JAPAN AND THE "IRREPRESSIBLE EXPANSION" DOCTRINE
countries are, and if necessary would repel by war any attempt to annex them without their consent.
A combination of the so-called Major Powers might formulate and be able to enforce a doctrine of "irrepressible expansion" provided they could agree as to their own mutual advantages and disadvantages in practical applications of it. With the world as it is now such agreement is impossible, for no important shift of territory under this doctrine is possible without importantly altering the international "balance of power."
A legal basis for this doctrine, if any exists, must be found in analogies to the law of Eminent Domain; that is, under certain circumstances it is recognized as legitimate to take property and apply it to essential public uses. The law of Eminent Domain usually is limited in its applications to the taking by a State of property of its subjects for the uses of the State; or, in other words, for public uses. Eminent Domain never has (so far as the writer knows) been recognized in international law explicitly. A State assumes ultimate control over all the property of its subjects, even over their lives; but one State has no valid authority over the subjects of another State, or of their property, or of their lives, except as these are brought within the territorial jurisdiction of the State.
Under certain conditions one State can take external jurisdiction over the subjects and property of another State. This status is termed suzerainty—mandate is a new word for it. The suzerainty of one State over another means that the State exercising suzerainty has a qualified sovereignty over the subordinate State or entity. In international practice, a position of suzerainty usually in time is converted by annexation into actual sovereignty.
In respect to discussion of this question at the Washington Conference, it should be borne in mind that any en-
[5]
