This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rusk documents article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
July, 1951. beging of Korean war cease-fire talks(face hard going)
July 19, 1951. request from South Korea(domain and to confiram continuing MacAther Line)
August 2, 1951. request from South Korea(above and claim compensation )
August 10, 1951. reply from the US government(Rusk documents)
(untried)September, 1951. japan decided to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. japan denied to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. The US embassy to Busan did lip service.
January 18,1952. the Syngman Rhee line was declared(begining of Liancort problem)
(internal)October 3,1952.the US Embassy dispatched to U.S.state dep.
April 28, 1952. The treaty of peace with Japan was concluded(independence of Korea)
July 27, 1953. agree on an armistice (Korea didn't attend signing ceremony)
Match 16,2005.U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island is neutrality.
The Korean war could be rephrased as civil war of korean district of Japan. Liancort Rocks is involved in the war as disputed aera.
References 3 [2] is not historical materials but KBS think that in November 1951 is in the midst of the Korean War.Cease-fire talks faced such a hard going.--
Forestfarmer
04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I want this time line to be section.but nobody edited or commented. I paied such a effort.this would not be used.what was wrong ? but this adjusted time scale right.incipit would be wrong.--
Forestfarmer
13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Forestfarmer, I think that you should be post to the Article page this time line. Why did you post to the note page? -- Celldea 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page -- Forestfarmer 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your contributions. however, the timeline needs to be fixed before it goes into an article. there are many spelling and grammar errors. i do not understand it enough to fix them all myself. for example, what is "(untried)"? what are the question marks after some dates? i don't understand the "armistice (excepted South Korea)" part. do you have english sources for the information so that other editors can try to help? thanks. Appleby 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
reannounce:
Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page --
Forestfarmer
08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the Rusk Documents in the Article. and here is a full text. -- Carl Daniels 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This section deal with internal documents and external documents
Usualy external documents is not dnied by internal documents. Do you think so? --
Forestfarmer
21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Since this document shows non-binding negotiation discussions while drafting a Treaty, I would think that the final Treaty is what matters. In any negotiations, external documents can contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side. If you are interested in the true thinking of the parties, the internal documents would be more honest and accurate. Dollarfifty 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"[2] Also there exist other U.S. State Department documents [3] as well as CIA documents [4] that seem to contradict the Rusk documents.",These two document not have soruce.I would edit and delete these contents by no source.Anybady source please -- Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If anybody say "source is KBS",Japanese media wouldn't keep silence.-- Forestfarmer 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
announce:anyone argue above sentence.I would delete these sentence really.I would consider "revert" to be vandalism.-- Forestfarmer 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
i tried to clean up some of the grammar, but it's taking too much time and i can't understand some of it without time-consuming comparisons with the original source. i don't even know if this is necessary, given that the entire not-too-long source is linked. as it is, however, the writing is simply not up to encyclopedia standards, perhaps others can help with spelling, grammar, wording, accuracy, pov, wikifying, etc. thanks. Appleby 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
the reasons are explained above. please let others fluent in english clean up the wording before restoring it to the article. thanks. Appleby 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I do't understand your writing but DO you want to say "I WANT TO CLEAN UP AND WAIT ALL"?WHO ARE YOU. -- Forestfarmer 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Appleby,when do you finish to clean up .I think that it is about time may revert.-- Forestfarmer 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The demand from the
South Korea government to U.S. Government was three of the followings;
However, although the U.S. Government accepted processing of the Japan property in Korea in the Rusk document, it is supposed that the demand of the dominium of Takeshima and the demand of the
MacArthur Line continuation cannot be consented.
Especially about the dispute over Takeshima(
Dokdo), it has answered as follows
While making of the
Treaty of San Francisco, the following communications existed about the benefits of South Korea, between the South Korea government and the U.S. Government at that time.
The insistence on the Takeshima( Dokdo) owning right of South Korea is as followings;
However, the Rusk documents shows that they are not correct. It is confirmed that U.S. Government thought that it is a territory in Japan. Moreover, it is guessed that the U.S. Government thought, "The
MacArthur Line is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after
WW2". At that time, the South Korea government recognizes that there is no validity in insistence. They required just because they recognized.
Legal vigor isn't generated in this document. However, paragraph(a) Article 2 of the
Treaty of San Francisco should be interpreted, "Takeshima(
dokdo) isn't an abandonment territory in Japan".
If you find expression which should be corrected, You should write here your suggestions. I cannot understand that you do whole sentence deletion of the report written by others.-- Celldea 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the above content is not necessary, since the full actual document can be seen at the click of a mouse. The writing is ungrammatical and especially the Conclusion is atrociously biased. Dollarfifty 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please leave the paragraphs as they are now in order to make the intro appear more aesthetically pleasing. Splitting the third paragraph ruins the balance of the intro. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a great overall improvement.the reason is as follows,
because of above,I made the explanation of the Opening paragraph a minimum. and I made a variety of seciton. We would discuss here before to edit opening paragraph.-- Forestfarmer 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
apart from this discussion."Dollarfifty":you wrote summary "Per discussion".what is this meaning?don't write mere trash reason.-- Forestfarmer 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In International Law, only the treaty is effective. After the SF treaty, the United States is the same as the third country about territory of Japan. I think that it should delete these meaningless descriptions on International Law.-- Opp2 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It is neither the United States nor The Allied Powers that can abandon the territory of Japan. It is only Japan. The Allied Powers only has the right to demand the abandonment territory to Japan. I want the Korean to study International Law.-- Opp2 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The bit about the independence day of Korea is silly. Rusk is talking about the question of whether or not Japan relinquished all claim to everything other than its major islands by accepting the Potsdam declaration; it has nothing to do with setting the date on which Korea gained independence. -- Reuben 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "independence day" is misleading. This passage is actually referring to the day Korea's sovereignty was recognized, not the day it declared independence. Korea's Independence Day is just as accurate as the American Independence Day (the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was of course not recognized by the British). Ashibaka (tock) 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed much of the "Location on International Law" section.
1. It is unintelligible, badly spelled, and suffers from poor punctuation rendering it meaningless and better deleted.
2. It appears POV
3. It is missing citations
Particularly poor is "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan by the draft on December 29 ,1949 and it is confirmed that Takeshima is not included in the abandonment territory by The Rusk documents.Because treaty is interpreted as the things that It is necessary to interpret triaty in the meaning of a word at that time."
This is clear POV, lacking in citation, and interpretation of international law, which I sincerely doubt given the level of English displayed that the writer is qualified to do. Further, it is not Wikipedia policy to interpret law, simply to state it.
What is clear is that this is a communication, not a signed 'agreement'. It may state the U.S. government's own interpretation of their position, but under not stretch of the imagination can I see this document 'confirming' anything legally regarding any treaties.
There may be precedents in other cases such as the Norway / Denmark dispute, but this does not mean Wikipedia can say 'X is true because Y was true'. There are two many other factors that may render these two differently in a court case (who made the communication drafts, the claimants or someone else etc.) . At best, mention the precedent - do not interpret it.
I suggest these whole article is looked at carefully because it seems to me to be a 'backdoor approach' to the whole Dokdo/Takeshima problem.
Macgruder 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read the Korean ambassador's requests, and then Rusk's response. There's no suggestion of continuing Japanese sovereignty over Korea, and that wasn't even under discussion. The Korean ambassador tried to argue that Japan had permanently renounced Dokdo/Takeshima in the Potsdam declaration, and Rusk rejected that argument. The Potsdam declaration does explicitly limit Japanese sovereignty to the home islands of Japan plus whatever minor islands the Allied administration should determine, so the claim that Japan retained sovereignty over Korea is nonsense. But the Allies intended to restore Japanese sovereignty at a later date to other outlying islands, as was eventually done with Okinawa, so there were some outlying islands for which Japanese sovereignty had been broken off, but for which there was not yet a final disposition - i.e. Japanese sovereignty might be restored at a later date. All of this has nothing to do with the independence of Korea. If you can find a reliable external source that makes such an interpretation of the Rusk documents, I'd like to see it. The "independence day of Korea" bit seems to have been a very tortured and original reading by the first author of this wiki article (which was massively JPOV to start with). -- Reuben 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that Reuben is confusing about Sovereignty, Administration, Recognition of State, and Territorial Title. The theory has divided about the approval time of the state(Constitutive Theory and Declarative theory). Declarative theory is powerful but it cannot explain Taiwan and Somalia. And, the recognition of states doesn't prove the acquisition of sovereignty and title about specific region. The sovereignty of Japan is remarkably limited but Japan didn't transfer or abandon her sovereignty and title till SF treaty.
South Korea might have become independent before the SF treaty(Viewpoint of Declarative theory). However, Korea acquired legal sovereignty and title by SF treaty. And, it is SF treaty, and not RUSK Document to have a legal effect. RUSK Document can be only used to interpret the SF treaty. Japan has recovered full sovereignty by Article 1 of the SF treaty and the treaty doesn't use "renounced" but "renounces".
Article 1
(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
Article 2
(a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
Japan approved the jurisdiction over Okinawa by the United States at Article 3 of SF treaty. This articles were needed because Japan recovers the full sovereignty of Okinawa by Article 1.
It reviews. The limitation of sovereignty doesn't mean the move of sovereignty. The agreement of Japan is necessary for the move of sovereignty. Japan has recovered all sovereignties by the SF treaty. Japan abandoned the sovereignty and title of peninsular by SF treaty. However South Korea might have been independent before the SF treaty. --
Opp2
07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The effective date of the SF treaty can be assumed to be as a Korean independence day in one theory. However It is a mistake the complete denial of this, and a mistake the assumption of this as final conclusion.-- Opp2 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The South Korean government claims the sovereignty on Takeshima (Dokdo) based on the Syngman Rhee line. However, it is confirmed to have thought there is no description of Takeshima in the abandonment territory in Japan by this documents it is a territory in Japan in U.S. Government. Moreover, it had the intention that it is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after the war and the MacArthur line can be read. [4]
I deleted previous tail and added above sentence.and added Japanese forreign ministry link.Is it a problem ? -- Forestfarmer 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
present description of the article is follows.
Japanese sovereignty was not permanently limited to the home islands; that is, the Potsdam Declaration did not formally or permanently renounce sovereignty over all areas outside those listed in the Declaration.
"Permanent sovereignty" and "permanently renounced sovereignty" are strange as the law term. Temporary renounciation of sovereignty is impossible. When sovereignty is renounced once, to restore her sovereingnty is impossible. When sovereignty is renounced once, it is necessary to acquire sovereignty again by the cession from sovereign state for claiming her rights. When sovereignty is limited, it is possible to restore sovereignty. The limitation of sovereignty doesn't mean renounciation.(See Brownlie) To interpret for the Potsdam declaration clause 8 to have already been fulfilled, these strange terms are needed. The Potsdam declaration clause 8 was fulfilled by Article 2 of the SF treaty.
John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference September 5, 1951
Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term.
Therefore, not renounced but renounces was used at the SF treaty article2.
By the way, the occupation by GHQ is done by clause 7 of Potsdam Declaration and Instrument of Surrender. The legal basis of SCAPIN is also the same.
Potsdam declaration July 26, 1945
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's warmaking power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
Instrument of Surrender September 2, 1945
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration. (SYC.) The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.
It is certain that SCAPIN assumed the sovereignty renouncement of future Japan. However, there is no legally direct relation between scapin and Potsdam declaration clause 8. A legal system is as follows.(In parentheses, it is based on the agreement of the Allies)
These treaties are considered very well. If an extra interpretation is done, contradiction is generated.-- Opp2 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to the above my quotation of Brownlie.
After the war, Poland ruled the east of Oder and the Neisse line same as the sovereign. Germany was not able to use her power and protest at all. Even the Germany government disappeared. Does the east of Oder and the Neisse line become terra nullius, and did Poland acquire? The answer is No. Still, the sovereign was Germany, and Poland is the agency of sovereign(Germany). Poland became a sovereign only after the East Germany was established, and the East Germany renounced her sovereignty by the treaty.
After S. Korea had been established, South Korea easserted her power same as the sovereign of the peninsula. However, the sovereign was Japan till SF treaty and S. Korea was agency of sovereign(Japan).
After this juridical logic is understood well, please read the Rusk Documents, the SF treaty, SCAPIN and Dulles's speech. When sovereignty is renounced once, all rights are lost. It is the same as the ownership of the land. If Japan renounced her sovereignty by the Potsdam declaration acceptance, Japanese jurisdiction and administration was lost too at the same time. SCAPIN and Article 2 of the SF treaty become valueless.--
Opp2
23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Rusk writes: "The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration." Are you arguing that we should say "final" instead of "permanent?" As for the areas listed in the declaration, read the Potsdam Declaration. The areas listed are the home islands, as the only ones over which Japan retained sovereignty. Frankly, it's quite hard to communicate with you in English - I only have the vaguest sense of what exactly you are trying to get across. -- Reuben 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Without authoritative references, this is all just your own argumentation - it's original research. For Wikipedia, it's totally irrelevant. The article text should simply describe what's in the original documents. If you can find a reliable source to support the idea that Korea was still under some kind of residual Japanese sovereignty after 1945, then we can work on how to describe that. As long as it's based on your own argumentation, though, it doesn't belong here. -- Reuben 08:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Reuben. Please teach me, because my English is poor. Is "will be" past perfect form like your strange interpretation and original reserch?-- Opp2 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This may be similar case to the date of the independence of Korea issue.
"Dutch withhold apology in Indonesia", The Associated Press, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2005. [2]
Until 2005, the independence date of Indonesia was Dec. 27, 1949 in the Netherlands (correspond to April 28, 1952 for Japan), not the de facto independence day, Aug. 17, 1945 (correspond to August 9, 1945 or 12 August, 1948 or March 1, 1919), that made Dutch apology to Indonesia for the colonial rule during Aug. 17, 1945 to Dec. 27, 1949. Jjok 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm strongly considering removing the entire background section. First, this is clearly cherry-picked to make this whole article be about the Liancourt Rocks issue, which is only part of what the Rusk documents are about. Second, we generally don't include sections like this. However, probably a better solution would be to use a single paragraph that puts the documents into context. I won't have time to do this in the near future...can anyone take a try at producing a neutral paragraph that only talks about why the documents were written, not what connection they may have to future documents or other Korean/Japanese relations? Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would really like to see this information available in Korean. Any chance of this, or am I asking too much of the Korean people to critically share this information in their own language? Maybe this is like asking for an Arabic translation of Fifty Shades of Grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppayne ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rusk documents article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
July, 1951. beging of Korean war cease-fire talks(face hard going)
July 19, 1951. request from South Korea(domain and to confiram continuing MacAther Line)
August 2, 1951. request from South Korea(above and claim compensation )
August 10, 1951. reply from the US government(Rusk documents)
(untried)September, 1951. japan decided to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. japan denied to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. The US embassy to Busan did lip service.
January 18,1952. the Syngman Rhee line was declared(begining of Liancort problem)
(internal)October 3,1952.the US Embassy dispatched to U.S.state dep.
April 28, 1952. The treaty of peace with Japan was concluded(independence of Korea)
July 27, 1953. agree on an armistice (Korea didn't attend signing ceremony)
Match 16,2005.U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island is neutrality.
The Korean war could be rephrased as civil war of korean district of Japan. Liancort Rocks is involved in the war as disputed aera.
References 3 [2] is not historical materials but KBS think that in November 1951 is in the midst of the Korean War.Cease-fire talks faced such a hard going.--
Forestfarmer
04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I want this time line to be section.but nobody edited or commented. I paied such a effort.this would not be used.what was wrong ? but this adjusted time scale right.incipit would be wrong.--
Forestfarmer
13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Forestfarmer, I think that you should be post to the Article page this time line. Why did you post to the note page? -- Celldea 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page -- Forestfarmer 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your contributions. however, the timeline needs to be fixed before it goes into an article. there are many spelling and grammar errors. i do not understand it enough to fix them all myself. for example, what is "(untried)"? what are the question marks after some dates? i don't understand the "armistice (excepted South Korea)" part. do you have english sources for the information so that other editors can try to help? thanks. Appleby 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
reannounce:
Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page --
Forestfarmer
08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the Rusk Documents in the Article. and here is a full text. -- Carl Daniels 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This section deal with internal documents and external documents
Usualy external documents is not dnied by internal documents. Do you think so? --
Forestfarmer
21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Since this document shows non-binding negotiation discussions while drafting a Treaty, I would think that the final Treaty is what matters. In any negotiations, external documents can contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side. If you are interested in the true thinking of the parties, the internal documents would be more honest and accurate. Dollarfifty 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"[2] Also there exist other U.S. State Department documents [3] as well as CIA documents [4] that seem to contradict the Rusk documents.",These two document not have soruce.I would edit and delete these contents by no source.Anybady source please -- Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If anybody say "source is KBS",Japanese media wouldn't keep silence.-- Forestfarmer 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
announce:anyone argue above sentence.I would delete these sentence really.I would consider "revert" to be vandalism.-- Forestfarmer 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
i tried to clean up some of the grammar, but it's taking too much time and i can't understand some of it without time-consuming comparisons with the original source. i don't even know if this is necessary, given that the entire not-too-long source is linked. as it is, however, the writing is simply not up to encyclopedia standards, perhaps others can help with spelling, grammar, wording, accuracy, pov, wikifying, etc. thanks. Appleby 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
the reasons are explained above. please let others fluent in english clean up the wording before restoring it to the article. thanks. Appleby 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I do't understand your writing but DO you want to say "I WANT TO CLEAN UP AND WAIT ALL"?WHO ARE YOU. -- Forestfarmer 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Appleby,when do you finish to clean up .I think that it is about time may revert.-- Forestfarmer 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The demand from the
South Korea government to U.S. Government was three of the followings;
However, although the U.S. Government accepted processing of the Japan property in Korea in the Rusk document, it is supposed that the demand of the dominium of Takeshima and the demand of the
MacArthur Line continuation cannot be consented.
Especially about the dispute over Takeshima(
Dokdo), it has answered as follows
While making of the
Treaty of San Francisco, the following communications existed about the benefits of South Korea, between the South Korea government and the U.S. Government at that time.
The insistence on the Takeshima( Dokdo) owning right of South Korea is as followings;
However, the Rusk documents shows that they are not correct. It is confirmed that U.S. Government thought that it is a territory in Japan. Moreover, it is guessed that the U.S. Government thought, "The
MacArthur Line is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after
WW2". At that time, the South Korea government recognizes that there is no validity in insistence. They required just because they recognized.
Legal vigor isn't generated in this document. However, paragraph(a) Article 2 of the
Treaty of San Francisco should be interpreted, "Takeshima(
dokdo) isn't an abandonment territory in Japan".
If you find expression which should be corrected, You should write here your suggestions. I cannot understand that you do whole sentence deletion of the report written by others.-- Celldea 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the above content is not necessary, since the full actual document can be seen at the click of a mouse. The writing is ungrammatical and especially the Conclusion is atrociously biased. Dollarfifty 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please leave the paragraphs as they are now in order to make the intro appear more aesthetically pleasing. Splitting the third paragraph ruins the balance of the intro. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a great overall improvement.the reason is as follows,
because of above,I made the explanation of the Opening paragraph a minimum. and I made a variety of seciton. We would discuss here before to edit opening paragraph.-- Forestfarmer 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
apart from this discussion."Dollarfifty":you wrote summary "Per discussion".what is this meaning?don't write mere trash reason.-- Forestfarmer 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In International Law, only the treaty is effective. After the SF treaty, the United States is the same as the third country about territory of Japan. I think that it should delete these meaningless descriptions on International Law.-- Opp2 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It is neither the United States nor The Allied Powers that can abandon the territory of Japan. It is only Japan. The Allied Powers only has the right to demand the abandonment territory to Japan. I want the Korean to study International Law.-- Opp2 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The bit about the independence day of Korea is silly. Rusk is talking about the question of whether or not Japan relinquished all claim to everything other than its major islands by accepting the Potsdam declaration; it has nothing to do with setting the date on which Korea gained independence. -- Reuben 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "independence day" is misleading. This passage is actually referring to the day Korea's sovereignty was recognized, not the day it declared independence. Korea's Independence Day is just as accurate as the American Independence Day (the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was of course not recognized by the British). Ashibaka (tock) 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed much of the "Location on International Law" section.
1. It is unintelligible, badly spelled, and suffers from poor punctuation rendering it meaningless and better deleted.
2. It appears POV
3. It is missing citations
Particularly poor is "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan by the draft on December 29 ,1949 and it is confirmed that Takeshima is not included in the abandonment territory by The Rusk documents.Because treaty is interpreted as the things that It is necessary to interpret triaty in the meaning of a word at that time."
This is clear POV, lacking in citation, and interpretation of international law, which I sincerely doubt given the level of English displayed that the writer is qualified to do. Further, it is not Wikipedia policy to interpret law, simply to state it.
What is clear is that this is a communication, not a signed 'agreement'. It may state the U.S. government's own interpretation of their position, but under not stretch of the imagination can I see this document 'confirming' anything legally regarding any treaties.
There may be precedents in other cases such as the Norway / Denmark dispute, but this does not mean Wikipedia can say 'X is true because Y was true'. There are two many other factors that may render these two differently in a court case (who made the communication drafts, the claimants or someone else etc.) . At best, mention the precedent - do not interpret it.
I suggest these whole article is looked at carefully because it seems to me to be a 'backdoor approach' to the whole Dokdo/Takeshima problem.
Macgruder 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read the Korean ambassador's requests, and then Rusk's response. There's no suggestion of continuing Japanese sovereignty over Korea, and that wasn't even under discussion. The Korean ambassador tried to argue that Japan had permanently renounced Dokdo/Takeshima in the Potsdam declaration, and Rusk rejected that argument. The Potsdam declaration does explicitly limit Japanese sovereignty to the home islands of Japan plus whatever minor islands the Allied administration should determine, so the claim that Japan retained sovereignty over Korea is nonsense. But the Allies intended to restore Japanese sovereignty at a later date to other outlying islands, as was eventually done with Okinawa, so there were some outlying islands for which Japanese sovereignty had been broken off, but for which there was not yet a final disposition - i.e. Japanese sovereignty might be restored at a later date. All of this has nothing to do with the independence of Korea. If you can find a reliable external source that makes such an interpretation of the Rusk documents, I'd like to see it. The "independence day of Korea" bit seems to have been a very tortured and original reading by the first author of this wiki article (which was massively JPOV to start with). -- Reuben 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that Reuben is confusing about Sovereignty, Administration, Recognition of State, and Territorial Title. The theory has divided about the approval time of the state(Constitutive Theory and Declarative theory). Declarative theory is powerful but it cannot explain Taiwan and Somalia. And, the recognition of states doesn't prove the acquisition of sovereignty and title about specific region. The sovereignty of Japan is remarkably limited but Japan didn't transfer or abandon her sovereignty and title till SF treaty.
South Korea might have become independent before the SF treaty(Viewpoint of Declarative theory). However, Korea acquired legal sovereignty and title by SF treaty. And, it is SF treaty, and not RUSK Document to have a legal effect. RUSK Document can be only used to interpret the SF treaty. Japan has recovered full sovereignty by Article 1 of the SF treaty and the treaty doesn't use "renounced" but "renounces".
Article 1
(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
Article 2
(a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
Japan approved the jurisdiction over Okinawa by the United States at Article 3 of SF treaty. This articles were needed because Japan recovers the full sovereignty of Okinawa by Article 1.
It reviews. The limitation of sovereignty doesn't mean the move of sovereignty. The agreement of Japan is necessary for the move of sovereignty. Japan has recovered all sovereignties by the SF treaty. Japan abandoned the sovereignty and title of peninsular by SF treaty. However South Korea might have been independent before the SF treaty. --
Opp2
07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The effective date of the SF treaty can be assumed to be as a Korean independence day in one theory. However It is a mistake the complete denial of this, and a mistake the assumption of this as final conclusion.-- Opp2 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The South Korean government claims the sovereignty on Takeshima (Dokdo) based on the Syngman Rhee line. However, it is confirmed to have thought there is no description of Takeshima in the abandonment territory in Japan by this documents it is a territory in Japan in U.S. Government. Moreover, it had the intention that it is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after the war and the MacArthur line can be read. [4]
I deleted previous tail and added above sentence.and added Japanese forreign ministry link.Is it a problem ? -- Forestfarmer 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
present description of the article is follows.
Japanese sovereignty was not permanently limited to the home islands; that is, the Potsdam Declaration did not formally or permanently renounce sovereignty over all areas outside those listed in the Declaration.
"Permanent sovereignty" and "permanently renounced sovereignty" are strange as the law term. Temporary renounciation of sovereignty is impossible. When sovereignty is renounced once, to restore her sovereingnty is impossible. When sovereignty is renounced once, it is necessary to acquire sovereignty again by the cession from sovereign state for claiming her rights. When sovereignty is limited, it is possible to restore sovereignty. The limitation of sovereignty doesn't mean renounciation.(See Brownlie) To interpret for the Potsdam declaration clause 8 to have already been fulfilled, these strange terms are needed. The Potsdam declaration clause 8 was fulfilled by Article 2 of the SF treaty.
John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference September 5, 1951
Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term.
Therefore, not renounced but renounces was used at the SF treaty article2.
By the way, the occupation by GHQ is done by clause 7 of Potsdam Declaration and Instrument of Surrender. The legal basis of SCAPIN is also the same.
Potsdam declaration July 26, 1945
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's warmaking power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
Instrument of Surrender September 2, 1945
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration. (SYC.) The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.
It is certain that SCAPIN assumed the sovereignty renouncement of future Japan. However, there is no legally direct relation between scapin and Potsdam declaration clause 8. A legal system is as follows.(In parentheses, it is based on the agreement of the Allies)
These treaties are considered very well. If an extra interpretation is done, contradiction is generated.-- Opp2 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to the above my quotation of Brownlie.
After the war, Poland ruled the east of Oder and the Neisse line same as the sovereign. Germany was not able to use her power and protest at all. Even the Germany government disappeared. Does the east of Oder and the Neisse line become terra nullius, and did Poland acquire? The answer is No. Still, the sovereign was Germany, and Poland is the agency of sovereign(Germany). Poland became a sovereign only after the East Germany was established, and the East Germany renounced her sovereignty by the treaty.
After S. Korea had been established, South Korea easserted her power same as the sovereign of the peninsula. However, the sovereign was Japan till SF treaty and S. Korea was agency of sovereign(Japan).
After this juridical logic is understood well, please read the Rusk Documents, the SF treaty, SCAPIN and Dulles's speech. When sovereignty is renounced once, all rights are lost. It is the same as the ownership of the land. If Japan renounced her sovereignty by the Potsdam declaration acceptance, Japanese jurisdiction and administration was lost too at the same time. SCAPIN and Article 2 of the SF treaty become valueless.--
Opp2
23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Rusk writes: "The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration." Are you arguing that we should say "final" instead of "permanent?" As for the areas listed in the declaration, read the Potsdam Declaration. The areas listed are the home islands, as the only ones over which Japan retained sovereignty. Frankly, it's quite hard to communicate with you in English - I only have the vaguest sense of what exactly you are trying to get across. -- Reuben 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Without authoritative references, this is all just your own argumentation - it's original research. For Wikipedia, it's totally irrelevant. The article text should simply describe what's in the original documents. If you can find a reliable source to support the idea that Korea was still under some kind of residual Japanese sovereignty after 1945, then we can work on how to describe that. As long as it's based on your own argumentation, though, it doesn't belong here. -- Reuben 08:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Reuben. Please teach me, because my English is poor. Is "will be" past perfect form like your strange interpretation and original reserch?-- Opp2 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This may be similar case to the date of the independence of Korea issue.
"Dutch withhold apology in Indonesia", The Associated Press, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2005. [2]
Until 2005, the independence date of Indonesia was Dec. 27, 1949 in the Netherlands (correspond to April 28, 1952 for Japan), not the de facto independence day, Aug. 17, 1945 (correspond to August 9, 1945 or 12 August, 1948 or March 1, 1919), that made Dutch apology to Indonesia for the colonial rule during Aug. 17, 1945 to Dec. 27, 1949. Jjok 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm strongly considering removing the entire background section. First, this is clearly cherry-picked to make this whole article be about the Liancourt Rocks issue, which is only part of what the Rusk documents are about. Second, we generally don't include sections like this. However, probably a better solution would be to use a single paragraph that puts the documents into context. I won't have time to do this in the near future...can anyone take a try at producing a neutral paragraph that only talks about why the documents were written, not what connection they may have to future documents or other Korean/Japanese relations? Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would really like to see this information available in Korean. Any chance of this, or am I asking too much of the Korean people to critically share this information in their own language? Maybe this is like asking for an Arabic translation of Fifty Shades of Grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppayne ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)