The Intellectual Genesis of the League of Nations Mandates System: a Study of the Relative Importance of the Traditions and Historical Experience of the United States
| DOI | 10.1177/004711786700300102 |
| Author | Kenneth J. Twitchett |
| Date | 01 April 1967 |
| Published date | 01 April 1967 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
16
THE
INTELLECTUAL
GENESIS
OF
THE
LEAGUE
OF
NATIONS
MANDATES
SYSTEM:
A
STUDY
OF
THE
RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE
OF
THE
TRADITIONS
AND
HISTORICAL
EXPERIENCE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
KENNETH
J.
TWITCHETT
Since
its
creation
the
United
Nations
trusteeship
system
has
served
as
one
of
main
instruments
of
an
ever-increasing
crusade
against
the
precepts
and
practices
of
Western
European
colonialism.
Indeed,
in
the
course
of the
General
Assembly’s
Fourth
Committee’s
consideration
of the
Trusteeship
Council’s
annual
reports,
the
Administering
Powers
have
come
under
a
mounting
barrage
of
criticism
and
pressure
from
the
emergent
non-white
members
of
the
United
Nations,
aided
and
abetted
by
the
members
of the
Soviet
Bloc.
This
attack,
combined
with
the
United
States’
ambiguous
stand
reinforced
perhaps
by
the
ethos
of
liberal
sentiment
within
the
Western
World
generally,
has
resulted
in
the
achievement
of
some
form
of
independence
by
almost
all
the
Trust
’1’’erritories.’
Consequently,
the
time
has
arrived
for
attempting
to
place
the
trusteeship
system
in
some
kind
of
historical
perspective.
Before
this
task
can
be
undertaken,
however,
it
is
necessary
to
have
some
appreciation
of
its
ante-
cedents
as
represented
by
the
precedents
and
concepts
underlying
the
League
of
Nations
mandates
system.
The
need
for
such
an
appreciation
derives
from
the
fact
that
the
mandates
system
was
the
forerunner
of,
and
to
a
large
degree
served
as
the
model
for,
the
trusteeship
system.
It
is
with
the
object
of
contributing
towards
the
above
mentioned
appreciation
that
this
article
attempts
to
analyse
the
historical
and
intellectual
genesis
of
the
League
of
Nations
mandates
system.
Moreover,
as
the
United
States
is
usually
represented,
in
Western
eyes
at
least,
as
a
leading
anti-colonial
Power
and
a
firm
advocate
of
international
responsibility
for
the
administration
of
dependent
peoples,
the
analysis
is
undertaken
by
contrasting
the
role
played
by
its
traditions
and
historical
experience
with
those
of
the
European
Powers
(in
particular
those
of
Great
Britain,
the
foremost
nineteenth
century
colonial
Power),
in
the
intellectual
continuum
underlying
the
formation
of
the
mandates
system.
The
tendency
to
regard
American
traditions
and
historical
experience
as
of
paramount
importance
in
the
interplay
of
precedents
and
concepts
embodied
in
the
League
of
Nations
mandates
system
was
noted
by
H.
Duncan
Hall:
there
exists,
he
wrote,
&dquo;the
popular
myth&dquo;
that
it
originated
in
&dquo;the
sudden
1
Only
three
Trust
Territories
remain:
New
Guinea
under
Australian
administration,
Nauru
under
the
joint
administration
of
Australia,
New
Zealand,
and
Great
Britain,
and
the
Pacific
Island
Trust
Territory
under
United
States
administration.
17
welling
up
in
the
barren
desert
of
European
diplomacy
of
trans-
atlantic
idealism,
bearing
with
it
the
new
gospels
of
’no
annexation’
and
the
welfare
of
native
peoples&dquo;.~
This
mental
picture
has
its
principal
origin
in
the
emotive
potency
of
the
American
anti-
colonial
tradition,
whose
validity
is
accepted
by
most
Americans
and
also
by
many
non-Americans.
The
notion
possesses
some
validity,
but
its
proponents
tend
to
ignore
or
to undervalue
the
important
role
played
by
Old
World
ideas
and
precedents
in
the
creation
of
the
mandates
system.
The
latter
contained
two
principal
conceptions;
first,
accountability
for
the
administration
of
dependent
peoples,
the
sacred
trust
principle;
and
second,
inter-
national
accountability
for
that
administration.
With
regard
to
both
conceptions,
Old
World
ideas
and
historical
experience
anticipated
those
of the
United
States
and,
moreover,
afforded
the
most
important
precedents
underlying
the
mandates
system.
Before
analysing
and
comparing
the
roles
of
the
Old
World
and
the
United
States
in
the
genesis
of
the
two
conceptions,
however,
a
brief
mention
must
be
made
as
to
their
content
and
evolution.
The
sacred
trust
principle
expresses
the
conviction
that
nations
with
colonial
dependencies
hold
them
as
a
trust
of
civilization,
with
the
interests
of the
dependent
people
taking
a
clear
precedence
over
those
of the
metropole.
Originally
the
principle
entailed
merely
a
continuing
guardian-ward
relationship
between
the
dominant
and
the
dependent
people.
Its
final
and
logical
develop-
ment,
however,
requires
the
relationship
to
be
such
that
the
dependent
people
will
obtain
the
economic
and
political
training
necessary
for
self-government.
Indeed,
with
the
now
almost
universal
acceptance,
in
lip-service
if
not
always
in
deed,
of
the
principle
of
self-determination,
the
sacred
trust
principle
has
come
to
be
denoted
as
the
duty
of
a
colonial
Power
to
prepare
its
dependent
people
for
the
tasks
of
self-government
and
independence
in
the
shortest
possible
time.
In
truth,
the
difference
in
ethos
between
the
working
of
the
League
of
Nations
mandates
system
and
the
United
Nations
trusteeship
system
is
to
be
discerned
in
the
fact
that
with
the
former
the
emphasis
was
on
&dquo;good
government&dquo;
while
with
the
latter
it
has
come
to
be
placed
on
&dquo;self-government&dquo;.
The
concept
of
international
accountability
for
the
administration
of
dependent
peoples
expresses
the
conviction
that
nations
with
trusteeship
responsibilities
have
not
merely
a
moral
responsibility
but
also
a
responsibility
to
the
international
community.
At
first
these
responsibilities
were
undertaken
only
by
the
observance
of
the
Christian
ethic,
international
account-
ability
being
expressed
as
a
responsibility
to
God.
By
the
end
of
the
nineteenth
century,
however,
the
international
community’s
2
H.
Duncan
Hall,
Mandates,
Dependencies
and
Trusteeship,
(London,
1948),
page
92.
To continue reading
Request your trial