Territorial settlements

Japan's effective sovereignty over Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chosen ended when Japan surrendered them to members of the Allied Powers in 1945.

Taiwan The subnation of Taiwan was surrendered to the Republic of China and remains the major part of the remnants of that state.

Karafuto and the Kuriles Karafuto, which had become a prefecture -- and the Kuriles, which were part of Hokkaido prefecture -- were invaded, captured, and occupied by the Soviet Union and remain part of Russia.

Chosen The subnation of Chosen was surrendered by halves to the United States and the Soviet Union, which oversaw the establishment of the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the North.

Though Japan effectively lost its sovereignty over Taiwan and Chosen when it accepted the terms of surrender in 1945, its loss of sovereignty over Karafuto and the Kuriles was not pre-ordained by anything Japan had agreed to at that time. For the terms of the Yalta Agreement -- which provided that Japan would "restore" or "return" Karafuto and "hand over" the Kuriles to the Soviet Union -- were not part of the Potsdam Declaration which Japan had accepted when signing the Instruments of Surrender.

The inclusion of Karafuto and the Kuriles in the list -- in General Order No. 1, pursuant to the Instruments of Surrender -- of territories Japan was expected to surrender to the Soviet Union, however, signified the effectiveness of the Yalta Agreement in the minds of the Allied Powers at the time. Their separation from the formal definition of "Japan" during the Occupation of Japan also anticipated that Japan would renounce these territories in the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- notwithstanding the continuing dispute between Japan and Russia over the definition of "the Kuriles".

In any event, the formal transfer of these territories to the states that would have legal sovereignty over them would have to wait until Japan and these states were ready to conclude peace or normalization treaties. In principle, the states would be the successors of the states which had ceded Taiwan, Karafuto, and the Empire of Korea to Japan in 1895, 1905, and 1910 -- namely the Republic of China (succeeding Qing China), the USSR (succeeding Russia), and whatever Korean state emerged in Chosen as the post-Annexation successor of the pre-Annexation Empire of Korea.

Three territories (including the Kuriles with Karafuto) and three states. In principle it seemed very simple. By the time the Allied Powers and Japan got around to signing a peace treaty in 1951, however, there were three territories and five states. The following sections examining the territorial settlements Japan has made, remade, and is still making.

Top

Taiwan and the two Chinas

Formosa (Taiwan) and the associated Pescadores would be retroceded to the Republic of China (ROC), one of the Allied Powers which had declared war on Japan. However, by 1951, when the Allied Powers and Japan were ready to conclude a collective peace treaty, ROC was no longer the effective government of what had been China.

When the People's Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949, the government of ROC took refuge in Taiwan. So in 1952, when Japan and ROC concluded a peace treaty in ROC's "temporary capital" of Taipei, the government of ROC controlled only territory that had been part of Japan for over half a century, from 1895 to 1945 de facto and until 1952 de jure.

Except for a couple of islands between Taiwan and the continent, which were part of Fukien (Fujian) province, ROC had no control over the China which Japan had partly invaded and occupied during the so-called Sino-Japanese War of 1931-1945. China, as such, was under the control of the government of PRC, which neither ROC nor Japan recogized.

Moreover, though it was understood that Taiwan would be returned to China, namely the Republic of China, ROC had received Japan's surrender of Taiwan in the name of the Allied Powers, not in its own name. ROC was allowed to occupy Taiwan for the usual purposes of an occupation, but the formal return of Taiwan to China would have to wait until ROC and Japan could conclude a peace treaty.

San Francisco Peace Treaty

The Allied Powers and Japan did not sign a peace treaty until 1951. The treaty, signed in San Francisco, took effect from 1952. However, neither ROC and PRC were invited to participate in the treaty conference, or to join the treaty, for a number of reasons. The two governments were still at war with one another, and they stood on opposite sides of the Korean War. Moreover, even states that recognized ROC rather than PRC agreed it would be awkward for ROC to be a party to such a treaty.

Hence the San Francisco Peace Treaty specified only "China", whereas in other major documents "China" had been clearly identified as "the Republic of China" (Cairo Declaration, Instruments of Surrender), "the National Government of China" (Yalta Agreement), and "the National Government of the Republic of China" (Potsdam Declaration).

Formosa and Pescadores, Spratlys and Paracels

the San Francisco Peace Treaty specified only that Japan "renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores" (Article 2 (b)) and "renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands" (Article 2 (f)). The treaty did not specify the states that were to receive these territories.

Japan's renunciation of Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores (Penghu) affected only China (whether ROC or PRC), since China had ceded them to Japan in 1895.

Japan had occupied the Spratly and Paracel islands between 1939 and 1941, as part of its move into Vietnam and other parts of French-Indochina after France was occupied by Germany. Japan, which by then had gained control over several parts of China, claimed, over French protests, that the islands groups were part of China.

Japan placed both islands groups under the administration of the Government-General of Taiwan. Its loss of control of the islands after World War II began a multinational scramble for their possession and occupation that continues today.

Spratly islands

The Spratly islands, in the South China Sea close to the Philippines and Malaysia, consist of about forty-five reefs and rocks, some of them large enough to be occupied. In 1941, Japan built a submarine base on Itu Aba, the largest of the Spratly islands.

After World War II, ROC occupied several of the Spratly islands, including Itu Aba, which it renamed "Taip'ing" (太平島 Taipingdao) or "Great Peace" after the battleship sent to accept its control from Japan in 1946. The island is now an ROC Coast Guard base.

Today, Vietnam and PRC, and ROC, claim all of the Spratly islands. However, the islands are divided between Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, PRC, and ROC. Brunei claims fishing rights around one of the islands. Vietnamese and PRC naval vessels have clashed over some of the islands.

Paracel islands

The Paracel islands are a more compact group of islands, mostly reefs, closer to Hainan island and central Vietnam. After World War II, the Paracel islands reverted to French and Vietnamese control. In 1974 they were occupied by PRC after a clash with what was then the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). The islands remain under PRC control, although they continue to be claimed by both Vietnam and ROC.

Top

Chosen and the two Koreas

The legal status of Chosen is one of the most controversial issues in the recent history of Northeast Asia. Emotions run strong among those who deny that Japan ever legally possessed Korea or otherwise had the authority to confer its nationality on Koreans, and those who insist that the Annexation of Korea in 1910 was legal and therefore Japan had the authority to name the territory Chosen and regard Chosenese as Japanese.

Feelings also run to extremes regarding the nationality of people with registers in "Korea (Chosen)" who were in Japan's prefectures at the end of the war and stayed. One camp argues that Japan had no choice but to regard all such persons as having lost their Japanese nationality when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect in 1952. The other camp insists that, when abandoning its claims to Korea (Chosen) in the treaty, it should have given Koreans (Chosenese) in Japan the option of choosing to keep their Japanese nationality.

These opinions be what they may, the territorial disposition of Korea (Chosen), and the nationality disposition of Koreans (Chosenese), was mostly at the mercy of viewpoints of actions taken by the Allied Powers -- who, in point of fact, recognized that Korea (Chosen) had been part of Japan, and that Koreans (Chosenese) had been Japanese.

The following table shows the principle events in the chronology of the settlements that caused one territory (Chosen) to become two Koreas (ROK, DPRK) with three nationalities -- two actual (ROKorean, DPRKorean) and one residual (Chosenese).

Chronology of the trifurcation of Korean nationality One territory, two states, three nationalities
1910
29 August	Treaty concerning Korea annexation, and ordinance changing national appellation from "Kankoku" (Korea) to "Chosen" (Chosen), promulgated. From this moment, the Empire of Korea and its nationality cease to exist. In their stead is created the Japanese territory of Chosen, whose registered affiliates are Japanese subjects, hence Japanese nationals, hence Japanese, of Chosenese subnationality.
1942
1 January	Declaration of United Nations signed by United States, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and many other states. Each co-signatory and later adherent pledged itself "to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war." The declaration is worded such that each signatory state and adherent was free to decide for itself with which of the "Tripartite Pact" members and adherents it considered itself to be at war. USSR and Japan The USSR, though at war with Germany and Italy, was then honoring the neutrality pact it had signed with Japan in Moscow on 13 April 1941 (ratifications exchanged in Tokyo on 20 May). When signing the neutrality pact, the two states also made a declaration in which the USSR agreed to respect "the territorial integrity and inviolability" of Manchoukuo while Japan agreed to respect the same of the Mongolian People's Republic. Consequently the USSR did not sign the Cairo Declaration of 27 November 1943. At the Yalta Conference of 4-11 February 1945, the USSR secretly pledged to enter the war against Japan within two or three months after Germany had surrendered. The USSR denounced the neutrality pact with Japan on 5 April 1945 through the Japanese ambassador in Moscow but the Yalta Agreement of 11 February remained secret. Consequently, the USSR did not sign the Potsdam Declaration of 26 July 1945, which included the Cairo Declaration. On August 8, through the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, the USSR declared that it had joined the Potsdam Declaration and would "consider itself to be at war with Japan" the following day, 9 August. In joining the Potsdam Declaration the USSR also joined the Cairo Declaration. The terms of the Yalta Agreement, subject to China's approval of provisions concerning Outer Mongolia (Mongolian People's Republic) and ports and railroads in Manchuria (Manchoukuo), remained secret.
1943
27 November	Cairo Declaration issued by United States, United Kingdom, and Republic of China. Declares that (1) "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China", (2) "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed", and (3) "in due course Korea shall become free and independent".
1945
26 July	Potsdam Declaration issued by United States, United Kingdom, and Republic of China issue Potsdam Declaration. Incorporates Cairo Declaration and demands unconditional surrender.
8 August	USSR joins Potsdam declaration without reservations, thus also joining Cairo Declaration. Enters Allied war against Japan the following day.
10 August	Japan offers to accept and negotiate Potsdam Declaration, stating conditions. The Allied Powers acknowledge Japan's acceptance but refuse conditions.
14 August	Japan confirms unconditional acceptance of Potsdam Declaration. Imperial rescript ending war promulgated on this date. Hirohito's recording of rescript broadcast 15 August. Cessation of hostility orders issued 16 August.
2 September	Instruments of Surrender signed by Japan and Allied Powers. Japan formally consented to the independence of Chosen. However, Chosen did not become independent at this point. Japan merely promised it would not in any manner oppose the independence of Chosen that would eventually occur. The Allied Powers occupied and administered Korea (Chosen) with the understanding that it was still part of Japan's sovereign territory until which time a Korean state was established and a peace treaty with the Allied Powers, and a suitable treaty between Japan and the new Korean state, formalized Japan's loss of Korea as part of its territory.
2 September	General Order No. 1, drafted by Allied Powers, issued by Japan immediately after signing of Instruments of Surrender. This order specified that Japan would surrender Korea (Chosen) to the Allied Powers, north of the 38th parallel to the Commander-in-Chief of Soviet Forces in the Far East.the Soviet Union , and Korea south of this parallel to the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific.
6 December	United States Army Military Government in Korea issues Military Order No. 33, "Matters concerning acquisition of Japanese assets in Chosen", and USAMGIK declares its intent to acquire and possess all Japanese property in its jurisdiction. All assets in possession or control of the Japanese government or of Japanese nationals [sic Nihon kokumin] as of 9 August 1945 (the date the Allied Powers received Japan's offer to accept and negotiate the Potsdam Declaration) are acquired and possessed by USAMGIK as of 25 September 1945. USAMGIK transfers these Japanese assets to the new ROK government on 11 September 1948 -- and the disposition of these assets seriously effects later ROK-Japan talks.
16-26 December	At the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers, aka Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, discussed far ranging issues, including the Occupation of Japan and the disposition of Korea.
1946
March	By this date about 1.3 million of about 2.0 million Chosenese in "Japan" as defined by GHQ/SCAP had "repatriated" (withdrawn, evacuated) from "Japan" to Korea, and all "Japanese" (as defined by GHQ/SCAP) in Chosen had "repatriated" to "Japan". By start of the Korean conflict in June 1950, when migration of Chosenese in Japan to the peninsula was halted, about 600,000 Chosenese remained in the prefectures. The drop off of migration to the peninsula after the initial rush can be attributed to three factors: (1) economic conditions on the divided peninsula did not seem to be improving, (2) the political standoff between the US and the USSR, then between ROK and DPRK, did not favor reunification, and (3) most of those who remained in the prefectures had more reason to stay because they had migrated and settled before labor mobilization began in 1939.
1947
2 May	Alien Registration Order stipulates that Chosenese in "Japan", though recognized as having Japanese nationality, would be treated as aliens for purposes of this law. "Chosen" was entered in the "nationality" box. After the founding of ROK, at the insistence of the ROK government and GHQ/SCAP, the Japanese government recognized the usage of 韓国 (J. Kankoku, K. Hanguk) or 大韓民国 (J. Daikanminkoku, K. Daehanminguk) -- the former being an abbreviation of the later fuller name for the Republic of Korea -- in the nationality box if a Chosenjin desired so when renewing his or her registration.
1948
15 August	Republic of Korea established in southern American sector.
9 September	Democratic People's Republic of Korea established in northern Soviet sector.
10 October	USSR recognizes DPRK and the two states exchange ambassadors. Other socialist states follow.
12 December	UN Generally Assembly declares ROK only lawful government.
1949
1 January	US recognizes ROK and the two states exchange ambassadors. By end of year 22 other states have recognized ROK.
1950
1951
1952
1953
1965
22 June	ROK and Japan sign normalization treaty effective from 18 December, and agreement on status of ROK nationals in Japan effective from 17 January 1966. In the treaty -- "Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 12, 1948" -- Japan recognizes ROK as "the only lawful Government in Korea" -- where "Korea" is "Chosen" (the name of the entity Japan is in Japanese version and "Han pando" in Korean version. The treaty also confirmed that "all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void" -- mohaya mukō in Japanese, imi muhyo in Korean. This means that, as a result of the effects of Article 2(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- according to which "Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet" -- all treaties that gave Japan any right, title, or claim to Korea are null and void. Generally this would mean that the treaties are regarded as being effective up to the time the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect -- i.e., 28 April 1952 -- though Japan agreed to recognize Korea's independence when it accepted the Potsdam Declaration. The date of acceptance is variously taken to be 9 or 10 August, 14 or 15 August, or 2 September. Japan legally lost control and jurisdiction of Korea (Chosen) when it surrendered Korea to American and Soviet military commanders in the their respective occupation zones on 9 September and XXX 1945. Japan lost treaty sovereignty over Korea on 28 April 1952.
23 June	DPRK issues statement denouncing the normalization treaty and the status agreement "concluded between the Japanese government and the Park Chung Hee [Pak Jeong Hui] faction" as part of an American plot and maneuver to "create an East Asia military alliance, impede the independent peaceful unification of Korea (朝鮮 Chosen) and perpetuate the division of Korea, and continue to bind South Korea in a state of colonial subordination." Vowing to oppose the treaty and agreement to the end, the DPRK called upon "all the people of Korea (全朝鮮人民 zen Chosen jinmin) to expel American imperialist invaders from South Korea (南朝鮮 Minami Chosen), and to persistently continue and expand the struggle for the unification and independence of the fatherland." [My translation from Japanese translation of Korean statement.]
26 June	People's Republic of China also denounces the ROK-Japan normalization treaty and status agreement as as a scheme of American imperialism. The treaty and agreement are characterized as products of "the farce of the 'ROK-Japan talks' that American imperialism stages". The statement commits the Chinese government and the Chinese people (中国人民 Chugoku jinmin) to staunchly support "the just struggle of the Korean people (朝鮮人民 Chosen jinmin) and the Japanese people (日本人民 Nihon jinmin)" among other Asian martyrs of American imperialism. [My translation from Japanese translation of Korean statement.]
October	73 states have recognized ROK and 23 have recognized DPRK.
1991
17 September	Both ROK and DPRK become members of the United Nations.

Top

Karafuto and Chishima, and the USSR and Russia

Forthcoming.

Top

Japan-ROC settlements affecting subnationality

Japan expected to have to make settlements only with the Republic of China, for there was no People's Republic of China when the war ended. By the time of the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, however, PRC was only government on the mainland, and ROC was confined to Taiwan and a few islands it had managed to keep when forced to flee the mainland.

Moreover, two Koreas which hadn't existed at the end of the war were fighting for control of the peninsula. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the north was backed by the Soviet Union and PRC, among other socialist states. The Republic of Korea in the south was supported by a coalition of United Nations forces led by the United States but including ROC.

The diplomatic waters were, to put it mildly, a bit choppy. And to add to Japan's difficulties, neither "China" had been invited to, or otherwise participated in, the San Francisco Peace Conference, and the peace treaty itself refrained from naming either state as the state to which Japan should retrocede Taiwan and the Pescadores, to say nothing of the Spratly and Paracel islands, all mentioned in the treaty.

Taiwan, ROC, and PRC

Top

Japan-ROC Peace Treaty

28 April 1952

aka Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China (Treaty No. 10 of 1952)
aka Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan
aka as Treaty of Treaty of Taipei
aka Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty
Signed 28 April 1952 in Taipei
Enforced from 5 August 1952
English, Chinese, Japanese

Article 4 of the 1952 treaty of peace between Japan and the Republic of China recognized that all treaties concluded between the two countries before 9 December 1941 were null and void. This was the date on which the Republic of China declared war on Japan. ROC's declaration of war stated that all treaties with Japan were abrogated. Declarations of war generally have the effect of cancelling treaties.

9 December 1941 was the day after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor as reckoned on the East Asian side of the International Date Line. Ironically, it was on 9 December 1949 that the remnants of the ROC declared Taipei the temporary capital of its government in refuge on Taiwan.

Wang Ching-wei government

Note that Japan did not declare war on the Republic of China. Japan did not recognize Chiang Kai-shek's government in Chungking. Rather it concluded treaties with the National Government of Wang Ching-wei in Nanjing and therefore considered itself at peace with China.

Nothing was said in the 1952 Taipei treaty about the status of agreements between Japan and Wang Ching-wei's government. Notes exchanged at the time the treaty was signed, however, dealt with "property, rights or interests in Japan" related to "collaborationist regimes" created after the "so-called Mukden incident" of 18 September 1931, including "Manchukuo" and the "Wang Ching Wei regime" (see below).

Articles on sovereignty and language

Article 2 confirmed that Japan had renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores), and the Spratly and Paracel islands, as stated in the Treaty of San Francisco, to which neither ROC nor PRC was a party.

Article 14 recognized Japanese, Chinese, and English versions of the treaty, but stated that the English text would prevail should there be differences in interpretation.

Treaty rescinded in 1972 by recognition of PRC

The Treaty of Taipei was rescinded by Japan when it switched its recognition to PRC, in the Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China the two countries signed in Beijing on 29 September 1972. Since then, Japan has effectively recognized PRC as the sole government of a China that includes Taiwan as one of its provences.

Even the name of the 1952 treaty, and the form in which its Chinese version is published in books or posted on the Internet, is likely to reflect a PRC rather than ROC point of view (see comments under "Japanese text" in the following table).

1952 Japan-ROC Peace Treaty
Agreements before 9 December 1941 null and void

Japanese Text

The Japanese text is a reformatted version of the text as posted on the website of "The World and Japan" Database Project (データベース「世界と日本」 Deetabeesu "Sekai to Nihon"), maintained by the Tanaka Akihiko Research Group at the Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo (東京大学東洋文化研究所、田中明彦研究室 Tōkyō Daigaku Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo, Tanaka Akihiko Kenkyūshitsu).

The text is attributed to 日本外交主要文書・年表 1 (Nihon gaikō shuyō bunsho, nenpyō 1), pages 511-513, 条約集 (Jōyakushū), pages 30-56, 日中関係基本資料集 (Nit-Chū kankei kihon shiryō shū), pages 34-38. Many copies of this text are available on the internet.

English text

The English text is also based on the version posted on the "The World and Japan" Database Project. The text is attributed to Nikokukan Joyaku-shu, Gaimusho joyaku-kyoku, September, 1962, pages 97-136. Many copies of this text are available on the internet, including Taiwanese sites.

This English version reflects the protocol for the ordering of entities in the Japanese version. English versions posted on Taiwan document websites show the entities in the order of the Chinese version. There are also a few spelling and other variations in the different English versions.

Chinese text

The Chinese text is from the "Law in Tsinghua" website of 清华大学法学院 (School of Law, Tsinghua University) in Beijing. The name of the treaty is shown in simplified characters as 台北和约 [Taipei Peace Treaty]. However, the treaty itself is shown in the traditional characters in which it was written and signed in Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China in 1952.

PRC versions of Taipei Treaty

I am pointedly not using the Chinese text posted on Tanaka Akihiko's "The World and Japan" database. The text, in PRC-style simplified script, is attributed to 日中关系资料集 [Collection of materials on China-Japan relations] -- a PRC publication.

The name of the treaty is given as 台日"和约" [Taiwan-Japan "peace treaty"]. This reflects PRC's refusal to recognize the document as a "peace treaty" much less one concluded with "ROC".

日本国と中華民国との間の平和条約
Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China

中華民國與日本國間和平條約
Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Signed in Taipei on 28 April 1952

Instruments of ratification exchanged in Taipei,
and treaty came into force, on 5 August 1952

Signed by Kawada Isao, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of Japan, and Yeh Kung-chao, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of China

Japanese

English

Chinese

日本国及び中華民国は，

その歴史的及び文化的のきずなと地理的の近さとにかんがみ，善隣関係を相互に希望することを考慮し，

その共通の福祉の増進並びに国際の平和及び安全の維持のための緊密な協力が重要であることを思い，

両者の間の戦争状態の存在の結果として生じた諸問題の解決の必要を認め，

平和条約を締結することに決定し，よつて，その全権委員として次のとおり任命した。

日本国政府河田烈

中華民国大統領葉公超

これらの全権委員は，互いにその全権委任状を示し，それが良好妥当であると認められた後，次の諸条を協定した。

Japan and the Republic of China,

Considering their mutual desire for good neighborliness in view of their historical and cultural ties and geographical proximity;

Realizing the importance of their close cooperation to the promotion of their common welfare and to the maintenance of international peace and security; Recognizing the need of a settlement of problems that have arisen as a result of the existence of a state of war between them;

Have resolved to conclude a Treaty of Peace and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,

The Government of Japan: Mr. Isao Kawada;

His Excellency the President of the Republic of China:

Mr. Yeh Kung Chao;

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

中華民國與日本國

鑒於兩國由於其歷史文化關係及領土鄰近而產生之相互睦鄰願望；

了解兩國之密切合作對於增進基共同福利及維持世界平和與安全，均屬重要；

均認由於兩國間戰爭狀態之存在而引起之各項問題，亟待解決；爰經決定締結和平條約，並為此各派全權代表如左：

中華民國總統閣下：　葉公超先生；

日本國政府：　河田烈先生；

各該全權代表經將其所奉全權證書提出互相校閱，認為均屬妥善，爰議定條款如左：

第一条

日本国と中華民国との間の戦争状態は，この条約が効力を生ずる日に終了する。

Article I

The state of war between Japan and the Republic of China is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty enters into force.

第一條

中華民國與日本國間之戰爭狀態，自本約發生效力之日起，即告終止。

第二條

日本国は，千九百五十一年九月八日にアメリカ合衆国のサン・フランシスコ市で署名された日本国との平和条約（以下「サン・フランシスコ条約」という。）第二条に基き，台湾及び澎湖諸島並びに新南群島及び西沙群島に対するすべての権利，権限及び請求権を放棄したことが承認される。

Article II

It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.

第二條

茲承認依照公曆一千九百五十一年九月八日在美利堅合眾國金山市簽訂之對日和平條約 (以下簡稱金山和約) 第二條，日本國業已放棄對於臺灣及澎湖群島以及南沙群島及西沙群島之一切權利、權利名義與要求。

第三条

日本国及びその国民の財産で台湾及び澎湖諸島にあるもの並びに日本国及びその国民の請求権（債権を含む。）で台湾及び澎湖諸島における中華民国の当局及びその住民に対するものの処理並びに日本国におけるこれらの当局及び住民の財産並びに日本国及びその国民に対するこれらの当局及び住民の請求権（債権を含む。）の処理は，日本国政府と中華民国政府との間の特別取極の主題とする。国民及び住民という語は，この条約で用いるときはいつでも，法人を含む。

Article III

The disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores), and their claims, including debts, against the authorities of the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and the residents thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents and their claims, including debts, against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of China. The terms nationals and residents whenever used in the present Treaty include juridical persons.

第三條

關於日本國及國民在臺灣及澎湖之財產及其對於在臺灣及澎湖之中華民國當局及居民所作要求 (包括債權在內) 之處置，及該中華民國當局及居民在日本國之財產及其對於日本國及日本國國民所作要求 (包括債權在內) 之處置，應由中華民國政府與日本國政府間另商特別處理辦法。本約任何條款所用「國民」及「居民」等名詞，均包括法人在內。

第四条

千九百四十一年十二月九日前に日本国と中国との間で締結されたすべての条約，協約及び協定は，戦争の結果として無効となつたことが承認される。

Article IV

It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

第四條

茲承認中國與日本國間在中華民國三十年即公曆一千九百四十一年十二月九日以前所締結之一切條約、專約及協定、均因戰爭結果而歸無效。

"have become null and void"

Note that the Japanese expression reflecting "have become null and void" is 無効となつた (mukō to natta, "have become without effect") whereas the Chinese expression is 歸無效 (kuei wu-hsiao, guī wú-xiào, "will revert to not having effect").

The Chinese is reminiscent of the Japanese expression 無效ニ歸シ (mukō ni ki shi, "reverts to being without effect") in the 1910 declaration concerning the annexation of Korea. In half a century, Japan had moved this far from conventions of legal parlance inspired by Chinese phrasing.

第五条

日本国はサン・フランシスコ条約第十条の規定に基き，千九百一年九月七日に北京で署名された最終議定書並びにこれを補足するすべての附属書，書簡及び文書の規定から生ずるすべての利得及び特権を含む中国におけるすべての特殊の権利及び利益を放棄し，且つ，前記の議定書，附属書，書簡及び文書を日本国に関して廃棄することに同意したことが承認される。

Article V

It is recognized that under the provisions of Article 10 of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan has renounced all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on September 7, 1901, and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and has agreed to the abrogation in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents.

第五條

茲承認依照金山和約第十條之規定，日本國業已放棄在中國之一切特殊權利及利益，包括由於中華民國紀元前十一年即公曆一千九百零一年九月七日在北京簽訂之最後議定書與一切附件及補充之各換文暨文件所產生之一切利益與特權；並已同意就關於日本國方面廢除該議定書、附件、換文及文件。

第六条

（ａ）日本国及び中華民国は，相互の関係において，国際連合憲章第二条の原則を指針とするものとする。

（ｂ）日本国及び中華民国は，国際連合憲章の原則に従つて協力するものとし，特に，経済の分野における友好的協力によりその共通の福祉を増進するものとする。

Article VI

(a) Japan and the Republic of China will be guided by the principles of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations in their mutual relations.

(b) Japan and the Republic of China will cooperate in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, will promote their common welfare through friendly cooperation in the economic field.

第六條

（甲）中華民國與日本國在其相互之關係上，願各遵聯合國憲章第二條之各項原則

（乙）中華民國與日本國願依聯合國憲章之原則彼此合作，並特願經由經濟方面之友好合作，促進兩國之共同福利。

第七条

日本国及び中華民国は，貿易，海運その他の通商の関係を安定した且つ友好的な基礎の上におくために，条約又は協定をできる限りすみやかに締結することに努めるものとする。

Article VII

Japan and the Republic of China will endeavor to conclude, as soon as possible, a treaty or agreement to place their trading, maritime and other commercial relations on a stable and friendly basis.

第七條

中華民國與日本國願儘速商訂一項條約或協定，藉以將兩國貿易、航業及其他商務關係，置於穩定與友好之基礎上。

第八条

日本国及び中華民国は，民間航空運送に関する協定をできる限りすみやかに締結することに努めるものとする。

Article VIII

Japan and the Republic of China will endeavor to conclude, as soon as possible, an agreement relating to civil air transport.

第八條

中華民國與日本國願儘速商訂一項關於民用航空運輸之協定。

第九条

日本国及び中華民国は，公海における漁猟の規制又は制限並びに漁業の保存及び発展を規定する協定をできる限りすみやかに締結することに努めるものとする。

Article IX

Japan and the Republic of China will endeavor to conclude, as soon as possible, an agreement providing for the regulation or limitation of fishing and the conservation and development of fisheries on the high seas.

第九條

中華民國與日本國願儘速締結一項為規範或限制捕魚、及保存暨開發公海漁業之協定。

第十条

この条約の適用上，中華民国の国民には，台湾及び澎湖諸島のすべての住民及び以前にそこの住民であつた者並びにそれらの子孫で，台湾及び澎湖諸島において中華民国が現に施行し，又は今後施行する法令によつて中国の国籍を有するものを含むものとみなす。また，中華民国の法人には，台湾及び澎湖諸島において中華民国が現に施行し，又は今後施行する法令に基いて登録されるすべての法人を含むものとみなす。

Article X

For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).

第一０條

就本約而言、中華民國國民應認為包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章而具有中國國籍之一切臺灣及澎湖居民及前屬臺灣及澎湖之居民及其後裔；中華民國法人應認為包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章所登記之一切法人。

"nationals of the Republic of China"

The main clause of the definition of "nationals of the Republic of China" in the Japanese and Chinese versions of the Taipei Treaty structurally translate as follows.

Structural translations versus received English version
Japanese structural In the application of this treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be viewed as persons including all persons who are residents of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands and [all] those who formerly were residents of those places and their offspring, and who possess the nationality of China in accordance with laws and ordinances the Republic of China presently enforces, or which [it] will hereafter enforce, in Taiwan and the Penghu Islands.	Received English version For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores);	Chinese structural Regarding this treaty it shall be said that, nationals of the Republic of China shall be recognized as including all Taiwan and Penghu residents and [all] former [formerly affiliated] residents of Taiwan and Penghu and their descendants who moreover possess the nationality of China in accordance with the laws and regulations which the Republic of China already enforces or might in the future enforce in Taiwan and Penghu;

第十一条

この条約及びこれを補足する文書に別段の定がある場合を除く外，日本国と中華民国との間に戦争状態の存在の結果として生じた問題は，サン・フランシスコ条約の相当規定にしたがって解決するものとする。

Article XI

Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty and the documents supplementary thereto, any problem arising between Japan and the Republic of China as a result of the existence of a state of war shall be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.

