Abbreviations Used in Notes and Bibliography

ADAE France. Archives des affaires étrangères ADP: Affaires diverses politiques CP: Correspondance politique AJIL American Journal of International Law BDOFA British Documents on Foreign Affairs FO Foreign Office, UK National Archives, Kew FRUS Foreign Relations of the United States JAIL Japanese Annual of International Law JHIL Journal of the History of International Law NGM Japan, Gaimushō [Foreign Ministry], Nihon gaikō monjo RDILC Revue de droit international et de législation comparée RGDIP Revue générale de droit international public Notes

Chapter 1 1. Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998), 47–54, 61–6; and Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of Legal Argument [reissue edition] (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 132, 225. But see the critique of David Kennedy, “International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion,” Quinnipiac Law Review 17 (1997): 99–138 (esp. 122–5). 2. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana ([1866] repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 27f, 44, 75f; Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co., 1874), 50; James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1883–84), vol. 1: 139–56; Carlos Calvo, Dictionnaire manuel de diplomatie et de droit international public et privé (Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht [etc.], 1885), 401f; T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 56f; John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 86–90, 110–20; William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 50f, 55–8. 3. Stephen D. Krasner, “Problematic Sovereignty,” in Problematic Sovereignty: Con- tested Rules and Political Possibilities, ed. Stephen Krasner (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 1–23; see also Martti Koskenniemi, “Conclusion: Vocabu- laries of Sovereignty—Powers of a Paradox,” in Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present, and Future of a Contested Concept, ed. Hent Kalmo and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 222–42. 4. Lauri Mälksoo, “The Context of International Legal Arguments: ‘Positivist’ Inter- national Law Scholar August von Bulmerincq (1822–1890) and His Concept of Politics,” JHIL 7.2 (2005): 181–209; and Alexander Orakhelashvili, “International Law, International Politics, and Ideology,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Alexander Orakhelashvili (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011), 328–75 (esp. 345–53). 5. Amnon Lev, “The Transformation of International Law in the 19th Cen- tury,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. 148 ● Notes

Orakhelashvili, 118 [111–42]. James L. Hevia notes the ways that sovereignty was manifested in both diplomatic protocol and territorial assumptions in the conflicts between Britain and China; see English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperial- ism in Nineteenth-Century China (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 61–6, 144–53. 6. Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 84f, 137f; and Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 132–6. More recently, Arnulf Becker Lorca has done more to include Japan in a global history of international law: Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 7. Otherwise excellent surveys of the Japanese engagement with international law treat the nineteenth century in passing and focus on the material that appears here in Chapter 5. See Shinobu Junpei, “Vicissitudes of International law in the Mod- ern History of Japan,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 50.2 (1951): 196–234; Itō Fujio, “Kokusaihō,” in Kindai Nihon hō-shisōshi, ed. Noda Yoshiyuki and Aomi Jun’ichi, (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1979), 461–502; Ōnuma Yasuaki, “Japanese International Law in the Prewar Period,” JAIL 29 (1986): 23–47; R. P. Anand, “Family of ‘Civilized’ States and Japan: A Story of Humiliation, Assimilation, Defiance, and Confronta- tion,” JHIL 5 (2003): 1–75; Akashi Kinji, “Japan-Europe,” in The Oxford Hand- book of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 724–43; and Urs Matthias Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 1919–1960 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013), 48–84. 8. For example, both Kōzai Shigeru (“Japan’s Early Practice of International Law: The Law of Neutrality,” [Osaka Gakuin Daigaku] Kokusaigaku ronshū 7.1 [1996]: 17) and Okagaki Tomoko (The Logic of Conformity: Japan’s Entry into International Society [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013], 59) claim that Japanese failed to “truly understand” the international legal concept of neutrality at the time of the Franco-Prussian War. I make a different argument in Chapter 2 of this book. 9. Yokota Kisaburō, “Wagakuni ni okeru kokusaihō no kenkyū,” in his Kokusaihō ronshū (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1976), vol. 1: 247–60; Itō Fujio, “One Hundred Years of International Law Studies in Japan,” JAIL 13 (1969): 19–34; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Seiō kokusaihōgaku no Nihon e no inyū to sono tenkai,” Hōritsu ronsō 42.4-5-6 (1969): 343–70; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō no dōnyū,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 71.5-6 (1973): 33–58; Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō ishiki,” Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 48.2 (1975): 1–31; John Peter Stern, The Japanese Interpretation of the “Law of Nations,” 1854–1874 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979); Satō Tōru, Bakumatsu-Meiji shoki goi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1986), 161–97, 356–93; Kōzai Shigeru, “Japan’s Early Encounter with the Western Law of Nations,” (Osaka Gakuin Daigaku) Kokusaigaku ronshū 5.2 (1994): 75–96; Douglas Howland, Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Honolulu: University Notes ● 149

of Hawai‘i Press, 2002); Douglas Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nine- teenth Century: International Law and Transcultural Process,” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010): 14–37. More refined work in this vein has explored the complex connections, on the one hand, between indigenous Confucian ideas of “Heaven’s” or “natural” law and European natural law, and on the other hand, in the shift from natural law to positive law as Japan engaged the discipline of international law. See Ōhira Zengo, “Japan’s Reception of the Law of Nations,” Annals of the Hitotsubashi Academy 4.1 (1953): 55–66; Kuriyama Shigeru, “Historical Aspects of the Progress of International Law in Japan,” JAIL 1 (1957): 1–5; Yamamoto Soji, “Japanese Approaches and Attitudes towards International Law,” JAIL 34 (1991): 115–24; Murase Shinya, “Nihon no kokusaihōgaku ni okeru hōgenron no isō,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 96.4-5 (1997): 175–203. 10. Akashi Kinji, “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations: A Brief History of International Law in Japan c. 1853–1900,” in East Asian and European Perspectives on International Law, ed. Michael Stolleis and Masaharu Yanagihara (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004), 1–21; Akashi Kinji, “Methodological Aspects of Japan’s Encounter with the Modern Law of Nations,” Keiō Law Review 11 (2010): 2–4, 11f. 11. See Yasuoka Akio, “Bankoku kōhō to Meiji gaikō,” Seiji keizai shigaku 200 (1983): 188–200; Miyazaki Shigeki, “History of the Law of Nations— Regional Developments: Far East,” in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rudolf Bernhardt and Peter Macalister-Smith, (Amsterdam: North- Holland, 1992–2000), vol. 2: 802–9; Akashi, “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations,” 7–9; Morita Tomoko, Kaikoku to chigaihōken (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005); Mitani Hiroshi, “The Transformation of Diplomatic Norms in East Asia during the Nineteenth Century: From Ambi- guity to Singularity,” Acta Asiatica 93 (2007): 89–105; and Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity. 12. Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 161–7; K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 18–27, 144–6. 13. Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 13–9. 14. For assimilation, see Ōnuma “Japanese International Law in the Prewar Period,” 42–4; for conformity, see Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity. 15. Michele Acuto and Simon Curtis, eds., Reassembling International Theory (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Christian Bueger and Frank Gadinger, Interna- tional Practice Theory: New Perspectives (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 16. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). 17. Hidemi Suganami, “Japan’s Entry into International Society,” in The Expansion of International Society, ed. H. Bull and A. Watson, 185–99; and Gerrit Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). A prominent precursor to this argument was Alexander von Siebold, Japan’s 150 ● Notes

Accession to the Comity of Nations, trans. Charles Lowe (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1901). 18. Turan Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Shogo Suzuki, Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society (London: Routledge, 2009); Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity. 19. Brett Bowden, The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea (Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). 20. Barry Buzan and George Lawson, “The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations,” International Stud- ies Quarterly 57.3 (2013): 620–34; Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000), 20f. Buzan and Lawson make an excellent dif- ferentiation between “Western-centric” history and the expansion of a Euro- pean power advantage in The Global Transformation: History, Modernity, and the Making of International Relations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 25–32. 21. Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 9–11; Shogo Suzuki, “Japan’s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society,” European Journal of International Relations 11.1 (2005): 137–64; Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, 1–5. 22. See Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 3, Global Empires and Revolu- tions, 1890–1945 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 100–27, 384–97. 23. Iokibe Kaoru, Jōyaku kaiseishi: hōken kaifuku e no tenbō to nashonarizumu / Meiji Treaty Revision: The Prospect for a Unified Jurisdiction and Nationalism (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 2010), 3–9, 17–9; Iokibe Kaoru, “Independence and Opposition: Consequences of Treaty Revision in Meiji Japan,” University of Tokyo Journal of Law and Politics 9 (2012): 63–80. My argument in Chapter 3 disagrees with this interpretation. 24. In The Logic of Conformity, Okagaki argues that Japan’s expertise in international law was intended to support treaty revision negotiations. 25. See recent works by Fujiwara Akihisa, Nihon jōyaku kaiseishi no kenkyū: Inoue, Okuma no kaisei kōshō to Ō-Bei rekkoku, (Tokyo: Yūshōdō shuppan, 2004); Inoue Yuichi, “From Unequal Treaty to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1867–1902,” in The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations, vol. 1, The Political-Diplomatic Dimension, ed. Ian Nish and Yoichi Kibata (New York: St. Martin’s; London: Macmillan, 2000), 131–58; Komiya Kazuo, Jōyaku kaisei to kokunai seiji (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2001); Ōishi Kazuo, Jōyaku kaisei kōshōshi, 1887–1894 (Kyoto: Shi- bunkaku, 2008); Louis G. Perez, Japan Comes of Age: Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the Unequal Treaties (Cranberry, NJ: Associated University Presses; Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009). 26. While my approach to legal positivism is largely informed by Anglo-American legal scholarship, P. H. Kooijmans (The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States: An Notes ● 151

Inquiry into the Foundations of International Law [Leyden: A. W. Sythoff, 1964], 90f) and Tetsuya Toyoda (Theory and Politics of the Law of Nations: Political Bias in International Law Discourse of Seven German Court Councilors in the Seven- teenth and Eighteenth Centuries [Leiden: Nijhoff, 2011], 149–60) take a different approach informed by German scholarship. They identify Johann Jakob Moser (1701–85) as an early positivist because of Moser’s rejection of a state of nature and natural equality, and linkage of equality to the sovereignty of states. For an alternative assessment of Moser, see Martti Koskenniemi, “International Law and raison d’état: Rethinking the Prehistory of International Law,” in The Roman Foundations of the Law of Nations: Alberico Gentili and the Justice of Empire, ed. Benedict Kingsbury and Benjamin Shaumann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 297–339 (esp. 331f). 27. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 43–46. See also Benjamin Lahusen, Alles Recht geht vom Volksgeist aus: Friedrich Carl von Savigny und die moderne Rechtswissenschaft (Berlin: Nicolai, 2013), Chapter 2. I am grateful to Richard Reitan for alerting me to this work. 28. Eli T. Sheppard, Extra-territoriality in Japan, ([Tokyo]: n.p., 1879), 1–4, 18. 29. Natural law in the classical scholarship from Grotius to Vattel is more diverse than my restricted presentation. Wolff and Vattel, for example, recognized a “necessary” natural law (including self-preservation) and a “voluntary” natural law that acknowledged interstate relations (in matters of neutrality and so on). Vattel also noted a will-based or “arbitrary” law of nations that allowed for consent. See Kooijmans, The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States, 66–8, 75–86; and Kosken- niemi, From Apology to Utopia, 108–22. 30. Andrew Fitzmaurice, “The Resilience of Natural Law in the Writings of Sir Trav- ers Twiss,” in British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier, ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 137–59; Kooijmans, The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States, 57–86 passim; Alexander Orakhelashvili, “The Relevance of Theory and History—The Essence and Origins of Interna- tional Law,” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Orakhelashvili, 3–22. Cf. Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, The European- African Encounter: A Study in Treaty-Making (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973), 10–12, 19, 31f. 31. “Extract from Dispatch of Alcock to Medhurst,” as enclosure in Terashima to Parkes, 1873,12.20, in Great Britain, Foreign Office Archives 881/2504: 30. Hereafter cited FO. See also Juliane Kokott, “States, Sovereign Equality,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), online edition accessed March 2012, www. mpepil.com. 32. See Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 40–55; and Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth—in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, trans. G. L. Ulman (New York: Telos Press, 2003), 134. 33. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 35f; Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 115; Tetsuya Toyoda, “L’aspect 152 ● Notes

universaliste du droit international européen du 19ème siècle et le statut juridique de la Turquie avant 1856,” JHIL 8 (2006): 22–32. 34. Stephen Hall, “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order, and the Limits of Legal Postivism,” European Journal of International Law 12.2 (2001): 269–307; Jörg Fisch, “The Role of International Law in the Territorial Expan- sion of Europe, 16th–20th Centuries,” ICCLP Review 3 (2000): 5–15; Blandine Kriegel, “The Rule of the State and Natural Law,” in Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty, ed. Ian Hunter and David Saunders (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 13–26; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 4th ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 43–4, 152–3, 197–8; and Vaughan Lowe, International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 25–6. See E. H. Carr on the context of “international morality” and a “general sense of obligation,” The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 [2nd ed.], (New York: Palgrave: 2001), 141–3, 159–61; for a theological analysis, see E. B. F. Midgely, The Natu- ral Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations (London: Paul Elek, 1975). 35. Hedley Bull, “The Emergence of a Universal International Society,” in The Expansion of International Society, ed. H. Bull and A. Watson, 117–26 (quote on p. 125). 36. Paul Keal, “‘Just Backward Children’: International Law and the Conquest of Non-European Peoples,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 49.2 (1995): 191–206. For critiques of this perspective, see Edward Keene, Beyond the Anar- chical Society (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ix–xii; and Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, 11–33. 37. Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, ed. Michel Senellart, trans. Gra- ham Burchell (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 239. 38. Ibid., 8. 39. William E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princ- eton University Press, 1983); and Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (London: Tavistock, 1972), 65–6. 40. Michel Serres, with Bruno Latour, Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 107. 41. Alexandrowicz, The European-African Confrontation, 22, 110–18; Anghie, Impe- rialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 59; Toyoda, “L’aspect universaliste du droit international européen,” 27–33. See also Becker Lorca, Mestizo International Law, 22, 58f. 42. Wilhelm Röhl has argued that because “the actual situation of the reign, organization of the government, its authority, and the rights and duties of its subjects con- stitute the essence of a state,” Japan arguably had a constitution before 1868. The overthrow of the Tokugawa Bakufu dissolved that, and the Meiji state required a new constitution. See “Constitutional Law,” in History of Law in Japan Since 1868, ed. Röhl (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 29. 43. Yongjin Zhang, “Curious and Exotic Encounters: Europeans as Supplicants in the Chinese Imperium, 1513–1793,” in International Orders in the Early Modern Notes ● 153

World: Before the Rise of the West, ed. Shogo Suzuki, Yongjin Zhang, and Joel Quirk (London: Routledge, 2014), 55–75; Shogo Suzuki, “Europe at the Periph- ery of the Japanese World Order,” in idem, 76–93; Pär Cassel, Grounds of Judg- ment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 15–38; Zhaojie Li, “Interna- tional Law in China: Legal Aspect of the Chinese Perspective of World Order” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1995), 39–41; and Noriko Kamachi, “Chinese in Meiji Japan,” in The Chinese and the Japanese, ed. Akira Iriye (Princeton: Princ- eton University Press, 1980), 58–73. 44. Fitzmaurice, “The Resilience of Natural Law in the Writings of Sir Travers Twiss,” 141, 147. See also Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia, 131, 139; Toyoda, The- ory and Politics of the Law of Nations. 45. Essential reading is Michel Senellart, Machiavélisme et raison d’état: XIIe-XVIIe siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1989), 5–55, for Senellart denies Machiavelli’s relation to raison d’état. I am grateful to Christian Roques for alerting me to this work. 46. Peter Burke, “Tacitism, Skepticism, and Reason of State,” in The Cambridge His- tory of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press, 1991), 479–84; Alfred Dufour, “Pufendorf,” in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. Burns, 584–86; Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 237–45, 257–60; Kriegel, “The Rule of the State and Natural Law,” 13–26; Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History, trans. Douglas Scott (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 2–7, 58–62, 120, 207–10, 275; and Ōnuma Yas- uaki, ed., A Normative Approach to War: Peace, War, and Justice in Hugo Grotius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 116, 235–8, 249, 282–5, 296, 368–9. For a significant critique of this history, see Koskenniemi, “International Law and raison d’état.” 47. Anthony Carty, Philosophy of International Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer- sity Press, 2007), Chapter 4; Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, Chapter 2; and Peter Schröder, “Natural Law, Sovereignty, and International Law,” in Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty, ed. Hunter and Saun- ders, 204–18. The best work to date on the legality of the European conquest of the Americas remains Jörg Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984). 48. Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace,” in Political Writings, ed. H. A. Reiss, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 102–5; and John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Wilfrid E. Rumble (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 123–5, 171, 175–6. Helpful critiques of legal positivism include Anthony Carty, “Did International Law Really Become a Science at the End of the Nineteenth Century?” in Constructing Inter- national Law: Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012), 229–47; Kennedy, “International Law and the Nineteenth Century,” 111–19; Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and 154 ● Notes

Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989), 67–71. 49. See James Crawford, “Sovereignty as a Legal Value,” in The Cambridge Companion to International Law, ed. James Crawford and Martti Koskenniemi (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 116–33; and William V. O’Brien, “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law,” World Polity 1 (1957): 109–76 (esp. pp. 156–76). 50. O’Brien, “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law,” 119–31; Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law, 238–44; Coleman Phil- lipson, International Law and the Great War (London: Fisher Unwin, 1915), 27–38; Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History (Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 239–41; Chris Jochnick and Roger Normand, “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War,” Harvard International Law Journal 35 (1994): 49–95 (esp. pp. 63–65). “Necessities of war” became an international legal principle with the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions of the laws of war on land; see The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, ed. James Brown Scott, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1918), 117. 51. Senellart, Machiavélisme et raison d’état, 31–5; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Paci Libri Tres, trans. Francis W. Kelsey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 599–600; and Samuel Pufendorf, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, trans. Carew (London, 1729; repr. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2005), 202–12. 52. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920) 1: 214–21; Burleigh Cushing Rodick, The Doctrine of Necessity in International Law (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928), 1–25, 47, 119; O’Brien, “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law,” 128–31; and D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense in International Law (New York: Praeger, 1958), 3–10. Westlake insinuated this point as early as 1894; see Chap- ters on the Principles of International Law, 266. 53. Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., 18f; Thomas Erskine Holland, “International Law in the War Between Japan and China,” The United Service (August 1895): 109f. 54. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 46f, 52–65; see also Arnulf Becker Lorca, “Universal International Law: Nineteenth- Century Histories of Imposition and Appropriation,” Harvard International Law Journal 51.2 (2010): 486–503. 55. See Liliana Obregón, “Completing Civilization: Creole Consciousness and Inter- national Law in Nineteenth-Century Latin America,” in International Law and Its Others, ed. Anne Orford (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 247–64. 56. Brett Bowden, “The Colonial Origins of International Law: European Expansion and the Classical Standard of Civilization,” JHIL 7.1 (2005): 1–23; Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, 3–23, 187–200; Suzuki, Civili- zation and Empire, 12–4, 86–91; and Georg Schwarzenberger, “The Standard of Civilization in International Law,” Current Legal Problems 8 (1955): 212–34. Notes ● 155

57. Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 1–16. 58. Toyoda, “L’aspect universaliste du droit international européen,” 19–37. See also Fedor Fedorovich Martens [F. de Martens], Traité de droit international, trans. Albert Leo (Paris: Librairie Marescq ainé, 1883–1887), vol. 1: 240f; Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht, 217, 284f; Iver B. Neumann and Jennifer M. Welsh, “The Other in European Self-Definition: An Addendum to the Literature on International Society,” Review of International Studies 17 (1991): 327–48 (esp. pp. 333–44); and Michelle Burgis, “Faith in the State? Traditions of Territoriality, International Law, and the Emergence of Modern Arab Statehood,” JHIL 11.1 (2009): 37–79 (esp. pp. 63–5). 59. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 92–6; Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 138–42. 60. Gong declares that the “standard of civilization” was “implicit” until Wheaton articulated it in his 1846 edition (The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, 26f), while Anghie points to the 1866 edition of Wheaton as a major iteration of the civilized nature of the international community (Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 53). By contrast, Martti Koske- niemmi emphasizes Lorimer’s work of 1883 (The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 129). See also Bowden, “The Colonial Origins of International Law.” Recall that Edward Said’s Orientalism (New York: Pantheon, 1978) emphasized the “other- ing” of Orientals as a set of attributes defined as the inverse of European qualities. 61. See Neumann and Welsh, “The Other in European Self-Definition,” 328–30; and Frédéric Mégret, “From ‘Savages’ to ‘Unlawful Combatants’: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s ‘Other,’” in International Law and Its Others, ed. Orford, 265–317. 62. There is a huge body of literature regarding Japanese development of civil law in the Meiji period. The formative study of the development of Japanese civil law and treaty revision is Nakamura Kikuo’s Zōtei kindai Nihon no hōteki keishiki: jōyaku kaisei to hōten hensai (Tokyo: Yūrindō, 1958). For recent points of departure, see Röhl, ed., History of Law in Japan Since 1868; Hisashi Harata, “L’exterritorialité, la juridiction consulaire et le droit international privé: une réflexion sur le droit international privé à la fin de XIXème siècle,” in Constructing International Law, ed. Nuzzo and Vec, 331–61; and Kinoshita Tsuyoshi, “Japanese Law and Western Law,” in Wege zum japanischen Recht: Festschrift für Zentaro Kitagawa, ed. Hans G. Leser and Tamotsu Isomura (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992), 199–219. An insightful discussion of legal codification is Pierre Bourdieu, In Other Words (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), Chapter 4. 63. Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 148. See also Gerry Simpson, Great Powers and Out- law States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 19, 154–9. 64. Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 182–89; George W. Keeton, “Extraterritoriality in International and Comparative Law,” Recueil des cours 72 (1948, pt. I): 283–391 (esp. 327–36); and Li, “International Law in China: Legal Aspect of the Chinese Perspective of World Order,” 273–80. See also Richard T. Chang, “The Question of Unilateral Denunciation and the Meiji Government, 1888–92,” in Japan in 156 ● Notes

Transition: Thought and Action in the Meiji Era, 1868–1912, ed. Hilary Conroy et al. (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Press, 1984), 174–92; and Yongjin Zhang, “China’s Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of ‘Civi- lization,’” Review of International Studies 17.1 (1991): 3–16. 65. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 134f; Liliana Obregón, “The Civi- lized and the Uncivilized,” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2012), 917–39; and Tsutsui Wakamizu, “Gendai kokusaihō ni okeru bunmei to chii,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 66.5 (2/1968): 37–70. See also Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 52–63; and Becker Lorca, “Uni- versal International Law,” 495–503. Nonetheless, Buzan and Lawson reiterate the argument that the “standard of civilization” was a politico-legal requirement imposed upon allegedly “uncivilized” nations such as Japan and based in the rise of positive international law; see The Global Transformation, 174–6, 198f. 66. Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity, 105. 67. Fukuzawa Yukichi, An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, trans. D. Dilworth and G. Hurst (Tokyo: Sophia University, 1973). 68. John Boli, “Sovereignty from a World Polity Perspective,” in Problematic Sover- eignty, ed. Stephen Krasner (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 54f. 69. George M. Thomas, “World Polity, World Culture, World Society,” International Political Sociology 4 (2010): 115–9. 70. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 15–28. 71. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 124. 72. John W. Meyer, John Boli, and George M. Thomas, “Ontology and Rationaliza- tion in the Western Cultural Account,” and John W. Meyer, “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State,” both in George M. Thomas, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli, Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual (Newbury Park, NJ: Sage, 1987), 12–40 and 41–70 respectively. 73. Meyer, “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State,” 42, 55; and John W. Meyer and Ronald L. Jepperson, “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency,” Sociological Theory 18.1 (2000): 101– 20. However, world polity scholarship is silent about Christianity as a traditional value. 74. Meyer, Boli, and Thomas, “Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cul- tural Account,” 14. 75. See especially Frank Lechner and John Boli, World Culture: Origins and Conse- quences (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005). 76. John Boli and George M. Thomas, eds., Constructing World Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999). 77. In their recent book, Buzan and Lawson still treat international administrative unions (“intergovernmental organizations”) not in terms of international law but as evidence of “social interaction capacity”; see The Global Transformation, 84–9. Notes ● 157

78. Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, Chapter 6. See also Banno Junji, “Meiji shoki (1873–85) no taigaikan,” Kokusai seiji no. 71 (1982): 10–20; and Motegi Toshio, Henyōsuru kindai higashi-Ajia no kokusai chitsujo (Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha 1997), 61–75. 79. Hishida Seiji pointed out more than a century ago that the 1871 Sino-Japanese Treaty of Tianjin was the first fully equal treaty in East Asia, even as it confirmed mutual consular jurisdiction; moreover, the Chinese and Japanese disputes over Taiwan and Ryūkyū (Liuqiu) were argued in Western terms: Japan cited international law on the right of a civilized state to occupy strategic lands outside of the jurisdiction of any independent power—Taiwan—to which China insisted on its sovereignty over Taiwan. When Japan claimed sovereignty over Liuqiu, China tacitly recognized Japan’s rights. See Seiji Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1905), 154–63. For a more recent treatment of the 1871 treaty, see Cassel, Grounds of Judgment, 96–109. 80. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, 136. 81. See Masaru Kohno, “On the Meiji Restoration: Japan’s Search for Sovereignty?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1 (2001): 265–83; Röhl, ed., History of Law in Japan since 1868, 29; Okagaki, The Logic of Conformity, 37, 100; Zach- mann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 45–7. 82. In this regard, I no longer accept my earlier interpretation, that Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War “marked Japan’s recovery of its sovereignty”: Japanese sovereignty was always intact. See Douglas Howland, “Sovereignty and the Laws of War: International Consequences of Japan’s 1905 Victory over Russia,” Law and History Review 29.1 (2011): 54. 83. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns, 128–30; Alan James, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Relations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 115–21; Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 15–20, 223f. 84. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 8f; James, Sovereign Statehood, 270f.

Chapter 2 1. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 8–20; Gerrit W. Gong, The Standard of “Civilization” in International Soci- ety (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 3–23; and Turan Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperial- ism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 58–61, 88. 2. In this book, I refer to the organization by its later name, the International Law Association (ILA), for the sake of simplicity and because archives and libraries catalogue ILA materials and publications under that name. 3. A modest exception is Arnulf Becker Lorca (Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933 [Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 158 ● Notes

2014], 2f), who acknowledges, as the point of departure for his argument, the participation of the Japanese Ueno Kagenori and the Chinese Guo Songtao at the 1878 meeting of the ILA. 4. William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clar- endon Press, 1924), 58f; T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 7; Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed., ed. Bryan A. Garner (St. Paul, MN: Thompson-Reuters, 2009), 892. See also Peter Malanc- zuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th rev. ed. (New York: Routledge, 1997), 71–4; William Cornish, “Private International Law,” in The Oxford History of the Laws of England, 1820–1914, English Legal System, vol. XI, ed. Wm. Cornish, et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 278–97; and Thomas Pfeiffer, “Public International Law,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Pub- lic International Law, ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), online edition accessed March 2012, www.mpepil.com. 5. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana ([1866] repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 111–5. 6. Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations Considered as Independent Political Commu- nities: On the Rights and Duties of Nations in Time of Peace, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1884), 265–8; James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1883–84), vol. I: 348–445; and Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920), vol. 1: 2f. See also Carlos Calvo, Dictionnaire manuel de diplomatie et de droit international public et privé (Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht [etc.], 1885), 153; Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of Interna- tional Law, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co., 1874), 109–14; and John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 9f. 7. The British and the Dutch attempted unsuccessfully to encourage Japanese neutrality during the Crimean War in 1856; see Kōzai Shigeru, “Japan’s Early Practice of International Law: The Law of Neutrality,” (Osaka Gakuin Daigaku) Kokusaigaku ronshū 7.1 (6/1996): 1–26. 8. The US and Dutch representatives had assisted the North German Confedera- tion in arranging a treaty of friendship and trade with Japan, but the Japanese, upon learning of the large number of German states that required treaties, decided rather arbitrarily to sign a treaty only with Prussia in 1861. Thus von Brandt was officially the representative of Prussia, until that treaty was replaced by that between Japan and the North German Federation in 1869, which was subequently applied to the German Empire in 1872. See Harald Kleinschmidt, Das europäische Völkerrecht und die ungleichen Verträge um die Mitte des 19. Jahr- hunderts (Tokyo: OAG Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Osta- siens, 2007), 50f, 70f, 76; Kurt Meissner, Deutsche in Japan, 1639–1960 (Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 1961), 21f; and Shimomura Fujio, Meiji shonen jōyaku kaiseishi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1962), 20f. Notes ● 159

9. See Takahashi Sakue, “La neutralité du Japon pendant la guerre franco-allemande,” RDILC 33 (1901): 255–68; Takahashi Sakue, “Historical Account of the Neu- trality of Japan Since 1870,” Kokusaihō zasshi 1 (1902), no. 2: 1–5, no. 4: 1–5, and no. 10: 1–6; Osatake Takeki, “Fu-Futsu sensō to Nihon,” Rekishi chiri 25 (1915): 107–16; Shinobu Junpei, “Vicissitudes of International law in the Mod- ern History of Japan,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 50.2 (5/1951): 222–5; and Richard Sims, French Policy Towards the Bakufu and Meiji Japan, 1854–95 (Richmond, Surrey, UK: Japan Library, 1998), 13, 16, 111f. 10. Japan’s “Proclamation of Neutrality” and its official French and English versions are printed in Nihon gaikō monjo, ed. Gaimushō (Tokyo: Gaimushō, 1955), vol. 6 [1870]: 32–7. Hereafter NGM. A German translation is printed in Neutralitäts- erlasse: 1854 bis 1904 (Berlin: Mittler, 1904), 243f. 11. See Outrey to Gramont, August 28, 1870, in France: Archives des affaires étrangères (ADAE): Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 20: [141–5]. Hereafter ADAE. 12. See Von Brandt to Outrey, October 11, 1870, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 20: [193–4]; and Outrey to von Brandt, October 11, 1870, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 20: [196–200]. 13. On the background of French troops in Japan, see Hora Tomio, “Bakumatsu- Ishin ni okeru Ei-Futsu guntai no Yokohama chūton,” in Meiji seiken no kakuritsu katei, ed. Meiji shiryō kenkyū renkakukai (Tokyo: Ochanomizu shobō, 1967), 166–269; Meron Medzini, French Policy in Japan during the Closing Years of the Tokugawa Regime (Cambridge, MA: East Asia Research Center, Harvard University, 1971); and Sims, French Policy, 94–6. 14. Osatake, “Fu-Futsu sensō to Nihon,” 114; Takahashi, “La neutralité du Japon pendant la guerre franco-allemande,” 261–3; Takahashi, “Historical Account of the Neutrality of Japan Since 1870,” 1, no. 4: 1–5; and Outrey to von Brandt, October 10, 1870, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 20: [191–2]. 15. Von Brandt to Sawa and Terashima, October 11, 1870, in NGM, vol. 6 (1870): 37–40. 16. The revised articles are reprinted in NGM, vol. 6 (1870): 40; for an English translation, see Francis Deák and Philip C. Jessup, A Collection of Neutrality Laws, Regulations, and Treaties of Various Countries (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endow- ment for International Peace, 1939), 737. 17. Parkes to Sawa and Terashima, October 14, 1870, in NGM, 6 (1870): 44–6; Outrey to Monsieur Le Ministre et Secrétaire d’État au Departement des affaires étrangères, September 20, 1870, ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 20: [158–63]; and Sims, French Policy, 112. 18. See the series of letters from von Brandt to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, in NGM, vol. 6 (1870): 60–6, and vol. 7 (1871): 393–7. At the same time, in the interests of trade, the British and US governments pressured France to neutralize the China Sea and Japanese waters during October and November 1870, which France was unwilling to do. See ADAE: Affaires diverses politiques (ADP): 40 ADP no. 2: dossier 2/1870. 160 ● Notes

19. Arnim to the Japanese Minister in Paris, November 13, 1871, in NGM, vol. 7 (1871): 432f. 20. Takahashi, “La neutralité du Japon pendant la guerre franco-allemande,” 264–8; see also Takahashi Sakue, Senji kokusai kōhō [enlarged ed.] (Tokyo: Tetsugaku shoin, [1902]), 15–23. 21. Seiji G. Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1905), 15f. 22. Douglas Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century: Interna- tional Law and Transcultural Process,” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010): 14–37. For a related analysis of neutrality as abstention, prevention, and aquiescence, see Ishimoto Yasuo, Chūritsu seido no shiteki kenkyū (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1958), 26–35. 23. Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century.” 24. See Douglas Howland, “The Maria Luz Incident: Personal Rights and Interna- tional Justice for Chinese Coolies and Japanese Prostitutes,” in Gender and Law in the Japanese Imperium, ed. Susan L. Burns and Barbara J. Brooks (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2013), 21–47. 25. On British and US policy, see Eldon Griffin, Clippers and Consuls: American Consular and Commercial Relations with Eastern Asia, 1845–1860 (Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros., 1938), 98–100, 194–9; Robert L. Irick, Ch'ing Policy Toward the Coolie Trade, 1847–1878 (Taipei: Chinese Materials Center, 1982), 15–20, 47–57, 60–8, 81–101; and Alexander Michie, The Englishman in China (Edin- burgh: Blackwood & Sons, 1900), vol. 2: 168–74. 26. American Diplomatic and Public Papers: The United States and China, Ser. II, The United States, China, and Imperial Rivalries, 1861–1893, vol. 12, The Coolie Trade and Outrages against the Chinese, ed. Jules Davids (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1979), 124; Great Britain, House of Commons, Coolie Emigration (London: n.p., 1868), 5; Irick, Ch'ing Policy, 137–40, 151–81 (especially pp. 167–71); Harley Farnsworth MacNair, The Chinese Abroad: Their Position and Protection, A Study in International Law and Relations (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1933), 213–4; Hosea Ballou Morse, The International Relations of the Chi- nese Empire (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1910–1918), vol. 2: 177. 27. Irick, Ch'ing Policy, 213–4; and Watt Stewart, Chinese Bondage in Peru: A His- tory of the Chinese Coolie in Peru, 1849–1874 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1951), 148–50. 28. Irick, Ch'ing Policy, 214–8; Stewart, Chinese Bondage in Peru, 48–52; Arnold J. Meagher, The Coolie Trade: The Traffic in Chinese Laborers to Latin America, 1847–1874 (N.p.: Xlibris, 2008), 174–92; Morse, The International Relations, vol. 2: 179f; American Diplomatic and Public Papers, Ser. II, vol. 12: 132–8; and Great Britain, House of Commons, Hong Kong Coolie Trade (London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1873), 22f, 27. 29. Contrary to what I wrote earlier in “The Maria Luz Incident,” research in the French foreign ministry archives has taught me that French officials in Japan were unhappy about Japan’s action and did not support it. See Garnault to Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, January 26, 1873, in ADAE: Affaires diverses Notes ● 161

politiques (ADP): 40 ADP no. 2/dossier no. 5 (1873)/file no. 22 (“Maria Luz” Affaire). 30. An official Japanese account of the incident was written by an assistant to the Kanagawa government, George Wallace Hill, although he is not credited as author: The Peruvian Barque “Maria Luz”: A Short Account of the Cases Tried in the Kanagawa Kencho . . . ([Kanagawa]: Kanagawa kenchō, 1874); this was translated by Japanese officials asPeirokoku Maria Roshi sen saiban ryakki ([Kanagawa]: Kanagawa kenchō, 1874), repr. Meiji bunka zenshū, vol. 11, Gaikō hen, ed. Meiji bunka kenkyūkai (Tokyo: Nihon Hyōronsha, 1968), 29–60. Official documents are gathered in NGM, vol. 8 (1872): 412–540, vol. 9 (1873): 479–553, vol. 10 (1874): 494–537, and vol. 11 (1875): 374–481; and Republica del Peru, Colec- ción de los tratados, convenciones capitulaciones, armisticios, y otros actos diplomáticos y políticos celebrados desde la independencia hasta el día, precedida de una introduc- ción que comprende la época colonial, ed. Ricardo Aranda (Lima: Imprenta del estado, 1890–1911), vol. 10. See also Great Britain, Foreign Office Archives, FO 84/1442 (“Slave Trade—Fugitive Slave Commission. No. 29. Escape of Coolie Emigrants from the Peruvian Ship ‘Maria Luz’ on Board Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Iron Duke’ in Japan in 1872”); and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1874), 524–630. 31. The most exacting discussions of the Maria Luz incident are Morita Tomoko, Kaikoku to chigai hōken (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005), 140–98; Tabo- hashi Kiyoshi, “Meiji gonen no ‘Maria Rusu’ jiken,” Shigaku zasshi (1929): 40.1: 98–114, 40.3: 102–13, 40.4: 87–112; and Takeda Yasumi, Maria Rusu jiken: Ōe Taku to dorei kaihō (Yokohama: Yurindo, 1981). For more extensive references, see Howland, “The Maria Luz Incident.” 32. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, vol. 1: 599f; NGM, vol. 8 (1872): 462–7; Shimomura Fujio, Meiji ishin no gaikō (Tokyo: Ōyasu shuppan, 1948), 166–8; Tabohashi, “Meiji gonen no ‘Maria Rusu’ jiken,” [part 2], 102–3, 106; and Takeda, Maria Rusu jiken, 75–6, 134–6. British authorities insisted from the beginning that Japan had jurisdiction over the ship; see Robertson to Wat- son, July 17, 1872, in FO 84/1442: [4–6]. Several months later, the German minister von Brandt rather patronizingly regretted that the Japanese government no longer had any use for the foreign consuls’ assistance in legal procedures such as this. See von Brandt’s statement of April 18, 1873, included in Turenne to Remusat, April 22, 1873, ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 22: [105–9]. 33. An English transcript of both trials was published “by the authority of the For- eign Department, Tokio, Japan” as Case of the Peruvian Barque Maria Luz; with Appendix (Yokohama: n.p., 1872); a copy is included in FO 84/1442: [220–6]. Takeda asserts that this pamphlet was printed for the Iwakura Mission to circu- late in Europe; see Maria Rusu jiken, 183. Matsumura Masayoshi reprints the pamphlet and develops its purpose as “public diplomacy” in “Maria Rusu gō jiken no kōhō gaikō teki seikaku,” Teikyō kokusai bunka, no. 9 (1996): 1–52. 34. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, vol. 1: 548–52; NGM, vol. 8 (1872): 502–10. 162 ● Notes

35. See Chouban yiwu shimo: Tongzhi chao, comp. Wen Qing (Peiping: Palace Museum, 1929–1930), juan 88: 49a–51b; Wade to Granville, November 17, 1872, enclosing a memo from the Zongli Yamen, in FO 84/1442: [259–64]; and Wayne C. McWilliams, “East Meets West: The Soejima Mission to China, 1873,” Monumenta Nipponica 30.3 (1975): 237–75. 36. On the García y García mission to Japan and China, see Morita, Kaikoku to chigai hōken, 227–45; and Stewart, Chinese Bondage in Peru, 160–205. 37. Disputes between Japan and the Western powers over extradition would come to a head in the 1880s; see James E. Hoare, “Japan Undermines Extraterritoriality: Extradition in Japan, 1885–1899,” in European Studies on Japan, ed. Ian Nish and Charles Dunn (Tenterden, UK: Norbury Publications, 1979), 125–9. 38. See Tabohashi, “Meiji gonen no ‘Maria Rusu’ jiken,” [part 3], 93–105; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, vol. 1: 586–94, 609–16; NGM, vol. 11 (1875): 395–437; Republica del Peru, Colección de los tratados, 152–77; Yasuo Ishimoto, “International Arbitration in the Meiji Era,” JAIL 7 (1963): 30–7; and Ishimoto Yasuo, “Meijiki ni okeru chūsai saiban no senrei (1),” Ōsaka shiritsu daigaku hōgaku zasshi 7.4 (1961): 50–78. For the official English translation of the czar’s judgment, see John Bassett Moore, History and Digest of the Interna- tional Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898), vol. 5: 5034–6. 39. Fedor Fedorovich Martens [F. de Martens], Traité de droit international, trans. Albert Leo (Paris: Librairie Marescq ainé, 1883–1887), vol. 2: 339f. 40. An excellent new study of arbitration is Steven M. Harris, “Between Law and Diplomacy: International Dispute Resolution in the Long Nineteenth Century” (PhD diss., University of California, Davis, 2015). 41. Igor R. Saveliev, “Rescuing the Prisoners of the Maria Luz: The Meiji Govern- ment and the ‘Coolie Trade,’ 1868–1875,” in Turning Points in Japanese History, ed. Bert Edström (N.p.: Japan Library, 2002), 71–83. 42. Gong, The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society, 45. Alan James has also argued that common values or rules do not help to differentiate “system” and “society”; see “System or Society?” Review of International Studies 19.3 (1993): 269–88 (esp. p. 272f); and Richard Little, “The English School and World His- tory,” in International Society and Its Critics, ed. Alex J. Bellamy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 45–63 (esp. pp. 48–52). 43. On the founding of the ILA and its early work, see Irwin Abrams, “The Emergence of the International Law Societies,” Review of Politics 19.3 (7/1957): 361–80; Lord [Richard Orme] Wilberforce, “The Daily Life and Administration of the Interna- tional Law Association,” in The Present State of International Law and Other Essays, written in honour of the Centenary Celebration of the International Law Association 1873–1973, ed. Maarten Bos (Deventer: Kluwer, 1973), 12–22; and Fritz Münch, “L’influence de l’International Law Association sur la doctrine et la pratique du droit international,” in The Present State of International Law and Other Essays, 23–36. 44. On the founding of the IDI and its initial work, see Abrams, “The Emergence of the International Law Societies”; Albéric Rolin, Les origines de l”Institut de droit Notes ● 163

international 1873–1923 (Bruxelles: Vromant, 1923); Romain Yakemtchouk, “Les origines de l’Institut de droit international,” RGDIP 77.2 (1973): 377–423; Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of Inter- national Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 39–70; and Philippe Rygiel, “Une impossible tâche?—L’Institut de Droit Inter- national et la régulation des migrations internationales 1870–1920” (PhD diss., Université Paris I, 2011), 21–35, 59–84. 45. Philippe Rygiel has noted that scholars from the United States more often joined the ILA rather than the IDI because of the ambiguous relationship between the US federal government and the states of the union regarding the international conflict of laws; see “Une impossible tâche?” 44f. 46. See International Law Association, Reports of the First Conference Held at Brussels, 1873, and of the Second Conference Held at Geneva, 1874 (London: West, New- man & Co., 1903), 22f, 44–6. 47. The ILA reported having seven Japanese members between 1874 and 1900. Three were diplomats: Ueno Kagenori, minister at London; Kawase Masataka, minister at Rome; and Sannomiya Yoshitani, secretary of the legation at Berlin. One was a scholar of international law: Takahashi Sakue, who joined only in 1900, in the wake of his celebrated book on the international law of the Sino- Japanese War and a successful visit to Oxford and Cambridge that year. The other three are somewhat obscure: Nagaoka Moriyoshi, advocate from Tokyo; Nishikawa Tetsujirō, an attaché at the Japanese Legation (London); and “Suge- matsu Kenchio,” who appears only in 1878 and about whom no further informa- tion is given. This is surely Suematsu Kenchō, who went to England in 1878 to work in the Japanese embassy there and to attend Cambridge University. See the archives of the International Law Association: A.ILA 1, nos. 1–5 (Lists of members, 1874–1902); and A.ILA 7 (Executive Council Agenda Book [1875–79]), October 7, 1878/Elections. 48. Wooyeno [Ueno] Kagenori, “Consular Jursidiction in Japan,” in International Law Association, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878 (London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1879), 38–40. 49. “Japan and ‘The Association for the Reform and Codification of International Law,’” The Japan Weekly Mail (May 21, 1881), 573–7 (quote on p. 577). 50. Dubousquet to Comte de Turenne, July 4, 1872, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 21: [412–9]. 51. Henry Richard, “The Gradual Triumph of Law over Brute Force,” in Interna- tional Law Association, Reports of the First Conference Held at Brussels, 1873, and of the Second Conference Held at Geneva, 1874, 79–99. 52. Travers Twiss, “Consular Jurisdiction in the Levant and the Status of Foreigners in the Ottoman Law Courts,” in International Law Association, Report of the Eighth Annual Conference Held at Berne, August 24th–27th, 1880 (London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1881), 27–49. Some of this presentation appeared in French at IDI conferences; see, for example, Twiss, “Rapport,” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 3–4 (1879–80): 300–5. 164 ● Notes

53. H. W. Freeland, “The Mixed Tribunals of Egypt,” in International Law Associa- tion, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878, 59f. 54. David Dudley Field, “Opening Address of the President,” in International Law Association, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878, 19. 55. See the comments of a Mr. Lane, in International Law Association, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878, 41f; John R. Davidson, in idem, Report of the Eighth Annual Conference Held at Berne, 24–27 August 1880, 57–60; and Simeon Baldwin, in idem, Report of the Eighth Annual Conference Held at Berne, 24–27 August 1880, 60f. 56. N. Iriye, “Consular Jurisdiction in Japan,” in International Law Association, Report of the Eighth Annual Conference Held at Berne, 24–27 August 1880, 51–7. Docu- ments in the Japanese Foreign Ministry reveal that Iriye’s speech was in fact the work of John Davidson, adviser to the Ministry; see NGM, vol. 16 (1880): 471–6. 57. See the comments of Dr. van Hamel, in International Law Association, Report of the Seventh Annual Conference Held at the Guildhall, London, 11–16 August 1879 (London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1880), 208–13. 58. Ibid., 212. The renowned Japanese debating society Meirokusha also debated the opening of Japan to foreign travel; in December 1874, both Nishi Amane and Tsuda Mamichi spoke in favor of foreign travel, for the same reasons that van Hamel presents here—the gradual spread of rationality and enlightenment. Fukuzawa Yukichi responded against that position in January 1875, arguing that because Japanese trade, commercial law, and public affairs lagged behind those of the West, allowing foreigners to travel freely in Japan would only support their privileged position. See Meiroku zasshi, trans. William Braisted (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 287–93, 298–301, 319–24. 59. This was a project pursued both internationally and within the IDI under the leadership of Italian scholar Pasquale Mancini. See Rodolfo De Nova, “Pasquale Stanislao Mancini (1817–1888),” in Institut de Droit International, Livre du Centenaire 1873–1973: Evolution et perspectives du droit international (Basel: S. Karger, 1973), 3–10. 60. Robert Joseph Phillimore, “Inaugural Address of the President,” in International Law Association, Report of the Seventh Annual Conference Held at the Guildhall, London, 11–16 August 1879, 16–31. 61. F. T. Piggott, “Foreign Judgments,” in International Law Association, Report of the Seventh Annual Conference Held at the Guildhall, London, 11–16 August 1879, 215–20. 62. Ibid., 216. 63. Ibid., 219. 64. Travers Twiss, “On Consular Jurisdiction in Japan and the Recent Legislation of the Japanese Government,” in International Law Association, Report of the Ninth Annual Conference Held at Cologne, 16–19 August 1881 (London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1882), 129–40. Notes ● 165

65. See M. de Martens, “Premier rapport,” “Second rapport,” and “Avant-projet,” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 6 (1883): 223–40. 66. For a review of the work of the IDI, see Charles De Visscher, “La contribution de l’Institut de Droit international au développement du droit international,” in Institut de Droit International, Livre du Centenaire 1873–1973, 128–61. 67. Paolo Paternostro, “Notice sur une conférence donnée à Tokio,” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 11 (1889–92): 347. On Paternostro’s service in Japan, see Umetani Noboru, Oyatoi gaikokujin, vol. 12, Seiji hōsei (N.p.: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1971), 207–32. 68. Paolo Paternostro, “La revision des traités avec le Japon au point de vue du droit international,” RDILC 18 (1891): 5–29, 176–92; and Travers Twiss, “La juridiction consulaire dans les pays de l’orient et spécialement au Japon,” RDILC 25 (1893): 213–29. The set of Meiji sources reprinted by Inō Tentarō demonstrates that Japanese publicists and legal scholars were already wise about the fiscal and political problems of extraterritoriality in the 1870s; see Inō, ed., Jōyaku kaiseiron shiryō shūsei (Tokyo: Hara shobō, 1994), 6 vols. 69. Justin Morris, “Normative Innovation and the Great Powers,” in International Society and Its Critics, ed. Alex J. Bellamy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 265–81 (esp. 269–71). 70. Jules Valery, “L’exterritorialité des lois et les états à formation complexe,” RDILC 29 (1897): 5–25. William Edward Hall discusses at length the problems of mar- riage under consular jurisdiction; see A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdic- tion of the British Crown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894), 75–7, 84–121, 193–203. 71. On domicile versus nationality, see Martens, Traité de droit international, vol. 2: 396, 401–8; Twiss, The Law of Nations Considered as Independent Political Com- munities, 2nd ed., 275–9; Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations, vol. 1: 424–38; and Cornish, “Private International Law,” 285–8. 72. Twiss, The Law of Nations Considered as Independent Political Communities, 2nd ed., 257–83. 73. Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations, vol. 1: 348–445. 74. Martens, Traité de droit international, vol. 2: 391–417. 75. Kurt Lipstein, “One Hundred Years of Hague Conferences on Private Interna- tional Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 42.3 (7/1993): 554–8, 561–70. See also Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th rev. ed., 71–4. 76. Rygiel, “Une impossible tâche?” 276–85. Rygiel’s sociological analysis of the membership of the IDI during its first five decades argues that it was especially composed of Western European law professors representing a liberal, Protestant, bourgeois, pragmatic, and conservative orientation: idem, 36–58. 77. Martens, Traité de droit international, vol. 2: 391f. 78. Marie Kim, Law and Custom in Korea: Comparative Legal History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 65–100. 79. Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism, 51–61, 80–7. 80. Gong, The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society, 181. 166 ● Notes

81. Ibid., 14–20. 82. Ibid., 59–63. Yet Gong continues to insist on the legal basis of the standard of civilization in his revisiting of the topic; see Gerrit W. Gong, “Standards of Civi- lization Today,” in Globalization and Civilizations, ed. Mehi Mozaffari (London: Routledge, 2002), 77–96. 83. Political dispute over conflict of laws was in fact the crux of the 1899 Japan House Tax Case, discussed in Chapter 6. See Douglas Howland, “The Japan House Tax Case, 1899–1905: Leases in Perpetuity and the Myth of Interna- tional Equality,” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 75.2 (2015): 413–34.

