The Treaty of San Francisco From the Perspective of International Peace Movements in Early Twentieth-Century America

The leaders of the Meiji Restoration believed in their master, Yoshida Shoin （吉田松陰）, who claimed that in order for the islands of Japan not to be a colony of the powerful Western states, Japan had to conquer nearby countries. This led to Japan’s invasion of the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria, which ultimately led to the Manchurian Incident of 1931, the Sino-Japanese War, and the Pacific War. Surprisingly, the subject and the timing of each and every one of these acts of war were in the same order of Yoshida Shoin’s proposal on preoccupancy. The Sino-Japanese war of 1894 was romanticized as clearing the barbaric culture by civilization, and the Russo-Japanese war of 1904 was romanticized as the realization of Eastern Peace. However, Japanese policies of aggressions were first deemed illegal by international law during the 1931 Manchurian Incident by the investigations of the League of Nations. The Japanese Empire received the recommendation by the League of Nations to restore to original state, but declined and exited from the League of Nations. Following their exit, they started the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War and eventually lost in 1945. The goal of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 was to punish Japan’s aggressions. However, as the Cold War between the East and the West started to arise in 1948, the punishment was eased, and their punishment for the aggressions on the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, and Korea was nearly unasked for. This paper examines the issues of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the views of the international law of the League of Nations, established by Manley O. Hudson of Harvard University and others in U.S. academia and judiciary.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Problems Regarding Japan’s Exemption from Blame for the Colonization of Korea

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.