¹ In reviewing the extremely voluminous literature on the subject in relation to recently released archival material the author has cited only the most relevant and useful works. Far and away the best books on the topic remain Hall's, H. DuncanMandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship (Washington:Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1948)Google Scholar; and Wright's, QuincyMandates under the League of Nations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930)Google Scholar. Empire by Mandate: A History of the Relations of Great Britain with the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations (New York: Bookman Associates, 1954)Google Scholar, by Upthegrove, Campbell L., is an uncritical, territory-by-territory account of the United Kingdom's relations with the Permanent Mandates Commission, but it is nevertheless useful. Other works that remain especially valuable are by Freda White, Mandates(London: J. Cape, 1926)Google Scholar; Stoyanovsky, J., La Theorie Ginirale des Mandats Internationaux (Paris: Presses Universities de France, 1925)Google Scholar; Rees, D. F. W. van, Les Mandats Internationaux(2 vols.; Paris: Librairie Arthur Rousseau, 1927)Google Scholar; Maanen-Helmer, Elizabeth van, The Mandates System in relation to Africa and the Pacific Islands (London: P. S. King, 1929)Google Scholar; and Margalith, Aaron M., The International Mandates, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, New Series, 8 (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press, 1930). For the administration of the mandates in tropical Africa (with the exception of Ruanda-Urundi)Google Scholar see Buell, Raymond Leslie, The Native Problem in Africa(2 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1928)Google Scholar. For a succinct official summary of the history of the first decade of the system see Ten Years of World Co-operation (London: League of Nations Secretariat, 1930), Chapter X. For a short bibliographical essay discussing the founding of the mandates system and the trends of historical interpretation of the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission see Winks, Robin W. (ed.), The Historiography of the British Empire-Commonwealth: Trends, Interpretations and Resources (Durham, N.C: Duke University Press, 1966), pp. 296–311Google Scholar.

² Rappard's, William E. introduction to Gcrig, Benjamin, The Open Door and the Mandates System:A Study of Economic Equality before and since the establishment of the Mandates System (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1930), p. 11Google Scholar.

³ The best work on this subject is by Murray, James N. Jr, The United Nations Trusteeship System, Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, No. 40 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

⁴ “I leave it to lawyers to say where the ‘sovereignty’ will in any case reside.” See the memorandum by Milner, Lord (Colonial Secretary), “Mandates” Secret, WCP–211, 03 8, 1919Google Scholar (CAB 29/9/1). (All CAB, FO, and CO classifications refer to documents at the Public Record Office, London.) For questions of sovereignty and nationality see especially two articles by Quincy Wright, “Sovereignty of the Mandates,” American Journal of International Law, 10 1923 (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 691–703Google Scholar, and “Status of the Inhabitants of Mandated Territory,” ibid., April 1924 (Vol. 18, No. 2), pp. 306–315. Also see Hales, James C., “Some Legal Aspects of die Mandate System: Sovereignty—Nationality— Termination and Transfer,” Transactions of the Grotius Society London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1938). Vol. 38, pp. 85–126Google Scholar.

⁵ Minute by H. J. Read, March 5, 1919 (FO 608/242).

⁶ Minute by Charles Strachey, March 5, 1919 (FO 608/242). See also various minutes by the legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Sir Hurst, Cecil J. B., who wrote: “The idea of a flag for the League of Nations would tend to strengthen die idea that the League was a supra State, an idea which would endanger its existence.” (03 6, 1919 [FO 608/242].Google Scholar)

⁷ Two years later, however, the nationality question became controversial. It will be discussed below in relation to South West Africa.

⁸ See the full correspondence on this point in CAB 24/94 and CAB 24/97.

⁹ League of Nations, Official Journal, 09 1920 (Vol. I, No. 6), pp. 336–337Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Quoted in Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 06 27, 1924 (Vol. 72, No. 3736), p. 550Google Scholar. For the mandates question in relation to Germany see especially Schmokel, Wolfe W., Dream of Empire: German Colonialism, 1919–1945 (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Lord Liverpool to Milner, Urgent, August 23, 1919 (CAB 24/94). The reason for the urgency was the unrest in Samoa. For an outstanding discussion of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and other points of British Empire law in historical perspective see Palley, Claire, The Constitutional History and Law of Southern Rhodesia, 1888–1965, with Special Reference to Imperial Control (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

¹² Lord Buxton to Milner, quoting J. C. Smuts, Private and Personal telegram (paraphrase), November 15, 1919 (CAB 24/94).

¹³ Milner to Liverpool, “Telegram Citing Law Officers’ Opinion” (paraphrase), February 3, 1920 (CAB 24/97).

¹⁴ For the procedure of conferring the C mandates see especially Boyd, Mary, “New Zealand's Attitude to Dominion Status—1919–1921: The Procedure for enacting a constitution in her Samoan Mandate,” Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, 03 1965 (Vol. 3, No. 1), pp. 64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ William Hughes to David Lloyd George, Secret and Confidential telegram, September 26, 1919 (CAB 24/94). The Australian attitude toward the mandates is well discussed by L. F. Fitzhardinge, “W. M. Hughes and the Treaty of Versailles, 1919” (typescript seminar paper, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, March 1964). See also Heydon, Peter, Quiet Decision: A Study of George Foster Pearce (Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; and Piesse, E. L., “Japan and Australia,” Foreign Affairs, 04 1926 (Vol. 4, No. 3), pp. 475–488Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Minute by Sir Eyre Crowe, September 8, 1921 (FO 371/7051). The unpublished Foreign Office documents provide interesting reading for those concerned with the charge made repeatedly in the 1920's and 1930's that die C mandates were “veiled annexations.” One of the best discussions of this point is by Evans, Luther Harris, “Are ‘C Mandates Veiled Annexations?,” Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly, 03 1927 (Vol. 7), pp. 381–400Google Scholar. For die opposite view see, for example, Gibbons, Herbert Adams, “The Defects of the System of Mandates,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 07 1921 (Vol. 96, No. 185), pp. 84–90Google Scholar.

¹⁷ The purpose of die Mandates Commission was to draft die mandates and to study die problems involved in establishing die Permanent Mandates Commission. The best discussion of die Commission's work is in die dissenting opinion of Judge Jessup, Philip C. in South West Africa Cases, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, pp. 356 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Governor-General of Australia to Colonial Secretary (paraphrase copy), November 15, 1920 (FO371/4787).

¹⁹ Lord Curzon to Sir Charles Eliot (Tokyo), No. 266, July 7, 1920 (FO 371/4766).

²⁰ Gerald Spicer (reporting for the British Empire delegation at Geneva) to die Foreign Office, December 16, 1920 (FO 371/4768).

²¹ The C mandates were then confirmed by the Council of the League and the mandates entered into force on December 17, 1920. The publicists who concerned diem selves with the issue at the time were well aware of the causes of the delay. See especially Batty, T., “Protectorates and Mandates,” in British Year Book of International Law, 1921–22 (London: British Institute of International Affairs, 1922), pp. 109—121Google Scholar.

²² See Crowley, James B., Japan's Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy, 1930–1938 (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 27et passimGoogle Scholar.

²³ Nation, 09 6, 1919 (Vol. 109, No. 2827), p. 328Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁴ See especially Foreign Office memorandum circulated by Curzon to the Cabinet, “The United States and Mandates,” dated July 1921 (FO 371/7050).

²⁵ The best discussion on the Yap negotiations remains that by Harold, and Sprout, Margaret, Toward a New Order of Sea Power: American Naval Policy and the World Scene, 1918–1922 (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1940), pp. 91–93et passimGoogle Scholar; see also Griswold, A. Whitney, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1938), pp. 264 ffGoogle Scholar; and Blakeslee, George H., “The Mandates of the Pacific,” Foreign Affairs, 09 15, 1922 (Vol. 1, No. 1), pp. 98–115Google Scholar . The published documentary source is Department of State, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1921 (2 vols.; Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936), Vol. 2, pp. 263–287Google Scholar; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1922 (2 vols.; Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1938), Vol. 2, pp. 599–604Google Scholar.

²⁶ “Foreign Office Memorandum on Effects of Anglo-Japanese Alliance upon Foreign Relations” (FO 371/3816, February 28, 1920), in Woodward, E. L. and Butler, Rohan (ed.), Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939 (First series, 12 vols.; London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1956), Vol.6, p. 1017Google Scholar.

