From: Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: on extraterritoriality
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Yuzuru Hiraga writes:
>Are you claiming that extraterritorialism is merely a way of seclusion
>to ensure safety of your own people?
>This, of course, won't do.

That was, in fact, precisely what the excuse for extraterritorality
was.  There was abundant evidence to suggest that foreigners were
*not* safe in Japan (or China) without special protections.

This isn't to say I necessarily say that it was right.

But, suppose you were to live with a bunch of cannibals.  Wouldn't you
want some sort of special agreement that exempted you from the laws
that said that under certain circumstances you could be eaten?

>[Extraterritoriality]
>takes over legal jurisdiction (which means that a native citizen would
>be tried by foreign laws)

This is not true.  The natives were tried in native courts.  However,
if a native wished to bring a suit against a foreigner with
extraterritorial rights, he did so in the court of that foreigner's
country.  More specifically, the foreign country had exclusive
jurisdiction over its recognized citizens.  This also meant that an
American who wanted to sue a British subject in China had to do so in
the British court.

There is no doubt that this arrangement allowed foreign criminals to
escape justice, but this was more often due to the native victim
lacking the understanding or resources to pursue it in the foreign
court than any effort by the foreign governments to shelter criminals.
The American and British courts for China *did* imprison or even
execute criminals for crimes committed against Chinese.

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

More commonly, the settlements were havens for native criminals or
more often defeated native politicians or generals.  This was
particularly the case in China in the 1911-1938 period.  At one point
or another, nearly every leading figure in China of the time was
obliged to take refuge in the foreign settlements.  The Japanese and
British were particularly noteworthy in offering refuge, obviously for
their own political gains.

>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).

That's why there are travel restrictions to such countries in modern
times; such countries are generally international outcasts.  Japanese
people aren't permitted to go to north Korea, for instance.  But there
are only a few such places.  Even Cuba has a US consulate in Havana
that goes to bat for Americans who run afoul of Cuban law (not always
successfully, but they are pretty good at nagging the Cuban government
until they at least get to see the prisoner).

>Sakamoto was killed by Bakufu Mimawari-gumi, while working for
>a Satsuma-Choushuu coalition.

Sakamoto was most likely killed by Satsuma/Cho^shu^ agents who
masquerading as being from Totsukawa.  The Shinsengumi and
Mimawarigumi were blamed for the attack, but later on there was
evidence that having accomplished the resignation of the last sho^gun,
Sakamoto's subsequent democratic program was too much for the feudal
leaders of Satsuma and Cho^shu^ who merely wanted to replace one
feudal system with another.  Note the Satsuma backing of Saigo^'s
revolt and the assasination of Ookubo.  On the other hand, there were
revolts by people who felt that the Meiji government wasn't moving
fast enough (e.g. Eto^'s revolt).

>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.

That was because Iwakura's attempt to do so had failed, and they
salvaged what they could from the mission by their survey.  Ookubo and
Ito^ came back *very* impressed with the Prussian state.

The reason why Iwakura failed is that the Meiji government was too
unstable, with periodic revolts including central figures in the Meiji
government resigning and revolting all the time...