第一一條

除本約及其補充文件另有規定外，凡在中華民國與日本國間因戰爭狀態存在之結果而引起之任何問題，均應依照金山和約之有關規定予以解決。

第十二条

この条約の解釈又は適用から生ずる紛争は，交渉又は他の平和的手段によつて解決するものとする。

Article XII

Any dispute that may arise out of the interpretation or application of the present Treaty shall be settled by negotiation or by other pacific means.

第一二條

凡因本約之解釋或適用可能發生之任何爭執，應以磋商或其他和平方式解決之。

第十三条

この条約は，批准されなければならない。批准書は，できる限りすみやかに台北で交換されなければならない。この条約は，批准書の交換の日に効力を生ずる。

Article XIII

The present Treaty shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Taipei as soon as possible. The present Treaty shall enter into force as from the date on which such instruments of ratification are exchanged.

第一三條

本約應予批准，批准文件應儘速在臺北互換。本約應自批准文件互換之日起發生效力。

第十四条

この条約は，日本語，中国語及び英語によるものとする。解釈の相違がある場合には，英語の本文による。

Article XIV

The present Treaty shall be in the Japanese, Chinese and English languages. In case of any divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.

第一四條

本約應分繕中文、日文及英文。遇有解釋不同，應以英文本為準。

以上の証拠として，それぞれの全権委員は，この条約に署名調印した。

昭和二十七年四月二十八日（中華民国の四十一年四月二十八日及び千九百五十二年二年四月二十八日に相当する。）に台北で，本書二通を作成した。

日本国のために
河田烈（印）

中華民国のために
葉公超（印）

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.

DONE in duplicate at Taipei, this Twenty Eighth day of the Fourth month of the Twenty Seventh year of Showa of Japan corresponding to the Twenty Eighth day of the Fourth month of the Forty First year of the Republic of China and to the Twenty Eighth day of April in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Two.

FOR JAPAN:
(Isao Kawada)

FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA:
(Yeh Kung Chao)

為此，雙方全權代表各於本約簽字蓋章，以昭信守。

本約共繕二份，於中華民國四十一年四月二十八日即日本國昭和二十七年四月二十八日即公曆一千九百五十二年四月二十八日訂於臺北。

中華民國代表：
葉公超 (蓋印)

日本國代表：
河田烈 (蓋印)

Top

1952 Taipei Treaty definitions of ROC and ROC nationals

Three features of the Taipei Peace Treaty shed light on the territorial and demographic parameters of the "Republic of China" as a sovereign entity.

Two features concern the definition of ROC as an entity and of its nationals.

The third feature concerns the non-specificity of the treaty regarding the name of the successor state, in which respect it followed the San Francisco treaty.

1. Definition of ROC

In the Treaty of Taipei, In the Treaty of Taipei, Japan limited its recognition of ROC to the territories under its control.

In a note exchanged following the signing of the treaty, the following qualification was expressed by Japan's delegate, though it also falls short of recognizing that the "Republic of China" included mainland provinces.

I have also shown an exchange concerning the disposition of "collaborist regime" properties, rights, and interests in Japan.

Territorial applicability of treaty [ Note from Isao Kawada to Yeh Kung Chao ] In regard to the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China signed this day, I have the honor to refer, on behalf of my Government, to the understanding reached between us that the terms of the present Treaty shall, in respect of the Republic of China, be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government. Vestiges of "collaborationist regimes" in Japan Chinese Delegate: It is my understanding that the property, rights or interests in Japan of the collaborationist regimes created in China, as a result of the so-called "Mukden incient" [sic] of September 18, 1931, such as "Manchukuo" and the "Wang Ching Wei regime", shall be transferable to the Republic of China upon agreement between the two Parties in accordance with the relevant provisions of the present Treaty and of the San Francisco Treaty. Is it so? Japanese Delegate: It is so.

2. Definition of ROC nationals

Article X of the Treaty of Taipei specifically included two kinds of people in its definition of "nationals of the Republic of China" (see details above): (1) all present inhabitants of Taiwan and Penghu who are Chinese nationals as determined by ROC law, and (2) all persons residing overseas who were formerly affiliated with Taiwan and Penghu and are Chinese nationals as determined by ROC law.

While including in the definition of ROC nationals only people with present or past affiliations with the territory Japan is ceding away, the treaty does not exclude other people that ROC may also recognize as its nationals -- including ROC nationals in Japan who derive their ROC nationality from affiliation with mainland provinces. The treaty addresses the usual topics related to the normalization of relations between states, but the most important object of the treaty is to formalize the cession of Japan's sovereignty over Taiwan/Penghu to ROC -- not by name, but as the government then in control of these territories -- hence the demographic focus on their present and past inhabitants.

The treaty makes no reference whatever to Japan's options regarding its denationalization of Taiwan/Penghu inhabitants, then in these territories, or in Japan or elsewhere. In other words, ROC and Japan tacitly agree not to give Taiwan/Penghu denizens a choice in nationality.

Apparently the two states considered the usual nationality issues that accompany territorial cessions to have resolved itself, as a result of ROC's legal actions after receiving Japan's surrender in Taiwan.

3. Non-specificity of successor state

The Taipei treaty followed in the vein of the San Francisco treaty in that it did not specify which state was to receive the sovereignty of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores), and the Spratly and Paracel islands.

Article II of the Taipei treaty cites Article 2 of the San Francisco treaty as the authority for Japan's renunciation of sovereignty over these territories. Neither ROC nor PRC were parties to the San Francisco treaty, and neither is named as the successor state. And having already renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, Japan could not -- at the time of the Taipei treaty -- specify the name of the successor state.

This lack of specification has encouraged Taiwanese nationalists in their claim that Taiwan is an independent state. The ambiguity also favors PRC's claim that Taiwan has never been other than a province.

Top

1999 Immigration Act definitions of ROC and nationals

For many years after its retreat to Taiwan in 1949, the government of the Republic of China continued to claim the mainland provinces as part of its sovereignty. ROC now formally claims only the "Taiwan Areas" as part of its sovereign dominion, but it continues to include among its nationals some people not registered in these areas.

ROC territory

ROC's 1999 Immigration Act -- more fully known as the "Entering or Leaving the country and immigration law" (入出國及移民法 Rùchyūgúo jí yímín fă) -- defines the "Taiwan Areas" as including "Taiwan, Penhu, Kinmen, Matsu and other territories under the control of the government of the State" (Article 3, Item 2).

ROC nationals

The 1999 law makes a distinction between ROC nationals who "have established their permanent residence at a household registry" in the "Taiwan areas" and those who have not (Article 2, Items 1 and 4). The latter are mainly ROC nationals overseas whose nationality originated with registration in mainland provinces when under ROC control.

Legacy affiliation

ROC nationals whose nationality derives from affiliation with mainland provinces are "legacy nationals" in the sense that their nationality reflects affiliation with an entity that no longer exists. That is, ROC no longer exists as a mainland entity.

In Japan, "Chosenese" is similarly a legacy status of those who continue to be identified as an affiliate of an entity that no longer exists -- namely, the former "Chosen" subnation of the Empire of Japan, which came to be divided between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, south and north of the 38th parallel.

Definitions in 1999 Immigration Act

ROC's 1999 Immigration Act defines "Taiwan areas" and registered and unregistered nationals as follows. Definitions of other terms are also shown for interest.

1999 Republic of China Immigration Act ROC nationals registered and unregistered in "Taiwan Areas"
Chinese text The Chinese text is from the "Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China" (全國法規資料庫) on an ROC Ministry of Justice (法務部) website. The text is shown as received. However, the black and blue bold emphases are mine. The original act was promulgated on 21 May 1999 by President Order Hua-Tsung (1)-Yi-Tzu No.8800119740 (中華民國八十八年五月二十一日華總一義字第8800119740號令公布全文). The version shown here reflects revisions promulgated on 6 February 2003 by President Order Hua-Tsung (1)-Yi-Tzu No.09200017690 (中華民國九十二年二月六日總統華總一義字第09200017690號令修正公布第6條條文). English text The English text is from the website of the Immigration Agency (入出國及移民署) of ROC's Ministry of the Interior (內政部). The text is shown as received. However, the black and blue bold emphases, and the purple translations in brackets, are mine.
入出國及移民法	Entering or leaving the country and immigration law
第三條 (用詞定義)	Article 3 (Definition of terms)
本法用詞定義如下：一、國民：指居住臺灣地區設有戶籍或僑居國外之具有中華民國（以下簡稱我國）國籍者。二、機場、港口：指經行政院核定之入出國機場、港口。三、臺灣地區：指臺灣、澎湖、金門、馬祖及政府統治權所及之其他地區。四、臺灣地區無戶籍國民：指具有我國國籍、現僑居國外國民及取得、回復我國國籍未曾在臺灣地區設有戶籍之國民。五、過境：指外國人經由我國機場、港口返回其本國或進入其他國家、地區，所作一定期間之停留。六、停留：指在臺灣地區居住期間未逾六個月。七、居留：指在臺灣地區居住期間超過六個月八、定居：指在臺灣地區居住並設立戶籍。九、移民業務機構：指依本法許可代辦移民業務之公司。	The terms used in the present law are defined as follows: 1. Nationals: people who reside in the Taiwan Areas and have their permanent residence registered at a household registry [ have established a household (domicile, family) register ] or people who reside overseas and have the nationality of the Republic of China (hereafter to be called the State); 2. Airports and seaports: the airports and seaports designated by the Executive Yuan as the ports of arrival and departure; 3. Taiwan Areas: Taiwan, Penhu, Kinmen, Matsu and other territories under the control of the government of the State; 4. Nationals without registered permanent residence in the Taiwan Areas: nationals who have the nationality of the State and are currently residing abroad, or nationals who have acquired or restored the nationality of the State but have never registered their permanent residence at any household registry [ have not previously established a household (domicile, family) register ] in the Taiwan Areas; 5. Transit: a brief stay made by an alien in the State before returning to his own country or entering another country, or region through any airport or seaport of the State; 6. Visit: a visit in the Taiwan Areas for less than six months; [ Stay: residence in the Taiwan Areas for not exceeding six months; ] 7. Residence: residence in the Taiwan Areas for more than six months; [ Settlement (Non-permanent residence): Residence in the Taiwan Areas surpassing six months; ] 8. Registered permanent residence: permanent residence in the Taiwan Areas, which is registered at a household registry; [ Permanent settlement (Permanent residence): residence in the Taiwan Areas and establishment of a household (domicile, family) register; ] 9. Immigration service organizations: companies that act as an agent to handle immigration matters in accordance with the present law.

Top

Japan-PRC settlements affecting subnationality

Forthcoming.

Top

PRC-Japan Joint Communique

29 September 1972

Signed in Beijing 29 September 1972
Chinese: 中日共同声明
Japanese: 日中共同声明
aka 日本国政府と中華人民共和国政府の共同声明
aka Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China
Chinese, Japanese (English translation not official)

The Joint Communique was signed by Tanaka Kakuei as Prime Minister of Japan, and by Zhou Enlai as Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, and others, during Tanaka's visit from 25-30 September 1972. Tanaka met Chairman Mao Zedong on 27 September. While the two countries did not sign a formal peace treaty until 1978, on this occasion in 1972 they agreed to immediately establish diplomatic relations, thereby recognizing each other as states.

1972 PRC-Japan Joint Communique
1. The abnormal state of affairs that has hitherto existed between Japan and the People's Republic of China is terminated on the date on which this Joint Communique is issued. 2. The Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. 3. The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. 4. The Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China have decided to establish diplomatic relations as from September 29, 1972. The two Governments have decided to take all necessary measures for the establishment and the performance of the functions of each other's embassy in their respective capitals in accordance with international law and practice, and to exchange ambassadors as speedily as possible. [ Remaining articles omitted. ]

Top

PRC-Japan Peace and Friendship Treaty

23 October 1978

Signed in Beijing on 12 August 1978

Effective from 23 October 1978 when ratifications exchanged in Tokyo

Chinese: 中日和平友好条約
Zhong-Ri Heping Youhao Tiaoyue
aka China-Japan Peace and Friendship Treaty
Japanese (short): 日中平和友好条約
Nit-Chu Heiwa Yuko Joyaku
Japan-China Peace and Friendship Treaty
Japanese (full): 日本国と中華人民共和国との間の平和友好条約
Nihonkoku to Chuka Jinmin Kyowakoku to no aida no heiwa yuko joyaku
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China
Chinese, Japanese (English translation not official)

This treaty did not repeat the statement in the 1972 joint communique concerning recognition of PRC as the sole legal government of China. Rather the two countries agreed not to interfere in each other's "internal affairs" -- which, for PRC, means its policies regarding Taiwan.

1978 PRC-Japan Peace and Friendship Treaty
Article I 1. The Contracting Parties shall develop relations of perpetual peace and friendship between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence. 2. The Contracting Parties confirm that, in conformity with the foregoing principles and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, they shall in their mutual relations settle all disputes by peaceful means and shall refrain from the use or threat of force. [ Other articles omitted. ]

Top

United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK)

The United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) was the legal government of the occupation zone south of the 38th parallel of latitude from 8 September 1945, when U.S. Forces arrived at Incheon to accept Japan's surrender, to 15 August 1948, when the Republic of Korea was formally established as a sovereign state. Japan formally surrendered its control and jurisdiction of the Southern Occupation Zone to the U.S. Army in Seoul (Keijō) the following day.

USAMGIK, in order to maintain order and keep essential Japanese government bureaus operating, continued to rely on Japanese civil servants, including Koreans who -- as Japanese -- had been part of the Government-General of Chosen. Koreans gradually replaced Japanese civil servants from the prefectural Interior as they were repatriated to Occupied Japan, as the Interior -- minus a couple of prefectures and a few islands associated with other prefectures had come to be called. Occupied Japan continued to be governed by the government of Imperial Japan, but under the legal authority and direction of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), to whom Japan had consigned its sovereingty.

USAMGIK and GHQ/SCAP cooperated with each other, and with other Allied Occupation Zones, regarding the repatriation of people in their respective territories.

USAMGIK was not especially liked by Koreans, who at first saw Americans as liberators, but soon regarded them as overlords like Japanese had been. John Muccio often remarked on this in his oral interviews with Jerry N. Hess at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum.

See an excerpt at John J. Muccio (1900-1989) in the "Postwar nationality" article in "The Sovereign Empire" section of "The Empires of Japan" feature on this website.

Top

6 December 1945 USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33 on Japanese property in ROK

On 6 December 1945, 2-1/2 months into America's occupation of Korea south of the 38th parallel of latitude, the Office of the Military Governor or the United States Army in Korea issued Ordinance No. 33, which vested title of all former Japanese properties in the South Korean Sector in the hands of the U.S. Army Military Government of Korea.