Chapter 3 1. Scholars routinely refer to the treaties as “unequal” (fubyōdō), but in the nineteenth century, they were usually referred to as the “unfair” (fukōhei) treaties. Only in the twentieth century, with the Chinese denunciation of their treaties as unequal, was the term retroactively used in Japan. Yet terms other than fukōhei sometimes appear. Ishii Takashi cites an 1874 opinion of the Justice Ministry regarding foreign travel into the interior that describes the treaties as fuheikin or “unbalanced”: see Meiji shoki no kokusai kankei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1977), 151; and Yamada Saburō described in 1902 Japan’s treaties with China and Korea as futaitō or “unequal”: see “Gaikokujin no chii o ronzu” [pt. 1], Kokusaihō zasshi 1.1 (2/1902): 10. 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 Ori- entalism: China, The United States, and Modern Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). 3. See Hora Tomio, “Chigaihōken,” in Meiji ishin shi kenkyū kōza, ed. Rekish- igaku 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. 4. See Ronald Toby, “Three Realms/Myriad Countries: An ‘Ethnography’ of Other and the Re-bounding of Japan, 1550–1750,” in Constructing Nationhood in Mod- ern 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 Tradi- tional East and Southeast Asian Societies, ed. J. B. Harley and David Woodward (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 346–455. 5. David L. Howell, “Territoriality and Collective Identity in Tokugawa Japan,” Daedalus 127.3 (1998): 105–32; and David L. Howell, Geographies of Identity Notes ● 167

in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 1, 4–8, 22, 151, 198. 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. 7. Ruggie, “Territoriality and Beyond,” 151. 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. 9. John R. Black, Young Japan: Yokohama and Yedo (London: Trubner & Co.; Yoko- hama: 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, Japan’s Treaty Ports and Foreign Settlements (Folkstone, UK: Japan Library, 1994), 107–18; and Michael R. Auslin, Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Trea- ties 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. 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 Juris- diction in Japan,” The Law Magazine and Review Quarterly Digest 11 (1885–86): 352. 11. The 1870 dispute over Christian missionaries proselytizing in Japan can be understood as a struggle over territorial sovereignty. The Japanese government insisted on its right to administer the population of Japan, who had no belief in Christianity, while the French, British, Spanish, and US ministers in Japan saw it as a matter of “freedom of religion.” See Outrey to La Tour d’Auvernge, Janu- ary 22, 1870, in France: Archives des affaires étrangères (ADAE): Correspon- dance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 19: [147–57] and the transcript of a conference among the foreign ministers and Japanese Foreign Ministry, in ADAE: CP: 59 CP no. 19: [241–56]. Hereafter ADAE. 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. 168 ● Notes

13. See the review of the issue by Christopher Roberts, The British Courts and Extra- Territoriality in Japan, 1859–1899 (Leiden: Global Oriental, 2014), 31–9. 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. Rich- ard 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. 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. 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. 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: Low- dermilk, 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, “Exter- ritorialität im Zeitalter der ungleichen Verträge,” in Völkerrecht und Weltwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Rainer Klump and Miloš Vec (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012), 221–43. 18. Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, The European-African Confrontation: A Study in Treaty Making (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973), 21, 32, 83–5; and Charles Henry Alex- androwicz, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 119–24. 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. Notes ● 169

20. Hinckley, American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, 12–18; Seiji Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: Columbia Uni- versity 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. 21. Douglas Howland, “The Foreign and the Sovereign: Extraterritoriality in East Asia,” in The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, ed. Douglas How- land and Luise White (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 35–55. 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. 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 Sover- eign 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. 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. 25. Teemu Ruskola, “Raping Like a State,” UCLA Law Review 57.5 (2010): 1531f. 26. Anthony Carty, Philosophy of International Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer- sity 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. 27. Kanae Taijudo, “Japan’s Early Practice of International Law in Fixing Its Ter- ritorial 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. 170 ● Notes

28. Howland, “International Law, State Will, and the Standard of Civilization in Japan’s Assertion of Sovereign Equality,” 196–9. 29. Ōishi Kazuo, Jōyaku kaisei kōshōshi, 1887–1894 (Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 2008), 226–65; Louis G. Perez, Japan Comes of Age: Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revi- sion of the Unequal Treaties (Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1999), 85. 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. 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, Ele- ments of International Law, 148–50; Theodore Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1874), 168f. 32. T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 229–33. 33. Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law, 102. Jörg Fisch notes Westlake’s fitful efforts to supply a legal basis for civilization; see Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984), 307f. 34. Baba Tatsui, The Treaty Between Japan and England (London: Trübner & Co., 1876), repr. Baba Tatsui zenshū (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1987), vol. 1: 142. 35. Ibid., 157. 36. William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Claren- don, 1924), 378n. 37. Ibid., 49, 61. 38. Alexandrowicz, The European-African Confrontation, 30–4, 94–7; Anghie, Impe- rialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 92–6; Martti Kosken- niemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 138–42. 39. Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed., 218f, 251. 40. Piggott, Exterterritoriality, 82–94. 41. Pietri, Étude critique sur la fiction d’exterritorialité, 5–8, 16–8, 121–4. 42. Ibid., 308–18, 336, 391f. 43. Senga Tsurutarō, Gestaltung und Kritik der heutigen Konsulargerichtsbarkeit in Japan (Berlin: Prager, 1897), 134–41, 145–55, 158–60. 44. Bingham to Fish, April 17, 1875, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1875: 791–3. Hereafter cited FRUS. 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. 46. Sumiyoshi, “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai” [part 2], 39, 60–2. 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. Notes ● 171

48. “Memorandum of an Interview between Lord Granville and Iwakura . . . 22 November 1872,” in FO 46/160: [80–2]; and “Memorandum of an Interview between Lord Granville and Iwakura . . . 27 November 1872,” FO 46/160: [86–9]. 49. Gaimushō, Nihon gaikō monjo, repr. ed. (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai rengō kyōkai, 1950–63), vol. 8 (1872): 549–53. Hereafter cited NGM. 50. NGM, vol. 8 (1872): 557–60. 51. NGM , vol. 9 (1873): 651f, 689f; Turenne to Remusat, March 17, 1873, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 22: [71–3]. 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. 53. See von Brandt to Uyeno, July 2, 1873, in FO 881/2504: 2; “Memorandum by Sir H. Parkes,” July 24, 1873, in FO 881/2504: 3–5; Parkes to Uyeno, July 26, 1873, in FO 881/2504: 6f; and “Minutes of Interview between the Foreign Minister Terashima and the Foreign Representatives,” November 8, 1873, in FO 881/2504: 14–17. A more complete Japanese version of this last item is reprinted in NGM, vol. 9 (1873): 675–83. 54. Parkes to Granville, October 7, 1873, in FO 46/168: [105–13]; Parkes to Gran- ville, January 12, 1874, in FO 881/2504: 17f; Wilkin to Parkes, November 5, 1873, plus enclosure “Resolution,” in FO 881/2504: 18–20. 55. Ishii, Meiji shoki no kokusai kankei, 99. The new French minister to Japan, Jules Berthemy, duly reported these developments to his superiors in Paris, noting Parkes’s leadership and his argument that Japan attempts to protect its manufac- tures; see Berthemy to Ministre des affaires étrangères, July 22, 1873, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 22: [273–81]. 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. 57. Parkes to Derby, with enclosures, May 12, 1874, in FO 881/2495: 1–5. 58. Terashima to Parkes, December 20, 1873, with enclosure “Memorandum,” in FO 881/2504: 22–4. 59. “Extract from Dispatch of Alcock to Medhurst,” as enclosure in Terashima to Parkes, December 20, 1873, in FO 881/2504: 29f. 60. Terashima to Parkes, December 20, 1873, with enclosure “Memorandum,” in FO 881/2504: 24. 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 172 ● Notes

from Japanese law, based on the 1869 Austria-Hungarian Treaty with Japan: Out- line Lectures on the History, Organization, Jurisdiction, and Practice of the Minis- terial and Consular Courts of the United States in Japan (Tokio: Igirisu Horitsu Gakko, 1887), 2–4. 62. The idea had been broached in 1873, with much fussing among the foreign ministers. See Berthemy to Ministre des affaires étrangères, July 22, 1873, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 22: [273–81]. 63. Draft Japanese regulations for foreign travel are reprinted in NGM, vol. 10 (1874): 590–92; the 1874 order to permit foreign licenses (passports) for travel in NGM, vol. 10 (1874): 618f; and the revised passport regulations of 1875 in NGM, vol. 11 (1875): 614–16. See also Parkes and the foreign ministers to Terashima, August 14, 1874, in NGM, vol. 10 (1874): 623–29; and Parkes to Terashima, July 5, 1875, in NGM, vol. 11 (1875): 634–38. Ishii makes a detailed analysis of the negotiations over the regulations in Meiji shoki no kokusai kankei, 157–66. 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. 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. 66. I treat the topic in detail in “An Englishman’s Right to Hunt: Territorial Sover- eignty and Extraterritorial Privilege in Japan,” Monde(s): histoire, espaces, relations, no. 1 (2012): 193–211. 67. Morita, Kaikoku to chigaihōken, 111f; U.S. v. Middleton, cited in Scidmore, Out- line Lectures, 13f, 223–5; Parkes to Derby, February 7, 1876 (with enclosures), FO 881/2847. 68. FRUS, 1874: 658f; and cited in Scidmore, Outline Lectures, 13f. 69. NGM, vol. 12 (1876): 598f; NGM, vol. 13 (1877): 138f. 70. NGM , vol. 12 (1876): 631; NGM, vol. 13 (1877): 145–7, 170f; and Morita, Kaikoku to chigaihōken, 113f, 119–121. In effect, when a foreigner received a hunting license, he entered into a covenant with the Japanese police and thus became liable for a civil action, were he to break the conditions of the hunting license. See NGM, vol. 12 (1876): 633f; and Hoare, Japan’s Treaty Ports and For- eign Settlements, 95. 71. Japanese officials conferred with their French counterparts regarding droit de chasse in 1876 and 1877; although France wanted to maintain the status quo, Japanese officials asserted in no uncertain terms that foreigners were absolutely prohibited from hunting except according to Japanese law. See ADAE: Affaires diverses politiques (ADP): 40 ADP, no. 4, dossier 1/1877, file 1. But French consuls had been more accommodating to Japan than their British counterparts; see Colleau (consul in Yokohama) to Turenne, May 17, 1873, in ADAE: Cor- respondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 22: [135]. 72. J. E. Hoare, “The ‘Bankoku Shimbun’ Affair: Foreigners, the Japanese Press, and Extraterritoriality in Early Meiji Japan,” Modern Asian Studies 9.3 (1975): Notes ● 173

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. 73. Sumiyoshi, “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai” [part 2], 62f. See also Senga Tsurutarō, Gestaltung und Kritik der heutigen Konsulargerichtsbarkeit in Japan, 40–50, for a list of offenses not specified in the treaties and over which the Japanese government gradually asserted jurisdiction.

Chapter 4 1. See, for examples, Japan, Gaimushō, Nihon gaikō monjo, repr. ed. (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai rengō kyōkai, 1950–63), vol. 11 (1875): 689 (Aoki Shūzō), 695f (Ueno Kagenori), 703 (Maejima Hisoka). Hereafter cited NGM. In a rare mention of Japan’s adherence to adminstrative unions, Alexander von Siebold described the process as Japan’s having “procured admittance into the diplomatic fellowship of the nations” by “a back-door,” even though Japan “was entitled to enter by the main portal”; see Japan’s Accession to the Comity of Nations, trans. Charles Lowe (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1901), 13–15. 2. Jean Claveirole, L’internationalisme et l’organisation international administrative (Saint-Étienne: A. Waton, 1910), 111–54 and annexes; Michael Wallace and J. David Singer, “Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System, 1815–1964: A Quantitative Description,” International Organization 24.2 (1970): 239–87. 3. Prior to the international unions of the nineteenth century, significant numbers of private international organizations existed—today called “international non- governmental organizations.” Best known are the anti-slavery societies and peace organizations of the early nineteenth century, but these were predated by reli- gious and political organizations in the eighteenth century. See Thomas Davies, NGOs: A New History of Transnational Civil Society (New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2013). 4. Heinrich Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1899), 49–74. See also M. P. Kasansky, “L’Union télégraphique internationale,” Journal télé- graphique 21.8 (August 8, 1897): 180; Otto Kunz, Die internationalen Telegraphen- Unionen (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1924), 40–2, 125f; and Miloš Vec, Recht und Normierung in der industriellen Revolution (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 2006), 112–23. 5. Henri Boisson, La société des nations et les bureaux internationaux des unions universelles postale et télégraphique (Paris: Pedone, 1932), 4f, 16–20; Hans Bühler, Der Weltpostverein: Eine völkerrechtsgeschichtliche und wirtschaftspolitische Unter- suchung (Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers, 1930), 54–65, 158f; and Henri Ranaivoson, L’union postale universelle (UPU) et la constitution d’un territoire postal unique (Berne: n.p., 1988), 58–60. 174 ● Notes

6. Robert von Mohl, Polizeiwissenschaft (1832, 1844), as cited in Michael Stolleis, Public Law in Germany, 1800–1914 (New York: Berghahn, 2001), 230. See also Luc Heuschling, État de droit, Rechtsstaat, Rule of Law (Paris: Dalloz, 2002), 6, 36–50, 69f; David F. Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 67–89, 115–7; and Yamamoto Sōji, “Kokusai gyōseihō no sonritsu kiban,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 76.5 (1969): 22f. 7. Stein’s 1852 essay, “Zur preussischen Verfassungsfrage,” is discussed in Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. Keith Tribe (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 65–9. 8. Stolleis, Public Law in Germany, 1800–1914, 232, 235; see also Heuschling, État de droit, 73–88, 100–8. 9. Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination, 126–8, 200f; Johannes Siemes, Die Gründ- ung des modernen japanischen Staates und das deutsche Staatsrecht: Der Beitrag Hermann Roeslers (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1975), 21–37, 130–2; Karl- Hermann Kästner, “From the Social Question to the Social State,” Economy and Society 10.1 (1981): 7–26; Eckart Pankoke, “Soziale Politik als Problem öffentli- cher Verwaltung: Zu Lorenz von Steins gesellschaftswissenschaftlicher Program- mierung des ‘arbeitenden Staates’,” in Staat und Gesellschaft: Studien über Lorenz von Stein, ed. Roman Schnur (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1978), 405–17; and Paul-Christian Schenck, Der deutsche Anteil an der Gestaltung des modernen japanischen Rechts- und Verfassungswesens (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997), 102–7. 10. Johannes Siemes, Herman Roesler and the Making of the Meiji State (Tokyo: Sophia University and Chas. E. Tuttle, 1968), 3–14; Carl Hermann Ule, “Zu den Anfängen der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Deutschland und Japan,” Verwaltungs-Archiv 80.3 (1989): 303–18; Umetani Noboru, Oyatoi gaikokujin, vol. 11, Seiji hōritsu (Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1971), 152–71; Wada Hideo, “The Administrative Court under the Meiji Constitution,” Law in Japan 10 (1977): 15–19. An excellent general discussion of German modeling on the part of Japan is Bernd Martin, Japan and Germany in the Modern World (Provi- dence: Berghahn Books, 1995). 11. Lorenz von Stein, “Einige Bemerkungen über das internationale Verwaltungs- recht,” [Schmollers] Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 6.2 (1882): 395–442; Otto von Sarway, Allgemeines Verwaltungs- recht (Freiburg: Mohr, 1887); see also Alfred H. Fried, Das internationale Leben der Gegenwart (Leipzig: Teubner, 1908), 21–4; and Yamamoto, “Kokusai gyōseihō no sonritsu kiban,” 22–34. 12. On the argument that international administrative law is grounded in national law, see Sabino Cassese, “Global Standards for National Administrative Proce- dure,” Law and Contemporary Problems 65:3-4 (2005): 109–26, esp. 112f; Lud- wig Geßner, “Die beiden Weltvereine für den Post- und Telegraphenverkehr,” Archiv für öffentliches Recht 2 (1887): 222, 236f. 13. On the development of administrative procedural law in Japan, see Wilhelm Röhl, ed., History of Law in Japan since 1868 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), Chapter 9. Notes ● 175

14. George A. Codding, Jr., The International Telecommunication Union: An Experi- ment in International Cooperation (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 23f, 48–52. On bureaus generally, see Norman L. Hill, International Administration (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1931), 143–71. 15. Boisson, La société des nations et les bureaux internationaux, 11–21; Codding, The International Telecommunication Union, 20–30; Kunz, Die internationalen Telegraphen-Unionen, 55–73; Francis Lyall, International Communications: The International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011), 25–37; and Louis Rolland, De la correspondance postale et télégraphique dans les relations internationales (Paris: Pedone, 1901), 151–9, 166–74. 16. The organization created in 1874 was called the “Union postale générale” (Gen- eral Postal Union). In June 1878, it became the "Union postale universelle” (Uni- versal Postal Union), which is still the name today. In this book, I simply call the organization the UPU. On the history of the UPU, see Albrecht Balmer, “Foundation and Growth of the Universal Postal Union,” L’Union postale 57:1 (1932): 1–12; Bühler, Der Weltpostverein, 14–39; George A. Codding Jr., The Universal Postal Union: Coordinator of the International Mails (New York: New York University Press, 1964), 20–47; and Ranaivoson, L’union postale universelle (UPU) et la constitution d’un territoire postal unique, 44–66. 17. Balmer, “Foundation and Growth of the Universal Postal Union,” 5–8; Bühler, Der Weltpostverein, 40–53; Geßner, “Die beiden Weltvereine für den Post- und Telegraphenverkehr,” 235–41; Ranaivoson, L’union postale universelle, 104–28, 190, 197. 18. I treat these issues in far greater detail in “An Alternative Mode of International Order: The International Administrative Union in the Nineteenth Century,” Review of International Studies 41.1 (2015): 161–83. 19. Boisson, La société des nations et les bureaux internationaux, 19–21; Keith Clark, International Communications: The American Attitude (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1931), 96–8, 105–8; Codding, The International Telecommunication Union, 48–52, 57–9; Kunz, Die internationalen Telegraphen-Unionen, 74–82, 85–9, 107–15; and Gustave Moynier, Les bureaux internationaux des unions universelles (Genève: A. Cherbuliez, 1892), 13–36. 20. Boisson, La société des nations et les bureaux internationaux, 5–12, Bühler, Der Weltpostverein, 96–101, 135–46; Lyall, International Communications, 234–42; and Ranaivoson, L’union postale universelle, 60–5. 21. Documents du Congrès Postal International réuni à Berne du 15 Septembre au 9 Octobre 1874 (Berne: Rieder & Simmen, 1875), 33, 65f, 80f, 91, 106; Union Postale Universelle, Documents du Congrès Postal de Paris, 1878 (Berne: Lang & Co., 1878), 75. 22. Madeleine Herren, Hintertüren zur Macht: Internationalismus und modernisierungsorientierte Außenpolitik in Belgien, der Schweiz, und den USA, 1865–1914 (München: Oldenbourg, 2000), 237–44; Madeleine Herren, “Governmental Internationalism and the Beginning of a New World Order in the Late Nineteenth 176 ● Notes

Century,” in The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War, ed. Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann (London: German Historical Institute; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 123, 133; Rolland, De la correspondance postale et télégraphique, 230. 23. A helpful discussion of the relationship between sovereign status and international activity is Alan James, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 13–36. 24. See Howland, “An Alternative Mode of International Order.” 25. Clark, International Communications, 102f; Kunz, Die internationalen Telegraphen- Unionen, 45–8; Rolland, De la correspondance postale et télégraphique, 206–10. 26. Bühler, Der Weltpostverein, 123–9; Claveirole, L’internationalisme et l’organisation international administrative, 98; Union Postale Universelle, Documents du Con- grès . . . 1878, 596f; and Léonard Laborie, L’Europe mise en réseaux: La France et la coopération internationale dans les postes et les télécommunications (années 1850 – années 1950) (Bruxelles: Peter Lang, 2010), 117f. Léon Chaubert has called this “tacit ratification”; see L’union postale universelle: son statut juridique, sa structure et son fonctionnement (Berne: Herbert Lang & CIE, 1970), 27–30. 27. Parkes to Granville, November 19, 1873, in Great Britain, National Archives, Foreign Office Archives, file FO 46/168: [299–300]. Hereafter cited FO. See also Maejima Hisoka, Yūbin sōgyō den (Tokyo: Teishin kyōkai, 1936), 41. 28. NGM , vol. 11 (1875): 689–91, 695, 697. I treat this history in greater detail in “Japan and the Universal Postal Union: An Alternative Internationalism in the 19th Century,” Social Science Japan Journal 17.1 (Winter 2014): 23–39. 29. NGM , vol. 11 (1875): 697–700. See also Art. XVII of the Treaty . . . relative to the formation of a General Postal Union—Signed at Berne, October 9, 1874, in The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Clive Parry (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1969–81), vol. 147: 141f. 30. For the 1874 Agreement, see NGM, vol. 9 (1873): 766–95; and NGM, vol. 10 (1874): 705–36. For the 1875 and 1876 revisions, see NGM, vol. 12 (1876): 783–96. See also Maejima, Yūbin sōgyō den, 49–54; and Yabuuchi Yoshihiko, Nihon yūbin sōgyōshi (Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 1975), 227–32. 31. Takahashi Zenshichi, Oyatoi gaikokujin: Tsūshin [Oyatoi gaikokujin, ed. Umetani Noboru, vol. 7.] (Tokyo: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1969), 91–5. 32. Janet Hunter, “The Abolition of Extraterritoriality in the Japanese Post Office, 1873–1880,” Proceedings of the British Association for Japanese Studies 1.1 (1976): 21f; Kamikawa Hikomatsu, ed., Japan-American Diplomatic Relations in the Meiji- Taisho Era (Tokyo: Pan-Pacific Press, 1958), 85; Yūseishō, ed., Yūsei hyakunen shi (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1971), 88. 33. Parkes to Derby, March 31, 1877, in FO 46/269: [43–6]. 34. Parkes to Derby, March 11, 1878, in FO 46/269: [174–91]. 35. NGM , vol. 11 (1875): 706–25; NGM, vol. 12 (1876): 789–91; and Takahashi, Oyatoi gaikokujin: Tsūshin, 112–14. 36. NGM , vol. 12 (1876): 801–6; and vol. 13 (1877): 78f, 84–91, 97–9, 102–4. See also Carl Schröter, Der Weltpostverein: Geschichte seiner Gründung und Notes ● 177

Entwicklung in 25 Jahren (Bern: K. J. Wyss, 1900), 68f; and Siebold, Japan’s Accession to the Comity of Nations, 14f. 37. Parkes’s problematic performance as British minister in Japan has been explored by Gordon Daniels, Sir Harry Parkes: British Representative in Japan, 1865–83 (Rich- mond, Surrey: Japan Library, 1996), 149–51, 171. See also Olive Checkland, Brit- ain’s Encounters with Meiji Japan, 1868–1912 (London: Macmillan, 1989), 7–11; and James Hoare, “The Era of the Unequal Treaties, 1858–1899,” in The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations, vol. 1, The Political-Diplomatic Dimension, ed. Ian Nish and Yoichi Kibata (London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 2000), 110–26. 38. Tilley to Tenterden, June 12, 1877, FO 46/269: [92–4]. 39. Parkes to Derby, March 31, 1877, FO 46/269: [39]; Parkes to Salisbury, Decem- ber 12, 1878, FO 46/269: [247–51]; Madrads to Hennessy, June 16, 1879, FO 46/269: [324–26]; and Kennedy to Salisbury, December 12, 1880, FO 46/269: [431–32]. 40. See Parkes to Hennessey, November 11, 1878, in FO 46/269: [252–60]; Parkes to Salisbury, June 27, 1879, in FO 46/269: [316–18]; Terashima to de Balloy, July 3, 1879, in FO 46/269: [368–69]. 41. See Parkes to Inoue, October 6, 1879, with draft of agreement, in FO 46/269: [400–5]. The Agreement is reprinted in The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Parry, vol. 154: 334f; see also Takahashi, Oyatoi gaikokujin: Tsūshin, 114–119. For a fuller account, see Howland, “Japan and the Universal Postal Union.” 42. France subsequently signed a postal agreement with Japan in 1884; see France: Archives des affaires étrangères (ADAE): Affaires diverses politiques (ADP): 40 ADP no. 6 (1884–85): dossier #1 (1884). Hereafter ADAE. 43. Parkes was unhappy about the Danish cable and further peeved that the United States had secured the rights to lay a cross-Pacific cable in 1870, which was not completed until 1906. See Parkes to Granville, October 7, 1873, in FO 46/168: [126–9], with enclosures; Parkes to Soejima, August 9, 1873, in FO 46/168: [130f]; and de Long to Soejima, August 7, 1873, in FO 46/168: [132f]. See also Outrey to Monsieur le Ministre et Secrétiare d’État au Departement des affaires étrangères, Ocotber 1, 1870, in ADAE: Correspondance politique (CP): 59 CP no. 20: [173–5]. 44. D. Eleanor Westney, “Building the National Communications System,” in The Ambivalence of Nationalism: Modern Japan between East and West, ed. James W. White, Michio Umegaki, and Thomas R. H. Havens (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 41–54; Takahashi, Oyatoi gaikokujin: Tsūshin, 30–5, 39, 59–63, 76–86; Takahashi Zenshichi, Tsūshin [Nihonshi shōhyakka, vol. 23] (Tokyo: Kondo shuppansha, 1986), 160–3; Yūseishō, ed., Yūsei hyakunen shi, 49–55, 113–21; Kurt Jakobsen, “In Struggle for Control over the Far Eastern Telegraphs: The Great Northern Telegraph Company and Japan (1870–1943),” in Transnational Companies (19th–20th Centuries), ed. Hubert Bonin, et al. (Paris: Éditions PLAGE, 2002), 331–3; Checkland, Britain’s Encounter with Meiji Japan, 1868–1912, 51–3; Jorma Ahvenainen, The Far Eastern Telegraphs (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1981), 38–48, 186–8. 45. NGM , vol. 7, part 2 (1871): 943f. 178 ● Notes

46. NGM , vol. 14 (1878): 203–5; NGM, vol. 8 (1872): 606–10; NGM, vol. 7, part 2 (1871): 953. See also Jakobsen, “In Struggle for Control over the Far Eastern Telegraphs,” 333. 47. Daqing Yang, Technology of Empire: Telecommunications and Japanese Expansion in Asia, 1883–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2010), 27–8, 33–9; Jakobsen, “In Struggle for Control over the Far Eastern Telegraphs,” 333–8; Ahvenainen, The Far Eastern Telegraphs, 189–91. The first undersea cable that Japan installed was an experimental line in 1876 from Okayama to Shikoku through the Inland Sea; see Takahashi, Oyatoi gaikokujin: Tsūshin, 59–63. For an account of Japan’s relations with the Great Northern Telegraph Company, see Ishihara Fujio, Kokusai tsūshin no Nihon shi (Tokyo: Tōkai daigaku shuppankai, 1999), 3–8, 47–72, 109–21. 48. See Douglas Howland, “Telegraph Technology and Administrative Internation- alism in the 19th Century,” in The Global Politics of Science and Technology, ed. Maximilian Mayer, Mariana Carpes, and Ruth Knoblich (Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag, 2014), vol. 1: 183–99. 49. France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines (12–21 mai 1886) (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1886), 7. 50. France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines, seconde session, 16–26 octobre 1883: Procès-verbaux (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883), 20, 45, 69–71. 51. France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines (12–21 mai 1886), 7. These were the Western Union Company and the Commercial Cable Company. 52. France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines, 16 octobre–2 novembre 1882: Procès-verbaux (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1882), 12f. For a background summary, see Clark, Inter- national Communications, 123–9. 53. NGM , vol. 18 (1882): 89–95. 54. France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines . . . 1882, 55–60, 75–82. 55. Ibid., 97f. 56. Ibid., 82. 57. France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines . . . 1883, 42, 67–9. 58. Ibid., 92. 59. Ibid., 103, 110. 60. Ibid., 77–80, 93f, 99–103. 61. NGM, vol. 18 (1882): 96–101. 62. NGM , vol. 23 (1885): 77–89; see also France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines (12–21 mai 1886) (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1886), 50f, 98. 63. Yamamoto Shun’ichi, Nihon korera shi (Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppansha, 1982), 249–67. Notes ● 179

64. Foreign Relations of the United States 1879: 651 (hereafter cited FRUS); and NGM, vol. 15 (1879): 290. Foreign Minister Terashima subsequently reduced the period to seven days, based on the advice of the French representative; see FRUS 1879, 671; NGM vol. 15 (1879): 299. 65. See Dr. Gutschow’s report, in FRUS 1879, 677f; and NGM, vol. 15 (1879): 307–9. The official reports differ as to the precise dating of the Hesperia’s arrival and initial events. 66. FRUS 1879, 678. 67. Parkes to Salisbury, August 11, 1879, in FO 46/334: [189]; FRUS 1879, 672; and Yamamoto, Nihon korera shi, 255–9. Parkes apparently emphasized the 1873 regulations because the negotiations of 1878 had deadlocked over the issue of who would appoint the Board of Health in Japan; while Parkes insisted that foreigners be involved, US Minister Bingham would grant Japan all authority. See Parkes to Salisbury, March 29, 1879, in FO 262/333: [344–51]; and cf. Parkes to Granville, October 6, 1873, in FO 46/168: [88–91], with copy of Parkes to Soejima, August 12, 1873, and 1873 regulations in FO 46/168: [92–103]. 68. The correspondence is collected inNGM , vol. 15 (1879): 294, 302–6; FRUS 1879: 666f, 674–80; and as a set of enclosures in Parkes to Salisbury, August 12, 1879, in FO 46/334: [203–14]. 69. See FRUS 1879: 651f, 661–3; NGM, vol. 15 (1879): 325–7; and Parkes to Salis- bury, August 12, 1879, in FO 46/334: [207]. 70. NGM, vol. 15 (1879): 299–302, 309f, 311f. 71. Parkes to Salisbury, March 29, 1879, in FO 262/333: [280–2]; and Imai Shōji, “Hesuperia-gō jiken ni tsuite,” Rekishi kyōiku 12.1 (1964): 37. 72. See Eisendecher’s ex post facto justifications of July 21, 24, and 26, 1879, to Ter- ashima, in FRUS 1879: 679f; and NGM, vol. 15 (1879): 314f, 328f. 73. Peter Pantzer and Sven Saaler, Japanische Impressionen eines Kaiserlichen Gesandten: Karl von Eisendecher im Japan der Meiji-Zeit (München: Iudicum, 2007), 26–8, 195–8. Gerd Hoffmann dismisses the incident as merely “Preßlärm,” but he presents Eisendecher in the best light; he omits entirely a second scandal eight months later when, during the official visit of Prussian Prince Heinrich von Hohenzollern, the prince was arrested incognito while illegally hunting: “Karl von Eisendecher—Preußischer und Kaiserlicher Marineoffizier und Diplomat aus Oldenburg,” Oldenburgische Familienkunde 53 (2011): 264f. 74. Yamamoto, Nihon korera shi, 264–267; Parkes to Salisbury, August 11, 1879, in FO 46/334: [195–201]. 75. Richard N. Cooper, “International Cooperation in Public Health as a Prologue to Macroeconomic Cooperation,” in Can Nations Agree? Issues in International Economic Cooperation, Richard N. Cooper et al. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1989), 203f; Mark Harrison, “Disease, Diplomacy, and Interna- tional Commerce: The Origins of International Sanitary Regulation in the Nine- teenth Century,” Journal of Global History 1.2 (2006): 213–5; Valeska Huber, “The Unification of the Globe by Disease? The International Sanitary Confer- ences on Cholera, 1851–1894,” The Historical Journal 49.2 (2006): 454f; Doro- thy Porter, Health, Civilization, and the State: A History of Public Health from 180 ● Notes

Ancient to Modern Times (London: Routledge, 1999), 79–96; Oleg P. Schepin and Waldemar V. Yermakov, International Quarantine, trans. B. Meerovich and V. Bobrov (Madison: International Universities Press, 1991), 95f; World Health Organization, The First Ten Years of the World Health Organization (Geneva: WHO, 1958), 3. 76. See Douglas Howland, “Cholera Quarantine and Territorial Sovereignty in the Age of Imperialism,” forthcoming. 77. NGM , vol. 16 (1880): 494–6; see also International Sanitary Conference, Pro- ceedings of the International Sanitary Conference provided by joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in the early part of 1881 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1881), 158–60. 78. NGM, vol. 16 (1880): 491. 79. Mahito H. Fukuda, “Public Health in Modern Japan: From Regimen to Hygiene,” in The History of Public Health and the Modern State, ed. Dorothy Parker (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994), 385–402; Kozo Tatara, “The Origins and Development of Public Health in Japan,” in Oxford Textbook of Public Health, 3rd ed., vol. 1, The Scope of Public Health, ed. Roger Detels et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 55–72; International Sanitary Conference, Proceedings . . . 1881, 176f. 80. NGM, vol. 16 (1880): 496f. 81. NGM, vol. 16 (1880): 498. 82. See “An act to prevent the introduction of contagious or infections diseases into the United States” (June 2, 1879), in Statutes at Large of the United States of America 21 (1881): 5–7; and International Sanitary Conference, Proceedings . . . 1881, 161–4. See also Norman Howard-Jones, The Scientific Back- ground of the International Sanitary Conferences, 1851–1938 (Geneva: WHO, 1975), 43; Neville M. Goodman, International Health Organizations and Their Work, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1971), 61f; Cooper, “Interna- tional Cooperation in Public Health,” 206–8. 83. International Sanitary Conference, Proceedings . . . 1881, 16, 54. 84. Ibid., 19f, 32f, 78f. 85. Ibid., 50–5. 86. Ibid., 20, 76. 87. Ibid., 53, 70–3, 102. 88. Ibid., 31. 89. Ibid., 75, 148; Schepin and Yermakov, International Quarantine, 108–10. 90. International Sanitary Conference, Proceedings . . . 1881, 76. 91. Ibid., 126–32; see also Gerard J. Mangone, A Short History of International Orga- nization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954), 80; Howard-Jones, The Scientific Back- ground of the International Sanitary Conferences, 42–5; Goodman, International Health Organizations and Their Work, 60–4. 92. Paul Faivre, Prophylaxie internationale et nationale (Paris: J-B. Baillière, 1908), 18; International Sanitary Conference, Proceedings . . . 1881, 147. 93. International Sanitary Conference, Proceedings . . . 1881, 40, 120–6. Notes ● 181

94. Ibid., 111–17; 151–4. 95. Ibid., 140, 167–77. 96. NGM, vol. 16 (1880): 501. 97. Céline Paillette, “Épidémies, santé et ordre mondial: Le rôle des organisations sanitaires internationales, 1903–1923,” Monde(s): histoire, espaces, relations, no. 2 (2012): 243. 98. Hawai‘i State Archives, Files 403-17-263 (Foreign Officials in Hawai‘i: Japan/ Jan.–May 1897), 403-18-265 (Foreign Officials in Hawai‘i: Japan/[June–Dec. 1897]), and 403-18-267 (Foreign Officials in Hawai‘i: Japan/1898). See also NGM, vol. 35 (1897): 659–938; and Republic of Hawai‘i, Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Republic of Hawaii, for the Biennial Period Ending December 31, 1897 (Honolulu: Hawaiian Star Press, 1898), 4–75.

Chapter 5 1. Theodore D. Woolsey,Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co., 1874), 29–32. Woolsey’s treatise was translated into Chinese in 1877 and that translation reprinted in Japan in 1878 and 1879. 2. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, trans. J. Chitty (Philadelphia: T. & J.W. Johnson, 1853), 429; Christian Wolff, Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertrac- tatum, trans. J. Drake (Oxford: Clarendon, 1934), 36f, 486f; Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana ([1866] repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 309f; Robert Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law (Philadelphia: Johnson, 1854), vol. 3: 99, 442; and T. J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London: Macmillan, 1895), 290, 293. James Lorimer too described war as an “abnormal jural relation” in The Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1883–84), vol. 2: 10–14, 18–23. 3. Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 139–45, 168–74; see also K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), Chapter 9 (esp. pp. 297–9). 4. Robert B. Valliant, “The Selling of Japan: Japanese Manipulation of Western Opinion, 1900–1905,” Monumenta Nipponica 29.4 (1974): 415–38; and Kenshō: Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Yomiuri shinbunsha shuzaidan (Tokyo: Chūōkōron shinsha, 2005), 161–71. 5. See Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of Inter- national Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), Chapter 1; and Philippe Rygiel, “Une impossible tâche? L’Institut de Droit Inter- national et la régulation des migrations internationales 1870–1920” (PhD diss., Université Paris I, 2011), 36–58. 6. Ariga’s reputation was based on his definitive works on the Sino-Japanese and Russo- Japanese Wars and his Bankoku senji kōhō (The International Law of War), which 182 ● Notes

served as a textbook for students at the Japanese Army and Navy war colleges. He also helped to found the Japanese Red Cross, about whose operations in the Russo- Japanese War he wrote a widely read work. See Matsushita Sachiko, “Nichi-Ro sensō ni okeru kokusaihō no hasshin: Ariga Nagao o kiten to shite,” in Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai (Tokyo: Kinseisha, 2004–2005): vol. 1: 195–210; Ichimata Masao, Nihon no kokusaihōgaku o kizuita hitobito (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai mondai kenkyūjo, 1973), 67–80; and Paula S. Harrell, Asia for the Asians: China in the Lives of Five Meiji Japanese (Portland, ME: MerwinAsia, 2012), 243–74. 7. Ariga Nagao, La guerre Sino-Japonaise au point de vue du droit international (Paris: Pedone, 1896) and La guerre Russo-Japonaise au point de vue continental et le droit international (Paris: Pedone, 1908). See also two defenses of Japan’s treatment of prisoners of war: Henri Harburger, “Du manque de parole des prisonniers de guerre,” RDILC ser. 2, vol. 2 (1900): 151–8; and Akiyama Masanosuke, “Règle- ments et instructions du gouvernement Japonais sur le traitement des sujets russes pendant la guerre Russo-Japonaise,” RDILC ser. 2, vol. 8 (1905): 567–84, 706– 16 and vol. 9 (1905): 211–29, 297–315. 8. Takahashi Sakue, Cases on International Law During the Chino-Japanese War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899) and International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War (London: Steven & Sons, 1908). His most famous work was Senji kokusai kōhō (1900), a treatise on the international law of war. 9. Takahashi Sakue, Eisen ‘Kōshō’ gō no gekichin (Tokyo: Shūeisha, 1903), 140–3. 10. See Kajima Morinosuke, Nichi-Ro sensō [= Nihon gaikōshi, vol. 7] (Tokyo: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1970), 120–7; Kamikawa Hikomatsu, ed., Japan-American Diplomatic Relations in the Meiji-Taisho Era, trans. Kimura Michiko (Tokyo: Pan-Pacific, 1958), 204–33; Kenshō: Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Yomiuri shinbunsha shuzaidan, 24–8; Matsumura Masayoshi, Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō: kōhō gaikō no kenkyū, rev. and enlarged ed. (Tokyo: Shin’yūdō, 1987), 13–15, 40, 110f, 140f, 491; Matsumura Masayoshi, “Yōroppa ni okeru ‘kōhō dantō daishi’ toshite no Suematsu Kenchō,” in Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai, vol. 1: 125–40; Ian Nish, “Suematsu Kencho: International Envoy to Wartime Europe,” International Studies Discussion Papers (STICERD, London School of Economic and Political Science) May 2005: 12–24; Valliant, “The Selling of Japan,” 422–9; John Albert White, The Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (Princeton: Princ- eton University Press, 1964), 156–63; and Suematsu Kenchō, The Risen Sun (London: Archibald Constable & Co., 1905), vii–ix. 11. Kentaro Kaneko, “The Far East After the War,” The World’s Work 9 (2/1905): 5868–71; Kentaro Kaneko, “The Yellow Peril is the Golden Opportunity for Japan,” North American Review 179 (11/1904): 641–8; and Kogoro Takahira, “Why Japan Resists Russia,” North American Review 178 (3/1904): 321–7. 12. See Douglas Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century: Interna- tional Law and Transcultural Process,” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010): 24–8. 13. See Douglas Howland, “The Sinking of the S.S. Kowshing: International Law, Diplomacy, and the Sino-Japanese War,” Modern Asian Studies 42.4 (2008): 673–703. Notes ● 183

14. Ariga, La guerre Sino-Japonaise, 19; Takahashi, Eisen ‘Kōshō’ gō no gekichin, 26f; and “Chine et Japon—Guerre,” RGDIP 1 (1894): 464–68, and 2 (1895): 131f. Although this last item is anonymous, the author was likely Francis Rey. 15. Ariga, La guerre Sino-Japonaise, 12–16; see also S. C. M. Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 112–21. 16. Takahashi, Eisen ‘Kōshō’ gō no gekichin, 79–95. 17. See, for example, Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law, 197–200. 18. See Fremantle’s report to the Admiralty, August 8, 1894, in British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, Part I, Series E, Volume 4, Sino-Japanese War, 1894, ed. Ian Nish (N.p.: University Publications of America, 1989), 111; and the Foreign Office memo of August 17 to the Admiralty and the Law Officers of the Crown, in idem, 127. This volume hereafter abbreviated BDOFA. 19. Joseph R. Baker and Louis W. McKernan, Selected Topics Connected with the Laws of Warfare, as of August 1, 1919 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919), 24–32; and Lawrence, The Principles of International Law, 299–302. 20. J. Westlake, “To the Editor of the Times,” August 3, 1894, p. 10; and T. E. Hol- land, “To the Editor of the Times,” August 7, 1894, p. 3. Both letters are reprinted in Takahashi, Cases on International Law, 38–42. See also BDOFA, vol. 4: 14–15, 317–20; and Lord Herschell, “The ‘Kowshing’ Memorandum,” November 10, 1894, in British Foreign Office Archives (National Archives, Kew), file FO 46/446. Hereafter abbreviated FO. 21. Kan’ichi Asakawa, The Russo-Japanese Conflict: Its Causes and Issues (Bos- ton: Houghton Mifflin, 1904), 342–4; Nagaoka Harukazu, “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international,” RDILC 36 [2nd series, vol. 6] (1904): 461–79; Suematsu, The Risen Sun, 64–70, 92–7; Teramoto Yasutoshi, Nichi-ro sensō igo no Nihon gaikō (Tokyo: Shinzansha, 1999), 15–30; and Gaimushō, Nihon gaikō monjo, repr. ed. (Tokyo: Nihon kokusai rengō kyōkai, 1950–63), vol. 51 (1904–05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 1–4, 139–55. I abbreviate this last work as NGM herein. 22. Francis Rey, “Japon et Russie—guerre” [part 3], RGDIP 13 (1906): 612–27. 23. Charles Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise (Paris: Pedone, 1911), 3–12; Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 22–5; Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 30–2; and C. J. B. Hurst and F. E. Bray, Russian and Japanese Prize Cases (London: HMSO, 1912–13), vol. 2: 1–11. 24. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 6–14. 25. The IDI committee was led by Albéric Rolin, who prepared an initial “Rapport sur la question de la déclaration de guerre,” Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international 20 (1904): 64–70; and a second “Rapport,” Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 27–55. Minutes of the general discussion appear as “Commencement de la guerre au XXe siècle: Questions de la déclaration de guerre,” Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 269–93. 184 ● Notes

26. Marius Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1907), 106; and A. Mérignhac, “Préface,” in Maurel, xiii. 27. Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre, 290–3; and Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise, 4–11. 28. Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise, 9f; Fré- déric de Martens [Fedor Martens], “Les hostilités sans déclaration de guerre—à propos de la guerre russo-japonaise,” RGDIP 11 (1904), 148–50. See also Ernest Nys, “La guerre et la déclaration de guerre—quelques notes,” RDILC ser. II, vol. 6 (1905): 517–42. German jurists differed as to whether a declaration of war was necessary prior to the opening of hostilities; more typically “continental” was Emanuel von Ullmann, “Der Krieg in Ostasien und das Völkerrecht,” Die Woche (Berlin) 6.8 (1904): 322–3; and more sympathetic to Japan was [Dr.] Siehl, “Der Angriff der Japaner gegen Russland im Lichte des Völkerrechts,” Deutsche Juris- ten-Zeitung 9.6 (1904): 281–5. 29. Nagaoka, “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international,” 475–79; and Nagaoka Harukazu, “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise au point de vue du droit international,” RDILC 12 (1905): 603–5. See also the survey by J. F. Maurice, Hostilities without Declaration of War (London: HMSO, 1883). 30. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 23–32. 31. Rolin, “Rapport” (1906), 34–6. 32. Amos S. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (New York: Macmillan, 1906), 58–61, 66–70; T. J. Lawrence, War and Neutral- ity in the Far East, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1904), 26–36; and F. E. Smith [Birkenhead] and N. W. Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo- Japanese War (London: Fisher Unwin, 1905), 51–8. 33. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 20–5; see also Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise, 10f. Takahashi’s major work on the laws of war began with the state’s right to wage war; see Senji kokusai kōhō [enlarged ed.] (Tokyo: Tetsugaku shoin, [1902]), 1–15. By contrast, his colleague Ariga Nagao’s textbook began with obligations under international law such as the Geneva Convention; see Bankoku senji kōhō (Tokyo: Rikugun daigakkō, 1894), 1–14. 34. Ellery C. Stowell, “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities,” AJIL 2.1 (1/1908): 52. 35. Henri Ebren, “Obligation juridique de la déclaration de guerre,” RGDIP 11 (1904): 133–48; Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre, 124–45. See also Charles Dupuis, “La déclaration de guerre,” RGDIP 13 (1906): 734; and Antoine Pillet, “La guerre doit-elle être précédée d’une déclaration?” Revue politique et parlementaire 40 [no. 118] (1904): 50–7. Louis Féraud-Giraud noted the difficulties created for neutral powers: “De la neutralité,” RGDIP 2 (1895): 291–6. 36. William Isaac Hull, The Two Hague Conferences and their Contributions to Interna- tional Law (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1908), 263. 37. James Brown Scott, ed., The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1918), 96; and The Hague Notes ● 185

International Peace Conferences, The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences: Translations of the Official Texts, ed. James Brown Scott (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1921), vol. 4: 157–65. 38. Report of Andrew White, quoted in James Brown Scott, The Hague Peace Con- ferences of 1899 and 1907: A Series of Lectures delivered before the Johns Hopkins University in the Year 1908 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909), vol. 1: 179; Stowell, “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities,” 55; see also A. Pearce Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences and other International Conferences Concerning the Laws and Usages of War (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 205. In this light, the comments of Fedor Fedorovich Martens [F. de Martens] on a state’s “right of intervention” are instructive: Traité de droit international, trans. Albert Leo (Paris: Librairie Marescq ainé, 1883– 1887), vol. 1: 397–402. 39. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 6; and John Westlake, “The Hague Conferences,” in Collected Papers of John Westlake on Pub- lic International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 540f. 40. Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 522; and Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 205. 41. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 20f. 42. Nagaoka, “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international,” 490f; and Seiji G. Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power (New York: Colum- bia University Press, 1905), 70f. 43. Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise, 194. Japanese diplomacy regarding Korean neutrality, first raised on January 16 with the Italian minister to Japan, is reprinted in NGM, vol. 47 (1904, part 1): 310–32. 44. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 46–53; and Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre, 173f. It is curious that Ariga’s textbook discussion of neutrality did not mention necessity; see Bankoku senji kōhō, 586–614. 45. Hurst and Bray, Russian and Japanese Prize Cases, vol. 2: 1–9; Takahashi, Inter- national Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 60–69; and NGM, vol. 51 (1904-05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 234–56. 46. NGM , vol. 51 (1904-05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 95–127, 129–38; Smith [Birken- head] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War, 112–16; Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 462–6; Jean-Marie de Lanessan, Les enseignements maritime de la guerre Russo-Japonaise (Paris: F. Alcan, 1905), 197f; and Foreign Relations of the United States (1904): 780–85. This series hereafter abbreviatedFRUS . 47. Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 63–76, 81f; Smith [Birken- head] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War, 116; Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, 66–70; Matsumura, Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō, 12–14; and Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise, 194–8, 205f. 48. Scott, The agueH Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 170. 186 ● Notes

49. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 124–6; Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 608–10; Higgins, The Hague Peace Confer- ences, 390; and Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise, 206f. 50. Louis Livingston Seaman, From Tokio through Manchuria with the Japanese (New York: Appleton & Co., 1905), 174–93; NGM, vol. 52 (1904-05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 2): 102–81; Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 437–44; and FRUS (1904): 139f. 51. Matsumura, Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō, 152–56; and Kajima, Nichi-Ro sensō, 173–85. 52. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, 260–5; Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 292–6; and Smith [Birken- head] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War, 116f. 53. Seaman, From Tokio through Manchuria with the Japanese, 175f. 54. Ibid., 425; and Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 442–4. See also Hanai Takuzō, “Nichi-Ro sensō to kokusaihō no hatten,” Kokusaihō zasshi 4.3 (11/1905): 1–13. 55. Ariga, La guerre Russo-Japonaise, 505–8; and Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 441f. A rare supporter of Japan was Edwin Maxey, “The Russo-Japanese War and International Law,” American Law Review 39 (1905): 344. 56. Takahashi, International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, 440; and FRUS (1905): 760. 57. Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 625; Hig- gins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 463. 58. Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 133, 209. 59. Ibid., 133; and Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 291. 60. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 202–4; and Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 541–5. Takahashi Sakue had earlier proposed a restrictive approach to neutrality, based especially on Westlake; see Senji kokusai kōhō, 197–214. 61. Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 621. 62. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 149f; Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 621–5; and Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 210. 63. Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo- Japanese War, 461; and NGM, vol. 51 (1904–05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 450–3. The Japanese-French diplomacy is reprinted inNGM , vol. 51 (1904–05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 443–599. 64. Albert de Lapradelle, “La nouvelle thèse du refus de charbon aux belligérants dans les eaux neutres,” RGDIP 11 (1904): 531–64; Smith [Birkenhead] and Sib- ley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War, 129f; Hershey, Notes ● 187

The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, 202f; Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 126–32; and Nagaoka, “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise,” 630. 65. William Edward Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Claren- don Press, 1924), 724–7; Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920), vol. 2: 453–6; and Howland, “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century,” 18–21. 66. Elbert J. Benton, International law and Diplomacy of the Spanish-American War (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press, 1908), 190-4; and Resolutions of the Institute of International Law Dealing with the Law of Nations, ed. James Brown Scott (New York: Oxford University Press, 1916), 154f. See also Howland, “Japa- nese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century.” 67. Foreign Office to MacDonald, November 9, 1904, in FO 46/634: [149f]; For- eign Office to MacDonald, December 14, 1904, in FO 46/635: [266f]; “Mem- orandum Communicated to Viscount Hayashi,” December 13, 1904, in FO 46/636: [246]; and NGM, vol. 51 (1904–05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 690–704. 68. For Denmark, see Foreign Office to Lieck (?), December 10, 1904, in FO 46/635: [170]; on Spain, see Algerton (?) to Foreign Office, December 22, 1904, in FO 46/635: [440]; MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 15, 1904, in FO 46/635: [476–81]; and Lansdowne to Nicolson, March 1, 1905, in FO 46/637: [240f]. 69. NGM , vol. 51 (1904–05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 487–506; MacDonald to Lans- downe, November 17, 1904, in FO 46/634: [257]; and MacDonald to Lansd- owne, November 15, 1904, in FO 46/635: [476–81]. See also Patrick Beillevaire, “Preparing for the Next War: French Diplomacy and the Russo-Japanese War,” in Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, vol. 2, The Nichinan Papers, ed. John W. M. Chapman and Inaba Chiharu (Folkstone, UK: Global Oriental, 2007), 73–87; and Kajima, Nichi-Ro sensō, 195–218. 70. See translation from Jiji shimpō, November 11, 1904, in FO 46/635: [482–6]; MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 17, 1904, in FO 46/635: [487f]; and translation from Tokyo Asahi, November 17, 1904, in FO 46/635: [489]. 71. MacDonald to Lansdowne, November 15, 1904, in FO 46/635: [476–81]. 72. Suematsu, The Risen Sun, 298–311. 73. Monson to Lansdowne, November 19, 1904, in FO 46/636: [22]; and Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, 194–7. 74. Lapradelle, “La nouvelle thèse du refus de charbon,” 537f (esp. 538n5); Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, 197; Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed., 120–4; Smith [Birkenhead] and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War, 459–63; T. Martens, “Extract from the Journal de Saint-Pétersbourg,” May 10, 1905, in FO 46/639: [115f], and Prime Minister Alfred Balfour, in “The Appropriation Bill,” Times (London), August 12, 1904, p. 5. 75. Nagaoka, “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise,” 625–30. 76. NGM, vol. 51 (1904–05/Nichi-ro sensō, vol. 1): 506–10, 518–34; Bunsen to Lansdowne, January 6, 1905, in FO 46/636: [86]; Lansdowne to Bertie, 188 ● Notes

January 11, 1905, in FO 46/636: [160]; Lansdowne to MacDonald, January 11, 1905, in FO 46/636: [166]; MacDonald to Lansdowne, January 17, 1905, in FO 46/636: [183]; and Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, 192–4. On the passage and demise of the Baltic Fleet, see Herwig Lorenz, Krieg im Gelben Meer: Der russisch-japanishe Krieg 1904– 1905 (N.p., 2005), 104–46, 156–76; Toyama Saburō, Nichi-Ro kaisen shinshi (Tokyo: Tokyo shuppan, 1987), 205–24; J. N. Westwood, Russia against Japan, 1904–05 (London: Macmillan, 1986), 137–51; and Toyoda Yasushi, Nisshin - Nichi-Ro sensō [Nihon no taigai sensō: Meiji] (Tokyo: Bungeisha, 2009), 339– 43, 360–3. 77. Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Actes et documents (La Haye: Nijhoff, 1908), vol. 3: 460–63. See also The Hague International Peace Confer- ences, The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences: Translations of the Official Texts, ed. Scott (1921) vol. 4: 463–6. 78. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences, 150–56; and Scott, The Hague Peace Confer- ences of 1899 and 1907 (1909), vol. 1: 634–44. 79. Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1918), 213. 80. See Susumu Yamauchi, “Civilization and International Law in Japan during the Meiji Era (1868–1912),” Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics 24 (1996): 1–25 (esp. 9–15). Yet Yamauchi curiously does not mention the Port Arthur massacre. 81. Thomas Erskine Holland, “International Law in the War Between Japan and China,” The United Service (August 1895): 109–113; and Takahashi Sakuye, “Applications of International Law during the Chino-Japanese War,” Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society of London 5 (1898–1901): 2f. For translations and originals of decrees issued by the governor of Taiwan, offering rewards for the heads of Japanese soldiers and officers and for the sinking of Japanese ships, see FO 233/119: [147–8]. 82. The most thorough discussion is Inoue Haruki, Ryojun gyakusatsu jiken (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō, 1995); an excellent review of the incident and its subsequent treatment is Stewart Lone, Japan’s First Modern War: Army and Society in the Con- flict with China, 1894–95 (London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 1994), 142–63. See also Donald Keene, Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852– 1912 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 491–6; Paine, The Sino-Japa- nese War of 1894–1895, 207–22; Shiraha Yūzō, Nisshin-Nichiro sensō to hōritsugaku (Tokyo: Chūō daigaku shuppanbu, 2002), 120–90; Shirai Hisaya, Meiji kokka to Nisshin sensō (Tokyo: Shakai hyōronsha, 1997), 141–88; and Trumbull White, The War in the East: Japan, China, and Corea (N.p., 1895), 583–609. 83. Fukuzawa Yukichi, “Nisshin no sensō wa bunmei no sensō nari,” Jiji shinpō, July 29, 1894, repr. Fukuzawa Yukichi zenshū, vol. 14 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1961), 491f; and Uchimura Kanzō, “Justification of the Korean War,” in The Complete Works of Kanzō Uchimura, ed. Tajiro Yamamoto and Yoichi Muto (Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 1972), vol. 5: 66–75. See also Hilary Con- roy, The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868–1910 (Philadelphia: University of Notes ● 189

Pennsylvania Press, 1960), 127–39; and Oka Yoshitake, “Nisshin sensō to yōji ni okeru taigai ishiki,” Kokka gakkai zasshi 68 (12/1954): 101–30 and (2/1955): 223–54. 84. Ariga, La guerre Sino-Japonaise, 77–93. 85. Holland, “International Law in the War Between Japan and China,” 112f. 86. Takahashi, “Applications of International Law,” 4–7, 21. 87. “Our New Treaty with Japan,” New York Times, Dec. 17, 1894, p. 5; and FRUS (1894, Appendix 1): 85–90. The legal review of the war in the RGDIP, “Chine et Japon—Guerre,” makes no mention of the Port Arthur Massacre. 88. John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894), xii. 89. Where scholars typically interpret the “Triple Intervention” as an unwillingness to grant Japan any Chinese territory in a strategic location, Seiji Hishida argued that the Treaty of Shimonoseki put Japan in the position of most favored nation, hitherto occupied only by Western powers, and that the intervention followed from this shock; see The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, 179, 182.

Chapter 6 1. On Hedley Bull’s rejection of natural law in his construction of international society, see Hedley Bull, “Natural Law and International Relations,” British Journal of International Studies 5 (1979): 171–81; A. Claire Cutler, “The ‘Gro- tian Tradition’ in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 17.1 (1991): 41–65. 2. See, for example, Robert Jackson, Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), 135–44; Michael G. Peletz, “Judicial Dilemmas of Legitimacy and Sovereignty,” in Sovereignty under Challenge: How Governments Respond, ed. John D. Montgomery and Nathan Glazer (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2002), 221– 7; Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 12–15; David Singh Grewal, Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 50, 235, 264f. Kosken- niemi credits the idea of sovereignty as a bundle of legal obligations and rights to Hans Kelsen; see The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of Interna- tional Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 244. Stephen D. Krasner, however, credits the idea to Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck; see Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 220. 3. Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 36–9; Gerry Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 6–8, 122f; and Abraham Sofaer and Thomas Heller, “Sovereignty: The Practitioners’ Perspec- tive,” in Problematic Sovereignty, ed. Stephen Krasner (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 2001), 24–52. 190 ● Notes

4. F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 25, 146. 5. Ibid., Chapter 3; and John Hoffman, Sovereignty (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), 37f. 6. Douglas Howland and Luise White, “Introduction: Sovereignty and the Study of States,” in The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, ed. D. Howland and L. White (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 1–18; and Jor- dan Branch, The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory and the Origins of Sovereignty (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 17–23, 33f. 7. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 193–6. See also Randall Lesaffer, “The Classical Law of Nations (1500–1800),” in Research Handbook on the Theory and History of Inter- national Law, ed. Alexander Orakhelashvili (Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar, 2011), 408–40; and Tetsuya Toyoda, Theory and Politics of the Law of Nations: Political Bias in International Law Discourse of Seven German Court Councilors in the Sev- enteenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2011). 8. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 229. 9. Hidemi Suganami, “International Law,” in The Community of States: A Study in International Political Theory, ed. James Mayall (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), 64. Jean Morellet argued that so-called internal and external sovereignty never had any connection; see “La principe de la souveraineté de l’état et le droit international public,” RGDIP 33 (1926): 112. 10. Siba Grovogui, “The Secret Lives of the ‘Sovereign,’” in The State of Sovereignty, ed. Howland and White, 261–75. 11. Hoffman,Sovereignty , 3, 43–7, 56f. 12. China Miéville, Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law (Chicago: Haymarket, 2006), 190–2. See also Benno Teschke, The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso, 2003), 30–4, 46f, 154, 159, 230–6, 252–5, 265–8, but cf. 179f, where Teschke suggests that absolutist France did not uphold uniform property rights. 13. Miéville, Between Equal Rights, 131–7, 194, 257f, 263; and Evgeny Pashu- kanis, “International Law,” included as an appendix to Miéville, Between Equal Rights, 331–3. See also Walter Benjamin’s “Critique of Violence,” which iden- tifies the complicity between law and violence, in One-Way Street and Other Writings (London: New Left Books, 1979), 132–54; and Balakrishnan Rajago- pal, International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements, and Third World Resistance (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 30–3, 194–202. 14. W. Ross Johnston, Sovereignty and Protection: A Study of British Jurisdictional Imperialism in the Late Nineteenth Century (Durham: Duke University Press, 1973), 70–4. On the regime in China and Japan, see Christopher Roberts, The British Courts and Extra-Territoriality in Japan, 1859–1899 (Leiden: Global Ori- ental, 2014), Chapter 1. 15. Miéville, Between Equal Rights, 185–90; Evgeny Pashukanis, The General The- ory of Law and Marxism, trans. Barbara Einhorn (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2002), 113f, 121f. Notes ● 191

16. G. Parker Ness, “Foreign Jurisdiction in Japan,” The Law Magazine and Review Quarterly Digest 11 (1885–86): 348–65. 17. Justin Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London: Verso, 1994), 35, 170f. 18. See Pashukanis, The General Theory of Law and Marxism, 110. 19. Ronald Robinson, “Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism: Sketch for a Theory of Collaboration,” in Studies in the Theory of Imperialism, ed. Roger Owen and Bob Sutcliffe (London: Longman, 1972), 118–24. 20. Miéville, Beyond Equal Rights, 129–36, 148–50; Pashukanis, The General Theory of Law and Marxism, 89n9; Pashukanis, “International Law,” 332; and Bob Fine, “Law and Class,” in Capitalism and the Rule of Law, ed. Bob Fine et al. (London: Hutchinson, 1979), 29–45. 21. E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 [2nd ed.] (New York: Palgrave: 2001), 30, 98; and Gerry Simpson: Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sov- ereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 22. Carr, Twenty Years’ Crisis, 102f; see also Cemil Aydin, The Politics of Anti- Westernism in Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), Chapter 4. 23. P. H. Kooijmans, The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States: An Inquiry into the Foundations of International Law (Leyden: A. W. Sythoff, 1964), 109f. 24. Ibid., 111f, 150f, 242. 25. Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, 67–76 (quote at p. 74). 26. M. F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in Inter- national Law (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1926), 217–9; and Charles Leroux, Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise (Paris: Pedone, 1911), 195–9. 27. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law, 32–46, 169–77; and Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, 67–82, 93–6. I treat the issues in greater detail in Douglas Howland, “Sovereignty and the Laws of War: International Consequences of Japan’s 1905 Victory over Russia,” Law and History Review 29.1 (2011): 86–90. 28. Terao Toru, “La question coréenne,” La revue politique et parliamentaire 1 (1894): 449–57; see also Brahm Swaroop Agrawal, “The Opening of Korea and the Kang- hwa Treaty of 1876,” Korean Observer 11 (1980): 139–55. 29. The texts of the Anglo-Japanese agreements are available in John M. Maki, ed., Conflict and Tension in the Far East: Key Documents, 1894–1960 (Seattle: Univer- sity of Washington Press, 1961), 16–8. 30. Amos S. Hershey, The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (New York: Macmillan, 1906), 72. See also T. J. Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1904), 274–85; and C. I. Eugene Kim and Han-Kyo Kim, Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 1876–1910 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 125–8. 31. Kim Ki-Jung, “The War and US-Korean Relations,” in The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero, vol. 2, ed. David Wolff et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 467–89. 192 ● Notes

32. On Japan’s colonization of Taiwan, see Liao Ping-hui and David Der-wei Wang, Taiwan Under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1845–1945 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 2006); Hui-yu Caroline Ts’ai, Taiwan in Japan’s Empire-Building: An Institutional Approach to Colonial Engineering (New York: Routledge, 2009); and Wang Tay-sheng, Legal Reform in Taiwan Under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1895– 1945 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000). Recent Japanese scholarship has emphasized the role of domestic legal and institutional reform in laying the ground for Japanese colonialism; see Asano Toyomi, Teikoku Nihon no shokuminchi hōsei (Nagoya: Nagoya daigaku shuppankai, 2008), 3–22; and Shoku- minchi teikoku Nihon no hōteki tenkai, ed. Asano Toyomi and Matsuda Toshihiko (Tokyo: Shinzansha, 2004). 33. English translations of the agreements are available in F. A. McKenzie, The Tragedy of Korea (London: 1908; repr. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1969), 269–310; and Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Korea: Treaties and Agreements (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 1921) [Pamphlet Series, no. 43]. Japanese versions and diplomatic records are reprinted in NGM, vol. 47: 350–79, and vol. 49: 519–89. See also Anthony Carty, “The Japanese Seizure of Korea from the Perspective of the United Kingdom National Archive, 1904–1910,” Asian Yearbook of International Law 10 (2005): 3–24. 34. Huajeong Seok, “Russo-Japanese Negotiations and the Japanese Annexation of Korea,” in Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, vol. 2, The Nichinan Papers, ed. John W. M. Chapman and Inaba Chiharu (Folkstone, UK: Global Oriental, 2007), 401–12. 35. Shinya Murase, “The Presence of Asia at the 1907 Hague Conference,” in Aca- démie de droit international de La Haye, Actualité de la conférence de La Haye de 1907, deuxième conférence de la paix: Colloque, La Haye, 6–7 septembre 2007, ed. Yves Daudet (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008), 85–101; and Alexis Dudden, Japan’s Colo- nization of Korea: Discourse and Power (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005), 7–20. 36. W. W. Willoughby and C. G. Fenwick, Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colo- nial Autonomy (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919), 55f; and Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 119–35, 197–213. Wieland Wagner has astutely observed that, unlike the West- ern great powers whose imperialist policies affected peoples far from home, Japan annexed neighboring territories, which endangered Japan’s expanding imperial realm; see Japans Außenpolitik in der frühen Meiji-Zeit (1868–1894) (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990), 310. 37. George A. Codding Jr., The International Telecommunication Union: An Experi- ment in International Cooperation (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 98–100; and Francis Lyall, International Communications: The International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union (Farnham, UK: Ashgate: 2011), 59f, 74. 38. Paul S. Reinsch, Public International Unions: Their Work and Organization; A Study in International Administrative Law (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1911), 136; Notes ● 193

Denys P. Myers, Non-Sovereign Representation in Public International Organs (Bruxelles: Congress mondiale des associations internationales, 1913), 1–5, 45; Denys P. Myers, “Representation in Public International Organs,” AJIL 8.1 (1914): 83–6, 92f; Francis Bowes Sayre, Experiments in International Adminis- tration (New York: Harper & Bros., 1919), 158. See the discussion by Arnulf Becker Lorca, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 181–9. 39. Myers, Non-Sovereign Representation in Public International Organs, 2f. 40. Léon Chaubert, L’union postale universelle: son statut juridique, sa structure et son fonctionnement (Berne: Herbert Lang & CIE, 1970), 31–6; Frank Horn, Reser- vations and Interpretive Declarations to Multilateral Treaties (Amsterdam: North- Holland, 1988), 8–13; Rolf Kühner, Vorbehalte zu multilateralen völkerrechtlichen Verträgen (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986), 53–8; F. S. L. Lyons, Internationalism in Europe, 1815–1914 (Leyden: Sythoff. 1963), 22, 24–9; Arnold D. McNair, “International Legislation,” Iowa Law Review 19: 2 (1934): 178f; David Hunter Miller, Reservations to Treaties: Their Effect and the Procedure in Regard Thereto (N.p., 1919), 90–5, 132–42. 41. William Isaac Hull, The Two Hague Conferences and their Contributions to Inter- national Law (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1908), 119–24; and Matthias Schultz, “Defenders of the Right?—Diplomatic Practice and International Law in the 19th Century: An Historian’s Perspective,” in Constructing International Law: The Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012), 267–9. 42. Louis Rolland, De la correspondance postale et télégraphique dans les relations internationales (Paris: Pedone, 1901), 187–9. 43. Ibid., 182f, 197–9, 226. 44. Codding, The International Telecommunication Union, 45f; M. P. Kasansky, “L’Union télégraphique internationale,” Journal télégraphique 21.8 (8 août 1897): 183; Otto Kunz, Die internationalen Telegraphen-Unionen (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1924), 99–102; and Gerard J. Mangone, A Short History of International Organi- zation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954), 4. 45. Cromwell A. Riches, Majority Rule in International Organization: A Study of the Trend from Unanimity to Majority Decision (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1940), 59–76; Myers, “Representation in Public International Organs,” 87–92; Inis L. Claude Jr., Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization, 4th ed. (New York: Random House, 1971), 118–22; Alan James, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 215–9; McNair, “International Legislation,” 179f; Sayre, Experiments in International Administration, 150–4. 46. See Arnulf Becker Lorca, “Sovereignty Beyond the Law: The End of Classical International Law,” JHIL 13: 1 (2011): 47–73; Kooijmans, The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States, 144–50; and Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, 132–54. For a different argument that minimizes the impositions of the great powers, see Adolf Lande, “Revindication of the Principle of Legal Equality of 194 ● Notes

States, 1871–1914,” Political Science Quarterly 62.2. (6/1947): 258–86 and 62.3 (9/1947): 398–417. 47. Naoko Shimazu, Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 (London: Routledge, 1998). Miho Matsunuma recounts Japan’s struggle with the French colonial administration in Indochine to treat Japanese nationals there not as “Asians” but as “Europeans”; see “Casse-tête japonais: Conflits diplomatiques en Indochine française au début du XXe siècle,” Monde(s): histoire, espaces, relations no. 7 (2015): 191–212. 48. Douglas Howland, “The Japan House Tax Case, 1899–1905: Leases in Perpetu- ity and the Myth of International Equality,” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentli- ches Recht und Völkerrecht 75.2 (2015): 413–34. 49. Ibid. 50. Douglas Howland, “Sovereignty and the Laws of War: International Con- sequences of Japan’s 1905 Victory over Russia,” Law and History Review 29.1 (2011): 74–7. 51. Urs Matthias Zachmann, Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 1919– 1960 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013). Sugiyama Naojirō argued nearly a century ago that Japan had created its own uniquely new and modern legal culture by the time of the Great War: “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: 219–48. 52. W. Ross Johnston, Sovereignty and Protection: A Study of British Jurisdictional Imperialism in the Late Nineteenth Century (Durham: Duke University Press, 1973). 53. Ian Nish, Japanese Foreign Policy, 1869–1942 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977), 61f, 86–8, 150f, 220–2, 251–65; Barbara Brooks, Japan’s Imperial Diplo- macy: Consuls, Treaty Ports, and War in China, 1895–1938 (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000), 3–10, 160–75, 208–13. 54. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed., vol. 1: 604–606. Bibliography

Abrams, Irwin. “The Emergence of the International Law Societies.” Review of Politics 19.3 (7/1957): 361–80. Acuto, Michele, and Simon Curtis, eds. Reassembling International Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Agrawal, Brahm Swaroop. “The Opening of Korea and the Kanghwa Treaty of 1876.” Korean Observer 11 (1980): 139–55. Ahvenainen, Jorma. The Far Eastern Telegraphs. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakate- mia, 1981. Akashi Kinji. “Japanese ‘Acceptance’ of the European Law of Nations: A Brief History of International Law in Japan c. 1853–1900.” In East Asian and European Perspec- tives on International Law, ed. Michael Stolleis and Masaharu Yanagihara, 1–21. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004. ———. “Japan-Europe.” In The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, 724–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. “Methodological Aspects of Japan’s Encounter with the Modern Law of Nations.” Keiō Law Review, no. 11 (2010): 1–13. Akiyama Masanosuke. “Règlements et instructions du gouvernement Japonais sur le traitement des sujets russes pendant la guerre Russo-Japonaise.” RDILC ser. 2, vol. 8 (1905): 567–84, 706–16 and vol. 9 (1905): 211–29, 297–315. Alcock, Rutherford. The Capital of the Tycoon. London: Longman, Green, 1863. Alexandrowicz, Charles Henry. The European-African Encounter: A Study in Treaty- Making. Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973. ———. An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. American Diplomatic and Public Papers: The United States and China, Ser. II, The United States, China, and Imperial Rivalries, 1861–1893, Vol. 12, The Coolie Trade and Outrages against the Chinese, ed. Jules Davids. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1979. Anand, R. P. “Family of ‘Civilized’ States and Japan: A Story of Humiliation, Assimi- lation, Defiance, and Confrontation.” JHIL 5 (2003): 1–75. Anghie, Antony. Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 196 ● Bibliography

Ariga Nagao. Bankoku senji kōhō. Tokyo: Rikugun daigakkō, 1894. ———. La guerre Russo-Japonaise au point de vue continental et le droit international. Paris: Pedone, 1908. ———. La guerre Sino-Japonaise au point de vue du droit international. Paris: Pedone, 1896. Asakawa, Kan’ichi. The Russo-Japanese Conflict: Its Causes and Issues. Boston: Hough- ton Mifflin, 1904. Asano Toyomi. Teikoku Nihon no shokuminchi hōsei. Nagoya: Nagoya daigaku shuppankai, 2008. ———, and Matsuda Toshihiko, eds. Shokuminchi teikoku Nihon no hōteki tenkai. Tokyo: Shinzansha, 2004. Auslin, Michael R. Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Wilfrid E. Rumble. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Aydin, Cemil. The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Baba Tatsui. The Treaty Between Japan and England. London: Trübner & Co., 1876. Repr. Baba Tatsui zenshū, vol. 1: 133–64. Tokyo: Iwanami, 1987. Baker, Joseph R., and Louis W. McKernan. Selected Topics Connected with the Laws of Warfare, as of August 1, 1919. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919. Balmer, Albrecht. “Foundation and Growth of the Universal Postal Union.” L’Union postale 57:1 (1932): 1–12. Banno Junji. “Meiji shoki (1873–85) no taigaikan.” Kokusai seiji no. 71 (1982): 10–20. Becker Lorca, Arnulf. Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842– 1933. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. ———. “Sovereignty Beyond the Law: The End of Classical International Law.”JHIL 13.1 (2011): 7–73. ———. “Universal International Law: Nineteenth-Century Histories of Imposition and Appropriation.” Harvard International Law Journal 51.2 (2010): 486–503. Beillevaire, Patrick. “Preparing for the Next War: French Diplomacy and the Russo- Japanese War.” In Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, vol. 2, The Nichi- nan Papers, ed. John W. M. Chapman and Inaba Chiharu, 73–87. Folkstone, UK: Global Oriental, 2007. Benjamin, Walter. “Critique of Violence.” In One-Way Street and Other Writings, 132– 54. London: New Left Books, 1979. Benton, Elbert J. International Law and Diplomacy of the Spanish-American War. Bal- timore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1908. Berchtold, Johannes. “Exterritorialität im Zeitalter der ungleichen Verträge.” In Völk- errecht und Weltwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Rainer Klump and Miloš Vec, 221–43. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012. Black, John R. Young Japan: Yokohama and Yedo. London: Trubner & Co.; Yokohama: Kelly & Co., 1880–1881. Bibliography ● 197

Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed., ed. Bryan A. Garner. St. Paul, MN: Thompson- Reuters, 2009. Boisson, Henri. La société des nations et les bureaux internationaux des unions universelles postale et télégraphique. Paris: Pedone, 1932. Boli, John. “Sovereignty from a World Polity Perspective.” In Problematic Sovereignty, ed. Stephen Krasner, 53–82. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. ———, and George M. Thomas, eds.Constructing World Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Bourdieu, Pierre. In Other Words. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. Bowden, Brett. “The Colonial Origins of International Law: European Expansion and the Classical Standard of Civilization.” JHIL 7.1 (2005): 1–23. ———. The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 2009. Bowett, D. W. Self-Defense in International Law. New York: Praeger, 1958. Branch, Jordan. The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory, and the Origins of Sovereignty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Brandt, Max von. Dreiunddreissig Jahre in Ost-Asien. Leipzig: G. Wigand, 1901. British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Con- fidential Print, Part I, Series E, Volume 4, Sino-Japanese War, 1894, ed. Ian Nish. N.p.: University Publications of America, 1989. Brooks, Barbara. Japan’s Imperial Diplomacy: Consuls, Treaty Ports, and War in China, 1895–1938. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000. Bueger, Christian, and Frank Gadinger. International Practice Theory: New Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Bühler, Hans. Der Weltpostverein: Eine völkerrechtsgeschichtliche und wirtschaftspolitische Untersuchung. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers, 1930. Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. ———. “The Emergence of a Universal International Society.” In The Expansion of International Society, ed. H. Bull and A. Watson, 117–26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. ———. “Natural Law and International Relations.” British Journal of International Studies 5 (1979): 171–81. ———, and Adam Watson, eds. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clar- endon, 1984. Burgis, Michelle. “Faith in the State? Traditions of Territoriality, International Law, and the Emergence of Modern Arab Statehood.” JHIL 11.1 (2009): 37–79. Burke, Peter. “Tacitism, Skepticism, and Reason of State.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns, 479–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Buzan, Barry. From International to World Society? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2004. ———, and George Lawson. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity, and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 198 ● Bibliography

———, and George Lawson. “The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations.” International Studies Quar- terly 57.3 (2013): 620–34. ———, and Richard Little. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. Bynkershoek, Cornelius Van. De Foro Legatorum Liber Singularis, trans. G. J. Laing. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946. Calvo, Carlos. Dictionnaire manuel de diplomatie et de droit international public et privé. Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht [etc.], 1885. Carnegie Endowment for Peace. Korea: Treaties and Agreements. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 1921. [Pamphlet Series, no. 43.] Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 [2nd ed.]. New York: Palgrave: 2001. Carty, Anthony. The Decay of International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986. ———. “Did International Law Really Become a Science at the End of the Nine- teenth Century?” In Constructing International Law: Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec, 229–47. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012. ———. “The Japanese Seizure of Korea from the Perspective of the United Kingdom National Archive, 1904–1910.” Asian Yearbook of International Law 10 (2005): 3–24. ———. Philosophy of International Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Case of the Peruvian Barque Maria Luz; with Appendix. Yokohama: n.p., 1872. Cassel, Pär. Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth- Century China and Japan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Cassese, Sabino. “Global Standards for National Administrative Procedure.” Law and Contemporary Problems 65: 3–4 (2005): 109–26. Chang, Richard T. “The Chishima Case.” Journal of Asian Studies 34.3 (5/1975): 593–612. ———. The Justice of the Western Consular Courts in Nineteenth-Century Japan. West- port, CT: Greenwood, 1984. ———. “The Question of Unilateral Denunciation and the Meiji Government, 1888–92.” In Japan in Transition: Thought and Action in the Meiji Era, 1868– 1912, ed. Hilary Conroy et al., 174–92. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Press, 1984. Chaubert, Léon. L’union postale universelle: son statut juridique, sa structure et son fonctionnement. Berne: Herbert Lang & CIE, 1970. Checkland, Olive. Britain’s Encounters with Meiji Japan, 1868–1912. London: Mac- millan, 1989. “Chine et Japon—Guerre.” RGDIP 1 (1894): 459–76, and 2 (1895): 118–32, 447–63. Chishima-kan jiken. In Meiji bunka zenshū, vol. 11, Gaikō hen, ed. Meiji bunka kenkyūkai, 521–61. Tokyo: Nihon hyōronsha, 1968. Chouban yiwu shimo: Tongzhi chao, comp. Wen Qing. Peiping: Palace Museum, 1929–30. Bibliography ● 199

Clark, Keith. International Communications: The American Attitude. New York: Columbia University Press, 1931. Claude, Inis L., Jr. Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization, 4th ed. New York: Random House, 1971. Claveirole, Jean. L’internationalisme et l’organisation international administrative. Saint-Étienne: A. Waton, 1910. Codding, George A., Jr. The International Telecommunication Union: An Experiment in International Cooperation. Leiden: Brill, 1952. ———. The Universal Postal Union: Coordinator of the International Mails. New York: New York University Press, 1964. Conroy, Hilary. The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868–1910. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1960. Cooper, Richard N. “International Cooperation in Public Health as a Prologue to Macroeconomic Cooperation.” In Can Nations Agree? Issues in International Eco- nomic Cooperation, Richard N. Cooper et al., 178–255. Washington, DC: Brook- ings Institution, 1989. Cornish, William. “Private International Law.” In The Oxford History of the Laws of England, 1820–1914, English Legal System, vol. XI, ed. Wm. Cornish, et al., 278– 97. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Crawford, James. “Sovereignty as a Legal Value.” In The Cambridge Companion to International Law, ed. James Crawford and Martti Koskenniemi, 116–33. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Cutler, A. Claire. “The ‘Grotian Tradition’ in International Relations.” Review of Inter- national Studies 17.1 (1991): 41–65. Daniels, Gordon. Sir Harry Parkes: British Representative in Japan, 1865–83. Rich- mond, Surrey, UK: Japan Library, 1996. Davies, Thomas. NGOs: A New History of Transnational Civil Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Deák, Francis, and Philip C. Jessup. A Collection of Neutrality Laws, Regulations, and Treaties of Various Countries. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for Interna- tional Peace, 1939. De Nova, Rodolfo. “Pasquale Stanislao Mancini (1817–1888).” In Institut de Droit International, Livre du Centenaire 1873–1973: Evolution et perspectives du droit international, 3–10. Basel: S. Karger, 1973. Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix. Actes et documents. La Haye: Nijhoff, 1908. Doak, Kevin M. A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Documents du Congrès Postal International réuni à Berne du 15 Septembre au 9 Octobre 1874. Berne: Rieder & Simmen, 1875. Dudden, Alexis. Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power. Honolulu: Uni- versity of Hawai‘i Press, 2005. Dufour, Alfred. “Pufendorf.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, ed. J. H. Burns, 561–88. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Dupuis, Charles. “La déclaration de guerre.” RGDIP 13 (1906): 725–35. 200 ● Bibliography

Ebren, Henri. “Obligation juridique de la déclaration de guerre.” RGDIP 11 (1904): 133–48. Ennals, Peter. Opening a Window to the West: The Foreign Concession at Kōbe, Japan, 1868–1899. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Faivre, Paul. Prophylaxie internationale et nationale. Paris: J-B. Baillière, 1908. Féraud-Giraud, Louis. “De la neutralité.” RGDIP 2 (1895): 291–96. Field, David Dudley. “Opening Address of the President.” In International Law Association, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878, 17–21. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1879. Fine, Bob. “Law and Class.” In Capitalism and the Rule of Law, ed. Bob Fine et al., 29–45. London: Hutchinson, 1979. Fisch, Jörg. Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984. ———. “The Role of International Law in the Territorial Expansion of Europe, 16th–20th Centuries.” ICCLP Review 3 (2000): 5–15. Fitzmaurice, Andrew. “The Resilience of Natural Law in the Writings of Sir Travers Twiss.” In British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier, ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill, 137–59. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. Lon- don: Tavistock: 1972. ———. Security, Territory, Population, ed. Michel Senellart, trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Fowler, Michael Ross, and Julie Marie Bunck. Law, Power, and the Sovereign State. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. France. Ministère des affaires étrangères. Conférence internationale pour la protection des cables sous-marines (12–21 mai 1886). Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1886. ———. Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines, 16 octobre–2 novembre 1882: Procès-verbaux. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1882. ———. Conférence internationale pour la protection des câbles sous-marines, seconde session, 16–26 octobre 1883: Procès-verbaux. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883. Freeland, H. W. “The Mixed Tribunals of Egypt.” In International Law Association, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878, 58–66. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1879. Fried, Alfred H. Das internationale Leben der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Teubner, 1908. Fujiwara Akihisa. Nihon jōyaku kaiseishi no kenkyū: Inoue, Okuma no kaisei kōshō to Ō-Bei rekkoku. Tokyo: Yūshōdō shuppan, 2004. Fukuda, Mahito H. “Public Health in Modern Japan: From Regimen to Hygiene.” In The History of Public Health and the Modern State, ed. Dorothy Parker, 385–402. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994. Fukuzawa Yukichi. “Nisshin no sensō wa bunmei no sensō nari.” Jiji shinpō, July 29, 1894. Repr. Fukuzawa Yukichi zenshū, vol. 14: 491f. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1961. ———. An Outline of a Theory of Civilization, trans. D. Dilworth and G. Hurst. Tokyo: Sophia University, 1973. Geßner, Ludwig. “Die beiden Weltvereine für den Post- und Telegraphenverkehr.” Archiv für öffentliches Recht 2 (1887): 220–41. Bibliography ● 201

