JJACKSON-VANICK AMENDMENT, 1975.Amendment to the United States’ Trade Law, acceptedby the US Congress in 1975, denying most-favored-nation status to all countries that did not permit freeemigration. It was aimed at the USSR, which restrictedthe emigration of Jews. Senator H. Jackson and Con-gressman Vanick were its initiators.

US Congressional Record, 1975.

JACOBITE CHURCH. Monophysite Christianchurch, a national church of Syria, also known as theSyrian-Jacobite church, formed in the fifth century. Itsliturgical idioms are ancient Syriac and Persian. It isheaded by a patriarch with a seat in the Convent ofSan Marco in Jerusalem (previously in the Convent ofZafran, near Baghdad). In the early seventeenth cen-tury some adherents joined Rome.

J. D. ATTWATER,The Christian Churches of the East, Lon-don, 1948; K. PARRY, S. H.GRIFFITH, andD. BRADY (eds.),TheBlackwell Dictionary of EasternChristianity, Oxford, 1999.

JAGDFLUGZEUG. �Eurofighter.

JAMAICA. Member of the UN since 18 September1962. Caribbean state on the island of Jamaica. Area:10,991 sq km. Population: 2,655,636 (UN Secretariatestimate for 2001). Capital: Kingston, with 655,000inhabitants. Official language: English. GDPper capita(2000 estimate): US $3,700. Currency: 1 Jamaican dol-lar� 100 cents. National day: 6 August (independenceday, 1962).

Member of the Commonwealth, OAS, CARICOM,NAM, G-15, G-19, G-77, ECLAC, IBRD; signatoryof the Tlatelolco Treaty. ACP state of EC.

1189

International relations: Jamaica was a Spanish col-ony from 1509 to 1655 and a British colony in1655–1958. It was granted internal self-government in1959 and became fully independent within the Com-monwealth on 6 August 1962. It was a member ofthe Federation of the West Indies in 1958–1961 (thefederation was dissolved in May 1962). In October1983 Jamaican troops participated in the invasion ofGrenada led by the United States and took part in thetraining of the new Grenadian police force. Jamaica’srelations with Cuba, which were severed in October1981, were restored in 1990, and in February 1994 thetwo countries reached agreement on the delimitationof their maritime border.

G. BACKFORD and M. WITTER,Small Garden Bitter Weed:The Political Struggle and Change in Jamaica, London, 1982;Bibliography of Jamaica 1900–1963, Kingston, 1963; C. V.BLACK, History of Jamaica, London, 1965; CIA,World Fact-book, 2001; R. DELATTRE,A Guide to Jamaica: ReferenceMaterial, Kingston, 1965;Europa World Yearbook, 1997; B.FLOYD, Jamaica: An Island Microcosm, London, 1974; S. J.HURWITZ, Jamaica: A Historical Portrait, London, 1972; O.JEFFERSON,The Postwar Economic Development of Jamaica,Kingston, 1972; A. KUPER,Changing Jamaica, London, 1975;A. J. MAYNE, Politics in Jamaica, rev. ed., London, 1995;M. SHELLER, Democracy after Slavery: Black Publics andPeasant Radicalism in Haiti and Jamaica, Gainesville, 2001;C. STONE,Democracy and Clientalism in Jamaica, London,1981;World Almanac, 2002.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. Territory in northwest-ern India, subject of a dispute between India and Paki-stan. It has borders with Pakistan and China. Area:222,236 sq km. Capital: Srinagar.

Under the scheme of partition of the Indian subcon-tinent into India and Pakistan set out in the Indian Inde-pendence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede

JAMMU AND KASHMIR

to India or Pakistan. On 28 October 1947, the Hindumaharajah of Kashmir acceded to India, although thepopulation of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim. On9 November 1947 India assumed administrative con-trol over the area, which became the sate of Jammu andKashmir, but Pakistan refused to recognize Kashmir’saccession to India. Muslim Kashmiri irregulars seizedcontrol of approximately 83,200 sq km in the mostlymountainous northern and western portion of Kashmir,which became known as Azad Kashmir.

On 1 January 1948 India brought the situation inKashmir before the UNSecurity Council, claiming thatPakistan was aiding the Azad Kashmir forces. On 20January the Council adopted a resolution (S/654) pro-viding for a three-member commission to look into thesituation. In written communications addressed to theCouncil, India and Pakistan recorded agreement inprinciple on the desirability of a plebiscite to determinethe accession of the Jammu and Kashmir to India orto Pakistan. A UN Commission for India and Pakistan(UNCIP), composed of representatives of Argentina,Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, and the UnitedStates, entrusted with placing its good offices and me-diation at the disposal of the two sides, was establishedon 21 April, by Council Res. S/726. Meanwhile Paki-stani troops had been moved to Azad Kashmir, andIndian troops to the remaining part of the region. Aftera visit, the commission adopted a resolution on 13 Au-gust 1948 calling for a cease-fire, a truce agreement,a reaffirmation by the parties of their wish that thefuture status of Jammu and Kashmir be determined byan unfettered plebiscite, and an agreement to consultwith the commission to determine the conditions forsuch a plebiscite. The adoption of the resolution didnot put an end to the fighting; each side accused theother of strengthening its troops in the disputed area.Hostilities were suspended on 1 January 1949, and on5 January UNCIP adopted a resolution. Operativeparagraphs 1 and 2 read as follows.

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammuand Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided throughthe democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;2. A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by

the Commission that the ceasefire and truce arrangementsset forth in parts I and II of the Commission’s resolutionof August 13, 1948 have been carried out and arrange-ments for the plebiscite have been completed.

Paragraph 3 provided for the nomination of a plebi-scite administrator, to be formally appointed by thegovernment of Jammu and Kashmir. Paragraph 4 dealtwith the withdrawal of Pakistani armed forces and ar-rangements for the final disposal of the armed forcesof India and Jammu and Kashmir. Paragraph 6 pro-

1190

vided for the return of refugees; it also stated that “allpersons (other than citizens of the State) who on orsince 15 August 1947 have entered it for other thanlawful purposes, shall be required to leave the State.”Paragraphs 7–9 contained provisions designed to en-sure that the plebiscite would indeed be free.

At the end of April 1949, UNCIP submitted detailedtruce proposals to the governments of India and Paki-stan and requested their unreserved acceptance, butneither India nor Pakistan complied. The military rep-resentatives of the two countries held a meeting in Ka-rachi in July 1949 under the auspices of a UN trucesubcommittee; it resulted in the signing of the KarachiAgreement establishing a cease-fire line, as a comple-ment to the suspension of hostilities in Jammu andKashmir on 1 January; the cease-fire line, which wasdemarcated pursuant to the agreement, was placedunder the supervision of UN observers (the first grouphad arrived in the area at the end of January). But theprime ministers of the two countries, at a meeting on14–24 July 1949, failed to agree on an exact date forthe plebiscite, and further efforts by UNCIP to recon-cile the positions of India and Pakistan proved unsuc-cessful. In December 1949, UNCIP informed the Secu-rity Council that no substantial progress could beachieved with regard to the demilitarization of JammuandKashmir and the fulfilment of conditions necessaryfor the pllebiscite. In line with a suggestion by UNCIP,the Security Council decided in March 1950 that a UNrepresentative for India and Pakistan be appointed; theappointment was made in April, and this was followedby the acceptance by India and Pakistan of the transferto the UN representative of the powers and responsibil-ities of UNCIP.

In September 1950 the UN special representativereported to the Security Council that he had made noprogress in the demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmiror in preparations for the plebiscite. He also reportedthat that he had tried to negotiate a settlement involvinga partition of Jammu and Kashmir, either outright orin combination with a partial plebiscite limited to anarea that would include the vale of Kashmir. The pro-posal was rejected by the prime minister of Pakistan,on the ground that India had agreed to a single plebi-scite in the entire state; the Indian government saidit was willing to consider the proposal, but it madeterritorial demands that went far beyond the de factosituation.

Following the termination of UNCIP, the UN ob-servers supervising the cease-fire line were constitutedinto an autonomous operation called the�United Na-tions Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan(UNMOGIP).

JAPAN

For several years, the Security Council took no fur-ther steps to resolve the dispute. In 1956 the Indianportion of the territory was incorporated into Indiawithout a plebiscite. In 1959–1960 China occupiedpart of the border district of�Ladakh in the portioncontrolled by Pakistan. India protested the incursionsand a subsequent Sino-Pakistani border agreement(signed in Beijing on 2 March 1963), claiming thatthey involved Indian territory.

The cease-fire line supervised by UNMOGIP re-mained relatively free of incidents until 1965. On 5August 1965 large numbers of armed men crossedfrom the Pakistani side into territory controlled byIndia; there were armed clashes, crossings of the cease-fire line by troops in both directions, and artillery fire.The Security Council adopted several resolutions call-ing for a cease-fire and a return to thestatus quo ante.A cease-fire proclaimed on 22 September proved un-stable, but on 26 December 1965 a firm cease-fire be-came effective. At meeting sponsored by the USSR inTashkent on 4 January 1966, the prime minister ofIndia and the president of Pakistan agreed to withdrawtheir troops to the positions of before 5 August 1965(�Tashkent Declaration); accordingly, troops werewithdrawn by the end of February.

In 1971 there were further military incidents alongthe cease-fire line in the context of hostilities betweenIndia and Pakistan that led to the independence of�Bangladesh. On 3 July 1972 India and Pakistansigned the Simla agreement, resolving to settle theirlong-standing dispute over Jammu and Kashmir peace-fully.

Although the Simla agreement put an end to militaryincidents between India and Pakistan, activities byKashmiri groups seeking independence from India orunification with Pakistan continued, erupting into civilunrest, strikes, and occasional terrorism. In 1989 theIndian authorities outlawed the Jammu and KashmirLiberation Front and other militant Muslim groups;troop reinforcements were sent into the state, and inJuly 1990 Jammu and Kashmir was placed under theIndian president’s rule. Violence continued in the early1990s. In December 1994, at a summit meeting in Ca-sablanca, the�Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC) adopted a resolution condemning reported viola-tions of human rights by Indian forces in Jammu andKashmir; in 1995 OIC expressed concern over the des-ecration and destruction of a Muslim shrine and thedeteriorating situation in the state. Tension lessenedfollowing the victory of the moderate Jammu andKashmir National Conference in elections held in Sep-tember 1996 (the first state elections since 1987). Atthat point, it was estimated that 20,000 deaths had re-sulted from the disturbances in Jammu and Kashmi.

1191

After 1996, the conflict escalated again; apparently,there were numerous violations of human rights byIndian troops and by Pakistan nationals that infiltratedthe border area.

P. N. BAZAN,TheHistory of Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir,Delhi, 1954; LORD BIRDWOOD,Two Nations and Kashmir,London, 1956; J. B. DAS GUFTER,Indo-Pakistan Relations1947–1955, Amsterdam, 1958;Europa World Yearbook, 1997;P. B. GAYENDRAGATKAR, Kashmir Retrospect and Pros-pect, Bombay, 1967; S. GUPTA,Kashmir: A Study in India-Pakistan Relations, London, 1967;Kashmir Meetings and Cor-respondence between thePrimeMinisters of India andPakistan,July 1953–October 1954, New Delhi, 1955; S. LOURIE, “TheUNMOGIP,” in International Organizations, no. 9, 1955;Ne-gotiations between the Prime Minister of Pakistan and IndiaRegarding the Kashmir Dispute, June 1953–September 1954,Karachi, 1954; B. L. SHARMA,The Kashmir Story, New York,1967; R. G. WIRSING,India, Pakistan, and the Kasmir Dis-pute, New York, 1998; Yearbook of the United Nations,1948–1949, 1950, 1965.

JAPAN. Member of the UN since 18 December 1956.Japan occupies an archipelago in the western Pacific,off the coast of East Asia, from which it is separatedby the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan. The mainislands are Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu.Area: 377,829 sq km. Population: 126,771,662 (2001estimate). Capital: Tokyo, with 26,444,000 inhabit-ants. Official language: Japanese. Currency: 1 yen�100 sen. GDP per capita (2000 estimate): US $24,900.

Founding member of the League of Nations (1919;withdrew from the League in 1933). Member ofOECD, the Group of Seven industrialized countries,G-5, G-10, UNHCR, Australia Group, APEC.

International relations: Japan emerged from self-im-posed isolation in the second half of the nineteenthcentury, when it opened its ports to foreign ships(�Open-Door Policy), abolished feudalism, and cre-ated a modern army and navy. Its victory over Chinain a war of 1894–1895 war led to the acquisition ofTaiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores Islands, and terri-tory in southern Manchuria (which, however, it had tocede under pressure from Russia, France, and Ger-many). Victory over Russia in 1905 (�Russo-Japanesewar, 1904–1905) left Japan in possession of the south-ern half of the island of Sakhalin and the Liao-tungpeninsula in southern Manchuria, and in control of thesouthern portion of the Manchurian railway. Koreawas annexed in 1910.

In World War I, Japan was an ally of the Entente;after the war it was entrusted with the administrationof Germany’s island colonies in the Pacific under aLeague of Nations mandate. In 1918 Japan played amajor role in the Allies’ military intervention in Sib-eria, and Japanese troops remained there until 1922.

JAPAN

In 1931 Japanese troops stationed on the mainlandoverran Manchuria, which was detached from Chinaand turned into a puppet state called Manchukuo. Inthe mid-1930s Japan drew closer to Nazi Germany andfascist Italy (the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis), and in1936 it concluded with them the�Anti-CominternPact. In July 1937 Japanese troops invaded China.Much of northern China was occupied in campaignsmarked by great cruelty (e.g., in Nanjing), and a puppetChinese government was installed in Nanjing in 1940.

After the outbreak of World War II in Europe inSeptember 1939, Japan entered into a military alliancewith Germany and Italy on 27 September 1940; shortlythereafter Japanese forces were sent to French Indo-china, with the consent of the Vichy government. Japanannounced its intention to create a Greater East AsiaCo-Prosperity Sphere under Japanese leadership. On13 April 1941, after years of tension and some militaryclashes, Japan signed a nonaggression pact with theUSSR. On 7 December 1941 Japan launched a surpriseattack on the US base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, andentered the war on the side of Germany and Italy. Ina series of swift military operations, Japanese forcesoverran the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma,and many Pacific islands, but beginning in mid-1942the Allies gradually pushed them back. After atomicbombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,Japan surrendered on 14 August 1945. A few daysearlier, on 9 August 1945, the USSR had entered thewar against Japan, thereby recovering the southern partof Sakhalin and enabling its own army to occupy Man-churia.

Japan’s unconditional surrender to the Allied pow-ers was signed on 2 September 2 1945. Japan wasstripped of all the territories it had conquered since1895, and the Japanese mainland was placed underoccupation. Japan was demilitarized; a new constitu-tion was approved in 1946 andwent into effect in 1947.In a radio broadcast to the Japanese nation on 1 January1946 the Emperor stated that he was not a “divinebeing” and that the Japanese were not a “chosen na-tion.” Japanese military and political figures accusedof war crimes were tried by the International MilitaryTribunal for the Far East; several of them were sen-tenced to death and hanged, but in 1948 there was anamnesty for most of those who had been found guilty.On 8 September 1951 in San Francisco, the UnitedStates and most of its allies signed a peace treaty withJapan (�Japan peace treaty, 1951), and the UnitedStates and Japan also signed a security treaty (�Japan,security treaty with the United States, 1951). India andBurma refused to attend the peace conference, and thePeople’s Republic of China, the USSR, Czechoslova-kia, and Poland did not sign the treaty. Japan regained

1192

full sovereignty on 28 April 1952, when the peacetreaty went into effect. The last of the outer islandsthat had been administed by the United States werewere returned to Japanese sovereignty in 1972.

In 1978, Japan signed a Treaty of Peace and Friend-ship with China. As of 2001 no peace treaty had beenconcluded with the USSR or its successor, the RussianFederation, because of a dispute over the Russian-oc-cupied�Kuril Islands. Russia claimed that Japan hadceded these islands in 1946; Japan based its claim tosovereignty over the islands on the treaty of 1875 withRussia. However, the two countries signed a peacedeclaration and resumed diplomatic relations in 1956.

From 1951 on Japan signed several security treatieswith the United States, which continued to maintain amilitary presence in Japan, including on the island ofOkinawa. Japan’s own military potential was formallylimited by Art. 9 of the constitution in 1946:

The Japanese nation in its sincere desire for internationalpeace based on justice and order forever abandons waras a sovereign right of the nation as well as the use offorce in the solution of international problems. In orderto fulfill the above assumptions it will never maintainland, sea or air forces nor any other war potential. Theright to wage war by the state will not be recognized.

Japan’s self-defense forces were not to be used inmilitary operations abroad. In June 1992 the Diet (par-liament) approved legislation allowing the self-defenseforces to participate in UN peacekeeping operations(at a maximum strength of 2,000) and carry out logisti-cal and humanitarian tasks; a special dispensation fromthe Diet would be required for other uses. In September1992, a Japanese contingent (numbering 1,800) wassent to serve with the�United Nations TransitionalAuthority in Cambodia (UNTAC); Japanese contin-gents participated in the UN peacekeeping operationin Mozambique in 1993 and along the Rwanda-Zaı¨reborder in 1994. In 1990–1991 Japan contributed $9billion toward the cost of the multinational force thatput an end to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait.

After World War II, Japan developed into one ofthe world’s most economically powerful countries. Inthe 1990s it became the world’s largest donor of devel-opment assistance and the second largest contributorto the UN’s regular budget. The main recipients ofJapanese development assistance were China andSoutheast Asia. However, the Japanese economyslowed down significantly in the late 1990s.

In the 1990s discussions took place on grantingJapan a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Tokyo is the seat of the�United Nations University(UNU).

JAPAN PEACE TREATY, 1951

Persisten international conflicts as of 2001 involvedthe islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, and Shikotan, andthe Habomai group occupied by the USSR in 1945,then administered by Russia, and claimed by Japan;the Liancourt Rocks, disputed with South Korea; andthe Senkaku-shoto (Senkaku Islands), claimed byChina and Taiwan.

G. D. ALLINSON (ed.),The Columbia Guide to Modern Japa-nese History, New York, 1999; A. M. ANDERSON,Scienceand Technology in Japan, London, 1987; W. J. BARNDS,Japan and the United States, New York, 1980; W. G. BEAS-LEY, The Rise of Modern Japan: Political, Economic, and So-cial Change since 1850, New York, 1995; J. H. BOYLE,Chinaand Japan at War 1937–1945, London, 1972; R. BUCKLEY,Japan Today, Cambridge, 1985; CIA,World Factbook, 2001;S. D. COHEN,Uneasy Partnership: Competition and Conflictin US-Japan Trade Relations, Cambridge, 1985;Conferencefor the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace withJapan, Washington, DC, 1951;Europa World Yearbook, 1997;J. HIRSHMEIER and Y. TSUNEHIKO,The Development ofJapanese Business 1600–1973, London, 1976; J. E. HUNTER,Concise Dictionary of Modern Japan’s History, Berkeley, 1984;S. IENAGA,Japan’s LastWar: WorldWar II and the Japanese,1941–1945, London, 1979; F. W. IKLE,German-Japanese Re-lations 1936–1940, New York, 1956; U. A. JOHNSON (ed),The Common Security Interests of Japan, the United States andNATO, Cambridge, 1981; F .C. JONES,Japan’s New Order inEast Asia: Its Rise and Fall 1937–1945, New York, 1954; H.KAHN, The Emerging Japanese Superstate, New York, 1971;H. KAHN and T. PEPPER,The Japanese Challenge, NewYork, 1979; KODANSHA,Japanese Encyclopedia of Japan, 9vols., Tokyo, 1983; M. L. KRUPIANKO,Sovetsko-Yaponskiyeekonomicheskiye otnosheniya, Moskva, 1982; J. P. LEH-MANN, The Roots of Modern Japan, London, 1982; E. J.LEWE VON ADUARD, Japan: From Surrender to Peace,London, 1953; T. K. McCRAW (ed.),America versus Japan:A Comparative Study, Cambridge, 1986; J. W. MORLAY,TheJapanese thrust into Siberia, 1918, New York, 1957; K. MUR-ATA, An Industrial Geography of Japan, London, 1980; H.PATRICK and L. MEISSNER (eds.),Japan’s High TechnologyIndustries: Lessons and Limitations of Industrial Policy, Seattle,1987; E. O. REISCHAUER,The Japanese Today: Change andContinuity, London, 1988; E. O. REISCHAUER,The US andJapan, Cambridge, MA, 1982; L. TSOUCALIS and M.WHITE, Japan and Western Europe: Conflict and Co-opera-tion, London, 1982; E. F. VOGEL,Japan as Number One, Cam-bridge, MA, 1979; M. WHITE,The Japanese EducationalChallenge: A Commitment to Children, New York, 1987;WorldAlmanac, 2002.

JAPAN, CAIRO DECLARATIONCONCERNING, 1943.Declaration dated 26November and published on 1 December 1943, ofPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States,President Chiang Kai-shek of China, and Prime Minis-ter Winston Churchill of the UK, after their summitmeeting in Cairo. It read as follows.

The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain andpunish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for

1193

themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion.It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all theislands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupiedsince the beginning of the first World War in 1914, andthat all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese,such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, shallbe restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also beexpelled from all other territories which she has takenby violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers,mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, aredetermined that in due course Korea shall become freeand independent.

Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939–1945, Washington,DC, 1949, pp. 201–202;US Department of State Bulletin, 1December 1943.

JAPAN PEACE TREATY, 1951. Treaty of Peacewith Japan, signed on 8 September 1951 in San Fran-ciso by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil,Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, CostaRica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, ElSalvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Lib-eria, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, NewZealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Para-guay, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey,Union of South Africa, UK, United States, Uruguay,Venezuela, Vietnam (republic), and Japan. The pream-ble and Arts. 1–13 read as follows.

Whereas the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved thathenceforth their relations shall be those of nations which,as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association topromote their common welfare and to maintain interna-tional peace and security, and are therefore desirous ofconcluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questionsstill outstanding as a result of the existence of a state ofwar between them;Whereas Japan for its part declares its intention to apply

for membership in the United Nations and in all circum-stances to conform to the principles of the Charter of theUnited Nations; to strive to realize the objectives of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights; to seek to createwithin Japan conditions of stability and well-being as de-fined in Arts. 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Na-tions and already initiated by post-surrender Japanese leg-islation; and in public and private trade and commerceto conform to internationally accepted fair practices;Whereas the Allied Powers welcome the intentions of

Japan set out in the foregoing paragraph;The Allied Powers and Japan have therefore determined

to conclude the present Treaty of Peace, and have accord-ingly appointed the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, who,after presentation of their full powers, found in good anddue form, have agreed on the following provisions:Chapter I. Peace

JAPAN PEACE TREATY, 1951

Art. 1. (a) The state of war between Japan and each ofthe Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on whichthe present Treaty comes into force between Japan andthe Allied Power concerned as provided for in article 23.(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of

the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.Chapter II. TerritoryArt 2. (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of

Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, in-cluding the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Da-gelet.(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa

and the Pescadores.(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile

Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islandsadjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty asa consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September5, 1905.(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connec-

tion with the League of Nations Mandate System, andaccepts the action of the United Nations Security Councilof April 2, 1947, extending the trusteeship system to thePacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or

interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area,whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationalsor otherwise.(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the

Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.Art. 3. Japan will concur in any proposal of the United

States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeshipsystem, with the United States as the sole administeringauthority, Nansei Shoto south of 29� north latitude (in-cluding the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), NanpoShoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands,Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece VelaandMarcus Island. Pending themaking of such a proposaland affirmative action thereon, the United States will havethe right to exercise all and any powers of administration,legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabit-ants of these islands, including their territorial waters.Art. 4. (a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of

this article, the disposition of property of Japan and of itsnationals in the areas referred to in article 2, and theirclaims, including debts, against the authorities presentlyadministering such areas and the residents (including ju-ridical persons) thereof, and the disposition in Japan ofproperty of such authorities and residents, and of claims,including debts, of such authorities and residents againstJapan and its nationals, shall be the subject of specialarrangements between Japan and such authorities. Theproperty of any of the Allied Powers or of its nationals inthe areas referred to in Art. 2 shall, in so far as this hasnot already been done, be returned by the administeringauthority in the condition inwhich it now exists. (The termnationals whenever used in the present Treaty includesjuridical persons.)(b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of prop-

erty of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant

1194

to directives of the United States Military Government inany of the areas referred to in arts 2 and 3.(c) Japanese-owned submarine cables connecting

Japan with territory removed from Japanese control pur-suant to the present Treaty shall be equally divided, Japanretaining the Japanese terminal and adjoining half of thecable, and the detached territory the remainder of thecable and connecting terminal facilities.Chapter III. SecurityArt. 5. (a) Japan accepts the obligations set forth in arti-

cle 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particu-lar the obligations(i) to settle its international disputes by peaceful means

in such a manner that international peace and security,and justice, are not endangered;(ii) to refrain in its international relations from the threat

or use of force against the territorial integrity or politicalindependence of any State or in any other manner incon-sistent with the Purposes of the United Nations;(iii) to give the United Nations every assistance in any

action it takes in accordance with the Charter and to re-frain from giving assistance to any State against whichthe United Nations may take preventive or enforcementaction.(b) The Allied Powers confirm that they will be guided

by the principles of Art. 2 of the Charter of the UnitedNations in their relations with Japan.(c) The Allied Powers for their part recognize that Japan

as a sovereign nation possesses the inherent right of indi-vidual or collective self-defense referred to in Art. 51 ofthe Charter of the United Nations and that Japan mayvoluntarily enter into collective security arrangements.Art. 6. (a) All occupation forces of the Allied Powers

shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as possible afterthe coming into force of the present Treaty, and in anycase not later than 90 days thereafter. Nothing in thisprovision shall, however, prevent the stationing or reten-tion of foreign armed forces in Japanese territory under orin consequence of any bilateral or multilateral agreementswhich have been or may be made between one or moreof the Allied Powers, on the one hand, and Japan on theother.(b) The provisions of article 9 of the Potsdam Proclama-

tion of July 26, 1945, dealing with the return of Japanesemilitary forces to their homes, to the extent not alreadycompleted, will be carried out.(c) All Japanese property for which compensation has

not already been paid, which was supplied for the use ofthe occupation forces and which remains in the posses-sion of those forces at the time of the coming into forceof the present Treaty, shall be returned to the JapaneseGovernment within the same 90 days unless other ar-rangements are made by mutual agreement.Chapter IV. Political and Economic ClausesArt. 7. (a) Each of the Allied Powers, within one year

after the present Treaty has come into force between itand Japan, will notify Japan which of its prewar bilateraltreaties or conventions with Japan it wishes to continue in

JAPAN PEACE TREATY, 1951

force or revive, and any treaties or conventions so notifiedshall continue in force or be revived subject only to suchamendments as may be necessary to ensure conformitywith the present Treaty. The treaties and conventions sonotified shall be considered as having been continued inforce or revived three months after the date of notificationand shall be registered with the Secretariat of the UnitedNations. All such treaties and conventions as to whichJapan is not so notified shall be regarded as abrogated.(b) Any notification made under paragraph (a) of this

Article may except from the operation or revival of a treatyor convention any terrority for the international relationsof which the notifying Power is responsible, until threemonths after the date on which notice is given to Japanthat such exception shall cease to apply.Art. 8. (a) Japan will recognize the full force of all trea-

ties now or hereafter concluded by the Allied Powers forterminating the state of war initiated on September 1,1939, as well as any other arrangements by the AlliedPowers for or in connection with the restoration of peace.Japan also accepts the arrangements made for terminatingthe former League of Nations and Permanent Court ofInternational Justice.(b) Japan renounces all such rights and interests as it

may derive from being a signatory power of the Conven-tions of St. Germain-en-Laye of September 10, 1919, andthe Straits Agreement of Montreux of July 20, 1936, andfrom article 16 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey signedat Lausanne on July 24, 1923.(c) Japan renounces all rights, titles and interests ac-

quired under, and is discharged from all obligations re-sulting from, the Agreement between Germany and theCreditor Powers of January 20, 1930, and its annexes,including the Trust Agreement dated May 17, 1930; theConvention of January 20, 1930, respecting the Bank forInternational Settlements; and the Statutes of the Bank forInternational Settlements. Japan will notify to the Ministryof Foreign Affairs in Paris within six months of the firstcoming into force of the present Treaty its renunciation ofthe rights, title and interests referred to in this paragraph.Art. 9. Japan will enter promptly into negotiations with

the Allied Powers so desiring for the conclusion of bilat-eral and multilateral agreements providing for the regula-tion or limitation of fishing and the conservation and de-velopment of fisheries on the high seas.Art. 10. Japan renounces all special rights and interests

in China, including all benefits and privileges resultingfrom the provisions of the Final Protocol signed at Pekingon September 7, 1901, and all annexes, notes and docu-ments supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abroga-tion in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes,notes and documents.Art. 11. Japan accepts the judgments of the Interna-

tional Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other AlliedWar Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan, andwill carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japa-nese nationals imprisoned in Japan. The power to grantclemency, to reduce sentences and to parole with respect

1195

to such prisoners may not be exercised except on thedecision of the Government or Governments which im-posed the sentence in each instance, and on the recom-mendation of Japan. In the case of persons sentenced bythe International Military Tribunal for the Far East, suchpower may not be exercised except on the decision of amajority of the Governments represented on the Tribunal,and on the recommendation of Japan.Art. 12. (a) Japan declares its readiness promptly to

enter into negotiations for the conclusion with each ofthe Allied Powers of treaties or agreements to place theirtrading, maritime and other commercial relations on astable and friendly basis.(b) Pending the conclusion of the relevant treaty or

agreement, Japan will, during a period of four years fromthe first coming into force of the present Treaty(1) accord to each of the allied Powers, its nationals,

products and vessels(i) most-favored-nation treatment with respect to cus-

toms duties, charges, restrictions and other regulations onor in connection with the importation and exportation ofgoods;(ii) national treatment with respect to shipping, naviga-

tion and imported goods, and with respect to natural andjuridical persons and their interests - such treatment toinclude all matters pertaining to the levying and collectionof taxes, access to the courts, themaking and performanceof contracts, rights to property (tangible and intangible),participation in juridical entities constituted under Japa-nese law, and generally the conduct of all kinds of busi-ness and professional activities;(2) ensure that external purchases and sales of Japanese

state trading enterprises shall be based solely on commer-cial considerations.(c) In respect to any matter, however, Japan shall be

obliged to accord to an Allied Power national treatment,or most-favored-nation treatment, only to the extent thatthe Allied Power concerned accords Japan national treat-ment or most-favored-nation treatment, as the case maybe, in respect of the same matter. The reciprocity envis-aged in the foregoing sentence shall be determined, inthe case of products, vessels and juridical entities of, andpersons domiciled in, any non-metropolitan territory ofan Allied Power, and in the case of juridical entities of,and persons domiciled in, any state or province of anAllied Power having a federal government, by referenceto the treatment accorded to Japan in such territory, stateor province.(d) In the application of this article, a discriminatory

measure shall not be considered to derogate from thegrant of national or most-favored-nation treatment, as thecase may be, if such measure is based on an exceptioncustomarily provided for in the commercial treaties of theparty applying it, or on the need to safeguard that party’sexternal financial position or balance of payments (exceptin respect to shipping and navigation), or on the need tomaintain its essential security interests, and provided suchmeasure is proportionate to the circumstances and notapplied in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.

JAPAN PEACE TREATY, 1951

(e) Japan’s obligations under this article shall not beaffected by the exercise of any Allied rights under article14 of the present Treaty; nor shall the provisions of thisArticle be understood as limiting the undertakings as-sumed by Japan by virtue of Art. 15 of the Treaty.Art. 13. (a) Japan will enter into negotiations with any

of the Allied Powers, promptly upon the request of suchPower or Powers, for the conclusion of bilateral or multi-lateral agreements relating to international civil air trans-port.(b) Pending the conclusion of such agreement or ar-

rangements, Japan will, during a period of four years fromthe first coming into force of the present Treaty, extendto such Powers treatment not less favorable with respectto air-traffic rights and privileges than those exercised byany such Powers at the date of such coming into force,and will accord complete equality of opportunity in re-spect to the operation and development of air services.(c) Pending its becoming a party to the Convention on

International Civil Aviation in accordance with Article 93thereof, Japan will give effect to the provisions of thatConvention applicable to the international navigation ofaircraft, and will give effect to the standards, practicesand procedures adopted as annexes to the Convention inaccordance with the terms of the Convention.

