I The principle of the interpretation of a geographical term
1) The geographical term must be interpreted as the natural geographical meaning
Eastern Greenland CASE (P.C.I.J. 1933)
The natural meaning of the term is its geographical meaning as shown in the maps. If it is argued on behalf of Norway that these treaties use the term "Greenland" in some special sense, it is for her to establish it, and it is not decisive in this respect that the northern part of Greenland was still unknown. She has not succeeded in showing that in these treaties the word "Greenland" means only the colonized area.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
Article 31. General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2) The renunciation area by Japan on the peace treaty
"Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."This is the text about the renunciation area by Japan on the peace treaty on September 8, 1951(SF treaty) and the draft of the treaty on July 3, 1951. (After June,1951, this text was not revised)
A. The natural geographical meaning by USA geographer (original source)
Prof. Boggs recognized that the text doesn’t contain Liancourt Rocks.
If it is decided to give them to Korea, it would be necessary only to add "and Liancourt Rocks" the end of Art. 2, par. (a).
B. The natural geographical meaning by Korea (Korean first interpretation)
Korean government required addition of "Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks)" in the text to USA on July 19, 1951.(original source)
My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "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 island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."Korea recognized that Dagelet (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) as another island and the text doesn’t contain Liancourt Rocks.
C. The strained geographical meaning by Korea (Korean Second interpretation)
After the SF treaty was issued, Korea government changed her interpretation about the text. She sent a verbal note to Japan on 10 February 1954 and said follows.
Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) was approved as a Korean territory as an islet belonging to the Ulleungdo(Dagelet) by Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the treaty.This second interpretation is contradictory to her first interpretation. Because USA denied Korean first interpretation and request (see rusk note, No184 document), Korea had to change her interpretation for keeping her political greed. USA didn’t open these diplomatic negotiations with Korea till 1969. Then Korea could tell a lie and keep her second strained interpretation. But now, USA had opened the diplomatic negotiations and the Korean deceit had became clear.
II Unity theory of the international law
The Korean second interpretation is based on the unity theory. To be sure, the international law may accept the attached island as same legally unit of maim island.
PALMAS CASE, Hague, 1928
As regards groups of islands, it is possible that a group may under certain circumstances be regarded as in law a unit, and that the fate of the principal part may involve the rest.
1) Application of unity theory in precedents
LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER DISPUTE , ICJ, 1992
The Mohabbakah Islands are four rocky islets which amount to little more than navigational hazards. They are Sayal Islet, which is no more than 6 nautical miles from the nearest point on the Eritrean mainland coast, Harbi Islet and Flat Islet; all three of these are within twelve nautical miles of the mainland coast. Finally, there is High Islet, which is less than one nautical mile outside the twelve-mile limit from the mainland coast, and about five nautical miles from the nearest Haycock island, namely South West Haycock.
2) Application to Liancourt Rocks
The distance from Dagelet (Ulleungdo) to Liancourt Rocks is about 50 nautical mile. Then it will not apply the unity theory to Liancourt Rocks.LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN , ICJ, 2002
The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.<supplement>
Dokdo(独島) is Korean name of the Liancourt Rocks. The meaning of Dokdo is isolated island. Korean name is contradictory to Korean unity theory.
III Conclusion
1) The natural meaning of the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the SF treaty
The Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) which defined the renounced area by Japan doesn't contain the Liancourt Rocks. This is also proved by the first Korean interpretation.2) Korean deceptive interpretation
The drafter of the treaty (USA) have notified the truth meaning of the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the SF treaty. But Korea have disregarded the truth meaning and fabricated the second interpretation intentionally for her political greed. This Korean fraudulent practice breaks ”estoppel” and "good faith" for the interruption.3) Unity theory
Liancourt Rocks is not an attached island of the Dagelet (Ulleungdo).After USA have opened the Rusk note at 1969, Korea government never comment about the Rusk note and her first natural interpretation. Now she is going to forget even her 2nd interpretation(unity theory).
Korean newest brochureIf the status of the Liancourt Rocks was uncertain at the treaty, why did he demand to add the Liancourt Rocks to the renounced territory? Why didn't she demand to add 3,000 islands? Did she lost official notes from the drafter(see rusk note, No184 document)? Her evasion is denied by her past activities. Moreover this third interpretation violates the "Principle of Completeness of Boundary Treaties"
Among Korea’s some 3,000 islands, the said article refers to only Jejudo (Quelpart), Geomundo (Port Hamilton), and Ulleungdo (Dagelet) as examples. Therefore, the mere fact that Dokdo is not directly mentioned in the said article does not suggest that Dokdo is not included among those territories of Korea separated from Japan.
Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court on the Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (1925)
It is . . . natural that any article designed to fix a frontier should, if possible, be so interpreted that the result of the application of its provisions in their entirety should be the establishment of a precise, complete and definitive frontier.
opp,
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of your post is to claim the final draft of SF Treaty didn’t include Liancourt Rockes(Dokdo) as the land Japan had to renounce, thus Dokdo was given to Japan, right?
It doesn’t take long to prove you are wrong without unrelated international law and tricky interpretation.
On December 9, 1953, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State of U.S., stated :
"Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan, and despite our participation in Postdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement, ..........US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty."
His statement clearly indicates the position of U.S. government to support for Japanese claim on Takeshima doesn’t correspond to that of Allied Powers which had the authority to make decisions regarding the disposition of former Japanese outlying islands. In other words, the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of SF Treaty by the Allied Powers didn’t mean Takeshima wasn’t the land Japan should renounce even though U.S., one of the signatories of SF Treaty, interpreted so. It didn’t mean Dokdo was given to Korea, either.
Simply speaking, oop’s conclusion that the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) which defined the renounced area by Japan doesn't contain the Liancourt Rocks is wrong.
>thus Dokdo was given to Japan, right?
ReplyDelete?? Give to Japan ?? Who can give Takeshima to Japan?
I always said that you should study international law.
Any country couldn't give takeshima to Japan, because Japan didn't transfer her sovereignty any country. Military occupation by Allies doesn't mean the acquisition of the sovereignty.
>US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty."
Off course, Japan never agree to transfer her sovereignty of Takeshima. Japan keep her sovereignty.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
ROOTS OF TITLE
(e) Disposition by joint decision of the principal powers
After the defeat of the Central Powers in the First World War, and the Axis Powers in the Second World War, the leading victor states assumed a power of disposition, to the exercised jointly, over the territory of the defeated states. In the years 1919 and 1920 decisions were taken by the Supreme Council of Allied and Associated States; in 1943 and 1945 by meetings of leaders at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, and subsequently by meetings of Foreign Ministers, States losing territory as a consequence of dispositions in this wise might, and often did, renounce title by the provisions of a peace treaty to the areas concerned, but the dispositions were usually in possession prior to the coming into force of a peace treaty. The existence of this power of disposition or assignment is recognized by jurists, but they find it difficult to suggest, or to agree upon, a satisfactory legal basis for it. Some translate political realities into legal forms by supposing that the community of states has delegated such a power to the ‘principal’ or ‘great’ powers. Others, at least in relation to the Second World War, postulate a right to impose measures of security, which may include frontier changes, on an aggressor consequent on his defeat in a war of collective defence and sanction.
Much turns on the extent to which recognition and acquiescence may counteract any elements of illegality which may infect such procedures in some cases. Disposition of the kind normally are recognized by multilateral peace treaty or otherwise. In same cases, for example, the Geneva Conference of 1954, in regard to Indo-China, the express delegation of power prior to agreed disposition of territory ensures that a certain number of states are bound to accept the results of procedure.
>His statement clearly indicates the position of U.S. government....
The United States was one of the signature of the treaty and she cannot renounce sovereignty of Japan.
It is the most important thing that Japan who has territorial title and sovereignty of the Takeshima did not renounce.
Please study international law.
Of course, the United States and Korea recognized that Japanese territory was renounced by Japan at the peace treaty.
ReplyDeleteU.S. – R.O.K Meeting on July 19, 1951
With regard to the first point, Mr. Dulles was in doubt that the formula confirming Japan's renunciation of certain territorial claims to Korea, could be included in the treaty in the form suggested by the ROK. He explained that the terms of the Japanese surrender instrument of August 9, 1945 did not, of themselves, technically consititute a formal and final determination of this question. He added, however, that the Department would consider including in the treaty a clause giving retroactive effect to the Japanese renunciation of territorial claims to August 9, 1945. The Korean Ambassador replied that if this were done he believed that the point raised by his Government would be met satisfactorily.
Any country can't give Japanese territory to Japan. Only Japan can give Japanese territory to other country. Japan agrees to renounce her territory only in the SF treaty. Takeshima wasn't contained the area of the renunciation.
This is international law.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>Simply speaking, oop’s conclusion that the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) which defined the renounced area by Japan doesn't contain the Liancourt Rocks is wrong.
ReplyDelete?? You didn't refute subjects this article with reliable source.
USA (John Foster Dulles which you quoted) also recognized that the area of Japanese renunciation didn't contain Takeshima.
Easten Greenland, PCIJ
This is a point as to which the burden of proof lies on Norway. The geographical meaning of the word "Greenland", i.e. the name which is habitually used in the maps to denominate the whole island, must be regarded as the ordinary meaning of the word.
I have proved the geographical meaning of the word "Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet " didn’t containe Takeshima by follows.
1.Demand by Korean government
2.Boggs's suggestion
3.SCAPIN677(Takeshima and Ulleungdo are another islands in this order)
4.John Foster Dulles's comment
Especially the Korean demand is fatal in three times(geographical meaning, estoppel, good face).
If you want to refute, you should show evidences which prove the area of the text contained Takeshima.
opp,
ReplyDeleteWho said a country gave Takeshima to Japan? It was the Allied Powers that could determine whether to give Takeshima to Japan or not.
It’s very absurd to say "Japan never agree to transfer her sovereignty of Takeshima. Japan keep her sovereignty." It’s your personal opinion, right? Let me explain why you are wrong.
One of the terms of Cairo Declaration(1943) was "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed." Postdam Declaration(1945) said "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." Allied Powers clearly perceived Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) was one of the islands Imperial Japan took by greed & violence and they were supposed to determine its ownership. The early U.S. drafts included Liancourt Rocks as Korean land and theew are Allied Powers's agreement to transfer the sovereignty of Dokdo to Korea. SCAPIN issued directives separating Dokdo from Japanese governmental and administrative control and blocking Japan from exploiting the adjacent ocean including Liancourt Rocks. Do you still insist Japan kept the sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks at the time? Japan once had sovereignty over Takeshima(Dokdo) based on the false claim it was ownerless, but Japan lost it after defeat of WW2. If you go to the site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, you can find your government's view is different from yours.
Do you know Japanese government issued a pamphlet entitled “Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper” from November 1946 to June 1947 and distributed it to SCAP and the US State Department? In this document, Japan is arguing for the sovereignty over the territories including Liancourt Rocks not to lose them in SF Treaty. If Japan maintained sovereignty on Dokdo then as you insist, why did Japan claim Liancourt Rocks to retain it? In that document, Japan shamelessly and greedily claimed even Ulleongdo unarguably Korean land.
