Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Institute of Pacific Relations 1927–1929 and the Evolution of the International Studies Conference 1928–1930

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Story of International Relations, Part One

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations ((PSIR))

  • 427 Accesses

Abstract

The IPR conference of 1927 spent more time discussing China’s relations with foreign powers than any other subject due to the presence of British representatives at the conference. Participants stressed the need for diplomatic machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes specific to the region given that the two most significant Pacific powers, namely, the United States and the USSR, were not members of the LON.

In view of the Berlin meeting of 1928, a second meeting of experts interested in international affairs was convened in London in March 1929 under the heading of Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations (CISSIR). The next meeting was held at the offices of the IIIC at the Palais Royal in Paris in June 1930. The meeting resolved that the maintenance of peace depended on the extension of teaching in the field of international affairs. In late 1929, the CISSIR began to lay the groundwork for its transformation into an international study conference along the lines of the IPR, and thus it invited the IPR’s research secretary, John B. Condliffe, to address the 1930 conference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    J. Merle Davis, foreword to Condliffe ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, v.

  2. 2.

    Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 114, 285–6, and Condliffe, ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations’, in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 521.

  3. 3.

    ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 521.

  4. 4.

    Condliffe, ‘Memorandum on the Relation of the British Commonwealth to Pacific Problems,’ 1.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., 1–2, 13.

  6. 6.

    Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 134.

  7. 7.

    Condliffe, ‘Memorandum on the Relation of the British Commonwealth to Pacific Problems,’ 13–4.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., 13.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    ‘Appendix 3: Condliffe’s Reminiscences,’ 472.

  11. 11.

    Morgan, ‘“To Advance the Sciences of International Politics…” Chatham House’s Early Research,’ 125, 130. On the British group’s approach to the IPR, see Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 107–8, and Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 128.

  12. 12.

    On these three demands, see Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 19, 21, 27.

  13. 13.

    Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 282, and Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 100, 109–10, 121–2, 156.

  14. 14.

    Condliffe ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, 162–3.

  15. 15.

    Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 4. Emphasis added.

  16. 16.

    Sawayanagi Masatarō (address, Second Conference of the IPR, Honolulu 15–29 July 1927), in Condliffe ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, 31.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., 32.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., 32–3.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., 33.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    George H. Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ Foreign Affairs 11, no. 4 (1933): 671–81, 675.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 672. Ian Nish describes Blakeslee as a ‘highly regarded expert on contemporary Chinese affairs.’ Ian Nish, Japan’s Struggle with Internationalism: Japan, China and the League of Nations, 1931–1933 (London: Kegan Paul International, 1993), 61.

  30. 30.

    Carl Walter Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1931), 331. See also Nish, Japan’s Struggle with Internationalism, 61–2.

  31. 31.

    ‘Appendix 3: Condliffe’s Reminiscences,’ 434, and Helen K. Kim, 1927, quoted in Condliffe, ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, 35.

  32. 32.

    Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 99. See also Kim, 1927, quoted in Condliffe, ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, 36–7.

  33. 33.

    Hoon K. Lee, Land Utilization and Rural Economy in Korea (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936) iv, 281.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., 274, 281.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., 274.

  36. 36.

    Condliffe ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1929: Proceedings of the Third Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, Nara and Kyoto, Japan, 23 October–9 November (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1930), 195. The Korean group had no separate representation at the 1929 conference unlike in 1925 and 1927. In 1929, the Korean group was ‘invited to send a representative as a local/ethnic group of the Japanese Council,’ a mode of representation against which the Korean group protested. The explanation for the eventual refusal of separate Korean representation concerns the opposition of certain members of the Japanese Council of the IPR to it on the ground that Korea was part of the Japanese empire; the view, in light of this attitude, of certain members of the American group that good relations between United States and Japan was ‘a key to the success of the IPR’; and ‘the implications’ of separate Korean participation ‘for other colonial powers’ represented at the conference. As a result of their exclusion as a separate group, the Koreans decided to leave the IPR in 1931. They did not rejoin it until 1942. Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 56, 98–9, 142–4. According to Angus, China maintained at the time of the 1929 conference that the Japanese no longer enjoyed extraterritoriality in China due to China’s ‘unilateral denunciation’ of the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895, although the Japanese maintained that this treaty was still in operation. Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 24.

  37. 37.

    Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ 672.

  38. 38.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 331–2.

  39. 39.

    Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ 672. See also ‘Testimony of Hon. Robert Lansing before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 167.

  40. 40.

    Ishii Kikujirō, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ Chapter 6 of Notes on Diplomacy (1930), translated from the original Japanese by and reproduced in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 376.

  41. 41.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 375. Roland S. Morris reproduced in an article he wrote a translation of parts of the chapter in Ishii’s published diaries that Young translated and reproduced in full in Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria. Morris observed in his article that the portions of the published diaries, the title of which he translated as Diplomatic Recollections, which addressed Japan’s special interests in China and the Lansing-Ishii agreement deserved ‘special translation.’ Roland S. Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ Foreign Affairs 10, no. 4 (1932): 677–87, 679–80.

  42. 42.

    Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 375, and Ishii Kikujirō, 1930, quoted in Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ 679–80.

  43. 43.

    Akagi, Japan’s Foreign Relations 1542–1936: A Short History, 321.

  44. 44.

    Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 378.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., 379.

  49. 49.

    Article 1 of the first Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Alliance (1902) recognised that both countries had ‘special interests, of which those of Great Britain’ related ‘principally to China, whilst Japan, in addition to the interests’ which it possessed in China, was ‘interested in a peculiar degree, politically as well as commercially and industrially, in Korea.’ The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, January 30, 1902, https://www.jacar.go.jp/nichiro/uk-japan.htm. Ishii contended that this article reflected the Japanese position that Japan ‘possessed “grave interests superior to those of other powers in Korea” and also “special interests” in China which she will not concede to any European or American power.’ He added that Great Britain came ‘to recognize the Japanese claim in the first Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902’ (ibid., 374–5, 379). Ishii further observed that even at the time of the negotiation of the first Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Alliance, the Japanese government considered that the phrase special interests was ‘inadequate as a description of the peculiar relations which it felt then…should be recognized as governing its policy in China.’ Ishii, 1930, quoted in Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ 682. The main clause of the Franco-Japanese Treaty signed in Paris on June 10, 1907, declared the following: ‘The governments of France and Japan being in agreement to respect the independence and integrity of China; as well as the principle of equality in the treatment of that country, and having special interest in securing order and peace guaranteed, particularly in the regions of the Chinese empire in the vicinity of the territories over which both have sovereign rights of protection or occupation, engaged actually to support each other to assure the peace and security of these regions with a view to the maintenance of the situation held by each and the territorial rights of the two contracting parties upon the Asiatic continent.’ See ‘Franco-Japanese Pact a Defensive Alliance,’ San Francisco Call 102, no. 18, June 18, 1907, 8. The Russo-Japanese Convention of 1907 came into force on July 30, 1907, and, as with the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Alliance and the Franco-Japanese Treaty, had both public and private clauses. Article 2 of the public clause stated the following: ‘The two High Contracting Parties recognize the independence and territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations therein and engage to uphold and support the maintenance of the status quo and respect for this principle by all pacific means at their disposal.’ John Albert White, Transition to Global Rivalry: Alliance Diplomacy and the Quadruple Entente, 1895–1907 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 304–7. The private or ‘secret clause reaffirmed Japan’s “special” position in Korea and Russia’s “special” position in Outer Mongolia…. The secret clause also reaffirmed the divisions of respective spheres of influence in Manchuria.’ Joseph P. Ferguson, Japanese-Russian Relations, 1907–2007 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 12. Morris observed that the Japanese treaties of 1907 with France and Russia recognised Japan’s special interests in China ‘either in writing or by suggestion.’ Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ 679.

  50. 50.

    Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 379.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., 380.

  52. 52.

    Ishii wrote in his memoirs that Lansing was pro-Chinese due to the fact that he was ‘the son-in-law of Mr. Foster, former Secretary of State and later adviser to the Chinese Government, and a man who, helping his father-in-law, took trouble to defend China’ (ibid., 380, 383).

  53. 53.

    Ishii further stated: ‘I felt that this general conversation was interesting; perhaps the President also found that there was unexpected flexibility in Japan’s viewpoint. The President expressed the hope that I would discuss the matter at length with Secretary Lansing, and we parted.’ Ishii, 1930, quoted in Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ 680–1.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., 680.

  55. 55.

    Ishii urged Tokyo to agree to support the abolition of spheres of influence as ‘there was the likelihood that the other point,’ namely, the question of the nature of Japan’s interests in China, ‘would be more conveniently settled.’ Ishii ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 376, 383.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., 380. ‘In an address in New York City on September 29, 1917, Viscount Ishii declared that Japan merely wished to establish good government, peace and security in China so as to promote the development of opportunity there. He claimed that circumstances for which his government was in no way responsible gave Japan certain rights in Chinese territory, but at no time had she or would she desire to take territory from China or despoil her of her rights. Furthermore, it was Japan’s intention to maintain and defend the integrity and the independence of China against any aggressor. Two days later, in an address to New York press representatives, he stated he had no reference to a Monroe Doctrine for Asia, as there was a fundamental difference between that policy and Japan’s attitude towards China. Mr Ishii explained that, whereas the United States made no promises to the American republics, Japan voluntarily agreed not to violate the political and territorial integrity of her neighbour and to observe the principle of the “open door” and equal opportunity.’ Godshall, Tsingtau Under Three Flags, 236.

  57. 57.

    Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 381.

  58. 58.

    Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ 682, and Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 381.

  59. 59.

    Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 381.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., 381–2.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., 382.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    ‘Appendix 11: The Lansing-Ishii Agreement, November 2, 1917,’ in Godshall, Tsingtau Under Three Flags, 502–3. Morris, a former American ambassador at Tokyo, wrote that this ‘informal agreement, indicating a more generous attitude of the American Government toward Japanese aims and ambitions in China, was received by the Japanese people as a distinct diplomatic victory, giving Japan a relative freedom of action in further developing her special interests in Southern Manchuria.’ Morris, ‘The Memoirs of Viscount Ichii [Ishii],’ 678.

  65. 65.

    ‘Report of the Hearings on the Treaty of Peace Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 65–6. See also Godshall, Tsingtau Under Three Flags, 233.

  66. 66.

    Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 171. See also ‘From Official Report of the Conference between President Wilson and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at the White House, 19 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 65.

  67. 67.

    Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 68–9.

  68. 68.

    ‘Report of the Hearings on the Treaty of Peace Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 67. Before his departure for Japan, Ishii ‘reached with Premier Okuma’s approval a preliminary understanding with [Théophile] Decassé at Paris and Lord Grey at London with regard to Japanese participation in the London Declaration [of September 4, 1915].’ The London Declaration was ‘jointly made by Great Britain, France, and Russia. It was an agreement which bound the participating Powers not to enter into separate peace and to consult each other upon peace plans before the discussion of peace terms.’ As a result of Ishii’s interview with Sir Edward Grey, ‘a formal invitation was issued in the name of the British Government on August 19, and Japan became a member of the London Declaration on August 19. Italy soon followed suit and made it a five-Power pact. The Revolution of 1917 eliminated Russia from the entente, but the United States came in her place and these give Powers constituted the “Big Five” of the Peace Conferences at Paris and Versailles.’ Akagi, Japan’s Foreign Relations 1542–1936, 316–7.

  69. 69.

    Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 67.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., 68.

  72. 72.

    Ibid. See also Godshall, Tsingtau Under Three Flags, 233.

  73. 73.

    ‘Testimony of Hon. Robert Lansing before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 164–5.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., 165.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., 165–6.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., 166.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., 166–7.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., 167.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., 168. See also Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ 674.

  81. 81.

    ‘Testimony of Hon. Robert Lansing before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 169. ‘The divergence between the Japanese and American Governments as to the significance to be attached to the recognition by the United States, and the assertion by Japan, that “territorial propinquity creates special relations between countries,” and, consequently that “Japan has special interests in China, particularly in the part to which her possessions are contiguous,” was disclosed in letters of the Russian Ambassador to his Government which reported statements made to him by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs.’ Westel L. Willoughby, China at the Conference: A Report (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press: 1922), 193–4.

  82. 82.

    ‘Testimony of Hon. Robert Lansing before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 169.

  83. 83.

    Treaty of peace with Germany: Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, US Senate. 66th Congress, First Session on the Treaty of peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on June 28, 1919, and submitted to the Senate on July 10, 1919, by the President of the United States (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919), 223. See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 384.

  84. 84.

    Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ 673. See also ‘Testimony of Hon. Robert Lansing before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 167.

  85. 85.

    Ishii, ‘Japan’s Special Interests in China,’ 385.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., 386.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., 388.

  88. 88.

    Godshall, Tsingtau Under Three Flags, 238.

  89. 89.

    ‘Testimony of Hon. Robert Lansing before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, 11 August 1919,’ in Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 170.

  90. 90.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 384. In respect to Ishii’s account in his memoirs of Lansing’s explanation before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as to what he, Lansing, understood by Japan’s special interests, Young wrote the following: ‘Viscount Ishii here, in a lengthy section, expresses surprise at Secretary Lansing’s testimony before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on August 11, 1919. His argument here is extremely difficult to follow, being at times inconsistent with other statements made in the same section. It resembles, but is more obviously confused,’ than Lansing’s testimony before the committee (ibid). On the lack of explicit agreement on the meaning of special interests, see also Godshall, Tsingtau Under Three Flags, 237.

  91. 91.

    Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 172.

  92. 92.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 298. Morley observed that no official text of the treaties on which Japan’s putative rights in Manchuria were based ‘has ever been published, and their validity has been consistently contested by the Chinese government.’ Morley, Society of Nations, 453n.

  93. 93.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 300.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 178.

  96. 96.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 261–2.

  97. 97.

    Memorandum of the British Government, 1919, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 176. Willoughby insisted that there could be no doubt that the intention behind the consortium was to abolish claims to spheres of interest in China on the part of the powers. He notes that Thomas W. Lamont of the firm J. P. Morgan and Company and ’the spokesman for the American banking interests, which had the support of the American Government, in his Preliminary Report on the Consortium had said: “Certainly if the principle laid down for its organization is carried out we shall see no more ‘spheres of interest’ set up in China.” In its memorandum of August 11, 1919, submitted to the Japanese Government, the British Government said: “One of the fundamental objects of the American proposals as accepted by the British, Japanese and French Governments, is to eliminate claims in particular spheres of interest and to throw open the whole of China without reserve to the combined activities of an International Consortium. This object cannot be achieved unless all the parties to the scheme agree to sacrifice all claim to enjoy any industrial preference within the boundaries of every political sphere of influence.”’ (quoted ibid.). See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 281–2.

  98. 98.

    Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 179.

  99. 99.

    ‘“Regional Understandings” and the Shantung Decision,’ ibid., 114.

  100. 100.

    Memorandum of the Japanese Government, 1920, quoted in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Consortium: The Official Text of the Four-Power Agreement for a Loan to China and Relevant Documents, pamphlet no. 40 (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1921), 35.

  101. 101.

    Memorandum of the Japanese Government, 1920, quoted in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 273. See also Millard, Conflict of Policies in Asia, 178–9. The question of Japan’s privileged position in South Manchuria and ‘Inner’ Mongolia had been raised with Lamont when he visited Japan in the spring of 1920. While in Japan, Lamont held meetings with Japanese bankers and diplomats. Lamont also visited China during this period in order to study the situation there.

  102. 102.

    Memorandum of the Japanese Government, 1920, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 194. See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 275.

  103. 103.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 274. See also Willoughby, China at the Conference, 194. The Japanese memorandum stated that the insistence on Japan’s special interest in Manchuria did not stem from ‘a desire of making any territorial demarcation involving the idea of economic monopoly or of asserting any exclusive political pretensions or of affirming a doctrine of any far-reaching sphere of interest in disregard of the legitimate national aspirations of China, as well as of the interests possessed there by the Powers concerned.’ Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Official Text of the Four-Power Agreement for a Loan to China and Relevant Documents, 35.

  104. 104.

    Willoughby, China at the Conference, 195.

  105. 105.

    Memorandum of the United States Government, 1920, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 195–6.

  106. 106.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 276.

  107. 107.

    Memorandum of the British Government, 1920, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 194–5.

  108. 108.

    Memorandum of the British Government, 1920, quoted in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 281–2.

  109. 109.

    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Official Text of the Four-Power Agreement for a Loan to China and Relevant Documents, 45. Young observed that irrespective of this assurance, the British government ‘did not believe that to exclude three railways in western Manchuria from the sphere of loan operations of the Consortium was at all essential to provide for the security that Japan was conceded.’ Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 302.

  110. 110.

    Willoughby, China at the Conference, 196, and Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 282.

