From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: on extraterritoriality
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:19:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.210048.20631@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
>
>First allow me to quote the entire article:

I'll delete most of it.

>This kind of reasoning strikes me as very odd.
>It is the same logic (or rather, excuse) that leads to saying that
>the savages can't be left on their own, that they must be changed of
>their ways, and must be "guided" by a helping hand.
>Are you claiming that extraterritorialism is merely a way of seclusion
>to ensure safety of your own people?

The extraterritoriality was imposed on Japan until such time as she developed
her own court system. And it was JAPAN that rejected several attempts by the
US to renounce their "privilege", at least until they could get the other
nations to do likewise.

>This, of course, won't do.
>It excludes one from his own territorial land (just like today's US bases),
>enforces providing exceptional service,

Yet THIS is really not that unusual; all nations maintain sovereignty over 
portions of other nations "territory", at least so far as embassies are 
concerned. And so far as the military bases go, all military personel are 
subject to the laws of their host country off-base, unless other arrangements 
are made. This is the case in Japan, as FEN makes very clear. The one concession
the Japanese government makes to Americans accused of off-base crimes: Americans
are entitled to immediate counsel, whereas Japanese citizens can be held 
incommunicado for 48 hours.

>takes over legal jurisdiction (which means that a native citizen would
>be tried by foreign laws), and there were even movements to take hold
>on legislature (which, did not realize).

Again, this is true all over the world. If you break into someone's embassy, 
you can be tried by that country's laws. You are on another nation's "soil".
All nations maintaining diplomatic relations agree to this.

>Settlements actually served as havens for foreign criminals --
>there are numerous cases in which they weren't even tried, let alone convicted.

Or spies, as above. Or sabateurs. Happens all the time.

>The sense of inequality drawn here was the main emotional driving force
>that claimed for its renunciation.

Again, bear in mind that the first attempt was rebuffed by the Japanese.

>Extraterritorialism is an obvious denial of sovereignity, mutuality;
>blatant domestic intervention, and imposing of a "second-grade" rating.

Uh, well, yes, but it such was the nature of the times. 100+ years ago,
nations were not overly concerned about such niceties, and were more interested
in protecting their own interests. Japan was no better than anyone else in 
this regard (as she would show at the time by her treatment of Korea), but was
not in a position to do much about it. Not fair, but the world today isn't
fair, and it was less so a century ago.

>And I'm not even mentioning the unequal trade treaties (which, for one
>thing, denied deciding of tariffs by one's own) -- which is obviously
>linked to it.
>
>If you're saying that there is universality in the claim that
>extraterritorialism is acceptable, then how much do we find it in
>today's world?  How much is it approved of?  Surely there must be
>countries that are "below" the standard of 19C. Japan (or China).

See above.

>The main aim of Iwakura's mission was not on the unequal treaties issue
>or a matter of convincing (though I won't deny that there was such an
>element), but mostly to survey on the Western countries.
>The main movement for resolution of unequal treaties came years later.

In any event, one of the reasons for this imposition was the varying amounts
of personal interest each respective daimyo would take in his own little 
sphere of influence. For the same act, foreigners (and Japanese, for that 
matter) could expect to receive quite different treatment, depending on the
local daimyo's like/dislike for foreigners in general, the shogunate, the
particular crime, etc.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.