竹島問題の歴史

9.8.08

1946 - SCAPIN 677 (History of SF Peace Treaty #1)

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part One

1946 - SCAPIN 677


According to the staff memorandum #4 dated January 24th 1946, all the orders by Supreme Command of Allied Powers (SCAP) to Japanese government were called as “SCAPIN” (SCAP Index Number or SCAP Instruction Note) or “連合軍最高司令部訓令” in Japanese.


SCAPIN 677 was issued on January 29th 1946, which was titled as “Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan” and signed by H.W. Allen, Colonel, AGD, Asst Adjutant General.















(Click to enlarge)



The third item from the SCAPIN is as follows;



“3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima island);

and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) island, Liancourt Rocks (Take island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Nazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Valece Vela (Okino-tori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Sangos (Nakano-tori) Islands], and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan island.”

(Japanese text):


3 この指令の目的から日本と言ふ場合は次の定義による。

日本の範囲に含まれる地域として

日本の四主要島嶼(北海道、本州、四国、九州)と、対馬諸島、北緯30度以北の琉球(南西)諸島(口之島を除く)を含む約1千の隣接小島嶼



日本の範囲から除かれる地域として

(a)欝陵島、竹島、済州島。(b)北緯30度以南の琉球(南西)列島(口之島を含む)、伊豆、南方、小笠原、硫黄群島、及び大東群島、沖ノ鳥島、南鳥島、中ノ鳥島を含むその他の外廓太平洋全諸島。(c)千島列島、歯舞群島(水晶、勇留、秋勇留、志発、多楽島を含む)、色丹島。


Pro-Korean scholars used to say that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) belonged to Korea based on this SCAPIN. As the matter of fact, many islands including Liancourt Rocks were separated from Japan at this point but it didn’t mean all of them are not Japanese islands. Actually, many of them including the Ryukyu islands, Izu Islands, Nanpo Islands, Bonin and Volcano Islands etc were later returned to Japan. So this “separation” didn’t mean the separation of sovereignty.


In addition, the 6th item from the SCAPIN reads;


"6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication
of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands
referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."


(6 この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。)
(Thanks to cloud for suggestion)


Here is a confidential document dated back in November 1952 which was wriiten by Kenneth T. Young, Jr., Director of the Office of Northern Asian Affairs:









(Click to enlarge)


.......................


TokyoOfficial - Informal


Confidential Security
Information


The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in
designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government
is therefore
justified
. The Korean claim, based on
SCAPIN677 f January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas,
including
Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from
exercising sovereignty over this area permanently
. A later
SCAPIN, No.1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the
Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only
after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.


Sincerely yours,

Kenneth T. Young, Jr.,


Director,

Office of Northeast Asian Affairs














It referred to the SCAPIN 677 and clearly says that Korean claim on the SCAPIN did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks. So Korea can’t claim Liancourt Rocks based on this SCAPIN.

21 comments:

  1. pacifist,

    Thank you for posting those important documents and explaining why Korean understandings of those SCAPINs are distorted. I'm looking forward to reading more of this series !!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I strongly suggest that you refer to Article 6 of this directive too:

    "6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

    (6 この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Kaneganese and cloud.
    I just added the 6th article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 愼鏞廈氏は「獨島問題 百問百答」の中で
    「連合国最高司令部は、1946年1月29日、SCAPIN 第677号で『獨島』(リアンコールト島、竹島)を本来の主人である韓国へ返還することに決定し、日本から分離したのである。」
    http://messages.yahoo.co.jp/bbs?.mm=GN&action=m&board=1835396&tid=cddeg&sid=1835396&mid=5008&thr=5008&cur=5008&dir=d
    としています。

    しかし、当のSCAPIN 第677号の文面には「韓国に返還する」などという文言は出てきません。「日本国外の総ての地域に対し、又その地域にある政府役人、雇傭員その他総ての者に対して、政治上又は行政上の権力を行使すること、及、行使しようと企てることは総て停止するよう日本帝国政府に指令する。」との第1項の文言からは、第3項および第4項で上げている地域に対する支配権の行使を停止するように命じたとしか読めません。しかも第6項は「この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。」としています。これは当時すでに国際慣習法として確立していた領域主権の最終決定は講和条約によるを改めて記したものであり、日本に残存主権(処分権)のあることを示しています。このことは同年2月13日に行われた黄田連絡官とSCAP/GHQとの会談からも裏付けられます。

    そうなると問題になるのは、1948年8月15日に樹立された大韓民国の主権との兼ね合いです。韓国寄りの人々は、建国を宣言した段階で韓国は完全なる領域主権を獲得したのだと主張します。しかし、そうだとすると日本の持っている残存主権と競合してしまいます。したがって1948年8月15日からサンフランシスコ講和条約の発効した1952年4月28日までの間、韓国の主権は不完全なものであったと言わざるを得ません。とはいえ、韓国併合条約により日本の領土となった領域の支配権については、日本は争う必要を感じていなかったので当該領域に韓国が支配権を及ぼすことは何ら問題なかったわけです。

    韓国が完全な領域主権を獲得したのは、サンフランシスコ講和条約の発効時というべきでありましょう。さもなければ韓国の建国は非合法なものになってしまいます。サンフランシスコ講和条約はその第二条(a)で「日本国は、朝鮮の独立を承認して、済洲島、巨文島及び欝陵島を含む朝鮮に対するすべての権利、権原及び請求権を放棄する。」としています。これにより韓国併合条約により日本の領土となった領域を放棄しているわけですが、韓国の側から見れば処分権も含めた完全な領域主権を獲得することになります。「サンフランシスコ講和条約の非締約国である韓国はそれに拘束されないのだ」などと主張する人がいますけど、拘束するもされないも、サンフランシスコ講和条約こそが韓国の領域主権を確かなものとする源であり、無視することのできない存在と言えるでしょう。

    そのような特別な存在であるサンフランシスコ条約において日本が竹島を放棄していない以上、韓国の竹島領有主張は成り立ちません。これを言われたくないので、韓国はSCAPIN677を根拠としたがるのかもしれません。しかしSCAPIN677は、韓国併合条約により日本の領土となった領域の帰属の確定とは何ら関係ない文書であることは、見てきたとおりです。しかも占領軍が発した命令などは特に取り決めのない限り講和条約の発効に伴って無効となります。

    なお、「本来の主人である韓国へ返還」と愼鏞廈氏は言っていますが、1905年の日本の編入以前に、朝鮮が実効的に支配していた証拠が提示されていない以上、妥当性を欠く発言です。妄言と言っても言い過ぎではないでしょう。

    2010.1.29

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi I would like to know where did you get the map for that SCAPIN portion?

    ReplyDelete

  6. SCAPIN 677 separated several islands including Dokdo from Japan's governmental and administrative control.

    How could the SCAP define to exclude those areas from Japan?

    It's an easy question to answer. There's no doubt SCAP referenced various sources including maps and documents. It's unknown specifically what materials SCAP used for defining Japan's boundary, but the most possible map SCAP referenced is "陸地測量部地図区域一覧図" produced by Land Measurement Department(陸地測量部) of Imperial Japan's army in 1936.

    This 1936 map divided Imperial Japan's territories into their original boundaries before being occupied by Japan. According to this map, Takeshima(Dokdo) is within the territory of Korea, which indicates Dokdo was the land Japan acquired by occupation.

    陸地測量部發行地圖區域一覽圖 1
    2

    "地図区域一覧図" is strongly proving Japan's claim that Dokdo was incorporated into Japan's land because it was ownerless was a lie and it's an obvious fact that Dokdo was separated from Japan at the time of issuing SCAPIN 677 because Japan admitted Japan plundered Dokdo by greed.

    Yes, SCAPIN 677 is not related to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. Even so, it can't change the fact Dokdo was the Korean land Japan deprived as the map "地図区域一覧図" shows. SF Treaty draft didn't say Dokdo is Japan's territory. The justice is the land occupied by force must be returned to the real owner.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sloww: It's an easy question to answer. There's no doubt SCAP referenced various sources including maps and documents. It's unknown specifically what materials SCAP used for defining Japan's boundary, but the most possible map SCAP referenced is "陸地測量部地図区域一覧図" produced by Land Measurement Department(陸地測量部) of Imperial Japan's army in 1936.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2009/01/1946211-2.html

    This is wrong. GHQ has replied to Japan about the reason. Area was divided for the convenience of the occupation forces of the Allies.(本指令は単なる連合国側の行政的便宜より出てたるに過きす従来行はれ来りたることを本指令に依り確認せるものなり即ち其の他はSCAPの所管するところにあらす例えは大島はCINPACの所管。鬱陵島は第二十四軍団の指揮下に在り従って本指令に依る日本の範囲の決定は何等領土問題とは関連を有せす之は他日講和会議にて決定さるへき問題なり)

    Sloww:SF Treaty draft didn't say Dokdo is Japan's territory.

    This is wrong too.

    AF treaty
    Article 1
    (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.

    The drafter(US Dos) explained the meaning of this article

    Mr. Allison said that the American View was that our defining of the Japanese boundaries would have a bad psychological effect on the Japanese and emphasize the contraction of their country. The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary to avoid confusion.

    Japan recovered her full sovereignty of Takeshima.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What’s wrong with me? You didn’t concretely say as you always do. I clearly said SCAPIN 677 wasn’t related to the final ultimate determination of the minor islands.

    My point is the SCAP’s definition of Japan for the convenience of the occupation forces of the Allies what Japan claims was based on the Japan’s admittance Dokdo was the land Japan acquired by Imperial Japan’s occupation by force and greed.

    opp, bring any proof SF Treaty draft said Dokdo was Japan’s territory. Yes, the Allied Powers recognized the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan, which doesn’t mean Dokdo was given to Japan. Japanese army clarified Dokdo was not originally Japan’s land. That’s why Japan can’t have Dokdo. Isn’t it unconscionable to claim over the land acquired by occupation?

    Do you still rely on invalid American view? American view was wrongly in favor of Japan’s claim, which was nothing to do with the view of Allied Powers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 陸地測量部發行地圖區域一覽圖1936 昭和11年

    この図は、陸地測量部が発行した地図について、どの区域に属するかを一覧できるようにしたもので、行政的境界を表すものではありません。

    1936年時点で、竹島は、明確に島根県に属し、朝鮮総督府には属していませんでした。

    ましてや、この図は、当時の大日本帝国に属する各地域の、「本来の所属」を表示したものではありません。

    『朝鮮水路誌』という本の中に竹島が記述されているにしても、それは竹島が行政的に、あるいは領土的に、朝鮮に所属する、という意味ではないのと同じことです。

    韓国側はこの地図を重視しているようで、いろんなサイトにあります。

    http://jp.dokdo.go.kr/foreign/ImageSolutionJP.do?command=detail&chmod=001&solutionCode=SOLUTION2009020027

    http://hide20.blog.ocn.ne.jp/mokei/2010/01/post_9f12.html#comment-24855517

    http://dokdo.wiki.fc2.com/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%AD%B4%E5%8F%B2%EF%BC%9E%E3%80%80%E9%99%B8%E5%9C%B0%E6%B8%AC%E9%87%8F%E9%83%A8%E7%99%BA%E8%A1%8C%E5%9C%B0%E5%9B%B3%E5%8C%BA%E5%9F%9F%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7%E5%9B%B3

    http://www.takeshima222.net/dokdo/?mode=2_2_7

    http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/jpn/page.htm?mnu_uid=393

    ただ、1936年時点で、鬱陵島と竹島の結びつきが強くなっていただろうことをうかがわせる図ではあると思います。

    1905年に竹島と鬱陵島との間に引かれた国境線は、5年後の1910年には消滅しました。
    「隠岐から竹島」よりも「鬱陵島から竹島」への距離のほうが近いのは、まぎれもない事実ですから、竹島での漁労活動の拠点は、隠岐から鬱陵島に移って行ったのだと思います。