Chapter V, Claims and Property (Arts. 14–21), rec-ognized that Japan “should pay reparations to the Al-lied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by itduring the war.” Chapter VI dealt with the settlementof disputes (Art. 22). Chapter VII contained finalclauses (Arts. 23–27).

The contracting parties later appended:

• Protocol relating to provisions for regulating con-tracts, periods of prescription. and negotiable instru-ments, and for insurance contracts, on the restorationof peace with Japan; it was opened for signature inSan Francisco on 8 September 1951 and went intoforce during 1952.

• Agreement for the settlement of disputes arisingunder Art. 15 (a) of the treaty of peace with Japan;it was signed in Washington, DC, on 12 June 1952and went into force during 1952.

A. AXELRODand C. L. PHILLIPS,Encyclopedia of HistoricalTreaties and Alliances, New York, 2001;UNTS, Vols. 136 and138.

JAPAN-RUSSIA TREATIES, 1858–1916.The fol-lowing treaties were concluded by the two countriesup to World War I.

(1) On establishing diplomatic relations, 10 August1858.

(2) Agreement whereby Russia recognized Japan’stitle to the Kurile islands and Japan recognizedRussia’s title to the whole of Sakhalin, 1875.

1196

(3) On common interests in Korea, 9 June 1896.(4) On recognition of Japan’s domination in Korea,

25 April 1898.(5) Peace treaty, concluded in Portsmouth, New

Hampshire, on 5 September 1905, ending the�Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905.�Ports-mouth Japan-Russia Peace Treaty, 1905.

(6) Convention of 30 August 1907 supplementingthe Portsmouth peace treaty with reference toManchuria.

(7) Harbin Treaty of June 28, 1910, supplementedby a secret convention (signed 4 July 1910 inSaint Petersburg). Inter alia, it provided for aJapanese-Russian alliance to frustrate the influ-ence of other powers in Manchuria, in connectionwith the United States’ plans for the neutraliza-tion of the Manchurian railway by entrusting itto an international consortium.

(8) �Sasanov-Motono Agreement, 1916.

R. A. ESTHUS,Double Eagle and Rising Sun: The Russiansand Japanese at Portsmouth in 1905, Durham, 1988; G. F.MARTENS,Nouveau Recueil Ge´neral, Series 1 Vol. 17, Series2 Vol. 33, and Series 3 Vol. 1.

JAPAN, SECURITY TREATY WITH THEUNITED STATES, 1951.Mutual security treatysigned in San Francisco on 8 September 1951; it wentinto force on 28 April 1952. It read as follows.

Japan has this day signed a Treaty of Peace with the AlliedPowers. On the coming into force of that Treaty, Japanwill not have the effective means to exercise its inherentright of self-defense because it has been disarmed.There is danger to Japan in this situation because irre-

sponsible militarism has not yet been driven from theworld. Therefore Japan desires a Security Treaty with theUnited States of America to come into force simultane-ously with the Treaty of Peace between the United Statesof America and Japan.The Treaty of Peace recognizes that Japan as a sover-

eign nation has the right to enter into collective securityarrangements, and further, the Charter of the United Na-tions recognizes that all nations possess an inherent rightof individual and collective self-defense. In exercise ofthese rights, Japan desires, as a provisional arrangementfor its defense, that the United States of America shouldmaintain armed forces of its own in and about Japan soas to deter armed attack upon Japan.The United States of America, in the interest of peace

and security, is presently willing to maintain certain ofits armed forces in and about Japan, in the expectation,however, that Japan will itself increasingly assume re-sponsibility for its own defense against direct and indirectaggression, always avoiding any armament which couldbe an offensive threat or serve other than to promote

JAPAN, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, 1945

peace and security in accordance with the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations Charter.Accordingly, the two countries have agreed as follows:Art. I. Japan grants, and the United States of America

accepts, the right, upon the coming into force of the Treatyof Peace and of this Treaty, to dispose United States land,air and sea forces in and about Japan. Such forces may beutilized to contribute to the maintenance of internationalpeace and security in the Far East and to the security ofJapan against armed attack from without, including assis-tance given at the express request of the Japanese Govern-ment to put down large-scale internal riots and distur-bances in Japan, caused through instigation orintervention by an outside power or powers.Art. II. During the exercise of the right referred to in

article I, Japan will not grant, without the prior consentof the United States of America, any bases or any rights,powers or authority whatsoever, in or relating to bases orthe right of garrison or of maneuver, or transit of ground,air or naval forces to any third power.Art. III. The conditions which shall govern the disposi-

tion of armed forces of the United States of America inand about Japan shall be determined by administrativeagreements between the two Governments.Art. IV. This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinion

of the Governments of the United States of America andJapan there shall have come into force such United Na-tions arrangements or such alternative individual or col-lective security dispositions as will satisfactorily providefor the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwiseof international peace and security in the Japan Area.

The treaty was revised in 1960 to meet Japan’s re-quests for an explicit security guarantee and to be con-sulted on the use of US bases in Japan. In 1978 thetwo parties agreed on guidelines for cooperation ondefense in which Japan’s role would be expanded. Ad-ditional guidelines were agreed on in 1997, in light ofchanges brought about by the end of the cold war; theyprovided for a noncombat support role for Japanesearmed forces in conflicts beyond Japan’s borders.

UNTS, Vol. 136, pp. 215–219.

JAPAN-TAIWAN TREATY, 1952. (Official name:Peace Treaty between the Republic of China andJapan.) Signed on 28 April 1952 in Taipei. It was de-nounced by Japan on 12 August 1978 on the signingof a Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the People’sRepublic of China.

UNTS, Vol. 138, pp. 38–42.

JAPAN, ULTIMATUM TO CHINA, 1915. Afterthe outbreak of World War I, Japan occupied, on 7November 1915, the Kiaochow concession, which hadbeen leased by Germany from China in 1898 for 99

1197

years. China demanded its return, but Japan refused,claiming that its right to Kiaochow derived from thebloodshed in engagements with German troops. At thesame time, Japan submitted to China an ultimatum,called the 21 Demands. China was forced to acceptmost of them on 25 May 1915, including the lease ofsouthern Manchuria to Japan for 99 years; recognitionof Japan’s influence in eastern Mongolia, Shantung,and the Yangtze valley; Japan’s control over China’sarmaments and mining industries; and a commitmentby China not to lease concessions on its seacoast toany other third power. The 21Demands guided Japan’spolicy toward China in the decades following WorldWar I.

G. F. DE MARTENS,Nouveau Recueil Ge´neral, Series 3 Vol.9, p. 334; J. V. A. MACMURRAY,Treaties and Agreementswith and concerning China 1894–1919, Vol. 2, New York,1921, p. 1220.

JAPAN, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,1945.The instrument of surrender, signed on 2 Sep-tember 1945 on board the USSMissouriin Tokyo har-bor, read as follows.

We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperorof Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Im-perial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provi-sions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads ofthe Governments of the United States, China and GreatBritain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam and subsequentlyadhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,which four powers are hereafter referred to as the AlliedPowers.We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the

Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Head-quarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armedforces under Japanese control wherever situated.We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situ-

ated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forth-with, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft,and military and civil property and to comply with allrequirements which may be imposed by the SupremeCommander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of theJapanese Government at his direction. We hereby com-mand the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters toissue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japaneseforces and all forces under Japanese control wherever sit-uated to surrender unconditionally themselves and allforces under their control.We hereby command all civil, military and naval offi-

cials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders anddirectives deemed by the Supreme Commander for theAllied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrenderand issued by him or under his authority and we directall such officials to remain at their posts and to continueto perform their noncombatant duties unless specificallyrelieved by him or under his authority. We hereby under-

JAPAN, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, 1945

take for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and theirsuccessors to carry out the provisions of the PotsdamDec-laration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders andtake whatever action may be required by the SupremeCommander for the Allied Powers or by any other desig-nated representative for the purpose of giving effect tothat Declaration.We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Govern-

ment and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters atonce to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilianinternees now under Japanese control and to provide fortheir protection, care, maintenance and immediate trans-portation to places as directed.The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Govern-

ment to rule the state shall be subject to the SupremeCommander for the Allied Powers who will take suchsteps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of sur-render.Mamoru Shigemitsu, Yoshijiro Umezu, MacArthur.

A Decade of American Foreign Policy, Basic Documents1941–1949, Washington, DC, 1950, doc. 109, p. 625.

JAPAN-UNITED STATES AGREEMENTS,1908–1922.The following agreements wereconcluded between 1908 and 1922.

A Convention on Arbitration was signed on 5 May1908 in Washington, DC. It went into force on 1 Sep-tember 1908.

A Treaty of Commerce and Navigation was signedon 21 February 1911 in Washington, DC. It went forceon 5 April 1911. Article I read as follows:

The citizens or subjects of each of the High ContractingParties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in theterritories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale andretail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories,warehouses and shops, to employ agents of their choice,to lease land for residential and commercial purposes,and generally to do anything incident to or necessary fortrade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects,submitting themselves to the laws and regulations thereestablished. They shall not be compelled, under any pre-text whatever, to pay any charges or taxes other or higherthan those that are or may be paid by native citizens orsubjects. The citizens or subjects of each of the High Con-tracting Parties shall receive, in the territories of the other,the most constant protection and security for their personsand property, and shall enjoy in this respect the samerights and privileges as are or may be granted to nativecitizens or subjects, on their submitting themselves to theconditions imposed upon the native citizens or subjects.They shall, however, be exempt in the territories of the

other from compulsory military service either on land orsea, in the regular forces, or in the national guard, orin the militia; from all contributions imposed in lieu ofpersonal service, and from all forced loans or militaryexactions or contributions.

1198

An agreement effected by an exchange of notes be-tween the United States and Japan declared their policyin the Far East; it was signed on 30 November 1908.Its main points were as follows.

(1) It is the wish of the two Governments to encouragethe free and peaceful development of their commerce onthe Pacific Ocean.(2) The policy of both Governments, uninfluenced by

any aggressive tendencies, is directed to the maintenanceof the existing status quo in the region above mentionedand to the defense of the principle of equal opportunityfor commerce and industry in China.(3) They are accordingly firmly resolved reciprocally to

respect the territorial possessions belonging to each otherin said region.(4) They are also determined to preserve the common

interest of all powers in China by supporting by all pacificmeans at their disposal the independence and integrity ofChina and the principle of equal opportunity for com-merce and industry of all nations in that Empire.

A gentlemen’s agreement was embodied in ex-changes of diplomatic correspondence in 1907 and1908, to the effect that “a policy of discouraging emi-gration of Japan’s subjects of the laboring classes tocontinental United States should be continued.”�Lodge Anti-Japanese Doctrine, 1924.

A Treaty Regarding Rights of the TwoGovernmentsand Their Respective Nations in Former German Is-lands in the Pacific Ocean North of the Equator, and inParticular the Island of Yap, was signed on 11 February1922 in Washington, DC. It went into force on 13 July1922.

International Conciliation, no. 211, June 1925, pp. 163–223.

JAPAN-USSR NEUTRALITY TREATY, 1925.Peace and neutrality treaty signed on 20 January 1925in Peking (Beijing). It followed thewithdrawal of Japa-nese troops from Siberia and northern Sakhalin, wherethey had been stationed since the Allies’ interventionin 1918.

American Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, 1925, p. 78;G. F. DE MARTENS,Nouveau Recueil Ge´neral, Series 3, Vol.15, p. 323.

JAPAN-USSR NEUTRALITY TREATY, 1941.Signed on 13 January 1941 in Moscow. In Art. 1 theparties undertook to respect each other’s “territorialintegrity and inviolability.” Article 2 contained a pro-vision that if either party became engaged in a war,the other “shall preserve neutrality for thewhole periodof the conflict.” Annexed to the pact was a solemndeclaration that “the USSR shall take the obligationto respect the integrity and territorial inviolability of

JAY’S TREATY, 1794

Manchukuo and Japan assumes the obligation to re-spect the same with regard to the Republic of Mon-golia.”

This was the first treaty between the two states afterthe USSR was officially recognized by Japan in thePeking (Beijing) Treaty of 20 January 1925. It wasabrogated in August 1945, when the USSR declaredwar on Japan in the closing days of World War II.

“The Japan-Soviet Neutrality Pact, 1941,” inAmerican Journalof International Law, Vol. 35, p. 171.

JAPANESE DOCTRINE OF EQUALDISTANCE. Foreign policy doctrine of neutrality,proclaiming that Japan should maintain “equal dis-tance” in relations with the USSR and the People’sRepublic of China. It was abandoned by Japan on 12August 1978 with the signing of the�China-JapanPeace Treaty.

JARUZELSKI PLAN. Polish initiative for EuropeanSecurity, presented on 8 May 1987 by General Woj-ciech Jaruzelski, head of the Polish state council. Thetext is as follows.

We have always favoured the idea of tackling complexproblems on a regional basis, thus opening up the way forcontributing to the common European cause. Proceedingfrom this premise, the Polish People’s Republic has comeup with a new plan for arms reductions and confidence-building measures in Central Europe through graduallythinning out the nuclear and conventional forces in theregion where the confronting military-political groupingsare in contact.Our proposal, aimed at lowering the level of military

confrontation, is related to the territories of nine states,including the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslo-vakia, Hungary, and Poland, and also the Federal Repub-lic of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourgand Denmark. Eventually, it could be extended to thewhole of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.The draft plan calls for:—first, the phasedwithdrawal and reduction of shorter-

range nuclear weapons of agreed types; we believe thattalks to this effect should cover every type of theseweapons;—second, the phased withdrawal and reduction of

conventional weapons of agreed types, primarily themore powerful and accurate ones which could be usedin a surprise attack;—third, revision of military doctrines so that the parties

involved should view each other’s doctrines as exclu-sively defensive;—fourth, a continuous search for accords on ever new

means of strengthening security and building trust, andalso strict verification measures.

1199

It may prove far from easy to carry out this plan: it isbound to call for extensive consultations and the unity ofpolitical will and action. Our relevant proposals will becommunicated to all the CSCE states through diplomaticchannels.We view our plan as part and parcel of the European

process initiated in Helsinki and a follow-up on the otherdisarmament initiatives of the Warsaw Treaty member-states. The concept of the plan, we are convinced, meetsthe expectations of those numerous political forces andgovernments which are seeking in a constructive spiritpractical solutions to build trust and remove the sourcesof the existing danger without detracting from any CSCEstates’ sense of security.

See also�Gomulka Plan;�Rapacki Plan.

Peace and Socialism: Information Bulletin, no. 14, Prague,1987;Trybuna Ludu, Warsaw, 9 May 1987.

JARVIS ISLAND. Uninhabited island in the SouthPacific, about halfway between Hawaii and the CookIslands. It was discovered by the British in 1821; an-nexed by the United States in 1858; abandoned in1879, after tons of guano had been removed; annexedby the UK in 1899; and occupied by the United Statesin in 1935. As of 2001 it was a National Wildlife Re-fuge administered by the United States.

CIA, World Factbook, 2001.

JAVORZYNA. Locality in Spisz, Czechoslovakia(later Slovakia), on the northern side of the High TatraMountains, at the mouth of the Javorzyna valley. Sub-ject of a dispute between Poland and Czechoslovakiain 1920–1924 over delimiting the border in accordancewith a decision of the Conference of Ambassadors on28 July 1920 (�Teschen, Spisz, and Orava Conferenceof Ambassadors, 1920). The dispute was submitted tothe Permanent Court of International Justice. On thebasis of the court’s decision, the League of NationsCouncil, on 12March 1924, delimited the border, leav-ing Javorzyna within Czechoslovakia; this was recog-nized by both sides in a protocol signed on 6 May1924 in Krakow and approved by the Conference ofAmbassadors on 5 September 1924. A revision madeon 30 September 1938 in favor of Poland by a NewProtocol of Delimitation, signed in Zakopane, was an-nulled after World War II.

