Japanese-Russian Territorial Disagreements and Their International Legal Substantiations

Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 13 (Special issue of Politics and Law): 16-24, 2013 ISSN 1990-9233 IDOSI Publications, 2013 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.13.pl.14003 Japanese-Russian Territorial Disagreements and Their International Legal Substantiations Zhaisanbek M. Amanzholov and Yerik B. Akhmetov Kazakh National University named after Al Farabi, Almaty, Kazakhstan Abstract: The article dwells upon e Russian Japanese territorial dispute as a possibility of better understanding e similar international legal and geopolitical aspects of oer territorial disagreements inherited after World War II. The unresolved territorial disputes have made an important impact on international and regional stability and require a orough and systemic analysis. The purpose of e essay is to contribute to e formulation of eoretical and practical approaches towards e settlement of existing territorial relations on e basis of a systemic and comparative analysis of e legal and political positions of e disputing parties. Key words: Japan Russia Territorial disagreement International security Asia-Pacific Region INTRODUCTION existence of such a territorial problem a-priori does not promote constructive and friendly relations in In recent times, e territorial dispute between Russia Japanese-Russian relations. and Japan has become a widely discussed topic in Let s consider arguments of e Japanese side. international relations, which among oer legal Argument number one - Japan appeals to e historical international and geopolitical disputes has resulted from heritage and raer seriously considers at it is e Second World War. The subject of ese territorial traditionally significant and even decisive argument in e relations is an official and open position of Japan on on-going territorial dispute. Moreover, by e researchers returning of e islands of Small Kuriles range by Russia of e Institute for World Affairs at Kyoto Sangyo and, consequently, not all e Kuriles (Ticima), but four of University e problem is defined as "historical memory em. They are: Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and a group of issue for Japan" [2]. In is regards, e Japanese usually islands Habomai (Habomaidze) at covers e islands refer to e historical written sources which demonstrate Souder, Uri, Akiuri, Sibotzu and Taraku (islands of e effectual control over e four Norern territories by Polonski, Zelenyi, Juriy, Tanfiliyev and close to em a Japan at e end of XVIII beginning of XIX century. number of minor islands). In e geopolitical So, in e book "New history of Hokkaido" it is written language Russia calls ese islands as e Souern at in e 11 year of e Kansei era (1799) e central Kuriles while Japan in its turn refers to em as e Japanese government had effective control over ese Norern territories, "situated on e Nor-Eastern coast territories via such principalities as Edzo, Nambu and of Hokkaido" [1]. Tsugaru [3]. Moreover, e official Japanese document Thus, even ough e current problem does not lead "Norern territories of Japan" prepared by e to military confrontation, but remains in e political-legal Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1977 contains early area, nevereless, it is far from a solution. Russian-Japanese territorial relations. For example, it This raises a natural question: is wheer Russia contains e data according to which e "Japanese knew should really return e Souern Kuriles to Japan? Or in about e existence of Sakhalin and Norern territories oer words, wheer Japan has legal grounds to demand (Kuril Islands) long before e Russians. Japan has, in eir return? fact, developed ese Norern areas. But later ey had to leave ose areas because of invasions by Russians" Essence and Content of e Japanese Demands: Japan [4]. So, according to e assertions of e Japanese considers at its demands concerning e return of e government ese facts clearly show at Norern "Norern territories" are just and reasonable. And at is territories have never belonged to e foreign country and why e Japanese side consistently stresses at e have always been part of e Japanese territory. Corresponding Auor: Amanzholov, Kazakh National University named after Al Farabi, Almaty, Kazakhstan. 16

Argument number two - Japan insists on e fact at May 20, 2009 clarified at "e four Norern islands Norern territories are its native age-old lands which have never been e foreign territory and is is e always belonged to it legally and are naturally considered indigenous Japanese land" [9].. In addition, on June 11, as being an integral part of e country according to e 2009 e upper chamber of e Parliament of Japan geographical maps and under e international documents unanimously approved e amendments to e Law on of 1543, 1644, 1745, 1855, 1875 and 1905. In particular, special measures promoting e solution of e Norern Japan claims to ese territories on e basis of official territories issue, where, ey are named as e indigenous state map of e Sekho period, which was drawn in 1644. lauds