In this paper the Kurile Islands Conflict between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan dating from the 1950s is referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), thus representing a virtual case.
Background information to the conflict is presented in the first part of the paper,followed by the arguments supporting the cases for the USSR and Japan respectively. Both sides are described in the second chapter. The award of the tribunal of the PCA is dealt with in the third chapter, and a separate opinion of one of the judges in a short fourth chapter.
To avoid confusion the date of proceedings before the PCA is August 2004, therefore the Russian Federation is presenting the side of the former USSR.
Table of Contents
1. Background Information
1.1 History of Agreements and Treaties
1.2 Reason for Transferral of the Issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration
1.3 Procedural aspects
2. Arguments to the Dispute over the Kurile Islands Conflict
2.1 Japan
2.2 USSR
3. Award of Tribunal
4. Separate opinion of Judge Dr. Nisuke Ando, LL. M.
Research Objectives and Key Themes
This paper examines the territorial dispute over the Kurile Islands between Japan and the Soviet Union (represented by the Russian Federation) by simulating a formal legal proceeding before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The primary objective is to analyze the historical treaties, declarations, and international legal arguments that both sides invoke to claim sovereignty over the islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and Habomai.
- Historical analysis of Russo-Japanese border treaties since the 17th century.
- Evaluation of the legal validity of the Yalta, Potsdam, and San Francisco agreements.
- Assessment of the 1956 Soviet-Japan Joint Declaration as a framework for resolution.
- Examination of human rights and international law violations regarding the post-WWII deportation of residents.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Background Information
Since the Russian Federation is the accessor to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and thereby inheriting all state`s contracts, the USSR is party to the Kurile Islands Conflict. The history of the Kurile Island conflict concerns the territorial right to admininister and claim as national territory the South Kurile Islands, and more exactly the four islands of Etorofu (in Russian named Iturup), Kunashiri, Shikotan and Habomai. These four islands are referred to by Japanese official language as part of the Northern Territory. To clarify, the (Japanese) Northern Territory consists of the islands of Sakhalin plus adjacent islands, and Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and Habomai Islands.
The islands of Broutona, Chirpoi, Brat Chitpoev, Urupu, Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and Habomai form the Southern Kurile Islands.The islands of Lovushki, Raikoke, Matua, Rasshua, Ushishir, Ketoi and Simushir form the Central Kurile Islands. The islands of Alaid, Shumshu, Paramushir, Antsiferova, Makanrushi, Onekotan, Kharimkotan, Chirinkotan, Ekarma and Shiashkotan form the Northern Kurile Islands.
Subsequently the Northern, Central and part of the Southern Kurile Islands are referred to as Northern Kurile Islands throughout this text, as the distinction between Northern and Central is of geological interest only and does not influence the political issue of the Kurile Island Conflict. In this context, the Northern Kurile Islands include the islands of Urupu up to Alaid.)
Summary of Chapters
1. Background Information: Provides the geographical definition of the Kurile Islands and outlines the complex historical progression of treaties and agreements that have shaped the territorial status of the region.
2. Arguments to the Dispute over the Kurile Islands Conflict: Presents the competing legal and political justifications used by Japan and the USSR to support their respective claims over the four disputed southern islands.
3. Award of Tribunal: Details the simulated arbitration findings, which prioritize the 1956 Joint Declaration as a path toward conflict resolution while addressing breaches of international law.
4. Separate opinion of Judge Dr. Nisuke Ando, LL. M.: Offers a dissenting legal perspective that considers the geopolitical realities of the post-WWII era and suggests alternative collaborative solutions like joint administration.
Keywords
Kurile Islands, Territorial Dispute, Japan, USSR, Russian Federation, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Sovereignty, Shimoda Treaty, Potsdam Declaration, San Francisco Peace Treaty, International Law, Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, Habomai.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper addresses the long-standing territorial dispute over the Kurile Islands between Japan and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation, framed as a hypothetical legal arbitration case.
Which islands are at the center of the conflict?
The primary focus is on the four southern islands known in Japan as the "Northern Territory": Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and Habomai.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The objective is to provide a balanced legal analysis of the claims made by both sides, referencing historical treaties and international conventions to assess the rightful sovereignty of the islands.
Which scientific methodology does the author apply?
The author employs a legal-historical methodology, simulating a tribunal setting to evaluate the consistency of state arguments against international law and formal treaties.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines historical agreements (from 1644 to 1956), the specific arguments for sovereignty presented by both Japan and the USSR, and the resulting arbitration award.
What are the key terms used in this paper?
Central terms include sovereignty, the Cairo Declaration, the Yalta Agreement, the Treaty of Portsmouth, and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
How does the author treat the 1956 Joint Declaration?
The 1956 Joint Declaration is identified as the most significant, though still pending, legal instrument for resolving the conflict and normalizing diplomatic relations.
What specific issue regarding human rights is addressed in the award?
The tribunal addresses the forced deportation of 17,000 Japanese residents on the Southern Kurile Islands between 1947 and 1949, acknowledging it as a violation of international humanitarian law.
Why did Judge Dr. Nisuke Ando register a separate opinion?
Judge Ando highlights that while he respects the final award, he believes the documents support a different interpretation regarding the "non-expansion" principles of the Cairo Declaration.
- Citation du texte
- Judith Ohene (Auteur), 2004, The Kurile Island Conflict, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/110446
