Proofreading-

In Japan, the value of the IPR conference was well known so that added attendee to 139 IPR members grown from original 87members, and up again to 156 attendees were assigned to right before the third conference started. For the discussion of main topic of the conference, Naito, Kuno Shunji, and Royama was assigned to collect necessary data.

Special committee, led by Yama Masamich held 5 conferences, In February 8, February 26, March 5, March 12, and March 15 to research Manchuria issue. Special members such as Shinobu Junpei, Matsubara Kazuo, Nagano Akira, Mizuno Ueda, Ueda Yasuke, and Komura Shunzaburo gathered Surveyed data and reference materials. Roya Yamada asked Kondo Shunji to wrote a report on the general progress of the committee. He left Tokyo on March 23 for field trip to study the Manchuria issue by boarding on 바이칼호at the Kobe. After researching Manchuria and the surrounding areas he returned on May 6th.

Natoba as the chairperson, Nasu as the secretary, and the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Government Administration and Culture, were assigned two or three persons more each per division to investigate and research. . Each research division held monthly conferences to exchange opinions. After the spring of 1929, they held weekly conferences to prepare for the conference. The special committee conference was held in conjunction with the clerical work. The researching team didn’t discuss the Manchuria issue directly at the conference, but they later published research paper 만주문제 조사 요강 in English instead.

In the study case of the Manchu problem led by Yoshinaga Masamichi in Manchukuo, on June 13, 1928, it discussed the very fundamental policy of the Manchuria issue, and stated policy for the research department, which was handed to the board of directors. The Special Committee for Manchu Problems, headed by Toyama, was established in 1929 by a group of experts from various fields, such as Shinagawa, Matsubara, Nagano, Komura, Ueda ) And others. During June and July, they discussed about the policy of government authorities two to three times. The first lecture of the special committee explained the research policy on Feb. 8 by Royama. The second lecture was on February 26, by Junpei Shinobu about ther rights of Japan in Manchuria, and also International legal significance of special by Matsubara Kazuo. The third lecture on March 5th by Nakano akira was about north Manchuria railway and business residence. The fourth lecture was on March 13th by Ueda's 'economic interests in Manchuria', Mizuno's 'foreign policy of Japan-China relations and Nanjing government. The fifth lecture was on March 19, by Komura Shunsaburo, who presented and commented on the signing of the Treaty of Non-Aggression under the Manchu Agreement.

The IPR conference special committee held a research conference with Takayanagi in the driver seat. Experts were brought on as members and held research conferences focusing on the lectures of authorities and other stakeholders. In June-July, they held several conferences under the title 'Diplomatic Relations in the Pacific' and held discussions on arbitration and coordination issues in the Pacific like the Chinese Inequality Treaty, the Boycott Problem, and the Navy's disarmament issue.

China also took issues of Manchuria seriously. There were Several people from Manchuria as attendee of the IPR conference. The local newspapers reported several times about how the gathering and arrangement of the materials for preliminary conferences for the topic of Manchuria was not just about total commitment by the delegates, but how the atmosphere of the intensity of preliminary conferences was like a blazing flames.

Manchurian experts in China organized a research conference in Jilin and Fengtian. In particular, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan had a detailed understanding of the activities of the Jilin Study Group. Jilin Taepyeong (Jilin Pacific Intercultural Forum) gathered, organized the materials and held preliminary conferences in Manchuria. Considering that the discussions will be very intensified, Japan put efforts for other topics to be not distracted.

There was various topics to be discussed at the roundtable discussions during the third IPR conference held in Kyoto from October 28 to November 9, 1929. The relationship between civilization and traditional civilization, Chinese diplomatic issues, Manchurian issues, Pacific diplomatic issues (impoverished treaties and obligations of each country, significance of international wars, relations between the four countries' treaties, and the impoverishment treaties. The small round table agenda is a matter of traffic problems, population and food problems (population policy and land use in each country; population movement and international impact; population and international solutions), foreign investment, and industrialization. The above agendas are related to China in a large part, but the Chinese diplomacy and Manchuria issues were definately the most controversial topic of all

The overall program of the third IPR conference is shown in Table 6 below

As can be seen in the above table, the Manchuria problem stand out as the main agenda of the round table from November 4 to 6, 1929. China and Japan held several unofficial conferences to discuss. Japan had try to take home court advantage, since the conference was held in their backyard. They prepared reception, which informed the foreigners about their culture and also hoped to earn favoritism to themselves during the debates in the informal conference process.

Manchuria was one of the hottest issues in East Asia, where the interests of China, Russia and Japan were colliding against each other. There was a serious debate between China and Japan, Since there was no formal delegation attending from the Soviet Union. There were limitation to listening to the Soviet (Russia) position through Soviet-American observers. So the main hostile debate was going on only between China and Japan. What were the key points of the Manchuria issue, that came up during the official and unofficial meetings during the conferencre and what can be the solution?

2. Manchurian controversy between history and facts

The Fourth roundtable meeting during the third IPR meeting there wasvJames G. McDonald of the United States, Viscount Lord Hailsham of England, Newton W. Rowell of Canada, and Roland W. Boyden was chosen as the moderator. Effort was made to discuss the Manchurian problem objectively as possible

1 What is the historical origin of the Manchuria problem?

What are the rights of the treaty and the administrative penalties in the Liaodong Peninsula that have occurred in relation to this? Foreign railway defense · railway police and consulate police; Telecommunication, postal, telegraph and radio administration management; Residential business and land in Kawasaki; What about the new railway and harbor construction issues?

What are the major foreign economic interests in Manchuria?

What about some countries acting without special provisions in the treaty to protect their rights in foreign countries and to maintain security?

What is the international aspect of the Manchurian Railway problem?

What about the problem of Koreans in Manchuria?

What are the provisions of the existing treaty, such as the Washington Convention and the Paris Convention, as a way of addressing the Manchuria problem above, and how can there be a solution?

What are the special proposals for resolving the Manchu problem, and which issues are possible for reconciliation or intervention?

