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.
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.
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.

抄録全体を表示

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

本研究では、南洋群島の旧日本領、パラオ共和国バベルダオブ島の3つの流域で行われた農地開拓とボーキサイト採掘を事例に、開拓の実態と現代への影響を分析した。農地開拓では、島内に4つの指定開拓村が設置され、1940年には合計1671人が2255町歩の土地に暮らし、主にパイナップルやキャッサバが栽培された。一方で、日本人が撤退した後65年を経た現代においても、当時の森林伐採と土地収奪的な営農による植生への影響、および、移入種Falcataria moluccanaによる固有種への影響が見られる。ボーキサイト採掘地は、島内2カ所に合計106ha設置され、島の一大産業であった。開拓面積は小さいものの、表土を剥がしとったために、採掘当時は多量の土砂が流出し、湿地と沿岸域に堆積した。また、パラオ人集落でも、土砂の埋立てと集落移転、インフラ設備の再利用、産業遺産の観光化など、少なからず日本の影響が見られる。開拓はいずれも水系を軸として流域を単位に進められており、開拓の影響は沿岸の生態系やパラオ人集落など、流域内の自然や社会に対して広域、かつ長期にわたる影響を与えている。

抄録全体を表示

This paper tries to portray general features of school education, to discuss itsrole in each society (nation), Syria and Lebanon, throughout educational history.
Syria and Lebanon, two of the Arab countries east of the Mediterranean, were considered almost “twins” until their independence in 1943. After independence from the French Mandate, however, they became two different countries. Syria developed into an increasingly monolithic state based on the Arab identity, while Lebanon emerged as a pluralistic one. These features influenced school education in each nation.
Under the French Mandate, a national system of education was created, modeled strictly after the French. French state examinations were introduced, French schools multipled in number and the French language was made a requirement in the school programs. School education including administration, curriculum and so on, in both Syria and Lebanon, followed the French system.
Education in Syria underwent a process of radical change following independence 1943. The new education law, passed in 1944, determined that no foreign language was to be taught in elementary schools. This meant the abolition of French in elementary schools. In addition, the Franco-Syrian clash of 1945 resulted in the boycotting of French schools by the Syrian population. As a result they were compelled to close. The school organizational structure of 5-4-3 was changed to 6-3-2 the same as in other Arab countries (changed further to 6-3-3 in 1950'). The new school education in Syria thus began by being clearly separated from the French model and by encouraging public schools in a unified school system.
The administration of public education in Syria as in the other Arab countries, was centralized and was controlled by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry provided almost all the money for public schools, educated and appointed the teachers, established curricula, prescribed the textbooks and so on. In the curricula the importance of the Arab nation, identity and the struggle against Israel were emphasized
Lebanon, on the other hand, retained same styles of school education based on the French Mandate even after independence. French and the French examination, “baccalaureat”, made an impact upon schooling. All private schools were allowed to keep the right to select curricula, textbooks and teaching methods etc. under the political system of “confessionalism”. This policy accepted certain rights for these schools including their own religious education and religious law concerning marriage and inheritance for each religious sect. There was no unified curricula or textbooks in Lebanon before the 1990's.
In 1975, the Lebanese government had to change the school education policy as a result of Lebanese Civil War. After the Civil War, the government decided to adopt “A Plan for Educational Reform in Lebanon” which regulated 1) Compulsory education through the elementary stage, 2) Unified textbooks of history and civics, 3) Revision and unification of curricula for both public and private schools, 4) Changes in organizational structure from 5-4-3 to 6-3-3, and 5) Expansion of vocational education. This new educational plan made for a more integrated school education in Lebanon.
In summary, this paper points out that Syria has regarded school education as one of the ways of governmental centralization and integration of people since independence. Lebanon, on the other hand, did not (or could not) use school education as a means of integration because of the policy of “confessionalism”. After the civil war, however, Lebanon tried to change the structure and organization of school education. But this has not been without problems.

抄録全体を表示