of e country [10]. It is e first geographical map in e world which shows Argument ree. The crux of e matter lies in e fact all four islands Kunashir, Iturup, Habomai and Shikotan at in substantiation of its claim, Japan gives e facts [5]. This and oer similar maps are to some extent one of at e Norern territories have been illegitimately e proofs for Japan which show e boundary line in is occupied by e Soviet army just six days earlier its territorial dispute. If to mention international documents, capitulation, i.e. after August 15, 1945, when e en e Communist Party of Japan demands e returning Japanese administration declared at it would accept e to Japan of e whole Kuril archipelago eir claims being terms of capitulation and ends e war as a defeated state. bases on e Treatises of 1855 and 1875. The party claims It (Japan) assumes at e USSR while of e conference at " e Kuril Islands were not obtained by capturing in e Crimea agreed upon wi its allies about a war and aggression, but became part of Japan as a result of against Japan and on August 8, 1945 launched largepeaceful treaties of 1855 and 1875" [6]. Indeed, among e scale offensive actions against e Japanese army in international documents e aforementioned treaties are Manchuria, us breaching e Treaty Neutrality on emphasized by Japan. So, according to e Treaty of signed wi Japan in 1941. On October 17, 2009 Minister Shimoda on trade and borders of 1855 to which e of State Lands and Transport of Japan Seiji Maehara made Japanese auorities more often are inclined to refer, e e so-called "visual inspection" of e Norern islands Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai have territories and as his predecessors repeated e esis become part of Tokugawa Shogunate and e rest of e about "illegal occupation" of ese islands by Russia. Kuriles would belong to Tsarist Russia. "Since en e In 2011 Ministry of Education allowed to use in high islands ownership was never disputed by any country school textbooks on history, geography and social until ey came under Russian occupation in 1945" [2]. studies formulations about "illegal occupation of Under e Petersburg Treaty of 1875 e Kuriles Souern Kuril Islands". In particular, in e "New History completely joined Japan, in exchange of which Japan textbook", (published by several scientists united under recognises e Sakhalin Island as part of Russia [7]. Under e public organization "Community for creation of a new e Portsmou Treaty of 1905 which has fixed e defeat textbook on history"), e auors mention at e Soviet of Russia in e Russian-Japanese war, Japan not only Union indeed "declared a war on Japan and invaded secures e rights for all e Kuriles, but also returns e Manchuria" [11]. In April 2008 e Political council of e souern part of e Sakhalin Island (to e sou of 50 of prominent "Japanese forum on international relations" by mid latitude) [8]. So, it means at by referring to e e results of annual work of several dozens of specialists Treatise of 1855 in its claims to Russia about e Norern made 10 recommendations to e Cabinet of Ministers of territories, Japan can take as a starting point e Japan. The four principle of ese recommendations international legal basis of peace treaties of 1875 and 1905. states at "e occupation of e "Norern territories" And en, according to is official logic, sovereignty of by e Soviet Union" is an unlawful act from e point of e country should be spread over e entire Kuril international law" [12]. In e "Blue book on foreign archipelago, including Souern Sakhalin. According to policy of Japan of 2011", e Ministry of Foreign Affairs e Japanese newspaper "Yomiuri", e Norern of Japan has also made conclusions concerning e given territories today are included in e zone of e Security territorial aspect. On January 21, 2012 Minister of Foreign Treaty e between e USA and Japan (Yomiuri, 1996). Affairs of Japan Koichiro Gemba when answering Wi confirmation of e norms prescribed in e questions of e newspaper called "Sakei Shimbun" previously mentioned international treaties and wi e clearly stated at "e occupation of e Norern aim of strengening of Japan s demands, Japanese Prime territories by Russia does not have any grounds under Minister Taro Aso during e debates in e Budgetary e norms of international law and is position of e Commission of e upper chamber of e Parliament on government remains unalettrable" [13]. 17

