Везде
Colonialism and Sovereignty by Mandate: Tanganyika, the “Close Alliance” in East Africa and the League of Nations
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Colonialism and Sovereignty by Mandate: Tanganyika, the “Close Alliance” in East Africa and the League of Nations
Annotation
PII
S207987840032420-1-1
DOI
10.18254/S207987840032420-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Alexander Khodnev 
ORCID: 0000-0001-9877-8862
Affiliation: Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky
Address: Russian Federation, Yaroslavl
Edition
Volume 15 Issue 9 (143)
Abstract

The article examines Britain’s attempt to unite the mandate territory of Tanganyika with the neighboring colonies of Kenya and Uganda and the reaction to these plans in the League of Nations (LN). The project, prepared by the British Colonial Office, received the name of the “Closer Union” in East Africa and supported and developed by Lord A. Milner, L. Emery, as well as Lord Passfield (S. Webb). However, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations (PMC) noticed the disagreement between the “Close Union” and the terms of the mandate for Tanganyika. The creation of the “Close Union” was opposed by members of the PMC, representatives of Germany, and political and business organizations in East Africa. An open campaign in the press, as well as demonstrations of protest the creation of the “Close Union” influenced the members of the Council of the LN and the PMC. The LN Council concluded that Great Britain did not have sufficient sovereignty over Tanganyika to connect it to the “Close Union.” And in 1933, the PMC did not recommend creating a “Closer Union”, due to the impossibility of changing the status of Tanganyika during the period of the LN mandate. The history of the struggle in the LN around the problem of organizing the “Close Union” showed that the attitude towards the mandate system as a compromise between supporters of annexation and those who wanted to transfer the colonial territories taken from Germany and Türkiye to international administration began to change in favor of the latter. One should not think that the PMC and the LN were able to create a real administration of the mandated territories on the principles of internationalization. However, after the LN’s opposition to the “Close Union” project, the understanding of the sovereignty of the trust territory rises to a new level.

Keywords
League of Nations, mandate system, internationalization of mandate management, colonialism, imperialism, sovereignty, Tanganyika, “Closer Union”
Received
13.06.2024
Publication date
30.09.2024
Number of characters
46288
Number of purchasers
5
Views
64
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 200 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article and additional services
Subscription benefits
200 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue and additional services
Subscription benefits
820 RUB / 10.0 SU
All issues and additional services for 2024
Subscription benefits
5000 RUB / 50.0 SU

References

1. Emel'yanov A. L. Kolonial'naya istoriya Afriki yuzhnee Sakhary. M.: MGIMO-Universitet, 2011.

2. Malkin S. G. Ot malykh vojn k geril'e: imperskaya shkola voennoj mysli Velikobritanii v ehpokhu Interbelluma // Novaya i Novejshaya istoriya. 2021. № 6. S. 22—30.

3. Mirzekhanov V. Imperial Myth as a National Idea: Explicit and Hidden Meanings of the 1931 International Colonial Exhibition in Paris // ISTORIYA. 2021. Vol. 12. Issue. 6 (104). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840016273-9-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840016273-9

4. Mirzekhanov V. Civilisation and the Excluded: Ideas and Practices of Differentiation in the Colonies during the Interbellum // ISTORIYA. 2022. Vol. 13. Issue. 9 (119). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840022994-2-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840022994-2

5. Ovchinnikov V. E. Istoriya Tanzanii v novoe i novejshee vremya. M.: Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1986.

6. Fomin A. M. Vojna s prodolzheniem. Velikobritaniya i Frantsiya v bor'be za «Osmanskoe nasledstvo». 1918—1923 gg. M.: Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke, 2010.

7. Fomin A. M. Formirovanie mandatnoj sistemy na Blizhnem Vostoke posle Pervoj mirovoj vojny. 1920—1924 gg. // Novaya i Novejshaya istoriya. 2014. № 1. S. 17—36.

8. Khodnev A. S. Kolonializm, imperializm i Liga Natsij // Novaya i Novejshaya istoriya. 2021. № 1. S. 104—116.

9. Callahan M. Mandates and Empire: The League of Nations and Africa. Brighton: Sussex Acadimic Press, 1999.

10. Hailey M. African Survey. A Study of Problems Arisen in Africa South of Sahara. L.: Oxford University Press, 1938.

11. Pedersen S. The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2015.

12. Rappard W. The Evolution of the League of Nations // The American Political Science Review. 1927. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 792—826.

13. The League of Nations. The Mandate System. Geneva: Information Section, League of Nations Secretariat, 1927.

14. Wright Q. Sovereignty of the Mandates // The American Journal of International Law. 1923. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 691—703.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate