【作者】 崔海波；

【导师】 陈景彦；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 世界史， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 一战后国际联盟成立,虽在推进世界和平与合作解决国际争端中发挥了一定的作用,但国联并没有在东亚形成影响力,在一战后发生的中日冲突中,国联大多选择置身事外。关东军发动“九?一八”事变后,日本政治系统内部不断协调,最终支持日本军部和关东军所提出的军事上侵占、政治上扶植傀儡政权的应对策略,并得到了日本外务省的配合。反观中国在事变后,国内政局反而形成内争加剧的局面,抗日所需高度团结整合的局面始终没有形成。南京国民政府采取了最消极的应对策略,即在军事上实行不抵抗主义、在外交上不与日本直接交涉、单纯寄希望国联调处此次冲突。在中国将日本侵略中国东北诉诸国联的情况下,国联开始启动其和平解决国际争端机制调处中日冲突,此后日本、中国和国联围绕事变的解决开始了三方交涉。国联以自身作为中日辩论的平台而不是以主动介入的方式进行调处,在不掌握冲突的原因和性质情况下,国联的调处使得日本欺骗性交涉策略一再得逞,更使日本无视行政院的决议继续扩大侵占。最后国联派出调查团并公布此次中日冲突的真相及解决方案,但最终未被日本接受。随后日本退出国联,国联调处此次中日冲突归于失败。更多还原

【Abstract】 Although international public opinion against war since the First World War, and the League of Nations had been founded as an international organization to stop the war, the Incident of September18th 1931 was broken out, so the Incident of September 18th 1931 was not a war related to China and Japan, but affected by the League of Nations. After the incident, Japan, China and the League of nations started serial negotiations to resolving the disputes, the League of Nations tried to conciliate both sides by its peaceful international dispute settlement mechanism, China and Japan also paid more attentions to negotiate with the League of Nations. The negotiations had an important influence on defining the character of the incident, drived forward the incident and resolved the dispute. So the negotiations between Japan as the invader, China as the victim and the League of Nations as the peacemaker may play an important role to understand the Incident of September 18th 1931.Besides the conclusion, the dissertation includes five chapters as follows.ChapterⅠintroduced the dissertation’s ideas and some concepts and discussed some essays and worked on the Incident of September18th 1931.ChapterⅡexplored the League of Nations’foundation after the First World War, in addition to peaceful resolve dispute mechanism of the League of Nations didn’t change basic structure of international politic, the League of Nations had lots of leaks in its original design, which made the League of Nations played limited role in resolving the international disputes. After the First World War, Japan and the League of Nations’cooperation did not alter Japan’s power politic pattern by forcefully grabbing rights and increasing the influence in China, especially when involved in Japan’s interests, Japan gradually developed the negative attitudes towards the League of Nations. After the First World War the League of Nations rarely devoted its attention to China’s affairs, especially international disputes in China, the League of Nations chosen generally to keep out rather than played active intercessor role. The League of Nations and China’s cooperation mostly embodied technique assistance, when it came down to China’s disputes with other nations, the League of Nations did nothing. Therefore, when disputes between Japan and China happened, peaceful resolve dispute mechanism of the League of Nations rarely was taken into consideration by the League of Nations, the orient affairs especially the Sino-Japan disputes after existed as the scotoma of the League of Nations.ChapterⅢexplored how Japan’s political system reacted and what crisis strategy was decided after the Incident of September18th 1931 intrigued by Kwantung army. Before Kwantung army’s intrigue action, the Hidehara foreign policy’s influence had became lower, at the same time Tanaka Jingoism foreign policy received diversified politics power’s support. Then Gunbu and Kwantung army intrigued to occupy Manchuria. After the incident, Japan’s politic system started to test and modulate, ultimately Gunbu and Kwantung’s suggestion on occupying in military and manipulating a puppet state, which was decided as Japan’s crisis strategy. The Japanese government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs changed from initial hesitation to actively cooperate the Kwantung army to seize Manchurian, in addition, defended the Kwantung army’s action and strived to avoid the international society’s interference. Upwards Japan’s politics system confirmed crisis strategy was the base of the Japan’s negotiation strategy with the League of Nations.ChapterⅣanalyzed how China’s political system reacted and what crisis strategy was decided after the Incident of September18th 1931. Since then the incident was broken out, China’s political system was characterized by dissent, especially factional divisions within the Kuomintang party, under such context, Republic of China reacted slowly on Kwantung army’s aggression, and hesitated over preventing Kwantung army by the military action. In other words, since China’s political system couldn’t draw together all powers, the Nanking national government adopted the negative crisis strategy, i.e., abandoned military resistance, refused to negotiate with Japan and accused aggression of Japan to the League of Nations.ChapterⅤfocused on the League of Nations’attempted to mediate between Japan and China to end the war, after the incident, the League of Nations as the platform, Japan、China and the League of Nations began negotiations. In the process of negotiation, the League of Nations as the peacemaker tried to reach an agreement or compromise by discussion with Japan and China rather than as the intervenor to take dependent action. However, the League of Nations’resolutions did not be accepted and abided by Japan, such as the League of Nations failed to make Kwantung army withdraw from the occupied zone. Then the League of Nations organized the commission to investigate the incident’s cause and character and brought forward resolve Sino-Japanese dispute advice, but Japan already established the puppet state Manchukuo in Manchuria, the League of Nations failed to prevent Japan. After the Lytton commission report’s promulgation, Japan retreated from the League of Nations, the League of Nations didn’t have the capacity to make Japan abide by the League of Nations’resolution by the economy and the military sanction ways, the League of Nations lost the finally opportunity to mediate Sino-Japanese dispute.At last, the conclusion part analyzed during the September 18th Incident, Japan, China and the League of Nations’negotiations, it appeared that in the National League peaceful settlement of international disputes mechanisms related procedures under the guidance of conduct, but Japan, China and the League of Nations of their respective negotiation Strategy substantially affected Japan, China and the League of Nations negotiations process. Japan’s Kwantung Army’s occupation of action to justify the deception of the League of Nations began negotiations strategy, withdrawal of the resolution adopted by the League of Nations to delay or even boycott strategy, Japan invaded to plead the troops of the action launched deceive bargaining strategies of the through the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the resolution is to resist the strategy to take delay even . However, the League of Nations had not change their negative way of mediation, neither personally master incident judged, also did not take measures make Japan withdraw troops resolution, only hope that obtained with Japan and China to complete the mediation, make the troops to expand military action until the occupation of the northeast. But China after the incident to deter domestic power for the premise, fully expressed his willingness to rely on the League of Nations mediation, which rely solely on the representations the League of Nations mediation strategies, those make China paid a painful price.更多还原