先生は、1905年の日本の竹島編入を通知義務を果たしてないので無効とされました。そして、その論証として「通知義務」を支持している国際法学者を紹介して下さいました。大変頼もしい限りです。先生は、「M.F. Lindley viewed it proper to regard notification and effective occupation as the necessary conditions for occupation, before and after the signing of the 1885 Berlin Act」とおっしゃいました。先生を信頼してないわけではないのですが、念のため原文を確認してみました。
Dear professor , you said Japanese inclusion was invalid because Japan did not notify. And you show some international lawyers who support the obligation of notification as a presupposition for the acquisition of the territory. That sounds great. You showed us M.F. Lindley. Well I checked the original text.
CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION←実効的先占の章
Article 34 will be dealt with in the Chapter on 'Notification.' Article 35 calls for several observations.←わざわざ通知義務は違う章とことわっている。
According to views adopted by Britain, Germany, France and the United States, at the time of before and after the Berlin conference, there were no colonial states which took exception to the application of new rule of occupation, and it seems to be justified to say that all recent acquisition of territory obeys to this rule irrespective of whether it is the African coast or not ←このあたりの「実効的先占」に関する記述に「通知義務」を脳内挿入したものと思われる。
These isolated special agreements, when taken into conjunction with the fact that, apart from the region dealt with in Article 34, notifications have been the exception rather than the rule, seve to emphasize the point that such notifications were not required by general law.←明確に慣習法ではないと記述。(it deny that notification is a customary law!)
先生！！ 引用するところが間違ってます。しかし、通知義務を主張している学者は他にも沢山いるので安心です。(Professor! you misquoted!!, but you said there are other professor who support the obligation of notification. you said, 先生は、「William E. Hall also argues that the Act of Berlin is not only valid for the contracting parties but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law .He says ...an agreement, made between all the states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule」とおっしゃいました。HALLがそのように言ってくれているのは嬉しいです。失礼かと思いましたが、これも念のため調べてみました。(Well I am glad Hall said that, I checked it too)
The declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former, especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was excluded.
Nevertheless an agreement, made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.*
*France, on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however, evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.
先生！！これは何かの勘違いですよね。しかし、まだ他にも学者はいます。(I must be mistaken. You said, 先生は、「John B. Moore also advocates the obligation of notification by citing Hall' s above-mentioned argument」とおっしゃいました。モアーの本を読みました。HALLをそのまま引用してました・・・・・・。
I checked Moore's book. He just quoted Hall. You must have been too tired aren't you?