In order to strengen its position, Japan has stated: Russia has its own arguments related to e position "e ally - states of e Atlantic Charter and Cairo of e Japanese side. In fact e essence of em is, first Declaration have proposed e principle of "non- of all, at Russia completely disagrees wi e Japanese expansion of territories", erefore, annexation of Sakhalin interpretation of e issue and proposes its own proofs. and Kuriles by e Soviet Union is illegal". The decisions In e opinion of e Russian side, historical rights to e of Yalta and Potsdam conferences are not binding for Kuril Islands belong to Russia, because e history shows Japan, because ey are just "treaties of intent". For its (Russia s) priority in discovering and exploration of e example, in confirmation of e said above, if not all, but Kuriles. As an evidence, Russia presents an official map e majority of Japanese scientists consider at e published by e government of e Russian Empire "Yalta agreement does not have any legal binding force during e reign of Caerine II (1796). Anoer historical for Japan, because it (Japan) did not participate in is document at was presented as an evidence of conference and did not know about it when e terms of possessing e islands is e Decree of Caerine II to e e Potsdam declaration were accepted by Japan 1945" Senate in 1779 "On exemption from duties of e [14]. Wi such a definition of a legal nature of e Yalta population of e Kuril Islands, at have acquired agreement since August 1945 e USA has also inclined Russian allegiance" [17, pp: 178,179]. Moreover, ere is to agree, to as well as some Soviet/Russian researchers. also a memorandum of Russian ambassador N.P. Rezanov As such, e USA since at time on has been asserting in which e Japanese auorities were informed about at Yalta agreement was just a declaration of aims e leng of e Russian border on e Kuril Islands in between e leaders of e allied powers and in itself it 1805. Concerning e doctrine of "primordial territories", was not a document having any legal consensuses. Russia sticks to e opinion at international law does This position concerning e Kuril Islands issues not regulate such a concept, erefore it is hardly lawful was presented in e full form in e Note of e U.S. to consider at e legal status of any territory in e XVI State Department of July 1st, 1955, as well as in e or XVII centuries can define its status in e XX or XXI Memorandum of September 7, 1956 concerning Yalta centuries. In is regard Russia considers at Treatises of and Kuriles [15]. Soviet/Russian scientist S.M. Punzhin 1855 and 1875 do not have any modern value and views has admitted at e Yalta agreement is just a declaration em as Russia s territorial concessions to Japan, at of aims, but he has specified at it has a binding legal were done in at period as a result of coercion of Japan. character not for Japan, but for e Soviet Union, USA Japanese aggression in 1904 against Russia revoked all and Great Britain [16]. As e auor has noted, e fact is e agreements between em. In e works of Russian at e latter two powers have agreed to meet e auors ere is a prevailing viewpoint at e mentioned conditions put forward by e Soviet side at e expanse treaties of e XIX century were dissolved by Japan itself of interests of China and Japan [16]. His legal as a result of an armed attack on Russia and e signing interpretation of Yalta agreement is totally supported by of e Portsmou Peace Treaty in 1905. By e way, anoer Russian scientist B.N. Slavinskii. He also Japanese scientist Nada Haruki supports is considers at e Yalta agreement is a set of interpretation as well. He considers at as a result of arrangements between e allies conforming eir Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 "Japan has lost a moral positions for ending e Pacific region war which did not right to demand from Russia e observance of previously have anying to do wi Japan. In oer words, Japan signed treaties" [18, p. 43]. Thus, Russia makes a was just an object to is agreement. conclusion at references to e Treatises of 1855 and Furer e Japanese suppose at in e San 1875 as well as to Peace treaty of 1905 are unlawful as a Francisco Peace Treaty of September 8, 1951, e souern result of aggressive actions of Japan and e border islands being "indigenous Japanese territories" and delimitation between Russia and Japan must be carried belonging only to Japan, were not included into e out on e basis of international legal acts regulating e notion e Kuriles Islands" and at is Treaty does not world order after e World War II [19, p. 231]. directly, indicate to slouch state Japan or Russia e Secondly, in Russia, many politicians, scientists, specified territories are to be transferred to. And lastly, lawyers and specialists on international law agree wi e Japan has repeatedly declared at due to e USSR s opinion at e Japanese demands concerning e refusal to sign San Francisco Peace Treaty which as assignation of e norern territories do not have clear Japanese scientists note, was its only political mistake [2], enough international legal grounds. According to e item references of Russia as a successor of e former USSR to "C" of Article 2 of Peace Treaty between Japan and e is international legal act are invalid. USA, signed in San Francisco on September, 8, 1951, 18

Japan had refused all rights, competences and claims to interpreted ese facts as a victorious state. Considering e Kuriles, also to e souern part of e Sakhalin and e fact at ose documents were formulated after e islands adjoining to it [20]. Besides, in his speech on World War II, including e documents concerning e October 19 of e same year K. Nisimura, Head of e territorial situation in e Far East, Russia does not Treaty Department of e Ministry of Foreign Affairs consider itself obliged "to search for e ways to settle of Japan declared at e notion "e Kuriles" in e disagreements which have arisen because of e Treaty also includes e notion e Souern Kuriles disagreement of Japanese government wi territorial [21, p. 101; 22]. According to e opinion of Russia it changes" [26, p. 118]. means at by making such verbal statement Japan has The Russian side admits at in Soviet-Japanese confirmed its official position concerning ese islands. relations during e process of summarizing e results of Therefore, it has no right to challenge e given territorial World War II, e decisions of e Yalta and Potsdam situation as a whole or in part. conferences on e Far East issues have not been brought Thirdly, in Russia serious attention is paid to e togeer as well as corresponding articles of e Sanreasoning of Japan at San Francisco Peace Treaty does Francisco Peace Treaty. But, at e same time it states at not indicate whom e Souern Sakhalin and e Kuriles bo Yalta and Potsdam agreements of e "Big Three" are assigned to. Actually it is true. However, it is (USSR, USA and Great Britain) as well as San Francisco necessary to keep in mind e fact at e return of e Peace Treaty guarantee e rights of e Soviet Union souern part of Sakhalin to e USSR and assignation of (Russia) on Sou Sakhalin and e Kuril Islands. e Kuriles have been predetermined by e decisions According to e official position of Russia such an of e Yalta (Crimean) Conference of February, 11, 1945 affirmative answer proceeds from Japan s unwillingness and e Potsdam Declaration of July, 26, 1945. to recognise e validity of ese international agreements In particular, according to e paragraph "A" of items 2 at present. And such unwillingness of Japan cannot be and 3 of e Agreement of e Three Great Powers e grounds of international legal disagreements. adopted in Yalta (Crimea) e Soviet Union, e United In such a way e general results of e status quo of States of America and Great Britain - e transfer to e e Japanese-Russian territorial relations have been USSR of e souern part of Sakhalin island and all e displayed in a comparative aspect. On e basis of eir islands adjoining to it, as well as e Kuriles were comparative analysis it may be said at Japan and considered as restoration of e rights of Russia violated Russian admit e existence of territorial debate between by e treacherous attack of Japan in 1904 [23]. em, en it means ey admit e existence of certain Paragraph 8 of e Potsdam Declaration states at "e territories to whom ey belong has not been determined conditions of Cairo Declaration will be executed and at yet. Nevereless, summarizing e sides arguments it e Japanese sovereignty will be limited to e Honshu, may be said at e sides probably will argue on ese Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and less larger islands" points for an indefinite time. Hereby, each of em can which will be specified by e Allies (Potsdam offer its own, but fundamentally different package of Declaration, 1945). Being defaced on September 2nd, 1945, arguments not only of legal, but of historical, Japan signed e Act on Capitulation in which Japan geographical, political, practical and economic character unconditionally accepted e terms of e Potsdam as well. But today no matter whose strange it would Declaration [24]. By us, Japan admitted all e above- sound, e problem actually is at in e presence of all stated, but also as Russia beelines, has lost e right to e above-stated international legal acts ere is no refer to e former norern territories as "illegally factual direct documentary registration of handing over occupied". San Francisco Peace Treaty has only fixed e ese islands to e USSR (Russia). In is sense e San points which e Allies have agreed upon. By e way, Francisco Treaty of 1951 is e obvious conformation is neier during its signing, nor during e first years after fact. In Russia ere is a serious belief at wi e signing ere were not any doubts concerning e content intention to confuse e legal aspects of e territorial of e concept "e Kuriles". In Russia ey believe at issue, e USA managed not to include into e document "if Japan had has e lawful grounds not to consider any e articles on assigning e Kuriles and e Souern of e listed islands as e Kuriles, it would have declared Sakhalin to e Soviet Union, ough it had been about it at at time" [25]. As a result, having achieved e predetermined in e Yalta Agreement by e ree Great transfer of e Kuriles to e USSR and also e returning Powers on February 11, 1945 [27, p.23]. According to of Souern Sakhalin, e Soviet administration e Russian side it, is also supported by e fact 19

