; and Vaughan Lowe, International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 25–6. See E. H. Carr on the context of “international morality” and a “general sense of obligation,” The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 [2nd ed.], (New York: Palgrave: 2001), 141–3, 159–61; for a theological analysis, see E. B. F. Midgely, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London: Paul Elek, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 36.
    Paul Keal, “‘Just Backward Children’: International Law and the Conquest of Non-European Peoples,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 49.2 (1995): 191–206. For critiques of this perspective, see Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ix–xii; and Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 37.
    Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, ed. Michel Senellart, trans. Graham Burchell (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 239.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
  34. 39.
    William E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983); and Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (London: Tavistock, 1972), 65–6.Google Scholar
  35. 40.
    Michel Serres, with Bruno Latour, Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 42.
    Wilhelm Röhl has argued that because “the actual situation of the reign, organization of the government, its authority, and the rights and duties of its subjects constitute the essence of a state,” Japan arguably had a constitution before 1868. The overthrow of the Tokugawa Bakufu dissolved that, and the Meiji state required a new constitution. See “Constitutional Law,” in History of Law in Japan Since 1868, ed. Röhl (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 29.Google Scholar
  37. 43.
    Yongjin Zhang, “Curious and Exotic Encounters: Europeans as Supplicants in the Chinese Imperium, 1513–1793,” in International Orders in the Early Modern World: Before the Rise of the West, ed. Shogo Suzuki, Yongjin Zhang, and Joel Quirk (London: Routledge, 2014), 55–75; Shogo Suzuki, “Europe at the Periphery of the Japanese World Order,” in idem, 76–93; Pär Cassel, Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 15–38; Zhaojie Li, “International Law in China: Legal Aspect of the Chinese Perspective of World Order” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1995), 39–41; and Noriko Kamachi, “Chinese in Meiji Japan,” in The Chinese and the Japanese, ed. Akira Iriye (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 58–73.Google Scholar
  38. 45.
    Essential reading is Michel Senellart, Machiavélisme et raison d’état: XIIe–XVIIe siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1989), 5–55, for Senellart denies Machiavelli’s relation to raison d’état. I am grateful to Christian Roques for alerting me to this work.Google Scholar
  39. 46.
    Peter Burke, “Tacitism, Skepticism, and Reason of State,” in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 479–84; Alfred Dufour, “Pufendorf,” in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. Burns, 584–86; Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 237–45, 257–60; Kriegel, “The Rule of the State and Natural Law,” 13–26; Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’Etat and Its Place in Modern History, trans. Douglas Scott (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 2–7, 58–62, 120, 207–10, 275; and Ōnuma Yasuaki, ed., A Normative Approach to War: Peace, War, and Justice in Hugo Grotius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 116, 235–8, 249, 282–5, 296, 368–9. For a significant critique of this history, see Koskenniemi, “International Law and raison d’état.”Google Scholar
  40. 47.
    Anthony Carty, Philosophy of International Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), Chapter 4; Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, Chapter 2; and Peter Schröder, “Natural Law, Sovereignty, and International Law,” in Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty, ed. Hunter and Saunders, 204–18. The best work to date on the legality of the European conquest of the Americas remains Jörg Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 48.
    Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace,” in Political Writings, ed. H. A. Reiss, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 102–5; and John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Wilfrid E. Rumble (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 123–5, 171, 175–6. Helpful critiques of legal positivism include Anthony Carty, “Did International Law Really Become a Science at the End of the Nineteenth Century?” in Constructing International Law: Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012), 229–47; Kennedy, “International Law and the Nineteenth Century,” 111–19; Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989), 67–71.Google Scholar
  42. 49.
    See James Crawford, “Sovereignty as a Legal Value,” in The Cambridge Companion to International Law, ed. James Crawford and Martti Koskenniemi (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 116–33; and William V. O’Brien, “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law,” World Polity 1 (1957): 109–76 (esp. pp. 156–76).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 50.
    O’Brien, “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law,” 119–31; Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law, 238–44; Coleman Phillipson, International Law and the Great War (London: Fisher Unwin, 1915), 27–38; Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 239–41; Chris Jochnick and Roger Normand, “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War,” Harvard International Law Journal 35 (1994): 49–95 (esp. pp. 63–65). “Necessities of war” became an international legal principle with the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions of the laws of war on land; see The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, ed. James Brown Scott, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1918), 117.Google Scholar
  44. 51.
    Senellart, Machiavélisme et raison d’état, 31–5; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Paci Libri Tres, trans. Francis W. Kelsey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 599–600; and Samuel Pufendorf, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, trans. Carew (London, 1729; repr. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2005), 202–12.Google Scholar
  45. 52.
    Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920) 1: 214–21; Burleigh Cushing Rodick, The Doctrine of Necessity in International Law (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928), 1–25, 47, 119; O’Brien, “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law,” 128–31; and D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense in International Law (New York: Praeger, 1958), 3–10. Westlake insinuated this point as early as 1894; see Chapters on the Principles of International Law, 266.Google Scholar
  46. 54.
    Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 46f, 52–65; see also Arnulf Becker Lorca, “Universal International Law: Nineteenth-Century Histories of Imposition and Appropriation,” Harvard International Law Journal 51.2 (2010): 486–503.Google Scholar
  47. 55.
    See Liliana Obregón, “Completing Civilization: Creole Consciousness and International Law in Nineteenth-Century Latin America,” in International Law and Its Others, ed. Anne Orford (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 247–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 56.
    Brett Bowden, “The Colonial Origins of International Law: European Expansion and the Classical Standard of Civilization,” JHIL 7.1 (2005): 1–23; Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, 3–23, 187–200; Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, 12–4, 86–91; and Georg Schwarzenberger, “The Standard of Civilization in International Law,” Current Legal Problems 8 (1955): 212–34.Google Scholar
  49. 58.
    Toyoda, “L’aspect universaliste du droit international européen,” 19–37. See also Fedor Fedorovich Martens [F. de Martens], Traité de droit international, trans. Albert Leo (Paris: Librairie Marescq ainé, 1883–1887), vol. 1: 240f; Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht, 217, 284f; Iver B. Neumann and Jennifer M. Welsh, “The Other in European Self-Definition: An Addendum to the Literature on International Society,” Review of International Studies 17 (1991): 327–48 (esp. pp. 333–44); and Michelle Burgis, “Faith in the State? Traditions of Territoriality, International Law, and the Emergence of Modern Arab Statehood,” JHIL 11.1 (2009): 37–79 (esp. pp. 63–5).Google Scholar
  50. 60.
    Gong declares that the “standard of civilization” was “implicit” until Wheaton articulated it in his 1846 edition (The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, 26f), while Anghie points to the 1866 edition of Wheaton as a major iteration of the civilized nature of the international community (Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 53). By contrast, Martti Koskeniemmi emphasizes Lorimer’s work of 1883 (The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 129). See also Bowden, “The Colonial Origins of International Law.” Recall that Edward Said’s Orientalism (New York: Pantheon, 1978) emphasized the “othering” of Orientals as a set of attributes defined as the inverse of European qualities.Google Scholar
  51. 62.
    There is a huge body of literature regarding Japanese development of civil law in the Meiji period. The formative study of the development of Japanese civil law and treaty revision is Nakamura Kikuo’s Zōtei kindai Nihon no hōteki keishiki: jōyaku kaisei to hōten hensai (Tokyo: Yūrindō, 1958). For recent points of departure, see Röhl, ed., History of Law in Japan Since 1868; Hisashi Harata, “L’exterritorialité, la juridiction consulaire et le droit international privé: une réflexion sur le droit international privé à la fin de XIXème siècle,” in Constructing International Law, ed. Nuzzo and Vec, 331–61; and Kinoshita Tsuyoshi, “Japanese Law and Western Law,” in Wege zum japanischen Recht: Festschrift für Zentaro Kitagawa, ed. Hans G. Leser and Tamotsu Isomura (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992), 199–219. An insightful discussion of legal codification is Pierre Bourdieu, In Other Words (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  52. 63.
    Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 148. See also Gerry Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 19, 154–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 64.
    Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 182–89; George W. Keeton, “Extraterritoriality in International and Comparative Law,” Recueil des cours 72 (1948, pt. I): 283–391 (esp. 327–36); and Li, “International Law in China: Legal Aspect of the Chinese Perspective of World Order,” 273–80. See also Richard T. Chang, “The Question of Unilateral Denunciation and the Meiji Government, 1888–92,” in Japan in Transition: Thought and Action in the Meiji Era, 1868–1912, ed. Hilary Conroy et al. (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Press, 1984), 174–92; and Yongjin Zhang, “China’s Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of ‘Civilization,’” Review of International Studies 17.1 (1991): 3–16.Google Scholar
  54. 65.
    Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 134f; Liliana Obregón, “The Civilized and the Uncivilized,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2012), 917–39; and Tsutsui Wakamizu, “Gendai kokusaihō ni okeru bunmei to chii,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 66.5 (2/1968): 37–70. See also Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 52–63; and Becker Lorca, “Universal International Law,” 495–503. Nonetheless, Buzan and Lawson reiterate the argument that the “standard of civilization” was a politico-legal requirement imposed upon allegedly “uncivilized” nations such as Japan and based in the rise of positive international law; see The Global Transformation, 174–6, 198f.Google Scholar
  55. 67.
    Fukuzawa Yukichi, An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, trans. D. Dilworth and G. Hurst (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1973).Google Scholar
  56. 68.
    John Boli, “Sovereignty from a World Polity Perspective,” in Problematic Sovereignty, ed. Stephen Krasner (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 54f.Google Scholar
  57. 69.
    George M. Thomas, “World Polity, World Culture, World Society,” International Political Sociology 4 (2010): 115–9.Google Scholar
  58. 71.
    Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 124.Google Scholar
  59. 72.
    John W. Meyer, John Boli, and George M. Thomas, “Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account,” and John W. Meyer, “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State,” both in George M. Thomas, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli], Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual (Newbury Park, NJ: Sage, 1987), 12–40 and 41–70 respectively.Google Scholar
  60. 73.
    Meyer, “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State,” 42, 55; and John W. Meyer and Ronald L. Jepperson, “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency,” Sociological Theory 18.1 (2000): 101–20. However, world polity scholarship is silent about Christianity as a traditional value.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 75.
    See especially Frank Lechner and John Boli, World Culture: Origins and Consequences (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 76.
    John Boli and George M. Thomas, eds., Constructing World Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  63. 78.
    Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, Chapter 6. See also Banno Junji, “Meiji shoki (1873–85) no taigaikan,” Kokusai seiji no. 71 (1982): 10–20; and Motegi Toshio, Henyōsuru kindai higashi-Ajia no kokusai chitsujo (Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha 1997), 61–75.Google Scholar
  64. 79.
    Hishida Seiji pointed out more than a century ago that the 1871 Sino-Japanese Treaty of Tianjin was the first fully equal treaty in East Asia, even as it confirmed mutual consular jurisdiction; moreover, the Chinese and Japanese disputes over Taiwan and Ryūkyū (Liuqiu) were argued in Western terms: Japan cited international law on the right of a civilized state to occupy strategic lands outside of the jurisdiction of any independent power—Taiwan—to which China insisted on its sovereignty over Taiwan. When Japan claimed sovereignty over Liuqiu, China tacitly recognized Japan’s rights. See Seiji Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1905), 154–63. For a more recent treatment of the 1871 treaty, see Cassel, Grounds of Judgment, 96–109.Google Scholar
  65. 81.
    See Masaru Kohno, “On the Meiji Restoration: Japan’s Search for Sovereignty?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1 (2001): 265–83; Röhl, ed., History of Law in Japan since 1868, 29; Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity, 37, 100; Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 45–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 82.
    In this regard, I no longer accept my earlier interpretation, that Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War “marked Japan’s recovery of its sovereignty”: Japanese sovereignty was always intact. See Douglas Howland, “Sovereignty and the Laws of War: International Consequences of Japan’s 1905 Victory over Russia,” Law and History Review 29.1 (2011): 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 83.
    Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns, 128–30; Alan James, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Relations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 115–21; Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 15–20, 223f.Google Scholar
  68. 84.
    Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 8f; James, Sovereign Statehood, 270f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Douglas Howland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Howland

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations