Throughout the entire period of activities of the Permanent Court of International Justice (1922–1946), there were altogether only three cases that involved, in some form or other, Asian states. Japan herself was exposed to this community of civilised nations only in the latter half of the 19th century. The initial attitude of Meiji Japan towards the law of nations was manifested in particular in her positive posture towards international arbitration. However, the loss of Japan in the Yokohama House Tax case led to the lesson drawn that international law was not really a body of principles based on natural justice which the East could share in common with the West, but a bunch of technical rules which were devised by the West for their interest and which could be manipulated to the tactical advantage of the West. Thus a gradual but pernicious new development came to surface that under the ostensible guise of superficial observance of international law, Japan tended to cloak an inner distrust vis-à-vis international adjudication. A similar attitude of reticence and reserve towards international adjudication appears to have been prevailing for many years in Asia and in East Asia in particular, even after the independence of many Asian nations since the end of World War II. Be that as it may, it is remarkable that with the most recent success in nation-building in many nations of Asia, with the corresponding growth in confidence of their capacity to be significant players in international affairs of the contemporary world, that the nations in this region have, apparently, come a long way towards putting their trust in international law and its institutions. As a result, the International Court of Justice appears to have come to gain, little by little, a degree of confidence among Asian countries.