    あるいはもし日本が敗戦しなければ、その後、竹島の行政区域が、隠岐所属から鬱陵島所属に変わっていった可能性はあると思います。交通機関の発達等によって、より利便性のある行政単位に変わることは、歴史的によくあることだからです。

    だからといって、この図をもって、歴史をさかのぼって、1905年以前の段階から、竹島は本来朝鮮に属するものであったのだと、1936年に陸地測量部が、すなわち日本政府が認識していたのだ、という議論は誤謬であると思います。

    この「朝鮮」区域の地図を、1905年以前に、朝鮮王国あるいは大韓帝国が作成したのであれば、独島領有権問題に意味を持ちますが、そうではありません。

    ReplyDelete
  10. What’s wrong with me?

    GHQ has answered about an area setup of SCAPIN. Japanese maps which you presumed are not related. Which gives priority to your presumption or the reply of GHQ for the order of the GHQ?

    Do you still rely on invalid American view?

    You want to invalid the Drafter's view. US Dos is the drafter of the SF Treaty. In the interpretation of a treaty, we can't ignore a drafter's interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. opp,

    Japanese maps which you presumed are not related.
    -->
    I understand the pro-Japanese people including you are not happy with this map. No matter how unhappy you are with this map, the fact is that the Japanese Army put Dokdo within Korean boundary in the related map and SCAPIN No. 677 clearly separated Dokdo from Japan.

    You want to invalid the Drafter's view. US Dos is the drafter of the SF Treaty. In the interpretation of a treaty, we can't ignore a drafter's interpretation.
    -->
    I didn't say SF draft is invalid. U.S. was just one member of the Allied Powers. Secretary of State Dulle wrote "US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty." in his telegram to the American Embassy in Tokyo dated on Dec. 9, 1953.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In 1900, under the reign of emperor Kojong, the Great Han Empire of Korea issued the Korean Imperial Edict No. 41, placing then-Seokdo (Dokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo-gun (Ulleungdo). In 1906, Sim Heung-taek, Uldo-gun County Chief, was notified that the eastern islands of Korea had been incorporated into Japan by a survey team from Japan's Shimane Prefecture. Sim right after submitted a report to the Governor of the Gangwon-do (province) in ways to counter the ridiculous and self-contradictory act.
    In 1900 (in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong), the Korean Empire had promulgated the Korean Empire edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire with the purpose of administering and ruling suitably Ulleungdo and Seokdo (or Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan). The Korean imperial edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire had issued as "The Korean Empire in 1900(in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong) rename Ulleungdo island together with Seokdo islet (Dokdo islets) and Jukdo islet(竹島) as Uldo county“, and then had specified, as "designate the sphere of it's jurisdiction as the whole Ulleungdo island and both Jukdo(竹島) islet and Seokdo islet(石島)."
    Footnote: Originally Liancourt Rock, or Seokdo islet(石島) was called as "Seokdo islet(石島)" in 1900s, but
    People of Cheollado who had emigrated from Cheollado in Korea to "Seokdo islet(石島)" had pronounced and called so "Seokdo islet(石島)" as "Dokseom(獨섬) in dialect of Cheollado, that is to say, 獨島(독도) in Chinese characters).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Japan in Meiji era had disseized illegally Dokdo (Takeshima) by force of arms and bayonets with the purpose of constructing a military base of the great Japanese Empire shortly after Russia- Japan war. That is to say, the then government office of Shimane prefecture had promulgated Shimane Prefecture notification No. 40 in Feb. 1905 according to the enacted ordinance of Shimane prefecture of Japan, called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimaneken. On the basis of this fact, today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has asserted Dokdo (takeshima) as "Japan's territory". Truly truly if this Dokdo islet (Takeshima) had been a inherent territory of Japan, Intentionally has Japan been necessary to promulgate Shimane prefecture notification No. 40 that is called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimanek prefecture of Japan." in Feb. 1905? This Shimane prefecture notification No. 40, that is to say, is only a official forcible document that had disproved the fact that Japan in Meiji era had plundered Dokdo (Takeshima) from the great Korean Empire by force of arms and bayonets.
    However, The then Japan that had devised a plot in collusion with the United States of America had changed stealthily a territorial right of Korea about Dokdo (Takeshima) in a draft for the San Francisco Peace Treaty in to Japan. Shortly after that, because most of the allied powers including the Great British Empire had refused to change stealthily a territorial right of Korea about Dokdo (Takeshima) in a draft into Japan, Japan in accordance with a secret talks with a American official had excluded Dokdo (Takeshima) issue in a draft from 7th., San francisco peace talk for concluding San Francisco Peace Treaty on August 7th., 1950. At last, the final draft for Peace Treaty had been finalized on August 13th., 1951 and since then, 49 nations including the United States of America had concluded San Francisco peace Treaty with Japan on September 8th., 1951.
    Chapter II, Article 2, (a) of the San Francisco Peace treaty is stipulated as "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.". On the basis of Chapter II, Article 2, (a) of the San Francisco Peace treaty, Japan
    insist on Japan's own way employing Machiavellian tactics that Dokdo (Takeshima) is a Japan's territory, because "Dokdo" is not only excluded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but also Dokdo is not a territory that shall be redelivered to Korea. If so, where is the basis that Dokdo is a territory of Japan, because Dokdo had been omitted in the San Francisco Peace Treaty? In general, it will be valid that Dokdo (Takeshima) is not only located on more nearer to Ulleungdo (Dagelet) than O-ki island in Shimane prefecture of Japan, but also Dokdo interpret as a territory of Korea, because Ulleungdo (Dagelet) can be interpreted to include all of large and small islands and islets in the vicinity of Ulleungdo.
    Writer: Seong Kyeong Hee
    Translator: Lee Shin Ho

