竹島問題の歴史

13.8.08

1952 January: Syngman Rhee Line

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part Fourteen

After the war, Japanese fishermen were expelled from adjacent ocean of Sea of Japan because of so-called MacArthur Line.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1946-scapin-1033.html


On the other hand, Korean fishermen enjoyed fishery without being annoyed by Japanese fishing boats.

However, the MacArthut Line was to be abolished in April 1952 immediately after the Peace Treaty came in effect. ROK hoped the line would be kept for a long period and negotiated with USA but their plea was rejected.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1951-coversation-of-yu-chan-yang-with.html

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1951-2nd-conversation-between-yu-chan.html


Dean Rusk advised Korea in his letter to negotiate with Japanese government, but they had no diplomatic relations with each other yet.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1951-august-rusks-letter.html


On January 18th 1952, the President of ROK Syngman Rhee (李承晩)* suddenly issued a Declaration concerning maritime sovereignty, with which he installed the so-called “Syngman Rhee Line” including Liancourt Rocks in the Korean territory, it was three months before April when the Peace Treaty would be effective. Japanese government soon made an objection on 28th the same month insisting that installation of this "line" encompassing the islands of Liancourt Rocks was a unilateral act in contravention of international law. USA also warned ROK that the unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal and that the United States had concluded Japanese sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-of-van-fleet-mission-to-far-east.html


The fishing boats, which were mostly Japanese, that violated the Syngman Rhee Line were seized by South Korea. Japanese records claim that such ships were often gunned by South Korea. Japanese Government protested strongly, but the abolition of the line had to wait even for the approval of the Japan-Korea Fishery Agreement in 1965. Japanese records claim that until an agreement was reached, 3929 of Japanese people were arrested, 328 of Japanese ships were seized, and casualty was 44 of Japanese.


Japanese Government released 472 Korean people in Japan who had been imprisoned as illegal immigrants in exchange for the restoration of Japanese detainees according to the demand of the South Korea Government, and Japanese Government granted the special permission of residence to the prisoners.

Even after the Japan-Korean Fishery Agreement in 1965, Liancourt Rocks were kept occupied by Korean coast guards and this issue is still unresolved.
(the photo: the demnstrators against the Syngman Rhee Line)




* Rhee, Syngman (1875-1965)
Korean right-wing politician. A rebel under Chinese and Japanese rule, he became president of South Korea from 1948 until riots forced him to resign and leave the country in 1960. He established a repressive dictatorship and was an embarrassing ally for the USA.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Syngman+Rhee

15 comments:

  1. I found interesting records. One is a comment about US draft of 1947 (Takeshima descibed as a Korean territory). It pointed out that Takesima is Japanese territory.
    Another one is the document from Mr. Allison to R. Feary on Dec 29,1949. The document said follows.
    3. The Habomais and Shikotan and Liancourt Rock have been included within the new Japan.
    I will uploard these documents soon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. けぺ様

    Thanks for your great help!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Korean fishermen had the right to fully enjoy the fishery without being bothered by the Japanese fishermen within MacArthur Line. But unfortunately, the Japanese fishermen bothered them by illegally invading the line. The violation of SCAPIN 1033 by the Japanese fishermen was one of the reasons leading to the President Rhee’s declaration of Korean sovereignty over the waters around the Korean peninsula. President Rhee did the right thing for the interests of Korea as a Korean president. USA at that time extremely unfairly sided with Japan for her own interests. Seizing the Japanese boats was a self-defence to keep Korean sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. However Korean government didn't have to arrest and kill Japanese fishermen, did it?
    What Korean government did is exactly a criminal.
    Also the fact that Korean government had released the hostages was used as a key of negotiation with Japanese government when they made some treaties.
    These series of idiots seem to be similar to what terrorists do.
    I can't imagine Korea was right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What reaction do you expect Korea had to do to the Japanese fishermen who continually violated Peace Line?

    How much a nation should be generous to the invaders to its sovereignty?