The Attached Map to "Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper"
Mr. Dulles' statement itself refutes your conclusion. the Allied Powers were deciding which territories Japan had to renounce. If Liancourt Rocks were not the territory Japan should renounce in SF Treaty, in other words it was Japanese land, the Allied Powers must have agreed so. But Dulles clearly said U.S. supported Japan’s claim on Liancourt Rocks, but it was juar U.S. position as one of the signatories to treaty. Did he say the Allied Powers agreed U.S. position? No. Of course, he didn’t say Allied Powers didn’t agree U.S. opinion, either. However, his remark clearly indicates the Allied Powers and U.S. had different views.
There is evidence showing your conclusion is wrong. In 1952, Mainichi Newspaper published a book entitled "Peace Treaty with Japan(対日平和条約)" and attached a map "Area Map of Japan(日本領域図". In this map, Takeshima(Dokdo) was excluded as Japanese land. Japan’s major newspaper confirmed and announced Takeshima became the land Japan had to renounce in SF Treaty. I know Japanese side tries hard to disregard this map.
日本領域図
You are absolutely right to say any country can't give Japanese territory to Japan. America unilaterally couldn’t decide whether once Japan owned Takeshima should be given to Japan or not. In other words, you must agree Rusk Note being used as the evidence Takeshima was affirmed as part of the territory of Japan by Japanese government is invalid.
Sloww:Who said a country gave Takeshima to Japan? It was the Allied Powers that could determine whether to give Takeshima to Japan or not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment proves your ignorance about international law. Allied Powers only could determine the area of the renunciation or cession by Japan. Only Japan could renounce the Japanese territory according to the Allied Power’s determination and Allies could dispose the territory after the renunciation by Japan (though Allies didn’t dispose).
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, Ian Brownlie
Sovereignty may also be indeterminate so far as the process of secession may not be seen to be complete at any precise point in time. [...] For example, in a peace treaty Japan renounced all right to Fomasa. However, Fomasa has not been the subject of any act of disposition; it has not been transferred to any state.
Did Allied Powers give Honsyu, Kyusyu, Hokkaido, Shikoku and Sado etc, to Japan? No. They never can GIVE Japanese territory to Japan. Can you understand the subject of the article 2 of the treaty? Because Japan had the sovereignty of Korea, Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet, Japan could renounce the sovereignty at the treaty. The word “Japan renounces” of the SF treaty proves that Japan had the sovereignty even the renunciation territory till the treaty. And Japan recovered her full sovereignty which was the derogated by the military occupation exclude renunciation territory according to the article 1(b) of the treaty.
Article 1
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
Sloww SCAPIN issued directives separating Dokdo from Japanese governmental and administrative control and blocking Japan from exploiting the adjacent ocean including Liancourt Rocks.
You should understand the difference between the power of the administration and sovereignty.
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.
SCAPIN is not the order about the sovereignty but administration. Because Korea government had awarded this common sense, she didn’t claim based on SCAPIN677 before SF treaty. SCAPIN677 theory was trumped-up by Korea government because her political desire about Takeshima was rejected by Rusk note and SF treaty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSloww:"Do you know Japanese government issued a pamphlet entitled “Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper” from November 1946 to June 1947 and distributed it to SCAP and the US State Department? In this document, Japan is arguing for the sovereignty over the territories including Liancourt Rocks not to lose them in SF Treaty."
ReplyDeletePlease show the original text. I read the original of the “Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper” again, it doesn’t say so. I wonder that Japan had knew the SF treaty (1951) at 1947.
Sloww:"If Japan maintained sovereignty on Dokdo then as you insist, why did Japan claim Liancourt Rocks to retain it?"
I can't find the word "retain" in the original. But the word "retain" is suitable for Japanese and sovereignty situation at that time.
Because Japan had the sovereignty of the all former Japanese territory at 1947, Japan claim that the sovereignty should retain. If Japan had already renounced her sovereignty at 1947, Japan would claim that Allies should return back the sovereignty or transfer again.
Sloww: "In that document, Japan shamelessly and greedily claimed even Ulleongdo unarguably Korean land."
Nothing to do with the sovereignty of Takeshima.
Sloww:"Mr. Dulles' statement itself refutes your conclusion. the Allied Powers were deciding which territories Japan had to renounce. "
ReplyDelete??? His statement has not denied international law. USA thought that the artcle 2 didn’t contain the Tekeshima. Because he wasn’t a represent of other countries, he couldn’t decide of the interruption of other countries. But the ordinary meaning of the article 2 didn’t contain the Tekeshima, other signatories agreed the meaning. This is not Dulles’s rule but the principle of the international law. Moreover after the Rusk note was opened at 1969 and the meaning of the treaty more clear, any countries didn’t institute a lawsuit to ICJ.
Article 22
If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated October 15, 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article.
Because the connivance is effective in the international law, the silent by other countries become the agreement of the Rusk note and Dulles speech. Think logically and read the treaty well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSloww:“There is evidence showing your conclusion is wrong. In 1952, Mainichi Newspaper published a book entitled "Peace Treaty with Japan(対日平和条約)" and attached a map "Area Map of Japan(日本領域図". In this map, Takeshima(Dokdo) was excluded as Japanese land.”
ReplyDeleteThis is the body text of the "Peace Treaty with Japan(対日平和条約)" by Mainich shinbun. Takeshima was described as the Japanese territory.
table of contents
part of Takeshima
Sloww:”Japan’s major newspaper confirmed and announced Takeshima became the land Japan had to renounce in SF Treaty. I know Japanese side tries hard to disregard this map.”
??? The reason of the attached-map’s error has already clear. The attached map was made based on a map(日本領域参考図) about the MacArthur line which was deliberated in Parliament at Oct 1951. In the deliberations of the Parliament, the Japanese government has answered that Takeshima is a Japanese territory(草葉政府委員:今度の平和條約におきましては、竹島は日本に入つて来ると申しますか、日本領土であるということをはつきり確認された). The conference minutes is here.
I must say that not only you are ignorant about international law, but also your and Korean(Prof. Hosaka) research is very superficial.
This is a book which was supervised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and published at Sep 1951.
front cover
part of Takeshima
Artcle2 didn’t contain Takeshima
Korea government, Japanese government, Dr. Boggs, Mr. Rusk(US Dos), Mr. Dulles(US Dos), Mainichi-shinbun(text body)
Artcle2 contain Takeshima
Mainichi-shinbun(attached map: the reason of error is clear)
Do you think that a map with error by private sector prior than Korea government, Japanese government, US government and a specialist of the geography? Though you want think so, international law prior official and the specialistic judgment.
Correction
ReplyDeleteArtcle2 didn’t contain Takeshima
Korea government, Japanese government, Dr. Boggs, Mr. Rusk(US Dos), Mr. Dulles(US Dos), Mainichi-shinbun(text body) and ICJ(Island more than 40 nautical miles away isn't attached island)
Artcle2 contain Takeshima
Mainichi-shinbun(attached map: the reason of error is clear)
Japan had promised that she would renounce her territory according to the Allies decision in the future at Japanese instrument of surrender. This didn’t mean Japan executed the renunciation at that time. Allies also didn’t make the decision at that time. Allies made decision and Japan fulfilled her responsibility about the renunciation by the SF treaty. The sovereign of the Japanese territory (include Korea, Fomasa, Karafuto etc.) was Japan till the renunciation by Japan (=SF treaty).
ReplyDeleteI must say that Sloww can’t understand this basic fact. Then he repeated that Allies GAVE Japanese territory to Japan. Allies couldn’t give Japanese territory to any countries. Allies could decide the area of the renunciation and demand to Japan to renounce. But the subject of the renunciation is Japan. After the Treaty of Versailles, the territorial title of conquest became illegal. Allies couldn’t dispose Japanese territory without Japanese agreement.
Sloww: “It’s very absurd to say "Japan never agree to transfer her sovereignty of Takeshima. Japan keep her sovereignty." It’s your personal opinion, right? Let me explain why you are wrong.”
If Sloww has the normal power of understanding, he will doubt the word “Japan renounces” of the article2 of the SF treaty. This word proves that Japan had the sovereignty till the treaty and SCAPIN was nothing to do with sovereignty. If he can read the Brownlie’s text book of the international law and judicial precedents (though I has already quoted), he will aware that my comment and logic is correspond to these reliable sources. If he can read his own comments, he will aware that he didn’t show any reliable sources which support his logic.
Regrettably, he didn’t have basic ability.
oppさん
ReplyDeleteありがとうございました。
思ったより分かりやすかったです。
sloww,
As for the Dulles's statement, it is natural for us to understand that Allied Poweres and all the signatories to treaty and countries, including ROK, who sent their opinion on draft before the signature day of treaty agreed to the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of SF Treaty. All of them received the draft, but none of them challenged the Article 2(a) except for ROK.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteI should point out one more important thing about the Dulles's secret telegram.
Dulles and other person at 1953 didn’t know the rule of the interpretation of the treaty well, because “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties” which codified the rule of the interpretation gained approval at 1969. Then he didn't know supplementary means of interpretation (Rusk note etc.) was effective and the ordinary meaning of the text bound on other countries clearly. Although "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" prohibited the retroaction before 1969, ICJ admitted the article 31 and 32 of the treaty had enacted bill as a common law before 1969.
If Dulles thought that ordinary meaning and supplementary means of the treaty didn't bound other countries, those bound other countries in the international law.
opp,
ReplyDelete"Sloww:Who said a country gave Takeshima to Japan? It was the Allied Powers that could determine whether to give Takeshima to Japan or not. This comment proves your ignorance about international law."
It’s you who asked “Who can give Takeshima to Japan?” and I replied. I didn’t say that. This comment is irrelevant to international law.
"Allied Powers only could determine the area of the renunciation or cession by Japan. Only Japan could renounce the Japanese territory according to the Allied Power’s determination and Allies could dispose the territory after the renunciation by Japan (though Allies didn’t dispose)."
Read your comment again to see if it logically works.
"I always said that you should study international law."
I don’t need to study the international law you keep citing. I haven’t seen any Japanese and even Takeshima Research Center talking about your international law. To me, it seems you cite it citing it over and over again because you have no other ways to pretend you are right.
"Did Allied Powers give Honsyu, Kyusyu, Hokkaido, Shikoku and Sado etc, to Japan? No. They never can GIVE Japanese territory to Japan."
It’s because they are not the land Japan took by greed and violence. I thinky you should study the basic international law first.
"SCAPIN is not the order about the sovereignty but administration."
I didn’t say SCAPINs are the orders about the sovereignty. Yes, you can say “SCAPIN is not the order about the sovereignty”, but you shouldn’t deny SCAP detached Dokdo from Japanese administration because it was the land Japanese took by greed before WW2. One of the SCAP’s mission was to determine the land Japanese took by greed and force before WW2.
opp,
ReplyDelete"I can't find the word "retain" in the original. But the word "retain" is suitable for Japanese and sovereignty situation at that time."
Your remark shows you are not smart. Keep reading the sentence, then you can realize what "retain" in my commebt means.
"Nothing to do with the sovereignty of Takeshima. ”
Then what is "Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper"?