    ReplyDelete
  14. sloww에게

    In the drafts of the Sanfrancisco peace treaty of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth preliminary talk, Dokdo (Takeshima) is clearly inscribed as "Korean territory" as “Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).” In spite of that, before concluding completely the Sanfrancisco peace treaty I know that Syngman Rhee Government had received reply of dean Rusk Note. That is why after talking in secret meeting between the United States and Japan

    Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) was completely excluded from the Sanfrancisco peace treaty such as "Chapter II. Territory - Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."
    By the way, You had asked, as "Who cares about American secret and selfish policy over Dokdo based on American interests?“
    Shortly after a secret meeting between the U. S. and Japan, Dokdo islet that in a draft for San Francisco Peace Dokdo was included, but in the final San Francisco peace treaty, Dokdo islet was deleted as a Korean territory.
    In a draft for the San Francisco peace treaty that was written on March 19th., 1947, Dokdo islet was included : Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).
    But in the final San Francisco Peace Treaty that was issued on September 8th., 1951, Dokdo was deleted Chapter II. Territory - Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
    The reason why Dokdo was deleted from the final San Francisco Peace Treaty was because Dean Rusk Note was a secret information document. Because I believe Dean Rusk Note was already publicized after the time of 61 years have passed. I don't grasp why Dean Rusk Note was forced to be a secret information document. I am sure that the reason why Dokdo islet was deleted from the final San Francisco Peace Treaty is because Dean Rusk supported Takeshima as a Japan's territory. How about my opinion?
    Why didn't America officially support Japanese claim over Dokdo? he reason is because Dean Rusk Note was a Secret information that America recognize or support Dokdo islet as a Japan's territory after a secret meeting.
    Why didn't America let Japan know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo through Rusk Note?
    The reason is the same as the above mentions.
    Why didn't America let the Allied Powers know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo by making it public?
    The reason is the same as the above mentions.
    Why didn't America let the SF Peace Treaty final draft stipulate Dokdo as Japanese land if she truly supported Japan's claim over Dokdo?
    The reason is because Dean Rusk Note was a Secret information that America recognize or support Dokdo islet as a Japan's territory after a secret meeting.
    Has Dokdo formally left to Japan by San Francisco Peace Treaty? Who said so?"
    It is not that I said so.
    After that. you said like this "There's no any mention of Dokdo in SF Peace Treaty draft."
    I didn't say such a words. Please don't say like that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No matter what the reasons were, Japanese government's lobbying or US strategic interests, it was true US strongly supported Japan's claim on Dokdo through the Rusk Note, but Rusk Note has a critical weakness for Japan to use as a strong base for claiming Dokdo was given to Japan in the SF PeaceTreaty. Rusk Note was a US confidential memorandum sent only to Korea. Peace Treaty is about the agreement between Japan and the Allied Powers, not between Japan and US. It wasn't delivered either to Japan or to the Allied Powers.
    1. Even the US Embassy in Korea didn't know about Rusk Note.
    On Oct.3 1952, the First Secretary of the American Embassy in Tokyo, John M. Steeves on behalf of Ambassador to Japan, Robert Murphy sent a despatch No.659 entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" to the US State Department and its copy to US Embassy in Korea. In this letter, Mr. Steeves wrote as follows:
    " ...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, witch are fertile seal breeding grounds,
    were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining terrritory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former