The core of the agenda was to discuss why Manchuria was at the center of controversy and how it could be resolved. However, despite the careful arrangement of the program by the committee, the China and Japan's conflict has come from the first day of the conference. On the first day of the conference, the Japanese delegation made a substantive debate on the remarks made by the chairman of the People's Republic of China and the dispute started boilling. The chairman had to not allow any questionable debate to the entire member. That evening, the general conference was focused on making a statement about changes in circumstances and development of international cooperation between the two countries since the Second Conference in 1927. However, the reason for the controversy was that in May 1928, Chairman of China warned Japanese about Jinan incident. In June of 1928, the criminal was not formally charged in the case of Jiujiang Linn explosion, he said that China assumed that Japan awas the criminal and set Japan on the defendant's seat in front of other nations.

In the evening of November 4, 1929, Matsuoka first established the historical and economic relations between Japan and Manchuria in accordance with the order in which they were made. Japanese contributions in Manchuria development, Chinese benefits by Manchurian development, Respectively. Shushusho denounced Matsuoka's speech while criticizing the Japanese government's actions and Japanese actions in Manchuria. On that day, Matsuoka's rehearsal was not permitted. On the morning of the following day, a special roundtable conference was held so Shushushu can reorganized the remarks of the previous day, and Matsuoka, explained the status of Japan in Manchuria repeatly.

'Japan does not make any strategic attempt in Manchuria, but Manchuria itself has valuable strategic value and will always be as long as Manchuria lies between Russia and the Korean peninsula.'

The purpose of the IPR conference was to seek out the facts about the serious and difficult conflicts that exist between the nations and try to come up with solutions. However, unlike many countries participating in IPR conferences, Japan and China had different starting ideas from the beginning. Although China used historical facts to approach fundamental solution to the problem of Manchuria, but Japan claimed that the Japanese should be responsible for Manchuria, insisting on the railroad landing rights, military presence and immigration in Manchuria. Of course, all of these were in line with the direction of China's development plans as well.

The discussion categories prepared by the IPR and the materials prepared by each country have already been presented, also Matsuoka, the 만철부총재 and 쉬수시 from (燕京) University in China have made their remarks. Based on their remarks, concrete discussions were held at each Round Table conferences.

The discussion process of each roundtable conference had been held for three days. They were given the discussion guidelines in the syllabus, but not all the discussion groups have adopted it. The various items presented in the syllabus are not treated equally in each section. It is natural that it topic varies according to the atmosphere of the round table conference attendees and their interests. Nonetheless, it seemed that more of general topics were discussed at each round table.

On November 4, 1929, topics were discussed about after the Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War, the scope of the rights that Japan acquired from Manchuria and the factors of the economic development of Manchuria at the Roundtable. On November 5, Manchurias crime and safety was discussed. The 6th day, discussion was about dispute over the legal effect of the 21st amendment. Observing these controversial issues closely, it relates to the issue of economic development, the issue of maintaining security, As well as the abuse of rights in the treaty and also abuse of authority.

1. The Problem of Manchurian Economic Development

Although the historical origin of the Manchuria problem varies depending on the point of view such as China, Japan, and the West, all agree that the Sino-Japanese, Russo-Japanese, and World Wars affected the origin and development of the problem. Japan had realized the problem was historical and also the obvious one, it was hoped that the rationality of the relationship between Japan and Manchuria would be demonstrated at the IPR conference,

Although Japan was related to Manchuria from ancient times, it was the Russo-Japanese War that made Japan and Manchuria to have a legitimate relationship. Obtaining the official approval of the Chinese government, Japan was able administrater and manage various facilities, which has led to the development of 만몽. Thus, 'the relationship between Japan and Manchuria has occurred extremely legally and has been rightfully developed, and Japan's open door and equal opportunity policy has brought benefits for both Japan and Manchuria, which has increased the interests of China' The relationship between Japan and Manchuria does not cause any instability in the Far East and it does not hinder the convergence of the people and the nations around the Pacific Ocean

It is an investment of 20 billion yen over 30 years, and the result of the labor of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Koreans. Japan emphasized that Manchuria Railway system was the most effective system in the international transportation community of the world. Therefore, Japan has claimed that they are historically and geographically related to Manchuria. They also realized political and economic benefit, and cultural achievement, which are all tied with economical advantages. Japan also emphasized the importance of the railroad system for the transport system.

At the start of conference, the historical situation of Manchuria was explained purely. Article 3. Walter Young of the United States outlines the historical narrative of Manchuria and the phenomenon of Manchuria problem, and emphasized general interest in individual or nation’s stance. The first article was presented by 쉬수시, the second article by Matsuoka, and the fourth article is explained by 천보다.

Some of the IPR participants, such as Walter Young in the United States, have historically presented the phenomenon of Manchuria and urged individual and national interest. Some attendee raised questions about possible political issues rather than abstract definitions like R. Greene did. However, it was also concerned with the effect of the open door policy or the Manchuria problem on world peace. There were no specific knowledge to accurately grasp Manchu's phenomenon and reality. It just generally laced relevant preliminary knowledge. That is why usually china and japan will debate about it while the other nations were spectators outside of the ring. There were printed materials briefing about the topic, but when the discussion topic was complex like Manchuria issue is, most of the thing cannot be covered in the printed material. Most of the conference attendees were not knowledgeable enough about the Manchuria topic.

Japan's Matsuoka (right) views how economic development, population growth, and prosperity of Manchuria in the past 20 years should be credited to Japanese empire ruling. It is clear that the purpose and direction of Manchuria's economic growth was clearly depended on national security. In addition, Japan maintained an effective peace, while expanded railroad installation. This brought Chinese immigrants and trade into Manchuria to develop the city rapidly. Also didn’t forget to mention about the rapid growth of Manchuria's population was can be based on the fact that Manchuria has lots of new frontiers to be developed. Peculiar phenomenon that the Han Chinese from North China flooding into Manchuria is result of good security in Manchuria and the convenience it provided. Japan claimed indigenous natives from Shandong put fires their own home, curses the disease and plundering, and thinks that peaceful 만몽 is the new place of destiny and moved in.

Before opening of the international trading port Yingkou, Manchuria was scarce in terms of population and was not in contact with the modern world except for some fur trade with Siberia. Although the Beijing government did not encourage the development of Manchuria and prohibited immigration to Manchuria, it acknowledge that the expansion of the railway construction in efforts by Japan has started to change the Manchuria economy, due to increase in trade volume. Unlike the railroads by self greed minded Russia, Japan took control of 남만주 and linked to the world and brought prosperity to Manchuria. The Chinese population of Manchuria has also doubled over the past 20 years and the amount of foreign trade in Manchuria has increased

Japan also backed up their argument with the statistical evidence. If china was to be set at value of 100 when China’s first custom opened in 1907, in 1925 China was 226 while Manchuria is 534. In 1926 china is 261.1 while Manchuria is 618.8. In 1927 China 264.1 Manchuria 634.5. Year 1928 china 279.0, Manchuria 737.7. Japan view the results as achievement of Japan’s outstanding presence in Manchuria. Chinese stats were also showing the much rapid increase in foreign relations. From 1907 to 1927, china increased export from 69.9 to 198.4, right around three times. Manchuria’s export during the same time increased 27.1 to 328.3. That is 12times more, which is 4 times faster than china. Japan questioned how anyone could discard the fact that Japan played critically important role in Manchuria’s vast economical growth.

Although Japan agreed, just like Russia, they developed 남만주 for its own benefit, but it has generated considerable profits for others as well as a result. Other countries used port facilities and railways provided by Japan, enjoyed stability and prospered in the presence of the Japanese military. Japan also claimed that Japan had provided benefits by providing modern urban constructed buildings and hospital facilities. Japan questioned, If Japan had another hidden ambition, why would they encourage the Chinese to continue migrating in to Manchuria? In addition, Japan left acknowledgement about other nation’s investments directly or indirectly in Manchuria, which contributed to the development and prosperity.

China Shushu questioned if Japan really had any part in development of Manchuria. Claimed that China has over paid for the price and also sacrificed too much for it. More Important agenda in hand was to develop an effective general system for the future of China.

He refuted the attitude of Japanese in Manchuria. Japan's actions in Manchuria were not helping China, but it is hampering China's economic development. China opened Manchuria and built railways from Shandang in the north east and west to Hai Long, Yenji and Sinmin to Pakuman, and from the Pakumen, And from Taichung through Taun to Taoan, from Qiqihar, through Ning Jiang, to Aiphon. When China tried to build from Pungguitun to Pakumon, Japan decided to stop it because of the reason that it was 만철병행. and ordered to change the Chinese plan to the west using Jinzhou 헤이허 to get to 타오난 in the Northeast. However, Japan's unilateral completion of Ji-hui Road expanded its power and interfered with China's construction. . When China tries to develop the industry by borrowing foreign capital, Japan has destroyed it, and when Japan saw the plan of 만몽 4 and the inside of 니시하라, he asserted that Japan did not want China but destroyed it. As well as various rights from Russia and ap rok river development, coal mine in en tai , and poon soon. The 21 articles of rights, and stole the rights of Lusun, Dalian. The tragedy of railroads were not the source of aid to China but the destruction of China.

His view can be seen in various sources, including the natural geography of Manchuria, where peace was naturally created, not because of Japan's power. Because the Japanese army was stationed in Manchuria there were war and Japan took in much profit from it. The rapid population growth of Manchuria was based on the economic fact that there were many new frontiers and backcountry sites in Manchuria, and refuted that it was not because Japan developed Manchuria and maintained security. The majority of the people who came to Manchuria from Manchuria to the war and had no home or land to cultivate, so it was a natural for the population to increase. There was no need to see that as unique phenomenon. In addition, the case of Japan's failure to cooperate with China led to the case of the Pukumon Railway, which was the problem of the exclusive operation of the Manchurian Railway by Japan, and blamed Japan in particular example of stealing 21 rights.

Matsuoka, who was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time, stressed that he was the person who handled the case and that he was entitled to speak accurately about the matter. And refuted against China.

'After the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth, Beijing made an agreement on the railway between China and Manchuria without Japan’s pressure. Agreement states that another rail way which will be in competition will not be built. 'After the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth, Beijing made an agreement on the railway between China and Manchuria. Japan pledged not to cooperate with China, which is harming the profits of China with freedom of conscience. Under the Manchurian regime and under the Government of the People, the parties to the agreement entered into a loan agreement for the Pakumen Railway, which was a fierce competition, by enticing the British capitalists before the ink signed on this promise was still dry.

. It was the real purpose of Chinese politicians to tempt British capitalists to engage with Japan at the time. And Saying building rail road next to Manchurian rail way was illegal and pointed out unapproporiate actions of china. Also getting british investors involved is making japan look disgrace and also blamed british at fault.

In addition, Matsuoka has no special interest in the development of parallel rail, but the Chinese are angry at trying to eradicate the full-scale by laying parallel lines on both sides of the rail road. And mentioned Japan has paid a huge price and sacrifice from russia, not the one obtained for free from China.

China claims that it is indirectly benefiting from the full-scale rail, but not receiving the proper wages, saying that Japan does not agree with the facts, that the profit of China is being spent on Chinese wages. In addition, since China lacked the ability to preserve its territory, Japan claimed victory in the Russo-Japanese War by sacrificing 10 million soldiers and 2 billion yen. At the same time, China did not pay a penny of toward the war. Japan has not yet completed the principle of 2 billion yen, but still pays, and when it says that it will pay about 6 billion yen when it is all paid, Lee Hong-kang returned the manmong, which was sold to Russia back China at free of charge. And asked if there was a willingness to pay this 6 billion yen to Japan. was there willingness to compensate other sacrifies Japan has made for china?. China insists that Japan has already got enough of the sacrifices it has paid for in Manchuria, but actually it is not from China. Japan emphasized again that it invested more than 6 billion yen in capital and made hard efforts to turn manchuria to it's state.. Thus, the Manchuria problem can not be solved without thinking from the Russo-Japanese War

Coleman, the United States representative, said that China's accusation that the Japanese army politically violated territorial sovereignty in Manchuria and allowed foreign capital inflows to impede the development of railways and ports, . T. H. Yun emphasized that the presence of the Korean people who went to Manchuria as an ancestral land made a major contribution to the opening of Manchuria and the development of Manchuria, as the Jews went to Palestine. However, the Chinese claims they did not treat Chinese properly and their safety was threatened. For example, Chinese acknowledge the Korean’s help with farming of the rice, but still claims that Koreans made Manchuria issues more complicated.