S. W. KIRSCHBAUM,Historical Dictionary of Slovakia, Lan-ham, 1998;Recueil des documents diplomatiques, concernantla question de Javorzina, De´cembre 1918–Aouˆt 1924, Warsaw,1925.

JAY’S TREATY, 1794. Agreement between theUnited States and Great Britain concerning the amica-ble settlement of outstanding issues relating to viola-

JAY’S TREATY, 1794

tions of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and regulatingcommerce and navigation. It was negotiated by JohnJay for the United States and Lord Grenville for GreatBritain, and was signed on November 19, 1794 in Lon-don; it went into force on 28 October 1795.

F. BEMBIS, Jay’s Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplo-macy, New York, 1923; S. F. BERNIS,Jay’s Treaty, Westport,1975; A DECONDE,Entangling Alliance: Politics and Diplo-macy Under George Washington, New York, 1958.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES. Millennialist religiousgroup, founded in 1872 in the United States as theInternational Bible Students Association; the name Je-hovah’s Witnesses was adopted in 1931. Adherentsregard governments as the work of Satan, reject mili-tary service and political elections, and refuse to salutethe flag of any nation. As a result of very active prose-lytizing throughout the world, their number has in-creased greatly, particularly in the third world.

M. COLE, Jehovah’s Witnesses: The New World Society, NewYork, 1955; D. CRONN-MILLS,A Qualitative Analysis of theJehovah’s Witnesses, Lewiston, 1999; R. D. QUIDAM,TheDoctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses, New York, 1959; W. J.WHALEN, Armageddon Around the Corner, New York, 1962.

JERICHO. First Palestinian town on the West Bankfrom which Israeli occupation forces were withdrawn(simultaneously with their withdrawal from the GazaStrip) and the administration of which was assumedby the Palestinian Authority in May 1994 pursuant tothe Declaration of Principles on Palestinian Self-Rulein the Occupied Territories (1993).After the Agree-ment of Cairo (between Israel and PLO), the conflictontinued. See also�Israel;�Palestine.

JERUSALEM. (In Hebrew, Jerushalaim; in Arabic,Al-Quds.) Historic capital of Palestine; a holy site forChristians, Jews, and Muslims. As regards Christianchurches, Jerusalem is the seat of an Abyssinian abbot,the Armenian Catholic patriarchal vicar, the Armenianpatriarch, a Coptic bishop, the Greek Catholic patriar-chal vicar, the Latin patriarch, the Maronite patriarchalvicar, a moderator of the Church of Scotland and An-glican bishop in Jerusalem, a Greek Orthodox patri-arch, the SyrianCatholic patriarchal vicar, and a SyrianOrthodox bishop.

On 23 January 1950 the Israeli parliament pro-claimed Jerusalem the capital of the state of Israel, butthis was not recognized by the UN. In November 1999,the Israeli representative in the General Assembly rei-terated that Jerusalem was the capital.

From the end of World War I until the terminationof the British mandate in May 1948, Jerusalem was

1200

the seat of the British administration in Palestine. Thecity’s population, according to a census of 31 Decem-ber 1946, consisted of 99,320 Jews; 33,680 Muslims;31,330 Christians; and 110 people of other faiths. Gen-eral Assembly Res. 181(II) of 29 November 1947,which contemplated the partition of Palestine, stipu-lated that Jerusalem would not be part of either theJewish or the Arab state but would have a special sta-tus. During the fighting between Jews and Arabs in1948–1949, Jewish forces occupied the western por-tion of the city, with a predominantly Jewish popula-tion, while the largely Muslim eastern portion, includ-ing the Old City, remained in the hands of the Arabs.In April 1949 the UN Trusteeship Council drew up aplan for an International Status for Jersualem underUN administration, guaranteeing followers of the threereligions access to the religious sites. On 9 December1949 the UN General Assembly restated its intentionthat Jerusalem should be placed under a permanentinternational regime with appropriate safeguards forthe holy places, but Israel and Jordan would acceptonly a provisional division resulting from their cease-fire agreements. In December 1949 East Jerusalemwasannexed to Jordan. Through efforts by theUN, a demil-itarized zone was created on 4 April 1950, to permitthe free movement of pilgrims.

The city remained divided until 1967, when EastJerusalem was occupied by Israeli forces in the Six-Day War and Israel announced its annexation. In aresolution adopted on 4 July 1967, the UN GeneralAssembly declared that the means used by Israel tochange the status of Jerusalem were invalid. On 5 July1967 the Assembly adopted another resolution, declar-ing that the annexation of Jerusalem by Israel was aninvalid act and expressing itself in favor of the interna-tionalization of the holy places. Israel did not partici-pate in either vote, because, in the opinion of the gov-ernment of Israel, Jerusalem was “outside the legalcompetency of the UN General Assembly.” Also on 5July 1967, the Vatican, as the representative of RomanCatholic interests, announced that it did not recognizethe annexation and declared itself in favor of the inter-nationalization of the holy places (this view was res-tated by Pope John Paul II in July 1980). In Res.242(1967), adopted unanimously on 22 November1967, the UN Security Council called for the with-drawal of Israel armed forces from the territories occu-pied in the Six-Day War (which included East Jerusa-lem). On 21 May 1968 the Security Council askedIsrael to rescind all dispositions violating the interna-tional status of Jerusalem. This request was repeated inresolutions adopted by the General Assembly in lateryears.

JEWISH AUTONOMOUS REGION IN THE USSR

The Muslim viewpoint was stated in a declarationadopted at the Second Summit Conference of MuslimStates, held in Lahore in February 1974:

Al-Quds is the only symbol of its kind of the fusion ofIslamwith the sacred divine religions. For more than 1300years Jerusalem was under Muslim trusteeship, open toall who revered it. Only Muslims can be its loving andimpartial guardians for the simple reason that only Mus-lims believe in all three of the prophets of the religionsrooted in Jerusalem. No agreement, protocol or adjust-ment stipulating the continuation of Israeli occupation inthe holy city of Jerusalem or its transfer to whatsoeversovereign non-Arab authority, or alsomaking the questionof Jerusalem the subject of adjudication or concessionswill be possible for the Muslim countries to accept. Thewithdrawal of Israel from Jerusalem is the most importantand unalterable preliminary condition for the establish-ment of permanent peace in the Near East.

On 30 July 1980 the Knesset, Israel’s parliament,adopted a Basic Law declaring unified Jerusalem (i.e.,including the predominantly Arab East Jerusalem oc-cupied by Israel during the war of 1967) the capital ofthe Jewish state. On 20 August 1980 the UN SecurityCouncil, in Res. 478(1980), decided (inter alia) not torecognize the Basic Law and called on those states thathad established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem towithdraw them. In resolutions adopted annually after1981, the General Assembly determined that all legis-lative and administrative measures and actions takenby Israel that had altered or purported to alter the char-acter and status of Jerusalem, in particular the BasicLaw and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capitalof Israel, were null and void and must be rescindedforthwith.

On 3 November 1980, the General Assemblyadopted Res. 35/13 B, emphasizing the need tostrengthen the educational system in the Palestinianterritory occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem, andspecifically the need to establishm the University ofJerusalem (Al Quds). The university was establishedin 1984, by unifying four colleges in Jerusalem andits suburbs. By 1997, the student body numbered2,300, and there were an additional two faculties andtwo institutes.

In recognition of the difficulties involved in resolv-ing the status of Jerusalem, this question was left tothe last stage of the process contemplated in 1993 inthe Declaration of Principles on Palestinian Self-Rulein the Occupied Territories. Unilateral steps by Israelafter the adoption of this declaration, particularly theconstruction of new housing for Jewish settlers in EastJerusalem, which entailed demographic changes, werea main factor in the breakdown of the peace processafter the election of an Israeli government led by Likud

1201

in June 1996. Security Council Resolution 1073(1996)on the situation of Jerusalem called from an end toacts that would aggravate the situation.

In the late 1990s and 2000–2002 the situation inJerusalem was worsened by suicide bombings by Pal-estinians, and subsequent reprisals by Israel.

The Old City of Jerusalem and its walls are includedin the�World Heritage List. Of the 226 historical mon-uments in the Old City, three buildings are of particularimportance for the entire world: the Church of the HolySepulchre and the mosques known as the Dome of theRock and Al-Aqsa.

H. E. BOVIS,Jerusalem Question 1917–1968, Stanford, CA,1971; R. FALAISE, “Le Statut de Je´rusalem,” inRevue ge´neralede droit international public, no. 62, 1958; G. FOLKE BERNA-DOTTE, To Jerusalem, London, 1951;Jerusalem before theUN, UN, New York, 1950; P. MOHN, “Jerusalem and the UN,”in International Conciliation, no. 464, October 1950, pp.421–471; UNESCO,A Legacy for All, Paris, 1984; B. WAS-SERSTEIN,Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City,New Haven, 2001.

JERUSALEM MEETING, 1977. First meeting be-tween President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and PrimeMin-ister Menahem Begin of Israel; it took place in Jerusa-lem on 6 December 1977.

JEWISH AGENCY FOR ISRAEL—WORLDZIONIST ORGANIZATION. Organizationfounded in 1897 at the First Zionist Congress as theWorld Zionist Organization. In 1929 it was entrustedby the government of the UK, within the context ofimplementing the�Balfour Declaration, 1917, with thefunctions of an agency representing all Jewish groups,including non-Zionists, interested in rebuilding a “na-tional Jewish homeland in Palestine.” Under the nameJewish Agency for Palestine, it performed this functionuntil the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. There-after it was renamed Jewish Agency for Israel, and itwas given a special status as the representative in Israelof Zionist federations in 49 countries. As of 2001 theagency had its headquarters in Jerusalem; maintainedinternational secretariats in Geneva, London, NewYork, and Paris; and operated in in more than 60 coun-tries.

JEWISH AUTONOMOUS REGION IN THEUSSR.Administrative region, established in 1928 inKhabarovsk Territory, in the Far East, as the JewishNational District. It became an autonomous region on7May 1934. Area: 36,000 sq km. Population: 221,000.Capital: Birobidjan. Official languages: Russian andYiddish. The number of Jews who agreed or were

JEWISH AUTONOMOUS REGION IN THE USSR

forced to resettle in the Jewish autonomous region wasalways small; in 1980 Jews accounted for only 5.5%of the population, and by the mid-1990s (by whichtime the USSR had ceased to exist and the region wasin Russia) their number had declined to less than 5%.

JEWISH WORLD CONGRESS. World JewishCongress.�Jews.

JEWS. In Hebrew, Yehudhi, “Judean.” Semitic peo-ple inhabiting Palestine until 135C.E., when most ofthem were expelled for rebelling against the RomanEmpire; since then the majority of Jews have lived inthe diaspora, or “great dispersion,” Many Jews settledin Mesopotamia and Persia, and smaller colonies wereestablished in various parts of the Roman Empire, in-cluding Rome itself. The plight of the Jews worsenedafter Christianity became the official religion of theRoman Empire, when they were subjected to repeatedpersecutions.

During theMiddle Ages the most prosperous Jewishcommunity (the Sephardim) was in Spain, then underMoorish domination. In western Europe, the RomanCatholic church was generally unfriendly, and Jewswere segregated and barred from many occupations.The religious fervor that swept over western Europeduring the Crusades led to increased persecution, in-cluding massacres, of Jews. They were expelled fromEngland in 1290 (three and a half centuries were toelapse before they were allowed to return) and fromFrance in 1306, but the numbers involved were rela-tively small. By contrast, the expulsion of Jews fromSpain in 1492 was on an altogether larger scale: mostof them found refuge in the Ottoman Empire, and pros-perous Sephardic communities arose in the main trad-ing cities, such as Constantinople (Istanbul), Salonica,and Alexandria; smaller groups settled in Italy, Franceand other European countries.

Early reformers, such as the Hussites, were also un-friendly toward Jews. The Netherlands became the firstcountry to grant Jews a freer life (in the late sixteenthcentury). Elsewhere on the continent of Europe Jewswere barred from many occupations and were gener-ally regarded as social outcasts, but killings of Jewswere rare. In France, the lot of Jews was alleviatedafter the revolution, and in 1807 a Jewish assemblywas convoked by Napoleon in Paris.

With the exception of a few countries (in particular,Russia), the lot of European Jews gradually improvedin the nineteenth century, until the emergence of mod-ern anti-Semitism in the late 1800s. In Russia it tookthe form of murderous pogroms; in Germany and Aus-tria Jews were subjected to social and civic ostracism.

1202

Modern anti-Semitism was an impetus for the emigra-tion of large numbers of Jews to America, especiallythe United States, and contributed to the emergence of�Zionism.

The earliest Jewish community in the Americas wasestablished in the sixteenth century in Brazil, whichwas then a Portuguese colony; by the first half of theseventeenth century there were also Jewish communi-ties in New York and in some of Great Britain’s colo-nies in the West Indies.

In 1900–1910 the number of Jews was estimated at11.5 million, of whom 5.2 million lived in the RussianEmpire (mostly in its western provinces), 2.1 millionin the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1.8 million in theUnited States, 0.6 million in Germany, 0.5 million inthe Ottoman Empire, and 0.25 million in Romania.Thus a large majority were Ashkenazim (German andEast European Jews).

The Committee of Jewish Delegations (founded in1918 and succeeded in 1936 by the JewishWorld Con-gress) played an important role at the Paris Peace Con-ference in 1919. Under the patronage of the League ofNations, a system was set in place for the protectionof Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe,though not in Germany. In implementing the�BalfourDeclaration, the British government in 1929 entrustedto the World Zionist Organization the functions of anagency representing all Jewish groups, including non-Zionists, interested in re-creating a national Jewishhomeland in Palestine.

Between the two world wars, the rise of nationalismin many countries had a negative impact on the Jews.During the first 15 years after the Bolshevik revolution,Jews achieved prominence in the Soviet Union, butduring the Stalinist period they persecuted as being“consmopolitan.”

Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party in Germany inaugu-rated a period of fierce persecution and eventually, dur-ing World War II, slaughter of Jews. This policy wasextended to Austria after the Anschluss and to the Eu-ropean countries conquered by Germany in1939–1941. Under Nazi Germany’s influence, theplight of Jews in fascist Italy also worsened during thewar years. Some 6 million Jews (out of a total Jewishpopulation in Europe estimated at 11.2 million) per-ished in the Holocaust, which the Nazis called the“final solution.”

The establishment of Israel in 1948 and the adoptionin 1950 of the Law of Return, which gave all Jewsthroughout the world the right to immigrate to Israel,had a major impact on the demography of the Jewishdiaspora. Whereas the original immigrants to Israelwere mainly European Jews, including survivors ofthe Holocaust, they were followed by Jews from Iraq,

JEWS

Yemen, Egypt, and other North African countries(whose long-established, prosperous, and in earliercenturies numerous Jewish communities virtually dis-appeared or were greatly reduced); by the Falasha(Black Jews) of Ethiopia; and by Jews from the formerUSSR. Between 1948 and 1991, when the USSR wasdissolved, the size of Jewish emigration from theUSSR to Israel varied considerably from year to year,depending on changes in USSR’s policies toward Jew-ish emigration. After the dissolution of the USSR, re-strictions on the emigration of Jews were lifted, andhundreds of thousands left not only for Israel but alsofor the United States and other countries.

Revulsion against the Holocaust contributed to agradual improvement in attitude of theRomanCatholicchurch toward Jews and Judaism. The first concreteexpression of a new spirit was the Vatican II Declara-tion on the Relations of the Church to Non-ChristianReligions (28 October 1965), which stated, inter alia,that the Jewish nation could not be held responsiblefor the death of Christ; this set the stage for subseqentRoman Catholic-Jewish dialogue.

In the mid-1980s the number of Jews in the worldwas estimated at 16.9 million: 7.6 million lived inNorth America, 0.7 million in South America, 3.8 mil-lion in Europe (including the USSR), 4.5 million inAsia (most of them in Israel), 0.2 million in Africa, and74,000 in Oceania. Thereafter, because of emigrationfrom the former USSR and Eastern Europe in the late1980s and especially after 1991, there was a relativedecline in the number of Jews in Europe and a corre-sponding increase in Asia.