    Korean state. However, during the course of this imperial control, the Japanese Government formally incorporated this territory into the metropolitan area of Japan and placed it administratively under the control of one of the Japanese prefectures. Therefore, when Japan agreed in Article Ⅱ of the peace treaty to renounce "all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet", the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands with the area to be renounced. Japan has, and with reason, assumed that its sovereignty still extends over these islands. For obvious reasons, the Koreans have disputed this assumption."
    I have tried to post a image original documents of Dean Rusk Note, a image original documents of Dean Rusk Note can not be pasted to post on my comment and separately I can not post it's image original document file anywhere in this page.
    Rusk Note was never made public.
    In his report to the President Eisenhower in August 1954, Van Fleet(a US special mission ambassador) wrote on the "Ownership of Dokto Island".
    "The Island of Dokdo (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu(131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact,
    only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the islands thatJapan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory. we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that might properly be referred to the International Court of Jaustice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea."

    On November 18th., 2012

    ReplyDelete
  16. You can find a imagedocument of Dean Rusk Note herein http:// whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot. kr / 2012/09/rusk-note-was-confidential-memorandum_6.html. I hope to open the homepage of rusk-note-was-confidential-memorandum that decribe as follows "Rusk Note was a confidential memorandum between America and Korea.“
    The Japanese believe the Sanfrancisco Peace Treaty gave them Dokdo because of Rusk Note. Rusk Note is nothing but a US secret position regarding Dokdo in favor of Japan's claim during the peace treaty negotiations.
    Rusk Note
    No matter what the reasons were, Japanese government's lobbying or US strategic interests, it was true US strongly supported Japan's claim on Dokdo through the Rusk Note, but Rusk Note has a critical weakness for Japan to use as a strong base for claiming Dokdo was given to Japan in the SF PeaceTreaty. Rusk Note was a US confidential memorandum sent only to Korea. Peace Treaty is about the agreement between Japan and the Allied Powers, not between Japan and US. It wasn't delivered either to Japan or to the Allied Powers.
    Below is the U.S. documents proving Rusk Note was a U.S. confidential memorandum
    which was never open to the public.
    1. Even the US Embassy in Korea didn't know about Rusk Note.
    On Oct.3 1952, the First Secretary of the American Embassy in Tokyo, John M. Steeves on behalf of Ambassador to Japan, Robert Murphy sent a despatch No.659 entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" to the US State Department and its copy to US Embassy in Korea. In this letter, Mr. Steeves wrote as follows:
    " ...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and
    does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, witch are fertile seal breeding grounds,
    were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together
    with the remaining terrritory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former
    Korean state. However, during the course of this imperial control, the Japanese Government
    formally incorporated this territory into the metropolitan area of Japan and placed it administratively under the control of one of the Japanese prefectures. Therefore, when Japan agreed in Article Ⅱ of the peace treaty to renounce "all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet", the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands with the area to be renounced. Japan has, and with reason, assumed that its sovereignty still extends over these islands. For obvious reasons, the Koreans have disputed this assumption."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pacifist wrote "It referred to the SCAPIN 677 and clearly says that Korean claim on the SCAPIN did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks."

