From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: on extraterritoriality
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 16:12:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan16.124252.907@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:

Omitted: Mr Hiraga says he never bothered to read the reference I provided. He
provides none of his own.

>In article <1993Jan11.171959.3062@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan7.210048.20631@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
>>>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.
> ...
>>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.
>
>Does diplomatic immunity make a case for the 19C. (or earlier)
>extraterritoriality we are talking about?


>Of course not, since although they are superficially similar,
>their fundamental characteristics are totally different.
>I'm even embarrassed to explain why, but just to pick a few points --
>diplomatic immunity applies to only a highly restricted group of
>people (not even to all the embassy personnel), with necessary reason
>to maintain diplomatic functionality, and above all, it is mutual --
>the same principle applies to both nations.  None of this is the
>case with the extraterritoriality in the treaties we are talking about.

>The real question is: why was this brought up in the first place?

I beleive you went off on a tangent about how no nation allows foreign 
governments to exercise authority on its on soil. This is demonstrably false.

>Am I suspected of being ignorant of diplomatic immunity?
>I hope not.

Then why the long post about no nation giving up sovereingty on its own soil?

>Is it to suggest that the world hasn't changed these 100 years or so?
>Truly, now.
>Is it to say that the treaties are approvable, even by today's standards?
>Hmmmm....
>
>>>Extraterritorialism is an obvious denial of sovereignty, 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.
>
>So?
>This is quite an odd remark from a person who seems to possess
>a strong opinion on justice (surely we're not being opprtunistic,
>are we?).

???

>It is also a convenient view to hold for one who has the strong-hand.
>Is the weak side righteously put in the position to just bear and forbear?

What does this have to do with the issue? 

>Next.
>>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.
>
>Let's go one at a time.
>>The extraterritoriality was imposed on Japan until such time as she developed
>>her own court system.
>
>This is plain false.

This is plain true. You may read Chamberlain, as you have claimed you have not.

>The 1858 treaty (which introduced extraterritoriality) makes no such
>mention, either in the treaty itself or in the minutes.
>The treaty does say that after 171 months, revision is possible,
>though after a 1-year notice and with the agreement of the other country.
>This corresponds to the time of the Iwakura mission, in which any
>proposal of revision was completely neglected.

Wrong. Read the reference.

>Ah! but things change with time (of course they do, as in the end,
>all the unequal clauses were finally removed).
>
>>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.
>
>also:
>In article <1993Jan7.183828.3730@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>While the extra-territorial treaties were hard for the Japanese to swallow,
>>it was also the US who first proposed lifting those treaties (or unilaterally
>>giving up its extraterritorial status) in 1876, a proposal that was turned down
>>by the JAPANESE government.
>
>Note the year 1876.
>As said in my other article, the US and Japan reached an agreement
>in 1878 that reduced the unequality in TRADE (not jurisdiction).

Read the reference. As I mentioned that the JAPANESE turned down the offer of
jurisidiction, this harldy seems like an unexepected point.

>In view of this, it is "hard to swallow" that above such events happened
>in 1876 (possible, but it didn't substantiate anyway).

It sure did. Again, READ.

>And again, this agreement did not come into effect mainly due to
>British objection (at that time, Britain had far more influence than
>the US -- hard to swallow? :-).  Of course, it will be convenient to

??? I have posted several times that British had far more influence on the
Japanese system than did the Americans. You really should read more.

>say from the US side that Japan is to blame (just like the Koreans
>are to be blamed for invading Japan, forced by the Mongolians).

Actually, no one is BLAMING anyone here for anything. Could you please stick
to the issue.

>It is true, however, that in 1889, there came another agreement,
>this time addressing the consulate jurisdiction issues.
>
>>it was also the US who first proposed lifting those treaties (or unilaterally
>>giving up its extraterritorial status) in 1876, a proposal that was turned down
>>by the JAPANESE government.
> ...
>>(And the legal juristiction was to be given over
>>COMPLETELY to the Japanese was a formal legal system had been introduced, in
>>ALL the extra-territorial treaties.)
>
>But even changing 1876 above to 1889, these still don't hold.
>First of all, US wasn't the "first" -- in 1888, a mutually equal
>treaty was signed (and ratified) between Japan and Mexico.

Nor did I say they were. I did say the US asked for the removal (more properly,
the US offered the removal) of extra-territoriality for its citizens.

>(inbetween, there was the Japanese-Korean treaty which was unequal --
>this time, Japan being on the oppressive).
>Second, the agreement was not only with the US, but similar agreements
>were made also with Germany and Russia.
>These agreements, however, again did not substantiate.
>The reason?
>For one thing, again, British objection.
>And after the agreement was disclosed (initially by "The Times"),
>a nationwide protest movement was provoked, which lead to the
>bombing of Foreign Minister Ookuma and made further negotiation impossible.
>Why the outrage?
>Because the agreement was by no means to "COMPLETELY give over the
>jurisdiction".  Among other things, it states that foreign citizen cases
>in the Supreme Court must be ruled by a court with foreign judges
>in the majority.  If this isn't unilateral, what is?
>
>As it turns out, the first equal treaty with the major powers
>was signed with BRITAIN in 1894; with others (including US) to follow.
>This change of British attitude was obviously due to her Russian policy,
>which placed Japan as a front guard against Russian expansion in Asia.

I suggest you read the reference I provided (and you may feel free to post your 
own.)

And now, a question. WHY were such treaties so abhorrent? Surely any nation is
under an obligation to protect its citizens as best it can. Given the justice
system that existed in Japan at the time, would you not try to extend protection
to your citizens under such circumstances? Or is national sovereignty the 
highest moral imperitive?

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.