kobukson comments

Posted in: Japan says 2 Russian fighters breached its airspace See in context

Well, IMHO anyway the flight of two Russian fighter jets yesterday and JTFEX of the Russian Eastern Military District on the disputed islands undoubtedly coincided with the Northern territory day. It means that Russians try to show their ability and intention to secure national interests in all possible way. It seems like a quite clear sign to Japan government for non provoking Russians by requesting of the territories which had been previously rejected. Well one territorial dispute with china is quite enough for Japan. We don’t need any more

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Abe pledges to resolve island dispute with Russia See in context

Why Tokyo will never get the Northern Territories?

The "Northern Territories Day" has been celebrated in Japan since January 6, 1981. Despite the relatively short history of the holiday for the last 30 years the idea to reclaim the islands had grown strongly in the minds of many Japanese people, and even became a "political" tradition. "Returning of the Northern Territories" is a serious prerequisite of any election program, regardless of the political orientation of the candidate.

But during an international conference on the disputed territories in the Asia-Pacific region held in Vladivostok prior to the APEC summit 2012 a group of Russian and foreign researchers came to a sensational conclusion that Japan would never be able to get the "Northern Territories". This conclusion is based on a detailed study of a set of international law documents on the world reorganization after World War II. Exactly those political and legal decisions and agreements signed at the end of the hostilities and postwar period are the fundamental documents for the border line consideration between Russia and Japan. However, in the territorial claims Tokyo continues referring to the "Treaty of Shimoda" signed in the mid-19th century which force is repeatedly reversed by the later documents.

Further distribution and consolidation of the territories seized from Japan was in accordance with the terms of the Peace Treaty between Japan and the coalition of 48 countries-winners signed on September 8, 1951 in San Francisco. According to clause "C" of Article 2 of the Treaty "Japan renounced all rights, legal foundations and claims to the Kuril Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and adjacent islands, the sovereignty over which Japan acquired by the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905."

The jurisdiction of the USSR over the Kuriles and Sakhalin detailed in the Article 8 of the Treaty, in which Japan "recognized the legitimacy of all treaties signed by the Allied Powers ... to end the state of war, or any other agreements of the Allied Powers made to restore peace." Thus, by signing the Article 8 of the Treaty, Japan tacitly agreed with the decisions of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, which assigned Sakhalin and Kuril Islands to the USSR.

However, today from the point of view of the modern Japanese such "not fully defined" legal status of the Kuril Islands does not satisfy the current Japanese government that seeks to score the political mileage by returning the territories.

Let’s assume that the government of Japan reaches an agreement with Moscow, whose main condition for the islands transfer would certainly be the American troops withdrawal from the territory of Japan, but not a peace treaty, as Tokyo wants. However, as per the reasoned opinion of the reputed expert on territorial disputes B.I.Tkachenko, with Russian attempt to transfer the islands to the possession of Japan the Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty comes to effect, according to which no part of the Kuril Islands can belong to Japan, as it refused "all rights, titles and claims" to them for the time of indefinite term treaty.

Then, who may the Kuril Islands be transferred to? The answer is in the Article 26 of the Treaty, according to which "if Japan would negotiate a peaceful settlement or war claims settlement with any State ... the same benefits would be extended to the parties hereto." In this situation the islands transfer to Japan, legally waived the rights to them permanently, the islands shall automatically be placed under the joint jurisdiction of the 48 signatories to the Treaty. It is noteworthy that neither Russia (as we know, the Soviet Union did not sign the Treaty), nor Japan, which forever renounced the rights to the islands are among of them. The Article 22 of the Treaty also contains a similar provision, according to which all disputes relating to the implementation of this Treaty shall be settled by the International Court with the representatives of those 48 states.