Göl, Ayla. “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, 34–54. London: Routledge, 2014. Gong, Gerrit. The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society. Oxford: Claren- don, 1984. ———. “Standards of Civilization Today.” In Globalization and Civilizations, ed. Mehi Mozaffari, 77–96. London: Routledge, 2002. Goodman, Neville M. International Health Organizations and their Work, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1971. Great Britain. House of Commons. Coolie Emigration. London: n.p., 1868. ———. Hong Kong Coolie Trade. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1873. Grewal, David Singh. Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Griffin, Eldon. Clippers and Consuls: American Consular and Commercial Relations with Eastern Asia, 1845–1860. Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros., 1938. Grotius, Hugo. De Jure Belli ac Paci Libri Tres, trans. Francis W. Kelsey. Oxford: Clar- endon, 1925. Grovogui, Siba. “The Secret Lives of the ‘Sovereign.’” In The State of Sovereignty, ed. D. Howland and L. White, 261–75. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. Hague International Peace Conferences. The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Confer- ences: Translations of the Official Texts, ed. James Brown Scott. New York: Oxford University Press, 1921. Hall, Stephen. “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order, and the Limits of Legal Postivism.” European Journal of International Law 12.2 (2001): 269–307. Hall, William Edward. A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. ———. A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown. Oxford: Clarendon, 1894. Hamashita, Takeshi. “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, 17–50. London: Routledge, 2003. Hanai Takuzō. “Nichi-Ro sensō to kokusaihō no hatten.” Kokusaihō zasshi 4.3 (11/1905): 1–13. Harata, Hisashi. “L’exterritorialité, la juridiction consulaire et le droit international privé: une réflexion sur le droit international privé à la fin de XIXème siècle.” In Constructing International Law: The Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec. 331–61. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012. Harburger, Henri. “Du manque de parole des prisonniers de guerre.” RDILC ser. 2, vol. 2 (1900): 151–8. Harrell, Paula S. Asia for the Asians: China in the Lives of Five Meiji Japanese. Portland, ME: MerwinAsia, 2012. 202 ● Bibliography

Harris, Steven M. “Between Law and Diplomacy: International Dispute Resolution in the Long Nineteenth Century.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis, 2015. Harrison, Mark. “Disease, Diplomacy, and International Commerce: The Origins of International Sanitary Regulation in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of Global History 1.2 (2006): 197–217. Harvey, David. Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Herren, Madeleine. “Governmental Internationalism and the Beginning of a New World Order in the Late Nineteenth Century.” In The Mechanics of International- ism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War, ed. Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann, 121–44. London: German Historical Institute; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. Hintertüren zur Macht: Internationalismus und modernisierungsorientierte Außenpolitik in Belgien, der Schweiz, und den USA, 1865–1914. München: Old- enbourg, 2000. Hershey, Amos S. The International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War. New York: Macmillan, 1906. Heuschling, Luc. État de droit, Rechtsstaat, Rule of Law. Paris: Dalloz, 2002. Hevia, James L. English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. Heyking, Alphonse. L’Exterritorialité et ses applications en extrême-orient. Recueil des Cours, vol. 7 (1925, pt. II): 237–339. Higgins, A. Pearce. The Hague Peace Conferences and other International Conferences Concerning the Laws and Usages of War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Hill, Norman L. International Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931. Hinckley, Frank E. American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient. Washington, DC: Lowdermilk, 1906. Hinsley, F. H. Sovereignty, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 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. Hishida, Seiji. The International Position of Japan as a Great Power. New York: Colum- bia University Press, 1905. Hoare, James E. “The ‘Bankoku Shimbun’ Affair: Foreigners, the Japanese Press, and Extraterritoriality in Early Meiji Japan.” Modern Asian Studies 9.3 (1975): 289–302. ———. “The Era of the Unequal Treaties, 1858–1899.” In The History of Anglo- Japanese Relations, vol. 1, The Political-Diplomatic Dimension, ed. Ian Nish and Yoichi Kibata, 107–130. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. ———. “Japan Undermines Extraterritoriality: Extradition in Japan, 1885–1899.” In European Studies on Japan, ed. Ian Nish and Charles Dunn, 125–29. Tenterden, Kent, UK: Norbury Publications, 1979. ———. Japan’s Treaty Ports and Foreign Settlements. Folkstone, UK: Japan Library, 1994. Bibliography ● 203

Hoffman, John. Sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. Hoffmann, Gerd. “Karl von Eisendecher—Preußischer und Kaiserlicher Marineoffizier und Diplomat aus Oldenburg.” Oldenburgische Familienkunde 53 (2011): 241–88. Holland, Thomas Erskine. “International Law in the War Between Japan and China.” The United Service (August 1895): 109–13. Holsti, K. J. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Hora Tomio. “Bakumatsu-Ishin ni okeru Ei-Futsu guntai no Yokohama chūton.” In Meiji seiken no kakuritsu katei, ed. Meiji shiryō kenkyū renkakukai, 166–269. Tokyo: Ochanomizu shobō, 1967. ———. “Chigaihōken.” In Meiji ishin shi kenkyū kōza, ed. Rekishigaku kenkyūkai, vol. 3: 206–17. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1958. Horn, Frank. Reservations and Interpretive Declarations to Multilateral Treaties. Amster- dam: North-Holland, 1988. Horowitz, Richard S. “International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of World His- tory 15.4 (2004): 445–86. Howard-Jones, Norman. The Scientific Background of the International Sanitary Con- ferences, 1851–1938. Geneva: WHO, 1975. Howell, David L. Geographies of Identity in Nineteenth-Century Japan. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press, 2005. ———. “Territoriality and Collective Identity in Tokugawa Japan.” Daedalus 127.3 (1998): 105–32. Howland, Douglas. “An Alternative Mode of International Order: The International Administrative Union in the Nineteenth Century.” Review of International Studies 41.1 (2015): 161–83. ———. “An Englishman’s Right to Hunt: Territorial Sovereignty and Extraterritorial Privilege in Japan.” Monde(s): histoire, espaces, relations, no. 1 (2012): 193–211. ———. “The Foreign and the Sovereign: Extraterritoriality in East Asia.” InThe State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, ed. D. Howland and L. White, 35–55. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. ———. “International Law, State Will, and the Standard of Civilization in Japan’s Assertion of Sovereign Equality.” In Law and Disciplinarity: Thinking Beyond Bor- ders, ed. Robert J. Beck, 183–205. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. ______. “Japan and the Universal Postal Union: An Alternative Internationalism in the 19th Century.” Social Science Japan Journal 17.1 (Winter 2014): 23–39. ——— “The Japan House Tax Case, 1899–1905: Leases in Perpetuity and the Myth of International Equality.” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völker- recht 75.2 (2015): 413–34. ———. “Japanese Neutrality in the Nineteenth Century: International Law and Transcultural Process.” Transcultural Studies 1 (2010): 14–37. ———. “The Maria Luz Incident: Personal Rights and International Justice for Chi- nese Coolies and Japanese Prostitutes.” In Gender and Law in the Japanese Impe- rium, ed. Susan L. Burns and Barbara J. Brooks, 21–47. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2013. 204 ● Bibliography

———. “The Sinking of the S.S. Kowshing: International Law, Diplomacy, and the Sino-Japanese War.” Modern Asian Studies 42.4 (2008): 673–703. ———. “Sovereignty and the Laws of War: International Consequences of Japan’s 1905 Victory over Russia.” Law and History Review 29.1 (2011): 53–97. ———. “Telegraph Technology and Administrative Internationalism in the 19th Century.” In The Global Politics of Science and Technology, ed. Maximilian Mayer, Mariana Carpes, and Ruth Knoblich, vol. 1: 183–99. Heidelberg: Springer-Ver- lag, 2014. ———. Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002. ———, and Luise White, “Introduction: Sovereignty and the Study of States.” In The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations, ed. D. Howland and L. White, 1–18. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. Huber, Valeska. “The Unification of the Globe by Disease? The International Sani- tary Conferences on Cholera, 1851–1894.” The Historical Journal 49.2 (2006): 453–76. Hull, William Isaac. The Two Hague Conferences and their Contributions to Interna- tional Law. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1908. Hunter, Janet. “The Abolition of Extraterritoriality in the Japanese Post Office, 1873–1880.” Proceedings of the British Association for Japanese Studies 1.1 (1976): 17–37. Hurst, C. J. B., and F. E. Bray. Russian and Japanese Prize Cases. London: HMSO, 1912–13. Ichimata Masao. Nihon no kokusaihōgaku o kizuita hitobito. Tokyo: Nihon kokusai mondai kenkyūjo, 1973. Imai Shōji. “Hesuperia-gō jiken ni tsuite.” Rekishi kyōiku 12.1 (1964): 35–40. Inō Tentarō, ed. Jōyaku kaiseiron shiryō shūsei. Tokyo: Hara shobō, 1994. Inoue Haruki. Ryojun gyakusatsu jiken. Tokyo: Chikuma shobō, 1995. Inoue Yuichi. “From Unequal Treaty to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1867–1902.” In The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations, Vol. 1: The Political-Diplomatic Dimen- sion, ed. Ian Nish and Yoichi Kibata, 131–58. New York: St. Martin’s; London: Macmillan, 2000. International Sanitary Conference. Proceedings of the International Sanitary Conference Provided by Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in the Early Part of 1881. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1881. Iokibe Kaoru. “Independence and Opposition: Consequences of Treaty Revision in Meiji Japan.” University of Tokyo Journal of Law and Politics 9 (2012): 63–80. ———. Jōyaku kaiseishi: hōken kaifuku e no tenbō to nashonarizumu/Meiji Treaty Revi- sion: The Prospect for a Unified Jurisdiction and Nationalism. Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 2010. Irick, Robert L. Ch'ing Policy Toward the Coolie Trade, 1847–1878. Taipei: Chinese Materials Center, 1982. Iriye, N. “Consular Jurisdiction in Japan.” In International Law Association, Report of the Eighth Annual Conference Held at Berne, 24–27 August 1880, 51–57. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1881. Bibliography ● 205

Ishihara Fujio. Kokusai tsūshin no Nihon shi. Tokyo: Tōkai daigaku shuppankai, 1999. Ishii Takashi. Meiji shoki no kokusai kankei. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1977. Ishimoto Yasuo. Chūritsu seido no shiteki kenkyū. Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1958. ———. “International Arbitration in the Meiji Era.” JAIL 7 (1963): 30–37. ———. “Meijiki ni okeru chūsai saiban no senrei (1).” Ōsaka shiritsu daigaku hōgaku zasshi 7.4 (1961): 50–78. Itō Fujio. “Kokusaihō.” In Kindai Nihon hō-shisōshi, ed. Noda Yoshiyuki and Aomi Jun’ichi, 461–502. Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1979. ———. “One Hundred Years of International Law Studies in Japan.” JAIL 13 (1969): 19–34. Jackson, Robert. Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2007. Jakobsen, Kurt. “In Struggle for Control over the Far Eastern Telegraphs: The Great Northern Telegraph Company and Japan (1870–1943).” In Transnational Com- panies (19th–20th Centuries), ed. Hubert Bonin et al., 331–45. Paris: Éditions PLAGE, 2002. James, Alan. Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Relations. London: Allen & Unwin, 1986. ______. “System or Society?” Review of International Studies 19.3 (1993): 269–88. Japan. Gaimushō. Nihon gaikō monjo. Repr. ed. Tokyo: Nihon kokusai rengō kyōkai, 1950–63. “Japan and ‘The Association for the Reform and Codification of International Law.’” The Japan Weekly Mail (May 21, 1881), 573–77. Jochnick, Chris, and Roger Normand. “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical His- tory of the Laws of War.” Harvard International Law Journal 35 (1994): 49–95. Johnston, W. Ross. Sovereignty and Protection: A Study of British Jurisdictional Imperi- alism in the Late Nineteenth Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 1973. Kajima Morinosuke. Nichi-Ro sensō. [= Nihon gaikōshi, vol. 7.] Tokyo: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1970. Kamachi, Noriko. “Chinese in Meiji Japan.” In The Chinese and the Japanese, ed. Akira Iriye, 58–73. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Kamikawa Hikomatsu, ed. Japan-American Diplomatic Relations in the Meiji-Taisho Era. Tokyo: Pan-Pacific Press, 1958. Kanae Taijudo. “Japan’s Early Practice of International Law in Fixing its Territorial Limits.” JAIL 22 (1978): 1–20. Kaneko Kentaro. “The Far East After the War.”The World’s Work 9 (2/1905): 5868–71. ———. “The Yellow Peril is the Golden Opportunity for Japan.” North American Review 179 (11/1904): 641–48. Kant, Immanuel. “Perpetual Peace.” In Political Writings, ed. H. A. Reiss, 2nd ed., 93–115. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Kasansky, M. P. “L’Union télégraphique internationale.” Journal télégraphique 21.8 (8 août 1897): 180–85. Kästner, Karl-Hermann. “From the Social Question to the Social State.” Economy and Society 10.1 (1981): 7–26. Kawasaki Takako. “Nihon no ryōdo.” In Nihon to kokusaihō no hyakunen, vol. 2, Riku – kū – uchū, ed. Kokusaihō gakkai, 95–126. Tokyo: Sanseidō, 2001. 206 ● Bibliography

Kayoğlu, Turan. Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Keal, Paul. “‘Just Backward Children’: International Law and the Conquest of Non-European Peoples.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 49.2 (1995): 191–206. Keene, Donald. Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852–1912. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Keene, Edward. Beyond the Anarchical Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2002. Keeton, George W. “Extraterritoriality in International and Comparative Law.” Recueil des cours 72 (1948, pt. I): 283–391. Kennedy, David. “International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illu- sion.” Quinnipiac Law Review 17 (1997): 99–138. Kenshō: Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Yomiuri shinbunsha shuzaidan. Tokyo: Chūōkōron shinsha, 2005. Kim, C. I. Eugene, and Han-Kyo Kim. Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 1876– 1910. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Kim Ki-Jung. “The War and US-Korean Relations.” In The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero, vol. 2, ed. David Wolff et al., 467–89. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Kim, Marie. Law and Custom in Korea: Comparative Legal History. New York: Cam- bridge University Press, 2012. Kinoshita Tsuyoshi. “Japanese Law and Western Law.” In Wege zum japanischen Recht: Festschrift für Zentaro Kitagawa, ed. Hans G. Leser and Tamotsu Isomura, 199– 219. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992. Kleinschmidt, Harald. Das europäische Völkerrecht und die ungleichen Verträge um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Tokyo: OAG Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 2007. Kohno, Masaru. “On the Meiji Restoration: Japan’s Search for Sovereignty?” Interna- tional Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1 (2001): 265–83. Kokott, Juliane. “States, Sovereign Equality.” In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Online edition accessed March 2012, www.mpepil.com. Komiya Kazuo. Jōyaku kaisei to kokunai seiji. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2001. Kooijmans, P. H. The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States: An Inquiry into the Foun- dations of International Law. Leyden: A. W. Sythoff, 1964. Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. K. Tribe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985. Koskenniemi, Martti. “Conclusion: Vocabularies of Sovereignty—Powers of a Para- dox.” In Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present, and Future of a Contested Con- cept, ed. Hent Kalmo and Quentin Skinner, 222–42. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of Legal Argument. [Reissue edition.] Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Bibliography ● 207

———. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870– 1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ———. “International Law and raison d’état: Rethinking the Prehistory of Interna- tional Law.” In The Roman Foundations of the Law of Nations: Alberico Gentili and the Justice of Empire, ed. Benedict Kingsbury and Benjamin Shaumann, 297–339. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kōzai Shigeru. “Bakumatsu-kaikoku-ki ni okeru kokusaihō no dōnyū.” Hōgaku ronsō 97.5 (1975): 1–38. ———. “Japan’s Early Encounter with the Western Law of Nations.” (Osaka Gakuin Daigaku) Kokusaigaku ronshū 5.2 (1994): 75–96. ———. “Japan’s Early Practice of International Law: The Law of Neutrality.” Osaka( Gakuin Daigaku) Kokusaigaku ronshū 7.1 (1996): 1–26. Krasner, Stephen D. “Problematic Sovereignty.” In Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities, ed. S. D. Krasner, 1–23. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 2001. ———. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Kriegel, Blandine. “The Rule of the State and Natural Law.” In Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty, ed. Ian Hunter and David Saunders, 13–26. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Kühner, Rolf. Vorbehalte zu multilateralen völkerrechtlichen Verträgen. Berlin: Springer- Verlag, 1986. Kunz, Otto. Die internationalen Telegraphen-Unionen. Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1924. Kuriyama Shigeru. “Historical Aspects of the Progress of International Law in Japan.” JAIL 1 (1957): 1–5. Laborie, Léonard. L’Europe mise en réseaux: La France et la coopération internationale dans les postes et les télécommunications (années 1850 - années 1950). Bruxelles: Peter Lang, 2010. Lahusen, Benjamin. Alles Recht geht vom Volksgeist aus: Friedrich Carl von Savigny und die modern Rechtswissenschaft. Berlin: Nicolai, 2013. Lande, Adolf. “Revindication of the Principle of Legal Equality of States, 1871–1914.” Political Science Quarterly 62.2. (6/1947): 258–86 and 62.3 (9/1947): 398–417. Lanessan, Jean-Marie de. Les enseignements maritime de la guerre Russo-Japonaise. Paris: F. Alcan, 1905. Lapradelle, Albert de. “La nouvelle thèse du refus de charbon aux belligérants dans les eaux neutres.” RGDIP 11 (1904): 531–64. Larson, Arthur. “Decisions of Tribunals.” In Sovereignty within the Law, ed. A. Larson, C. Wilfred Jenks, et al., 374–413. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1965. Lawrence, T. J. The Principles of International Law. London: Macmillan, 1895. ______. War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1904. Lechner, Frank, and John Boli. World Culture: Origins and Consequences. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Leroux, Charles. Le droit international pendant la guerre maritime Russo-Japonaise. Paris: Pedone, 1911. 208 ● Bibliography

Lesaffer, Randall. “The Classical Law of Nations (1500–1800).” inResearch Hand- book on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Alexander Orakhelashvili, 408–40. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar, 2011. Lev, Amnon. “The Transformation of International Law in the 19th Century.” In Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. Alexander Orakhelashvili, 111–42. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011. Li Zhaojie. “International Law in China: Legal Aspect of the Chinese Perspective of World Order.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1995. Liao Ping-hui and David Der-wei Wang. Taiwan Under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1845– 1945. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Liebesny, Herbert J. “The Development of Western Judicial Privileges.” In Law in the Middle East, ed. Majid Khadduri and H. J. Liebesny, vol. 1: 309–33. Washington, DC: Middle East Institute, 1955. Lindenfeld, David F. The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Lindley, M. F. The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1926. Lipstein, Kurt. “One Hundred Years of Hague Conferences on Private International Law.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 42.3 (7/1993): 553–653. Lisboa, Henri C. R. “Exterritorialité et immunités des agents diplomatiques.” RDILC, ser. II, vol. 1 (1899): 354–67. Little, Richard. “The English School and World History.” InInternational Society and its Critics, ed. Alex J. Bellamy, 45–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Lone, Stewart. Japan’s First Modern War: Army and Society in the Conflict with China, 1894–95. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 1994. Lorenz, Herwig. Krieg im Gelben Meer: Der russisch-japanishe Krieg 1904–1905. N.p., 2005. Lorimer, James. The Institutes of the Law of Nations. Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1883–84. Lowe, Vaughan. International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lyall, Francis. International Communications: The International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union. Farnham, UK: Ashgate: 2011. Lyons, F. S. L. Internationalism in Europe, 1815–1914. Leyden: Sythoff. 1963. MacNair, Harley Farnsworth. The Chinese Abroad: Their Position and Protection, A Study in International Law and Relations. Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1933. Maejima Hisoka. Yūbin sōgyō den. Tokyo: Teishin kyōkai, 1936. Maki, John M., ed. Conflict and Tension in the Far East: Key Documents, 1894–1960. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961. Malanczuk, Peter. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th rev. ed. New York: Routledge, 1997. Mälksoo, Lauri. “The Context of International Legal Arguments: ‘Positivist’ Inter- national Law Scholar August von Bulmerincq (1822–1890) and His Concept of Politics.” JHIL 7.2 (2005): 181–209. Manela, Erez. The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Bibliography ● 209

Mangone, Gerard J. A Short History of International Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 3: Global Empires and Revolutions, 1890–1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Martens, Fedor Fedorovich. [Frédéric de Martens]. Das Consularwesen und die Consul- arjurisdiction im Orient. Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1874. ———. “Les hostilités sans déclaration de guerre—à propos de la guerre russo- japonaise.” RGDIP 11 (1904): 148–50. ———. “Premier rapport,” “Second rapport,” and “Avant-projet.” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 6 (1883): 223–40. ———. Traité de droit international, trans. Albert Leo. Paris: Librairie Marescq ainé, 1883–1887. Martin, Bernd. Japan and Germany in the Modern World. Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995. Matsumura Masayoshi. “Maria Rusu gō jiken no kōhō gaikō teki seikaku.” Teikyō kokusai bunka, no. 9 (1996): 1–52. ———. Nichi-Ro sensō to Kaneko Kentarō: kōhō gaikō no kenkyū. Rev. and enlarged ed. Tokyo: Shin’yūdō, 1987. ———. “Yōroppa ni okeru ‘kōhō dantō daishi’ toshite no Suematsu Kenchō.” In Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai, vol. 1: 125–40. Tokyo: Kinseisha, 2004–2005. Matsunuma, Miho. “Casse-tête japonais: Conflits diplomatiques en Indochine fran- çaise au début du XXe siècle.” Monde(s): histoire, espaces, relations no. 7 (2015): 191–212. Matsushita Sachiko. “Nichi-Ro sensō ni okeru kokusaihō no hasshin: Ariga Nagao o kiten to shite.” In Nichi-Ro sensō, ed. Gunji shigakkai, vol. 1: 195–210. Tokyo: Kinseisha, 2004–2005. Maurel, Marius. De la déclaration de guerre. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1907. Maurice, J. F. Hostilities without Declaration of War. London: HMSO, 1883. Maxey, Edwin. “The Russo-Japanese War and International Law.” American Law Review 39 (1905): 344. McKenzie, F. A. The Tragedy of Korea. London: 1908; repr. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1969. McNair, Arnold D. “International Legislation.” Iowa Law Review 19:2 (1934): 177–89. McWilliams, Wayne C. “East Meets West: The Soejima Mission to China, 1873.” Monumenta Nipponica 30.3 (1975): 237–75. Meagher, Arnold J. The Coolie Trade: The Traffic in Chinese Laborers to Latin America, 1847–1874. N.p.: Xlibris, 2008. Medzini, Meron. French Policy in Japan during the Closing Years of the Tokugawa Regime. Cambridge, MA: East Asia Research Center, Harvard University, 1971. Mégret, Frédéric. “From ‘Savages’ to ‘Unlawful Combatants’: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s ‘Other.’” In International Law and Its Others, ed. Anne Orford, 265–317. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Meinecke, Friedrich. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History, trans. Douglas Scott. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. 210 ● Bibliography

Meiroku zasshi, trans. William Braisted. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. Meissner, Kurt. Deutsche in Japan, 1639–1960. Tokyo: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 1961. Meyer, John W. “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State.” In George M. Thomas, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli, Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual, 41–70. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987. ———, John Boli, and George M. Thomas. “Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account.” In George M. Thomas, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli, Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual, 12–40. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987. ———, and Ronald L. Jepperson. “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency.” Sociological Theory 18.1 (2000): 101–20. Meyners d’Estrey, G. H. J. “Chine et Japon: Le privilège d’exterritorialité.” Annales de l’extrème orient 3 (1880–81): 161–64. Michie, Alexander. The Englishman in China. Edinburgh: Blackwood & Sons, 1900. Midgely, E. B. F. The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations. London: Paul Elek, 1975. Miéville, China. Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law. Chi- cago: Haymarket, 2006. Miller, David Hunter. Reservations to Treaties: Their Effect and the Procedure in Regard Thereto. N.p., 1919. Mitani Hiroshi. “The Transformation of Diplomatic Norms in East Asia during the Nine- teenth Century: From Ambiguity to Singularity.” Acta Asiatica 93 (2007): 89–105. Miyazaki Shigeki. “History of the Law of Nations—Regional Developments: Far East.” In Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rudolf Bernhardt and Peter Macalister-Smith, vol. 2: 802–809. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992–2000. Moore, John Bassett. A Digest of International Law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1906. ———. History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898. Morellet, Jean. “La principe de la souveraineté de l’état et le droit international public.” RGDIP 33 (1926): 104–19. Morita Tomoko. “‘Fubyōdō jōyaku’ to ryōjisaibanken.” Shigaku zasshi 105.4 (1996): 59–81. ———. Kaikoku to chigaihōken. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005. Morris, Justin. “Normative Innovation and the Great Powers.” In International Society and Its Critics, ed. Alex J. Bellamy, 265–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Morse, Hosea Ballou. The International Relations of the Chinese Empire. New York: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1910–1918. Motegi Toshio. Henyōsuru kindai higashi-Ajia no kokusai chitsujo. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1997. Moynier, Gustave. Les bureaux internationaux des unions universelles. Genève : A. Cherbuliez, 1892. Bibliography ● 211