HEADQUARTERS

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

Office of the Military Governor

Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE
NUMBER 33

6 December 1945

VESTING TITLE TO JAPANESE PROPERTY WITHIN KOREA

Section I. Ordinance Number 31 having never been published in the Official Gazette hereby declared null and void as though it were never issued.

Section II. The title to all gold, silver, platinum, currency, securities accounts in financial institutions, credits, valuable papers, and any other property located within the jurisdiction of this Command, of any type and description, and the proceeds thereof, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, in whole or part, on or since 9 August 1945, by the Government of Japan, or any agency thereof, or by any of its nationals, corporations, societies, associations, or any other organization of such government or incorporated or regulated by it is hereby vested in the Military Government of Korea as of 25 September 1945, and all such property is owned by the Military Government of Korea. It is illegal for any person without the authority of the Military Government of Korea, to enter upon or take possession of any such property, remove any part of such property, or injure of impair the value or utility of any such property.

Section III. All custodians, curators, officials, banks, trust companies and all other individuals, organizations or associations having possession, custody, or control of property vested in the Military Government of Korea by Section II of this ordinance are required:

a. (1) To hold the same, subject to the directions of the Military Governor, and pending such direction not to transfer or otherwise dispose of the same.

(2) To preserve, maintain and safeguard and to prevent any action which will impair the value or utility of such property.

(3) To maintain accurate records and accounts.

b. When and as directed by the Military Governor

(1) File reports furnishing such data as may be required with respect to such property and all receipts and expenditures in connection therewith on and after 9 August 1945

(2) Deliver custody and control of such property and all books records and accounts; and

(3) Account for the property and all income and proceeds.

Section IV. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance or of any license or order issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction by a Military Occupation Court, suffer such punishment as the court shall determine.

Section V. This ordinance is effective upon publication in the Official Gazette.

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL

UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN KOREA

A. V. ARNOLD
Major General, United States Army
Military Governor of Korea.

Top

29 April 1952 Department of State reply to Yang on Japanese property in ROK

Dr. You Chan Yang, ROK Ambassador to the United States, and head of Japan's delegation to the ROK-Japan talks in Tokyo, queried the Department of State regarding its understanding of the effects of Article 4 of the Peace Treaty. Yang's query is dated 25 March 1945, the day after Japan's understanding became clear at the talks. DOS's reply was dated on 29 April 1951, the day after the day the Peace Treaty came into effect for the first countries to ratify it.

The following text is my transcription of an image of DOS's 29 April 1952 communication to Yang in ROK archives (KRN 82: 93). See ROK archives for source particulars.

April 29, 1952

Exoellency

I have the ~~honor~~ [← Lined out on received copy] honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of March 26, 1952, in which you request an official United States Interpretation of the effect of Article 4 of the Treaty with Japan, and the relevant directives of the United States Military Government with respect to the property of Japan and Japanese nationals in Korea.

The United States is of the opinion that by virtue of Article 4 (b) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan and the relevant directives and acts of the United States Military Government in Korea all right, title and interest of Japan and of Japanese nationals in property within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea have been divested. Accordingly, in the opinion of the United States, valid claim to such assets or to an interest therein cannot be asserted by Japan. The disposition of such assets, which Japan has recognized as valid in Article 4 (b) of the Treaty, is relevant, however, in the opinion of the United States, in the consideration of the arrangements contemplated by Article 4 (a) of the Treaty.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance s [← Slashed out on received copy] of my highest consideration.

For the Secretary of State

~~His Excelency~~ [← Lined out on received copy]
His Excellency

Dr. You Chan Yang

Ambassador of Korea,

Washington, D.C.

694.95/3-2552

Top

Japan-ROK settlements affecting subnationality

Chosen could not be ceded away from Japan until there was a state to receive it. The Empire of Korea had ceded itself to Japan, and Japan had renamed the entire territory Chosen. Hence there was no Korean state when the war ended.

The United States and the USSR had agreed to occupy Chosen south and north of the 38th parallel, in order to divide the work of receiving Japan's surrender, disarming Japanese forces, overseeing transfer of government authority, and carrying out repatriation and other tasks. In principle, the two occupation zones were to be reunited under a new Korean state.

In 1948, however, the US recognized the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the USSR recognized the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north. Both states claimed to be the sole legitimate government of the former territory of Chosen and its inhabitans.

At the time the collective peace treaty was signed in 1951, ROK and DPRK were at war. The United States, and a number of United Nations member states, including ROC, were allied with ROC. The USSR and PRC, and a few other socialist states, were allied with DPRK.

Cairo and Potsdam declarations

The two instruments that determined the treatment of Taiwan and Korea after the war were the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Declaration of 1945.

Cairo Declaration

The postwar disposition of Taiwan and Korea were specified in the Cairo Declaration, signed on 27 November 1943 by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, ROC President Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

1943 Cairo Declaration
The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.

Potsdam Declaration

The terms of surrender were stipulated by the Potsdam Declaration of 26 July 1945, issued by US President Harry S. Truman and British Prime Minister Clement Atlee, and endorsed by ROC President Chiang Kai-shek. Clause (8) invoked the Cairo Declaration as the guide dispossessing Japan of Formosa and Korea.

1945 Potsdam Declaration
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

Top

Japan-ROK normalization treaty

18 December 1965

Signed in Tokyo on 22 June 1965
Ratifications exchanged in Seoul on 18 December 1965
Promulgated on 18 December 1965 (Treaty No. 25 of 1965)
Effective from 18 December 1965

Yutaka Kawasaki, in "Was the 1910 Annexation Treaty Between Korea and Japan Concluded Legally?" (Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 3, Number 2, July 1996) makes this statement about Article 2 of the 1965 treaty.

There is a slight difference of nuance between the Japanese and Korean texts of this article. While the Korean text is true to the above mentioned stance of its government, the Japanese text employs the expression that permits the interpretation that the Annexation Treaty was 'no longer valid' at the time of conclusion of the Basic Relations Treaty.

Contrary to what Kawasaki contends, all three language versions reflect the same meanings when structurally translated. They differ only in voice: the Japanese and English versions are passive, while the Korean version is active (see note following Article 2 in trilingual table below).

The pretext for Kawasaki's article was a standoff over a statement made in 1995 by then Japanese prime minister Murayama Tomiichi that the annexation was legal -- to which both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea adamantly insisted it was illegal to begin with.

"null and void" but not "ab initio"

Many people -- particularly Koreans -- are under the impression that the wording of the 1965 treaty means that the parties agreed that the 1910 and earlier treaties were retroactively "null and void" all the way back to the time of their conclusion. But this is simply not true.

Kawasaki very cogently disputes the contention that a court of international law today would rule that the annexation treaty was illegal. His arguments, right or wrong, are, however, beside the point, as he himself concludes.

The provision of Article 2 of the Basic Relations Treaty does not witness the existence of agreement between the parties that the 1910 Annexation Treaty was null and void ab initio. However, as the above discussion reveals, there is no ground to uphold the Japanese government's interpretation either. The matter is left for the governments concerned to sort out. In the meantime, the danger of occasional controversy like the recent one will persist.

Clearly the 1965 treaty does not provide that the 1910 treaty was "null and void ab initio". And neither neither does it support Japan's contention that the annexation is "null and void" for ROK from the date of its founding on 15 August 1948, and "null and void" for DPRK from the date of its founding on 9 September 1948 -- seeing as how, in the 1965 treaty, Japan specifically recognizes ROK as the only "Korea".

1965 Japan-ROK normalization treaty Annexation treaty "already null and void" (mohaya mukō, imi muhyo) ROK "only lawful Government in Korea" (Chosen, Han pando)
Not all of the articles are shown, but those that are shown are complete. Japanese Text The Japanese text is a reformatted version of the text as posted on the website of "The World and Japan" Database Project (データベース「世界と日本」 Deetabeesu "Sekai to Nihon"), maintained by the Tanaka Akihiko Research Group at the Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo (東京大学東洋文化研究所、田中明彦研究室 Tōkyō Daigaku Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo, Tanaka Akihiko Kenkyūshitsu). The text is attributed to 日本外交主要文書・年表 2 (Nihon gaikō shuyō bunsho, nenpyō 2), pages 569-572. Many copies of this text are available on the internet. English text The English text is also based on the version posted on the "The World and Japan" Database Project. The text is attributed to Joyakushu Showa 40 (Nikokukan), pages 237-392, Japan's Foreign Relations-Basic Documents Volume 2, pages 569-572. Many copies of this text are available on the internet. Note that the received English version follows the order of states in the Japanese version. Also be aware that the received English translation does not accurately reflect the details of either the Japanese or the Korean texts, which are themselves slightly different. Korean text The Korean text comes, provisionally, from an ROK Wikisource.
日本国と大韓民国との間の基本関係に関する条約 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea 韓日基本關係條約 ROK-Japan Basic Relations Treaty Signed in Tokyo on 22 June 1965 Ratifications exchanged in Seoul on 18 December 1965 Promulgated on 18 December 1965 (Treaty No. 25 of 1965) Effective from 18 December 1965
Japanese	English	Korean
日本国及び大韓民国は、両国民間の関係の歴史的背景と、善隣関係及び主権の相互尊重の原則に基づく両国間の関係の正常化に対する相互の希望とを考慮し、両国の相互の福祉及び共通の利益の増進のため並びに国際の平和及び安全の維持のために，両国が国際連合憲章の原則に適合して緊密に協力することが重要であることを認め、千九百五十一年九月八日にサン・フランシスコ市で署名された日本国との平和条約の関係規定及び千九百四十八年十二月十二日に国際連合総会で採択された決議第百九十五号（III）を想起し、この基本関係に関する条約を締結することに決定し，よつて，その全権委員として次のとおり任命した。 [ . . . ] これらの全権委員は，互いにその全権委任状を示し，それが良好妥当であると認められた後，次の諸条を協定した。	Japan and the Republic of Korea, Considering the historical background of relationship between their peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of mutual respect for sovereignty; Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the maintenance of international peace and security; and Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 12, 1948; Have resolved to conclude the present Treaty on Basic Relations and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, [ . . . ] Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:	대한민국과 일본국은 양국 국민 관계의 역사적 배경과, 선린 관계와 주권 상호 존중의 원칙에 입각한 양국 관계를 정상화에 대한 상호 희망을 고려하며, 양국의 상호 복지와 공통 이익을 증진하고 국제 평화와 안전을 유지하는데 있어서 양국이 국제연합헌장의 원칙에 합당하게 긴밀히 협력함이 중요하다는 것을 인정하며, 또한 1951년 9월 8일 샌프런시스코우시에서 서명된 일본국과의 평화조약의 관계 규정과 1948년 12월 12일 국제연합총회에서 채택된 결의 제195호(Ⅲ)를 상기하며, 본 기본 관계에 관한 조약을 체결하기로 결정하여, 이에 다음과 같이 양국의 전권위원을 임명하였다. [ . . . ] 이들 전권 위원은 그들의 전권 위원장을 상호 제시하고, 그것이 양호 타당하다고 인정한 후, 다음의 제 조항에 합의하였다.
第二条千九百十年八月二十二日以前に大日本帝国と大韓帝国との間で締結されたすべての条約及び協定は，もはや無効であることが確認される。	Article II It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void.	제 2 조 1910년 8월 22일 및 그 이전에 대한제국과 대 일본제국간에 체결된 모든 조약 및 협정이 이미 무효임을 확인한다.
"already null and void" The highlighted phrases reflect the same meanings when structurally translated. They differ only in voice: the Japanese and English versions are passive, while the Korean version is active. Japanese もはや無効である mohaya mukō de aru that XXX are already without effect is confirmed [by this treaty] English already null and void it is confirmed [by this treaty] that XXX are already null and void Korean 이미 무효임 imi muhyo im [this treaty] confirms that XXX are already without effect In it's 5 March 1952 draft of the basic treaty, ROK used the expression "muhyo im" (無效임) without the adverb "imi" (이미). See March 1952 talks for particulars. In boilerplate treaty legalese, the English term "null and void" and the Chinese, Sino-Japanese, and Sino-Korean term 無効 (written 無效 in earlier texts, such as the 1910 annexation declaration) are equivalent.
第三条大韓民国政府は，国際連合総会決議第百九十五号（III）に明らかに示されているとおりの朝鮮にある唯一の合法的な政府であることが確認される。	Article III It is confirmed that the Government of the Republic of Korea is the only lawful Government in Korea as specified in the Resolution 195 (III) of the United Nations General Assembly.	제 3 조 대한민국 정부가 국제연합총회의 결의 제195(Ⅲ)호에 명시된 바와같이, 한반도에 있어서의 유일한 합법 정부임을 확인한다.
the only lawful Government in Korea The Japanese version -- 朝鮮にある唯一の合法的な政府 -- translates into English as the only lawful government in Chosen. The Korean version -- 한반도에 있어서의 유일한 합법 정부 -- translates into Japanese as 韓半島における唯一である合法政務, and into English as the only lawful government on the Korean peninsula. The four "Koreas" The Japanese, Korean, and English versions all differ in how they render the name of the entity that Japan is recognizing as having become the Republic of Korea (ROK). The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), had it been a party to the treaty, would have called it by yet another name. The Japanese version states 朝鮮 (Chōsen) -- the name of the entity Japan has abandoned. In other words, Japan is recognizing that "Chōsen" is now, in its entirety, "ROK". The English version states Korea, this being the name of the entity used in Resolution 195 (III) on "The Problem of the Independence of Korea", adopted by the UN General Assembly on 12 December 1948. It was also the name of the entity used by the Allied Powers in declarations, proclamations, directives, and agreements before and after Japan's surrender, and in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The ROK Korean version, however, states 한반도 (Han pando), which is what the Republic of Korea calls the peninsula. This reflects the Sino-Korean expression 韓半島, with the "Korea" (韓) of ROK's national name, which derived from the name of the Empire of Korea. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which also claims the peninsula in its entirety, calls it 조선반도 (Chosŏn pando). This reflects the Sino-Korean expression 朝鮮半島, with the "Korea" (朝鮮) of DPRK's national name. It is very important not to confuse these four entities. It is especially important to understand that the 朝鮮 (Chōsen) used by Japan is not the 朝鮮 (Chosŏn) used by DPRK. Many writers -- journalists and academics -- have equated the two, with the result that they speak of 朝鮮人 (Chōsenjin) in Japan as nationals of DPRK or "North Korea" -- when, in fact, they are "Chosenese" with legacy affiliations to the former Japanese territory of Chosen, which includes the entire peninsula. UN resolutions General Assembly Resolution 195 (III), the UN resolution cited as the authority for the "only lawful government" statement, is one of a series of resolutions that attempted to bring about a unification of the peninsula under a single elected government. The UN push for reunification began before ROK and DPRK were founded and resulted in the Korean War. General Assembly Resolution 112 (II) [The problem of the independence of Korea], adopted on 14 November 1947 at the second session of the assembly, established the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea, to oversee a peaceful unification of the peninsula under a single government. The resolution called for elections of representatives who would then establish a national government for the entirety of Korea. General Assembly Resolution 195 (III) [The problem of the Independence of Korea], adopted on 12 December 1948 by 48 states at the third session of the assembly, recognized that the Government of the Republic of Korea, which had declared its establishment on 15 August 1948, had been legally established by elections reflecting the free will of the people in the area where it had effective control and jurisdiction, and was the only such government in Korea. The resolution also called for the withdrawal of occupation forces. Having been recognized as a the only freely elected government on the peninsula, ROK immediately applied for, but failed to gain admission to, the United Nations. General Assembly Resolution 293 (IV) [The problem of the independence of Korea], adopted on 21 October 1949 at the fourth session of the assembly, reported that while US forces had largely withdrawn from the occupation zone south of the 38th parallel, Soviet forces remained in the north. This situation was viewed as a potential menace to the safety and well-being of the Republic of Korea and of the people of Korea, which could lead to open military conflict in Korea. DPRK forces invaded ROK on 25 June 1950 (Korean time). The following day (the same date in New York), Security Council Resolution 82 (1950) was passed at the council's 423rd meeting. This resolution, on the authority of Resolutions 195 (III) and 293 (IV), called for an end to the hostilities, called upon North Korea to withdraw its armed forces back to the 38th parallel, and called upon member states to support the Republic of Korea and not support North Korea. Nine states voted in favor of the resolution, one abstained (Yugoslavia, which did not have veto power), and one was absent (the Soviet Union, which had veto power). Resolutions 195 (III) and 293 (IV), and 82 (1950), speak of the "Republic of Korea" and "North Korea", and like Resolution 112 (II) they refer to the object of unification south and north of the 38th parallel as "Korea". Recognition politics 1945 The Republic of China (ROC), as one of the United Nations (Allied Powers) in 1942, was one of the founders of the United Nations (UN) , and an original member of the Security Council when the United Nations formally began on 24 October 1945. ROC was simply "China" 1948 ROC and the Republic of Korea (ROK) recognized each other when ROK was founded in 1948. 1949 The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) recognize each other when PRC is founded in 1949. 1956 Japan was admitted to the United Nations on 18 December 1956. 1965 Japan and ROK have recognized each other since the normalization treaty between the two countries came into effect on 18 December 1965. Japan has not yet normalized its relations with DPRK. 1971 PRC replaced ROC as China's representative state in the United Nations, and took China's permanent seat on the Security Council, as a result of General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed on 25 October 1971. This resolution recognized PRC as the "only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" and expelled ROC from the United Nations and all related organizations. 1972 Japan switched its recognition from the ROC to PRC in 1972. 1979 The United States switched its recognition from ROC to PRC in 1979. 1991 DPRK and ROK were simultaneously admitted to the United Nations on 17 September 1991. 1992 PRC normalized its relations with ROK, while continuing to recognize DPRK, in 1992. In return, ROK ended its recognition of ROC, which had supported ROK during the Korean War.
千九百六十五年六月二十二日に東京で，ひとしく正文である日本語，韓国語及び英語により本書二通を作成した。解釈に相違がある場合には，英語の本文による。	DONE in duplicate at Tokyo, this twenty-second day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five in the Japanese, Korean, and English languages, each text being equally authentic. In case of any divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.	1965년 6월 22일 토오쿄오에서 동등히 정본인 한국어, 일본어 및 영어로 본서 2통을 작성하였다. 해석에 상위가 있을 경우에는 영어본에 따른다.

Top

Japan-ROK agreement on ROK nationals in Japan

17 January 1966

Signed in Tokyo on 22 June 1965
Ratifications exchanged in Seoul on 18 December 1965
Promulgated on 18 December 1965
(Japanese Treaty No. 28 of 1965, ROK Treaty No. 164)
Effective from 17 January 1966

Japanese titles

The full title of this agreement in Japanese, reflecting Japan's protocol version of the order of states, is 日本国に居住する大韓民国国民の法的地位及び待遇に関する日本国と大韓民国との間の協定 (Nihonkoku ni kyojū suru Dai-Kanmin-koku kokumin no hōteki chii oyobi taigū ni kan suru Nihonkoku to Dai-Kanmin-koku to no aida no kyōtei) -- which, structurally translated into English, means "Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the legal status and treatment of nationals of the Republic of Korea residing in Japan". Other English titles are as follows.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan
Agreement on the Legal Status and the Treatment of the Nationals of the Republic of Korea Residing in Japan Between Japan and the Republic of Korea

Supreme Court ruling translation and Wikisource
Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Legal Status and Treatment of the People of the Republic of Korea Residing in Japan

The agreement is variously abbreviated in Japanese as 在日韓国人の法的地位協定 (Zainichi Kankokujin no hōteki chii kyōtei, "Agreement on legal status of ROKians in Japan") and 日韓法的地位協定 (Ni-Kan hōteki chii kyōtei, "Japan-ROK legal status agreement"). In strong contexts it is also commonly called just 協定 (Kyōtei, "Agreement").

Korean titles

The hangul title of the Republic of Korea version is 대한민국과 일본국간의 일본국에 거주하는 대한민국 국민의 법적지위와 대우에 관한 협정. This translates into characters and English as follows.

大韓民國과 日本國間의 日本國에 居住하는 大韓民國國民의 法的地位와 待遇에 関한 協定

Agreement concerning the legal status and treatment of nationals of the Republic of Korea residing in Japan between the Republic of Korea and Japan

Related laws

The Japan-ROK status agreement was implemented by the Special Immigration Control Law. Promulgated in 1965, it came to force with the agreement in 1966.

The 1966 law was extended and supplemented by a 1981 law (effective 1982). Both these laws were embraced by a 1991 law, which has itself undergone several revisions.

See these and other related laws below.

1966 Japan-ROK agreement on ROK nationals in Japan
Persons residing in Japan from on or before 15 August 1945,
and their lineal descendants born on or after 16 August 1945

Japanese Text

The text is attributed to 日本外交主要文書・年表２ (Nihon gaikō shuyō bunsho, nenpyō 2), pages 596-598, 外務省条約局「条約集・昭和４０年（二国間条約）」(Gaimushō Jōyaku Kyoku "Jōyakushu, Shōwa 40 nen [Nikokukan yōyaku]). Many copies of this text are available on the internet.

The Tokyo University website also includes the Japanese versions of the "Consent minutes" and the "Record of deliberations".

English text

The received English text is a slightly reformatted version of an unattributed text posted on Wikisource.

Note that the received English version follows the order of states in the Japanese version.

Also be aware that the received English version is not very accurate. I am not motivated to retranslate the entire law, but I have provided a structural translation of the most Article 1, Paragraph 1, which establishes who qualifies for the permanent residence status under the agreement.

Korean text

The Korean text is a reformatted version of the agreement as posted on the website of the Embassy of Japan in Korea. The file, dated 10 June 2005 (retrieved 20 September 2007), includes the Korean versions of the "Consent minutes" and the "Record of deliberations".

The file is listed on the 한일관계 기본문서 (韓日関係基本文書 ROK-Japan relations basic documents) menu in the 한일관계 (韓日関係 ROK-Japan relations) section of the website as 재일한국인의 법적지위 및 대우, which translates as 在日韓國人の法的地位と待遇 in Japanese and "Legal status and treatment of Japan-resident Koreans" in English.

日本国に居住する大韓民国国民の法的地位及び待遇に関する日本国と大韓民国との間の協定

[ Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the legal status and treatment of nationals of the Republic of Korea residing in Japan ]

대한민국과 일본국간의 일본국에 거주하는 대한민국 국민의 법적지위와 대우에 관한 협정

[ 大韓民國과 日本國間의 日本國에 居住하는 大韓民國國民의 法的地位와 待遇에 関한 協定 ]

[ Agreement concerning the legal status and treatment of nationals of the Republic of Korea residing in Japan between the Republic of Korea and Japan ]

Japanese

English

Korean

昭和四十年十二月十八日 (条約第二十八号)
[ Treaty No. 28 ]

昭和四十一年一月十七日施行

Signed in Tokyo on 22 June 1965

Effective from 17 January 1966

1965년 6월 22일 동경에서 서명

1966년 1월 17일 발효 (조약 제164호)
[ Treaty No. 164 ]

日本国及び大韓民国は，

多年の間日本国に居住している大韓民国国民が日本国の社会と特別な関係を有するに至つていることを考慮し，

これらの大韓民国国民が日本国の社会秩序の下で安定した生活を営むことができるようにすることが，両国間及び両国民間の友好関係の増進に寄与することを認めて，

次のとおり協定した。

Japan and the Republic of Korea,

Considering the fact that the nationals of the Republic of Korea residing in Japan for many years have come to possess a special relationship with Japanese society; and

Recognizing that enabling the nationals of the Republic of Korea to lead a stabilized life under the Japanese social order will contribute to the promotion of friendly relations between the two countries and their peoples,

Have agreed as follows:

대한민국과 일본국은,

다년간 일본국에 거주하고 있는 대한민국 국민이 일본국의 사회와 특별한 관계를 가지게 되었음을 고려하고,이들 대한민국 국민이 일본국의 사회질서 하에서 안정된 생활을 영위할 수 있게 하는 것이 양국간 및 국민간의 우호관계 증진에 기여함을 인정하여, 다음과 같이 합의하였다.

第一条

１　日本国政府は，次のいずれかに該当する大韓民国国民が，この協定の実施のため日本国政府の定める手続に従い，この協定の効力発生の日から五年以内に永住許可の申請をしたときは，日本国で永住することを許可する。

（ａ）千九百四十五年八月十五日以前から申請の時まで引き続き日本国に居住している者

（ｂ）（ａ）に該当する者の直系卑属として千九百四十五年八月十六日以後この協定の効力発生の日から五年以内に日本国で出生し，その後申請の時まで引き続き日本国に居住している者

２　日本国政府は，１の規定に従い日本国で永住することを許可されている者の子としてこの協定の効力発生の日から五年を経過した後に日本国で出生した大韓民国国民が，この協定の実施のため日本国政府の定める手続に従い，その出生の日から六十日以内に永住許可の申請をしたときは，日本国で永住することを許可する。

３　１（ｂ）に該当する者でこの協定の効力発生の日から四年十箇月を経過した後に出生したものの永住許可の申請期限は，１の規定にかかわらず，その出生の日から六十日までとする。

４　前記の申請及び許可については，手数料は，徴収されない。

Article I

1 The Government of Japan will permit a national of the Republic of Korea falling under any one of the following categories to reside permanently in Japan if within five years of the date on which the present Agreement enters into force he applies, in accordance with the procedures determined by the Government of Japan for the implementation of the present Agreement, for permission for permanent residence:

~~(a) A person who resided in Japan prior to August 15, 1945, and who has continuously resided there until the application has been filed; and~~

(b) A person who is born on or after August 16, 1945, and within five years of the date on which the present Agreement enters into force, who is a lineal descendant of a person mentioned in (a) above, and who has continuously resided in Japan therefrom until the application has been filed.

See structural translation

2 The Government of Japan will permit a national of the Republic of Korea, born after the lapse of five years from the date on which the present Agreement enters into force, and who is the child of a person permitted to reside permanently in Japan in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 above, to reside permanently in Japan when permission for permanent residence is applied for within sixty days of the date of his birth in accordance with the procedures determined by the Government of Japan for the implementation of the present Agreement.

3 The term within which application for permission for permanent residence is to be filed for a person falling under paragraph (b) above and who is born after the lapse of 4 years and 10 months from the date on which the present Agreement enters into force shall be 60 days beginning from the date of his birth notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 above.

4 No fee shall be levied on the aforesaid application and permission.

제 1 조

1. 일본국 정부는 다음의 어느 하나에 해당하는 대한민국 국민이 본 협정의 실시를 위하여 일본국 정부가 정하는 절차에 따라 본 협정의 효력발생일로부터 5년이내에 영주허가의 신청을 하였을 때에는 일본국에서의 영주를 허가한다.

(a) ~~1954~~ 1945 년 8월 15일이전부터 신청시까지 계속하여 일본국에 거주하고 있는 자

(b) (a)에 해당하는 자의 직계 비속으로서 1945년 8월 16일이후 본 협정의 효력발생일부터 5년이내에 일본국에서 출생하고, 그 후 신청시까지 계속하여 일본국에 거주하고 있는 자

2. 일본국 정부는 1의 규정에 의거하여 일본국에서의 영주가 허가되어 있는 자의 자녀로서 본 협정의 효력발생일로부터 5년이 경과한 후에 일본국에서 출생한 대한민국 국민이 본 협정의 실시를 위하여 일본국 정부가 정하는 절차에 따라 그의 출생일로부터 60일이내에 영주허가의 신청을 하였을 때에는 일본국에서의 영주를 허가한다.

3. 1(b)에 해당하는 자로서 본 협정의 효력발생일로부터 4년 10개월이 경과한 후에 출생하는 자의 영주허가의 신청기한은 1의 규정에 불구하고 그의 출생일로부터 60일이내로 한다.

4. 전기의 신청 및 허가에 대하여는 수수료는 징수되지 아니한다.

Structural translation of Article 1, Paragraph 1

Article 1

1. The Government of Japan, when a national of the Republic of Korea who falls under either of the following, in accordance with procedures determined by the Government of Japan to implement this agreement, makes an application for permission for permanent residence within five years from the day this agreement comes into effect, shall permit permanent residence in Japan.

(a) a person who has been residing continuously in Japan from on or before 15 August 1945 until the time of application

(b) a person who, as a lineal descendant of a person who falls under (a), was born in Japan on or after 16 August 1945 and within five years of the day of enforcement of this agreement, and has since then continuously resided in Japan until the time of application

Notes residing / born in Japan The 1966 Japan-ROK normalization treaty clearly differentiates the "Empire of Japan" and "Japan". Hence "residing in Japan" means residing in the "Japan" defined by what remained of the "Empire of Japan" in the aftermath of postwar settlements. Whereas the "Empire of Japan" had included Taiwan, Karafuto, and Chosen, "Japan" in 1965 meant the former "Interior" or prefectures -- sans Karafuto (lost to the USSR after it had become a prefecture), Ogasawara (part of Tokyo, not returned by the US until 1968), and Okinawa prefecture and parts of Kagoshima prefecture (not returned by the US until 1972). 15 and 16 August 1945 Since 1991 the dates of qualification for status have been 2 September 1945 for those considered the initial population, and 3 September 1945 for their postwar-born descendants.

第二条

１　日本国政府は，第一条の規定に従い日本国で永住することを許可されている者の直系卑属として日本国で出生した大韓民国国民の日本国における居住については，大韓民国政府の要請があれば，この協定の効力発生の日から二十五年を経過するまでは協議を行なうことに同意する。

２　１の協議に当たつては，この協定の基礎となつている精神及び目的が尊重されるものとする。

Article II

1 The Government of Japan agrees to enter into consultations, if requested by the Government of the Republic of Korea, within 25 years of the date on which the present Agreement enters into force, with a view to the residence in Japan of a national of the Republic of Korea born in Japan as a lineal descendant of a person who has been permitted to reside permanently in Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article I.

2 In the consultations under paragraph I above, the spirit and purposes which form the basis of the present Agreement shall be respected.

제 2 조

1. 일본국 정부는 제1조의 규정에 의거하여 일본국에서의 영주가 허가되어 있는 자의 직계 비속으로서 일본국에서 출생한 대한민국 국민의 일본국에서의 거주에 관하여는 대한민국 정부의 요청이 있으면, 본 협정의 효력발생일로부터 25년이 경과할 때까지는 협의를 행함에 동의한다.

2. 1의 협의에 있어서는 본 협정의 기초가 되고 있는 정신과 목적을 존중한다.

第三条

第一条の規定に従い日本国で永住することを許可されている大韓民国国民は，この協定の効力発生の日以後の行為により次のいずれかに該当することとなつた場合を除くほか，日本国からの退去を強制されない。

（ａ）日本国において内乱に関する罪又は外患に関する罪により禁錮｛前１文字ことルビ｝以上の刑に処せられた者（執行猶予の言渡しを受けた者及び内乱に附和随行したことにより刑に処せられた者を除く。）

（ｂ）日本国において国交に関する罪により禁錮｛前１文字ことルビ｝以上の刑に処せられた者及び外国の元首，外交使節又はその公館に対する犯罪行為により禁錮｛前１文字ことルビ｝以上の刑に処せられ，日本国の外交上の重大な利益を害した者

（ｃ）営利の目的をもつて麻薬類の取締りに関する日本国の法令に違反して無期又は三年以上の懲役又は禁錮｛前１文字ことルビ｝に処せられた者（執行猶予の言渡しを受けた者を除く。）及び麻薬類の取締りに関する日本国の法令に違反して三回（ただし，この協定の効力発生の日の前の行為により三回以上刑に処せられた者については二回）以上刑に処せられた者

（ｄ）日本国の法令に違反して無期又は七年をこえる懲役又は禁錮｛前１文字ことルビ｝に処せられた者

Article III

A national of the Republic of Korea who has been permitted to reside permanently in Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article I shall not be forcibly deported from Japan unless after the date on which the present Agreement enters into force he commits an act whereby he falls under any one of the following categories:

(a) A person who has been punished with a penalty heavier than imprisonment in Japan for crimes concerning insurrection or crimes concerning foreign aggression (excluding a person whose sentence has been suspended or one who has been punished on charges of joining in an insurrection);

(b) A person who has been punished with a penalty heavier than imprisonment in Japan for crimes relating to diplomatic relations, and a person who has been punished with a penalty heavier than imprisonment for criminal acts against the chief of State, a diplomatic envoy, or a diplomatic mission of a foreign country and thereby causing an injury to the important diplomatic interests of Japan;

(c) A person who has been punished with penal servitude or imprisonment for life or for not less than three years (excluding a person whose sentence has been suspended) on charges of violation of Japanese laws and ordinances concerning control of narcotics for the purpose of gain, and a person who has been punished three or more times (twice or more for one who has been punished three or more times for acts committed prior to the date on which the present Agreement enters into force) on charges of violation of Japanese laws and ordinances; and

(d) A person who has been punished with penal servitude or imprisonment for life or for seven or more years on charges of violation of Japanese laws and ordinances.

제 3 조

제1조의 규정에 의거하여 일본국에서의 영주가 허가되어 있는 대한민국 국민은 본 협정의 효력발생일 이후의 행위에 의하여 다음의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우를 제외하고는 일본국으로부터의 퇴거를 강제당하지 아니한다.

(a) 일본국에서 내란에 관한 죄 또는 외환에 관한 죄로 인하여 금고이상의 형에 처하여진 자(집행유예의 언도를 받은 자 및 내란에 부화 수행한 것으로 인하여 형에 처하여진 자를 제외한다)

(b) 일본국에서 국교에 관한 죄로 인하여 금고이상의 형에 처하여진 자, 또는 외국의 원수, 외교사절 또는 그 공관에 대한 범죄 행위로 인하여 금고이상의 형에 처하여지고 일본국의 외교상의 중대한 이익을 해한 자

(c) 영리의 목적으로 마약류의 취체에 관한 일본국의 법령에 위반하여 무기 또는 3년이상의 징역 또는 금고에 처하여진자(집행유예의 언도를 받은 자를 제외한다), 또는 마약류의 취체에 관한 일본국의 법령에 위반하여 3회(단, 본 협정의 효력발생일전의 행위에 의하여 3회이상 형에 처하여진 자에 대하여는 2회)이상 형에 처하여진 자

(d) 일본국의 법령에 위반하여 무기 또는 7년을 초과하는 징역 또는 금고에 처하여진 자

第四条

日本国政府は，次に掲げる事項について，妥当な考慮を払うものとする。

（ａ）第一条の規定に従い日本で永住することを許可されている大韓民国国民に対する日本国における教育，生活保護及び国民健康保険に関する事項

（ｂ）第一条の規定に従い日本国で永住することを許可されている大韓民国国民（同条の規定に従い永住許可の申請をする資格を有している者を含む。）が日本国で永住する意思を放棄して大韓民国に帰国する場合における財産の携行及び資金の大韓民国への送金に関する事項

Article IV

The Government of Japan will give due consideration to the following matters:

(a) Matters concerning the education, livelihood protection, and national health insurance in Japan for a national of the Republic of Korea who has been permitted to reside permanently in Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article I; and

(b) Matters concerning the carrying of property and the remitting of funds to the Republic of Korea in the case of a national of the Republic of Korea who has been permitted to reside permanently in Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article I (including one who is qualified to apply for permission for permanent residence in accordance with the provisions of the same Article), who has abandoned the intention to reside permanently in Japan, and who returns to the Republic of Korea.

제 4 조

일본국 정부는 다음에 열거한 사항에 관하여, 타당한 고려를 하는 것으로 한다.

(a) 제1조의 규정에 의거하여 일본국에서 영주가 허가되어 있는 대한민국 국민에 대한 일본국에 있어서의 교육, 생활보험 및 국민건강보험에 관한 사항

(b) 제1조의 규정에 의거하여 일본국에서 영주가 허가되어 있는 대한민국 국민(동조의 규정에 따라 영주허가의 신청을 할 자격을 가지고 있는 자를 포함함)이 일본국에서 영주할 의사를 포기하고 대한민국으로 귀국하는 경우의 재산의 휴행 및 자금의 대한민국에의 송금에 관한 사항

第五条

第一条の規定に従い日本国で永住することを許可されている大韓民国国民は，出入国及び居住を含むすべての事項に関し，この協定で特に定める場合を除くほか，すべての外国人に同様に適用される日本国の法令の適用を受けることが確認される。

Article V

It is confirmed that a national of the Republic of Korea who has been permitted to reside permanently in Japan in accordance with the provisions of Article I shall be subject to the application of Japanese laws and ordinances applicable equally to all aliens, concerning all matters including emigration, immigration, and residence, except for the cases specifically prescribed in the present Agreement.

제 5 조

제1조의 규정에 의거하여 일본국에서의 영주가 허가되어 있는 대한민국 국민은 출입국 및 거주를 포함하는 모든 사항에 관하여 본 협정에서 특히 정하는 경우를 제외하고 모든 외국인에게 동등히 적용되는 일본국의 법령의 적용을 받는 것이 확인된다.

第六条

この協定は，批准されなければならない。批准書は，できる限りすみやかにソウルで交換されるものとする。この協定は，批准書の交換の日の後三十日で効力を生ずる。

Article VI

The present Agreement shall be ratified. The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Seoul as soon as possible. The present Agreement shall enter into force thirty days after the date on which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.

제 6 조

본 협정은 비준되어야 한다. 비준서는 가능한 한 조속히 서울에서 교환한다. 본 협정은 비준서가 교환된 날로부터 30일후에 효력을 발생한다.

以上の証拠として，下名は，各自の政府からこのために正当な委任を受け，この協定に署名した。

千九百六十五年六月二十二日に東京で，ひとしく正文である日本語及び韓国語により本書二通を作成した。

日本国のために

椎名悦三郎

高杉晋一

大韓民国のために

李　東　元

金　東　祚

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Agreement.

DONE in duplicate at Tokyo, this twenty-second day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five in the Japanese and Korean languages, each text being equally authentic.

FOR JAPAN FOR THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Etsusaburo Shiina

Shinichi Takasugi

FOR JAPAN FOR THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Tong Won Lee

Dong Jo Kim

이상의 증거로서, 하기 대표는 각자의 정부로부터 정당한 위임을 받아 본 협정에 서명하였다.

1965년 6월 22일 토오쿄오에서 동등히 정본인 한국어 및 일본어로 본서 2통을 작성하였다.

대한민국을 위하여
(서명) [ Signed ]

이동원

김동조

일본국을 위하여
(서명) [ Signed ]

시이나 에쓰사부로오

다까스기 싱이찌

Top

Annexation validity issues

Yutaka Kawasaki makes the following observation in "Was the 1910 Annexation Treaty Between Korea and Japan Concluded Legally?" -- an article published in the Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 3, Number 2 (July 1996).

Bold emphasis is mine.

11. . . . there is no evidence in international legal documents that, in 1910, an act of aggression, as the Japanese imposition of annexation on Korea was, did not possess the legal effect of making a treaty concluded under such situation illegal and void under contemporary international law principles.

12. Having thus rejected the existence of general international law principles, we must now turn to the question whether there is a special circumstance or agreement that supports Korean allegation of nullity of the Annexation Treaty. Article 2 of the Treaty of Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea of 22 June 1965 reads:

"It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void". [12]

13. This article was included by the strong insistence of the Korean delegation and reflects its official stance that the Annexation Treaty was void before the conclusion of the Basic Relations Treaty. There is a slight difference of nuance between the Japanese and Korean texts of this article. While the Korean text is true to the above mentioned stance of its government, the Japanese text employs the expression that permits the interpretation that the Annexation Treaty was 'no longer valid' at the time of conclusion of the Basic Relations Treaty. [13] However, the end paragraph of the Treaty provides that, in case of conflict of interpretation between Japanese and Korean texts, the interpretation of the English text, which is of the same authenticity as the other two, shall prevail. Therefore, the stance of the Korean government shall be upheld on the question of interpretation of this article: the 1910 Annexation Treaty was null and void at least sometime before the conclusion of the 1965 Treaty. The official stance of Japan on this issue is that the Annexation Treaty was legally concluded and remained in effect until Korea's independence from Japan. [14] This position is not inconsistent with the interpretation of Article 2 of the Basic Relations Treaty discussed above. However, another difficult question arises from this stance. The date of independence of the Republic of Korea is 15 August 1948 and that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is 9 September 1948. Japan maintains that, in relation to South Korea, the Annexation Treaty became void on 15 August 1948; and in relation to North Korea, on 9 September 1948. However, the Basic Relations Treaty, citing the United Nations General Assembly resolution 195(III), recognised that the government of the Republic of Korea is 'the only lawful Government in Korea'. Therefore, Japan's stance that the Annexation Treaty remained valid until 15 August 1948 in the South and until 9 September 1948 in the North is questionable. [15]

14. The provision of Article 2 of the Basic Relations Treaty does not witness the existence of agreement between the parties that the 1910 Annexation Treaty was null and void ab initio. However, as the above discussion reveals, there is no ground to uphold the Japanese government's interpretation either. The matter is left for the governments concerned to sort out. In the meantime, the danger of occasional controversy like the recent one will persist.

[12] Official English Text, reproduced in 4 I.L.M. 924, 925.
[13] Sasagawa, "Sekinin towa Nanika" [What is Responsibility?] in Shinto no Tomo (August 1995) 18, 20..
[14] Ibid., at 21..
[15] For Japanese delegation, the reference to the UN General Assembly Resolution 195 (III) was crucial. In paragraph 2 of the resolution, the General Assembly declares that there has been established a lawful government having effective control and jurisdiction over that part of Korea [south of 38 parallel] ... (Emphasis added) Japan stresses that this resolution recognises that the jurisdiction of the government of the Republic of Korea is limited to the part of Korea, now called South Korea. Following this interpretation, Japanese government maintains that unrecognised government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea holds de facto jurisdiction over the part of Korean peninsula north of 38 parallel. The government of the Republic of Korea disputes this interpretation. See, Osato, "The Problem of Two Koreas", 18 Japanese Ann. Int'l L. 51, 58 (1974).

"Control and jurisdiction" versus "sovereignty"

There are a number of problems with Kawasaki's analysis. One is that he fails to make the important distinction between control and jurisdiction, which determines who actually rules, and sovereignty, which can be a purely technical matter.

For example, PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan, but ROC clearly rules Taiwan. Recognition politics may effect ROC's "statehood" in the eyes of entities that recognize PRC, but recognition of PRC's claims does not alter the fact that Taiwan is under ROC's governmental control and legal jurisdiction. Even PRC conducts its relations with ROC with the understanding that ROC has governmental control and jurisdiction over Taiwan.

The Instruments of Surrender, which implemented the terms of the Potsdam Declaration from 2 September 1945, deprived Japan of its control and jurisdiction of Taiwan and Korea. However, Japan retained sovereignty over these territories until the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect from 28 April 1952.

Japan's shifting stance

Japan's "stance" on the validity of the Annexation Treaty is not so much "questionable" as shifting -- in order to accommodate shifts in its relations with ROK and DPRK, and the need to adjust its definition of who qualifies as residual Chosenjin and their descendants in the prefectures.

Japan recognizes ROK as the only lawful government in ROK as a matter of diplomatic expediency. When talking with ROK and DPRK at separate tables, it accepts their respective versions of "liberation" -- not just to be courteous, but in recognition of the fact that ROK and DPRK exist as different entities.

In the meantime, Japan attempts to reference most of its postwar settlements to its agreements with the Allied Powers -- beginning with the Instruments of Surrender on 2 September 1945 and culminating with the enforcement of the San Francisco Peace Treaty from 28 April 1952.

Shift from 2 September to 15 August 1945

In the 1952 Foreign Ministry Potsdam Declaration Law (Law No. 126 of 1952, promulgated and enforced from 28 April 1952, Japan defined qualified residual aliens as former subjects in Japan as of 2 September 1945 or descendants of such born in Japan on or after 3 September.

However, for purposes of expediting the Japan-ROK agreement on ROK nationals in Japan, signed in Tokyo on 22 June 1965 and effective from 17 January 1966, Japan took 15 August 1945 -- ROK's official liberation date, which corresponds to Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration -- as the divide between Chosenjin continuously resident in the prefectures since the end of the war and those born in prefectures on or after 16 August 1965.

Standardization at 2 September 1945

However, in 1991, twenty-five years after the status agreement came into effect, Japan subsumed the permanent resident status established by the 1966 agreement, which applied only to qualified ROK nationals, with other permanent residence statuses, which had followed the 1952 Foreign Ministry Potsdam Declaration Law -- into a general Special Permanent Residence status. The new status applied to all former imperial subjects who had lost their nationality as a result of postwar settlements, referenced to the Potsdam Declaration, if they had resided in Japan from no later than 2 September 1945, and their descendants if born in Japan on or after 3 September 1945.

As a baseline for qualification, 2 September 1945 is more lenient than either 15 August, though not as lenient as 9 September.

Agreements with Allied Powers primary

The 1965 normalization agreement also rests on the authority of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which formally ends Japan's sovereignty over Chosen/Korea as of 28 April 1952 -- as opposed to Japanese control and jurisdiction over the peninsula, which ended de jure on 2 September 1945. The 1966 status agreement does not dispute Japan's view that Japanese nationality ended for Chosen imperial subjects everywhere as of 28 April 1952.

In other words, Japan has actually taken its agreements with the Allied Powers -- beginning with the Instruments of Surrender and culminating with the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- as the primary benchmarks for its settlements -- 2 September 1945 and 28 April 1952.

In terms of control an jurisdiction, the Annexation Treaty could be viewed as valid until 2 September 1945. But in terms of sovereignty -- the implications of sovereignty on the residual legal status of Chosen imperial subjects and their descendants in Japan -- it would have to be viewed as valid until 28 April 1952.

However, there are some wrinkles.

ROC as precedent for ROK and DPRK

Control of, and jurisdiction over, Taiwan continued several weeks after the Instruments of Surrender, which assigned Chiang Kai-shek the responsibility of receiving Japan's surrender in most parts of China and in Taiwan.

As soon as ROC took over the reigns in Taiwan, it began to dismantle Japan's legal system there. ROC immediately nationalized most people in Taiwanese registers, and began to confirm the Chinese nationality of Taiwanese in Occupied Japan. ROC did this despite there being no retrocession treaty -- and no authorization from SCAP to carry out nationality changes in territories that had been provisionally severed from Japan as a consequence of the Potsdam Declaration and the Instruments of Surrender.

ROK and DPRK also, after their founding, nationalized people in peninsula registers and otherwise began to dismantle Japan's legal system -- in advance of any retrocession treaties or other bilateral agreements. It could be argued that Japan's surrender was, after all, unconditional, and that after 2 September if not 15 August 1945, Japan had no legal standing in either Taiwan or Chosen/Korea.

Denaturalization and "latent nationality"

Still, the distinction between "control and jurisdiction" on the one hand and "sovereignty" on the other is not unimportant when comparing the the claims of Japan with those of ROC, ROK, and DPRK the validity of earlier treaties and matters of nationality. My point would be that the severance of Chosen/Korea from Imperial Japan's control and jurisdiction in 1945 did not itself end the effects of Japan's nationalization of Taiwan in 1895 and of Korea as Chosen in 1910.

Formal change of sovereignty did not occur until the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force -- hence Japan's recognition that Chosenjin and other former gaichi subjects who remained in the prefectures, and their descendants, continued to be Japanese until 28 April 1952. But Japan's denationalization of all such people from this date is hotly debated.

Japan settled accounts with ROC in the Treaty of Taipei on 28 April 1952, the day Civil Affairs A No. 438 notification, which denationalized all former gaichi subjects, also came into effect. Article X of the treaty left the determination of Chinese nationality to ROC laws. Implicitly, the disposition of Japanese nationality was left to Japanese law. In other words, Japan accepted the fact that ROC had already nationalized Taiwan, and ROC accepted the effects of Notification 438.

The 1965 agreements between ROK and Japan make no reference to nationality issues. ROK appears to have totally accepted Japan's 1952 actions -- probably for the same reason that ROC did -- i.e., ROK considered all people in Chosen/Korea registers to be its nationals, whether or not they wanted to be.

Former Chosen subjects who had already migrated to ROK nationality were ROK nationals. Residual Chosenjin -- from both ROK's and Japan's point of view -- were "latent ROK nationals" -- former Chosen subjects who had not yet migrated to ROK nationality, but who someday would be brought into its fold.

All this changed with the passage of time and the simultaneous enrollment of ROK and DPRK into the United Nations in 1991.

See items under "Nationality" section of Chosen: The legal integration of Korea for a look at Korea/Chosen nationality issues.

Top

Japan-DPRK settlements affecting subnationality

To date there have been no settlements between Japan and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- which Japan refused to recognize at the time it concluded its normalization treaty with the Republic of Korea in 1965. In the treaty, Japan recognized ROK as the only lawful government on the peninsula. Moreover, Japan regarded its settlement with ROK as covering the entirety of the territory of "Korea" it had lost de facto when it surrendered Chosen to the United States and the Soviet Union in 1945, and de jure when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect in 1952.

In 1962, DPRK strongly protested the intention of Japan and ROK to negotiate a normalization treaty without its participation. This came in response to the resumption of talks between Japan and ROK after the Park government replaced the Rhee government of ROK in 1961 -- and Park, unlike the comparatively anti-Japanese Rhee, ordered his diplomats to compromise on certain issues.

Kiwon Chung, writing in 1964, made this observation (Kiwon Chung, Japanese-North Korean Relations Today, Asian Survey, Volume 4, Number 4, April 1964), pages 788-803, page 788).

In a "Statement on the Japan-ROK Talks," issued on December 13, 1962, the P'yongyang authorities made it clear that "hasty attempts to bring about diplomatic relations should not be carried out in principle until after the unification of Korea has been established." Nevertheless, if the Japanese government wishes to have "just and de jure relations with all Korea," the statement continued, "the alternative is to include the participation of People's Korea in the talks." Whatever the results of the talks may be with "the military fascist clique of Pak Chung-hi," the P'yongyang government "will regard it as invalid in toto and consequently the Japanese government will be faced with grave consequences." [Note 2: Nodong Shinmun, Dec. 14, 1963]

To be continued.

Divided occupation

The divided surrender and occupation of "Korea" north and south of the 38th parallel resulted in practically total isolation of the north from the south, to say nothing of Japan. People considered "Japanese" were herded to repatriation ports. The treatment of Japanese appears to have been worse in north than in the south.

Until the closing of the border imposed by the Allied Powers at the 38th parallel, there was a steady flow of refugees, including some Koreans, from the north to the south. When migration either way became difficult, a number of Koreans and others became stranded in an occupation zone that was not of their choice.

"Japan" under GHQ/SCAP was yet another occupation zone. Its isolation from both Korean zones effected especially Chosenese in the prefectures whose family registers were in the north, and Chosenese who had been residing in the prefectures but had been in the north when the war ended. Though the southern zone was not under SCAP's control, it was under US Army administration, which made it easy to coordinate repatriation between the zones.

There was practically no reciprocity between GHQ/SCAP in Japan and Soviet authorities in the north. As a result the failure of both states to work out relocation programs, a number of people who wanted to return to a domicile in another zone were unable to do so.

One Chosenese woman, who had been an Interior subject but had migrated to a Chosen family register through marriage, was visiting her estranged husband's family in a town north of the 38th parallel when when the war ended, and became stranded in the Soviet zone. She was unable to make her way south, and return to her home in Tokyo, until late in 1951, when the town where had been staying with her father-in-law was briefly liberated by US and ROK forces.

See Kanda v. State, 1961: Interior woman who married Chosen man lost nationality for a fuller account of this saga, which reached the Supreme Court of Japan.

While the Korean War enabled this woman to be where she wanted, it caused the temporary displacement of millions of people, in the form of civilians fleeing advancing armies and combat zones, military prisoners of war, political refugees, and abductees. Tens of thousands of civilians remained separated from their families north and south of the 38th parallel after the war. During and after the war, the International Red Cross, and its ROK and DPRK branches, cooperated in trying to facilitate reunions, but were less than entirely successful.

Controlled "repatriation" to DPRK

The controlled migration ("return" or "repatriation") of some Chosenese to DPRK, from 1959 to 1980 or so, included a few Japanese and a handful of Chinese. By all accounts many migrants soon regretted their decision to leave Japan. See below for details.

Top

"Repatriation" to DPRK

A systematic legal "return" or "repatriation" to what had become the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) did not become possible until after 13 August 1959. On this date, the Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS) and its DPRK counterpart signed an agreement, in India, to facilitate Koreans in Japan -- meaning Chosenese, regardless of where in "Korea" their family register was located -- who wished to migrate to "Kita Chōsen" or "North Korea" as DPRK has been called in Japan.

The migration was termed "kikan" (帰還) in Sino-Japanese, meaning essentially "return" but usually in the sense of "repatriation" to one's home country as defined by one's nationality, not place of birth or origin. Though mediated by the Red Cross, the movement of people across Japan's border had to be approved and overseen by the Japanese government, as Japan has the legal right and responsibility to control the departure of aliens and Japanese from Japan.

Although the "repatriation" program was intended for Koreans, non-Koreans were allowed to accompany their Korean family members. Roughly seven percent of the migrants were non-Koreans, mostly Japanese but also a few Chinese.

The agreement was renewed several times through 1967, then again from 1971 and until 1984 or 1985. During these two decades, a total of about 93,340 people -- 81,962 Koreans (87.8 percent), 6,730 Japanese (7.2 percent), and 7 Chinese (0.0075 percent) -- left Japan for DPRK. The Immigration Bureau's 5th periodic report, celebrating the its 30th anniversary, stated of about 6,700 Japanese, an estimated 1,828 (1.96 were "Japanese wives" (Homusho Nyukan 1981, page 129).

The problem of "Japanese wives" became an issue in the Diet. It was also discussed at the 24 May 1974 meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council of the House of Representatives.

At the 1974 council meeting, Kobayashi Shunji, then Chief of the Immigration Inspection Section of the Immigration Bureau, stated that 6,755 Japanese -- including 2,634 males and 4,121 females -- had gone to North Korea, and he estimated that about 2,000 of the woman were "so-called Japanese wives" (いわゆる日本人妻 iwayuru Nihonjin-zuma). See partial transcription of the proceedings of this meeting below. A decade later, Kobayashi was the Bureau Director.

First period (1959-1967)

Japanese Immigration Control Bureau statistics show that a total of 88,611 "returnees" boarded vessels for "North Korea" during the 9-year period 1959-1967. Over 84 percent left in the first three years -- 2,941 on 3 ships toward the end of 1959 -- 49,036 on 48 ships in 1960 -- and 22,801 on 34 ships in 1961. Some 3,497 left on 16 ships in 1961, and an average of about 2,000 left each year thereafter through 1967.

By nationality, the total for the first period, ending in 1967, included 81,962 Chosenese (Chōsenjin), 6,642 Japanese (Nihonjin), and 7 Chinese (Chūgokujin).

Sex and generation

Among the Chosenese, 55.3 percent (45,297) were males and 44.7 percent (36,665) were females. The overall sex ratio was 1.24, but the ratio dropped with generation, from 1.73 for those born before 1920, to 1.12 for those born after 1939.

Most -- 56.3 percent of the total -- were born in or after 1940 and hence were under 30 years of age. Most individuals in this younger age group, and some in the older age groups, had probably been born in the prefectures and had never been to the peninsula. But even the Chosen-born who had migrated to the prefectures when younger would have had little if any memory of life on the peninsula under Japanese rule.

Much less would many, if any, have experienced postwar life on the peninsula, or life north of the 38th parallel either before or after the end of the war. A few may have been on the peninsula when the war ended and returned to domiciles in Occupied Japan. And a few may have briefly gone to the peninsula from Occupied Japan. But the vast majority were people in registers of Chosen provinces south of the 38th parallel.

In fact, alien statistics for "Chosen" registrants in 1959 and 1964, and "Kankoku/Chosen" registrants in 1969, show that 96.9, 97.6, and 98.0 percent of all Koreans residing in Japan were affiliated with family registers in provinces in the Republic of Korea -- which did not, of course, mean that they were ROK nationals.

Employment

About 48 percent (21,773) of the Chosenese males were reportedly adults, of which about 40 percent (8,642) were either unemployed or did not complete the employment box. Apparently, then, about half of the Chosenese returnees were minors, and nearly half of the adult males did not report that they were employed.

Japanese wives

Issues concerning so-called "Japanese wives" are discussed in the following section. However, data on "Japanese wives" are shown in the tables following this section.

Second period (1971-1985)

The second period of supervised migration from Japan to DPRK, from 1971 to 1984 (or 1985), added only 4,729 to the first-period total. See the following tables for details. The nationality breakdowns in the sources from which I have collected figures, however, are incomplete, hence the tables have some omissions.

Migration of Koreans and others from Japan to DPRK

By year, nationality, sex, and year of birth, 1959-1967, and 1971-1985

Compiled and computed from various sources, and designed, by William Wetherall

	Voyages	Average	Number of migrants ("returnees") per year
	per	returnees		Nationality status
	year	per voyage	Total	Koreans	Japanese	(Wives)	Chinese
	v	av = r/v	r =k+j+c	k	j (inc w)	(w)	c

1959-1967 (1st period)

1959	3	981	2,942	2,717	225	(57)	0
1960	48	1,022	49,036	45,094	3,937	(1,081)	5
1961	34	671	22,801	21,027	1,773	(489)	1
1962	16	219	3,497	3,311	186	(47)	0
1963	12	214	2,567	2,402	165	(34)	0
1964	8	228	1,822	1,722	99	(26)	1
1965	11	205	2,255	2,159	96	(20)	0
1966	12	155	1,860	1,807	53	(15)	0
1967	11	166	1,831	1,723	108	(22)	0

Subtotal	155	572	88,611	81,962	6,642	(1,791)	7

1971-1985 (2nd period)

1971	7	188	1,318	1260	58		0
1972	4	251	1,003	981	22		0
1973	3	235	704	Breakdowns for 1973-1979 by nationality and figures for 1971-1985 Japanese wives not yet obtained. Hence 1971-1985 subtotals, and 1959-1985 totals and percents, for Koreans, Japanese and Japanese wives, and Chinese are only estimates based on this partial data.
1974	3	160	479
1975	3	126	379
1976	2	128	256
1977	2	90	180
1978	1	150	150
1979	2	63	126
1980	1	40	40	38	2		0
1981	1	38	38	34	4		0
1982	1	26	26	24	2		0
1983	0
1984	1	30	30	0	0		0
1985	0

Subtotal	31	153	4,729	2,337	88		0

1959-1985

	Voyages	Average	Number of migrants ("returnees") per year
	per	returnees		Nationality status
	year	per voyage	Total	Koreans	Japanese	(Wives)	Chinese

Total	186	502	93,340	84,299	6,730	(1,828)	7

Percents of total			100.0	90.3	7.2	(1.96)	0.0075

Percent of Japanese wives among Japanese					100.0	27.2


Korean "returnees" by year of birth and sex, 1959-1967

	Birth	Total	Male	Female	Ratio
			m	f	m/f

Number	-1919	15,726	9,958	5,768	1.73
	1920-1929	10,092	5,611	4,481	1.25
	1930-1939	9,993	5,370	4,623	1.16
	1940-	46,151	24,358	21,793	1.12

	Total	81,962	45,297	36,665	1.24

Percent	-1919	19.2	12.1	7.0	1.73
	1920-1929	12.3	6.8	5.5	1.25
	1930-1939	12.2	6.6	5.6	1.16
	1940-	56.3	29.7	26.6	1.12

	Total	100.0	55.3	44.7	1.24


Japanese by sex, and Japanese wives, 1959 to 21 June 1974

					Japanese wives
	Total	Male	Female	Ratio	Number	Percent
		m	f (inc w)	m/f	(w)	100 w/f

Number	6,755	2,634	4,121	0.64	(1,799)	43.7

Percent	256.5	100.0	156.5	0.64	(68.3)	43.7


Sources and notes

	1959-1984 data, Mindan 1997, Table 14 (p 39)
	1959-1985 data on number of voyages per year from Mindan website (2010).
	1959-1963 data, Homusho Nyukan 1964, pp 51-55, Table 14 (p 54)
	1964-1967 data, Homusho Nyukan 1971, pp 94-98, Table 40 (p 96)
	1968-1970 not shown as program was suspended during these years.
	1971-1980 data, Homusho Nykan 1981, pp 128-129, Table 2-27 (p 129)
	1959-1967 Japanese wives data, Ikeda 1974, Table 1 (p 17)

(1,799)	1959-1974 Japanese wives data and total, Ikeda 1974, p 16
(1,828)	1959-1980 Japanese wives total, Homusho Nykan 1981, p 129
1.96	Percent estimated as ratio of 1985 to 1980 totals (6,730 / 1,828)

81,962	Computed from Korean male/female figures (Homusho Nyukan 1971, p 96).
	Totals by year of birth and all percents by sex and year of birth computed.