  111. 111.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 276. Millard observed that ‘after much diplomatic squirming the Japanese Government decided to participate in the consortium…with a “reservation” in the form of a mutual “understanding” to the effect that the American Government and the consortium had no purpose to encroach upon or interfere with Japan’s existing vested interests in Manchuria. No-one in China, except Japanese, felt satisfied with leaving the matter in that form, especially as the “inspired” Japanese press “distorted” the understanding; but as there was no prospect of the consortium’s doing any business then, there seemed no use in adding to the existing diplomatic aggravations by prolonging the controversy.’ Millard Conflict of Policies in Asia, 179.

  112. 112.

    Memorandum of the United States Government, 1920, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 195.

  113. 113.

    Reply of the Japanese Government to the Memoranda of the American and British Governments, 1929, quoted in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 282.

  114. 114.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 282.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., 306.

  116. 116.

    Hara Takashi, ‘Reflections on Lasting Peace,’ Living Age, 312, no. 4044 (1922): 7–11, 8.

  117. 117.

    Ibid.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., 9–10. See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 306.

  119. 119.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 306.

  120. 120.

    Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ 676, and Hara, ‘Reflections on Lasting Peace,’ 10.

  121. 121.

    Hara, ‘Reflections on Lasting Peace,’ 10.

  122. 122.

    Ibid.

  123. 123.

    Ibid.

  124. 124.

    Ibid., 11.

  125. 125.

    Ibid. See also Hudson, The Far East in World Politics, 189.

  126. 126.

    Hudson, The Far East in World Politics, 194.

  127. 127.

    C. G. Fenwick, ‘The Nine Power Treaty and the Present Crisis in China,’ American Journal of International Law 31, no.4 (1937): 671–4; Willoughby, China at the Conference, 174; and Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 288.

  128. 128.

    Wang Ch’ung-hui, 1921, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 174–5.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., 174.

  130. 130.

    Ibid.

  131. 131.

    Willoughby, China at the Conference, 175.

  132. 132.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 290. See also Willoughby, China at the Conference, 175, 177.

  133. 133.

    Arthur Balfour, 1921, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 177. At the eighteenth meeting of the Committee of the Whole, ‘when the matter of the Open Door was under consideration, Mr. Balfour said: “The British Empire Delegation understood that there was no representative of any Power around the table who thought that the old practice of ‘spheres of influence’ was either advocated by any Government or would be tolerable to this Conference. So far as the British Government was concerned, they had, in the most formal manner, publicly announced that they regarded this practice as utterly inappropriate to the existing situation.”’ Willoughby, China at the Conference, 177n.

  134. 134.

    Willoughby, China at the Conference, 177.

  135. 135.

    Katō Tomosaburō, 1919, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 198. See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 293.

  136. 136.

    Nine-Power Treaty, 1922, quoted in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 291.

  137. 137.

    Willoughby, China at the Conference, 180, 180n. Article 3(a) of the treaty concerned the more effectual application of the principle of the Open Door, specifying that the contracting powers ‘will not seek, nor support their nationals in seeking any arrangement which might purport to establish in favor of their interests any general superiority of rights with respect to commercial or economic development in any designated region of China’ (Nine-Power Treaty, 1922, quoted ibid., 180n). Emphasis added by Westel W. Willoughby.

  138. 138.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 296.

  139. 139.

    Ibid., 288–9, 295, 304.

  140. 140.

    Hanihara Masanao, 1922, quoted in Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 304.

  141. 141.

    Shidehara Kijūrō, 1922, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 200–1. See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 305.

  142. 142.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 305.

  143. 143.

    Ibid.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., 305–6.

  145. 145.

    Vi Kyuin Wellington Koo, 1921, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 199. Koo also addressed another statement by Hanihara, namely, that at the time of the formation of the International Banking Consortium, the British, French and United States governments had assured Japan its ‘vital interests’ in Manchuria would be ‘safeguarded.’ Koo declared that the Chinese government was not ‘in a position, since China was not consulted at the time, to express an opinion as to…[the statement’s] accuracy.’ Koo added, however, that if indeed such an assurance had been given, the Chinese government could ‘not conceal the feeling that it cannot be reconciled with the principle which was adopted by the conference on November 21 of respect for the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China.’ Koo, 1921, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 199.

  146. 146.

    Koo, 1921, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 200.

  147. 147.

    Alfred Sao-ke Sze, 1922, quoted in Willoughby, China at the Conference, 201.

  148. 148.

    Ibid.

  149. 149.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 2, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  150. 150.

    Ibid.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., 4–5, 9. The American Social Science Research Council agreed to sponsor in 1928 six projects research of interest to the IPR but which the IPR could not afford to undertake. On the initial Rockefeller grant, see Davis, ‘The Institute of Pacific Relations,’ 129.

  152. 152.

    Although formally constituted before the Kyoto conference, the International Research Committee did not ‘meet for the considered planning of research till that time.’ ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 6, 9, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. The International Research Committee was composed of members of the national committees, and while constitutionally its role was that of advisor to the Pacific Council, the latter ‘traditionally accepted the recommendations’ of the former ‘without change.’ ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR, 14-26 August, 1933,’ 34, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  153. 153.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program’, 11–2, 44, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. See also, Hooper, ed., Remembering the Institute of Pacific Relations, 1–2. William L. Holland later reported that on the invitation of Condliffe, his former professor at Canterbury University in New Zealand, he went to Honolulu, arriving there by steamer on December 28, 1928. On the IPR’s decentralisation policy, see Fifth Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations, Milan, 23–27 May 1932, ‘Report of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ prepared by Frederick V. Field, secretary to the chairman of the International Research Committee, Honolulu, 1931–1932, 1, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. For Saburō (Yoshisaburō) Matsukata and his involvement with the IPR, see Haru Matsukata Reischauer, Samurai and Silk: A Japanese and American Heritage (Cambridge, Mass., Belknap, 1986), 299, 306–7. 