²⁷ John Tilley to Beilby Alston (Tokyo), Private and Confidential (copy), December 11, 1919 (FO 371/3816). Cf. Buder, Woodward and (ed.), Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, First series, Vol. 6, p. 880Google Scholar.

²⁸ Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, First series, Vol. 6, p. 1017Google Scholar.

²⁹ Alston to Tilley, Private and Secret, October 7, 1919 (FO 371/3816). Cf. Documents on British Foreign Policy, First series, Vol. 6, pp. 761—765Google Scholar.

³⁰ For the point of view of the League and the Western powers on this matter see especially Hall, passim. The principal accusation of Japan's violation of the mandate is by a former official in the mandates section of the League Secretariat, Gilchrist, Huntington, “The Japanese Islands: Annexation or Trusteeship?,” Foreign Affairs, 07 1944 (Vol. 22, No. 4), pp. 635–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He writes: “The character of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour is clinching evidence that she had set up bases in the islands. Her gross violation of the terms of the mandate amply justifies its termination.” (P. 640.)

³¹ For a perceptive discussion of these points see May nard Swanson, W., “South West Africa in Trust, 1915–39,” in Imperial Rivalry and Colonial Rule: Britain and Germany in Africa, ed. by Gifford, Prosser and Louis, W. R. (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1967), Chapter 21Google Scholar. Professor Swanson also deals at length with the Bondelzwarts uprising of 1922 which is not discussed here because the British government was not directly involved. For the trusteeship theme and South West Africa in the inter war years see also Bradford, Robert L., “The Origin of the League of Nations'Class ‘C’ Mandate for South West Africa and Fulfillment of the Sacred Trust, 1919–1939” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1965)Google Scholar.

³² League of Nations, Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes (2nd session), August I–II, 1922, Annex 6, p. 92. (League of Nations Document No. A. 35. 1922. VI.)

³³ The A mandates recognized the nationality or local citizenship of the inhabitants. See “National Status of the Inhabitants of die Territories under B and C Mandates” (League of Nations Document C. 546. 1922. VI); and League of Nations, Official Journal, 06 1923 (Vol. 4, No. 6), p. 604Google ScholarPubMed. For summary and references see Hall, p. 78.

³⁴ Minutes of an interdepartmental meeting held at the Colonial Office, October 28, 1921 (CO 732/5).

³⁵ See minutes of interdepartmental meeting held at the Colonial Office, November 23, 1921, attended by members of a subcommittee of the Permanent Mandates Commission (CO 649/23).

³⁶ The question was important because treason in the Roman–Dutch law of South Africa could be committed only against a sovereign power. In 1924 the supreme court of South Africa ruled that the mandatory government possessed sufficient sovereignty “to justify the obligation of allegiance by the inhabitants of the [mandated] territory.” Bentwich, Norman, The Mandates System (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1930), p. 127Google Scholar. See also Mathews, E. L., “International Status of Mandatory of League of Nations: High Treason against Mandatory Authority,” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 11 1924 (Third Series, Vol. 6, Part 4), pp. 245–250Google Scholar.

³⁷ League of Nations, Official Journal, 06 1923 (Vol. 4, No. 6), pp. 603–604Google Scholar; discussed at length by Wright, , Mandates under the League of Nations, pp. 522–529Google Scholar. Only about 250 persons filed declarations declining naturalization while 2,900 automatically became South African citizens. See Report of the Administrator of South–West Africa for the Year 1924 (League of Nations Document C. 452. M. 168. 1925. VI).

³⁸ Memorandum by Hurst, “‘B’ and ‘C’ Mandates,” July 20, 1920 (FO 371/4767). Chapter 3 of Birdsall's, PaulVersailles Twenty Years After (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941) remains a useful commentary on this pointGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Minute by A. J. Harding, January 26, 1920 (CO 649/21).

⁴⁰ Minute by L. S. Amery, February 2, 1920 (CO 640/21).

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Minute by E. S. Machtig, January 16, 1920 (CO 649/21).

