310
The Green Bag,
tion, the fault, if any, can certainly not be laid at the door of Japan. Russia can hardly be accused of such ignorance or inexperience of the methods of modern diplomacy as is im plied in her complaint that Japan began the attack on Port Arthur without "previously notifying (us) that the rupture implied the beginning of warlike action."1 The Japanese attack on the Russian fleets at Chemulpo and Port Arthur occurred on February 8th,2 i. c., over two days after M. Kurino, the Japanese minister at St. Peters burg, had informed the Russian Government that .Japan had decided to sever diplomatic intercourse with Russia, and that she re served to herself the right to "take such independent action" as was deemed proper for the protection of her rights and inter ests. Surely there is here less cause for the charges of "surprise," "bad faith" and "treachery than if Japan had patiently awaited the Russian note, carefully preserved the appearance of diplomatic relations, then suddenly declared war, and immediately fol lowed this declaration by an attack on the Russian fleet. Russia also complains of another serious infraction of International Law on the part of Japan—viz., of the violation of the neu trality of Korea. In a circular note to the Powers, sent on Feb. 22d, Count Lamsrlorff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, charges Japan with "an open violation of all customary laws governing the mutual rela tions between civilized nations." "Without specifying each particular violation of these laws on the part of Japan," he calls the most serious attention of the Powers to the acts committed by the Japanese Government with respect to Korea," the "independence and integrity" of which "was recognized by all 1 See the Czar's Manifesto in London Times (weekly ed.) for February 12, 1904. I 2 It is claimed by the Japanese that the first shot of the war was fired by a Russian vessel at Chemulpo: but this point is entirely immaterial, inasmuch as it was Japan that made the first ag gressive movement. •
the Powers." In thus violating the neutrality of Korea, Japan is accused, not only of a vio lation of treaties, but of a "flagrant breach of International Law," as well.3 There can be no doubt but that, according to the strict letter of the law, Japan has been guilty of a violation of one of the most fun damental rules of International Law,—vis., the right of a sovereign State, to remain neu tral during a war between other members of the family of nations,4 and to have its neutrality and territorial sovereignty respect ed by the belligerent States. On the other hand, as the Japanese Government is careful to point out in its official reply to the Ru*sian note, "the maintenance of the independ ence and territorial integrity of Korea is one of the objects of the war, and, therefore, the dispatch of troops to the menaced territory was a matter of right and necessity, which had the distinct consent of the Korean Gov ernment."5 This seems to be one of those not alto gether rare, although exceptional, cases where reasons of policy or motives of nation al interest, if not the necessity of self-pre servation, intervene to prevent a strict ob servance or necessitate a positive violation of law. The "Monroe Doctrine" of Japan has long since included Korea as within her political "sphere of influence or protection, and Korea is one of the main objects of the present war. It was, therefore, just as im possible for Japan to respect the neutrality of Korea after the opening, or in contempla tion of hostilities, as it would be impossible for the United States to respect the neutrali ty of a Spanish-American State under similar 5 It is now claimed that it was Russia who first violated the neutrality of Korea by sending troops across the Yah1, on February 2d. See London Times (weekly ed.) for April I, 1904. 4 This right was scarcely recognized in prac tice before the modern period and it has often been violated even in modern times: but it may now be regarded as one of the best-established and most fundamental rules of international law. 5 See the London Times (weekly ed.) for March n, 1004.