You don’t need to try to show Japanese government considered Takeshima became Japanese land by Peace Treaty. It’s quite natural for Japanese government not to admit Japan lost Takeshima by Treaty. I said “Japan’s major newspaper confirmed and announced Takeshima became the land Japan had to renounce in SF Treaty.” The evidence you provided is not convincing. In the part of Takeshima, it’s written “In 1946, Japanese government’s administrative right for Takeshima was ceased by SCAP’s directive.(昭和二十一年の総司令部覚書によって、日本政府の行政権が停止されることになった。)”, but there’s no any explanation Takeshima became Japanese territory.
I have never heard the map was in error from Japan’s side before. This map clearly shows Takeshima/Dokdo outside of Japan. I wonder how many Japanese people thought it was in error when it was published. Was there any complain from Japanese people or Japanese government against Mainich Newspaper which made the wrong map showing Dokdo was Korean land?
I already know “日本領域参考図” submitted to Diet of Japan(衆議院) and the members were not happy with this map showing Dokdo as the land blocked to keep Japan from exploiting the adjacent ocean. "日本領域図" and "日本領域参考図”are not same maps.
Anyway, "Area Map of Japan(日本領域図)" proves your saying "Japan never agree to transfer her sovereignty of Takeshima. Japan keep her sovereignty." is just absurd.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteHow can you say there was an agreement between Allied Poweres and all the signatories to treaty despite Mr. Dulles stated "US view are Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty"? Of course, they must have agreed to put that phrase in Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) , but it doesn’t mean Takeshima is not the land Japanese should renounce. From Dulles’ statement, the other signatories except U.S. didn’t support U.S. position claiming Dokdo. Of course, disagreement among them doesn’t mean it’s finally decided Dokdo is Korean land, either.
Korea was not allowed to be a signatory of the treaty. You can’t say Korea agreed with treaty. Korea is not bound by SF Peace Treaty with Japan.
sloww,
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, you cite Prof. Hosaka' weired claims that Rusk note is not "valid" because it was "confidential and not open to public". Then what about this Dulles's telegram? They were "Secret Security Information" conveyed only inside FRUS for God's sake. Did Korean and Japanes MOFA knew it in 1953? _ Negative.
How come you Korean having been contradictory? Aren't you shameful for you?
In 1951, the US draft dating on May 3 and US-GB joint draft dating on June 14 was sent to Allied Powers and all other countries concerned, including ROK, respectively. Apart from ROK, only France mentioned about Article 2, but it was for (f)(Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands), not (a).
Korean request for Dokdo was rejected by US and in concequence, other coutries who signed or attended to the conference admitted the treaty which specified Liancourt Rocks stay as Japanese territory.
ROK received not only the benefit of giving opinion of the treaty draft twice but also attending the conference as observer. Moreover, in 1965, ”Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea”with famous preamble "Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 "was signed.
Naturally, ROK are obliged to respect SF peace treaty.
Slow:It’s you who asked “Who can give Takeshima to Japan?” and I replied. I didn’t say that. This comment is irrelevant to international law.
ReplyDeleteDid you forget this your comment?
“The purpose of your post is to claim the final draft of SF Treaty didn’t include Liancourt Rockes(Dokdo) as the land Japan had to renounce, thus Dokdo was given to Japan, right?”
I never say that Takeshima was given to Japan. You can't give my bag to me, because the owner of my bag is I. But I can renounce the ownership of my bag, because I have the ownership of the bag.
It is same. Allies and any countries can't give Japanese territory to Japan, because the sovereign of Japanese territory is Japan. But Japan can renounce the sovereignty of Japanese territory. Then Japan renounced her territory by the SF treaty. And Takeshima wasn't contained the renunciation area.
Your illogical comment proves your ignorance about the law.
Sloww:I don’t need to study the international law you keep citing. I haven’t seen any Japanese and even Takeshima Research Center talking about your international law. To me, it seems you cite it citing it over and over again because you have no other ways to pretend you are right.
“People will see only what they want to see.” I understand your bitter thought. You can’t show the reliable source that supports you and prove your own rule. You can only recuse the international law for keeping your dogmatic desire. This your behavior resemble to Korea government who run away from the International Court of Justice.
OPP:"Did Allied Powers give Honsyu, Kyusyu, Hokkaido, Shikoku and Sado etc, to Japan? No. They never can GIVE Japanese territory to Japan."
ReplyDeleteSloww:”It’s because they are not the land Japan took by greed and violence. I thinky you should study the basic international law first.”
Allies didn’t GIVE Honsyu, Kyusyu etc. to Japan, because Japan already have the sovereignty of those area. Japan only recovered her full sovereignty.
Sloww:you shouldn’t deny SCAP detached Dokdo from Japanese administration because it was the land Japanese took by greed before WW2.
Who did say so? Please show the reliable source. Even SCAP said the area was decided by the Allie’s administrative convenience. And Japan recovered her full sovereignty which of the territory except the renounce area according to the article 1(b) of the SF treaty. Takeshima wasn’t contained the renounce area. Even Korean government recognaized so.
Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration Feb, 1946
"This directive(* SCAPIN677) was issued merely for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers. It only re-confirmed the administration which had already been done so far. Namely, it means the others (*which were excluded from Japan in SCAPIN677) were not SCAP's jurisdiction. For example, Ohshima(*大島) is CIN(*C)PAC's jurisdiction and Ulleungdo is under the command of the 24th army corps. Therefore, the decision of the range of Japan by this directive has anything to do with the territorial issue, since territorial issue is something which has to be decided by the peace treaty（*San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ） at some future time. "
SlowwKeep reading the sentence, then you can realize what "retain" in my commebt means.
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of your comment is nothing to do with the legal position of the sovereignty. Because Japan had her sovereignty of all of her territory at that time, Japan want to keep the sovereignty. So, Japan required that USA would determine to exclude Ullengdo from the renunciation area. Tough the position of the Ulleungdo is nothing to do with the Takeshima.
Potsdam Declaration
(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
USA determined to exclude Takeshima from renunciation area by SF treaty. UK signed the SF Treaty. ROC confirmed the SF treaty by the treaty of Taipei.
All of counties who had a power of decision agreed the SF treaty. Moreover any counties don’t have been claim about the Takeshima according to the article 22 of the SF treaty. Only Korea who didn’t have any right about the decision of the Japanese territory complained about the decision.
Sloww The evidence you provided is not convincing. In the part of Takeshima, it’s written “In 1946, Japanese government’s administrative right for Takeshima was ceased by SCAP’s directive.(昭和二十一年の総司令部覚書によって、日本政府の行政権が停止されることになった。)”, but there’s no any explanation Takeshima became Japanese territory.
ReplyDeleteCan’t you read the table of the contant? I have already showed you.
Chapter 4 Territory
Part1 Area of the territory: [..] Takeshima[..]
Part2 Separated territory: Chosun, Fomasa[..]
Prof. Hosaka and Shin said nothing about this table of contents, because this is inconvenient for their fiction novel. I knew their trimming. Then I showed the table of contents. Could you understand that fiction novels by Korean nationalistic scholars are very dangerous?
Prof. Sin Yong-Ha explained that Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan helped this mainichi newspaper's map.
ReplyDeleteThis is his lie. There is no evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSloww,
ReplyDeleteArtcle2 didn’t contain Takeshima
Korea government, Japanese government, Dr. Boggs, Mr. Rusk(US Dos), Mr. Dulles(US Dos), Mainichi-shinbun(text body) and ICJ(Island more than 40 nautical miles away isn't attached island)
Artcle2 contained Takeshima
Mainichi-shinbun(attached map: the reason of error is clear)
Question:Do you think that a map with error by private sector prior than Korea government, Japanese government, US government, a specialist of the geography and ICJ?
You will be silent about this substantive question again and change the subject, because you can't explain this paradox by reliable source. I don't expect your answer.
But readers of this blog will know your run out and the truth from your silence.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteBoth Rusk Note and Dulles’s telegram were confidential documents and unknown to the public until U.S. government releases them later. Most of U.S. treaty documents were confidential. Even the documents revealed Rusk Note was confidential were confidential.
What is your point? As Rusk Note is invalid, Dulles’s telegram should be invalid because both were confidential? According to this logic, other U.S. secret documents in favor of Japan should be invalid, too. When Korea says Rusk Not is invalid because it was confidential, it means the content of Rusk Note wasn’t open to the other signatories of treaty until the end of treaty. In other words, Rusk Note is invalid because it was not reflected in the final decision of treaty by the Allied Powers.
It’s very shameful for you to say "other countries who signed or attended to the conference admitted the treaty which specified Liancourt Rocks stay as Japanese territory." Show me the evidence. It’s also shameful for you to say Korea agreed to treaty, especially Japanese interpretation of Article 2 even though Korea didn’t sign the treaty. It’s common sense nobody is bound by the contract or something which one didn’t sign. Korea is respecting SF Treaty itself. Why not? Korea just don’t respect Japanese wrong interpretation of Article 2 (a). Don’t be confused.
Korea is faithfully interpreting the Article 2 (a) of treaty based on the related documents.
Am I shameful for me? The answer is “No, I’m not.”
sloww,
ReplyDeleteRusk note is not "secret" since it was the official bilateral diplomatic letter from FRUS to Korean government, plus it is a supplementary means of interpretation of SF treaty according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, while Dulles's telegram was unilateral "Secret Security Information" inside FRUS written AFTER treaty.
Besides, if you put any value on the telegram, why don't you guys obey the last sentence of Dulles's remarks?
"However in case issue revived believe our general line should be that this issue, if it cannot be settled by Japanese and Koreans themselves, is kind of issue appropriate for presentation International Court of Justice."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKaneganese,
ReplyDelete"Rusk note is not "secret" since it was the official bilateral diplomatic letter from FRUS to Korean government"
OK. Then, let me put it this way. Rusk Note was secret to Japanese government and the Allied Powers. It doesn’t matter if was delivered to Korea or not. What matters is it was secret to the other Allied Powers who were the signatories of the SF Treaty. In other words, the Rusk Note has nothing to do with the final decision by the other signatories of the treaty.
"..it is a supplementary means of interpretation of SF treaty according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"
Now you begin to cite opp’s international law. You must be desperate. Would you please explain why Rusk Note is a supplementary means of interpretation of SF Treaty according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in your own words, not by opp’s.
"Besides, if you put any value on the telegram, why don't you guys obey the last sentence of Dulles's remarks?"
Korea sees no reason be referred to the ICJ just to please Japan when Korea is exercising sovereignty on Dokdo. It’s not right to keep asking Korea to go to ICJ when Korea has no duty to do so.
opp,
ReplyDelete"Conference with GHQ/SCAP concerning separation of the administration Feb, 1946
"This directive(* SCAPIN677) was issued merely for administrative convenience on the part of allied powers. It only re-confirmed the administration which had already been done so far. Namely, it means the others (*which were excluded from Japan in SCAPIN677) were not SCAP's jurisdiction. For example, Ohshima(*大島) is CIN(*C)PAC's jurisdiction and Ulleungdo is under the command of the 24th army corps. Therefore, the decision of the range of Japan by this directive has anything to do with the territorial issue, since territorial issue is something which has to be decided by the peace treaty（*San Francisco Peace Treaty, April 28,1952 ） at some future time"
You should bring the official document by SCAP, not by Japanese government to prove the directive was only for administrative convenience. As you know, the verbal statement between a Japanese liaison officer and an unnamed American can’t be effective according to international law. There’s no SCAP document stating the directive was only for administrative convenience.