1986Britannica Book of the Year; I. ABELLA andH. TROPER,“The Line Must be Drawn Somewhere: Canada and JewishRefugees, 1933–1939,” inCanadian Historical Review, 1979;S. ABRAMSEN,The Holocaust in Norway, Oxford, 1987; R.AINSZTEIN, Jewish Resistance in Nazi-Occupied Eastern Eu-rope, NewYork, 1974; R. ANCHEL,Les Juifs en France, Paris,1946; H. ARENDT,Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on theBanality of Evil, New York, 1964; W. BARTOSZEWSKI andZ. LEWIN, Righteous Among Nations: How Poles Helped theJews 1939–1944, London, 1970; T. BERENSTEIN and A.RUTKOWSKI, Assistance to the Jews in Poland, Warsaw,1963; F. R. BIENENFELD,The Germans and the Jews, NewYork, 1939; E. BLACK,The Transfer Agreement: The UntoldStory of the Secret Agreement Between the Third Reich andJewish Palestine, London, 1984; A. BONIECKI, “O dialogukatolickozydowskim. Wywiad z dr. J. Lichtenem” [Catholic-Jewish Dialogue. Interview with Dr. J. Lichten], inTygodnikPowszechny, Krakow, 10 August 1980; C. R. BROWNING,The Final Solution and the German Foreign Office, New York,1978; J. S. CONWAY, “The Silence of Pope Pus XII,” inRe-view of Politics, 1965; R. B. CULLEN, “Soviet Jewry,” inFor-eign Affairs, Winter, 1986–87;Das MenschenschlachthausTreblinka, Wien, 1946; L. DAWIDOWICZ,The War Againstthe Jews, 1933–1945, New York, 1975; S. M. DUBNOW,AHistory of the Jews in Russia and Poland, 3 vols., Philadelphia,

1203

1946; A. EISENBACH,Emancypacja ludnosci zydowskiej naziemiach polskich 1780–1870[Emancipation of the Jewish Pop-ulation on Polish Lands 1780—1870], Warsaw, 1988; A. EISE-NBACH, “Operation Reinhard: Mass Extermination of the Jew-ish Population in Poland,” inWestern Polish Review, no. 1,1962, pp. 80–124; L. FINKELSTEIN,The Jews: Their History,Culture and Religion, 2 vols., London, 1956; R. O. FREED-MAN, Soviet Jewry in Decisive Decade, 1971–80, Durham,NC, 1984; S. FRIEDMAN,NoHaven for theOppressed: UnitedStates Policy Towards Jewish Refugees, 1932–1945, Detroit,1973; L. P. GARTNER,History of the Jews in Modern Times,Oxford, 2000; H. GRAETZ,History of the Jews, 6 vols., Lon-don, 1891–1926; I. GUTMAN and S. KRAKOWSKI,The Un-equal Victims: Poles and Jews During World War II, Oxford,1987; R. GUTTERIDGE,Open the Mouth for the Dumb: theGerman Evangelical Church and the Jews, 1879–1950, Oxford,1976;W.W. HEGEN,Germans, Poles and Jews: The National-ity Conflict in the Prussian East, 1772–1914, Chicago, 1980;O. JANOWSKI (ed.),The American Jews, New York, 1942; P.JOHNSON,AHistory of the Jews, NewYork, 1987; E. KOGON(ed), National-sozialisstische Massento¨tung durch Giftgas:Eine Dokumentation, Frankfurt, 1983; E. KOHN,AmericanJewry, New York, 1955; N. LEVIN,The Holocaust: The De-struction of European Jewry, 1933–1945, New York, 1968; J.LEWIN, The Jewish Community in Poland: Historical Essays,New York, 1985; F. LITTEL,The Crucifixion of the Jews: TheFailure of Christians to Understand the Jewish Experience,New York, 1975; F. LITTEL and G. H. LOCKE,The GermanChurch: Struggle and theHolocaust, Detroit, 1974; N. LOVEN-THAL, The Jews of Germany, Philadelphia, 1944; J. MARCUS,The Jews in the Medieval World, Cincinnati, 1939; A. A. NEW-MAN, The Jews in Spain, 2 vols., New York, 1942; J. W.PARKES,The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, Lon-don, 1939; D. PHILIPSON,Old European Jewries, Philadel-phia, 1894; L. POLIAKOV,Harvest of Hate, Syracuse, NY,1954; A. A. POWINSKl, Zycie i smiercZygelbojma[The Lifeand Death of Zygelbojm], Warsaw, 1988; H. RAUTKALLIO,Finland and the Holocaust, Oxford, 1987; “Reflections on theHolocaust,” inThe Annuals of the American Academy of Politi-cal and Social Science, July 1980; G. REITLINGER,The FinalSolution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe1939–1945, London, 1952; R. REUTHER,Faith and Fratri-cide: The Theological Route of Anti-Semitism, New York, 1974;A. RHODES,The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators, London,1973; C. ROTH,A History of the Jews in England, London,1941; H. M. SACHAR,The Course of Modern Jewish History,New York, 1958;Documentae Occupationis, Vol. 6, Poznan´,1958; M. U. SCHAPPES,A Documentary History of the Jewsin the United States 1654–1875, New York, 1950; S. M.SCHWARTZ, The Jews in the Soviet Union, Syracuse, NY,1951; C. B. SHERMAN,The Jews within American Society,New York, 1968; U. TAL,Christians and Jews in Germany:Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Second Reich 1870–1914,Ithaca, NY, 1975; E. TIVNAN,The Lobby, Jewish PoliticalPower and American Foreign Policy, New York, 1987;TheTrial of German Major War Criminals: Proceedings of the In-ternational Military Tribunal Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany,Vols. 2, 10, 11, 12 and 22, London 1946–48;Universal JewishEncyclopaedia, New York, 1948; A. WASSERSTEIN,Britainand the Jews in Europe 1939–1945, Oxford, 1979; B. D.WEIN-RYB, The Jews of Poland, Philadelphia, 1973; E. WIESEL,The Jews of Silence, New York, 1987; G. WIGODER (ed.),The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, 1992.

JINMEN

JINMEN. �Chinmen.

JIU. �Joint Inspection Unit.

JOHNSON-MANN DOCTRINE, 1963. Principleof the United States’ foreign policy in Latin Americaformulated in December 1963 by President Lyndon B.Johnson and conveyed to US ambassadors in the re-gion by the under-secretary of state for Latin Americanaffairs, T. C. Mann. The principle was that the�Kennedy doctrine of support solely for representativegovernments in Latin America constituted throughgeneral elections would be canceled; instead, the USgovernment would support any Latin American gov-ernment whose interests were compatible with thoseof the United States.

W. I. COHEN and N. B. TUCKER (eds.),Lyndon JohnsonConfronts the World: American Foreign Policy, 1963–1968,New York, 1994; M. A. URIBI,Le Livre Noire de l’interventionamericaine au Chili, Paris, 1974.

JOINT COMMISSION. International term with twomeanings:

(1) Intergovernmental bi- or multilateral commissionestablished by the states concerned to determinefacts and find a solution to a problem or incidentthat has arisen between them, and composed ofrepresentatives of those states, sometimes with aneutral chairman;

(2) Body established by an intergovernmental orga-nization, often for fact- finding or in the contextof economic integration.

After World War II the machinery of joint commis-sions was also used for East-West contacts and cooper-ation.

JOINT INSPECTION UNIT (JIU). Organestablished by the UN General Assembly in 1966 inRes. 2150(XXI); it began work in 1968, with its seatin Geneva. It consists of not more than 11 inspectorswho must have experience in administrative and finan-cial matters; they are appointed by the Assembly, onthe nomination of the president, with due regard to theprinciple of equitable geographical representation andreasonable rotation, for a term of five years, renewableonce. Inspectors have broad powers of investigationin all matters bearing on efficiency and the proper useof funds. The reports, which are issued on the responsi-bility of the inspectors who carried out the investiga-tion, are submitted to the Assembly, with observationsby the Secretary-General (or the ACC, or both) and,

1204

if need be, those of the�Advisory Committee on Ad-ministrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Theresponsibilities and activities of JIU also extend to thespecialized agencies that have accepted its statute; intheir case the JIU reports are submitted to the govern-ing body or other competent organ concerned.

In October 2000 the Assembly reemphasized therole of JIU, calling for “timely consideration” of itsrecommendations (GA/AB/3387).

United Nations Handbook, 1994, New Zealand Ministry of For-eign Affairs and Trade, Wellington.

JOINT INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEARRESEARCH. �Nuclear Research Dubna Joint Insti-tute.

JOINT VENTURES. International term for joint in-dustrial or financial undertakings involving institutionsor companies of both the host country and a foreigncountry. In the 1980s the term was applied to jointundertakings in the USSR and countries of central andeastern Europe, in which a domestic, usually govern-mental, institution cooperated with a partner from acountry with (usually) a market economy. The termlater came to be used most often to describe similarcooperative arrangements in countries whose econo-mies were in transition from central planning to marketprinciples, and in developing countries.

K. BIVENS and E. LOWELL,Joint Ventures with ForeignPartners, New York, 1966; ECE,Economic, Business, Finan-cial and Legal Aspects of East-West Joint Ventures, Geneva,1988; FRIEDMANN-KALMANOFF,Joint International Busi-ness Venture, New York, 1961; OECD,Competition Policy andJoint Ventures, Washington, DC, 1987;UNIDO Manual on theEstablishment of Industrial Joint Ventures agreements in Devel-oping Countries, New York, 1968; R. C. WOLF,A Guide to theInternational Joint Ventures with Sample Clauses, The Hague,1999.

JORDAN. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Member oftheUN since 14December 1955. State in western Asia,bordering on Israel, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and thePalestine Occupied Territories; it has an outlet to theRed Sea through the Gulf of Aqaba. Area: 97,740 sqkm. Population: 5,153,378 (July 2001 estimate.). Capi-tal: Amman with 1,430,000 inhabitants GDP per capita(2000 estimate): US $3,500. Currency: 1 Jordaniandinar� 1,000 fils. Official language: Arabic. Nationalday: 14 November (Birthday of King Hussein, 1935).

Jordan is a member of the League of Arab States, theOrganization of the Islamic Conference, G-77, NAM,MONUC, ESCWA, FAO, ICC, WHO, and WIPO. In

JORDAN

1978 it signed a cooperation agreement with EEC(later EU).

International relations: Jordan, which had been partof the Ottoman Empire since 1516, was occupied byBritish troops in World War I. In 1920 Palestine (thelands between the Mediterranean Sea in the west andthe River Jordan and the Dead Sea in the east) andTransjordan (the lands east of the Jordan and the RedSea) were formally placed under British administrationunder a League of Nations mandate. Transjordan,which was formally separated from Palestine in 1923,became nominally independent as an emirate in 1928.

InWorldWar II Jordan was on the side of the Allies.The mandate was terminated on 22 March 1946, andon the same day the emirate signed a treaty with theUK. It became a kingdom on 25 May 1946.

In the fighting between Jews and Arabs followingthe termination of the British mandate over Palestinein May 1948, Transjordan’s forces occupied about5,900 sq km of Palestine, including East Jerusalem; thestatus quo was confirmed by an armistice with Israel in1949. The name of the kingdomwas changed to Jordanin June 1949, and the Palestinian territories, called theWest Bank, were formally annexed in April 1950. Thetreaty relationship with the UK was ended in March1957, and the last British troops (which had been sta-tioned east of the Jordan) were withdrawn in July 1957.The population of the West Bank had been swollen bylarge numbers of Muslim refugees from the territoryof Israel. The first congress of Palestine Arab Groupswas held in East Jerusalem in May–June 1964; it re-sulted in the formation of the�Palestine LiberationOrganization (PLO).

In the Arab-Israeli war of November 1967, Israeliforces gained possession of East Jerusalem and theWest Bank. There was then an influx of Palestinianrefugees to the lands east of the Jordan River (some60% of Jordan’s current population are Palestinians orof Palestinian descent), where they established vir-tually a state within a state. After a civil war (Septem-ber 1970–July 1971), the Palestinian guerrilla groupswere expelled from Jordan, and the PLO’s headquar-ters were moved to refugee camps near Beirut. There-after, relations between Jordan and the PLO underwentseveral periods of strain. In the Arab-Israeli war of1973, Jordan supported Syria. At the Arab summitmeeting held in Rabat in October 1974, King Husseinof Jordan supported a resolution (adopted unani-mously) whereby the PLO was recognized as the “solelegitimate representative of the Palestine people.” InFebruary 1985, KingHussein and the PLO leader YasirArafat agreed to propose a confederated state of Jordanand Palestine, to be reached through a conference ofall concerned parties in the Middle East, including the

1205

PLO. The proposal was rejected by Israel, which ar-gued that the PLO could not be a credible partner be-cause it engaged in terrorist acts. On 19 February 1986the king severed his political links with the PLO.

Jordan’s relations with its Arab neighbors wereoften strained in the 1980s: diplomatic relations withEgypt were severed in 1979 and were not reestablisheduntil 24 October 1984; relations with Syria were tensebetween 1980 and December 1985.

At a summit meeting of the League of Arab Statesin June 1988, King Hussein unconditionally supportedthe�intifada and insisted that the PLO must representPalestinians in any future peace talks. In line withagreements reached at this meeting, Jordan severed itslegal and administrative links with the West Bank. On15 November 1988 the PLO proclaimed an indepen-dent state of Palestine and endorsed UN SecurityCouncil Res. 242(1967) as the basis for a peace settle-ment in the Middle East, thereby implicitly recogniz-ing Israel; Jordan and 60 other countries recognizedthe new Palestinian entity.

During Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwaitin 1990, there was considerable support for SaddamHussein in Jordan, particularly among the Palestinians.Because of the importance of the trade with Iraq, Jor-dan’s economywas adversely affected by the sanctionsimposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council in Res.661(1990). The outbreak of the Gulf War led to a largeinflux into Jordan of refugees from Iraq and Kuwait,including many Jordanians who had been working inKuwait. Jordan’s pro-Iraq stance strained its relationswith Saudi Arabia; nearly five years elapsed beforehigh-level ministerial contacts were resumed in mid-1995. In August 1992 Jordan condemned the creationof a “no-fly” zone over southern Iraq, and in January1993 it condemned the United States’ air strikesagainst Iraq. Despite their adverse economic impact,Jordan applied the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, but itwas been irked by the searches of shipping to and fromthe Jordanian port of Aqaba conducted by the US navyin the Gulf of Aqaba

In 1991 Jordan and PLO agreed on the principleof a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinianentity that would eventually emerge, and Jordan andthe Palestinians were represented by a joint delegationat the peace conference on the Middle East that openedin Madrid in October 1991. The joint delegation wasdisbanded after the signing of the Declaration of Prin-ciples in 1993, and King Hussein welcomed the agree-ment between Israel and the PLO. On 14 September1993, in Washington, DC, Israel and Jordan signed anAgreement on the Common Agenda. The state of warbetween Israel and Jordan, which had continued since1948, was formally ended by the signing of the Wash-

JORDAN

ington declaration on 25 July 1994, and this was fol-lowed by the signing of a peace treaty in October.Under agreements signed in 1995, the PLO recognizedJordan’s custodianship of Muslim holy places in Jeru-salem as long as Jordan recognized and supported Pal-estinian claims to sovereignty over East Jerusalem. In1997, Jordan was critical of acts by Israel’s govern-ment (led by Likud) that were inconsistent with Israel’scommitments under the declaration of 1993 and subse-quent agreements with the PLO.

King Hussein died in February 1999 and was suc-ceed by his eldest son, Abdallah II).

See also�World Heritage List.

N. H. ARURI, Jordan: A Study in Political Development(1921–1965), The Hague, 1972; CIA,World Factbook, 2001;Constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Amman,1952;Europa World Yearbook, 1997; P. GUBSER,HistoricalDictionary of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lanham,1991; J. HAAS,Husseins Ko¨nigreich: Jordanian Stellung inNahen Osten, Munich, 1975; A. H. HASAN ABIOLI,Jordan:A Political Study, 1948–1957, New York, 1965; Y. LUKAS,Israel, Jordan, and the Peace Process, Syracuse, NY, 1999; J.MORRIS, The Hashemite Kings, London, 1959; S. MOUSAand Y. T. TONI, Jordan: Land and People, Amman, 1973;Sovremennaya Yordaniya, Moskva, 1964; P. SUBSER,Jordan,Boulder, CO, 1982;World Almanac, 2002.