  154. 154.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 1,11, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  155. 155.

    Ibid., 1. On the collaborative nature of its research, see ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR, 14–26 August, 1933,’ 28, 31, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  156. 156.

    ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR, 14–26 August, 1933,’ 28, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  157. 157.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 1, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  158. 158.

    Ibid., 21. See also William L. Holland, preface to ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 19 April 1933, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  159. 159.

    ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR,’ 15, 21-5, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  160. 160.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 22, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  161. 161.

    Inazo Nitobe, ‘Opening Address at Kyoto,’ Pacific Affairs 2, no. 11 (1929): 685–8, 686.

  162. 162.

    Ibid.

  163. 163.

    Ibid., 687.

  164. 164.

    Ibid.

  165. 165.

    Ibid., 687–8.

  166. 166.

    Ibid., 688.

  167. 167.

    ‘Cultural Impacts Old and New: Summary of an address by Inazo I. Nitobe,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 479.

  168. 168.

    Nitobe, ‘Opening Address at Kyoto,’ 688.

  169. 169.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 103. On the attendance at this conference, see Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 285.

  170. 170.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 107–8.

  171. 171.

    Ibid., 108.

  172. 172.

    Angus noted that an aspect of the Chinese argument in regard to the restoration of China’s territorial sovereignty was that ‘the treaties purporting to alienate some of China’s sovereign rights were invalid, and therefore required no “change” for their avoidance.’ Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 51.

  173. 173.

    Hooper, ed., Remembering the Institute of Pacific Relations, 4. On security at the conference and the publicity it generated, see Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 140, 147.

  174. 174.

    Norman Angell, ‘Japan, the League and Us,’ Time & Tide 12, no. 14 (1931): 1302–3. See also Earl of Lytton, ‘The Twelfth Assembly of the League of Nations,’ International Affairs 10, no. 6 (1931): 740–59, 747.

  175. 175.

    Yusuke Tsurumi, ‘Japan’s Internal Problems and her Relationships with China, Russia, America, and the British Commonwealth,’ in Condliffe, ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, 500.

  176. 176.

    Third Biennial Conference of the IPR, Kyoto, 28 October–9 November 1929, Second Announcement, 1 July 1929, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. See also Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 282.

  177. 177.

    ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR,’ 11, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA, and Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 105.

  178. 178.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 110, and ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 531.

  179. 179.

     ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR,’ 11, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  180. 180.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 103–4.

  181. 181.

    Ibid., 104.

  182. 182.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 26–7, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. See also ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR, 14–26 August, 1933,’ 10, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  183. 183.

    ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR, 14–26 August, 1933,’ 7, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  184. 184.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 310n.

  185. 185.

    Hooper, ed., Remembering the Institute of Pacific Relations, 4.

  186. 186.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 310n.

  187. 187.

    Rana Mitter, China’s War with Japan 1937–1945: The Struggle for Survival (London: Allen Lane, 2013), 25.

  188. 188.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 309.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., 309, 310n. Emphasis added.

  190. 190.

    Yosuke Matsuoka, ‘Economic Co-operation of Japan and China in Manchuria and Mongolia: Its Motives and Basic Significance,’ Pacific Affairs 2, no. 212 (1929): 786–95, 786.

  191. 191.

    Ibid.

  192. 192.

    Ibid. See also Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 311.

  193. 193.

    Matsuoka, ‘Economic Co-operation of Japan and China in Manchuria and Mongolia: Its Motives and Basic Significance,’ 786, 792.

  194. 194.

    Ibid., 786.

  195. 195.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 311.

  196. 196.

    Ibid., 792.

  197. 197.

    Ibid., 786.

  198. 198.

    Ibid., 792.

  199. 199.

    Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 111.

  200. 200.

    Quincy Wright, review of Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria: Its Assertion, Legal Interpretation and Present Meaning, by C. Walter Young American Journal of International Law 26, no. 21 (1932): 217–20, 218–9.

  201. 201.

    Young, Japan’s Special Position in Manchuria, 323.

  202. 202.

    Ibid., 318–9.

  203. 203.

    Blakeslee, ‘The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,’ 675–6.

  204. 204.

    Angus, Peaceful Change in the Pacific, 155–8.

  205. 205.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 16–8, 32–3, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. See also Frederick V. Field, secretary to the chairman of the International Research Committee, ‘Research Program and Organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations: Reports on Activities from the IPR, 1932–1933,’ 11, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA, and Hugh Wyndham, The Problem of Imperial Trusteeship: Native Education: Ceylon, Java, Formosa, the Philippines, French Indo-China, and British Malaya: A Report in the Study Group Series of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (London: Humphrey Milford, 1933). The Problem of Imperial Trusteeship was prepared by the RIIA in connection with the IPR’s research into the question of the condition of peoples in Pacific dependencies.

  206. 206.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 113.

  207. 207.

    Ibid.

  208. 208.

    Ibid., 112–3.

  209. 209.

    Ibid. See also H. C. Tennnet, review of New Zealand Affairs, by Walter N. Benson, Sir Āpirana T. Ngata, Guy H. Scholefield, et al., Pacific Affairs 2, no. 11 (1929): 731–2, and Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 156–7.

  210. 210.

    Āpirana Turupa Ngata, ‘Anthropology and the government of native races in the Pacific,’ Australian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy 6, no. 1 (1928): 1–14, 5.

  211. 211.

    ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 523

  212. 212.

    Ibid.

  213. 213.

    Ibid.