Based on the foregoing, we can make several conclusions. For the indefinite term of the San Francisco Peace Treaty Japan renounced all Kuril Islands. The islands transfer to Japan will lead to the fact that the international control of the Treaty signatories will be established over the islands. Japan government attempts to resolve the territorial claims in the short term could lead to the fact that both countries (Russia and Japan) would lose the subject of a dispute forever because it would be placed under international jurisdiction. The way to resolve the current situation does not exist because the San Francisco Peace Treaty is an international indefinite term act in force.

Thus, at this stage, maintaining the status quo in the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia is in line with the national interest of both Russia and Japan. However, nothing impedes both countries to develop together the economy and infrastructure of the four islands, which finally will not be considered as the "apple of discord" and become one more link in the Russian-Japanese relations.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: We protest See in context

Green Panda, I think Japan should stricktly follow it's constitution restricting using of military forces and denying the posession of nuke arms.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan says 2 Russian fighters breached its airspace See in context

YuriOtani, i think you are not well informed. Even without signing peace treaty Russia and Japan maintain a good politic and trade relation. Try to shift your mind from narrow point of vew to a wide one. what are you going to have on meal if you stop relation with russia? most of fish and crab in japan are from russian EEZ in sea of Okhotsk and Japan. If you stop the Nuke plant in nearest furure wich oil you will use. Gas from US??? or from muslim striken middle east? and whom are you going sell your used car to??? open your mind and realise, that rissia and china are strategic allies as well as us and japan. now you try to have a trobles with both of them, and washington will see this dangerous game from aside, like they did lust fall

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: We protest See in context

The islands were joined to Russia by the Directive of the Empress Catherine the Great in 1786. (See the wiki). And before it they were explored and inhabited by the Russian Cossacks and civilians. Japan occupied the islands in the mid of 19-th centure, And being engaged in the Krimea war the Russian goverment had just presented four islands to Japan in 1855. And then see point C Article 2 Treaty of Peace with Japan. Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

Japan had refused from all Kuril islands. So the Russia has all rights for the islands. why are you claiming em back now...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Posted in: We protest See in context

Why Tokyo will never get the Northern Territories?

The "Northern Territories Day" has been celebrated in Japan since January 6, 1981. Despite the relatively short history of the holiday for the last 30 years the idea to reclaim the islands had grown strongly in the minds of many Japanese people, and even became a "political" tradition. "Returning of the Northern Territories" is a serious prerequisite of any election program, regardless of the political orientation of the candidate.

Despite the popularity of this slogan, its use demonstrates the Japanese politicians’ ability to act in defiance of the international legal environment on the issue of disputed islands. There is the strong impression that pursuing the artificially developed national idea the governance of Japan ignores the opinion of foreign experts on this problem. Though such behavior seems to be absurd, the cause is rather simple. During an international conference on the disputed territories in the Asia-Pacific region held in Vladivostok prior to the APEC summit 2012 a group of Russian and foreign researchers came to a sensational conclusion that Japan would never be able to return the Southern Kuriles.

This conclusion is based on a detailed study of a set of international law documents on the world reorganization after World War II. Exactly those political and legal decisions and agreements signed at the end of the hostilities and postwar period are the fundamental documents for the border line consideration between Russia and Japan. However, in the territorial claims Tokyo continues referring to the "Treaty of Shimoda" signed in the mid-19th century which force is repeatedly reversed by the later documents.

As we know, the basic policy principles concerning the postwar territorial settlement in the Asia-Pacific region were formulated in the "Agreement between the Three Great Powers on Questions of the Far East” signed at Yalta in February 1945 and consolidated in the Potsdam Declaration on August 14 of the same year. The documents stipulated seizure of all territories captured by Japan in modern history and abolition of post-war Tokyo legal succession to pre-war Japanese lands. Japan’s consent with the territorial changes was recorded in the emperor's prescript of August 14, 1945 and in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender signed on September 2, 1945. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences decisions were implemented by the Allied Powers Memorandum for Imperial Japanese Government № 677 of January 29, 1946. The provisions of this memorandum excluded from the jurisdiction of Japan all islands to the north of the coast of Hokkaido Island, including the Lesser Kuril Ridge – Ploskie (Habomai) islets and Shikotan.