JORDAN RIVER. River in the Middle East, 320 kmlong. It rises near Mount Hermon and flows throughthe Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea; for most of itslength, it constitutes the border between Jordan to theeast and Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank tothe west. Because of its importance for irrigation, thedivision of its waters was been a subject of disputesbetween Israel and Jordan from 1948 on. In 1953 theUnited States proposed that 60% of the water be allo-cated to Jordan and 40% to Israel; this proposal wasrejected by both sides. Under the terms of the peacetreaty of 1994 between Israel and Jordan, Israel com-mitted itself to supply Jordan with an agreed-on quan-tity of water, but differences persisted over the preciseinterpretation of this commitment. As of 2001 therewas a shortage of water, and conflicts over control ofthe water persisted.

J. A. ALLAN and J. H. COURT (eds.),Water, Peace, and theMiddle East: Negotiating Resources in the Jordan Basin, NewYork, 1996; S. G. STEVENS, “The Jordan River Valley,” inInternational Conciliation, no. 506, January 1956, pp. 227–283.

JOURNAL OF THE UN. Daily publication issuedat UN headquarters in New York, providing informa-tion on meetings scheduled for that day, their agendas,and the symbols of the documentation to be consid-ered; brief summaries of action taken at meetings held

1206

the previous day; information on forthcoming meet-ings; and other communications of interest to delega-tions. During sessions of the General Assembly thejournal is issued in two parts, one for meetings of theAssembly and its committees, and the second for othermeetings. Similar journals are issued at the UN’s Euro-peanOffice in Geneva and, as necessary, at other majoroffices and special conferences.

United Nations Editorial Manual, New York, 1983, p. 9.

JOURNALISTS. In the early 1970s the UN GeneralAssembly considered draft articles to form part of aproposed international convention on the protection ofjournalists engaged in dangerous professional missionsduring armed conflicts. Because of differences of opin-ion in the Assembly, it was decided that the questionwould be considered at the Diplomatic Conference onthe Reaffirmation and Development of HumanitarianLaw Applicable to Armed Conflicts held in1974–1977, and the General Assembly did not at thattime adopt any special instrument on the protection ofjournalists. A later decision, of 20 December 1993 (48/432), did relate to this issue.

In the section on Information, the�Helsinki FinalAct, 1975, contains provisions for the improvement ofworking conditions for journalists, in the context ofthe strengthening of friendly relations and trust amongpeoples.

G. BOHERE,Profession: Journalist—A Study on Employmentand Conditions of Work of Journalists, ILO, Geneva, 1983.

JOURNALISTS, COMPULSORY LICENSING.On 13 November 1985 the�Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights issued a unanimous advisory opinionthat the introduction of compulsory state licensing ofjournalists was incompatible with Art. 13 of the�Hu-man Rights American Convention.

See also�Freedom of the press.

New York Times, 29 November 1985;Keesing’s Record ofWorld Events, no. 1, 1986.

JOURNALISTS’ INTERNATIONAL CODE OFETHICS. Code approved on 13 March 1953 by theSubcommission on Freedom of Information and thePress of the UN Human Rights Commission. Its textis as follows.

Preamble. Freedom of information and of the press is afundamental human right and is the touchstone of all thefreedoms consecrated in the Charter of theUnitedNationsand proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights; it is essential to the promotion and to the preserva-tion of peace.

JUDICIARY, INDEPENDENCE

That freedom will be the better safeguarded when thepersonnel of the press and of all other media of informa-tion constantly and voluntarily strive to maintain the high-est sense of responsibility, being deeply imbued with themoral obligation to be truthful and to search for the truthin reporting, in explaining and in interpreting facts. ThisInternational Code of Ethics is therefore proclaimed as astandard of professional conduct for all engaged in gather-ing, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on newsand information and in describing contemporary eventsby the written word, by word of mouth or by any othermeans of expression.Art. 1. The personnel of the press and information

should do all in their power to ensure that the informationthe public receives is factually accurate. They shouldcheck all items of information to the best of their ability.No fact should be willfully distorted and no essential factshould be deliberately suppressed.Art. 2. A high standard of professional conduct requires

devotion to the public interest. The seeking of personaladvantage and the promotion of any private interest con-trary to the general welfare, for whatever reason, is notcompatible with such professional conduct.Willful calumny, slander, libel and unfounded accusa-

tions are serious professional offences; so also is plagia-rism.Good faith with the public is the foundation of good

journalism. Any published information which is foundto be harmfully inaccurate should be spontaneously andimmediately rectified. Rumor and unconfirmed newsshould be identified and treated as such.Art. 3. Only such tasks as are compatible with the integ-

rity and dignity of the profession should be assigned oraccepted by personnel of the press and information, asalso by those participating in the economic and commer-cial activities of information enterprises. Those who makepublic any information or comment should assume fullresponsibility for what is published unless such responsi-bility is explicitly disclaimed at the time.The reputation of individuals should be respected and

information and comment on their private lives likely toharm their reputation should not be published unless itserves the public interest, as distinguished from publiccuriosity. If charges against reputation or moral characterare made, opportunity should be given for reply. Discre-tion should be observed concerning sources of informa-tion. Professional secrecy should be observed in mattersrevealed in confidence; and this privilege may always beinvoked to the furthest limits of law.Art. 4. It is the duty of those who describe and comment

upon events relating to a foreign country to acquire thenecessary knowledge of such country which will enablethem to report and comment accurately and fairlythereon.Art. 5. This Code is based on the principle that the

responsibility for ensuring the faithful observance ofprofessional ethics rests upon those who are engaged inthe profession, and not upon any government. Nothing

1207

herein may therefore be interpreted as implying any justi-fication for intervention by a government in any mannerwhatsoever to enforce observance of the moral obliga-tions set forth in this Code.

UN Bulletin, 1 April 1952, pp. 345–349.

JUAN DE NOVA. �Madagascar.

JUAREZ BENITO DOCTRINE, 1865.Fundamental principle of peace between nations for-mulated by the president of Mexico, Benito Ju-arez—“Between nations as between people: respectfor the rights of others makes for peace” (Entre lospueblos como entre los hombres: el respecto al de-recho ajeno es la paz).

E. MORENO,Juarez jurista, Mexico, 1972; R. ROEDES,Be-nito Juarez and His Mexico, New York, 1947; D. C. VIL-LEGAS, Historia Moderna de Me´xico, 5 vols., Mexico,1955–1960.

JUDAISM. Religion of the Jews. It is the oldest mon-otheistic religion in the world, dating from the secondmillenniumB.C.E.. It provided the basis for Christianityand influenced Islam.

JUDEA AND SAMARIA. Historical names for,respectively, southern and northern Palestine. Extrem-ist groups and individuals in Israel who want the Isra-eli-occupied West Bank to be annexed by Israel usethese names when referring to it.

JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIALDOCUMENTS. Subject of international cooperation.The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial orExtrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Mat-ters (with Annex), which was opened for signature on15 November 1965 in The Hague, went into force on10 February 1969. Article 1. states:

The Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or com-mercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit ajudicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad. TheConvention shall not apply where the address of the per-son to be served with the document is not known.

UNTS, Vol. 658, p. 165.

JUDICIARY, INDEPENDENCE. The seventh UNCongress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treat-ment of Offenders, which met in Milan in Au-gust–September 1985, unanimously adopted Basic

JUDICIARY, INDEPENDENCE

Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, whichhad evolved from a study on the independence andimpartiality of the judiciary, jurors, and assessors andthe independence of lawyers, compiled by L. M. Sin-ghvi (of India), a special rapporteur of the Commissionon Human Rights. The action of the congress was wel-comed by the UN General Assembly in Res. 40/146of 13 December 1985.

By Res. 1989/60 of 24May 1989, ECOSOCadoptedprocedures for the effective implementation of theBasic Principles. Procedures 1–3 read as follows.

Procedure 1. All states shall adopt and implement intheir justice systems the Basic Principles on the Independ-ence of the Judiciary in accordance with their constitu-tional process and domestic practice.Procedure 2. No judge shall be apointed or elected

for purposes, or be required to perform services, that areinconsistent with the Basic Principles. No judge shall ac-cept judicial office on the basis of an appointment orelection, or perform services, that are inconsistent withthe Basic Principles.Procedure 3. The Basic Principles shall apply to all

judges, including, as appropriate, lay judges, where theyexist.

Procedures 4 and 6 call for wide publicity for theBasic Principles by member states. Procedure 5stresses the need to appoint a sufficient number ofjudges and arrange for the necessary support staff, inrelation to caseloads; also, according to this procedure,judges must be offered “appropriate personal security,remuneration and emoluments.” Procedures 7–15 dealwith the role of UN organs in publicizing the BasicPrinciples and monitoring their implementation bymember states.

Yearbook of the United Nations, 1985 and 1989.

JUMP COMPLEX. Canadian cultural site, includedin the�World Heritage List.

UNESCO,A Legacy for All, Paris, 1984.

JUNTA. From Spanish,junta militar � militarycouncil. Hispanic-American term dating from the earlynineteenth century, when it was applied to govern-ments in Latin American countries established by mili-tary conspiracies against the Spanish monarchy. Theterm later came to mean a nondemocratic governmentestablished by a group of military officers.

JURE BELLI AC PACIS. De jure belli ac pacis, awork by the Dutch jurist and humanist Hugo Grotius(Huigh de Groot, 1583–1645, is considered the first

1208

definitive text on international law and the laws of warand peace. It was published first in 1625, then in 1631.

JURIDICAL INTERSTATE ASSISTANCE.International term for legal contestations carried outon the territory of one state by its judicature at therequest of another state when certain circumstances ofthe case in question can be established only on theterritory of the former (e.g., registry of documents orexamination of witnesses). There is no multilateralconvention standardizing the related procedures, butmost states are bound by bilateral agreements (whichrelate mainly to civil questions); the legal codes ofmost states also include appropriate provisions for suchassistance.

H. LEROY JONES, “International Juridical Assistance: Proce-dural Chaos and a Program for Reform,” inYale Law Journal,no. 62, 1952–1953.

JURISDICTION. Latin, iurisdiction � administra-tion of the law. International term for the administra-tion of justice, the authority or power that administersit, the competence to hear a case, and the extent (in-cluding territorial extent) of the authority. Subject ofinternational conventions and bilateral and multilateraltreaties delimiting the competence of national tribunalsto hear cases of international dimensions.

M. AKEHURST, “Jurisdiction in International Law,” inBritishYearbook of International Law 1972–1973, Oxford, 1975, pp.145–258; R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCZEK, “Jurisdictionand Jurisdictional Immunities,” inThe International Law Dic-tionary, Oxford, 1987; M. REISMAN (ed.),Jurisdiction in In-ternational Law, Burlington, 1999.

JURISDICTION, INTERNATIONAL.International term for international institutions estab-lished for conciliation, arbitration, advice, or adjudica-tion of international disputes; alos, the competence ofsuch institutions. The oldest such institution is the Per-manent Court of Arbitration (�Arbitration, PermanentCourt of). In the UN system, the principal institutionis the�International Court of Justice (ICJ); theUNalsoestablished international tribunals to consider seriouscrimes in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. Inter-national tribunals have also been established on a re-gional basis (e.g., European Court of Human Rights,Inter-American Court of Human Rights).

See also�Forum prorogatum;�International Crimi-nal Court.

K. HAMMARSKJOLD, Juridiction internationale, The Hague,1939; K. H. KAIKOBAD, The International Court of Justiceand Law Review, The Hague, 2000; H. N. MEYER,The WorldCourt in Action, Lanham, 2001; W. SCHABAS,An Introduc-

JUS AD BELLUM

tion to the World Criminal Court, Cambridge, 2001; H. J.SCHLOCHAUER, “Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit,” inStrupp-SchlochauerWo¨rterbuch des Vo¨lkerrechts, Vol. 2, Berlin, 1961,pp. 56–64.

JURISDICTION, UNIVERSAL. Principle for de-ciding the competence of a tribunal. Also, competenceof a domestic court to prosecute crimes allegedly com-mitted in other country by the national of another coun-try and against the nationals of a country different formthe one where the alleged crimes are being prosecuted.The concept was used by a Spanish judge, BaltasarGarzon, to prosecute Augusto Pinochet Ugarte of Chileand demand his extradition from England in 1998.

JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY. Internationalterm for freedom from criminal, civil, or administrativejurisdiction of the receiving state conferred on dulyaccreditedmembers of foreign diplomatic and consularagencies and their families, provided they are not na-tionals or permanent residents of the receiving state.Jurisdictional immunity often does not extend to con-sular officers. The agreements regarding headquartersconcluded by the UN and its specialized agencies withtheir respective host countries govern the jurisdictionalimmunity of these international organizations and theirstaffs.

In 1991 the International Law Commission (ILC)submitted to the UN General Assembly draft articleson jurisdictional immunities of states and their prop-erty. By Res. 46/55 of 9 December 1991, the Assemblyset up an open-ended working group to consider thematter. In Res. 49/61 of December 9, 1994, the Assem-bly accepted ILC’s recommendation of an interna-tional conference of plenipotentiaries to conclude aconvention on jurisdictional immunities of states andtheir property. In 1997 decisions were being consid-ered regarding a working group; in 1998 a work pro-gram was set up (Sixth Committee); work continuedin 1999 and 2000.

W. W. BISHOP, Jr., “New US Policy Limiting Sovereign Im-munity,” in American Journal of International Law, no. 47,1953; J. F. LALIVE, “L’immunite de juridiction des e´tats etdes organisations internationales,” inRecueil des Cours de l’A-cademie de Droit International, no. 84, 1953; H. LAUTER-PACHT, “The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of ForeignStates,” in British Yearbook, no. 28, 1951; C. M.SCHMITTHOFF, “Sovereign Immunity in InternationalTrade,” in International Law Quarterly, no. 7, 1958.

JURISPRUDENCE. International term with twomeanings: (1) study of the origin and development oflaw and systems of law, including fields such as logic,

1209

forensic medicine, and forensic psychology; (b) caselaw.

A. DE LA PRADELLE, Jurisprudence internationale, Paris,1936; C. MORRIS (ed.),The Great Legal Philosophers: Se-lected Readings in Jurisprudence, London, 1959.

JUS AVOCANDI. Latin � “right to appeal.” Inter-national term for a principle whereby a victim has theright to appeal to higher (also international) instances;this right was referred to in the Minority Treaties of theLeague of Nations (�Minorities, protection of, before1945) and was granted to the inhabitants of�TrustTerritories.

JUS BANDERAE. Latin � “right of flag.” Interna-tional legal principle that the colors under which a shipsails, and not the nationality of its owner, will deter-mine the ship’s nationality. Most states lay down strictconditions under which a ship may fly their flag, buta few states (called flag-of-convenience states, e.g. Cy-prus, Liberia, and Panama) allow foreign ships to beregistered against payment of a fee.�Flag of a ship.

JUS IN BELLO. Latin � “wartime legal rules.” In-ternational term for laws that may be customary orcontained in international instruments (of which themain ones are the Geneva and Hague conventions), aswell as legal acts determining relations among states,both neutral and belligerent.Jus in bellodevelopedbeginning in the sixteenth century, mainly through bi-lateral treaties between warring parties; after 22 Au-gust 1864, the date of the First Geneva Conference, itdeveloped through multilateral instruments, includingthose adopted under the aegis of the UN.

JUS AD BELLUM. Latin � “right to declare andwage wars.” (Also, the theory of a just war.) UntilWorld War I this was a generally acceptable principlefor solving disputes between states by use of force ina way controlled by customary rules and to a limitedextent by early international conventions (of1856–1907).

The right to wage war was denounced for the firsttime in principle in Lenin’s�Decree of Peace, 1917.The Preamble of the Covenant of the League of Na-tions (�League of Nations Covenant, 1919) refers tothe high contracting parties’ “acceptance of obligationsnot to resort to war.” The first formal internationaltreaty denouncing “recourse to war to settle interna-tional disputes” and renouncing war as an “instrumentof national policy in mutual relations” was the�Kel-logg-Briand Treaty, signed in Paris on 17August 1928.