    Why do the Japanese blame the Korean act of self-defence without reflecting their wrongdoing?

    Do you know how many innocent Koreans were killed during the Japanese colonial period in Korea? Japan was an invader, but Korea couldn’t resist then. The independent Korea was different. Korea had no reason to tolerate the Japanese invaders then. If you think Korean self-defence was as an act of terrorists, how do you describe Japanese brutal acts done to the Koreans during its colonial ruling in Korea? Who is closer to the terrorists? Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank for replying.

    Initially, I would like to ask you what Peace Line exactly is?
    Peace Lime was not legal as an international law.
    Any countries didn't recognize it was legal,.
    Korean Government just did by himself.
    Also most of them who was arrested by Korean Government were innocent fishermen.
    Korean government had arrested just below 4000 people totally and sectioned them for 13 years.

    You said SCAPN1033 doesn't mention about whose is Takeshima. Treaty of San Francisco and Rusk documents say
    "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."

    Therefore Korean Government can't say it was self-defence. It was an illegal act.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SCAPIN 677 separated Dokdo from Japanese governmental and administrative control and SCAPIN 1033 prohibited the Japanese vessels or personnel to approach closer than 12miles to Dokdo. Please think why SCAP issued those directives and why the clever Japan didn’t make any objection to them. Dokdo was Korean land Japan took illegally in 1905.

    President Rhee’s Declaration of Sovereignty over Neighboring Seas (海洋主権宣言) was intended to declare its sovereignty over waters within Peace Line, protect and preserve fishery and other natural resources and maintain the peace between Korea and Japan.

    Can you show any international law being used to interpret Peace Line was illegal at that time?

    Korea as an independent state didn’t need recognition from other countries. At that time, other countries in Latin America announced similar declarations.

    The Japanese fishermen arrested by Korean government were not innocent. They violated Korean boundary line. These days, Japan has the problem with the foreign ships trespassing Japan’s boundary line. When they try to fish within the Japanese boundary, what does the Japanese government do?

    You have wrong information on SF Treaty and Rusk Note. They are not helping Japanese false claim on Dokdo at all. The final draft of SF Treaty didn’t mention the ownership of Dokdo and Rusk Note was a confidential American document, thus never reflected in the final agreement by the Allied Powers. I ask you to think why America reversed its early stance to include Dokdo as Korean territory.

    Dokdo was Korean land Japan took illegally by greed in 1905. Japan agreed to be expelled from the territories Japan took by violence and greed when proclaiming unconditional surrender in the Pacific War. Claiming the land the imperial Japan took illegally isn’t right, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I really appreciate this opportunity to talking about the controversial problem because I can't know Korean opinion.( I don't know Korean language)
    However, Please don't change our main point.
    We are talking about if Peace Line was legal or not, aren't we?


    When Korean government made up Peace Line, it was in the midst of Korean War.
    Japanese government was occupied by US (not totally) and too busy to object it for helping South Korea and US.
    Please imagine which country wants to make problems between allies during war?
    And Japan substantially didn't have the right of diplomacy.
    Those are the reasons why Japanese government didn’t make any objection to them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. International law
    "National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform."
    Therefore Peace Line doesn't work at all as long as Korean government appeal to those kind of public institution.
    As the same reason that there was any international law sayings that Peace Line was illegal at that time, Peace Line couldn't be legal.
    Nobody supported Korean government and Peace Line at that time.
    If they had been sure that what Korean government did was correct, they would have recommended going to the International Court of Justice.

    I agree the point with you that SF Treaty and Rusk Note, they are not helping Japanese false claim on Take Shima at all.
    What I would like to say is that they don't help not only Japanese also Korean government.
    But these kinds of confidential US documents still indicate the general opinion and situation at that time.

    I don't know any statement (paper) that US reversed its early stance to include Dokdo as Korean territory.
    If possible, could you give me?
    Additionally, according to Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East (1954) says...
    "The Island of Dokto (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 that Japan 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 the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea."


    Obviously, they belonged to Japan.
    Therefore Japanese and Korean government have to obey this idea and to be referred to the international Court of Justice.
    In spite of this suggestion, Korean government has rejected the reference for a long time.
    As long as Korean government rejects this requirement, this problem doesn't go forward even though Korean government says it's too obvious to do that.


    It is believed that there is the similar case as Latin America countries.
    Both Japan and Korea are in Asia. Latin America is another world where everything is different.
    If you suggested it should be adaptable for Korea, it must have been the international law.


    Anyway, the act of having taken Take Shima in 1905 was not illegal.
    I mean at that time It was legal.
    if Korean government is confused with the present and past international law, it is very natural to say it was illegal.
    However the international law is different between present and past.
    At that time, any countries and courts didn't say Japanese government was wrong.
    It is impossible to adapt the present law to the past incident.

    Therefore the act in 1905 was not illegal and Peace Line was not legal, illegal.
    Again, we are talking about if Peace Line was legal or not, aren't we?
    Please don't change our main point.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The interpretation of SCAPIN677

    All parties concerned to SCAPIN677 say that it was not the order about Japanese territories.
    Only Korea who doesn't have any rights about the SCAPIN sais that SCAPIN677 is territorial order.

    SCAPIN677
    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.

    GHQ/SCAP
    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(This order is nothing to do with the territorial issues. Those issues should be decided at the Peace conference.)
    Original source is here

    United States Army Military Government in Korea
    Formerly belonging to Japan, a recent occupation directive which drew an arbitrary line demarcating Japanese and Korean fishing waters placed Tok-to within the Korean zone. Final disposition of the islands’ jurisdiction awaits the peace treaty.
    Original source is here 

    USA
    The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of 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.
    Original source is here

    Of course, international law does'nt considered that SACPIN is a territory regulation. The sovereignty differs from the supreme power or the administration power.

    PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
    ADMINISTRATION AND SOVEREIGNTY
    It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.


    GHQ/SCAP aquired supreme power in Japan by the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. But GHQ/SCAP didn't aquire the sovereignty. Then she can't order about the sovereignty.
    Read the SCAPIN 677 well again. SCAPIN677 only order about the administration power.

    SCAPIN677
    1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.


    Finaly, Japan regained her supreme power by article1(b) of the SF treaty exclude the renounciation territory.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yusuke,

    Yusuke:I agree the point with you that SF Treaty and Rusk Note, they are not helping Japanese false claim on Take Shima at all.

    I want to know about your interpretation about the treaty and the territorial title. Then, please answer some questions.


    1. Do you think that SF Treaty is not helping Japanese claim on Honsyu, Shikoku, Kyusyu and Hokkaodo? Those positioning in the SF treaty(=silent) is the same as Takeshima.

    2. Do you think that the legal status about the Takesima became "unsettle" or "Korea" by SF treaty without Japanese agreement?

    3. Japan recovered full sovereignty of Japan by the artcle1(b) of the SF treaty. Do you think that the area of Japan of 1(b) doesn't contain Takeshima?

    If you can speak Japanese, I want to discuss by Japanese. Because my English is not well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yusuke,

    Please don't change our main point.
    ーー> I didn’t change anything. I refuted your arguments point by point. Read my comments again. Did you ask me if Peace Line was legal or not? My answer is “No, it was not illegal.”

    It seems you gave the reasons why Japanese government didn’t make any objection to SCAP directives, but your point is not clear. Are you trying to say Japan was busy to make any objection to SCAP’s decision to separate Dokdo from Japan? If I figured out correctly, I think you don’t know well about your government then. Please let me know clearly what made Japan so busy to stay silent with SCAP’s decision detaching Dokdo from Japan?


    You cited international law. Please interpret it for me so that I can understand what it is about. I’m not pretending I don’t understand. I really have no idea what it is about.

