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 his- tory 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).