Conclusion

  • Zhang Yongjin
Part of the St Antony’s book series

Abstract

By the end of 1920, China as a peripheral member of the international system seemed to have come a long way towards emerging from its subjection in world politics. Active Chinese diplomacy after the end of the war resulted in cracks of the treaty system in China. Extraterritoriality, the basis of that system, was doomed. Austria formally relinquished its extraterritorial rights in the St. Germain Treaty to which China was a signatory. Germany was to do the same in May 1921 in its treaty with China which also regulated Sino-German relations in other aspects in accordance with principles of equality and reciprocity. De facto abrogation of Russian extraterritorial rights was effected by China’s withdrawal of its recognition of Russian diplomatic and consulate officials in September 1920. The Russian treaty structure in China had been practically dismantled, only to be legalized in the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty in 1924. China had rejected the verdict of the Peace Conference on Jiaozhou and was actively campaigning for its recovery. A number of other initiatives had also been taken by China to put its relations with other states on the basis of equality and reciprocity. The Chinese representative was taking China’s seat at the Council of the League of Nations.

Keywords

Europe Turkey Posit Defend 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Hsu, China’s Entrance, p. 209Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    In 1899, all treaty Powers renounced their extraterritoriality in Japan. See Gong, Standard of ‘Civilization’, p. 195.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson, G., Handbook, p. 25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bull, Anarchical Society, p. 9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Treaty of Sèvres was an exception. China did not sign the treaty only because it felt it was unjustifiable to reimpose on Turkey the system of extraterritorial jurisdiction.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NCH, April 15, 1919, vol. CXXXI, p. 37.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wright, China in Revolution, p. 4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watson, ‘Hedley Bull’, p. 151.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Whereas membership of the League of Nations was unsatisfactory as general criterion for membership in the emerging international society, as Watson argued (Ibid., p. 149), it must be pointed out that membership for China did signify the degree of its being accepted by the international society.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The acceptance of China into the emerging international society was more clearly manifest in the Washington Conference when China was invited and recognized as one of the nine Powers which signed the so-called the Nine Power Treaty on the Far East and the Pacific.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See, Gong, Standard of ‘Civilization’, pp. 195, 234–7. For more details on the entry of Japan and of Siam into the international society, see ibid., chs VI and VII, pp. 165–237.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holland, Lectures, p. 39.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fishel, Extraterritoriality, p. 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Thomas, E. D., ‘Foreword’, ibid., p. vi. He was then American High Commissioner in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bull, H., ‘Foreword’, in Gong, Standard of ‘Civilization’, p. ix.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhang Yongjin 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhang Yongjin
    • 1
  1. 1.Wolfson CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations