The Peace Treaty was signed in San Francisco on September 9th 1951.
The treaty included the following:
Chapter I - Peace (Article 1)
Chapter II - Territory (Articles 2-4)
Chapter III - Security (Articles 5-6)
Chapter IV - Political and Economic Clauses (Articles 7-13)
Chapter V - Claims and Property (Articles 14-21)
Chapter VI - Settlement of Disputes (Article 22)
Chapter VII - Final Clauses (Articles 23-27)
Here is the Chapter II (Territory):
(a) Japan recognizing the
independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(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.
(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.
(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim
to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
Japan will concur in any proposal of the
United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with
the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of
29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands),
Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and
jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including
their territorial waters.
(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article, the disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2, and their claims, including debts, against the authorities presently administering such areas and the residents (including juridical persons) thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents, and of claims, including debts, of such authorities and residents against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between Japan and such authorities. The property of any of the Allied Powers or its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2 shall, insofar as this has not already been done, be returned by the administering authority in the condition in which it now exists. (The term nationals whenever used in the present Treaty includes juridical persons.)
(b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.
(c) Japanese owned submarine cables connection
Japan with territory removed from Japanese control pursuant to the present
Treaty shall be equally divided, Japan retaining the Japanese terminal and
adjoining half of the cable, and the detached territory the remainder of the
cable and connecting terminal facilities
The first article 2 (a) indicated that the islands Japan should renounce are Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet - it did not include Liancourt Rocks. Pro-Korean scholars used to say that the treaty didn't say about Liancourt Rocks so that it didn't mean the rocks are Japanese territory. But this was not true. The name of Liancourt Rocks was intentionally omitted - please compare with the former draft:
And the last draft of the treaty, which was made just before the treaty, included a footnote that is saying; "As regards the island of Dokdo… this normally uninhibited 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
The Allied and Associated Powers agree
shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea
all rights and titles to the Korean Mainland territory and all offshore Korean
islands, including Quelpart(Saishu To), the Nan how
group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port
Hamilton(Tonaikai), Dagelet Island(Utsuryo To,
or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima),
and all other islands and islets to which Japan had acquired title lying outside
One of the US documents which were written in 1952 says "they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had ever before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article 2(a) of the Treaty of Peace with
Dean Rusk himself wrote a letter on July 22nd 1953 and reconfirmed that Dokdo was never treated as part of Korea. http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1953-jul-22-us-doc-reconfirms-dean-rusk.html
Van Fleet wrote in 1954 that "the United States concluded that they
remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the
Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty".http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-of-van-fleet-mission-to-far-east.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A pro-Korean website mentions:
."..but the varying positions taken during the deliberation process indicate that the decision was made either because not enough information had been provided regarding the historical events surrounding Japan's incorporation of Dokdo Takeshima or because the Allied Powers felt themselves incapable or inadequate adjudicators. To this day, America maintains a neutral stance on the Dokdo Takeshima dispute".
This information is untrue, as you can see in the various documents above.