樋口 真魚

This article investigates the role of the League of Nations for Japan after latter's withdrawal from the League, focusing on Japanese attempt to continue enjoying equal opportunities for trade and commerce in mandated territories. It argues that Japan rediscovered usefulness of the former, which had advocated for the principle of equal opportunities for trade and commerce in mandated territories in the Covenant, and therefore the Japanese decision-makers demanded the League members to abide by it.<br>The League Covenant and the terms of the mandate required the League members that were in charge of mandated territories categories "A" and "B" to provide equal opportunities for trade and commerce to all other League members. Therefore, the Japanese faced the possibility of losing the right because of her withdrawal from the League. Japanese decision-makers initially negotiated bilaterally with the mandatory nations to avoid this fate from around 1934, asking the League members not to withdraw the rights that they had hitherto granted to Japan. However, the mandatory nations started discussing the issue of ceasing the privilege that the Japan enjoyed at the mandated territories from June 1935 in the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission before making any particular reply to the Japanese overtures. Such action by the mandatory nations alarmed the Japanese decision-makers, and thus started to make their case at the League, arguing that the members should abide by the spirit of the equal opportunities for trade and commerce even if they were dealing with the non-members.<br>The decision-makers of Britain, who also played a major part in the League, concluded that it would not be prudent to continuously marginalize the Japanese and therefore supported the idea of continuing to grant equal opportunities for trade and commerce to Japan in territories that they mandated. However, they refused to acknowledge the Japanese interpretation of the League Covenant, and insisted that they would grant Japan equal opportunities for trade and commerce based on the spirit of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Despite the fact that the Japanese decision-makers understood the usefulness of the League in retaining and advancing their interests, such a gesture by the British decision-makers had a result of severely restricting the Japanese maneuverability at the League. The only thing that the Japanese could do was to continue appealing the principle of free trade to the deaf ears of the members of the League.

This article investigates Japanese attempts to reset its political relations with the League of Nations (hereafter, the LN) after the former's withdrawal from the League, focusing on the Japanese stance at the Montreux Conference of 1936, which was held three years after Japan's withdrawal for the purpose of revising articles concerning the demilitarization of the Dardanelles and Bosporus Straits, first declared in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Close examination of Japanese diplomacy during the Montreux Conference indicates that its decision makers were seeking some ideal means by which to reset the country's political relations with the League throughout the mid-1930s. They were particularly sensitive towards the LN Covenant, which in their opinion appeared to offer a legal basis for imposing sanctions on any country of the world, including Japan. Such sensitivity sharped from 1934 on after the Soviet Union joined the LN, due to the perception that the outbreak of Soviet-Japanese hostilities was highly imminent, leading to fears that the Soviets might call for the LN to impose sanctions on Japan if war did break out. These concerns are the reason why the Japanese government was very active during the Montreux Conference, in addition to regarding the Conference, which was marked by a fierce debate regarding the legal relationship between the revised treaty and the LN Covenant, as the touchstone leading to the future of Japan's diplomatic policy toward the LN. There were two constrasting opinions within the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Gaimusho 外務省) over the stance to be taken towards the revised treaty. One line, advocated by Foreign Minister Arita Hachiro, was to attempt to block LN intervention altogether. The other, advocated by Sato Naotake, the Japanese delegate to the Montreux Conference, argued that Japan should seek means of coexisting with the LN. In more concrete terms, Arita intended to block intervention by calling for a treaty signing congress (teiyaku kokukaigi 締約国会議) as a diplomatic platform opposing the LN and asserting that the text of the revised treaty should seek to avoid LN interference by separating the new convention from the LN Covenant. In opposition to Arita's assertions, Sato was prepared to partially accept "a treaty supplementary to the LN Covenant", which European members, such as the Soviet Union and France, aspired to conclude. By doing so, Sato intended to create a legal setting which would enable LN member countries and "contracting parties" (the latter including Japan) to enjoy equal standing vis-a-vis each other. Although Sato succeeded in persuading Arita that it was necessary to reset Japan as "a state withdrawing from the LN that could coexist with the LN", the outbreak of the 2nd Sino-Japanese war about a year after the Conference resulted in sanctions being imposed on Japan by the LN, which left Japanese decision-makers with no other option but to abandon any hope of coexistence.