tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post5410281749662296904..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1951 Aug 10 - Sec. of State Dean Rusk Letter to S. Korean AmbassdorGerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-29159707458040664882012-10-07T23:05:42.790+09:002012-10-07T23:05:42.790+09:00sloww,
That would be very nice of you. And if you...sloww,<br /><br />That 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.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-81284934762850557802012-10-07T22:11:58.946+09:002012-10-07T22:11:58.946+09:00Kaneganese,
I don't have the whole pages.I...<br />Kaneganese,<br /><br />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. <br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-10718581956201381672012-10-07T20:03:14.195+09:002012-10-07T20:03:14.195+09:00Sloww,
As for "Conflicting Korean-Japanese C...Sloww,<br /><br />As for "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks).", I've been looking for the documents.<br /><br />There's only third page on the page you linked. I'd appreciate if you share all the pages to share with us? Thanks!Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-87962705246517936682012-10-07T13:48:10.597+09:002012-10-07T13:48:10.597+09:00Sloww,
I understand that you can't show any r...Sloww,<br /><br />I understand that you can't show any reliable source about your desire and illusion.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-80847712513783531692012-10-07T12:21:59.715+09:002012-10-07T12:21:59.715+09:00opp,
Your absurdity again!opp,<br /><br />Your absurdity again!slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-18854442268496853292012-10-07T11:05:04.416+09:002012-10-07T11:05:04.416+09:00Sloww: Everybody knows except you and some pro-Jap...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Let'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.<br /><br /><i>Sloww:This secret document was just American view on Dokdo and Korea didn't officially accept it.</i><br /><br />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. <br />Korea is not related to a treaty interpretation, because she was not signatories. She did<br /> not have any right to commit about the treaty.<br /><br /><i>Sloww: It's common sense the secret document can't be a means of interpretation of a treaty.</i><br /><br />Let's show the sauce which is reliable rather than the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. <br /><br /><i>This paper was stamped as "draft". And International law demand the condition the paper after the SF treaty. <br />→ ?</i><br /><br />Agreements of the signatories ware required to use the document after a treaty for the interpretation of a treaty. <br /><br /><i>Sloww: Most people except the pro-Japanese people can easily figure out Dokdo was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and colonialism.</i><br /><br />Article 65<br />Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty<br />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. <br /><br />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?opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-83369586332838259002012-10-06T11:34:58.096+09:002012-10-06T11:34:58.096+09:00opp,
Everybody knows except you and some pro-Japa...opp,<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />Because this paper opened to Korea, the United States and South Korea are restrained by this letter<br />→ <br />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.<br /><br /><br />There no words such as "should be open to the world".<br />→ <br />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.<br /><br /><br />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 :<br /><br />2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: <br />(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; <br />(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. <br /><br /><br />This paper was stamped as "draft". And International law demand the condition the paper after the SF treaty. <br />→ ?<br /><br /><br />Off course, "our information" based on the true historical facts and official Korean information. <br />→ <br />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 <b>Japan established a protectorate over Korea in 1904, and annexed Korea in 1910.</b>. 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 <b>Dokdo was the victim of Imperial Japan's Expansionism and colonialism.</b><br /><br /><br />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. <br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-73233573997689466732012-10-05T22:18:57.806+09:002012-10-05T22:18:57.806+09:00Sloww: Was Dean Rusk's the so-called "our...<i>Sloww: Was Dean Rusk's the so-called "our information" based on the true historical facts?</i><br /><br />Off 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).<br /><br /><i>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boggs%27s_memo<br />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.</i><br /><br />If USA want to change her opinion about the SF treaty, she have to notify to other countries.<br /><i><br />Article 65<br />Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty<br />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, <b>must notify the other parties of its claim</b>. The notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor. </i><br /><br />Any patties of the SF treaty don't notify the invalidity. Then the SF treaty is effective now.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-71787930333865576612012-10-05T21:51:08.627+09:002012-10-05T21:51:08.627+09:00Sloww:How can a secret document be used as a suppl...<i>Sloww:How can a secret document be used as a supplementary means of interpretation of SF treaty ?</i><br /><br />Because 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".<br />International law does not give conditions for the supplementary means <b>before</b> the SF treaty. <br /><br /><i><b>Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties</b><br />Article 32<br />Supplementary means of interpretation<br />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:<br />(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or<br />(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.</i><br /><br />There no words such as "should be open to the world".<br /><br /><i>Sloww:"Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)."</i><br /><br />This paper was stamped as "draft". And International law demand the condition the paper <b>after</b> the SF treaty. <br /><br /><i><b>Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties</b><br />3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:<br />(a) any subsequent <b>agreement</b> between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;<br />(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the <b>agreement</b> of the parties regarding its interpretation; </i><br /><br />Japan and USA <b>didn't agreed</b> to this internal draft document of the Department of State.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-51726017892058843292012-10-05T21:03:30.115+09:002012-10-05T21:03:30.115+09:00けぺ,
Rusk Letter was a confidential memorandum sen...けぺ,<br /><br />Rusk 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 ? <br /><br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/09/rusk-note-was-confidential-memorandum_6.html" rel="nofollow">Rusk Note was a secret document sent only to Korea.</a> <br /><br /><br />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)."<br /><br />The image of page 3 of original documents is <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ChODA_nSCRw/UGuoPWlOngI/AAAAAAAABaU/wFy5CrqZBkY/s1600/%EB%AF%B8%EA%B5%AD%EB%AC%B4%EC%84%B11954%EB%AC%B8%EC%84%9C.jpg" rel="nofollow"> here</a> and the text in the box is as follows:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />America became suspicious if Dean Rusk's information that Dokdo was never treated as part of Korea was based on the historical facts. <br /><br />Was Dean Rusk's the so-called "our information" based on the true historical facts?slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-49289366300639606112008-08-12T17:47:00.000+09:002008-08-12T17:47:00.000+09:00The SF treaty isn`t relevant and binding for Korea...The SF treaty isn`t relevant and binding for Korea.helpfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10863144851806876124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-52716873708342592012008-08-12T01:46:00.000+09:002008-08-12T01:46:00.000+09:00Rusk's Letter can use as a supplementary mean of i...Rusk's Letter can use as a supplementary mean of interpretation of SF treaty.<BR/><BR/><B>Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 32</B><BR/>Supplementary means of interpretation<BR/>Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, <B>including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion</B>, 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:<BR/>(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or<BR/>(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.com