    As the same reason that there was any international law sayings that Peace Line was illegal at that time, Peace Line couldn't be legal.
    --> I’ll appreciate if you show me an international law saying that Peace Line was illegal at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yusuke,
    (Cont'd)

    Nobody supported Korean government and Peace Line at that time.
    --> Yes. Nobody supported and US denounced, but most importantly, the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers(GHQ) in Tokyo didn’t take any action against Peace Line. President Rhee’s "Declaration of Sovereignty over Neighboring Seas" was based on the similar international precedents which was international maritime trend at the time. There was no law against the unilateral declaration of territorial waters by a state at the time. Above all, there was no legal relation between Korea and Japan then. Japan had no right to protest Korea against its declaration of sovereignty.



    I agree the point with you that SF Treaty and Rusk Note, they are not helping Japanese false claim on Take Shima at all. What I would like to say is that they don't help not only Japanese also Korean government.
    ----> I'm glad you agree with my point SF Treaty and Rusk Note are not helping Japanese false claim on Take Shima at all. I agree with you they are not helping Korean government, too. The Takeshima pamphlet by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan states "Based on this correspondence(=Rusk Letter), it is evident Takeshima was affirmed as part of territory of Japan." You can see how Japanese government is openly misleading not only the Japanese people but also the people around the world with Rusk Note.


    I don't know any statement (paper) that US reversed its early stance to include Dokdo as Korean territory. If possible, could you give me?
    ----> In the early US 5 drafts, Dokdo was included as Korean land, but after Mr. Seibold’s letter in favor of Japan, US changed its position on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo ) by including Dokdo as Japanese land. It’s widely known fact.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yusuke,
    (Cont'd)

    There is a very important point in Van Fleet‘s report. It’s written "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."

    Yes, US supported Japan’s claim on Dokdo persistently after Sebald’s letter, but US own position based on Japanese false claim and its own strategic interests is not effective. It was the Allied Powers that could determine the territory of Japan, not US alone.

    Do you know US Department of the State said "US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty."( Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’s telegram of Dec. 9, 1953) ? There’s another US document saying "..a series of U.S. measures regarding Dokdo should not be interpreted as saying that the islets` sovereignty lies with Japan"(US Department of State’s document entitled "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island“ of Aug. 26, 1954) Don’t believe US completely sided with Japan’s claim on Dokdo. US view supporting Japanese claim on Dokdo was based on her own interests and could be changed accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yusuke,
    (Continued)

    Therefore Japanese and Korean government have to obey this idea and to be referred to the international Court of Justice.
    ----> There’s no obligation for Korea to obey US own idea in favor of Japan.

    Japan keeps asking Korea to go to ICJ. Korea has no problem with sovereignty on Dokdo. It’s only Japan that raises the problem with a false claim. Korea has no reason to ask ICJ to decide if Dokdo is Korean land or not. Korea is peacefully enjoying the sovereignty on Dokdo, though it’s annoying to see Japan make noises to draw international attention by provoking Koreans with Dokdo issue. If you don’t have any doubt about the ownership of your house, you don’t have any business to do in the court.

    Japanese government knows Korea has no legal obligation to accept Japan’s unilateral proposal to go to ICJ and Korea would never go to ICJ. Nevertheless, Japan keeps asking Korea to go to ICJ. Japan is using ICJ card to give the impression to the world Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo.


    You wrote:

    Anyway, the act of having taken Take Shima in 1905 was not illegal.
    I mean at that time It was legal. if Korean government is confused with the present and past international law, it is very natural to say it was illegal.
    However the international law is different between present and past.
    At that time, any countries and courts didn't say Japanese government was wrong.
    It is impossible to adapt the present law to the past incident.
    At that time, any countries and courts didn't say Japanese government was wrong.


    Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was totally related to Japan’s aggression of Korea in the course of Japanese imperialism. That is the truth like the Earth orbits the Sun. Admitting taking other nation’s land was not right doesn’t require international law.

    I thank you, too.

    ReplyDelete