샌프란시스코 강화조약과 동북아 영토갈등의 해법

Abstract

Can the San Francisco Peace Treaty form the basis for a solution to the territorial conflicts in Northeast Asia? Except for Russia, South Korea, Japan, and China do not actively invoke the San Francisco Peace Treaty as a means of resolving the territorial issues, but simply use it conveniently as a way to promote their interests. Therefore, the territorial issues in Northeast Asia should be re-examined from the perspective of the general principles of international law on territorial issues, including the San Francisco Peace Treaty. However, if a solution to the territorial issues is sought based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it can be summarized as follows. The Senkaku Islands dispute, or Diaoyu Dao Islands dispute, is not directly related to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but it can be inferred that the Senkaku Islands were separated from Japanese territory during the formation of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Notes (SCAPIN) or the San Francisco Peace treaty. It was not until 1970, when the possibility of oil and other resources being located on the seabed of the Senkaku Islands became known, that China claimed the islands. Given these points, some kind of compromise could be reached regarding the dispute over the Senkaku Islands through the joint development of such resources by China and Japan. Russia (former Soviet Union) is actively invoking the San Francisco Peace Treaty on the Kuril Islands issue, but Japan refutes any such claims. Until the 1956 Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration, however, Russia agreed with Japan to return the islands of Habomai and Sikotan, adjacent to Hokkaido, to Japan. As an extension of that context, it is considered reasonable that Habomai and Sikotan belong to Japan and the rest of the Kuril Islands belong to Russia. Despite many controversies over Dokdo in the process of forming the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Treaty did not specify sovereignty over Dokdo. In this regard, Japan claims that Dokdo was confirmed as Japanese territory by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, while Korea asserts that Dokdo is Korean territory in the context of SCAPIN. Ultimately, the Dokdo issue should be comprehensively reviewed, including taking into account Japan’s 1905 annexation of Dokdo and the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Such review should include a new evaluation of the Ulleungdo Dispute Agreement of 1699, which was a kind of border agreement between Joseon and Japan, and the Dajokan Directive that excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory. Through such an expansive review, Dokdo should be recognized as Korean territory. Lastly, regarding the Northeast Asian territorial issues based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it is necessary to consider the reality that Japan was the only defeated country in World War II that did not lose a part of its territory.