China viewed Japan coming in not just for the economical benefits, but also for military expansion. Therefore, Japan will not withdraw their troops easily and that will result in natural political expansion, which will not easily be removed. However, as the significance of Japanese military and political facilities in Manchuria gradually diminished and the significance of economic facilities gradually expanded, Japan hoped to abolish political and military facilities,

China said “As Dongcheng railway case, Japan is trying to take control of the political armed force presence, the police, and taking over authorities in rail way. This clearly shows Japan’s motivation to take over and eventually gain all the economical benefits.” Japan, on the other hand, believed that it was difficult to find a compromise because it was fundamentally in conflict with China, which denied the legal and political interests of the 21 rights

2) Security issue

It is absolutely for commercial and industrial purposes based on the Treaty of Russo-Japanese Harmonization on September 5, 1905 that Japan acquired the South Korean railway landing right. However, after Japan had monopolized it, The military and the Policing was exercised. Japan's troop presence in the South was intended to combat Russia's troop presence in the North during the Russo-Japanese War. It was dated December 22, 1905 under the 'Manchu Pre-Convention'. China urged Japan to withdraw its troops from, but Japanese troops have not withdrawn yet.

China has 7,000 Japanese defenders on the full-scale route, but it is limited to the railroad annex, so it cannot maintain the security of the whole of Manchuria. Although there is a powerful force behind the garrison, the Japanese government and the Japanese army, but didn’t want to depend of it for Manchuria's peace.

Railway expert Kanai in Japan said that it is necessary to have a railway garrison because it is dangerous because of frequent marches and theft. China's view on compromised security in Manchuria is that Japan is encouraging people to march and cultivating criminals. There are more crimes surrounding railways than outside. Therefore, China opposed the idea of Japan to maintain security in Manchuria . China stated there were 9 cases in 1906, 57 in 1911, 99 cases in 1917, 200 cases in 1920. Outside the railway area, 13 cases in 1913 and 49 in 1917, but in 1920, it was reduced to 24. Mexico's representative Gamio made a remark that even though the United States is stationed in Mexico, they do not guard the railways.

Japan can have 13,000-15,000 troops with the right to treaties, but the Japanese troops stationed in the Mitsukoshi line were about 7,000, maintaining the security of a 700-kilometer-wide railway line with few troops. Japan, which has significant interests in Manchuria, although there are more than 7,000 defenders, is concerned with the peace and order of the region, so the Japanese government, which has strong naval forces, always guarantees directly or indirectly the security of Manchuria in the background. In addition, there have been wars in the past two centuries, Various nations and tribes have appeared in Manchuria, and without Japan’s present, Manchuria would have fallen into disorder and confusion.

Successful retention is closely linked to immigration. China had a tendency to develop its population and economy in unisome, and the fundamental reason that one million immigrants flow into Manchuria every year was that the security of life was not safe due to frequent civil wars that occurred in the northern states. Therefore, the increase in Manchuria may not be the result of Japan's peace, but natural consequences of the Northern Territories should be noted. [92] Japan responded by stating about security in rail ways and security in Manchuria. Also the convenience of it. In order to open a new fate in the New Manmong, people had house arsoned, cursed the disease and plundered, and moved to Manchuria. However, Walter Young in the United States said, The arrival of immigrants in Manchuria, on the other hand, explains that they arrived on Manchuria without using the South Railway. In addition, the background of migrating from China to Manchuria was mainly due to lack of land, excess labor, inefficient transportation systems, drought, floods, The main factors that are caused by excessive tax exploitation, conscription, terrorism, non-proliferation, and forced opium cultivation. Those who migrated to Manchuria considered the railway and water flow, referring to the relationship between economic geographical factors, population characteristics, land use or economic development, and market all played part. There was an event that created such heated debate, which is also related to the security called Jiaonan event. The incident was caused by soldiers summoned to prepare for battle in the Jiaonan, Jiaozi Railway and Jiaozhou Bay area of ​​the Jinju area, and the Japanese military abused and killed Chinese people. As for the murder of Jangsu Ohlin, the train was demolished in the area under the jurisdiction of the Japanese army, so it cannot be said that the Chinese had caused the incident, and since it was scientifically precisely blown up, it should not be difficult to investigate who the suspect is. The Japanese responded to this statement by China.

The right to treaties and the right to abuse of rights ·

The right to the treaty that causes daily problems · Namsan Railway · Railway line · Railway defenders · Consulate Police · Residence · Trade · To land · New railway and port construction. The two countries interpreted the treaty provisions as their own convenience and used them as the basis of their own editorials. The conflicts in the interpretation surrounding the mid-to-long-term phenomenon are the existence of abuse of rights, On the issue of so-called Manchuria, China criticized Japan on three grounds.

1. Japanese right in Manchuria is not a strict interpretation of the provisions of the treaty, which obviously violates the treaty or abuses its rights.

2. Japan’s rights in 만철부속지is not accepted as administrative authority.

3. Looking at these two violations and the abuse of rights, the existence of the basis of the treaty, and the interpretation of the consular police rights at this time should not be recognized by the treaty.

First, it is the abuse of rights. The rights of Manchuria claimed by China in Japan are not strictly interpreted by the provisions of the treaty, so Japan has strongly refuted it on grounds that it was an obvious violation or abuse of rights.

1 In response to China's assertion that Japan's activities in Manchuria were not based on the provisions of the Treaty, Japan was unable to make Manchuria as territory of China totally. Quincy Wright of the United States, which has spoken about this controversy, has already made several literal declarations of Territorial Integrity by the Japanese government about Manchuria being part of China and clearly stated in the treaty, so there is no room for debate.

2 It is clear that the foreign governments attaching government-owned railways within the territory of China is a violation of the sovereignty of China, contrary to the purpose of the treaty. It is said that the exercise of Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria is a property to consider. China is a shareholder in China, and Japan is an individual shareholder when it is technically ignorant of the history of the Treaty of Portsmouth after the Russo-Japanese War. It is misunderstanding that it is simply a government agency. Walter Young of the United States said that it was doubtful that the 만철 was actually a Japanese government company. Japan was in a position to admit this statement, but China did not consider it that way.

Second, there is no basis on the treaty about the rights of Japan. In response, both China and Japan argued against each other. It was not easy to solve the problem by using the treaty regulations as a basis for self - editorial interpretation. In other words, the Manchuria problem is no longer a treaty theory as there is an atmosphere of entrusting the settlement of the treaty to a third-party judicial institution. Keppel from Canada stated one must be able to interpret broadly the method or range of treaty resolutions and to reasonably estimate the practice from facts or facts that occur in accordance with the results of the enforcement of the treaty.

Although China is separate from the province of Guandong, the use of the executive power of the Grand National Party was regarded as a political ruling exercise with no basis in the treaty. In other words, China intends to limit the interpretation of the provision that there is an absolute and exclusive administrative authority on the land of the so-called railway line of Article 6 (2) of the Treaty on the Construction and Management of the 만철부속Railway, . Therefore, the annex for the police, education, and postal also did not have the rights. It is a matter of course that administrative facilities such as postal services cannot use regulations. In addition, on the basis of the treaty of the consular police, the Tanaka Cabinet decided on the grounds of international law on the maintenance of security of Manchuria, the mining right in Fushun and other areas, the land management, right of the mining company.

As for the Manchu problem discussed at various roundtables, Japan generally insists that the treaty regulations are broader than the administrative authority of the general administration of China, However, China did not think so. The United States, however, saw no difference in character from the Tianjin-Shanghai border, and Canada didn’t think it was unreasonable in its ownership of land in other countries and sided with Japan. Charles P. Howland of the United States showed interest in the administrative authority of the city owned by Japan after the conclusion of the treaty.

Thirdly, it is an interpretation of the consulate police. Japan interpreted security in Manchuria as extraterritorial rights for substantive rights advocacy on the issue of consular police through other judicial interpretations. Although China's mining rights and land management rights were interpreted as being for Japan, China did not acknowledge it, and Japan legally abused it with military force.

China attacked Japan's invasionism, and stated the problem got worse, which started because of Koreans. The Koreans did start a problem for China and Japan, because Japanese military force went with Koreans. China claimed it only benefits Japan, when they tag along with Koreans and irritates Chinese. Japan also acknowledged the problem started with Koreans and in order to understand the realities of the Japanese continental policy, one must observe the problem of the Korean people.

China claims Japan has obstructed railway construction and economic activities in China. The Japanese explained the unreasonableness of the mankind by exercising a consular police force and establishing a post office, violating the rights of the Chinese and leaving the bitter sourness feeling between the two countries. Japan focused on historical products and they have paid attention to each treaty logically, but China denied the validity of the treaty, demanded the economic dominance of humanity, the economic management of 만철, and demanded abandonment of Japan's troop presence and other political rights.

Japan claims historical justification for its rights in Manchuria, but China argued that the activities of Japan in Manchuria were unfounded or deviated from the scope of the treaty and infringed China's sovereignty. China argued that the 1915 Treaty of the Sino-Japanese Agreement could be viewed as invalid or absent from the Treaty if viewed historically. China also said that Japanese control of the Manchuria was beyond the scope of economic activity and that the Japanese had violated Chinese rights and offended their rights by establishing post offices and implementing consular police rights outside the railway area and the province of Guandong Province. Japan interfered with China's railroads and economic activities in Manchuria during the 1950s, and interfered with Chinese unification through political activities. Therefore, it argued that the rights of Japan did not exist or were violated on individual matters such as railroad servitude rights, postal rights, and consular police.

The way each country viewed the problem were so different that it was difficult to discuss the Manchuria issue in a calm manner. Japan cited China’s arguments were too subjective and emotional that turned the conference hostile environment. Giving example of how Chinese named positive policy in to territorial aggrandizement. The Japanese considered the reality of Manchuria management as a peaceful policy to preserve the peace of the Orient by blocking the south of Russia, but Chinese people didn’t buy it and thought of it as a root cause of the conflict between the two parties and suggested remedial measures. In other words, Japan should abandon the concept of power expansion, abuse of extraterritorial rights, abandon the administration of the ruling power of the railroad annexes, withdraw the railroad police and troops, replace them with Chinese, and thoroughly implement the policy of opening the door. Matsubara and Matsuoka of Japan explained that China's misinterpretation of the aggressive policy of Tanaka Cabinet was blamed for the expansion or aggression policy.

William H. Kilpatrick of the United States of America concluded that the accusation was the premise of the treaty, but the other incident was merely an incident, It turned out to be an issue of individual justice, which Hailsham expressed as 'personal injustices'.

There was a difference in interpretation between the two countries in the concept of opening the door. Walter Young suggested that 1. Equal opportunity in trade 2 discussing the concept of the preservation of executive power in Manchuria. China criticized that Japan did not allow any individual investment, saying that it had a narrow concept of opening the door. Japan's economic benefits are due to its political benefits, and it depends on how Japan will harmonize national policies and attitudes toward domestic and international issues.

On the whole, China has emphasized the political situation and changes of the past, while Japan has combined modern international law with its historical background to judge Japan's claim as one of the strongest supports. As can be seen from the railway garrison and the railroad annexed administration, the historical forces that have been dominant from the past tend to dominate the future. James T.Shotwell said that the significance and content of 'strategic position' changed according to the ages. In the case of Manchuria, Russia's attitude toward Japan was not a problem, but how war and other materials were supplied was the problem. In the modern scientific and economic warfare, the strategic position and economic value of the region cannot be separated because the source of production is an important strategic base.

According to the Millers Review, the abolition of consular jurisdiction was partially successful. Many countries said that they would abandon the privilege of justice in China, but said it was not enough that they were not fully listening to China's opinions. He briefly described the collision between China and Russia in Manchuria and said that the Japanese military should be responsible for the death of Zhang Yulin. Although I did not discuss the uncomfortable thing about the dispute between China and Japan. It was partial success that the two sides at least discussed the contents even if they did not get to understanding stage of each other.

3. How to solve the Manchuria problem?

Manchuria is a geopolitical and strategically important place to link East Asia, where there is constant controversy as the interests of the nations converge. In particular, it is difficult to find a consensus view between China and Japan on any issues related to Manchuria. The Chinese criticized the Japanese for their militancy and territorial abuse, in contrast Japanese criticizing the Chinese for cheating, but also said it was difficult to understand China's national organization, social life and nationality. Considering the psychological state of both nation, it is difficult to solve the Manchuria problem, but it was the main theme for the third IPR conference, so it had to be tackled down. Therefore, to come up with solutions, there were three path to approach.

1. Whether to use existing international treaties

First, whether it can utilize existing international treaties to solve the Manchuria problem. Though it is difficult to narrow the gap between the views of China and Japan on the many issues that have arisen in Manchuria, is there a solution and possibility when we look at Manchuria from the standpoint of the third country as well as from the viewpoint of the Party? In particular, how do treaties such as the existing International Treaty, the Treaty of Washington nine nation agreement and the Kellogg-Briand Pact for World Peace, have anything to do with the so-called Manchurian issue?

In order to confirm this, the case of the 중동철도was taken as an example. Although China explained the cause of the dispute, there was no official representative of the other Soviet Union and only one observer attended. Without formal Soviet union’s point of view the discussion could not carry on. China has no connection with this issue and with existing international treaties, saying that China does not recognize its obligation to notify its actions and does not allow the establishment of an investigation committee to investigate the reality of the dispute. At the IPR conference, there was a moral criticism of China, but it did not actively contradict China's position with legal grounds. As can be seen from the case of the 중동철도, even if disputes arise between Japan and China, there is no way to resolve them through existing international treaties. The reason why Japan has not ratified the arbitration clause in the International Covenant was because it has tried to avoid the interference of third parties about the Manchuria problem but also knew it would be difficult to solve the problem.

2) Establishment of permanent reconciliation and adjustment committee

Second, it is the establishment of a permanent reconciliation committee. And the establishment of a committee for the establishment of the Manchu problem, which consists of the Coordination Committee and the civilian at the level of the Central and the Soviet Union. It is not asking for a solution afterwards, but it is equipped with the function of reconciliation adjustment at normal times. In order to solve the Manchuria problem, the 'Non-aggression Treaty Conclusion and the Organization of the Joint Investigation Committee' was proposed. Japan proposed not only the governmental level but also the civilian intellectuals of both countries to organize a cooperation committee. The United States, with the help of the International Federation, proposed the establishment of a Coordination Committee to resolve the problem. Japan's Shunzaburo Kohmura is a kind of regional treaty between the two countries, The United States and the Canada have made efforts to end treaties and mitigate the deterioration of sentiment between the two countries. Shinobu Junpei was interested in the function of the Committee for Reconciliation, and the Canadian and US representatives expressed that the border issue between the two countries would be able to resolve the dispute through the Committee for Reconciliation. The Angus of Canada said that it would be difficult for the International Coordinating Committee, which dealt with the border issues between Canada and the United States, to interpret the treaties in question even in Manchuria, and that it would be possible to handle the case in a good atmosphere. Alexander saw that both China and Japan could be intervened, because they belonged to the League of Nations. However, China suspected that the Non-Aggression Treaty was a political consideration, International relations with third party countries are also very sensitive, it was difficult to discuss specific details on the issue.

Japan proposes the composition of the Cabinet Coordination Committee, and the two governments of China and Japan selected three committee members to investigate and solve the various conflicts and problems. On the premise, Japan respects the territorial sovereignty of China, , But various existing treaty agreements between China and Japan remain valid. China has stated that the following measures are effective to harmonize national sentiment between the two countries. ① The governments of the two countries appoint direct representatives and organize coordinating committees to resolve various problems that have arisen between the two countries. ② Before a government officially appoints a committee, a private qualified person organizes a private adjustment committee. ➂ Or organize a committee of ㅏ관민합판.

In order for the reconciliation committee to be effective, China first asked the Japanese government to express its intention to discard and amend the 21 policy. Japan has used the 21 policy to abuse their power and will not admit it. If Japan is not ambitious should behave friendly attitude. In the case of full-fledged cooperation, China and Japan can share the stake of 51 and 49, respectively, and withdraw the railway guard and the consulate police. If Manchurian Open Liberalism practices are adhered to without any abuse, and all political territorial ambitions are abandoned, China's right to solve the Manchurian problem can be solved. The proposal could not be materialized because Japan did not approve of such an attitude of China. China has said that Japan cancels the Japanese police exercise in addition to the railroad annex. Which, China will have paid close attention to whether there is a good faith or not. If everything is dialed in, there will be no reason for dismissal. However, the US and Chinese representatives said that if investor came forward from another country, Japan would disrupt the process with all kinds of different way. Therefore, this would violate open door policy. In Japan, railway investment is considered to be an invasion of political power, so it should be considered carefully. If it is an economic investment aimed purely for the development of Manchuria's personnel without special demands, it is welcomed. Japan would not be able to find the correct answer if they did a joint investigation with a third party, since both countries did not recognize the other party's claim.

Despite all this if the citizens of both China and Japan cooperated they believed the problem can still be resolved. Keppel believed the contents should be coordinated, and the position of each person who was difficult to agree on the contents in the middle of the day was clear. There is possibility of resolving various pending issues, if the Chinese and Japanese people cooperated with each other, interpreted the method or scope of the treaty broadly and did not limit it to certain treaty regulations. The Manchuria problem is also a matter of revising the treaty, so if the two countries truly understand each other's nationality and remove the distrust of each other, the relationship may improve. One of the examples was the contents of the 3rd IPR Conference in 1929. This was not simply the result of the study that was created in the denomination, but was made through a field trip to Manchuria and China. Economy, politics, law, and the academic research results expected from various fields were exchanged and reviewed to confirm new knowledge.

Mutual concessions based on history and phenomena Can the annex be able to defend economic interests without using Japanese garrisons and Japanese rule?

3) Mutual concessions based on history and phenome

If you even revoke the rights of the Guandong Province, will it be necessary to station troops in the annexes? What is the mid-to-long-term trade plan? If there is an unforeseen incident, give permission to Japan to make a full-time attachment, and organize the Chinese police under the supervision of China. What if Japan has a voice about personnel rights?

The United States, in its third position in relation to the Manchuria problem, was very interested about the situation. The American capitalist prays for a tangible line. It was also during this era when US propose a neutrality between 동청, 만철 railwasy. This wasn’t the only interest for thke US. In addition, they appointed officer for 4 countries and encouraged other nations to invest in Great China,discussing the issue of the Far East by opening a Washington conference, listening to the propaganda of China, and sending the US itself to the point of suspicion about Japan and continental relations. As mentioned above, the key to resolving the Manchuria problem was to try to adjust Japan 's position on China and the way of Chinese understanding. The reason why the Namsan railway garrison and the consulate police sometimes clash with Chinese people and mutually hate and have such an anger driven serious disputes is that the disrespectful attitude of low ranking soldiers and police of Japan. And the Chinese officials are so distracted that it is difficult for others to trust it.

The United States also saw emotional issues, such as trade and defense issues, complicating international relations. As can be seen from the problems of Alsace Lorraine, Palestine, Cuba, etc., the problem of national emotions and unforgettable sacrifices, historical conflicts, racial notion. Conventional interests or national sovereignty. National independence and stability, and so on. They warned that in order to solve the Manchuria problem, it is necessary to study not only the superficial conflicts but also the essential needs.

1 Must respect China’s independence and admistrative duties.

② Ensure maximum opportunity for China to develop and maintain stable and effective

➂ To ensure that all countries in China have the principle of equality of opportunity in industry and trade.

4. propose that they should not take privilege in China or do anything harmful to national security on specific contents.

Japan expressed concerned about the emotional, and sentimental interest toward Manchuria. Fessenden, in the United States, stated that one should also study psychological problems, but 토인비 from United Kingdom said out of psychological, political, and economical issues, Japan is probably suffering the most from emotional. However, if they tackle the economical is solved, the psychological problem will be eliminated. The history of the European empire reflects the fact that emotions fade as political, and the economic benefits flourish. The Chinese representative also claimed that considering the psychological problems is the cornerstone of problem solving.

Huge wall of mistrust between the two countries was already too large. In Japan, most of the Liaodong peninsula was transferred to Japan by the Treaty of Strengthening the Sino-Japanese War, while Li Hong-kang of China signed the Treaty and planned the return of the European powers to Japan. It was said that the Manchurian Coordination, the Chinese politician and the diplomatic idiom of the Chinese people. In May 1896, Lee Hong-kang and the Lobanov Agreement were concluded and Russia signed a secret alliance treaty. If Japan knew of the existence of this treaty during or after the war, what would the result be? Japan has probably perish all of Manchuria and believed that it was justified. In the light of past history, Li Hong-Zang, , There is no guarantee that China will not send the second Li Hong Qiang to Japan in the future. As the world history is made by the blind reaction and reaction of blind impulses, and the inteligence force is unlikely to contribute unexpectedly, the Japanese are very worried about this point, so unless China assures Japan that they approve of Japan’s defense, it will be very difficult to change Japan’s position.

Japan cited the psychology of both countrt as the main reason why it is difficult to resolve the issue between them. If a Chinese understands the essence of the Japanese national identity as 'humanity' and understand Japanese nationality mutually, the relationship between the two countries can be improved. History of Manchuria. economy . politics . Law, and law, which are not merely made in the denomination but were made through actual fieldwork in Manchuria and China, so that new knowledge can be confirmed. The problem is that the two countries The psychological problem to be solved is itself a conflict, which is a difficult dilemma.

However, to solve the Manchurian problem, the United States warned the following. whether it is peaceful or armed,

① When Russia occupied Manchuria before 1904, Japan sacrificed a lot and repulsed Russia from Manchuria.

② China considers the 21 groups as nationalities.

③ Japan's crop fertilizer must use Manchurian soybeans.

④ 90% of the Manchurian population is Chinese.

⑤ The Yalu River is the border between China and Japan

⑥ We can not but consider the rights of Russia. All other Manchurian interests in other countries are related to general trade and finance.

(7) It is a common benefit of the world to maintain the peace of Manchuria, so it should consider the common interests rather than the individual interests of individual states.

From the emotional point of view of Manchuria and Japan, Japan's rights and Russo-Japanese war . From an economic point of view, Japanese life and Manchuria are closer than other countries. From a political point of view, no country other than China can be as great as its relationship with Japan. Manchuria is universally Japan's strategic security. National honor. The United States has taken into account the following three aspects to solve the China-Japan relationship.

① After the Russo-Japanese War, Japan does not recognize Japan's actions as justified in Manchuria, but if China does not respect Japan's position in the Russo-Japanese War, Japan will never accept it. The fundamental issue between China and Japan in Manchuria is that Japan has no intention of exchanging the Guandong Province and even the Guandong Province does not have a chance to resolve the issue, so China has to give up.

2 It is natural for China to consider the fact that Japan made the ultimatum to the 21st reform in 1915 as a national government and deny the legal effect of the 21st edition. Because of this, Japan has been suffering from prestige internationally, and Chinese people have tumors in their minds. If they do not get rid of these tumors, any kind of friendship and cooperation between the two countries will be professed and hardly effective. To solve the problem truly, China acknowledged Japan's sacrifice in the Russo-Japanese War, and Japan should admit the imperfection of 21st bargaining in 1915. Therefore, China has transferred certain rights of Guandong Province to Japan, and China has proposed to acquire specific rights on the 만철 line.

3 ③ Even if there are strict regulations in the international treaty on the Japanese sovereignty of the annexes, it is difficult for other people to recognize the Japanese consular jurisdiction, so it can not solve the dispute by legal theory alone. Considering the anger of the Chinese, it is said that the right to enjoy Japan on the twilight is based on pure commerce.

The United States proposed three solutions to this problem, taking into account all of the above issues.

1 Tokyo. Lushun (Lushun). If the responsible authorities of Dalian (Dalian) order the soldiers not to buy anti-Chinese sentiments by their miserable behavior and strive to maintain security, if the Chinese and Japanese treaties are not amended and cooperation with international organizations is not utilized, the problem can be still solved.

2 To investigate various disputes and to study the way of reconciliation, establish a committee to resolve the special disputes that are difficult to resolve by diplomatic means. It is organized as a permanent or semi-permanent unofficial committee to investigate and study the disputes between China and Japan to propose dispute resolution methods. It is also meaningful to seek peaceful solutions by appointing a fair and impartial international federation investigating committee or by negotiating with other arbitration or arbitration agencies or countries signing treaties of the nine Washington treaty conventions.

③ Discuss all the inappropriate treaties that would interfere with the exchange of diplomatic relations between the two countries, without discussing the legal effect of the present treaty.

The United States proposed to resolve the problem without stimulating mutual feelings, or to establish a permanent or semi-permanent arbitration committee or amend the treaty that would hinder bilateral relations. Among them, China recognized the sacrifice of Japan to oust Russia for the Russo-Japanese war, and Japan agreed to sign the 21st treaty with China in 1915. As a result, it would not have difficulty in revising the treaty if it admitted that it did not fit Japan's international reputation. In order to revise the treaty, it is necessary to cooperate with each other, but if there is no hope of mutual concession, Manchuria will not cease to be an area of ​​constant conflict in the future. The region that affects the fate of China is Manchuria, not Mongolia. The problem of Manchuria, which forms the national problem of China, was not only interest for China but also of America and Britain as well as Russia. But above all, China and Japan had a grinding conflict with each other. In order to solve the Manchuria problem, which is also a difficult problem for the world’s politics, it had to be discussed at the IPR conference. The question of what kind of conflict might arise from the Manchuria problem and whether such a conflict could be resolved by promoting to international relations. The issues of Manchuria does not only direct effect China, Japan, and Russia but also to the rest of the world. The whole world in general wants peace, but issues in Manchuria can potentially put world at risk. That is, the problem with serious conflict should be discussed specifically for peace and stability.

The Manchu problem, which was discussed intensely during the third IPR conference, showed how much the difference theory they have about Manchuria between Japans and China. China, which claims historical heritage in Manchuria, and Japan, which claims modern international legal order and rights, show huge difference in idea about Manchuria. We discussed the factors of Manchurian economic development, the issue of maintaining security, the basis of the treaty and the abuse of rights, but it was not easy to find a common ground on any issue. This is a natural disagreement about the solution of the Manchurian problem. Of course, there was a consensus on the composition of the permanent reconciliation committee, but China wanted disposal of 21 proposal as a precondition and everything went up in the air.

China stressed that Japan's political circle in Manchuria is unfair, and claimed that Japan was an inevitable self-defense measure. The United States and other countries emphasized the need to understand the psychology of the people of both countries. Japan said that Japan had rights because it defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War at the expense of China, and Japan's presence in Manchuria because China's military strength is weak and that the Japanese Defense Agency was needed it.

In addition to the ratification of the Treaty of Luoyang and the ratification of the Treaty of Mongolia and Japan, China ruled that Japan had no rights in Manchuria, but that it had a troop presence in other countries due to the necessity of the Japanese National Defense Agency. Manchuria has a considerable distance from the Japanese border. How can you put a military force in other countries, saying it is a military need? England . France . Germany, and Austria are all next to each other . The question is how the Japanese occupation in Manchuria is the reason for the national defense, even though the Austrian border is in dispute and there is a problem, but the British soldiers are not stationed on the French border due to the need for national defense. If the importance of Manchuria is emphasized, China and Japan are destined to face each other, but if they examine the essence of the problem calmly, Japan recognizes that there is no fundamental conflict of interest between the two countries and emphasized that the starting point of Taiwanese policy is fundamentally different. On the other hand, if Japan and China discuss the Manchuria issue on the basis of the people's living problems of both countries, China can cooperate without conflicts, and China can supply labor while Japan can supply technology, capital and management. China could not agree with this opinion of Japan.

As mentioned above, both nation is like a mighty sword that can penetrate everything versus a shield that can with stand any weapon. They had hard time coming to a conclusion about controversial arguments, but showed great effort forward. Despite the fact that it is impossible to solve the Manchuria problem in this way, it was intended to maximize the national interests of the two countries in the international society through the debate in international conference. On the other hand, the IPR and the Western powers, it was not just problem for China and Japan, but for the whole world and must participate and tackle it together through open door policy.

The Manchurian controversy did not end at the 3rd IPR, but continued in the 4th IPR conference and also at the International Federation held in China. Whenever the economic status is upgraded, the Manchurian problem became turned into another battle between the mighty sword and the unbreakable shield again. As a mighty sword and unbreakable shield battling, Manchuria is reestablishing the historical right as it utilizes the dilemma itself.