  214. 214.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 113.

  215. 215.

    Ibid.

  216. 216.

    Ibid., 113–4.

  217. 217.

    Ibid., 114.

  218. 218.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 35, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. The Education Committee of the American National Council of the IPR had conducted and published a survey entitled ‘China and Japan in our University Curriculum,’ which had, according to the ISIPR, ‘done much to awaken the interest of educators and public men. It...[was]...followed by a similar book on China and Japan in American museums, and a series of similar studies for libraries, schools, moving pictures, press etc.,...[was]...being carried out. Its other studies in related educational questions...[had]...dealt with facilities for the study of Oriental civilizations in America with the provision of Fellowships for American Students in the Far East.’ Japanese scholars, at the urging of the Japanese Council of the IPR, produced a series of essays for the Kyoto conference which, in the event, was the ‘first large piece of work’ in the field of cultural relations produced under the auspices of the IPR. The work was entitled Western Influences in Modern Japan. It was edited by Nitobe Inazō, ‘a man of affairs and a scholar whose writings on the subject of foreign influences in Japan...[had]...become well-known,’ and was published in the United States. At the 1931 IPR conference in China, Chinese scholars drawn from the fields of the arts, natural sciences and social sciences, collaborated in preparing a study called Symposium on Chinese Culture which was edited by Sophia Chen Zen and published by the China Council of the IPR. Field, ‘Research Program and Organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations: Reports on Activities from the IPR, 1932–1933,’ 12, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  219. 219.

    Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 2–3.

  220. 220.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 112.

  221. 221.

    Ibid and Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 167–8.

  222. 222.

    Condliffe, ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1927, 170. See also Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 167–8.

  223. 223.

    Condliffe ed., Problems of the Pacific, 1929, 236.

  224. 224.

    Ibid., 231. See also Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 169–70.

  225. 225.

    Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 4.

  226. 226.

    Condliffe, ‘Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 112.

  227. 227.

    At the IPR’s 1929 conference, the Japanese group expressed the view that it would be undesirable to create a rival organisation to the LON and the British Dominions maintained that the notion of an organisation in which Britain did not have a ‘leading place’ was ‘utterly impractical.’ Many Chinese present thought China would only be willing to participate in such a Pacific-based organisation if China were treated ‘on a basis of equality’ in order to ‘ensure its self-respect’ and yet others expressed doubts as to whether the United States and the USSR would be willing to join a ‘Pacific League of Nations’ given their absence from Geneva. Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area, 171. Akami writes that while some Australian and New Zealand members ‘were impressed by the ability of American IPR members’ in regard to the way they related to non-Westerners and because they were critical of British behaviour in the region, they were also concerned that the British might interpret their IPR involvement as a complete endorsement of American ‘regional leadership.’ Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 91.

  228. 228.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 1, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. On the comparison with the LON, see ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 526.

  229. 229.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 110, and ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 531. On the standard of living research, see Field, ‘Research Program and Organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations: Reports on Activities from the IPR, 1932–1933,’ 8, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. For the idea of League of Peoples, see Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Reactions,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA.

  230. 230.

    Akami writes that Davis’s departure from the IPR is partly explained by a change in direction of the IPR. For example, the IPR’s International Research Committee stipulated at the Kyoto conference in 1929 that ‘priority’ in respect to research should be given to the study of issues that were likely to cause ‘international controversy, especially in the political field.’ Akami records that in July 1930, just before his departure for Geneva, Davis wrote to Jerome Davis Greene, stating that one of the reasons for his resignation was the shift from the IPR’s original focus on ‘cultural and economic topics to political ones.’ She adds that Davis’s concern in this regard ‘was supported by major IPR members in Honolulu, Australia and New Zealand—non-great powers or local groups located within the Pacific.’ Frederick W. Eggleston, a prominent Australian member of the IPR, although thinking, in contrast with Davis, that the real push for change emanated from New York rather than London, warned that there was ‘danger in shifting the emphasis from culture to politics. This implied a shift in orientation from the society/public to the state.’ Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 136–7, 141. Note that a methodological reason was given for the shift away from cultural questions: the ‘difficulty of formulating scientific research projects’ in this field. See Field, ‘Research Program and Organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations: Reports on activities from the IPR, 1932–1933,’ 12, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  231. 231.

    ‘Appendix Two: Holland-Hooper Interviews,’ in Hooper ed., Remembering the Institute of Pacific Relations, 209–10.

  232. 232.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 1, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. On the broad interpretation of the word Pacific, see ISIPR, ‘Fifth Biennial Conference of the IPR, 14–26 August 1933,’ 8–9, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA.

  233. 233.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 105.

  234. 234.

    Peter Gay, Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974), 126.

  235. 235.

    Maryanne Lynch, ‘Brecht and Weill: Stripping the Artifice from the Stage,’ in Bertolt Brecht & Kurt Weill’s The Threepenny Opera (Sydney Theatre Company and Asteron present a Malthouse Theatre and Victoria Opera Production, 2011).

  236. 236.

    Raimondo Cortese, ‘A Note on the Text,’ in Bertolt Brecht & Kurt Weill’s The Threepenny Opera (Sydney Theatre Company and Asteron present a Malthouse Theatre and Victoria Opera Production, 2011).

  237. 237.

    Zimmern, ‘L’Organisation de la Coopération Intellectuelle et les relations universitaires: Report to the Sub-Committee on University Relations on the Meeting of Representatives of Scientific Institutions for the Study of Politics,’ 170–4, 170–1.

  238. 238.