Münch, Fritz. “L’influence de l’International Law Association sur la doctrine et la pratique du droit international.” In The Present State of International Law and Other Essays, written in honour of the Centenary Celebration of the International Law Asso- ciation 1873–1973, ed. Maarten Bos, 23–36. Deventer: Kluwer, 1973. Murase Shinya. “The Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Japan’s Treaty Practice during the Period 1854–1905.” AJIL 70.2 (1976): 273–97. ———. “Nihon no kokusaihōgaku ni okeru hōgenron no isō,” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 96.4-5 (1997): 175–203. ———. “The Presence of Asia at the 1907 Hague Conference.” In Académie de droit international de La Haye, Actualité de la conférence de La Haye de 1907, deuxième conférence de la paix: Colloque, La Haye, 6–7 septembre 2007, ed. Yves Daudet, 85–101. Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008. Myers, Denys P. Non-Sovereign Representation in Public International Organs. Brux- elles: Congress mondiale des associations internationales, 1913. ______. “Representation in Public International Organs,” AJIL 8.1 (1914): 81–108. Naff, Thomas. “The Ottoman Empire and the European States System.” In The Expansion of International Society, ed. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, 143–69. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Nagaoka Harukazu. “Étude sur la guerre Russo-Japonaise au point de vue du droit international.” RDILC 12 (1905): 603–605. ______. “La guerre Russo-Japonaise et le droit international.” RDILC 36 [2nd series, vol. 6] (1904): 461–79. Nakamura Kikuo. Zōtei kindai Nihon no hōteki keishiki: jōyaku kaisei to hōten hensai. Tokyo: Yūrindō, 1958. Nakaoka, San’eki. “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. Neff, Stephen C. War and the Law of Nations: A General History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Ness, G. Parker. “Foreign Jurisdiction in Japan.” The Law Magazine and Review Quar- terly Digest 11 (1885–86): 348–65. Neumann, Iver B., and Jennifer M. Welsh. “The Other in European Self-Definition: An Addendum to the Literature on International Society.” Review of International Studies 17 (1991): 327–48. Neutralitätserlasse: 1854 bis 1904. Berlin: Mittler, 1904. Nish, Ian. Japanese Foreign Policy, 1869–1942. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977. ———. “Suematsu Kencho: International Envoy to Wartime Europe.” International Studies Discussion Papers (STICERD, London School of Economic and Political Science) May 2005: 12–24. Nys, Ernest. “La guerre et la déclaration de guerre—quelques notes.” RDILC ser. II, vol. 6 (1905): 517–42. ———. “La juridiction consulaire—quelques notes.” RDILC ser. II, vol. 7 (1905): 237–52. 212 ● Bibliography

Obregón, Liliana. “The Civilized and the Uncivilized.” In The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, 917–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. ______. “Completing Civilization: Creole Consciousness and International Law in Nineteenth-Century Latin America.” In International Law and Its Others, ed. Anne Orford, 247–64. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. O’Brien, William V. “The Meaning of ‘Military Necessity’ in International Law.” World Polity 1 (1957): 109–76. Ōhira Zengo. “Japan’s Reception of the Law of Nations.” Annals of the Hitotsubashi Academy 4.1 (1953): 55–66. Ōishi Kazuo. Jōyaku kaisei kōshōshi, 1887–1894. Kyoto: Shibunkaku, 2008. Oka Yoshitake. "Nisshin sensō to yōji ni okeru taigai ishiki." Kokka gakkai zasshi 68 (12/1954): 101–30 and (2/1955): 223–54. Okagaki, Tomoko. The Logic of Conformity: Japan’s Entry into International Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Onuf, Niholas Greenwood. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. Ōnuma Yasuaki. “Japanese International Law in the Prewar Period.” JAIL 29 (1986): 23–47. ———, ed. A Normative Approach to War: Peace, War, and Justice in Hugo Grotius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Oppenheim, Lassa. International Law: A Treatise, 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920. Orakhelashvili, Alexander. “International Law, International Politics, and Ideology.” In Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. A. Ora- khelashvili, 328–75. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011. ———. “The Relevance of Theory and History—The Essence and Origins of Inter- national Law.” In Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law, ed. A. Orakhelashvili, 3–22. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011. Osatake Takeki. “Fu-Futsu sensō to Nihon.” Rekishi chiri 25 (1915): 107–116. Ōyama Azusa. “Jōyaku kaisei to gaikokujin kyoryūchi.” Rekishi kyōiku 9.1 (1969): 60–69. ———. “Kyoryūchisei to chigaihōken.” Teikyō hōgaku 13.2 (1982): 15–26. ———. Kyū jōyaku ka ni okeru kaishi kaikō no kenkyū. Tokyo: Otori shobō, 1967. ———. Nihon gaikōshi kenkyū. Tokyo: Ryōsho fukyūkai, 1980. Paillette, Céline. “Épidémies, santé et ordre mondial: Le rôle des organisations sanitaires internationales, 1903–1923.” Monde(s): histoire, espaces, relations, no. 2 (2012): 237–56. Paine, S. C. M. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pankoke, Eckart. “Soziale Politik als Problem öffentlicher Verwaltung: Zu Lorenz von Steins gesellschaftswissenschaftlicher Programmierung des ‘arbeitenden Staates.’” In Staat und Gesellschaft: Studien über Lorenz von Stein, ed. Roman Schnur, 405– 17. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1978. Bibliography ● 213

Pantzer, Peter, and Sven Saaler. Japanische Impressionen eines Kaiserlichen Gesandten: Karl von Eisendecher im Japan der Meiji-Zeit. München: Iudicum, 2007. Pashukanis, Evgeny. The General Theory of Law and Marxism, trans. Barbara Einhorn. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2002. ———. “International Law.” In China Miéville, Between Equal Rights, 331–33. Chi- cago: Haymarket, 2006. Paternostro, Paolo. “Notice sur une conférence donnée à Tokio.” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 11 (1889–92): 345–47. ———. “La revision des traités avec le Japon au point de vue du droit international.” RDILC 18 (1891): 5–29, 176–92. Peletz, Michael G. “Judicial Dilemmas of Legitimacy and Sovereignty.” In Sover- eignty under Challenge: How Governments Respond, ed. John D. Montgomery and Nathan Glazer, 221–58. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2002. Perez, Louis G. Japan Comes of Age: Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the Unequal Treaties. Cranberry, NJ: Associated University Presses; Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009. The Peruvian Barque “Maria Luz”: A Short Account of the Cases Tried in the Kanagawa Kencho. Kanagawa: Kanagawa kenchō, 1874. Pfeiffer, Thomas. “Public International Law.” In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Online edition accessed March 2012, www.mpepil.com. Phillimore, Robert. Commentaries upon International Law. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson, 1854–57. ———. “Inaugural Address of the President.” In International Law Association, Report of the Seventh Annual Conference Held at the Guildhall, London, 11–16 August, 1879, 16–31. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1880. Phillipson, Coleman. International Law and the Great War. London: Fisher Unwin, 1915. Pietri, François. Étude critique sur la fiction d’exterritorialité. Paris: A. Rousseau, 1895. Piggott, Francis Taylor. Exterterritoriality: The Law Relating to Consular Jurisdiction and to Residence in Oriental Countries. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1892. ———. “Foreign Judgments.” In International Law Association, Report of the Seventh Annual Conference Held at the Guildhall, London, 11–16 August, 1879, 215–220. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1880. Pillet, Antoine. “La guerre doit-elle être précédée d’une déclaration?” Revue politique et parlementaire 40 [no. 118] (1904): 50–57. Porter, Dorothy. Health, Civilization, and the State: A History of Public Health from Ancient to Modern Times. London: Routledge, 1999. Pufendorf, Samuel. Of the Law of Nature and Nations, trans. Carew. London, 1729; repr. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2005. Rajagopal, Balakrishnan. International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Ranaivoson, Henri. L’union postale universelle (UPU) et la constitution d’un territoire postal unique. Berne: n.p., 1988. 214 ● Bibliography

Reinsch, Paul S. Public International Unions: Their Work and Organization; A Study in International Administrative Law. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1911. Reischauer, Robert Karl. Alien Land Tenure in Japan. Tokyo: Asiatic Society of Japan, 1936. Republic of Hawaii. Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Republic of Hawaii, for the Biennial Period Ending December 31, 1897. Honolulu: Hawaiian Star Press, 1898. Republica del Peru. Colección de los tratados, convenciones capitulaciones, armisticios, y otros actos diplomáticos y políticos celebrados desde la independencia hasta el día, precedida de una introducción que comprende la época colonial, ed. Ricardo Aranda. Lima: Imprenta del estado, 1890–1911. Resolutions of the Institute of International Law Dealing with the Law of Nations, ed. James Brown Scott. New York: Oxford University Press, 1916. Rey, Francis. “Japon et Russie—guerre,” [part 3] RGDIP 13 (1906): 612–27. Richard, Henry. “The Gradual Triumph of Law over Brute Force.” In International Law Association, Reports of the First Conference Held at Brussels, 1873, and of the Second Conference Held at Geneva, 1874, 79–99. London: West, Newman & Co., 1903. Riches, Cromwell A. Majority Rule in International Organization: A Study of the Trend from Unanimity to Majority Decision. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1940. Roberts, Christopher. The British Courts and Extra-Territoriality in Japan, 1859–1899. Leiden: Global Oriental, 2014. Robinson, Ronald. “Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism: Sketch for a Theory of Collaboration.” In Studies in the Theory of Imperialism, ed. Roger Owen and Bob Sutcliffe, 116–42. London: Longman, 1972. Rodick, Burleigh Cushing. The Doctrine of Necessity in International Law. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928. Röhl, Wilhelm, ed. History of Law in Japan since 1868. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Rolin, Albéric. Les origines de l’Institut de droit international 1873–1923. Bruxelles: Vromant, 1923. ———. “Rapport.” Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international 21 (1906): 27–55. ———. “Rapport sur la question de la déclaration de guerre.” Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international 20 (1904): 64–70. Rolland, Louis. De la correspondance postale et télégraphique dans les relations internationales. Paris: Pedone, 1901. Rosenberg, Justin. The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of Inter- national Relations. London: Verso, 1994. Ruggie, John Gerard. “Territoriality and Beyond.” International Organization 47.1 (1993): 139–74. Ruskola, Teemu. Legal Orientalism: China, The United States, and Modern Law. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. ———. “Raping Like a State.” UCLA Law Review 57.5 (2010): 1437–536. Rygiel, Philippe. “Une impossible tâche? L’Institut de Droit International et la regulation des migrations internationales 1870–1920.” PhD diss., Université Paris I, 2011. Bibliography ● 215

Sack, Robert David. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Sarway, Otto von. Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. Freiburg: Mohr, 1887. Satō Tōru. Bakumatsu-Meiji shoki goi no kenkyū. Tokyo: Ōfūsha, 1986. Saveliev, Igor R. “Rescuing the Prisoners of the Maria Luz: The Meiji Government and the ‘Coolie Trade,’ 1868–1875.” In Turning Points in Japanese History, ed. Bert Edström, 71–83. N.p.: Japan Library, 2002. Sayre, Francis Bowes. Experiments in International Administration. New York: Harper & Bros., 1919. Schenck, Paul-Christian. Der deutsche Anteil an der Gestaltung des modernen japanischen Rechts- und Verfassungswesens. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997. Schepin, Oleg P., and Waldemar V. Yermakov. International Quarantine, trans. B. Meerovich and V. Bobrov. Madison: International Universities Press, 1991. Schmidt, Brian C. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of Interna- tional Relations. Albany: SUNY Press, 1998. Schmitt, Carl. The Nomos of the Earth—in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, trans. G. L. Ulman. New York: Telos Press, 2003. Schröder, Peter. “Natural Law, Sovereignty, and International Law.” In Natural Law and Civil Sovereignty, ed. Ian Hunter and David Saunders, 204–18. London: Pal- grave Macmillan, 2002. Schröter, Carl. Der Weltpostverein: Geschichte seiner Gründung und Entwicklung in 25 Jahren. Bern: K. J. Wyss, 1900. Schultz, Matthias. “Defenders of the Right? Diplomatic Practice and International Law in the 19th Century: An Historian’s Perspective.” In Constructing Interna- tional Law: The Birth of a Discipline, ed. Luigi Nuzzo and Miloš Vec, 251–75. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012. Schwarzenberger, Georg. “The Standard of Civilization in International Law.” Current Legal Problems 8 (1955): 212–34. Scidmore, George Herbert. 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. Scott, James Brown, ed. The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1918. ———. The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907: A Series of Lectures delivered before the Johns Hopkins University in the Year 1908. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1909. Seaman, Louis Livingston. From Tokio through Manchuria with the Japanese. New York: Appleton & Co., 1905. Seizelet, Eric. “European Law and Tradition in Japan during the Meiji Era, 1868– 1912.” In European Expansion and Law, ed. W. J. Mommsen and J. A. de Moor, 59–82. Oxford: Berg, 1992. Senellart, Michel. Machiavélisme et raison d’état: XIIe-XVIIe siècle. Paris: Presses Uni- versitaires de France, 1989. Senga Tsurutarō. Gestaltung und Kritik der heutigen Konsulargerichtsbarkeit in Japan. Berlin: Prager, 1897. 216 ● Bibliography

Seok, Huajeong. “Russo-Japanese Negotiations and the Japanese Annexation of Korea.” In Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, vol. 2, The Nichinan Papers, ed. John W. M. Chapman and Inaba Chiharu, 401–12. Folkstone, UK: Global Oriental, 2007. Serres, Michel, with Bruno Latour. Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. Shaw, Malcolm N. International Law, 4th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Sheppard, Eli T. Extra-territoriality in Japan. [Tokyo]: n.p., 1879. Shimazu, Naoko. Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919. Lon- don: Routledge, 1998. Shimomura Fujio. Meiji ishin no gaikō. Tokyo: Ōyasu shuppan, 1948. ———. Meiji shonen jōyaku kaiseishi no kenkyū. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1962. Shinobu Junpei. “Vicissitudes of International Law in the Modern History of Japan.” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 50.2 (1951): 196–234. Shiraha Yūzō. Nisshin-Nichiro sensō to hōritsugaku. Tokyo: Chūō daigaku shuppanbu, 2002. Shirai Hisaya. Meiji kokka to Nisshin sensō. Tokyo: Shakai hyōronsha, 1997. Shun, Liu Shih. Extraterritoriality: Its Rise and Its Decline. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1925. Siebold, Alexander von. Japan’s Accession to the Comity of Nations, trans. Charles Lowe. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1901. Siehl, [Dr.]. “Der Angriff der Japaner gegen Russland im Lichte des Völkerrechts.” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 9.6 (1904): 281–85. Siemes, Johannes. Die Gründung des modernen japanischen Staates und das deutsche Staatsrecht: Der Beitrag Hermann Roeslers. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1975. ———. Herman Roesler and the Making of the Meiji State. Tokyo: Sophia University and Chas. E. Tuttle, 1968. Simpson, Gerry. Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the Interna- tional Legal Order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Sims, Richard. French Policy Towards the Bakufu and Meiji Japan, 1854–95. Rich- mond, UK: Japan Library, 1998. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Smith [Birkenhead], F. E., and N. W. Sibley. International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War. London: Fisher Unwin, 1905. Sofaer, Abraham, and Thomas Heller. “Sovereignty: The Practitioners’ Perspective.” In Problematic Sovereignty, ed. Stephen Krasner, 24–52. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 2001. Stein, Lorenz von. “Einige Bemerkungen über das internationale Verwaltung- srecht.” [Schmollers] Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 6.2 (1882): 395–442. Stern, John Peter. The Japanese Interpretation of the “Law of Nations,” 1854–1874. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. Bibliography ● 217

Stewart, Watt. Chinese Bondage in Peru: A History of the Chinese Coolie in Peru, 1849– 1874. Durham: Duke University Press, 1951. Stolleis, Michael. Public Law in Germany, 1800–1914. New York: Berghahn, 2001. Stowell, Ellery C. “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities.” AJIL 2.1 (1/1908): 52. Suematsu Kenchō. The Risen Sun. London: Archibald Constable & Co., 1905. Suganami, Hidemi. “The English School and International Theory.” In International Society and Its Critics, ed. Alex J. Bellamy, 29–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. “International Law.” In The Community of States: A Study in International Political Theory, ed. James Mayall, 63–72. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982. ———. “Japan’s Entry into International Society.” In The Expansion of International Society, ed. Bull and Watson, 185–99. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. 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, vol. 2: 219–48. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1923. Sumiyoshi Yoshihito. “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō ishiki.” Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 48.2 (1975): 1–31. ———. “Meiji shoki ni okeru kokusaihō no dōnyū.” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 71.5-6 (1973): 33–58. ———. “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai,” [part 1]. Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 42.3 (2/1969): 29–75. ———. “Nihon ni okeru ryōjisaiban seido to sono teppai,” [part 2]. Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 43.1 (8/1969): 23–74. ———. “Seiō kokusaihōgaku no Nihon e no inyū to sono tenkai.” Hōritsu ronsō (Meiji daigaku) 42.4-5-6 (1969): 343–70. Suzuki, Shogo. Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society. London: Routledge, 2009. ———. “Europe at the Periphery of the Japanese World Order.” In International Orders in the Early Modern World: Before the Rise of the West, ed. Shogo Suzuki, Yongjin Zhang, and Joel Quirk, 76–93. London: Routledge, 2014. ———. “Japan’s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society.” European Journal of International Relations 11.1 (2005): 137–64. Tabohashi Kiyoshi. “Meiji gonen no ‘Maria Rusu’ jiken.” Shigaku zasshi (1929): 40.1: 98–114, 40.3: 102–113, 40.4: 87-112. Takahashi Sakue. "Applications of International Law during the Chino-Japanese War." Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society of London 5 (1898–1901): 2–21. ———. Cases on International Law During the Chino-Japanese War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1899. ———. Eisen ‘Kōshō’ gō no gekichin. Tokyo: Shūeisha, 1903. ———. “Historical Account of the Neutrality of Japan Since 1870.” Kokusaihō zasshi 1 (1902), no. 2: 1–5, no. 4: 1–5, and no. 10: 1–6. 218 ● Bibliography

———. International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War. London: Steven & Sons, 1908. ———. “La neutralité du Japon pendant la guerre franco-allemande.” RDILC 33 (1901): 255–68. ———. Senji kokusai kōhō [enlarged ed.]. Tokyo: Tetsugaku shoin, [1902]. Takahashi Zenshichi. Oyatoi gaikokujin: Tsūshin. [Oyatoi gaikokujin, ed. Umetani Noboru, vol. 7.] Tokyo: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1969. ———. Tsūshin. [Nihonshi shōhyakka, vol. 23.] Tokyo: Kondo shuppansha, 1986. Takahira, Kogoro. “Why Japan Resists Russia.” North American Review 178 (3/1904): 321–27. Takeda Yasumi. Maria Rusu jiken: Ōe Taku to dorei kaihō. Yokohama: Yurindo, 1981. Tanaka, Stefan. New Times in Modern Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Tarring, Charles Jones. British Consular Jurisdiction in the East. London: Stevens & Haynes, 1887. Tatara, Kozo. “The Origins and Development of Public Health in Japan.” In Oxford Textbook of Public Health, 3rd ed., vol. 1, The Scope of Public Health, ed. Roger Detels et al., 55–72. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Teramoto Yasutoshi. Nichi-ro sensō igo no Nihon gaikō. Tokyo: Shinzansha, 1999. Terao Toru. “La question coréenne.” La revue politique et parliamentaire 1 (1894): 449–57. Teschke, Benno. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern Inter- national Relations. London: Verso, 2003. Thomas, George M. “World Polity, World Culture, World Society.” International Political Sociology 4 (2010): 115–19. Toby, Ronald. “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, 15–45. Ann Arbor: Uni- versity of Michigan Press, 2001. Toyama Saburō. Nichi-Ro kaisen shinshi. Tokyo: Tokyo shuppan, 1987. Toyoda, Tetsuya. “L’aspect universaliste du droit international européen du 19ème siècle et le statut juridique de la Turquie avant 1856.” JHIL 8 (2006): 22–32. ———. Theory and Politics of the Law of Nations: Political Bias in International Law Discourse of Seven German Court Councilors in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Cen- turies. Leiden: Nijhoff, 2011. Toyoda Yasushi. Nisshin - Nichi-Ro sensō. [Nihon no taigai sensō: Meiji.] Tokyo: Bungeisha, 2009. Treat, Payson. Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Japan, 1853–1895. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1932. Treaty . . . relative to the formation of a General Postal Union—Signed at Berne, Octo- ber 9, 1874. In The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Clive Parry, vol. 147: 136–66. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1969–81. Triepel, Heinrich. Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1899. Ts’ai, Hui-yu Caroline. Taiwan in Japan’s Empire-Building: An Institutional Approach to Colonial Engineering. New York: Routledge, 2009. Bibliography ● 219

Tsutsui Wakamizu. “Gendai kokusaihō ni okeru bunmei to chii.” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 66.5 (2/1968): 37–70. Twiss, Travers. “Consular Jurisdiction in the Levant and the Status of Foreigners in the Ottoman Law Courts.” In International Law Association, Report of the Eighth Annual Conference Held at Berne, August 24th–27th, 1880, 27–49. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1881. ———. “La juridiction consulaire dans les pays de l’orient et spécialement au Japon.” RDILC 25 (1893): 213–29. ———. The Law of Nations Considered as Independent Political Communities: On the Rights and Duties of Nations in Time of Peace, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1884. ———. “On Consular Jurisdiction in Japan: and the Recent Legislation of the Japa- nese Government.” In International Law Association, Report of the Ninth Annual Conference Held at Cologne, 16–19 August 1881, 129–40. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1882. Uchimura Kanzō. “Justification of the Korean War.” In The Complete Works of Kanzō Uchimura, ed. Tajiro Yamamoto and Yoichi Muto, vol. 5: 66–75. Tokyo: Kyo- bunkwan, 1972. [Ueno] Wooyeno Kagenori. “Consular Jursidiction in Japan.” In International Law Association, Report of the Sixth Annual Conference Held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 20–23 August 1878, 38–40. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, 1879. Ule, Carl Hermann. “Zu den Anfängen der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Deutsch- land und Japan.” Verwaltungs-Archiv 80.3 (1989): 303–18. Ullmann, Emanuel von. “Der Krieg in Ostasien und das Völkerrecht.” Die Woche (Berlin) 6.8 (1904): 322–23. Umetani Noboru. Oyatoi gaikokujin, vol. 11, Seiji hōritsu. N.p.: Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1971. Union Postale Universelle. Documents du Congrès Postal de Paris, 1878. Berne: Lang & Co., 1878. Unno, Kazutaka. “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, 346–455. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Valery, Jules. “L’exterritorialité des lois et les états à formation complexe.” RDILC 29 (1897): 5–25. Valliant, Robert B. “The Selling of Japan: Japanese Manipulation of Western Opin- ion, 1900–1905.” Monumenta Nipponica 29.4 (1974): 415–38. Vattel, Emer de. The Law of Nations, trans. J. Chitty. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. John- son, 1853. Vec, Miloš. Recht und Normierung in der industriellen Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 2006. Visscher, Charles De. “La contribution de l’Institut de Droit international au dével- oppement du droit international.” In Institut de Droit International, Livre du Cen- tenaire 1873–1973: Evolution et perspectives du droit international, 128–61. Basel: S. Karger, 1973. Wada Hideo. “The Administrative Court under the Meiji Constitution.” Law in Japan 10 (1977): 1–64. 220 ● Bibliography

Wallace, Michael, and J. David Singer. “Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System, 1815–1964: A Quantitative Description.” International Organiza- tion 24.2 (1970): 239–87. Wang, Tay-sheng. Legal Reform in Taiwan Under Japanese Colonial Rule, 1895–1945. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000. Weber, Cynthia. Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Westlake, John. Chapters on the Principles of International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1894. ———. Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Westney, D. Eleanor. “Building the National Communications System.” In The Ambivalence of Nationalism: Modern Japan between East and West, ed. James W. White, Michio Umegaki, and Thomas R. H. Havens, 39–59. Lanham, MD: Uni- versity Press of America, 1990. Westwood, J. N. Russia against Japan, 1904–05. London: Macmillan, 1986. Wheaton, Henry. Elements of International Law, 8th ed., ed. Richard Dana [1866]. Repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936. White, John Albert. The Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. White, Trumbull. The War in the East: Japan, China, and Corea. N.p., 1895. Wilberforce, Lord [Richard Orme]. “The Daily Life and Administration of the Inter- national Law Association.” In The Present State of International Law and Other Essays, written in honour of the Centenary Celebration of the International Law Asso- ciation 1873–1973, ed. Maarten Bos, 12–22. Deventer: Kluwer, 1973. Willoughby, W. W., and C. G. Fenwick. Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919. Wolff, Christian. Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum, trans. J. Drake. Oxford: Clarendon, 1934. Woolsey, Theodore D. Introduction to the Study of International Law, 4th ed., revised and enlarged. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co., 1874. World Health Organization. The First Ten Years of the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO, 1958. Yabuuchi Yoshihiko. Nihon yūbin sōgyōshi. Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 1975. Yakemtchouk, Romain. “Les origines de l’Institut de droit international.” RGDIP 77.2 (1973): 377–423. Yamada Saburō. “Gaikokujin no chii o ronzu,” [part 1]. Kokusaihō zasshi 1.1 (2/1902): 7–10. Yamamoto Shun’ichi. Nihon korera shi. Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppansha, 1982. Yamamoto Sōji. “Japanese Approaches and Attitudes towards International Law.” JAIL 34 (1991): 115–24. ———. “Kokusai gyōseihō no sonritsu kiban.” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi 76.5 (1969): 1–66. Yamauchi, Susumu. “Civilization and International Law in Japan during the Meiji Era (1868–1912).” Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics 24 (1996): 1–25. Bibliography ● 221

Yanagihara, Masaharu. “Japan.” In The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, ed. Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, 474–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Yang, Daqing. Technology of Empire: Telecommunications and Japanese Expansion in Asia, 1883–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2010. Yasuoka Akio. “Bankoku kōhō to Meiji gaikō.” Seiji keizai shigaku no. 200 (1983): 188–200. Yokota Kisaburō. “Nihon ni okeru chigaihōken.” In his Kokusaihō ronshu, vol. 1: 261–308. Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1976. ———. “Wagakuni ni okeru kokusaihō no kenkyū.” In his Kokusaihō ronshū, vol 1: 247–60. Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1976. Young, Eileen. “The Development of the Law of Diplomatic Relations.” British Year Book of International Law 40 (1964): 141–182. Yūseishō, ed. Yūsei hyakunen shi. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1971. Zachmann, Urs Matthias. Völkerrechtsdenken und Außenpolitik in Japan, 1919–1960. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013. Zhang, Yongjin. “China’s Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of ‘Civilization.’” Review of International Studies 17.1 (1991): 3–16. ———. “Curious and Exotic Encounters: Europeans as Supplicants in the Chinese Imperium, 1513–1793.” In International Orders in the Early Modern World: Before the Rise of the West, ed. Shogo Suzuki, Yongjin Zhang, and Joel Quirk, 55–75. London: Routledge, 2014. Index