⁴³ Memorandum by the General Staff, “External Employment of Troops Raised in Mandatory Territory,” December 22, 1920 (CAB 24/117). There has been almost nothing of substance written about colonial manpower in relation to European security, but see Fieldhouse, D. K., The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the Eighteenth Century (London: Weidenfield & Nicholson, 1966), p. 272Google Scholaret passim.

⁴⁴ Text of agreement and lengthy minutes in CO 649/21.

⁴⁵ Minute by Lord Milner, November 26, 1919 (CO 649/21).

⁴⁶ Minute by A. J. Harding, November 18, 1919 (CO 649/18).

⁴⁷ Quoted in “The Mandate System and the British Mandates,” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 06 27, 1924 (Vol. 72, No. 3736), p. 548Google Scholar. For this theme in relation to die Middle East see especially Cumming, Henry H., Franco–British Rivalry in the Post–West Near East: The Decline of French Influence (London: Oxford University Press, 1938)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ The American insistence on this point led to a long series of agreements negotiated by the United States and each of the mandatory powers concerning almost all of the mandated territories. See Batsell, Walter Russel, “The United States and the System of Mandates,” International Conciliation, 10 1925 (No. 213), pp. 269–315Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “The United States and the Mandates,” Michigan Law Review, 05 1925 (Vol. 23, No. 7), pp. 717–747Google Scholar; Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations, passim; for basic chronology see Hall, pp. 136–143. The United States continued to be critical of European administration of die mandates, especially those under British control. For one of the most biting British responses to the American attitude see Perham, Margery, “African Facts and American Criticisms,” Foreign Affairs, 04 1944 (Vol. 22, No. 3), pp. 444–457Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Minute by A. J. Harding, November 26, 1920 (CO 640/21).

⁵⁰ Hurst to the British Foreign Office, December 16, 1920 (CAB 24/117).

⁵¹ E. J. Harding to the British Colonial Office, September 23, 1921 (CO 640/23).

⁵² Minute by Hurst, June 4, 1921 (FO 371/7050).

⁵³ Foreign Office memorandum, “The United States and the Mandates,” dated July 1921 (FO 371/7050).

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ These negotiations are traced in lucid detail by DeNovo, John A., American Interests and Policies in the Middle East, 1900–1939 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963), Chapter 6Google Scholar. See also Monroe, Elizabeth, Britain's Moment in the Middle East, 1914–1956 (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), Chapter 4Google Scholar; and Earle, Edward Mead, “The Turkish Petroleum Company—A Study in Oleaginous Diplomacy,” Political Science Quarterly, 06 1924 (Vol. 39, No. 2), pp. 265–279Google Scholar. The American documentary source on this issue is Foreign Relations of the United States, 1920(3 vols.; Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936), Vol. 2, pp. 649–674Google Scholar; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1921, Vol. 2, pp. 71–123Google Scholar; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1922, Vol. 2, pp. 333–352Google Scholar; and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1923 (2 vols.; Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1938), Vol. 2, pp. 240–264Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Memorandum by Balfour, “Respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia,” August n, 1919 (FO 406/41).

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ See Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (13 vols.; Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942–1947), Vol. 12Google Scholar. The work of the Commission is treated fully by Howard, Harry N., The King–Crane Commission: An American Inquiry in the Middle East (Beirut: Khayats, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Balfour's comment at an interdepartmental conference held at the House of Commons, “Secret,” CP 2604, February 17, 1921 (CAB 24/120).

⁶¹ “Provisional Minutes of a Private Meeting of the Council of the League of Nations held at St. James's Palace,” Confidential, CP 4114, July 19, 1922 (CAB 24/138). Cf. the minutes of the nineteenth session of the Council in League of Nations, Official Journal, 08 1922 (Vol. 3, No. 8, Part 2), p. 801Google Scholar.

⁶² League of Nations, Official Journal, 08 1922 (Vol. 3, No. 8, Part II), p. 825Google Scholar.

⁶³ See the correspondence in FO 371/7053; also minutes in FO 371/7051.

⁶⁴ Churchill to Balfour, October 12, 1921 (FO 371/7053). Meinertzhagen, Richard, Middle East Diary, 1917–1956 (London: Cresset Press, 1959) has several illuminating comments in this regardGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Memorandum by Balfour (FO 406/41).

⁶⁶ See Montagu's, E. S. memorandum, “Ireland,” Secret, 11 10, 1920 (CP 2084). For Montagu's views on Egypt in this connection see especially his memorandum entitled “Egypt,” Secret, CP 2000, October 19, 1920 (CAB 24/112)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Memorandum by Curzon, , “The Egyptian Situation,” Confidential, CP 2589, 02 14, 1921 (CAB 24/119)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ The text is printed in Wright's, Mandates under the League of Nations, pp. 595–600Google Scholar. In this connection see two articles by Evans, Luther Harris, “The Emancipation of Iraq from the Mandates System,” American Political Science Review, 12 1932 (Vol. 26, No. 6), pp. 1024–1049Google Scholar; and “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate,” American Journal of International Law, 10 1932 (Vol. 26, No. 4), pp. 735–758Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Minute by Hurst, January 13, 1922 (FO 371/7775).

⁷⁰ There are numerous minutes about this in the Foreign Office files of which the following is a good example. After a visit to London by a subcommittee of the Permanent Mandates Commission chaired by Rappard, Hurst wrote:

the sub-committee were very pleased with the reception which they have had in London and with the efforts of [the] British Government to meet them and help them in every way. In Paris, on the odier hand, the sub-committee was not well received, and the officials whom they met adopted an air of resentment at the intrusion of the Mandates Commission….

(Minute by Hurst, November 23, 1921 [FO 371/1053]). There are numerous letters by Rappard in the papers of die Antislavery and Aborigines Protection Society (Rhodes House, Oxford) that discuss the difficulties of die establishment of the mandates system from die League's point of view, and the recurrent dieme in diem is gratitude for British cooperation. For Rappard's views on die beginning of the mandates system see Rappard, William E., International Relations as Viewed from Geneva (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1925), Chapter 2Google Scholar.

⁷¹ “Conference of Representatives of H.M. Government, the British Dominions and India,” minutes, Secret, November 9, 1920 (CAB 29/28/2).

⁷² Ibid. Italics mine. The British government thus held that die League's power of intervention was much more severely limited dian did die American colonial expert, Beer, George Louis, who wrote diat “what sharply distinguishes die Mandatory System from all such international arrangements of the past is die unqualified right of intervention possessed by die League of Nations.” Temperley, H. W. V. (ed.), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (6 vols.; London: H. Frowde, Hodder & Stoughton, 1920), Vol. 2, p. 236Google Scholar. An eminent authority on British constitutional law at the time, Professor Berriedale Keith, much more accurately held:

The true mode of securing die just carrying out of the system lies in bringing to bear on any abuses die public opinion of die League, and especially of die country whose methods are pronounced faulty.

(“Mandates,” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 02 1922 [Third Series, Vol. 4, No. 1], p. 80Google Scholar.)

⁷³ Balfour to Secretary to the Cabinet, Confidential, May 17, 1922 (FO 371/7776).

⁷⁴ Eastern Committee Minutes, Secret, December 5, 1918 (CAB 27/24); Louis, Wm. Roger, Germany's host Colonies, 1914–1919 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 6Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Webster, C. K., The League of Nations in Theory and Practice (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1933). P. 290Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Gerig, p. 199.

⁷⁷ Austen, Ralph A., “African Territories under French and British Mandate,” in Gifford, Prosser and Louis, Wm. Roger (ed.), France and Britain in Africa: Imperial Rivalry and Colonial Rule (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, in press)Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Emerson, Rupert, “American Policy Toward Pacific Dependencies,” in Rupert Emerson and others, America's Pacific Dependencies: A Survey of American Colonial Policies and of Administration and Progress toward Self–Rule in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa and the Trust Territory (New York: American Institute of Pacific Relations, 1949), p. 9Google Scholar. See also McDonald, A. Hugh (ed.), Trusteeship in the Pacific (Sydney: Angus and Robertson [for the Australian Institute of International Affairs and the Institute of Pacific Relations], 1949Google Scholar).

⁷⁹ Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Parts Peace Conference, 1919, Vol. 3, pp. 740–742Google Scholar.