    He intentionally (I hope it was not intentional) omitted the word 'permanently'. US clearly viewed SCAPIN 677 was related to sovereignty issue at least at the time of being issued. Thus, it’s useless opp insists “Area was divided for the convenience of the occupation forces of the Allies”

    ReplyDelete
  18. Blogger Makoto said...
    愼鏞廈氏は「獨島問題 百問百答」の中で
    「連合国最高司令部は、1946年1月29日、SCAPIN 第677号で『獨島』(リアンコールト島、竹島)を本来の主人である韓国へ返還することに決定し、日本から分離したのである。」
    http://messages.yahoo.co.jp/bbs?.mm=GN&action=m&board=1835396&tid=cddeg&sid=1835396&mid=5008&thr=5008&cur=5008&dir=d
    としています。
    しかし、当のSCAPIN 第677号の文面には「韓国に返還する」などという文言は出てきません。「日本国外の総ての地域に対し、又その地域にある政府役人、雇傭員その他総ての者に対して、政治上又は行政上の権力を行使すること、及、行使しようと企てることは総て停止するよう日本帝国政府に指令する。」との第1項の文言からは、第3項および第4項で上げている地域に対する支配権の行使を停止するように命じたとしか読めません。しかも第6項は「この指令中の条項は何れも、ポツダム宣言の第8条にある小島嶼の最終的決定に関する連合国側の政策を示すものと解釈してはならない。」としています。これは当時すでに国際慣習法として確立していた領域主権の最終決定は講和条約によるを改めて記したものであり、日本に残存主権(処分権)のあることを示しています。このことは同年2月13日に行われた黄田連絡官とSCAP/GHQとの会談からも裏付けられます。
    そうなると問題になるのは、1948年8月15日に樹立された大韓民国の主権との兼ね合いです。韓国寄りの人々は、建国を宣言した段階で韓国は完全なる領域主権を獲得したのだと主張します。しかし、そうだとすると日本の持っている残存主権と競合してしまいます。したがって1948年8月15日からサンフランシスコ講和条約の発効した1952年4月28日までの間、韓国の主権は不完全なものであったと言わざるを得ません。とはいえ、韓国併合条約により日本の領土となった領域の支配権については、日本は争う必要を感じていなかったので当該領域に韓国が支配権を及ぼすことは何ら問題なかったわけです。
    韓国が完全な領域主権を獲得したのは、サンフランシスコ講和条約の発効時というべきでありましょう。さもなければ韓国の建国は非合法なものになってしまいます。サンフランシスコ講和条約はその第二条(a)で「日本国は、朝鮮の独立を承認して、済洲島、巨文島及び欝陵島を含む朝鮮に対するすべての権利、権原及び請求権を放棄する。」としています。これにより韓国併合条約により日本の領土となった領域を放棄しているわけですが、韓国の側から見れば処分権も含めた完全な領域主権を獲得することになります。「サンフランシスコ講和条約の非締約国である韓国はそれに拘束されないのだ」などと主張する人がいますけど、拘束するもされないも、サンフランシスコ講和条約こそが韓国の領域主権を確かなものとする源であり、無視することのできない存在と言えるでしょう。
    そのような特別な存在であるサンフランシスコ条約において日本が竹島を放棄していない以上、韓国の竹島領有主張は成り立ちません。これを言われたくないので、韓国はSCAPIN677を根拠としたがるのかもしれません。しかしSCAPIN677は、韓国併合条約により日本の領土となった領域の帰属の確定とは何ら関係ない文書であることは、見てきたとおりです。しかも占領軍が発した命令などは特に取り決めのない限り講和条約の発効に伴って無効となります。
    なお、「本来の主人である韓国へ返還」と愼鏞廈氏は言っていますが、1905年の日本の編入以前に、朝鮮が実効的に支配していた証拠が提示されていない以上、妥当性を欠く発言です。妄言と言っても言い過ぎではないでしょう。
    ======================
    이신호
    In 1900, under the reign of Emperor Kojong, the Great Han Empire of Korea issued the Korean Imperial Edict No. 41, placing then-Seokdo (Dokdo) under the


    jurisdiction of Uldo-gun (Ulleungdo). In 1906, Sim Heung-taek, Uldo-gun County Chief, was notified that the eastern islands of Korea had been incorporated into Japan by a survey team from Japan's Shimane Prefecture. Sim right after submitted a report to the Governor of the Gangwon-do (province) in ways to counter the ridiculous and self-contradictory act.

