SHIH SHUN LIU
Its Rise and Its Decline
CHAPTER VI : TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION
Notes by the Author (^)
 Art. 1, Treaty of Constantinople, June 4, 1878, State Papers, vol. lxix, p. 745.
 Agreement of Aug. 14, 1878, ibid., p. 769.
 State Papers, vol. lxix, p. 724.
 Ibid., vol. lxx, p. 661.
 Ibid., vol. xciv, p. 838.
 The measure taken by the British Government to assume jurisdiction over all foreigners in Cyprus was adversely criticized by some writers at the time. An article in The Law Magazine and Review, 4th ser., vol. iv, declared that "wheresoever throughout the Ottoman Empire the Capitulations have not been 'totidem verbis,' suspended or abrogated, there they are still in force. And for Great Britain to assume the opposite would be, apart from the grave questions of Law and Fact, a very ungracious return towards at least one of her nearest neighbors on the Continent" (p. 139). M. Esperson, in an article in the Révue de droit international, vol. x, pp. 587-593, also maintained that the island of Cyprus was still an integral part of the Ottoman Empire even after the British occupation and that as such the Capitulations continued to be in force there.
 Art. 25, Treaty of Berlin, July 13, 1878, State Papers, vol. lxix, p. 758.
 J. Trigant-Geneste, "Le Droit international privé en Bosnie et Herzégovine," Journal du droit international privé (hereafter referred to as J. D. I. P.), vol. xviii, p. 783.
 State Papers, vol. xciv, p. 838.
 Ibid., vol. lxxiii, pp. 643, 644.
 See United States Foreign Relations, 1900, pp. 382, 390.
 Ibid., p. 389.
 China Weekly Review, vol. xxvii, p. 384.
 China Weekly Review, vol. xxvii, pp. 384-385.
 The words in brackets are from the correct version of the provision cited. Cf. MacMurray, Treaties, vol. ii, 1915/8, p. 1220; also China, Maritime Treaties, vol. ii, p. 791.
 China Weekly Review, loc cit., p. 384.
 The case of France was not treated of by the Solicitor’s Memorandum. It may be pointed out that in the treaty of 1898, leasing Kwanchow Wan to France, it was likewise provided: "The territory shall be governed and administered during the 99 years of the lease by France alone." Art. 3, MacMurray, op. cit., vol. i, 1898/10, p. 129.
 The treaty of March 27, 1898, leasing Port Arthur and Dairen to Russia provided: "In the event of a Chinese subject committing any crime within the limits of the leased territory, the offender will be handed over to the nearest Chinese authorities for trial and punishment in accordance with Chinese laws, as laid down in Article VIII of the Treaty of Peking of 1860." Art. 4, MacMurray, op. cit., vol. i, p. 120 (1898/5). In his dispatch to Mr. Hay, dated Dec. 11, 1998, Mr. Conger, American Minister at Peking, reported: "The Russian legation informs me that that provision [cited above] is not correctly translated, and that construing it in connection with Article VIII of the treaty of 1860 they have the right and do try Chinese for crimes against Russians." U.S. Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 385. Reference to the Chinese version fails to reveal where the inaccuracy of translation occurs. See China, Maritime Treaties, vol. i, p. 220. The Russian claim to try crimes committed by Chinese against Russians, if it was made, rested on a questionable ground, since it is expressly provided by the article cited that Chinese criminals should be sent to the nearest Chinese authorities for trial and punishment. Even construing it with article 8 of the treaty of 1860, one can hardly reconcile the Russian claim to the actual grant. The reference to article 8 of the treaty of 1860 was directed apparently to that particular portion of the article which stipulated for the rendition of Russians guilty of grave crimes in China to Russia for trial and punishment. What was meant was that the procedure to be followed in the sending of Chinese criminals from the Russian leasehold to the nearest Chinese authorities should be the same as in the sending of Russian criminals to Russia, hence the phrase "as laid down in Article VIII of the Treaty of Peking of 1860." See China, Maritime Treaties, vol. i, p. 106. Leaving aside this point, we find further that this article 8 of the Treaty of Peking made express provision against the trial, punishment and imprisonment by either party of persons not its subjects in any criminal case whatever. "En cas de crime, quelle qu'en soit la gravité, le Consul et le chef local ne peuvent prendre les mesures nécessaires que relativement au coupable appartenant à leur pays, et ni l'un ni l'autre n'a le droit d'incarcérer ni de juger séparément, et encore moins de châtier un individu non-sujet de son Gouvernement." Ibid. It appears, therefore, to be difficult, if not impossible, to justify the assumption by Russia of jurisdiction over Chinese criminals in Port Arthur and Dairen on any legal ground. Outside of such jurisdiction over Chinese criminals, however, the Russian Government was given complete administrative authority in the leased territory. To quote from another part of the same article of the treaty of May 27, 1898, cited above: "During the above-specified period, on the territory leased by the Russian Government and its adjacent water area, the entire military command of the land and naval forces and equally the supreme civil administration will be entirely given over to the Russian authorities." MacMurray, vol. i. p. 120. From this, it is clear that complete jurisdiction was ceded to Russia in the leased territory, except over Chinese criminals. Even in their case, as the treaty provided, they should simply be withdrawn from the Russian jurisdiction there, and sent to the nearest Chinese authorities for trial and punishment, the Chinese Government asserting no jurisdiction in Port Arthur and Dairen.
 MacMurray, op. cit., vol. ii. 1915/8, p. 1220.
 See Wright, "Sovereignty of the Mandates," A.J.I.L., vol. xvii, pp. 601-703; Rougier, "La Premiére Assemblée de la Société des Nations," (ch. x, Les Mandats), Révue générale de droit international public (hereafter referred to as R. G. D. I. P.), vol. xxviii, p. 333; Pic, "Le Régime du Mandat d'après le Traité de Versailles," (ii. Charactères Juridiques du Mandat), ibid., vol. xxx, p. 330.
 See the preambles to the articles of the mandates, League of Nations, Official Journal, 1922, no. 8, pt. ii, pp. 1007, 1013; 1924, no. 10, p. 1346.
 Before the conclusion of the unratified Treaty of Sèvres, Aug. 10, 1920, these areas were conquered territories under the de facto control of Great Britain and France. The Treaty of Sèvres recognized the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, but entrusted the selection of the Mandatories over them as well as over Palestine to the Principal Allied Powers. Arts. 94 and 95, Great Britain, Treaty Series, no. 11 (1920). p. 26. By the Treaty of Lausanne, July 24, 1923, Turkey renounced "all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories" situated outside her frontiers. Art. 16, ibid., no. 16 (1923), p. 21.
 Art. 1, League of Nations, Official Journal, 1922, no. 8, pt. ii, p. 1007.
 Art. 9, ibid., p. 1008.
 Art. 1, ibid., p. 1013.
 Art. 6, ibid., p. 1014.
 Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1922 [Cmd. 1757], Iraq, Treaty with King Feisal.
 Art. 9, ibid., p. 4.
 League of Nations, Official Journal, 1922, no. 8, pt. ii, p. 825.
 Ibid., 1923, no. 10, p. 1217.
 Ibid., 1924, no. 10, pp. 1346-1347.
 Palestine, art. 8, "The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefit of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine. Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the aforementioned privileges and immunities on August first, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specific period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately reestablished in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned." Ibid., 1922, no. 8, pt. ii, p. 1008. Art. 5 of the mandate for Syria and the Lebanon was to the same effect, ibid., p. 1014. The Council of the League, in approving the articles of the mandate for Iraq, decided upon the non-application of the Capitulations in that country "as long as the Treaty of Alliance [between Great Britain and Iraq] is in force." Ibid., 1924, no. 10, p. 1347.
 Great Britain, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1922, no. 1282, art. 58, 60-64.
 See Report on Palestine Administration, 1923, p. 19.
 Arts. 2 & 4, Great Britain, Parl. Pap., 1924 [Cmd. 2120], Iraq.