The first baptism of the law of nations to the Japanese officials was given by the first US Consul-General in Japan, Harris. When negotiating the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of Shogunate, he invoked the law of nations a lot. the law of nations was no only unfamiliar to them but also they were alarmed by the warning that its precept was the essential prerequisite for Japan to join the community of civilized nations. Hence, the study and understanding of the law of nations became urgently essential to them.
Barely by the end of 1850s, through a series of treaties of commerce and with some of the treaty powers, was the opening of japan complete. The Bakufu officials of necessity came to acquire some fragmentary knowledge of international law through this process of negotiations. Particularly it was in this process of learning and understanding the essence of the law of nations that the Japanese scholars paid attention to the nature and philosophical basis of this precept.
The teaching of international law introduced to Japan at that time was under what can be described as dominant influence of the naturalist doctrine of the Grotian tradition. Under this situation, these scholars tried to comprehend the law of nations as taught to them by comparing ot to what they had previously known in their learning, since they had been brought up in the neo-Confucian tradition. In particular, they tried to assimilate the basic rules of conduct for states since they were expected to observed it in their mutual relationship as they were now a member of this community of civilized nations with their neo-Confucian concept of the principles of the universe which were also termed in their learning as the basic principles of conduct for individuals in their relations as individuals in society. Hence they came to associate the Western law of nations with the Confucian principles by referring to it as koho or kodo which means public law or public principles respectively.
EXPERIENCE OF ASIA WITH INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION
Over some thirty years on long and painful negotiations, the dream to get rid of these unequal treaties was realized towards the end of the nineteenth century. Against this background, Japan acting under the new treaties, which inter alia abolished extraterritoriality that the Treaty Powers had been enjoying under the old treaties, tried to levy a new house tax upon the nationals of these Treaty powers, who were basically residents in Yokohama on the basis of a perpetual lease granted to them under the new treaties. When Great Britain, France and Germany, which were treaty powers, lodged their protest to the Meiji Government due to the imposition of the house tax upon their nationals which was a violation of some certain provisions in the new revised treaties, Japan proposed to them that they should submit this dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration which had been just established by the First Hague Peace Conference of 1889. Enthusiasm in welcoming this submission to the international adjudication was the prevailing opinion among intellectuals in Japan. In fact, the public opinion was so enthusiastic in embracing this system of international arbitration that had just been created by the First Hague Peace Conference such that a lot of people in Japan had advocated that Japan should be the first in the whole world to appear before this international tribunal by making sure they submit this case. This came to be known as the Yokohama House Tax case to this new Permanent Court of Arbitration. Many people in Japan were convinced that such a step would be in relation with the fact that Japan had adopted that the international law should be the guiding principle to lead Japan in her involvement within the community of civilized nations.
Contrary to their conviction in the justice in their case, the ruling was given in favor of the three treaty powers. The Japanese people were really stunned by this final outcome of the arbitration, including government officials as well as scholars. This was because Japan did not have any doubt that her case would be upheld by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It had never occurred to those intellectuals that their case could in certain aspects have weaknesses from a purely legal point of view. The loss of Japan in that case gad two macro repercussions both of which would exert a negative impact on the course of Japan in relation to the international adjudication.
First, it kindled the suspicion that the West after all was no really interested in Japan on a equal and fair ground. Particularly through the experience if the course of negotiations for the reconsidering of unequal treaties, a growing apprehension was there that under the name of law and justice, the Western Powers were trying to swindle Japan. This unfortunate outcome of the case turned the suspicion into a conviction that the West was against the East on racial grounds or due to other grounds of civilization character hence they were conspiring against the just interests of Japan.
The second repercussion was that it drew to the minds of the Japanese people that the international law was not really body of principles based on natural justice which the East would share mutually with the West, but a collection of technical rules devise by the West in favor of their interest and which could be manipulated to their advantage.