(American sources also note is) at on e basis of e Peace Treaty signed in San Francisco, "e USA has legal possibilities for military cooperation wi Japan as a counterweight to e Soviet-Chinese cooperation, i.e. since 1950 e USA has carried out serious preparations specifying e clauses on e bilateral basis" [28, p.63]. However, in is case one could definitely say at e Russian side is evidently mistaken in its opinion. As it is known e Senate of e USA in e resolution on e ratification of item "B" Article 2 of e Peace Treaty wi Japan, of March 20, 1952 underlined definitely at "Japan declined all its claims on e Kuriles and e Souern Sakhalin " [29]. However, later in e Note of e Department of State dated September 7, 1956 it was declared at e USA after orough studies of historical facts had made quite a different conclusion: Iturup and Kunashir islands along wi Habomai and Shikotan are part of Hokkaido and have always been parts of Japan and us should rightfully be under Japan s sovereignty. This fact proves at since en e USA not considered Habomai and Shikotan islands as e Kuril Islands and at in e Japanese interpretation e notions "Kuril Islands" and "Ticima" are not identical. In oer words, if "e Kuril Islands" (Ticima) which Japan has abandoned according to e San Francisco Treaty, includes in e archipelago e whole chain including Shikotan Island" [30], en e territorial debate in bilateral relations "is taken down to e definition of e status of Habomai Island", as e "traditional definitions of e Kuril Islands did not include e term Habomai, ey traditionally have been considered as part of e Hokkaido Island" [30, p.163]. However, after years conforming wi modern realities, e following question is put: if e Soviet delegation did nevereless take part in e San Francisco Conference en wouldn t it be more reasonable to put e signature under e American- British project of is treaty? According to e statement of some Russian experts it would have enabled e USSR to strengen its position (and consequently, e position of modern Russia) on e issue of e disputed territories. In is case it would be possible for Russia to apply e provisions of Article 2 of e treaty to ground its position according to which, as it is already known, Japan has renounced its rights to e Kuriles [25]. It means if e Soviet Union would have signed San Francisco Treaty, en Russia today could have firmly stated at in Article 2 ere is not any mention at ese territories belong to Japan and moreover, in case wi e Kuril Islands it is definite by stated at ey are not e Japanese territories. Clearly, non signing by e Soviet Union of e San Francisco Treaty of 1951 was a serious mistake, which enables Japan to interpret e provisions of Article 2 for its own benefit. If to consider e position of Japan from is point of view, en its demands to return e Norern territories are reasonable as well as its well statement at e Yalta agreement of 1945 was not legally binding for it, en logically e San Francisco Treaty cannot be applied to Russia eier because it was not a party to it neier de jure nor de facto. In is regard Korean researcher on international legal aspects of territorial disputes in e Far East No Te Chzhun considers at Japan itself has made a serious mistake wi regard to e San Francisco Treaty. He bases his point of view on e fact at Japan in e interpretation of Article 2, uses a controversial approach. For example, when e question of e Taiwan Islands affiliation comes up, Japan refers to e fact at it cannot express its point of view because according to e San Francisco Treaty, Japan has declined any claims on is island, however it does not interprete in e same way when e issue concerns e Kuril Islands, ough such a point of view has been envisaged in e treaty [31, p.21]. The Role of e Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 in e Solution of e Territorial Issue: Not downgrade e role and value of e lasted documents it should be noted at in e above-stated points e Joint Soviet-Japanese Declaration which was signed by e parties on October 19, 1956 was not mentioned and came into force after an exchange of ratification documents on December 12 e same year. Not to underestimate e importance of e Declaration of 1956 for e normalization of Soviet- Japanese relations one should understand at provisions of e given document do not comprise any answers for solving e Japanese-Russian territorial disagreements. So, ere is no defined norm about legitimizing e territorial situation in e Far East. The close look at e content of e text of is Declaration first of all enables us to say at Japan started wi e intention at it would recognise all e rights of e USSR to dispose of e Souern Sakhalin and e Kuriles. The similar conclusion can also be made concerning e USSR position which adhered to e view at e question whom and what exactly should belong to near e Sakhalin and e Kuriles has been already solved. But judging by e content of e Declaration it becomes clear at its provisions definitely do not fix a new approach to e solution of questions touching upon e territorial rights and interests of Japan and e USSR (Russia). 20