A Bluntschli, Johann Caspar, 8, 39 administrative law, 76–77 Bodin, Jean, 128 as central aspect of Rechtsstaat, 76 Boissonade, Gustave, 88 agency, of nation-state, 20 Boli, John, 18, 19, 20, 21, 47 Akashi Kinji, 4 Bowden, Brett, 6 Alcock, Rutherford, 8, 62, 66, 67 Brandt, Maximilian von, 30–32, 64–65, Alexander II of Russia, Czar, 36–37 158n8, 161n32 Alexandrowicz, Charles Henry, 11, 55 Britain, 8, 16, 21, 32, 33–34, 37, alternative global order not restricted 45, 50, 56, 59, 64, 68, 80–81, to states, 2, 8, 20, 73, 75, 79–80, 82, 83, 94, 96, 102, 106, 127, 137 110–11, 115, 119, 120, 122, its demise in 20th century, 137–38 126, 132, 134–35, 142 Anghie, Antony, 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 104, 121, 19, 21, 128, 133 126, 134, 139 Aoki Shūzō, 81, 82, 106 British efforts to expand privileges in arbitration, 36–37, 39, 46, 79, 97, 112, Japan, 11, 63, 90 139–40 British India, 80, 82, 86 Ariga Nagao, 103, 106, 110, 112, 115, extension of colonial jurisdiction, 116, 118, 124, 181n6, 185n44 131, 141 Association for the Reform and Orders in Council, 56–57, 60–61, Codification of the Law of 62, 70, 131 Nations. See International Law participation of colonies in Association international conferences and Austin, John, 2, 13, 130 unions, 80, 88, 136 Austria-German Telegraph Union, 75 restatement of Japanese laws as British regulations, 60–61, 62, 70 B Brooks, Barbara, 141 Baba Tatsui, 59 Bull, Hedley, 6, 25, 27, 133; on Bankoku shinbun incident (1876), 69–70 international states system vs. Banno Junji, 22 European international society, 9 Bansho shirabesho, 30 Burritt, Elihu, 38 Bingham, John, 90, 92 Buzan, Barry, 101 Black, John R., 69–70 Bynkershoek, Cornelius van, 54 224 ● Index

C colonialism, 2, 3, 12, 19, 57, 92, 95, Cabell, James, 93 120, 130–31, 134, 136, 138, 140, Carr, E. H., 133 141, 143, 194n47 Carty, Anthony, 12, 57 by means of treaties in Africa and Chefoo (Zhifu) incident, 113, 114, Asia, 16 116–119 comity, 29, 42–44, 46 Chemulpo incident, 113, 114–16, 117, Conference for the Protection of 119, 135 Submarine Cables, 74, 85–88, 96 China, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22, 30, 40, conflict of laws, 17, 29–30, 38, 45 55, 56, 67, 84, 88, 90, 104, 114, Connolly, William E., 10 117, 123, 131, 134, 139, 143 consular jurisdiction, 16, 23, 28, 40, 49, abrogation of unequal treaties, 17 50–51, 54, 58, 59, 60–62, 63, 64, Boxer “war” in, 107, 113, 115, 126 66, 68, 93, 142 dominance of traditional “East Asian restricted to nationals of consul, 41, international society,” 22 56, 58, 60, 131 Qing treatment of foreign role of consular courts, 43–44, 57 residents, 11 See also extraterritoriality See also Chefoo incident; Manchuria; Convention for the Protection of Sino-French dispute; Sino-Japanese Submarine Cables, 74, War; Taiwan 85–88, 96 Chishima, 57 coolie trade, 2, 23, 28, 33–35 cholera, 54, 88, 89–92, 96 Coolie Convention of 1866, 33 civilization, 14, 28, 38, 55, 59, 61, 65, culture, as non-rational, 20 122, 124, 125, 142 as “reified inevitability,” 20 becoming civilized as a political custom, 60 decision, 16–17, 48, 61 as form of law, 19 debate over its basis in Christianity, as source of law, 2, 47 14, 40, 59 Latin America and, 15 D as “legal imperialism,” 15, 48, 131 Declaration of Paris (1856), 15, 17, 24, as norms/values, 16, 28, 38, 100, 123 45, 123 declaration(s) of war, 99, 104–113, 116, as power and modernized 126, 140, 184n28 militarization, 17 Dickins, Frederick V., 35 as unmarked category and diplomacy, 2, 54, 60, 62, 79, 80, 93. subjectively identified, 16, 17, 21 See also Japan—diplomatic as universal process, 18; as Western-style activities of codes of law, 15, 29, 47 See also standard of civilization E civilized society, 2, 14–18, 45, 47, 141 Ebren, Henri, 111–12 as guarantee for European property in Egypt, 41, 44, 56, 66, 80, 81, 88, foreign places, 14 93, 120 coaling of belligerent ships in wartime, Eisendecher, Karl von, 89–91 114, 119–22 Ekaterinoslav, 108, 114, 115, 119 Index ● 225

English School of international Göl, Ayla, 55 relations, 5, 6, 7, 25, 27, 38, Gong, Gerrit, 6, 38, 48, 166n82 101–102, 127, 133 Government of Japan v. P & O Steamship rubric of socialization, 6 Co., 57, 58 equality of states, 31, 61, 126, 131. Great Northern Telegraph Company, See also natural law: natural 83–84, 86, 87 equality of states great powers, 3, 25, 31, 45, 96, 125, Etō Shinpei, 35 127, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, exterterritoriality, 54, 60–61 142, 143 extraterritorial rights (privileges), 8, 15, Grotius, Hugo, 8, 12, 13 26, 40, 49, 53–54, 60, 67, 142 Grovogui, Siba, 129 extraterritoriality, 13, 15, 16, 18, 30, Gutschow, Hermann, 89 41–42, 45, 50, 53, 54–57, 58–62, 63, 70–71, 131 H as basis for consular jurisdiction, Hague Conventions, 13, 24, 99, foreign settlements, and tariff 112–13, 116, 122 arrangements in Japan, 50–51 Hague Peace Conference of 1899, 7, 8, undertheorized in nineteenth century, 13, 21, 24, 104, 105, 126, 136, 137 59–60 Hague Peace Conference of 1907, 7, 8, 21, 24, 32, 100, 109, 111, 112, F 113, 116, 119, 120, 122, 126, Fé d’Ostiani, A. S., 64 135–36, 137, 138, 139 Field, David Dudley, 39, 41 Hague Peace Conference of 1915 Foucault, Michel, 10 (proposed), 136 France, 16, 30–32, 33, 45, 61, 74, 78, Hall, William Edward, 1, 8, 15, 83, 85, 90, 104, 113, 114, 115, 29, 60, 137 119–22, 126, 139, 177n42. Hamel, G. A. van, 41, 42, 43 See also Franco-Prussian War; Harvey, David, 52 Sino-French dispute Hawai‘i, 37, 96–97 Franco-Prussian War, 23, 28, 30–32, Hay, John, 118 58, 110, 119 Hayashi Dōsaburō, 35 Freeland, H. W., 41 Hayashi Tadasu, 104, 120–21 Fremantle, E. R., 106 Herrera, Ricardo, 35–37 French Revolution, 20 Hershey, Amos, 117, 135 Fukuzawa Yukichi, 18, 124, 164n58 Hesperia incident, 74, 89–91 Hill, G. W., 35, 69, 161n30 G Hinsley, F. H., 128, 129, 130, 132 García y García, Aurelio, 36 Hishida, Seiji, 31, 104, 114, 189n89 Geneva Convention (1864), 8, 24, 74, Hobbes, Thomas, 12, 100, 128 99, 100, 107, 116, 123, 142 Hoffman, John, 129 Germany, 30–32, 35, 59, 64, 68, 74, Holland, Thomas Erskine, 14, 103, 81, 87, 122, 126, 139, 158n8 107, 123, 124, 125 global governance, 129 Hong Kong, 34, 83 global political culture, 18 Hull, William, 112 226 ● Index

I as means to limit violence/promote Ida Yuzuru, 86 cooperation, 7, 14, 24, 109, 112, Ienaga Toyokichi, 104 127, 141 imperialism, 6, 25, 103, 126, 192n36 as “non-guaranteed legal relations,” Inoue Kaoru, 7, 83, 86, 88, 92, 95 127, 132, 141 Institut de droit international, 23, 28, as not law because there is no capacity 38–39, 44, 46, 47, 58, 86, 102, to punish lawbreakers, 13, 104, 109, 111, 112, 120, 123 130, 132 institutions, as holders of norms/values, obligatory nature of, 12 5, 38 as set of norms/values, 27, 46, 123 international administrative law, 8, 23, International Law Association, 23, 28, 73–74, 75, 77, 85, 137 29, 38–41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 86, German origins of, 73, 75–77 102, 123, 157n2 international administrative union(s), international organizations, 19, 20–21, 2, 20–21, 23–24, 77, 127, 136 85, 173n3. See also international basis in convention and regulations administrative unions (règlement), 75, 77, 138 international publicists, 100, 102–104, bureau of, 77, 79 117, 123, 136 equality of members, 73, 79–80, 95 International Radio-Telegraph Union, equality of members and democratic 136, 138 procedures undermined, 138 International Red Cross, 103, 115, 123 membership unrestricted to states, international relations, 5, 19, 102, 131 2, 21, 137 constructivism, 21 suggestive of an alternative global realism, 21 order, 2, 20, 73, 79–80, 137 See also English School uniting territory for communications International Sanitary Conference, 74, and technology, 21, 85 88, 90, 91–95, 96 voting changes in, 138 international society, 7, 9, 27, 38, 52, international conferences, 85–86 131, 141 as institution within international expansion of, 4, 5, 7, 105, 127, 133 union, 75, 78–79 norms/values of, 27, 29, 38, 45, restricted to sovereign states, 21, 86, 93, 102 88, 136–38 of sovereign states, 2, 6, 7, 8, 20, 129, international law, 1–2, 60, 61, 116, 136–38 126, 134 international system, 38, 129, 131 as assemblage in 19th century, 5, 7–8, International Telecommunication 10, 18, 26, 127, 128 Union, 136 as a discursive “cover” for colonialism, International Telegraph Union, 19, 24, 140, 142 73, 75, 77–80, 83–85, 86, 94, histories of, 7–8, 12–13 136, 138 as institution, 5, 9, 14 Iokibe Kaoru, 7 and legal equality of states, 131, 134 Iriye, N., 41, 42, 43, 44 linked to violence, 130, 132, Italy, 21, 58, 63–64, 93, 94, 115 141, 143 Iwakura Mission (1872–1874), 63 Index ● 227

J great power status of, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, James, Alan, 25 18, 24, 25, 126, 133, 138–40, Japan, 3–8, 14, 15, 21, 29, 55, 131 141, 142 adherence to international laws of Inland Sea of, 58 war, 102, 103, 123 judicial vs. legislative jurisdiction over alleged gradual assimilation to/ foreigners, 23, 35, 40, 51 conformity with West, 5 legal recognition as equal by West, alleged inability to understand 3, 17, 25, 48, 102, 110, 125, 126, international law, 4, 148n8 127, 133, 141 assertion of state will, 100, 114–122, legal reforms of, 28, 38, 43, 47; 126, 141, 142 mastery of international law and laws cholera regulations of, 54, 74, 88, of war, 3, 6, 26, 100, 140, 89–91 141, 142 colonial empire of, 6, 134–36 Meiji Constitution of 1889, 23, 77 consolidation of territory of, Meiji revolution in, 3, 5, 22, 30, 56, 57–58 62, 83, 126, 132 contributions to international membership in international law, 140 administrative unions, 18, 24, creation of a capitalist economy 73–74, 80 in, 132 membership in international law creation of a modern/Western state organizations, 23, 28, 163n47 and nation in, 6, 15, 23, 41, 47, membership in the International 51–52, 56 Telegraph Union, 74, 83–85 development of administrative membership in the Universal Postal law, 77 Union, 73, 74, 80–83, 88, 95 diplomatic activities of, 21, 30, 54, natural inclusion within international 58, 64, 113, 119–22, 141 community, 4, 10, 11, 23, 27–28, foreign advisers/experts in, 5, 21, 48, 49, 73 30, 84 neutrality in war, 23, 28, 30–33, 58, foreign commercial interests in, 113–19 53–54, 62–63, 131 non-inclusion within international foreign ships in territorial society, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, 27, 28 waters of, 56 overseas ministers upgraded to foreign travel in, 42, 43, 51, 53, 61, “ambassador,” 25 63–68, 70, 90, 164n58 participation in Conference for the foreigners hunting in, 41, 51, 53, Protection of Submarine Cables, 54, 61, 62, 66, 68–70, 71, 90, 86–88 172n70, 172n71 participation in Hague Conferences, foreigners’ obligation to obey 116, 118, 122, 126, 142 laws of, 11, 41, 50–51, 54, passport system in, 68 59, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 90 political alliances, 21, 139 foreigners’ privileges in, 4, 8, 36, 40, post office in the foreign settlement 49–51, 53, 58, 59, 65 of Shanghai, 82 freedom of religion in, 63, 167n11 practice of international law, 4, 7 228 ● Index

Japan (Continued) Katsura Tarō, 107 public health medicine in, 92, 94, 95 Kayaoğlu, Turan, 6, 15, 17, 18, 47 relations with China, 22, 35, 36, 84, 88 Keal, Paul, 9 tariff treaties, 7, 39 Kiito Aratami Kaisha, 65 territorial jurisdiction, 23, 31, 40, 44, Kim, Marie, 47 51, 59, 61, 65–66, 68, 71 Komura Jūtarō, 107 territorial sovereignty, 23, 51, 52–53, Kooijmans, P. H., 133–34 59, 61–62, 63, 67, 71, 73, 130 Korea, 6, 22, 84, 88, 105–106, 107, Tokugawa regime in, 5, 11, 22, 31, 114–15 52, 56, 62, 132, 152n42 Japan’ colonization of, 115, 130, trade relations with West, 19, 42, 54, 134–36, 139, 143 62, 63, 65, 132 See also Chemulpo incident transformation of East Asian Koselleck, Reinhart, 52 geopolitics, , 3, 20, 22, 133, 139 Koskenniemi, Martti, 3, 17, 24 translations of international law, 4, Krasner, Stephen D., 1 148n9 Kriegsraison. See military necessity treaty ports and settlements, 19, 50, Kurino Shin’ichirō, 108 53–54, 56, 62, 139–40 treaty revision, 7, 23, 25, 32, 41, 44, L 49, 58–59, 62, 68, 102, 105, 123, Lawrence, T. J., 29, 59, 101, 106, 133 125, 126 League of Nations, 9, 133, 136, 138 undoing traditional interstate legal institutionalization, 15, 47–48. relations in East Asia, 22 See also rule of law unfair treaties, 2, 5, 7, 13, 23, 25, 27, legal positivism, 1–2, 7, 9–10, 14, 15, 28, 39–40, 46, 49, 50–51, 53, 58, 19, 49, 70, 79, 100, 105, 127, 62, 65, 166n1 128, 133, 141, 150n26 use of international law to assert Leroux, Charles, 108, 109, 110 sovereignty, 4, 18, 23, 24–26, 49, Linois affair, 31 50, 51, 71, 74, 96, 123, 140 Lorimer, James, 15, 30, 46, 59 use of technology to contain Western Low, Frederick, 34 colonialism, 85 as victim of Western imperialism, M 28, 49 Macchiavelli, Niccolo, 12 See also Sino-Japanese War; Maejima Hisoka, 82 Russo-Japanese War Maine, Henry Sumner, 8, 11 Japan House Tax Case, 139–40 Manchuria, 84, 107, 108, 117 Japanese International Law Association Mancini, Pasquale, 47 (Kokusaihō gakkai), 5 Maria Luz incident, 28, 33–37, 58 Johnston, W. R., 131 Marshall, Frederick, 87, 88 just war doctrine, 19, 110, 112 Martens, Fedor Fedorovich, 37, 44, 46, 47, 110, 112, 185n38 K Matsukata Masayoshi, 92 Kanagawa, 35–36, 53 Maurel, Marius, 109, 110, 111–12, Kaneko Kentarō, 58, 103, 104, 117 Middleton, John (Incident 1875), 69 Kant, Immanuel, 12, 13 Miéville, China, 130, 132 Index ● 229

Miles, James, 39, 40 O military necessity, 2, 12, 13, 113, 115, Obregón, Liliana, 17 135, 154n50 Ōe Taku, 35–37 Mill, John Stuart, 42 “offenses” defined by treaties—their Mitsubishi Mail Steamship Company, 82 relation to Japanese law, 60, 62, mixed courts, 28, 41, 44, 56, 66 173n73 Mohl, Robert von, 76, 77 Ōkuma Shigenobu, 7 monarchy, 13, 23, 55, 76, 101, 128, Oppenheim, Lassa, 14, 30, 142 129, 137 Ottoman Porte, 6, 15, 16, 17, 40, 80, Morris, Justin, 45 81, 88, 93, 131 most-favored-nation clause, 31, 33, 48, capitulations of, 17, 54–55, 58 49, 58, 64, 65 Outrey, Maxime, 30–32, 93 Motegi Toshio, 22 Ōyama Azusa, 53, Motono Ichirō, 104, 120, 121 Mutsu Munemitsu, 35, 106 P pacta sunt servanda, 75 N Parkes, Harry, 31, 37, 40, 64–65, Nagaoka Harukazu, 104, 110, 111, 66, 67, 69, 70, 81, 82, 83, 88, 114, 121 89–91 natural law, 2, 12, 19, 100, 102, 109, Pashukanis, Evgeny, 130, 132 151n29 Paternostro, Paolo, 44 alleged shift to positive law, 9–10 peace vs. war as “normal” condition, natural law of nations, 7–8, 23, 28, 40, 100–101 49, 67, 73, 127 Perry, Matthew, 22, 126 natural equality of states, 2, 8–10, 28, personal status under law (nationality 41, 67–68, 131, 133 vs. domicile), 45–46 natural inclusion of nations within Peru, 33–37, 58 international society, 4, 11, 15, Phillimore, Robert, 8, 29, 42, 45, 59, 39, 137 100, 101 sources of, 8–9, 19 Pietri, François, 61, 62 natural right, 8, 87 Piggott, Francis Taylor, 43, Ness, G. Parker, 131 60–61 neutrality in war, 30–33, 70, 87, 105, Port Arthur Attack (1904), 111–12, 113–22, 126 108–109 as abstention from conflict, 32, 114, Port Arthur Massacre (1894), 99, 118, 122 123–25 as obligation for self-defense against Portugal, 34, 58, 94 belligerents, 32, 114, 118, 119 positive law, 15, 100, 101, 130 as treatment of all belligerents as both private/national and public/ impartially, 32, 114, 119 international, 130 See also twenty-four hour rule pairing law with violence/coercion, Nish, Ian, 141 130, 132 North German Confederation, 30, 35, See also legal positivism 79, 158n8. See also Germany positivism. See legal positivism Nouvelle Penelope, 34 prisoners of war, 99, 116 230 ● Index private international law, 15, 29, 38, 42, Sawa Nobuyoshi, 30–31 43, 44, 47 Scott, James Brown, 113, 119 Hague Conference on Private self-binding action of legal agreements, 9 International Law (1893), 47 self-help, 13, 127, 132–33 See also conflict of laws self-protection (self-defense, prize court, 107, 115, 119 self-preservation), right of, 2, Prussia, 30, 35, 76. See also Germany 11–14, 34, 100, 102. See also Pufendorf, Samuel, 8, 12, 13, 129 military necessity; self-help Senellart, Michel, 13 R Senga Tsurutarō, 61 raison d’état, 10, 12, 13 Serres, Michel, 10 reprisals, 13 Sève, Eduard, 94 Rey, Francis, 108 Shepard, Charles O., 34 Richard, Henry, 40 Sheppard, Eli T., 8, 59, 67 right paired with duty, 14, 53, 65 Simpson, Gerry, 128, 133, 134 Roesler, Hermann, 76–77 Sino-French dispute (1884), 33, 105 Röhl, Wilhelm, 152n42 Sino-Japanese Treaty of Tianjin (1871), Rolin-Jaequemyns, Gustave, 39 22, 161n79 Rolland, Louis, 137–38 Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), 4, 13, Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 129 24, 25, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, Ruggie, John, 52 105–107, 113, 123–25, 126, 135, rule of law, 70, 128 139. See also Port Arthur Massacre; the exception as confirming the, 125 SS Kowshing Ruskola, Teemu, 57 slavery, 34, 35 Russia, 16, 33, 36, 45, 90, 104, social administrative law (soziales 107–108, 109, 117, 118, 120, Verwaltungsrecht), 76 121, 122, 135, 139. See also Soejima Taneomi, 30, 34–35, 63–64, 89 Russo-Japanese War sovereignty, as “bundle” of rights or Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), 7, modes of authority, 128 13, 24, 25, 99, 100, 102, 103, conceptual variations of, 1, 9 104, 105, 107–109, 113, 120, as cultural construction, 20 122, 126, 133, 134–35, 141, de facto, 25 142. See also Chefoo incident; de jure, 25 Chemulpo incident; Port Arthur as doctrine to justify claims, 128, 133 Attack feudal, 23, 55, 56, 130 Ryeshitelni, 116–17, 118 founded in state territory and Rygiel, Philippe, 47, 163n45 nationality, 42, 50, 128, 141 Ryūkyū, 22, 52, 58 “imperfect,” 117 “internal” vs. “external,” 129, 130 S multiple legal grounds of, 2, 128 Sanjō Sanetomi, 35, 86 as people’s or nation’s will (i.e., Sasaki Takayuki, 86 popular), 112, 129 Satsuma rebellion, 84, 89 as problem of politics within global Savigny, Friedrich Carl von, 8, 11 development, 18, 19 Index ● 231

as question of legitimate authority, state territory, 1, 50, 87, 93–94, 128, 130 19, 21, 129, 130 state will, 2, 11–14, 22, 24, 99, 101, as rule by law, 20, 128, 129 102, 126, 127, 128, 134, 135, 137 as rules and script, 1 Stein, Lorenz von, 76–77 as set of rights, 1, 128, 129 Stephan, Heinrich von, 81 as state’s supreme and exclusive Stolleis, Michael, 76 exercise of power, 1, 20, 50, 54, Stowell, Ellery, 111 93, 95, 96, 126, 130 Suematsu Kenchō, 104, 121, 163n47 See also state sovereignty; state will Suganami, Hidemi, 6, 129 Spanish-American War (1898), 33, Sugimura Yōtarō, 140, 141 120, 121 Sumiyoshi Yoshihito, 62, 71 SS Kowshing, 99, 103, 105–107, 109, Suzuki, Shogo, 6, 22 123, 125 SS Ravenna, 57 T standard of civilization, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, Taiwan, 105 14, 17, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38, Japan’s colonization of, 25, 84, 130, 39, 46, 48, 102, 122–23, 142, 135, 139 155n60, 156n65 Japan’s invasion of (1874), 22, 84 state Takahashi Sakue, 32, 103, 106, 107, as abstraction from political 111, 113, 114, 115, 124–25, community, 128, 129 163n47, 186n60 “complex” or federated, 45 Takahira Kogorō, 104 control of means of violence, 20 technology, as national and international as cultural construction, 18, 20, 47 development, 85, 91–92, 120 isomorphism of governmental and telegraph, 2, 78, 83, 85, 111, social institutions, 19, 47, 85, 117–18, 137 96, 132 private companies and their self-improvement of, 101 attendance at union conferences/ as subject of international law and congresses, 78, 84, 86, 87 basic unit of international society, vulnerability of submarine cables, 1, 19, 136–38, 141 86, 99 See also equality of states; territorial Terashima Munenori, 7, 30–31, 66, 67, jurisdiction 68, 81, 89–91 state sovereignty, 1, 54, 76, 85, 87, 95 territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty, and consolidation of property, 9, 15, 19, 46, 50, 52, 57–58, 70, 130, 131 93–94, 95, 96, 115 coordinated with legal positivism, 1, confusion thereof generated by 12, 50, 70, 128, 130–31 extraterritoriality, 51, 61, 66, international recognition of, 25 69, 70–71 as reflection of civilization (civilized territorial waters, 27, 31, 56, 58, 87, statehood), 2, 11, 14–18 114, 118, 119, 121 self-limitation through treaty, 2, 7, Thomas, George, 19, 20, 47 100, 127 Toyoda, Tetsuya, 11, 15 See also state will trade, 96, 125, 131 232 ● Index treaty, 8, 60, 73, 79 V “contract” (Vortrag) vs. “lawmaking” Valery, Jules, 45 (Vereinbarung) type, 75 Vattel, Emer de, 8, 100, 129 as formal legal agreement, 2, 8, 16, 23 Verbeck, Guido, 30 formal reservations thereto, 13, 137 Versailles Peace Conference, 17, 139 as producing “ethical reality,” 129 Vitoria, Francisco de, 19 as representation of international society, 138 W right to sign in Africa and Asia, 16, 60 warfare, 13, 22, 87, 96, 99–102, 103, as source of law, 2, 49, 85, 100, 102 109, 111–12 suspension by belligerents during “civilized,” 24, 99, 122, 123 warfare, 87 as “institution,” 101–102 See also Japan-unfair treaties; unequal as “last resort,” 101, 112 treaties limited by treaty, 24, 101 Treaty of Lausanne (1923), 17 state’s rights of, 102, 105, 106, treaty powers in Japan, 22, 31, 48 116 assistance in composing 1869 See also declaration(s) of war; Austria-Hungary treaty with just war doctrine; prisoners Japan, 58 of war Triepel, Heinrich, 75 Watson, Adam, 6, 133 Tsutsui Wakamizu, 17 Watson, Robert G., 34, 37, 63–64 Tsuzuki Keiroku, 122 Weber, Cynthia, 19 twenty-four hour rule, 30, 32, 122 Westlake, John, 8, 15, 59, 103, 107, Twiss, Travers, 8, 29, 39, 40, 43–45, 46 113, 123, 125 Wheaton, Henry, 14, 29, 59, 101 U Wolff, Christian, 8, 100, 101, 129 unequal treaties, 17, 27–28, 166n1. See Wood, William, 67 also Japan-unfair treaties Woolsey, Theodore, 8, 59, 100–101 Uchimura Kanzō, 124 world polity (Stanford) school, 18–21, Ueno Kagenori, 39–40, 41, 43, 47, 96, 132 44, 163n47 world system, as European cultural United Nations, 9, 18, 20, 133, 134 construction, 20 United States, 3, 22, 30, 32, 35, 37, 45, 50, 56, 74, 76, 79, 83, 84, 86, 90, Y 92–95, 96, 115, 119, 120, 125, Yokohama, 30–31, 36, 53, 82, 83, 126, 134, 139 89 encouragement of Japan’s assertion of Yokohama General Chamber of sovereignty, 21, 82, 110–11, 134–35 Commerce, 65 reproduction of Japanese law as US Yoshida Kiyonari, 92, 95 law, 62, 68, 69 US–Japan Postal Agreement (1874), Z 81, 82 Zachmann, Urs Matthias, 5, 140, 141 Universal Postal Union, 8, 19, 24, 73, Zappe, Eduard, 35–36, 89 74, 75, 78–83, 88, 94, 136, 138, Zollverein (pan-German customs 175n16 union), 76, 77