Secretary of State Rusk rejected the Korean Ambassador request with the following explanation:
As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.The complete letter follows:
His Excellency Dr. You Chan Yang, Ambassador of Korea. Excellency:
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your notes of July 19 and August 2, 1951 presenting certain requests for the consideration of the Government of the United States with regard to the draft treaty of peace with Japan.
With respect to the request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment.
The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formalor final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration. As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. It is understood that the Korean Government's request that "Parangdo" be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.
The United States Government agrees that the terms of paragraph (a) of Article 4 of the draft treaty are subject to misunderstanding and accordingly proposes, in order to meet the view of the Korean Government, to insert at the beginning of paragraph (a) the phrase, "Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article", and then to add a new paragraph (b) reading as follows:
(b) "Japan recongnizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of United States Military Government in any ofthe areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3". The present paragraph (b) of Article 4 becomes paragraph(c). The Government of the United States regrets that it is unable to accept the Korean Government's amendment to Article 9 of the draft treaty. In view of the many national interests involved, any attempt to include in the treaty provisions governing fishing in high seas areas would indefinitely delay the treaty's conclusion. It is desired to point out, however, that the so-called MacArthur line will stand until the treaty comes into force, and that Korea, which obtains the benefits of Article 9, will have the opportunity of negotiating a fishing agreement with Japan prior to that date.
With respect to the Korean Government's desire to obtain the benefits of Article 15(a) of the treaty, there would seem to be no necessity to oblige Japan to return the property of persons in Japan of Korean origin since such property was not sequestered or otherwise interfered with by the Japanese Government during the war. In view of the fact that such persons had the status of Japanese nationals it would not seem appropriate that they obtain compensation for damage to their property as a result of the war.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
For the Secretary of State:
Dean Rusk
Rusk's Letter can use as a supplementary mean of interpretation of SF treaty.
ReplyDeleteVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
The SF treaty isn`t relevant and binding for Korea.
ReplyDeleteけぺ,
ReplyDeleteRusk Letter was a confidential memorandum sent secretly only to Korea. How can a secret document be used as a supplementary means of interpretation of SF treaty ?
Rusk Note was a secret document sent only to Korea.
There's an important US Department of State document which casts a doubt on the validity of Rusk Letter. This document, dated Aug. 26, 1954, is entitled "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)."
The image of page 3 of original documents is here and the text in the box is as follows:
"On the other hand, it may be argued that Mr. Rusk's letter refusing to include Dokdo in the enumeration of islands renounced in connection with the renunciation of Korean was based on our understating of the historical facts ("Dokdo...was according to our information never treated as part of Korea") and that his statement left the door open to Korean to show that it had in fact treated Dokdo as part of Korea prior to 1905, when the Japanese placed Dokdo under the jurisdiction of the Shimane Prefecture of Japan. (Japan established a protectorate over Korea in 1904, and annexed Korea in 1910.) Under this theory Korea would still be free to establish legally if it could, that the "Korea" included in the peace treaty included the island of Dokdo."
America became suspicious if Dean Rusk's information that Dokdo was never treated as part of Korea was based on the historical facts.
Was Dean Rusk's the so-called "our information" based on the true historical facts?
Sloww:How can a secret document be used as a supplementary means of interpretation of SF treaty ?
ReplyDeleteBecause this paper opened to Korea, the United States and South Korea are restrained by this letter. And USA can't change her word. Study about "estoppel".
International law does not give conditions for the supplementary means before the SF treaty.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
There no words such as "should be open to the world".
Sloww:"Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)."
This paper was stamped as "draft". And International law demand the condition the paper after the SF treaty.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
Japan and USA didn't agreed to this internal draft document of the Department of State.
Sloww: Was Dean Rusk's the so-called "our information" based on the true historical facts?
ReplyDeleteOff course, "our information" based on the true historical facts and official Korean information. There is no specific evidence about Korean effective control. And Korean government answered that Dokdo was not Takeshima (another island).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boggs%27s_memo
I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.
If USA want to change her opinion about the SF treaty, she have to notify to other countries.
Article 65
Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty
1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor.
Any patties of the SF treaty don't notify the invalidity. Then the SF treaty is effective now.
opp,
ReplyDeleteEverybody knows except you and some pro-Japanese people that the secret document which never officially opened to the other signatories of the treaty can't be supplementary means of interpretation the related treaty.
Because this paper opened to Korea, the United States and South Korea are restrained by this letter
→
This secret document was just American view on Dokdo and Korea didn't officially accept it. Secretary of State Dulles clearly stated "US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty." Most importantly, Korea didn't sign the SF Treaty.
There no words such as "should be open to the world".
→
There's no word in Vienna Convention on treaties such as 'The secret document can be a means of interpretation', either. It's common sense the secret document can't be a means of interpretation of a treaty.
Opp, you are not fully understanding the means of interpretation of treaty in Article 32. The supplementary means of interpretation is for confirming the meaning resulting from the application of article 31 on General rule of interpretation. The Article 31 says :
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
This paper was stamped as "draft". And International law demand the condition the paper after the SF treaty.
→ ?
Off course, "our information" based on the true historical facts and official Korean information.
→
Yes, Korean government back then didn't respond effectively, but this doesn't make Dokdo as Japan's land. The information Dean Rusk had was based on Japanese side. The problem here is the information Japan gave wasn't based on the true historical fact. That's what US Department of State suspected. This document reminded the fact Japan established a protectorate over Korea in 1904, and annexed Korea in 1910.. Japan deprived diplomatic right of Korea in 1904, deprived Dokdo in 1905 and deprived whole Korea in 1910. Most people except the pro-Japanese people can easily figure out Dokdo was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and colonialism.
To be called as one of the leaders of the world, Japanese government should sincerely look back what Japan did to Korea instead of insisting on the so-called international law.
Sloww: Everybody knows except you and some pro-Japanese people that the secret document which never officially opened to the other signatories of the treaty can't be supplementary means of interpretation the related treaty.
ReplyDeleteLet's show the sauce which is reliable rather than the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is only Professor Hosaka and its believer that are doing such a strange opinion. Hosaka's speciality is engineering. Even 金明基 who is Korean nationalistic scholar of the international law admitted Rusk document as supplementary means.
Sloww:This secret document was just American view on Dokdo and Korea didn't officially accept it.
US Dos is the drafter of the SF treaty. Then Rusk document proves that SF treaty was written with the intention as Japanese territory. And signatories have agreed with the drafter's intention.
Korea is not related to a treaty interpretation, because she was not signatories. She did
not have any right to commit about the treaty.
Sloww: It's common sense the secret document can't be a means of interpretation of a treaty.
Let's show the sauce which is reliable rather than the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This paper was stamped as "draft". And International law demand the condition the paper after the SF treaty.
→ ?
Agreements of the signatories ware required to use the document after a treaty for the interpretation of a treaty.
Sloww: Most people except the pro-Japanese people can easily figure out Dokdo was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and colonialism.
Article 65
Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty
1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor.
Any patties of the SF treaty don't notify the invalidity. Then the SF treaty is effective now. Can't you read the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
opp,
ReplyDeleteYour absurdity again!
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you can't show any reliable source about your desire and illusion.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteAs for "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks).", I've been looking for the documents.
There's only third page on the page you linked. I'd appreciate if you share all the pages to share with us? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteKaneganese,
I don't have the whole pages.I'm also trying to get the whole document. I'll share it with you if I can find.
sloww,
ReplyDeleteThat would be very nice of you. And if you have clearer image of the third page or other pat of that page, let me know about it.