JUS AD BELLUM

After World War II these principles were expressed inthe UN Charter, which speaks of a determination “tosave succeeding generations from the scourge of war”and imposes on all members the obligation to “refrainin their international relations from the threat or useof force against the territorial integrity or political in-dependence of any state or in any other manner incon-sistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

S. KALOGEROPOULOS-STRATIS,Ius ad bellum, Athens,1950.

JUS CADUCUM. Latin � “right to derelictproperty.” International term with two meanings: (1) aconcept in Roman law applicable to property to whichthere is no heir and which has not been bequeathed;and (2) the law governing appropriation of derelictproperty.

JUS CIRCA SACRA. Latin � “The law is greaterthan religion.” Principle of supremacy of state law overecclesiastical law. It gave rise to eight legal concepts(mainly in countries that abolished RomanCatholicismas their state religion):

(1) Jus domini in bona ecclesiasticaor the possibilityto control and secularize church estates;

(2) Jus cavendi—a ban on church activities deemedinconsistent with the interests of the state.

(3) Jus inspectionis—the right to keep under surveil-lance not only the activities exercised by thechurch hierarchy but also its relations with theHoly See.

(4) Jus placeti regii—the need to obtain permissionof the government to publish or read at the pulpitany papal writs.

(5) Jus exclusive—the right to reject nominations tobishoprics.

(6) Jus appelationis tamquam ab abusu—the rightto appeal to civil authorities; this right applies toeach citizen if he or she disagrees with verdictsof ecclesiastical authorities.

(7) Jus advocatiae—the right of the state, acting inthe capacity of a patron, to defend the church.

(8) Jus reformandi—the right to recognize other de-nominations and to influence reforms in thechurch system.

JUS CIVILE. Latin� “civil law.” International termfor national legal systems in Europe that were basedon the civil law applied in ancient Rome only to Romancitizens, as opposed to the�jus gentiumapplied tononcitizens.

1210

R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCZEK,The International LawDictionary, Oxford, 1987.

JUS COGENS.Latin � “invariable law.” Principlethat there exist basic legal rules in international law,which are to be applied unconditionally and may notbe altered or waived by individual states. The oppositeof jus cogensis �jus dispositivum.

The UN International Law Commission, faced withprofound differences of opinion, abandoned its attemptto codify norms related tojus cogens. The Vienna Con-vention on the Law of International Treaties (1969)deals withjus cogensin Art. 53, which states:

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflictswith a peremptory norm of general international law. Forthe purposes of the present Convention, a peremptorynorm of general international law is a norm accepted andrecognized by the international community of states as awhole as a norm from which no derogation is permittedand which can be modified only by a subsequent normof general international law having the same character.

R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCSEK,The International LawDictionary, Oxford, 1987.

JUS CONTRA BELLUM. Latin � “law againstwar,” “antiwar law.” International term for norms ofinternational law banning aggressive wars and war-mongering.

JUS DENEGATA. Latin � “refusal to provide legalprotection.” International term for failure or refusal togrant aliens, in civil or criminal proceedings againstthem, the legal protection to which they are entitled.

JUS DISPOSITIVUM. Latin, � “law ofdisposition.” International term for law that is onlyrelatively binding on the parties until such time as theyhave settled the issue of their free will. Opposite of�jus cogens.

JUS GENTIUM. � “law of peoples.” Internationalterm for the oldest form of international public law;originally, the law common to all nations comprisedin the Roman world.

R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCZEK,The International LawDictionary, Oxford, 1987.

JUS LEGATIONIS. Latin � “right of legation.” In-ternational term for rights vested in an envoy to a for-eign country.

JUTE

JUS NATURALE. Latin � “natural law.” Romanlegal concept based on reason and on people’s adapt-ability and ability to live together.

R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCZEK,The International LawDictionary, Oxford, 1987.

JUS PRIMI OCCUPANTIS. Latin � “right of firstoccupation.” International term for a principle in colo-nial times: Europeans assumed the right to annex unin-habited (or allegedly uninhabited) overseas territoriesdiscovered by them.

JUS PROTECTIONIS. Latin � “right toprotection.” International term for norms ensuringlegal protection.

JUS PUBLICUM EUROPAEUM. Latin � “Euro-pean public law.” International term for a principle,promoted mostly by German lawyers in the nineteenthcentury, claiming the superiority of national law overinternational law.

JUS RESISTENDI. Latin � “right of resistance.”International term for the principle of resistance

against injustice.�Liberation theology.

JUS SANGUINIS. Latin� “right of blood.” Interna-tional legal term for a norm applied in some Europeancountries (e.g., Germany) where nationality is grantedon the basis of descent. In other countries (such as theUK and the United States) the norm is�jus soli, or acombination of the two.

R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCZEK,The International LawDictionary, Oxford, 1987.

JUS SOLI. Latin � “right derived from the land.”International term for a norm applied in various coun-tries under which nationality is granted depending onthe place of birth.

R. L. BLEDSOE and B. A. BOCZEK,The International LawDictionary, Oxford, 1987.

JUS TALIONIS. Latin� “right to retaliation.” Inter-national medieval term for a customary law sanction-ing retaliation (e.g., killing hostages or burning opencities and villages); it is now considered contrary tothe principles of international law.

A. K. KUHN, “The Execution of Hostages,” inAmerican Jour-nal of International Law, no. 36, 1942.

1211

JUSCANZ. Acronym for a negotiating group consist-ing of Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, andNew Zealand, which often made joint statements inUN bodies and adopted joint positions in negotiatingwith the European Union and the�Group of Seventy-Seven.

JUST AND UNJUST WAR. �Bellum justum et ini-ustum.

JUST WAR THEORY. �Jus ad bellum.

JUTE. Important commodity in international trade,covered by the Common Fund for Commodities(CFC).�Commodoties, Common Fund for.

An Organization of Jute Exporting Countries wasestablished in New Delhi in 1976 by the world’s fourmajor jute-producing countries: Bangladesh, India,Nepal, and Thailand (the organization became inactivefollowing the establishment of the International JuteOrganization).

A UN Conference on Jute and Jute Products, whichwas held in Geneva in 1981 under the auspices of UN-CTAD, resulted in International Agreement on Juteand Jute Products (1982, also known as the Interna-tional Jute Agreement); the agreement was concludedfor five years, after which it was to be replaced bysubsequent agreements. At their first session (held inDhaka, Bangladesh), the parties to the agreement of1982 established the International Jute Organization(IJO) on 8 January 1984, to provide a framework forcooperation and consultation between jute- exportingand -importing members, improve and enlarge the jutemarket, improve yields and quality, increase competi-tiveness with substitute products, and help meet therequirements of world demand and supply. Member-ship then consisted of five exporting countries (Bang-ladesh, China, India, Nepal, Thailand) and 21 import-ing countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark,Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia,Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan,Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) plus theEuropean Community. The governing organ of IJO isthe International Jute Council. IJO is financed by prorata annual contributions from each member countryaccording to its share of the jute import and exporttrade, supplemented by assistance provided by interna-tional financial organizations and the Second Accountof the CFC.

UIA (ed.), Yearbook of International Organizations,1997–1998, Munich, 1997.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, PREVENTION

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, PREVENTION.Discussion by UN bodies of the issues associated withjuvenile delinquency dates from the Second UN Con-gress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatmentof Offenders, held in London in August 1960. Juveniledelinquency and juvenile justice were also discussed atthe Sixth Congress (in Caracas in August–September1980), the Seventh Congress (in Milan in August-Sep-tember 1985), and the Eighth Congress (in 1990).

In Res. 45/112 of 14 December 1990, the GeneralAssembly adopted UN Guidelines for the Preventionof Juvenile Delinquency, called the Riyadh Guidelinesbecause they had been drafted at an international meet-ing of experts held in Riyadh from 28 February to 1March 1988. Section I of the Guidelines, FundamentalPrinciples, is as follows.

1. The prevention of juvenile delinquency is an essen-tial part of crime prevention in society. By engaging inlawful, socially useful activities and adopting a humanis-tic orientation towards society and outlook on life, youngpersons can develop non-criminogenic attitudes.2. The successful prevention of juvenile delinquency

requires efforts on the part of the entire society to ensurethe harmonious development of adolescents, with respectfor and promotion of their personality from early child-hood.3. For the purposes of the interpretation of the present

Guidelines, a child-centered orientation should be pur-sued. Young persons should have an active role and part-nership within society and should not be considered asmere objects of socialization or control.4. In the implementation of the present Guidelines, in

accordance with national legal systems, the well-beingof young persons from their early childhood should bethe focus of any preventive programme.5. The need for and importance of progressive delin-

quency prevention policies and the systematic study andthe elaboration of measures should be recognized. Theseshould avoid criminalizing and penalizing a child for be-haviour that does not cause serious damage to the devel-opment of the child or harm to others. Such policies andmeasures should involve:(a) The provision of opportunities, in particular educa-

tional opportunities, to meet the varying needs of youngpersons and to serve as a supportive framework for safe-guarding the personal development of all young persons,particularly those who are demonstrably endangered or atsocial risk and are in need of special care and protection;(b) Specialized philosophies and approaches for delin-

quency prevention, on the basis of laws, processes, insti-tutions, facilities and a service delivery network aimedat reducing the motivation, need and opportunity for, orconditions giving rise to, the commission of infractions;(c) Official intervention to be pursued primarily in the

overall interest of the young person and guided by fairnessand equity;

1212

(d) Safeguarding the well-being, development, rightsand interests of all young persons;(e) Consideration that youthful behaviour or conduct

that does not conform to overall social norms and valuesis often part of the maturation and growth process andtends to disappear spontaneously in most individuals withthe transition to adulthood;(f) Awareness that, in the predominant opinion of ex-

perts, labeling a young person as “deviant,” “delinquent,”or “pre-delinquent” often contributes to the developmentof a consistent pattern of undesirable behaviour by youngpersons.6. Community-based services and programmes should

be developed for the prevention of juvenile delinquency,particularly where no agencies have yet been established.Formal agencies of social control should only be utilizedas a means of last resort.

The two articles of Section II, Scope of the Guide-lines, refer, respectively, to the various human rightsinstruments adopted by the UN, and to the economic,social, and cultural conditions in each country. SectionIII, General Prevention, refers to the mechanisms andmodalities at all levels of government.

Section IV, Socialization Processes, states in Art.10:

Emphasis should be placed on preventive policies facili-tating the successful socialization and integration of allchildren and young persons, particularly through the fam-ily, the community, peer groups, schools, vocationaltraining and the world of work, as well as through volun-tary organizations. Due respect should be given to theproper personal development of children and young per-sons, and they should be accepted as full and equal part-ners in socialization and integration processes.

The role of the family and support for the familyare covered in Arts. 11–19. Articles 20–31 deal witheducation and the role of schools, Arts. 32–39 withcommunity-based services and programs, and Arts.40–44 with the role and responsibilities of the media.Social policies are addressed in Section V (Arts.45–51).

Section VI, Legislation and Juvenile Justice Admin-istration, reads as follows.

52. Governments should enact and enforce specificlaws and procedures to promote and protect the rightsand well-being of all young persons.53. Legislation preventing the victimization, abuse, ex-

ploitation and the use for criminal activities of childrenand young persons should be enacted and enforced.54. No child or young person should be subjected to

harsh or degrading correction or punishment measures athome, in schools or in any other institutions.55. Legislation and enforcement aimed at restricting

and controlling accessibility of weapons of any sort tochildren and young persons should be pursued.

JUVENILE JUSTICE

56. In order to prevent further stigmatization, victimiza-tion and criminalization of young persons, legislationshould be enacted to ensure that any conduct not consid-ered an offence or not penalized if committed by an adultis not considered an offence and not penalized if commit-ted by a young person.57. Consideration should be given to the establishment

of an office of ombudsman or similar independent organ,which would ensure that the status, rights and interestsof young persons are upheld and that proper referral toavailable services is made. The ombudsman or otherorgan designated would also supervise the implementa-tion of the Riyadh Guidelines, the Beijing Rules and theRules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their Lib-erty. The ombudsman or other organ would, at regularintervals, publish a report on the progress made and onthe difficulties encountered in the implementation of theinstrument. Child advocacy services should also be estab-lished.58. Law enforcement and other relevant personnel, of

both sexes, should be trained to respond to the specialneeds of young persons and should be familiar with anduse, to the maximum extent possible, programmes andreferral possibilities for the diversion of young personsfrom the justice system.59. Legislation should be enacted and strictly enforced

to protect children and young persons from drug abuseand drug traffickers.

Section VII (Arts. 60–66) deals with research, pol-icy development, and coordination.

JUVENILE JUSTICE. The UN General Assemblyhas adopted two major instruments related to juvenilejustice: (1) UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Ad-ministration of Juvenile Justice (also known as theBeijing Rules), with an accompanying Commentary,adopted on 29 November 1985, in Res. 40/33. (2) UNRules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of TheirLiberty, adopted on 14 December 1990, in Res. 45/113.

UNStandard MinimumRules for the Administrationof Juvenile Justice. The text of these rules is as follows.

Part One. General principles.1. Fundamental perspectives1.1 Member States shall seek, in conformity with their

respective general interests, to further the well-being ofthe juvenile and her or his family.1.2 Member States shall endeavour to develop condi-

tions that will ensure for the juvenile a meaningful life inthe community, which, during the period in life when sheor he is most susceptible to deviant behaviour, will fostera process of personal development and education that isas free from crime and delinquency as possible.1.3 Sufficient attention shall be given to positive mea-

sures that involve the full mobilization of all possible re-sources, including the family, volunteers and other com-

1213

munity groups, as well as schools and other communityinstitutions, for the purpose of promoting the well-beingof the juvenile, with a view to reducing the need for inter-vention under the law, and of effectively, fairly and hu-manely dealing with the juvenile in conflict with the law.1.4 Juvenile justice shall be conceived as an integral

part of the national development process of each country,within a comprehensive framework of social justice forall juveniles, thus, at the same time, contributing to theprotection of the young and themaintenance of a peacefulorder in society.1.5 These Rules shall be implemented in the context

of the economic, social and cultural conditions prevailingin each Member State.1.6 Juvenile justice services shall be systematically de-

veloped and coordinated with a view to improving andsustaining the competence of personnel involved in theservices, including their methods, approaches and atti-tudes.2. Scope of the Rules and definitions used2.1 The following Standard Minimum Rules shall be

applied to juvenile offenders impartially, without distinc-tion of any kind, for example as to race, colour, sex, lan-guage, religion, political or other opinions, national orsocial origin, property, birth or other status.2.2 For purposes of these Rules, the following defini-

tions shall be applied by Member States in a mannerwhich is compatible with their respective legal systemsand concepts:(a) A juvenile is a child or young person who, under

the respective legal systems, may be dealt with for anoffence in a manner which is different from an adult;(b) An offence is any behaviour (act or omission) that

is punishable by law under the respective legal systems;(c) A juvenile offender is a child or young person who

is alleged to have committed or who has been found tohave committed an offence.2.3 Efforts shall be made to establish, in each national

jurisdiction, a set of laws, rules and provisions specificallyapplicable to juvenile offenders and institutions and bod-ies entrusted with the functions of the administration ofjuvenile justice and designed:(a) To meet the varying needs of juvenile offenders,

while protecting their basic rights;(b) To meet the needs of society;(c) To implement the following rules thoroughly and

fairly.3. Extension of the Rules3.1 The relevant provisions of the Rules shall be applied

not only to juvenile offenders but also to juveniles whomay be proceeded against for any specific behaviour thatwould not be punishable if committed by an adult;3.2 Efforts shall be made to extend the principles em-

bodied in the Rules to all juveniles who are dealt with inwelfare and care proceedings.3.3 Efforts shall be made to extend the principles em-

bodied in the Rules to young adult offenders.4. Age of criminal responsibility

JUVENILE JUSTICE

4.1 In those legal systems recognizing the concept ofthe age of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the begin-ning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level,bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intel-lectual maturity.5. Aim of juvenile justice5.1 The juvenile justice system shall emphasize the

well-being of the juvenile and shall ensure that any reac-tion to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportionto the circumstances of both the offenders and the offence.6. Scope of discretion6.1 In view of the varying special needs of juveniles as

well as the variety of measures available, appropriatescope for discretion shall be allowed at all stages of pro-ceedings and at the different levels of juvenile justice ad-ministration, including investigation, prosecution, adjudi-cation and the follow-up of dispositions.6.2 Efforts shall be made, however, to ensure sufficient

accountability at all stages and levels in the exercise ofany such discretion.6.3 Those who exercise discretion shall be specially

qualified or trained to exercise it judiciously and in accor-dance with their functions and mandates.7. Rights of juveniles7.1 Basic procedural safeguards such as the presump-

tion of innocence, the right to be notified of the charges,the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, the rightto the presence of a parent or guardian, the right to con-front and cross-examine witnesses and the right to appealto a higher authority shall be guaranteed at all stages ofproceedings.8. Protection of privacy8.1 The juvenile’s right to privacy shall be respected at

all stages in order to avoid harm being caused to her orhim by undue publicity or by the process of labelling.8.2 In principle, no information that may lead to the

identification of a juvenile offender shall be published.9. Saving clause9.1 Nothing in these Rules shall be interpreted as pre-

cluding the application of the Standard Minimum Rulesfor the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the UN andother human rights instruments and standards recognizedby the international community that relate to the care andprotection of the young.Part Two. Investigation and prosecution10. Initial contact10.1 Upon the apprehension of a juvenile, her or his

parents or guardian shall be immediately notified of suchapprehension, and, where such immediate notification isnot possible, the parents or guardian shall be notifiedwithin the shortest possible time thereafter.10.2 A judge or other competent official or body shall,

without delay, consider the issue of release.10.3 Contacts between the law enforcement agencies

and a juvenile offender shall be managed in such a wayas to respect the legal status of the juvenile, promote thewell-being of the juvenile and avoid harm to her or him,with due regard to the circumstances of the case.