Further distribution and consolidation of the territories seized from Japan was in accordance with the terms of the Peace Treaty between Japan and the coalition of 48 countries-winners signed on September 8, 1951 in San Francisco. According to clause "C" of Article 2 of the Treaty "Japan renounced all rights, legal foundations and claims to the Kuril Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and adjacent islands, the sovereignty over which Japan acquired by the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905." It should be noted that by the time of the San Francisco Treaty signing the relations between the former allies the USSR and the USA had been significantly strained and the Korean War had broken out. The American diplomats who were developing the body of the instrument "forgot" to include in the Treaty the article on the transfer of southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to the Soviet Union. The Soviet delegation refused to sign the document without promised territories in accordance with the decisions of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. In addition to the Soviet Union, this agreement also was not signed by China because of non-participation in the peace conference that led to the escalation of regional tension between Tokyo and Beijing as well.

The result of the San Francisco Treaty signing was the legal conflict, on the one hand the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin were excluded from governance and jurisdiction of Japan, and on the other hand the power to control those territories was not assigned to the Soviet Union. However, in Japan for nearly a decade after the end of World War II, they believed that the Kuril Islands and southern Sakhalin unconditionally belonged to the Soviet Union. The jurisdiction of the USSR over the Kuriles and Sakhalin detailed in the Article 8 of the Treaty, in which Japan "recognized the legitimacy of all treaties signed by the Allied Powers ... to end the state of war, or any other agreements of the Allied Powers made to restore peace." Thus, by signing the Article 8 of the Treaty, Japan tacitly agreed with the decisions of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, which assigned Sakhalin and Kuril Islands to the USSR.

However, today from the point of view of the modern Japanese such "not fully defined" legal status of the Kuril Islands does not satisfy the current Japanese government that seeks to score the political mileage by returning the territories.

Let’s assume that the government of Japan reaches an agreement with Moscow, whose main condition for the islands transfer would certainly be the American troops withdrawal from the territory of Japan, but not a peace treaty, as Tokyo wants. However, as per the reasoned opinion of the reputed expert on territorial disputes B.I.Tkachenko, with Russian attempt to transfer the islands to the possession of Japan the Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty comes to effect, according to which no part of the Kuril Islands can belong to Japan, as it refused "all rights, titles and claims" to them for the time of indefinite term treaty.

Then, who may the Kuril Islands be transferred to? The answer is in the Article 26 of the Treaty, according to which "if Japan would negotiate a peaceful settlement or war claims settlement with any State ... the same benefits would be extended to the parties hereto." In this situation the islands transfer to Japan, legally waived the rights to them permanently, the islands shall automatically be placed under the joint jurisdiction of the 48 signatories to the Treaty. It is noteworthy that neither Russia (as we know, the Soviet Union did not sign the Treaty), nor Japan, which forever renounced the rights to the islands are among of them. The Article 22 of the Treaty also contains a similar provision, according to which all disputes relating to the implementation of this Treaty shall be settled by the International Court with the representatives of those 48 states.

Based on the foregoing, we can make several conclusions. For the indefinite term of the San Francisco Peace Treaty Japan renounced all Kuril Islands. The islands transfer to Japan will lead to the fact that the international control of the Treaty signatories will be established over the islands. Japan government attempts to resolve the territorial claims in the short term could lead to the fact that both countries (Russia and Japan) would lose the subject of a dispute forever because it would be placed under international jurisdiction. The way to resolve the current situation does not exist because the San Francisco Peace Treaty is an international indefinite term act in force.

Thus, at this stage, maintaining the status quo in the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia is in line with the national interest of both Russia and Japan. However, nothing impedes both countries to develop together the economy and infrastructure of the four islands, which finally will not be considered as the "apple of discord" and become one more link in the Russian-Japanese relations.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.