    Ibid. Prince Michael Rostworowski and Whitney Shepardson had been nominated to attend on behalf of the School of Political Science in Kraków and the CFR respectively, but were unable to attend. See also ‘Experts pour la coordination des hautes études internationales: Réunion des 22–24 Mars 1928—Berlin,’ Bulletin de la Section d’Information et de Documentation, no. 19 (1928), 9. The IIIC was represented at this meeting by Picht and Luchaire. The ICIC was represented by its secretary, namely, Oprescu.

  239. 239.

    Zimmern, ‘L’Organisation de la Coopération Intellectuelle et les relations universitaires,’ 171.

  240. 240.

    Ibid., 172.

  241. 241.

    Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations [hereafter CISSIR], Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Cooperation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, Reports on Activities from the British Coordinating Committee for International Studies, 1930–1934, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA. See also IICI, L’Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle: 1925–1946, 252–3.

  242. 242.

    IICI, L’Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle: 1925–1946, 252.

  243. 243.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Cooperation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA.

  244. 244.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Royal Institute of International Affairs: Report on Developments, 1929–1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA.

  245. 245.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Cooperation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA, and Zimmern, ‘L’Organisation de la Coopération Intellectuelle et les relations universitaires,’ 172–3.

  246. 246.

     Zimmern, ‘L’Organisation de la Coopération Intellectuelle et les relations universitaires,’ 172–3. See also CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Cooperation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1.

  247. 247.

    Zimmern, ‘L’Organisation de la Coopération Intellectuelle et les relations universitaires,’ 170, 174. The committee members were Earle B. Babcock, deputy director of the Division of Intercourse and Education, European Centre of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Bourdillon, Eisenmann, Pietro de Francisci of the Italian Coordinating Committee of International Studies (and successor to Rocco and Gentile as minister of justice and president of the Fascist Institute of Culture respectively), and Jäckh. See also Moral Disarmament and the International Co-ordination of the Study and Teaching of International Affairs, AG 1-IICI-B-V-9, UA.

  248. 248.

    Kolasa, International Intellectual Co-operation, 94–5.

  249. 249.

    Wilhelm Haas, ‘Auslandsarbeit,’ in Jäckh ed., Politik als Wissenschaft, 259, AG 1-IICI-K-IV-2.c.

  250. 250.

    ‘The Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Affairs,’ Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs 8 no. 3 (1929): 185–202, 187.

  251. 251.

    Ibid., 187–8.

  252. 252.

    Ibid., 188.

  253. 253.

    Ibid., 190–1.

  254. 254.

    Ibid., 191.

  255. 255.

    Ibid., 192–6.

  256. 256.

    Ibid., 197–9.

  257. 257.

    Ibid., 200–2.

  258. 258.

    IICI, L’Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle: 1925–1946, 300, and IIIC, International Studies Conference, 28.

  259. 259.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA. On the CFR, see Walter H. Mallory to Henri Bonnet, 22 October 1931, AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.d, UA.

  260. 260.

    British Coordinating Committee for International Studies [hereafter BCCIS], Report 1930–31, and, Appendix C: Eighth International Studies Conference, The Royal Institute of International Affairs 1934–1935 and Appendix D: Eighth International Studies Conference, Department of International Politics, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, 1934–1935, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA.

  261. 261.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA. The ICIC’s Sub-Committee on University Relations, after having read Zimmern’s report on the Berlin meeting, noted ‘with satisfaction’ the progress made in regard to the coordination of international studies and called on the IIIC to convene another such meeting in light of the invitation of the RIIA. It also called on the IIIC to consider convening a meeting ‘in order to discuss questions of instruction in international policy’ in the summer of 1929. ‘Rapport sur les travaux de la Sous-Commission des relations universitaires,’ Bulletin des Relations Universitaires 4, no. 3–4 (1928), 204.

  262. 262.

    Morgan, ‘“To Advance the Sciences of International Politics…”: Chatham House’s Early Research,’ 132.

  263. 263.

    Memorandum Concerning a Comparative Handbook of Political and Politico-Philosophical Terms, 20 February 1929, AG 1-IICI-K-II-4.a, UA. On Haas’s two positions, see Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations: Fourth Conference held at Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix 1A: Report by Mr. Bourdillon, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1 UA. On Haas’s area of study, see Korenblat, ‘A School for the Republic?’, 400.

  264. 264.

    League of Nations, International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, Proposed Lexicon of Political Terms, AG 1-IICI-K-II-4.a, UA.

  265. 265.

    Memorandum Concerning a Comparative Handbook of Political and Politico-Philosophical Terms, 20 February 1929, AG 1-IICI-K-II-4.a, UA. See also Memorandum Concerning a Comparative Handbook of the Most Important Political Terms which are Liable to Promote Misunderstanding in the International Intercourse of the Great Nations, enlarged version of the memorandum submitted to the London Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations, March 1929, AG 1-IICI-K-II-4.a, UA.

  266. 266.

    Memorandum Concerning a Comparative Handbook of Political and Politico-Philosophical Terms, 20 February 1929, AG 1-IICI-K-II-4.a, UA. For Max Clauss’s adherence to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), see Guido Müller, ‘France and Germany After the Great War: Businessmen, Intellectuals and Artists in Nongovernmental European Networks,’ in Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht and Frank Schumacher eds., Culture and International History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2004), 105–6.

  267. 267.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA.

  268. 268.

    Proposed Lexicon of Political Terms, AG 1-IICI-K-II-4.a, UA.

  269. 269.

    Zimmern ed., University Teaching of International Relations, 1. See also IICI, L’Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle: 1925–1946, 307, and Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA.

  270. 270.

    J. David Thompson to Zimmern, April 30, 1929, AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA. J. David Thompson stated in his letter to Zimmern that it was he who suggested to Zimmern the idea of a teachers’ conference to take place at the Geneva School.