The important point in e Declaration under depending on e conclusion of e Soviet-Japanese consideration is a provision according to which a legal Peace Treaty. Besides, according to Article 1 of e basis our assigning e islands Habomai and Shikotan to Declaration of 1956 e state of war has already been Japan is formed. In paragraph 2, item 9 it is said: " e officially ceased between e USSR and Japan, e peace Union of e Soviet Socialist Republics meeting half-way and good-neighbourly friendly relations were restored; e wishes of Japan and considering e interests of e and Article 2 defined e restoration of normal diplomatic Japanese state agrees on assigning e islands Habomai and consular relations [32]. and Shikotan to Japan, however, provided at e actual Summarising e above-mentioned on e Sovietassignation of ese islands to Japan will be made after Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, it may be considered e conclusion of a Peace Treaty between e USSR and at e claims of Japan on e handing over of e Japan" [32]. Norern territories by Russia, referring to e provisions This obligation of e Soviet side has been of is international document, unlikely be satisfied. connected wi e will to make Japan renounce its The matter is at in spite of e fact at e Declaration participation in any military-political blocks directed has been ratified by e two parties and has e status of against e USSR, e restoration of its military potential an international treaty, it cannot be considered today as and oer foreign policy actions which, according to e an international legal basis for raising territorial claims to Soviet government opinion, are able to cause in people Russia; moreover, it won t promote e settlement of e quite reasonable anxiety for furer development of existing problem. The Declaration has just admitted e international relations in Eastern Asia and regions fact at e territorial dispute is still pendant and cannot adjoining to it. But, later Japan rejected e Soviet be interpreted as Russia s readiness to admit all four proposal on neutrality, e ideas of its guarantees and disputed islands as e Japanese territory. Therefore, e peace agreement and cooperation wi e USSR, China, territorial delimitation between e two states is on e e USA, Japan and oer states. On January 19, 1960 agenda of succeeding negotiations, e results of which Japan and e USA signed e Treaty "On mutual are hard and premature to predict. However, some cooperation and security guarantees", us prolonging Japanese scientists and officials say at if "e problem e duration of e military-political alliance for twenty of Habomai and Shikotan was resolved by e Declaration years more [33, p.259]. This, according to e Soviet of 1956", en e subject of e current negotiations are administration meant e considerable change of e e terms and conditions of handing over of Kunashir and position of e Japanese government wiout Iturup" [36, p.28]. The auors of e recommendations to consideration of e USSR interests [34, pp. 508-522]. e Cabinet of Ministers of "Japanese forum on Here it is necessary to pay attention to anoer international relations" virtually appeal to e government circumstance. From e Joint Soviet-Japanese Declaration of Japan to harden its line in relations wi Russia of 1956 it follows at e obligation of e USSR to especially when it comes to e question of territorial assign two islands did not have an indisputable character disputes and signing of a peace treaty, which as ey [35, pp. 68-69]. From e content of Article 9 of e conclude can be signed only on terms of Japan and Declaration it follows at bo sides view Habomai and oppose any compromises wi Russia [12, p.289]. The fact Shikotan islands as territories at currently belong to e at e rhetoric of e Japanese side sometimes becomes USSR. From is it follows at e issue is not about e tough is supported by e statement of Prime Minister of actual return of e islands belonging to Japan, but about Japan Yoshikiko Noda, made on March 8, 2012 at e e transfer bestowal of e islands, at belong to e meeting of e Budget Commission of e lower chamber USSR. However, Russia has made a statement at Japan of Japanese Parliament. He stated at for Tokyo e in 1957-1959 had not taken advantage of such a provision "Compromise of 1956" is unacceptable anymore and of e Declaration in 1956, because Peace Treaty has not Tokyo declines from e provisions of e Declaration on been signed due to Japan s delay of signing it and e transfer of e two islands. After all, Shikotan and consequently, e act of bestowal of e islands did not Habomai Islands comprise only 7% of e disputed take place. It should be noted once more at e transfer territories, while 93% remains as e territory of Russia of e islands was connected wi e realisation of e [37]. terms provided in e Declaration and e USSR declared Wi regard to e Joint declaration of 1956 e its readiness to meet "e wishes of Japan" and also to following question arises: Could it have been take into account "e interests of e Japanese state" reconsidered unilaterally? It is hardly possible to give any 21

affirmative answer to is question. Nevereless, it The permanent work on e historical-eoretical, should be noted at it is just e basis for e conclusion geographical and legal justification of belonging of e of a peace treaty between Japan and Russia. As a disputed territories is being conducted by bo sides. separate document, it does not touch upon e legal However, it does not show any prospect for a solution of status of e Kuril Islands (Norern territories) and only is question. reflects different approaches to e issue and various The problem of e absence of a peace treaty is ways of solving it. At e same time, it should be noted connected wi e issue under consideration. at e promise of e transfer of Shikotan and Habomai The conclusion of such a treaty could be promoted by islands from e very beginning did not have an eventual diplomatic meods and means; but, difficulties in its character, but was denvisageded for e conclusion of a realisation are caused by e Joint Soviet-Japanese peace treaty [16, p.118]. Declaration of 1956 in which ere was expressed e The conclusion of a peace treaty is necessary for readiness of e Soviet side to cede e Habomai and bo Russia and Japan. The importance of such a treaty Shikotan islands for e sake of e signing a peace treaty. is explained by e fact at for bo parties it is not only Though in Japan all e time ey refer to it as to e an act which should put an end to eir territorial dispute founding basis of normalisation of mutual relations relations but also would become a law-establishing development, its provisions, unfortunately, do not suit document. This in turn means at e problem of e Japanese side and now it insists not on voluntary delimitation and demarcation of external borders of transfer but on "returning of all four illegally occupied Japanese and Russian territories is rigidly linked to e islands" at once. conclusion of a peace treaty. Thus one can t help noting how strange e term "peace treaty" looks. Considering e fact at Russia and CONCLUSION Japan are not at war any more wi respect to each oer and e issue is about drawing e state frontier line on a The territorial dispute between Japan and Russia in concrete part, it would be more appropriate to conclude an many respects defines e complex and ambiguous all - embracing treaty on peace, friendship and relations between e two states. As any oer territorial cooperation and to consider e territorial question dispute it is an extremely troublesome and versatile, separately. But, as e bilateral contacts show, for Russia including not only historical-legal, but also military- as well as for Japan probably it is of great value not e political and economic-strategic aspects. Nevereless, in form but e content of e treaty where e results on e is case it may be only possible to shift some accents settlement of e existing problem should be specified. and to search for e reason of e unbalanced relations From is it follows at e only way for a solution of e not in an actual territorial problem, but in e inability of present territorial question is e conclusion of a peace official leaderships of e two states to come to a treaty between Russia and Japan, in which e provisions consensus in is direction. defining a legal belonging of all four disputed islands and The arguments of e Russian and Japanese sea water areas adjoining to em will be definitively fixed. auorities, scientists and experts on e belonging of e In Japan and Russia it is admitted at only e solution Norern territories or Souern part of e Kuril of e territorial problem can make it possible come closer archipelago are placed in different time frames. So, if e to e time of its adopting. And neier of e parties top Japanese focus eir attention on e period 1850-1930 auorities have illusions concerning e possibility of (time of considerable expansion of Japan's influence in signing e treaty wiout solving is problem. Asia), e Russian researchers are inclined to choose The recurrent frictions between Japan and Russia on much later historical periods (e end of World War II). Thus e Japanese representatives basically refer to e Treatise on trade and borders of 1855 according to which e border was defined between e Urup and Iturup islands. The position of Russia is at all four islands were part of e USSR proceeding from e results of World War II, Russia became e assignee and e successor of e Soviet Union. Therefore, e Russian sovereignty over ese territories, recognized by e corresponding international legal registration, is not subject to doubts. e territorial dispute have no tangible influence on e state of international security in e Asia-Pacific Region. However, its preserration can trigger destabilization of e situation in future. In particular, it can have a negative influence on e territorial disputes of Japan wi oer neighboring states China and Sou Korea, as well as between oer states of e region. That's only at present, in order to keep e situation under control, it is necessary to consider e interstate relations of e parties as a triune matter - economy, security and politics. At e same 22