    In 1900 (in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong), the Korean Empire had promulgated the Korean Empire edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire with the purpose of administering and ruling suitably Ulleungdo and Seokdo (or Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan). The Korean imperial edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire had issued as "The Korean Empire in 1900(in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong) rename Ulleungdo island together with Seokdo islet (Dokdo islets) and Jukdo islet(竹島) as Uldo county“, and then had specified, as "designate the sphere of it's jurisdiction as the whole Ulleungdo island and both Jukdo(竹島) islet and Seokdo islet(石島)." Footnote: Originally Liancourt Rock, or Seokdo islet(石島) was called as "Seokdo islet(石島)" in 1900s, but People of Cheollado who had emigrated from Cheollado in Korea to "Seokdo islet(石島)" had pronounced and called so "Seokdo islet(石島)" as "Dokseom(獨섬) in dialect of Cheollado, that is to say, 獨島(독도) in Chinese characters).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi, 이신호

    First of all, you guys owe us logical explanation why 石島 represent 独島, in the first place.

    Even Korean new textbooks skip the critical point.

    "독도는 우리 땅 ‘이유’ 설명 못하는 교과서"
    http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=005&aid=0000524507

    ReplyDelete
  20. People of Cheollado who had emigrated from Cheollado in Korea to "Seokdo islet(石島)" had pronounced and called so "Seokdo islet(石島)" as "Dokseom(獨섬) in dialect of Cheollado, that is to say, 獨島(독도) in Chinese characters).


    Korea records in the middle of 19th reported that people of Cheollado migrated seasonally to Ulleundgo for the marine alga. They lived in tents or Ships and retuned to Cheollado seasonally. Another Korean record reported that the most people of first fixed domicile resident of Ulleungdo in 1883 was from Gangwondo.
    Korean and Japanese historical materials in early 20th recorded that the most residents of Ulleungdo are from Gangwondo.
    Ex. Mr. Okuhara who was a member of the Takeshima inquiry team of the Shimane prefecture and researched Ulleungdo in 1906 reported that most residents of Ulleungdo from Gangwondo. And he reported that people of Ulleungdo called "石" as not "DOK" but "DOL". This is the source. This record consistents with residents' graduate, because people in the Gangwondo called "石" as "DOL".

    There is no specific evidence which proves that the 石島 was 独島. Circumstantial evidences like the Okuhara report shows that Korean presumption by pronounciation theory is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kaneganese,

    Mr.이신호 talked about Korean Edict No.41 as the evidence Korea was exercising sovereignty over Dokdo when Japan illegally incorporated that island. The reason you don’t think his explanation of Seokdo=Dokdo isn’t understandable is you are not a Korean.

    There’s another evidence Korea was exercising sovereignty over Dokdo when Japan illegally incorporated it. It’s Uldo Governor Shim’s report and Korean government’s Order No.3.

    One year after Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo, the officials from Shimane Prefecture unexpectedly visited Ulleongdo and told Uldo Governor Shim that Japan incorporated Dokdo. On hearing this news, he immediately reported it to the centre government "…Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. ..... a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, "We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory…". In response to Shim's report, the Korea's highest government agency issued Order No.3 stating "I have read this report. Claiming Dokdo became Japan’s territory is absolutely groundless. Investigate the circumstances of the island and action of Japanese people and report again..." From Shim’s report and Korean government’s Order, it’s apparent Korea was exercising the sovereignty over Dokdo at the time of Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo.

    Korean Objection to Japan’s Illegal Incorporation of Dokdo

    ReplyDelete