Stick to the original text to SCAPIN N0. 677 here. According to this directive, Japan was governmentally and administratively separated from Dokdo and Japan couldn’t exercise or even attempt to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Dokdo. This directive isn’t just for administrative convenience. Obviously, it’s related to territorial issue.
In a letter ot Japanese government , Kenneth T. Young, Jr. from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs wrote “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“ Aside from the credibility of his statement, he clearly viewed SCAPIN677 was related to exercising sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) when it was issued.
opp, if Japan considered SCAPIN677 was just for administrative convenience and Japan never agree to transfer her sovereignty of Takeshima (Japan who has territorial title and sovereignty of the Takeshima did not renounce.
) even after WW2 as you insist, why did Japanese government exclude Dokdo/Takeshima from map of Japanese? Was it just for administrative convenience? No. Even the private mapmaking company excluded Dokdo/Takeshima from Shimane Prefecture. I’ll introduce more maps later.
Ministry of Home Affairs Geographical Investigation Map
(內務省地理調査所發行地圖一覽圖, 1946.8 )
Map of Newly Divided Prefectures of Japan(日本新分懸地圖, 1946)
opp,
ReplyDeleteDokdo is not the land Japan took by greed? The map below shows you and many Japanese are lying about SCAPIN 677. You know Japan can’t take Korean Dokdo through lies.
陸地測量部発行地図区域一覧図
(A Map by Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department , 1936)
In 1936, Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department (陸地測量部) under the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office(参謀本部) divided Imperial Japan’s territories into their original boundaries before Japan's occupation. According to this map, 竹島(Dokdo) is within Korean boundary, which means Japan illegally incorporated Dokdo belonging to Korea in 1905. Yes, it’s true Dokdo is the land the Imperial Japan took by greed.
Sloww:You should bring the official document by SCAP, not by Japanese government to prove the directive was only for administrative convenience.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I bring such documents? You want the document because you don’t want to belieave? International law doesn’t demand such document. ICJ admitted the effect of the Ihlen Declaration only by the Norwegian memorandum. ICJ didn’t demand Danish document.
This is typical Korean response, when they encounter inconvenient facts. They create blinkered criteria and rule for the negation inconvenient facts. Their logic
about the Rusk note is same. They say that Rusk note was invalid because it was secret to Japan. But Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties never sets such condition for the supplementary means of interpretation.
Sloww:According to this directive, Japan was governmentally and administratively separated from Dokdo and Japan couldn’t exercise or even attempt to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Dokdo. This directive isn’t just for administrative convenience. Obviously, it’s related to territorial issue.
Obviously??? You use infelicitous adjective. What’s kind of the power or right about territory? Please use the specific word looks like administraition and disposition. “Governmental or administrative authority” is the organization for executing the power of the administration. Then this is not concerned with the sovereign but the administration method during the military occupation.
Because Germany lost her governmental and administrative authority, the army of the Allied Powers administrated direct. But this doesn’t mean the transfer of the sovereignty (Read above Brownlie’s text). SCAP administered indirectly in the Honsyu, Shikoku etc. SCAP administered directly in the territory where Japanese administration power was ceased by SCAPIN677(Takeshima, Korea, Formasa etc). This is not concerned with the sovereign same as Germany.
Sloww:even after WW2 as you insist, why did Japanese government exclude Dokdo/Takeshima from map of Japanese? Was it just for administrative convenience? No. Even the private mapmaking company excluded Dokdo/Takeshima from Shimane Prefecture. I’ll introduce more maps later.
What do you want to say? It may that administration power of the Japan ceased. It may that Takeshima is too small for the diminishing scale. Maps can’t become the evidence of the existence or non-existence of the sovereignty. Read the Palmas case , Pedra Branca case etc.
You ran away from this question again as expected.
Artcle2 didn’t contain Takeshima
Korea government, Japanese government, Dr. Boggs, Mr. Rusk(US Dos), Mr. Dulles(US Dos), Mainichi-shinbun(text body) and ICJ(Island more than 40 nautical miles away isn't attached island)
Artcle2 contained Takeshima
Mainichi-shinbun(attached map: the reason of error is clear)
Question:Do you think that a map with error by private sector prior than Korea government, Japanese government, US government, a specialist of the geography and ICJ?
You will be silent about this substantive question again and change the subject, because you can't explain this paradox by reliable source. I don't expect your answer.
But readers of this blog will know your run out and the truth from your silence.
opp,
ReplyDelete"Why should I bring such documents? You want the document because you don’t want to belieave?”
It seems you don’t understand why I ask an official document by SCAP. I asked you to bring it if you want to prove you are right, not for me. If you can’t, it means SCAP didn’t say SCAPIN 677 was only for administrative convenience and you are wrong .
"Obviously??? You use infelicitous adjective."
Let me repeat what Kenneth T. Young, Jr said. "The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 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". It’s obvious SCAPIN677 was related to exercising sovereignty over Dokdo even though it was not permanent.
"What do you want to say? It may that administration power of the Japan ceased. It may that Takeshima is too small for the diminishing scale. Maps can’t become the evidence of the existence or non-existence of the sovereignty."
Yes, Takeshima is a small island, but there’s no doubt it was considered as an important one by Japan, especially by Shimane Prefecture. If maps can’t become the evidence of the existence or non-existence of the sovereignty as you insist, why do you think your fellow Japanese in this blog are trying to read existence or non-existence of the sovereignty from the Japanese maps? You keep changing your words for your convenience.
