Power and Principle: Armed Intervention in Wilsonian Foreign Policy@@@Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

The territorial conflict over the Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands sovereignty has dragged on since the 1970s. Today, Japan administers the islands, which are also claimed by Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China. All claimants use historical evidence to bolster the legal strength of their claim. The dispute over the islands is also linked to other important factors, such as nationalism in an unreconciled international environment and the rights to exploitation of natural resources. The unresolved Taiwan / China question puts another burden on its resolution. This particular conflict will be compared to other similar remote islands, which already have been subject to a legal procedure and, in some cases, resolution. This thesis aims to outline the impediments involved in a potential legal resolution without ignoring the political and other relevant facts. Given the regional political setting, the only viable resolution is likely to be more political than legal. This thesis aims to propose a joindevelopment scheme on basis of other previously settled territorial disputes.

The Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands Dispute Questions of Sovereignty and Suggestions for Resolving the Dispute

the "Old Diplomacy," practiced by imperialists of the Old World, and the "New Diplomacy," advocated by idealistic internationalists under the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson.' This dichotomy, however, does not fully explain the antagonism between Japan and the United States at the end of World War I. This study explores further possible explanations of President Wilson's failure to fend off the Japanese challenge to the principles of Wilsonian internationalism as set forth in his Fourteen Points. It argues that Japanese-American differences were more than either simple disagreements over diplomatic principles or particular disputes over economic, territorial, or political concessions. Hidden behind the conflict was another dichotomy-between America's universalism and unilateralism, on the one hand, and, on the other, an incipient particularistic regionalism and pluralism derived from Japanese leaders' assessment of

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3642235.pdf

Wilsonian Idealism and Japanese Claims at the Paris Peace Conference

In the early twentieth century, two famous American international lawyers had a China connection that was either unknown or has long since been forgotten by scholars. One of those lawyers was John Bassett Moore, adviser to the Chinese legation in the United States as well as to the Chinese delegates to the Paris Peace Conference and the League of Nations. In 1921, Robert Lansing succeeded Moore as counselor to China's Washington legation, and he also proffered his own ideas to the Chinese delegation at the Washington Disarmament Conference. Moore's and Lansing's advice to the Chinese reveals not only their profound disagreements with the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, but also the limitations of their approaches in trying to help China win back the Shandong (Shantung) region-a hotly contested area that had been leased to Germany under duress in 1898 and then occupied by Japan in 1914. At one time, according to political scientist John Millett, "the study of international relations" and "the name of John Bassett Moore" were synonymous. Born and raised in Delaware, Moore studied law at the University of Virginia before drop-

/pdf/john-bassett-moore-robert-lansing-and-the-shandong-question-2k3vqdbp5n.pdf

Stephen G. Craft

Papers

John Bassett Moore, Robert Lansing, and the Shandong Question