Territorial Sovereignty and Extraterritorial Privilege

  • Douglas Howland

Abstract

International legal positivists emphasized treaties as international agreements grounded in the state’s authority to establish and to enforce law based on its capacity as a sovereign power. The unfair treaties that Japan signed between 1858 and 1869 offered Japan the opportunity to develop an expertise in treaty law—especially in order to maintain its territorial integrity and to assert sovereignty over its territory. As the Japanese government successfully argued in the 1870s, Japan may have granted judicial jurisdiction to foreign consuls, but it retained legislative jurisdiction, and foreigners in Japanese territory were bound to obey the laws of Japan. An analysis of the foreign residents’ claims to rights to travel and to hunt in Japan demonstrates that a command of international law was key to Japanese control of Japanese territory.

Keywords

Europe Steam Explosive Turkey Posit 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    A related and fascinating case is that of an “extraterritorial empire” in US law and legal enclaves created by the US court for China; see Teemu Ruskola, Legal Orientalism: China, The United States, and Modern Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    See Hora Tomio, “Chigaihōken,” in Meiji ishin shi kenkyū kōza, ed. Rekishigaku kenkyūkai (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1958), vol. 3: 206–17; Morita Tomoko, “‘Fubyōdō jōyaku’ to ryōjisaibanken,” Shigaku zasshi 105.4 (1996): 59f; Morita Tomoko, Kaikoku to chigaihōken (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005), 5f, 19f; Ōyama Azusa, “Kyoryūchisei to chigaihōken,” Teikyō hōgaku 13.2 (1982): 15–26; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai” [part 2], Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 43.1 (8/1969): 36; Yokota Kisaburō, “Nihon ni okeru chigaihōken,” in his Kokusaihō ronshu (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1976), vol. 1: 261.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    See Ronald Toby, “Three Realms/Myriad Countries: An ‘Ethnography’ of Other and the Re-bounding of Japan, 1550–1750,” in Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia, ed. Kai-wing Chow, Kevin Doak, and Poshek Fu (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 15–45; and Kazutaka Unno, “Cartography in Japan,” in The History of Cartography, vol. 2, bk. 2, Cartography in the Traditional East and Southeast Asian Societies, ed. J. B. Harley and David Woodward (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 346–455.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    David L. Howell, “Territoriality and Collective Identity in Tokugawa Japan,” Daedalus 127.3 (1998): 105–32; and David L. Howell, Geographies of Identity in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 1, 4–8, 22, 151, 198.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. K. Tribe (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), 267–88; David Harvey, Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 231, 241–6; John Gerard Ruggie, “Territoriality and Beyond,” International Organization 47.1 (1993): 139–74; Robert David Sack, Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 84–7, 140–2.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Kevin M. Doak, A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 6–11, 32–5; Stefan Tanaka, New Times in Modern Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 48–53, 83f.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    John R. Black, Young Japan: Yokohama and Yedo (London: Trubner & Co.; Yokohama: Kelly & Co., 1880–1881), vol.1: 358–76; Ōyama Azusa, Kyū jōyaku ka ni okeru kaishi kaikō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Otori shobō, 1967), 83–104; J. E. Hoare, Japant’s Treaty Ports and Foreign Settlements (Folkstone, UK: Japan Library, 1994), 107–18; and Michael R. Auslin, Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese Diplomacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), Chapters 2 and 3. Peter Ennals discusses the efforts of Kōbe residents to create a settlement government that avoided the problems of Yokohama: Opening a Window to the West: The Foreign Concession at Kōbe, Japan, 1868–1899 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 42–66.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    [G. H. J. Meyners d’Estrey], “Chine et Japon: Le privilège d’exterritorialité,” Annales de l’extrème orient 3 (1880–81): 161–4; G. Parker Ness, “Foreign Jurisdiction in Japan,” The Law Magazine and Review Quarterly Digest 11 (1885–86): 352.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Ōyama Azusa, “Jōyaku kaisei to gaikokujin kyoryūchi,” Rekishi kyōiku 9.1 (1969): 64; Ōyama Azusa, Nihon gaikōshi kenkyū (Tokyo: Ryōsho fukyūkai, 1980), 30–4; Shimomura Fujio, Meiji shonen jōyaku kaiseishi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1962), 25, 51–60; and Ennals, Opening a Window to the West, Chapters 4 and 5. For a discussion of the treaty ports in the context of East Asian trade, see Takeshi Hamashita, “Tribute and Treaties: Maritime Asia and Treaty Port Networks in the Era of Negotiation, 1800–1900,” in The Resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150, and 50 Year Perspectives, ed. Giovanni Arrighi, Takeshi Hamashita, and Mark Selden (London: Routledge, 2003), 17–50.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    See the review of the issue by Christopher Roberts, The British Courts and ExtraTerritoriality in Japan, 1859–1899 (Leiden: Global Oriental, 2014), 31–9.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Cornelius Van Bynkershoek, De Foro Legatorum Liber Singularis, trans. G. J. Laing (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), 100. See also Anthony Carty, The Decay of International Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), 29f; Alphonse Heyking, L’Exterritorialité et ses applications en extrême-orient, in Recueil des Cours, vol. 7 (1925, pt. II): 237–339; Henri C. R. Lisboa, “Exterritorialité et immunités des agents diplomatiques,” RDILC ser. II, vol. 1 (1899): 354–67; François Pietri, Étude critique sur la fiction d’exterritorialité (Paris: A. Rousseau, 1895), 21–67; Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana ([1866] repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 254n129 et seq.; and Eileen Young, “The Development of the Law of Diplomatic Relations,” British Year Book of International Law 40 (1964): 160–7.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Carlos Calvo, Dictionnaire manuel de diplomatie et de droit international public et privé (Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht [&c], 1885), 181f, 420; [Ernest Nys], “La juridiction consulaire—quelques notes,” RDILC ser. II, vol. 7 (1905): 237–52; Francis Taylor Piggott, Exterterritoriality: The Law Relating to Consular Jurisdiction and to Residence in Oriental Countries (London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1892), 3f, 82f.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Ayla Göl, “Europe, Islam, and Pax Ottomana, 1453–1774,” 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), 34–54.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    F. F. Martens, Das Consularwesen und die Consularjurisdiction im Orient (Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1874), 44–53; John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1906), vol. 2: 596; Frank E. Hinckley, American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient (Washington, DC: Lowdermilk, 1906), 2–11; Liu Shih Shun, Extraterritoriality: Its Rise and Its Decline (New York: Columbia University Press, 1925), 61–75; Herbert J. Liebesny, “The Development of Western Judicial Privileges,” in Law in the Middle East, ed. Majid Khadduri and H. J. Liebesny (Washington, DC: Middle East Institute, 1955), vol. 1: 309–33; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai” [part 1], Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 42.3 (2/1969): 29–75 (esp. pp. 29–38); Thomas Naff, “The Ottoman Empire and the European States System,” in The Expansion of International Society, ed. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 143–69; and Johannes Berchtold, “Exterritorialität im Zeitalter der ungleichen Verträge,” in Völkerrecht und Weltwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Rainer Klump and Miloš Vec (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012), 221–43.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, The European-African Confrontation: A Study in Treaty Making (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973), 21, 32, 83–5; and Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 119–24.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    On the territorialization of political authority (and sovereignty), see Jordan Branch, The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory, and the Origins of Sovereignty (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 31–5, 76–99.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    Hinckley, American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, 12–18; Seiji Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1905), 133, 154; Richard S. Horowitz, “International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of World History 15.4 (2004): 459–63; Robert Karl Reischauer, Alien Land Tenure in Japan (Tokyo: Asiatic Society of Japan, 1936), 7–14; and Eli T. Sheppard, Extra-territoriality in Japan, ([Tokyo]: n.p., 1879), 18–22.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    Douglas Howland, “The Foreign and the Sovereign: Extraterritoriality in East Asia,” in The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, ed. Douglas Howland and Luise White (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 35–55.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    Piggott, Exterterritoriality, 104–24; Sheppard, Extra-territoriality in Japan, 58–61; Sumiyoshi, “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai” [part 1], 45–51; Charles Jones Tarring, British Consular Jurisdiction in the East (London: Stevens & Haynes, 1887), 38–45.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    Chishima-kan jiken, repr. Meiji bunka zenshū, vol. 11, Gaikō hen, ed. Meiji bunka kenkyūkai (Tokyo: Nihon hyōronsha, 1968), 521–61; Richard T. Chang, “The Chishima Case,” Journal of Asian Studies 34.3 (5/1975): 593–612; Richard T. Chang, The Justice of the Western Consular Courts in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1984), 99–117; Douglas Howland, “International Law, State Will, and the Standard of Civilization in Japan’s Assertion of Sovereign Equality,” in Law and Disciplinarity: Thinking Beyond Borders, ed. Robert J. Beck (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 183–205; and Roberts, The British Courts and Extra-Territoriality in Japan, 1859–1899, 283–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 24.
    Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 52–65; [Meyners d’Estrey], “Chine et Japon,” 163f; John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 141–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 25.
    Teemu Ruskola, “Raping Like a State,” UCLA Law Review 57.5 (2010): 1531f.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    Anthony Carty, Philosophy of International Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 86; see also Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck, Law, Power, and the Sovereign State (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), 11–13; and Arthur Larson, “Decisions of Tribunals,” in Sovereignty within the Law, ed. A. Larson, C. Wilfred Jenks, et al. (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1965), 375–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 27.
    Kanae Taijudo, “Japan’s Early Practice of International Law in Fixing Its Territorial Limits,” JAIL 22 (1978): 1–20; Kawasaki Takako, “Nihon no ryōdo,” in Nihon to kokusaihō no hyakunen, vol. 2, Riku — kū — uchū, ed. Kokusaihō gakkai (Tokyo: Sanseidō, 2001), 95–126; Masaharu Yanagihara, “Japan,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 474–99. British Minister Harry Parkes informed the English residents of the Bonin Islands in 1877 that Japan had assumed sovereignty over the islands, a measure approved by the British government; see Derby to Parkes, March 8, 1877, in Great Britain, Foreign Office Archives, FO 262/301: [78]. Hereafter cited FO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 29.
    Oishi Kazuo, Jōyaku kaisei kōshōshi, 1887–1894 (Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 2008), 226–65; Louis G. Perez, Japan Comes of Age: Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the Unequal Treaties (Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1999), 85.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, 134; Murase Shinya, “The Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Japan’s Treaty Practice during the Period 1854–1905,” AJIL 70.2 (1976), 281.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    James Lorimer, Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Blackwood & Sons, 1883–84), vol. 1: 313–5; Robert Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law (Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson, 1854–57), vol. 2: 185–8; Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 148–50; Theodore Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1874), 168f.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 229–33.Google Scholar
  29. 34.
    Baba Tatsui, The Treaty Between Japan and England (London: Trübner & Co., 1876), repr. Baba Tatsui zenshū (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1987), vol. 1: 142.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    Ibid., 157.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924), 378n.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Ibid., 49, 61.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    Alexandrowicz, The European-African Confrontation, 30–4, 94–7; Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 92–6; Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 138–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 43.
    Senga Tsurutarō, Gestaltung und Kritik der heutigen Konsulargerichtsbarkeit in Japan (Berlin: Prager, 1897), 134–41, 145–55, 158–60.Google Scholar
  35. 45.
    Rutherford Alcock, The Capital of the Tycoon (London: Longman, Green, 1863), vol. 2: 17–29; Baba, The Treaty Between Japan and England, 137–9.Google Scholar
  36. 47.
    There are two detailed accounts in Japanese: Hirose Shizuko, “Meiji shonen no tai-Ō-Bei kankei to gaikokujin naichi ryokyō mondai,” Shigaku zasshi 83.11 (11/1974): 1–29 and 83.12 (12/1974): 40–61; and Ishii Takashi, Meiji shoki no kokusai kankei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1977), 97–188.Google Scholar
  37. 49.
    Gaimushō, Nihon gaikō monjo, repr. ed. (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai rengō kyōkai, 1950–63), vol. 8 (1872): 549–53. Hereafter cited NGM.Google Scholar
  38. 52.
    Max von Brandt, Dreiunddreissig Jahre in Ost-Asien (Leipzig: G. Wigand, 1901), vol. 2: 344f; Hirose, “Meiji shonen no tai-Ō-Bei kankei to gaikokujin naichi ryokyō mondai” [part 1], 10–18; Ishii, Meiji shoki no kokusai kankei, 105–108; and Payson Treat, Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Japan, 1853–1895 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1932), vol. 1: 505–10. The November meetings are transcribed in NGM, vol. 9 (1873): 683–90.Google Scholar
  39. 56.
    Terashima to Parkes, December 20, 1873, with enclosure “Memorandum,” in FO 881/2504: 22–5 (quotes on p. 24); and “Minutes of Interview between the Foreign Minister Terashima and the Foreign Representatives,” November 8, 1873, in FO 881/2504: 14–7. See also San’eki Nakaoka, “Japanese Research on the Mixed Courts of Egypt in the Earlier Part of the Meiji Period in Connection with the Revision of the 1858 Treaties,” Jōchi Ajia-gaku [Journal of Sophia Asian Studies] 6 (1988): 11–47.Google Scholar
  40. 61.
    Sheppard, Extra-territoriality in Japan, 14–17, 40–50, 56f, 66f. See also George Herbert Scidmore, who outlines the British and German argument of immunity from Japanese law, based on the 1869 Austria-Hungarian Treaty with Japan: Outline Lectures on the History, Organization, Jurisdiction, and Practice of the Ministerial and Consular Courts of the United States in Japan (Tokio: Igirisu Horitsu Gakko, 1887), 2–4.Google Scholar
  41. 64.
    See Ōyama, Nihon gaikōshi kenkyū, 152–80; and Iokibe Kaoru, Jōyaku kaiseishi: hōken kaifuku e no tenbō to nashonarizumu (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 2010), 129–61.Google Scholar
  42. 65.
    See Sugiyama Naojiro, “L’Évolution générale du droit japonais moderne (1869–1919),” in Les transformations du droit dans les principaux pays depuis cinquante ans (1869–1919): Livre du cinquantenaire de la société de législation comparée (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1923), vol. 2: 235f.Google Scholar
  43. 72.
    J. E. Hoare, “The ‘Bankoku Shimbun’ Affair: Foreigners, the Japanese Press, and Extraterritoriality in Early Meiji Japan,” Modern Asian Studies 9.3 (1975): 289–302. See also d’Harcourt to Decazes, May 29, 1876, in ADAE: Affaires diverses politiques (ADP): 40 ADP no. 3 (1874–1876), dossier no. 4; and a Japanese journalist’s defense of the government position: “Chigai hōken no hei ichi ni kore ni itaru ka?” [August 30–31, 1881], repr. Shinbun shūsei Meiji hennen shi, ed. Nakayama Yasumasa ([1934–36] repr. Tokyo: Honpō shoseki, 1982), vol. 4: 437–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Douglas Howland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Howland

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations