Through a detailed analysis and documentation of relevant U.S.foreign relations and other official documents of the period around the Korean War,this paper aims to prove that in the early negotiation process of the 19...Through a detailed analysis and documentation of relevant U.S.foreign relations and other official documents of the period around the Korean War,this paper aims to prove that in the early negotiation process of the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty,the United States maintained that South Korea should participate in signing the treaty and that the U.S.changed its position because of the resilient British opposition to South Korean participation,which in turn was motivated strongly by the British concern over its strategic interests in East Asia and its diplomatic relations with the newly communized China.In particular,the Chinese intervention in the Korean War and the communist recapture of Seoul provided the impetus for this shift in the U.S.position that led to the exclusion of South Korea from the treaty.Because the substance of the San Francisco peace treaty was dictated by the exigencies under the Korean War and the Cold War and lacks the“Grotian spirit of international law”underlying the founding of the League of Nations and the United Nations,the San Francisco peace treaty does not contain sufficient merit to be worthy of permanent compliance,which leaves open the possibility of modification in the future.展开更多
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty was the one and only international opportunity that would have allowed demanding for Japan’s responsibility of the colonization of Korea.However,the United States did not demand of...The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty was the one and only international opportunity that would have allowed demanding for Japan’s responsibility of the colonization of Korea.However,the United States did not demand of such to be done.Soon,Korea and Japan resumed their diplomatic relationship and had their first summit in 1952.After numerous negotiations,finally in 1965,the“Korea-Japan Treaty”was agreed upon.Even in this treaty,the interpretation of the colonization was different for both countries and ultimately resulted as an unresolved issue.This is because of the Japanese dependence to the San Francisco Peace Treaty.On the other hand,the League of Nations,founded in 1920,believed that the systematization of international law was vital to keeping international peace.Therefore,they put much effort in and successfully carried out the codification of international law.The“Report on the law of Treaties”which was completed in 1935,noted that the“1905 Protectorate Treaty”,which was the ultimate treaty that led to Korea being annexed by the Japanese,was one of the three treaties that had no effective standing.This decision was carried out to the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1963 and became a Resolution after being submitted to the General Assembly in the end of the same year.Using the decisions of the League of Nations and the United Nations as evidence,this paper critically reviews the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s lack of reviewing the Japanese responsibility of the colonization of Korea.展开更多
文摘Through a detailed analysis and documentation of relevant U.S.foreign relations and other official documents of the period around the Korean War,this paper aims to prove that in the early negotiation process of the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty,the United States maintained that South Korea should participate in signing the treaty and that the U.S.changed its position because of the resilient British opposition to South Korean participation,which in turn was motivated strongly by the British concern over its strategic interests in East Asia and its diplomatic relations with the newly communized China.In particular,the Chinese intervention in the Korean War and the communist recapture of Seoul provided the impetus for this shift in the U.S.position that led to the exclusion of South Korea from the treaty.Because the substance of the San Francisco peace treaty was dictated by the exigencies under the Korean War and the Cold War and lacks the“Grotian spirit of international law”underlying the founding of the League of Nations and the United Nations,the San Francisco peace treaty does not contain sufficient merit to be worthy of permanent compliance,which leaves open the possibility of modification in the future.
文摘The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty was the one and only international opportunity that would have allowed demanding for Japan’s responsibility of the colonization of Korea.However,the United States did not demand of such to be done.Soon,Korea and Japan resumed their diplomatic relationship and had their first summit in 1952.After numerous negotiations,finally in 1965,the“Korea-Japan Treaty”was agreed upon.Even in this treaty,the interpretation of the colonization was different for both countries and ultimately resulted as an unresolved issue.This is because of the Japanese dependence to the San Francisco Peace Treaty.On the other hand,the League of Nations,founded in 1920,believed that the systematization of international law was vital to keeping international peace.Therefore,they put much effort in and successfully carried out the codification of international law.The“Report on the law of Treaties”which was completed in 1935,noted that the“1905 Protectorate Treaty”,which was the ultimate treaty that led to Korea being annexed by the Japanese,was one of the three treaties that had no effective standing.This decision was carried out to the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1963 and became a Resolution after being submitted to the General Assembly in the end of the same year.Using the decisions of the League of Nations and the United Nations as evidence,this paper critically reviews the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s lack of reviewing the Japanese responsibility of the colonization of Korea.