I have more maps to show to prove Dokdo was the land Japan took by greed. If you want to see them, let me know.
"You will be silent about this substantive question again and change the subject, because you can't explain this paradox by reliable source. I don't expect your answer. But readers of this blog will know your run out and the truth from your silence. “
You are helpless. My post above is just for SCAPIN 677. Do you think I’m silent because you are right and I’m wrong? You are deluding you are absolutely right. Wait until I’m ready. I have a lot of things to say about "日本領域図". I’m busy with facing with the Japanese bringing false claims on Dokdo like you. Anyway, I wonder how many readers agree with your silly comments.
You criticized I’m changing the subject, but you are changing the subject now. How contradictory you are! To me, you look like trying to escaping from Japanese maps above.
“Question:Do you think that a map with error by private sector prior than Korea government, Japanese government, US government, a specialist of the geography and ICJ?”
I have never agreed with "日本領域図”has an error. I’ll show you it was not the map with error. Anyway, you didn’t answer to my question "Was there any complain from Japanese people or Japanese government against Mainich Newspaper which made the wrong map showing Dokdo was Korean land?". Unlike you, I don’t force you to answer even though you keep silent.
SlowwI asked you to bring it if you want to prove you are right, not for me.
ReplyDelete? We should correct this your comment as follows.
Sloww: I asked you to bring it if you want to convince me.
Typical Korean response. They pretend as if their original logic is world standard without verification.
1. I said the one-side memorandum is effective. And I proved this rule by the ICJ case of the Ihlen Declaration
2. Slow said that each memorandum is needed. But he didn’t prove this strange rule.
If you pretend your strange rule is international law, you must prove that with the reliable source. Your individual desire and standard are not concerned with the truth. I am not your kindergarten teacher.
Sloww:Let me repeat what Kenneth T. Young, Jr said. "The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas[...]
What do you want to say? Prof. Brownlie pointed out that the word “sovereignty" uses many meanings. What did Japan transfer exclude administration power? Use the specific word. Moreover Mr. Young dispatched Rusk note to the Embassy. Do you think he admited Korean claim based on SCAPIN677?
SlowwIf maps can’t become the evidence of the existence or non-existence of the sovereignty as you insist, why do you think your fellow Japanese in this blog are trying to read existence or non-existence of the sovereignty from the Japanese maps?
I insist? International law insists so. Because I am different from your individual standard which isn't supported any reliable source, I can show the reliable source which support may comment.
PALMAS CASE
Anyhow, a map affords only an indication - and that a very indirect one - and, except when annexed to a legal instrument, has not the value of such an instrument, involving recognition or abandonment of rights.
If Japanese insist the sovereignty by maps, that is wrong. But I recognize that most Japanese use maps as the evidences for the location of geographical names. Maps can use this method under the international law. Of course I prove this rule, because I am different from you.
PALMAS CASE
Any maps which do not precisely indicate the political distribution of territories, and in particular the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) clearly marked as such, must be rejected forthwith, unless they contribute - supposing that they are accurate - to the location of geographical names.
Korean old maps prove that the Usando before 18th is double Ulleungdo and is Jukdo after 18th. Japanese maps in 20th prove that Matsushima and Takeshima are Algonoute and Ulleungdo. Then Matsushima in the end of 20th is nothing to do with Takeshima.
Sloww: Anyway, you didn’t answer to my question "Was there any complain from Japanese people or Japanese government against Mainich Newspaper which made the wrong map showing Dokdo was Korean land?".
Typical Korean response. Which question was early? When Korean couldn't answer the constitutive question, they often return the new question. This is same as change subject and is violate discussion manner.
You ran away from this question again and again as expected.
Artcle2 didn’t contain Takeshima
Korea government, Japanese government, Dr. Boggs, Mr. Rusk(US Dos), Mr. Dulles(US Dos), Mainichi-shinbun(text body) and ICJ(Island more than 40 nautical miles away isn't attached island)
Artcle2 contained Takeshima
Mainichi-shinbun(attached map: the reason of error is clear)
Question:Do you think that a map with error by private sector prior than Korea government, Japanese government, US government, a specialist of the geography and ICJ?
You will be silent about this substantive question again and change the subject, because you can't explain this paradox by reliable source. I don't expect your answer.
But readers of this blog will know your run out and the truth from your silence.
Sloww:Let me repeat what Kenneth T. Young, Jr said.
ReplyDeleteSloww said that Rusk document is invalid because it was secret against Japan. Kenneth T. Young letter was secret too. Moreover this isn't even official diplomatic letter.
I am fed up his double standard.
opp,
ReplyDeleteIt’s funny you copy Kaneganese‘s idea. She asked a similar question. You can find my answer in the comment above. You should study more why Koreans say Rusk Note is invalid. Yes, Kenneth T. Young’s letter was definitely official. Check it again.
It seems you gave up to deny SCAPIN 677 was related to territorial sovereignty. It’s a progress even though you try to make the document itself invalid this time.
SlowwYes, Kenneth T. Young’s letter was definitely official.
ReplyDeleteRusk note was definitely official and diplomatic document. The diplomatic document bind on the party. Study “estoppel”.
SlowwIt seems you gave up to deny SCAPIN 677 was related to territorial sovereignty. It’s a progress even though you try to make the document itself invalid this time.
Any one can’t deny the empty class, because there is not based reality.
Mr.A: There is something different.
Mr.B: What is that? Use the specific word.
Mr.A: It seems you gave up.
I worry about your condition of the disease. Can you communicate with other people?