  271. 271.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA. See also Picht to Bourdillon, 19 July 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.a, UA. The recommendation on university teaching of international relations was subsequently endorsed by a meeting of the International Committee of University Relations in Geneva and submitted to the ICIC for consideration.

  272. 272.

    SDN, Comité de Coopération Intellectuelle Sous-Comité d’Experts pour l’Enseignement à la jeunesse des buts de la Société: Comité Mixte de représentants des Institutions d’études politiques et du Sous-Comité d’Experts, 1931 (avant la Conférence), AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.b, UA.

  273. 273.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix 1A: Report by Mr. Bourdillon, Quartrième Conférence des Institutions pour l’étude scientifique des relations internationales, 1931 (après la Conférence), AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.c, UA.

  274. 274.

    Haas, ‘Auslandsarbeit,’ 259–62, AG 1-IICI-K-IV-2.c, UA.

  275. 275.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Cooperation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA. On the Carnegie grant see Picht to J. David Thompson, 20 December 1930, Centres de documentation internationale ne dépendant pas de partis politiques, AG 1-IICI-K-II-2.a, UA. See also League of Nations, International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation, Handbook of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations (Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, 1929) and Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations, Handbook of Reference Centres for International Affairs (Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, 1931). For a description of the Handbook of Reference Centres, see Picht to L. S. Rowe, 18 February 1931, AG 1-IICI-K-II-2.a, UA.

  276. 276.

    IIIC, International Studies Conference, 18.

  277. 277.

    Ibid., 18–9 and CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Cooperation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1, UA. On the request to Zimmern and Bourdillon, see League of Nations: International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, Third Conference of Representatives for the Scientific Study of International Relations, Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Reactions,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA.

  278. 278.

    Cleeve to Picht and attached memorandum on study groups, 29 March 1933, AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.h, UA. See also Report on the Organisation and Activities of the Members of the ISC, AG 1-IICI-K-IX-1, UA. The study group method was also adopted by the CFR; the Canadian Institute of International Affairs; the Centre d’étude de politique etrangère and the Institut Social Romain.

  279. 279.

    ISIPR, ‘A Pacific Research Program,’ 16, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-2, UA. On Toynbee’s lecture, see CISSIR, Paris, 12–14 June 1930, Royal Institute of International Affairs:: Report on Developments 1929–1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1 UA.

  280. 280.

    Anique H. M. van Ginneken, Historical Dictionary of the League of Nations: Historical Dictionaries of International Organizations No. 23 (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2006), 80. Anique H. M. van Ginneken records that the Economic Intelligence Service served as the secretariat of the Committee of Statistical Experts, the mixed Nutrition Committee, Delegates on Economic Depressions and the Demographic Committee. See also Economic Intelligence Service, World Economic Survey: 1931–32 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1932) and Economic Intelligence Service, World Economic Survey: 1932–33 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1933). Alexander Loveday’s comments on the target audience of the World Economic Survey appear in the preface to World Economic Survey: 1932–33. The Economic Intelligence Service also published the following: Monthly Bulletin of Statistics; Statistical Year-Book of the League of Nations; World Production and Prices; Review of World Trade; Balances of Payments; International Trade Statistics; and Commercial Banks. On Condliffe’s appointment to the LON and the analogy between the World Economic Survey and the Annual Survey of International Affairs, see Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 155.

  281. 281.

    CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, 2, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1 UA, UA.

  282. 282.

    Ibid., 5, and Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Reactions,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA.

  283. 283.

    Condliffe, ‘Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 103, and ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 526.

  284. 284.

    Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Relations,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA.

  285. 285.

    Ibid., and ‘Experiment in Diagnosis,’ ‘Institutions internationales pour l’études scientifique des international relations (31 May 1933), AG 1-IICI-K-V-1.a, UA.

  286. 286.

    Condliffe, ’International Collaboration in the Study of International Relations,’ 2.

  287. 287.

    Ibid., 5.

  288. 288.

    Ibid., 8.

  289. 289.

    ‘Appendix 6: Handbook of the Institute of Pacific Relations,’ in Lasker and Holland eds., Problems of the Pacific, 1931, 529, and Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Relations,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA. See also Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 105.

  290. 290.

    Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Relations,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA.

  291. 291.

    Ibid., 18–9.

  292. 292.

    Ibid., 12.

  293. 293.

    Condliffe, ‘An Experiment in Diagnosis,’ 104.

  294. 294.

    Condliffe, ‘International Collaboration in the Study of International Reactions,’ AG 1-IICI-K-I-3, UA.

  295. 295.

    Ibid., 11.

  296. 296.

    Ibid., 14–5.

  297. 297.

    IIIC, International Studies Conference, 19. See also CISSIR, Copenhagen, 8–10 June 1931, Appendix E: Resolutions on Methods of Co-operation adopted at the conferences held in Berlin in 1928, London in 1929 and Paris in 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-VI-1 UA, UA.

  298. 298.

    Bourdillon to Picht, 17 July 1930. AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.a.

  299. 299.

    Picht to Toynbee, 23 April 1931, AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.b.

  300. 300.

    Ibid.

  301. 301.

    Picht to Beveridge, 12 December 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.a, UA. In a letter to Bourdillon written on 12 December 1930, Picht referred to the discussion of ‘non-controversial European subjects’ scheduled to take place at the 1931 conference. Conférence des institutions pour l’étude scientifique des relations internationales: 1930, AG 1-IICI-K-I-1.a, UA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Jo-Anne Pemberton

Authors
  1. Jo-Anne Pemberton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo-Anne Pemberton .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pemberton, JA. (2020). The Institute of Pacific Relations 1927–1929 and the Evolution of the International Studies Conference 1928–1930. In: The Story of International Relations, Part One. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14331-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation