When Japan announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933, it was assumed that Japan might lose its mandate over the former German Pacific islands. In the event, neither the League nor the Powers ever raised the question of Japan's right to retain the mandate, and Japan continued to hold the mandate after its definite departure from the League in 1935.
From a pure interpretation of the League Covenant, the only condition of being a mandatory was that it must be a suitable advanced nation. While the legitimacy of Japanese military activities in Manchuria was doubtful, the mandated islands were developing constantly under Japanese rule. Then, the only possibility of depriving Japan of the mandate was the finding of violation of the terms of the mandate, which might lead the way to cancellation of the mandate. However, without a proper inspection system, alleged violation of the non-fortification provision could not be proved.
Nevertheless, as the Japanese case touched on the basic principles of the mandate system, some quarters in the League felt that the Council should take official cognizance of a change in the legal situation of the mandate consequent on Japan's withdrawal: while the League confirmed Japan's retention of the mandated islands, it should re-assert the mandate principle and the authority of the League on the matter. However, this course was eventually abandoned due to the disapproval of the Powers. It was also feared that such a procedure would constitute a confirmation of the legal theory that a state withdrawing from the League had the right to maintain a mandate. Such a precedent might limit the action of the League in the future when the League might desire to cancel a mandate of a withdrawing state. By allowing the Japanese mandate to continue as if nothing had happened, there was the implication that Japan had the right to hold the mandate, but not necessarily an unqualified one.
As regards the sovereignty over the mandated territory, many questioned whether the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (hereinafter PAAP) held the ultimate power to dispose of the mandate. Nevertheless, the PAAP sovereignty theory was a useful concept to accommodate the needs of the mandatory Powers. It helped to limit the jurisdiction of the League on their mandated territories and to weaken Germany's claim to its lost colonies. For this reason it was difficult for the mandatory Powers to criticise Japan's standpoint. Being a non-League member and not holding a mandate, the US showed a more critical attitude towards Japan. However, its position was weakened by the precedent that the League had offered the US a mandate for Armenia in 1920.
It may therefore be argued that the League and the Powers' attitude towards the Japanese mandate reflected the concept of ‘enlightened colonial regime’ in the interwar period, embodied in the mandate system run by the League and the PAAP.
抄録全体を表示