16
instrument conferring it upon him.
On this view, these leased territories would, strictly
speaking, at all times be and remain Chinese territory. All
that the Chinese would have parted with would be the right,
during the term of the lease, to exercise effective control.
The result of this view would be that, in theory, the
status of the leased territory during a war ought to depend on
the position of the Chinese Government, and not on that of the
leasee government. If the territory is, strictly speaking,
Chinese territory, then, if China is at war, it ought to be
treated as belligerent territory, even though the lessee is
neutral. Similarly, if the lessee is at war and China neutral,
it should be treated as neutral territory.
In actual practice, however, precisely the reverse has
occurred, and it is clear that these pieces of territory have,
in fact, leen treated as amounting to cessions and not leases.
According to the practical view adopted concerning them, they
are really ceasions coupled with an obligation to re-transfer
after so many years if no contrary arrangement is come to.
But this practical view of the matter is in opposition to the
correct theoretical position and to the terms of the leases
themselves, Nonetheless, it has prevailed. Oppenheim, for
instance, (4th Edition Vol. I page 364) after admitting that
in strict law these territories remain the property of the
leasing state, says "such cases comprise for all practical
"purposes cessions of pieces of territory." Lindley (The
Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International
Law/