1214

11. Diversion11.1 Consideration shall be given, wherever appropri-

ate, to dealing with juvenile offenders without resortingto formal trial by the competent authority, referred to inrule 14.1 below.11.2 The police, the prosecution or other agencies deal-

ing with juvenile cases shall be empowered to dispose ofsuch cases, at their discretion, without recourse to formalhearings, in accordance with the criteria laid down forthat purpose in the respective legal system and also inaccordance with the principles contained in these Rules.11.3 Any diversion involving referral to appropriate

community or other services shall require the consent ofthe juvenile, or her or his parents or guardian, providedthat such decision to refer a case shall be subject to reviewby a competent authority, upon application.11.4 In order to facilitate the discretionary disposition

of juvenile cases, efforts shall bemade to provide for com-munity programmes, such as temporary supervision andguidance, restitution, and compensation of victims.12. Specialization within the police12.1 In order to best fulfil their functions, police officers

who frequently or exclusively deal with juveniles or whoare primarily engaged in the prevention of juvenile crimeshall be specially instructed and trained. In large cities,special police units should be established for that pur-pose.13. Detention pending trial13.1 Detention pending trial shall be used only as a

measure of last resort and for the shortest possible periodof time.13.2 Whenever possible, detention pending trial shall

be replaced by alternative measures, such as close super-vision, intensive care or placement with a family or in aneducational setting or home.13.3 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be

entitled to all rights and guarantees of the Standard Mini-mum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by theUN.13.4 Juveniles under detention pending trial shall be

kept separate from adults and shall be detained in a sepa-rate institution or in a separate part of an institution alsoholding adults.13.5While in custody, juveniles shall receive care, pro-

tection and all necessary individual assistance - social,educational, vocational, psychological, medical andphysical - that they may require in view of their age, sexand personality.Part Three. Adjudication and disposition14. Competent authority to adjudicate14.1Where the case of a juvenile offender has not been

diverted (under rule 11), she or he shall be dealt with bythe competent authority (court, tribunal, board, council,etc.) according to the principles of a fair and just trial.14.2 The proceedings shall be conducive to the best

interests of the juvenile and shall be conducted in anatmosphere of understanding, which shall allow the juve-nile to participate therein and to express herself or himselffreely.

JUVENILE JUSTICE

15. Legal counsel, parents and guardians15.1 Throughout the proceedings the juvenile shall

have the right to be represented by a legal adviser or toapply for free legal aid where there is provision for suchaid in the country.15.2 The parents or the guardian shall be entitled to

participate in the proceedings and may be required bythe competent authority to attend them in the interest ofthe juvenile. They may, however, be denied participationby the competent authority if there are reasons to assumethat such exclusion is necessary in the interest of the juve-nile.16. Social inquiry reports16.1 In all cases except those involving minor offences,

before the competent authority renders a final dispositionprior to sentencing, the background and circumstancesin which the juvenile is living or the conditions underwhich the offence has been committed shall be properlyinvestigated so as to facilitate judicious adjudication ofthe case by the competent authority.17. Guiding principles in adjudication and disposition17.1 The disposition of the competent authority shall

be guided by the following principles:(a) The reaction taken shall always be in proportion not

only to the circumstances and the gravity of the offencebut also to the circumstances and the needs of the juvenileas well as to the needs of the society;(b) Restrictions on the personal liberty of the juvenile

shall be imposed only after careful consideration and shallbe limited to the possible minimum;(c) Deprivation of personal liberty shall not be imposed

unless the juvenile is adjudicated of a serious act involv-ing violence against another person or of persistence incommitting other serious offences and unless there is noother appropriate response;(d) The well-being of the juvenile shall be the guiding

factor in the consideration of her or his case.17.2 Capital punishment shall not be imposed for any

crime committed by juveniles.17.3 Juveniles shall not be subject to corporal punish-

ment.17.4 The competent authority shall have the power to

discontinue the proceedings at any time.18. Various disposition measures18.1 A large variety of disposition measures shall be

made available to the competent authority, allowing forflexibility so as to avoid institutionalization to the greatestextent possible. Such measures, some of which may becombined, include:(a) Care, guidance and supervision orders;(b) Probation;(c) Community service orders;(d) Financial penalties, compensation and restitution;(e) Intermediate treatment and other treatment orders;(f) Orders to participate in group counselling and simi-

lar activities;(g) Orders concerning foster care, living communities

or other educational settings;

1215

(h) Other relevant orders.18.2 No juvenile shall be removed from parental super-

vision, whether partly or entirely, unless the circum-stances of her or his case make this necessary.19. Least possible use of institutionalization19.1 The placement of a juvenile in an institution shall

always be a disposition of last resort and for the minimumnecessary period.20. Avoidance of unnecessary delay20.1 Each case shall from the outset be handled expedi-

tiously, without any unnecessary delay.21. Records21.1 Records of juvenile offenders shall be kept strictly

confidential and closed to third parties. Access to suchrecords shall be limited to persons directly concernedwith the disposition of the case at hand or other dulyauthorized persons.21.1 Records of juvenile offenders shall not be used in

adult proceedings in subsequent cases involving the sameoffender.22. Need for professionalism and training22.1 Professional education, in-service training, re-

fresher courses and other appropriate modes of instruc-tion shall be utilized to establish and maintain the neces-sary professional competence of all personnel dealingwith juvenile cases.22.2 Juvenile justice personnel shall reflect the diversity

of juveniles who come into contact with the juvenile jus-tice system. Efforts shall be made to ensure the fair repre-sentation of women and minorities in juvenile justiceagencies.Part Four. Non-institutional treatment23. Effective implementation of disposition23.1 Appropriate provisions shall be made for the im-

plementation of orders of the competent authority, as re-ferred to in rule 14.1 above, by that authority itself or bysome other authority as circumstances may require.23.2 Such provisions shall include the power to modify

the orders as the competent authority may deem neces-sary from time to time, provided that such modificationshall be determined in accordance with the principlescontained in these Rules.24. Provision of needed assistance24.1 Efforts shall be made to provide juveniles, at all

stages of the proceedings, with necessary assistance suchas lodging, education or vocational training, employmentor any other assistance, helpful and practical, in order tofacilitate the rehabilitative process.25. Mobilization of volunteers and other community

services25.1 Volunteers, voluntary organizations, local institu-

tions and other community resources shall be called uponto contribute effectively to the rehabilitation of the juve-nile in a community setting and, as far as possible, withinthe family unit.Part Five. Institutional treatment26. Objectives of institutional treatment26.1 The objective of training and treatment of juve-

niles placed in institutions is to provide care, protection,

JUVENILE JUSTICE

education and vocational skills, with a view to assistingthem to assume socially constructive and productive rolesin society.26.2 Juveniles in institutions shall receive care, protec-

tion and all necessary assistance - social, educational,vocational, psychological, medical and physical - thatthey may require because of their age, sex and personalityand in the interest of their wholesome development.26.3 Juveniles in institutions shall be kept separate from

adults and shall be detained in a separate institution orin a separate part of an institution also holding adults.26.4 Young female offenders placed in an institution

deserve special attention as to their personal needs andproblems. They shall by no means receive less care, pro-tection, assistance, treatment and training than youngmale offenders. Their fare treatment shall be ensured.26.5 In the interest and well-being of the institutional-

ized juvenile, the parents or guardian shall have a rightof access.26.6 Inter-ministerial and inter-departmental coopera-

tion shall be fostered for the purpose of providing ade-quate academic or, as appropriate, vocational training toinstitutionalized juveniles, with a view to ensuring thatthey do not leave the institution at an educational disad-vantage.27. Application of the Standard Minimum Rules for the

Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the UN27.1 The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment

of Prisoners and related recommendations shall be appli-cable as far as relevant to the treatment of juvenile of-fenders in institutions, including those in detention pend-ing adjudication.27.2 Efforts shall be made to implement the relevant

principles laid down in the Standard Minimum Rules forthe Treatment of Prisoners to the largest possible extentso as to meet the varying needs of juveniles specific totheir age, sex and personality.28. Frequent and early recourse to conditional release28.1 Conditional release from an institution shall be

used by the appropriate authority to the greatest possibleextent, and shall be granted at the earliest possible time.28.2 Juveniles released conditionally from an institu-

tion shall be assisted and supervised by an appropriateauthority and shall receive full support by the community.29. Semi-institutional arrangements29.1 Efforts shall be made to provide semi-institutional

arrangements, such as half-way houses, educationalhomes, day-time training centres and other such appropri-ate arrangements that may assist juveniles in their properreintegration into society.Part Six. Research, planning, policy formulation and

evaluation30. Research as a basis for planning, policy formulation

and evaluation30.1 Efforts shall be made to organize and promote

necessary research as a basis for effective planning andpolicy formulation.30.2 Efforts shall be made to review and appraise pe-

riodically the trends, problems and causes of juvenile de-

1216

linquency and crime as well as the varying particularneeds of juveniles in custody.30.3 Efforts shall be made to establish a regular evalua-

tive research mechanism built into the system of juvenilejustice administration and to collect and analyse relevantdata and information for appropriate assessment and fu-ture improvement and reform of the administration.30.4 The delivery of services in juvenile justice admin-

istration shall be systematically planned and imple-mented as an integral part of national development efforts.

UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprivedof Their Liberty. Section I, Fundamental Perspectives(rules 1–10), states that juveniles may be deprived ofliberty only in exceptional cases and for the minimumperiod necessary. The rules are intended to establishminimum standards, consistent with human rights andfundamental freedoms and with the principles and pro-cedures set forth in the UN Standard Minimum Rulesfor the Administration of Juvenile Justice, counteractthe detrimental effects of all types of detention and tofoster integration in society. Where appropriate, statesshould incorporate the rules in their legislation oramend it accordingly. Active steps should be taken tofoster open contacts between juveniles and the localcommunity.

Section II, Scope and Application of the Rules, con-sists of rules 11–16. Rule 11 reads as follows:

For the purposes of the Rules, the following definitionsshould apply:(a) A juvenile is every person under the age of 18. The

age limit below which it should not be permitted to de-prive a child of his or her liberty should be determinedby law;(b) The deprivation of liberty means any form of deten-

tion or imprisonment or the placement of a person in apublic or private custodial setting, from which this personis not permitted to leave at will, by order of any judicial,administrative or other public authority.

Rules 12–16 deal with protecting the human rightsof the juvenile. The rules should be implemented in thecontext of the economic, social, and cultural conditionsprevailing in each member state.

Section III, Juveniles under Arrest or Awaiting Trial(rules 17 and 18), states that untried juveniles are pre-sumed innocent and should be treated as such, and thatdetention before trial should be limited to exceptionalcircumstances. Untried detainees should be separatedfrom convicted juveniles. Untried juveniles shouldhave the right of legal counsel and should be provided,where possible, with opportunities for remuneratedwork and continued education or training, but theseshould not be mandatory.

Section IV, Management of Juvenile Facilities, cov-ers record keeping (rules 19 and 20); admission, regis-

JUVENILE JUSTICE

tration, movement, and transfer (rules 21–26); classifi-cation and placement (rules 27–30); physicalenvironment and accommodation (rules 31–37); edu-cation, vocational training, and work (rules 38–46);recreation (rule 47); religion (rule 48); medical care(rules 49–55); notification of illness, injury, and death(rules 56–58); contacts with the wider community(rules 59–62); limitations on physical restraint and theuse of force (rules 63–65); disciplinary procedures(rules 66–71); inspection and complaints (rules72–78); and return to the community (rules 79 and80).

These rules specify, inter alia, that all records andreports (including details of known physical and men-tal health problems, such as drug and alcohol abuse)should be kept in confidential individual files; that, onadmission, all juveniles should be given a copy of therules governing the detention facility and a written de-scription of their rights and obligations, and should beinterviewed so that a psychological and social reportcan be prepared; that the conditions of their detentionshould take full account of their particular needs, statusand special requirements according to their age, per-sonality, and sex, and type of offence; that juvenilesshould be separated from adults unless they are mem-bers of the same family; and that open detention facili-ties should be established. The detention facilitiesmustmeet all the requirements of health and human dignityin keeping with the rehabilitative aim of residentialtreatment; sleeping accommodation should normallyconsist of small group dormitories or individual bed-rooms; sufficient clean bedding must be issued; theright of every juvenile to possess personal effects mustbe respected; to the extent possible juveniles shouldhave the right to use their own clothing; and healthyfood (satisfying, as far as possible, religious and cul-tural requirements) and clean drinking water should beprovided. The juveniles should have access to educa-tion (wherever possible in community schools outsidethe detention facility) and to vocational training; thediplomas or educational certificates awarded to themshould not indicate in any way that the juvenile hadbeen institutionalized; wherever possible, juvenilesshould be provided with the opportunity to performremunerated labor. Juveniles deprived of their libertyshould have access to recreational facilities and ade-

1217

quate medical care (including specialized programs toprevent substance abuse prevention and programs forrehabilitation), and should be allowed to engage in reli-gious practices. Juveniles must have adequate commu-nication with the outside world (this is considered es-sential to prepare them for their return to society);every juvenile should have the right to receive regularand frequent visits, in principle once a week and notless than once a month, and should have access tonewspapers, periodicals, and other publications, andalso to radio and television programs and motion pic-tures. Instruments of restraint and force may be usedin exceptional cases only, where all other control mea-sures have been exhausted; the carrying and use ofweapons by personnel should be prohibited in any fa-cility where juveniles are detained.

Disciplinary measures and procedures should beconsistent with the fundamental objective of institu-tional care: instilling a sense of justice, self-respect,and respect for the basic rights of every person. Rule67, which bans certain disciplinary measures, reads asfollows:

67. All disciplinary measures constituting cruel, inhu-man or degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited,including corporal punishment, placement in a dark cell,close or solitary confinement or any other punishmentthat may compromise the physical or mental health ofthe juvenile concerned. The reduction of diet and therestriction or denial of contact with family membersshould be prohibited for any purpose. Labour should al-ways be viewed as an educational tool and a means ofpromoting the self-respect of the juvenile in preparing himor her for return to the community and should not beimposed as a disciplinary sanction. No juvenile shouldbe sanctioned more than once for the same disciplinaryinfraction. Collective sanctions should be prohibited.

Detention facilities should be subject to inspectionby qualified inspectors and medical officers, and juve-niles should have the right to lodge complaints. Ar-rangements must be provided to assist juveniles to re-turn to society, family life, education, and employmentafter release.

Section V, Personnel (Arts. 81–85), stresses thequalifications and integrity of personnel serving in fa-cilities where juveniles are detained.International Review of Criminal Policy: The United Nationsand Juvenile Justice—A Guide to International Standards andBest Practice, UN, New York, 1999.

Page 1218 Blank