Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-26T23:32:24.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

League of Nations Assembly Report on the Sino-Japanese Dispute1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue S3: Supplement Official Documents , July 1933 , pp. 119 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Photographic reprint of the document published by the Information Section of the League of Nations, and issued as Publication No. 449 by the United States Department of State—Ed.

References

2 League of Nations Publication Official No. C. 663. M. 320. 1932. VII. Oct. 1, 1932. Reprinted, without maps or annexes, as Publication No. 379 by the U. S. Department of State. The Commission of Enquiry consisted of The Earl of Lytton (British), Count Aldrovandi (Italian), General Henri Claudel (French), Major-General Frank R. McCoy (American), and Dr. Heinrich Schnee (German).

3 In Special Supplement No. 101, League of Nations Official Journal, pp. 194-206.—Ed .

* According to the appeal addressed by the Chinese Government to the Council on September 21st, 1931, “ beginning from ten o'clock on the night of September 18th, regular troops of Japanese soldiers, without provocation of any kind, opened rifle and artillery fire upon Chinese soldiers at or near the city of Mukden, bombarded the arsenal and barracks, . . . set fire to the ammunition depot” and “ disarmed the Chinese troops in Changchun, Kwanchengtze, and other places” (Official Journal, December 1931, page 2453).

According to the version given by the Japanese army, communicated to the Council on September 26th, a patrol of seven men under a lieutenant were making reconnaissances in the railway zone north of Mukden when they heard behind them, about 10.30 p.m., a violent explosion. They turned about and some 500 metres northwards, near the place at which the explosion had occurred, they perceived Chinese soldiers in flight. The patrol at first pursued them, but found themselves under fire from soldiers under cover and then from a force of some 400 or 500 Chinese troops. The Japanese company commander promptly came up with 120 men, pursued the Chinese troops and occupied part of the Mukden North Barracks (Official Journal, December 1931, page 2478).

Chapter IV of the report of the Commission of Enquiry sets out in detail the events that occurred during the night of September 18th-19th, 1931, and gives the Commission's opinion on these events, accompanied by a statement of the reasons on which it is based (page 70).

* The Commission consisted of the Consuls of Italy (Chairman), the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Germany and Spain. The Consul of the United States collaborated in the work of the Commission.

† The report of the Commission of Enquiry describes on page 62 et seq. the incidents which arose between Chinese and Korean farmers at Wanpaoshan (Manchuria) and how sensational and inaccurate accounts of these incidents provoked a massacre of Chinese in Korea.

4 In response to the communication of February 24 from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations transmitting a copy of the report adopted by the Assembly on that date, the Secretary of State of the United States replied the next day, stating the views of the American Government as follows:

“In the situation which has developed out of the controversy between China and Japan, the purpose of the United States has coincided in general with that of the League of Nations, the common objective being maintenance of peace and settlement of international disputes by pacific means. In pursuance of that objective, while the League of Nations has been exercising jurisdiction over a controversy between two of its members, the Government of the United States has endeavored to give support, reserving to itself independence of judgment with regard to method and scope to the efforts of the League on behalf of peace.

“The findings of fact arrived at by the League and the understanding of thefactederived by the American Government from reports made to it by its own representatives are in substantial accord. In the light of its findings of fact, the Assembly of the League has formulated a measured statement of conclusions. With those conclusions the American Government is in general accord. In their affirmations respectively of the principle of nonrecognition and their attitude in regard thereto, the League and the United States are on common ground. The League has recommended principles of settlement. In so far as appropriate under the treaties to which it is a party, the American Government expresses its general indorsement of the principles thus recommended.

“The American Government earnestly hopes that the two nations now engaged in controversy, both of which have long been in friendly relationship with our own and other peoples, may find it possible in the light of world opinion to conform their policies to the need and the desire of the family of nations that disputes between nations shall be settled by none but pacific means.” (Press release of the U. S. Department of State, Feb. 25, 1933.)

5 Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, February, 1933, p. 28.

6 The foregoing resolution was communicated to the United States on February 25,1933, and the Secretary of State replied on March 13, 1933, as follows:

“ I am happy to inform you that the American Government is prepared to cooperate with the Advisory Committee in such manner as may be found appropriate and feasible. As it is necessary that the American Government exercise independence of judgment with regard to proposals which may be made and/or action which the Advisory Committee may recommend, it would seem that appointment by it of a representative to function as a member of the committee would not be feasible. However, believing that participation by a representative of this Government in the deliberations of the committee would be helpful, I am instructing the American Minister to Switzerland, Mr. Hugh R. Wilson, to be prepared so to participate, but without right to vote, if such participation is desired.” (Press release of the U. S. Department of State, March 13,1933.)

On March 7, 1933, the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, in a communication addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, declined to participate in the work of the Advisory Committee, stating at the same time, however, that it would conform to any action or proposal intended to bring about a rapid and just settlement of the Sino-Japanese dispute and a consolidation of peace in the Far East. (Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, March, 1933, p. 70.)