Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 17 May 1933, Page 4

“The contention of the Japanese Vavy Office, that “the secession of Japan from the. League does not affect her possession of former German colonies” is likely to arouse wi'V.sp:ead misgivings,” writes a. “Times” correpondcnt, “It is based in substance on the assertion that ‘the sovereignty of the island,- (under mandate) is vested solely in Japan by virtue of secret agreements concluding during the war and later confirmed by the Allied

Supreme Council.’ If this b e true, then the sovereignty over the ex-Turk-ish provinces placed under mandate must be considered to rest with Great Britain and France in virtue of the then secret Gyke-.-Picot Agreement which contemplated the p. ration of those provinces between the two signatory Powers. The, Japanese Navy Office licoms, however, tv havp overlooked the fact that the original war aims of the Abies have been revised, and that tlie secret treaties and understandings consequently became null and void In respect of the Pacific islands under Japanese mandate, that settlement is embodied in the Treaty of Versailles under which Germany renounced her former colonial possessions in favour of the principal Aided Powers (Art. LID) witu a view to their neing placed under mandate (Art. 22 of the Covenant, which forms an integral pait of the Treaty). The renunciation was not made in favour of Japan, which consequently acquired no sovereign rio-hts over any part of those possessions. . . It may be pointed out that Art. 22 of the Covenant does not explicitly exclude the possibility of non-members of the League acting in a mandatory capacity, although special guarantees may be required in such case. Moreover, Japan’s withdrawal from the League can only take legal effect after a period of two years has elapsed. All that must be emphasised at this stage is- that the grounds on which the Japanese contention is based cannot be upheld in. international law.”