time it is necessary to be guided not by emotions and by giving importance only to one party's historical, legal or oer claims, but to be ready to conduct direct negotiations, e ough difficult and complex e result of which, perhaps, in e lapse of many years will become constructive and compromising, decision based on optimisation of eir national interests suitable for bo parties. REFERENCES 1. Border and Territorial Disputes, 1982, Eds., Allcock J.B. et al. Detroit: Gale Research Company. 2. Kazuhiko, T. and H. Masayasu, 2012. Japan's Territorial Problem: The Norern Territories, Takeshima and e Senkaku Islands. [Online version]. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://www. nbr.org/research/. 3. New History of Hokkaido, 1937. Hokkaido: Governorate Press. (In Japanese). 4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 1977. Norern Territories of Japan. Tokyo. (In Japanese). 5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 1992. Joint compilation of documents on history of territorial separation between Russia and Japan. Tokyo. 6. Territorial Problems and Points of Agreement Reached JCP and CPSU, 1986. Japan Press Weekly, 1476: 37-39. 7. The Treaty of Saint Petersburg. 1875. [Online version]. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://www.enotes.com/topic/treaty_of_saint_pet ersburg_(1875). 8. Tyler, S., 1978. The Treaty of Portsmou on September 5, 1905. The Japan-Russia War. Harrisburg: The Minter Company, pp: 564-568. 9. Prime Minister of Japan His Cabinet. 2009a. Speech of e Prime Minister of Japan Taro Aso in e debates before e budget commission of Japanese Parliament. [Online version]. Retrieved May 20, 2009, f r o m h t t p : / / www.newsru.com.world20may2009taro_print.html. 10. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. 2011. Act on Special Measures for Promoting solves "The problem of e Norern territories". [Online version]. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from http:// www.kantei.go.jp/ policy/ documents/ 2011/ index.html. 11. New History Textbook, 2011. Tokyo. (In Japanese). 12. Recommendation of e "Japanese forum on international relations, to e Cabinet of Ministers of Japan. 2008. Tokyo. Retrieved July 10, 2012, from http:// www.jtir.or.jp/j/p/j/pr/pdf/ 30.pdf. (In Japanese). 13. Japanese, Russian territorial row: No solution in sight. China Daily, pp: 3 (2012, January 29). 14. Haruki, V., 1990. Considerations on Norern Territories. Tokyo. (In Japanese). 15. Stephan, J., 1974. The Kuril Islands: Russo-Japanese Frontier in e Pacific. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 16. Punzhin, S.M., 1991. USSR-Japan: Is it possible to solve e problem of e "Norern Territories" by legal means?]. Gosudarstvo iy pravo [State and Law], 7: 113-121. 17. Polevoy, B.P., 1982. Explorers of e Kuril Islands. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. 18. Haruki, V., 1990. Two plus four. XX Century and e world, 11: 43-51. (In Japanese). 19. Kapica, M.S. and S.L. Tikhvinskii, S.L., 1978. History of International Relations at e Far East in 1945 1977. Khabarovsk: Book press. 20. The Treaty of Peace wi Japan, San-Francisco, September 8, 1951. Cmd. 8601 [Japan, Treaty Series. 33, 1952], L. 1952, pp: 12. 21. Nakasone, Ya., 1993. Glimpse on e Conditions in e World after e Cold War Period]. Problemy Dalnego Vostoka [Problems of e Far East], 3: 98-109. (In Russian). 22. Elisson, G., 1992. Territorial Dispute between Russia and Japan. Izvestiya, pp: 5-6 (September 25). 23. The Crimean Conference of February, 4-11, 1945. 24. Act of Japan's Surrender on September 2, 1945. [Online version]. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html. 25. Chernyavsky, S.V., 2010. San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951). [Online version]. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from http://rgavmf.ru/lib/cherniavsky_sf_ dogovor_1951.pdf. 26. Yermoshin, V.V., 1995. To e Question on Character of Russian-Japanese Disagreements Concerning e Membership of e Souern Sakhalin and e Kuriles]. Moskovsky journal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law], 4: 118-127. 27. Mitrokhin, V., 2009. Some aspects of geopolitical positions Asia-Pacific Region. SSHA. Obshestvenno- politicheskiy journal [The USA. Social-political Journal], 8: 17-25. 23

28. Great Powers in East Asia. 1953 1960, Eds., Cohen, 34. Kutakov, L., 1962. History of e Soviet-Japanese W. and A. Iriye. New York: Columbia University Diplomatic Relations]. Moscow: Moscow State Press. University Press. 29. Congressional Records, July, 29, 1952, 35. Ginsburg, J. and I.I. Lukashuk, 1991. The Kuriles and pp: A4888 A4889. International Law. Sovetsky journal 30. For Peace and Mutual Relations, 1996. Kaneko mezhdunarodnogo prava [Soviet Journal of seminar. Sapporo University. (In Japanese). International Law], 3-4: 62-70. 31. Chzhun, 1999. Territorial Disputes at e Far East 36. Panov, A.N., 2004. Sunshine after Thunder. Tokyo. (International Legal Aspects). (In Japanese). 32. Joint Declaration of e Soviet Union and Japan on 37. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2012. October 19, 1956. [Online version]. Retrieved October Speech of e Prime-Minister of Japan Yoshikiko 30, 2011, from http:// www.jstor.org/ discover/ Noda before e Budget Commission of Japanese 10.2307/ 2145323?uid=3739632& Parliament, March 8, 2012. [Online version]. Retrieved uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&si March 13, 2012, from http:// www.kantei.go.jp/ d=21100737449971. foreign/ noda/statement/201203/ 03interview_e.html. 33. Elliot, J. and W. Heaton, 1978. The Politics of East Asia. China, Japan, Korea. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 24