166 / 572	The totals and averages in the table are mine.
	All agree with published MOJ figures except two.
	Published averages for 1967 and the Total through 1967 are 165 for 571.

	Estimates based on partial (incomplete) nationality breakdowns.
	Korean, Japanese, and Chinese totals are mine based on Mindan 1997 data.
	Mindan 1997 shows Japanese total as 6,505, but its figures total 6,730.

93,340	Mindan says in text that total was 93,339 including "over 1,700 Japanese wives" and "over 6,500 dual national (children of Japanese wives)" but its table shows a total of 93,340 and its agrees with the figures in the table (Mindan 1997, pp38-39). Mindan's website shows a total of 93,339 reflecting its figure of 1,002 rather than 1,003 for 1972.





93,340	Takasaki says the total was [about] 93,340 including "about 6,800 Japanese family members" which incuded "about 1,831 Japanese wives" (Takasaki 2004, p 17).

Top

Japanese wives

Data on so-called "Japanese wives" among the Japanese who accompanied some Chosenese to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea between 1959 and 1985 or so are consolidated in the tables at the end of the previous section.

The tally of "Japanese wives" in Japanese government counts is based on civil nationality, not race or ethnicity. Some descriptions of "so-called Japanese wives" attempt to include Chosenese who had once been Interiorites -- i.e., women who had been in a prefectural family register and had migrated to a Chosen register when marrying a Chosen man.

If I Had Wings I Would Fly Like a Bird, an English version of a Japanese publication, qualified the "number of Japanese wives" enumerated in a table of statistics like this (Ikeda 1974, Table 1, page 17, note, see below for particulars).

We selected from the list of repatriates Japanese wives who had Japanese citizenship when they went to North Korea. Japanese wives who had North Korean citizenship because of their marriage are not included in this list.

The note makes three typical errors.

The first error was to characterize state affiliation as "citizenship" rather than nationality. Democratic People's Republic of Korea laws describe those who possess DPRK nationality as "citizens", while Japanese laws refer to those who possess Japan's nationality as "nationals". But the civil status, as a state affiliation, is "nationality". In any event, the Chosenese (Koreans) who "repatriated" to DPRK from Japan did not formally possess DPRK nationality.

The second error -- even assuming that "Chosen" status was equivalent to "North Korean citizenship" -- was to suggest that there were "Japanese wives who had North Korean citizenship because of marriage". Presumably the authors are referring to women who had been in a prefectural (Interior) register when they married a man in a Chosen (Korean) register and migrated to his register. Such migrations occurred when Chosen was part of Japan and Chosenese were Japanese -- under Japan's 1899 Nationality Law and laws that concerned private matters, including marriage and adoption, between individuals in Naichi (prefectural) and Chosen (Korean) registers. Such migrations were possible before the 1950 Nationality Law came into effect. All people in Chosen (Korean) registers lost their their Japanese nationality on 28 April 1952. The note does not mention common-law Japanese wives who, because they were not legally married, were not formally tallied as "Japanese wives".

The third error was to generally characterize the migrants to DPRK as "North Korean repatriates" -- since the annual totals include Chosenese (Korean), Japanese, and Chinese. Even allowing that the Koreans were nationals of Korea (defined as Chosen), and that most were old enough to understand what they were doing, half were born in the prefectures. Some of the Japanese or Chinese may have been born on the peninsula, and may have considered Chosen their home. In any event, the nationality tallies are strictly according to civil status based on family registers -- not place of birth or political orientation, much less race or ethnicity.

If I Had Wings Like a Bird
1974 American edition
October 1974
Yosha Bunko

If I Had Wings Like a Bird

Part of Kobayashi's testimony was dubbed into English in the following book, published half a year later in New York.

The American Committee for Human Rights
of Japanese Wives of North Korean Repatriates
If I Had Wings Like a Bird
(I Would Fly Across the Sea)
[Letters from the Japanese Wives
of North Korean Repatriates]
Printed in the United States of America
First printing, October, 1974
11 (photographs), 3 (Table of Contents), 167 (text)

The conspciuous first photograph shows "Mrs. Edwin O. Reischauer" (Far right, with Mr. Edwin O. Reischauer) and "Mrs. Fumiko Ikeda" (Center) in an unidentified garden. Mrs. Reischauer is identified as the "Honorary President, The American Committee for Human Rights of Japanese Wives of North Korean Repatriates". Mrs. Ikeda is called "Representative, The Association for Human Rights of Japanese Wives of North Korean Repatriates".

A "Preface to the American Edition" by Ikeda is dated 18 September 1974 (pages 2-3). A longer and rather different "Preface to the Japanese Edition" by Ikeda is undated.

Fumiko Ikeda

The following book, edited by Ikeda, was published by the association in Japan the same year (I do not have this book and have never seen it).

池田文子編
日本人妻自由往来実現運動の会
鳥でないのが残念です
(北鮮帰還の日本人妻からの便り)
日本人妻自由往来実現運動本部、1974
174ページ、図版7枚

Ikeda Fujimo (editor)
Nihonjin-zuma Jiyū Ōrai Jitsugen Undō no Kai
[ Association of Japanese wives free going-and-coming actualization movement ]
[ Association for movement to establish the freedom of Japanese wives to travel between DPRK and Japan ]
Tori de nai no ga zannen desu
(Kita Chōsen kikan no Nihonjin-zuma kara no tayori)
[ That I am not a bird is regrettable ]
[ Too bad I'm not a bird ]
(Letters from Japanese wives of North Korean return [repatriation]) ]
[ Headquarters of Association of . . . actualization movement ], 1984
174 pages, 7 plates

The association, founded by Ikeda in 1974, organized activities in both Japan and the Republic of Korea. Japanese wives of ROK nationals living in ROK visited Japan to participate in symposia and demonstrations, in Osaka, Tokyo, and Sapporo. Some relatives of Japanese wives, who were missing in DPRK or had sent letters about hardships there, visited Panmunjom in ROK to pray for the welfare of the wives while gazing across the DMZ at DPRK.

In the introduction of the English edition, Ikeda is described as "the relative of a so-called Japanese wife who emigrated to North Korea of whom it is not known whether she is alive or dead." Ikeda felt "sad and frustrated" because she "had not heard from her lost sister for the thirteen years since her departure" (page 8).

Ikeda Fumiko (池田文子) is otherwise known as Erikawa Yasuei (江利川安栄), a social activist involved especially in women's issues. Born in 1946, and a graduate of the law department of Chuo University, she became a member of the Unification Church in Japan, and in 1970 she married in a mass marriage of 777 couples.

Erikawa became active in the International Federation for Victory Over Communism (国際勝共連合 Kokusai Shōkyō Rengō), founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon in 1968 in the Republic of Korea. A Japan branch was set up the same year. Among the federations objectives in Japan was the nullification of the permission the Japanese government had given DPRK-sponsored schools to operate in Japan.

Erikawa served as the 7th director of the Unification Church in Japan for ten months from 1998 to 1999.

The American Committee

"The American Committee for Human Rights of Japanese Wives of North Korean Repatriates" was organized by members of the Unification Church under the direction of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who at the time was attempting to dissuade the United Nations from passing "a North-Korea backed resolution calling for the dissolution of the U.N. Command in Korea". The book's publication coincided with the fasting from 22-29 October 1974 of some 600 Unification Church members in front of the United Nations to publicize allegations of DPRK's violations of the Japanese wive's human rights.

The above statement on the link between the 1974 book and the Unification Church was based on the following publication.

95th Congress, 2d Session: Committee Print
INVESTIGATION OF KOREAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS
Report of the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
October 31, 1978
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1978: 34-674-O

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock Number 052-070-04729-1

Excerpts from 1974 Foreign Affairs Committee discussion

The Appendix of If I Had Wings Like a Bird includes a partial translation of the 24 May 1974 discussion, in the lower house Foreign Affairs Committee, on the problem of "so-called Japanese wives". The following are my transcriptions of excerpts from the appended translation (pages 126-135).

II. Proceedings of
the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the Japanese Diet

The Proceedings No. 28
of
The Foreign Affairs Committee
of
the 72nd Session of the House of Representatives
of the Japanese Diet
started at 10:08 a.m., Friday, May 24th, 1974

[ Particulars about attendees omitted ]

Chairman Kimura,

Now I open the committee meeting.

[ First part of proceedings omitted ]

Next, I recognize Mr. Eiichi Nagasue.

Mr. Nagasue:

I want to ask several questions concerning the problem of Japanese wives in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. According to the Calcutta Agreement, on the 3rd of August, 1959, Korean residents in Japan were repatriated to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (hereafter referred to as North Korea). I want to know how many Japanese wives went to North Korea.

Mr. Kobayashi, Expositor from the government:

I will answer.

It is recorded that the number of Japanese who went over to North Korea is 6755. There were 2634 men and 4121 women. But among the 4121 women, it was not confirmed how many are so-called "Japanese wives". They estimate 2,000.

Mr. Nagasue:

Why can you only give an estimate about the number of Japanese wives? Didn't you send them to North Korea after you confirmed the number?

Mr. Kobayashi:

In fact, there are common-law wives and registered ones among the so-called "Japanese wives". That is why the exact number is not statistically classified.

Mr. Nagasue:

How many Japanese wives are confirmed and not just estimated? I think you use the word "estimate" because it is not clear; but how many Japanese wives are confirmed among the 2,000?

Mr. Kobayashi:

I think that there is data on the number of wives registered among so-called Japanese wives as a whole. But it is inevitable that common-law wives are included when we talk about so-called Japanese wives. Thus, I said 2,000 as a whole.

Mr. Nagasue:

Please investigate and report it to our Committee. Then what is their nationality at present?

Mr. Kobayashi:

Just now I reported the number of those who were Japanese when they went to North Korea. All of them had Japanese passports. With respect to this, I would like to ask for a reply by the Chief of the Fifth Section of the Civil Administration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice.

Mr. Inaba, Expositor from the government:

So far, this question has not been raised, but we think it is proper to treat them as those who have Japanese nationality.

Mr. Nagasue:

Insofar as you think it is proper to treat them as those who have Japanese nationality, the Japanese government has the obligation to protect those people, doesn't it, Minister of Justice?

Mr. Takashima, Permanent Committee Member representing the government:

Of course, the government has the obligation to protect Japanese citizens staying in foreign countries in a general sense. But in this case, the situation is different. As there are no diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea, even though we want to protect these Japanese wives, it is difficult to do that.

Mr. Nagasue:

Do you have their present addresses?

Mr. Takashima:

There are some people whose addresses are known, but many are unknown.

Mr. Nagasue:

Can you tell us how many?

Mr. Takashima:

We don't know because we have not investigated it.

Mr. Nagasue:

If it is so that you have not investigated it, then what does it mean when you say that there are some whose addresses are known and some whose addresses are not known?

Mr. Takashima:

I mean that we know about those people who give information through their relatives, but we don't know about those people who have no such channel.

Mr. Nagasue:

Don't you think the Government has the obligation to have information concerning these people?

Mr. Takashima:

We feel very sorry for the relatives whose repatriates are not known. But it is almost impossible to get the information about them under the present circumstances in North Korea.

Mr. Nagasue:

Is there any record that some of them have re-visited Japan?

Mr. Kobayashi

The government has records of communications from Japanese wives (who went to North Korea) expressing their desire to visit their home. So, unless there is evidence that some have visited Japan by an indirect way, we won't be able to say officially whether any of them have ever re-visited Japan.

[ Nagase's introduction of passages from some of the eight letters he claims have been made public omitted ]

Mr. Nagasue:

We have such letters sent from North Korea.

Foreign Minister Mr. Ohira, it is confimred by our Government that there are at least 2,000 Japanese people who are under such circumstances. Do you think it is good to leave them as they are?

Mr. Ohira, Minister for Foreign Affairs:

I am very eager to meet even one part of their request, but first I must consider what kinds of measures can be taken. In fact, they are in North Korea. From North Korea's standpoint they are living under the jurisdiction, sovereighty, and social system of North Korea. It is not North Korea alone that has a tendency to be nervous about legal interference from other nations. In this situation, we have heard the legal viewpoint of the Ministry of Justice that the government must admit that their citizenship is Japanese. I cannot state clearly at this time what Japan can do, what Japan should do or what Japan should not do, but I want to take it into consideration.

Mr. Nagasue:

The problem comes from the fact that there is no diplomatic relationship between North Korea and Japan. If there were any relationship on the governmental level for which the Japanese government is responsible, there might be some concerted measure which could be taken through the negotiations of the two governments. Repatriation has already been an on-going program for fifteen years.

If the Japanese government had initiated this repatriation project with the knowledge that the government would be able to do nothing for them once they went to North Korea, then it could be said that the government has given up that many Japanese.

You haven't given them up, have you? They are Japanese. It happens that you have sent them to a place where we cannot do anything for them. What do you think, Mr. Ohira?

Mr. Ohira:

Those Japanese wives were not forced to go to North Korea. I think the government had confirmed their will to go before they were sent. So I think it is being too severe with the government to think that the government abandoned these people.

But it is questionable if those people clearly knew the reality of North Korea. Anyway, we recognize through letters that there are such situations as stated in those letters, so I think we need a lot of research and consideration concerning what we can do, what we should do, and what we should not do. I would like you to give me enough time to make an investigation before I reply.

[ Exchanges between Nagasue and Japanese Red Cross Society witness, and Nagasue and Ohira, omitted ]

Top

Honseki in DPRK provinces

Japan tallies its registered aliens by nationality and other status attributes. It also tallies "Chinese" and "Korean" aliens by the province in "China" or "Korea" in which they are presumed to be registered.

"China" and "Korea" as English terms to do not define themselves. See "Kankoku/Chosen" and "Chugoku": Recognition politics and alien nationality in Japan" for details.

Suffice it to say, here, that from 1952, until 1965 when Japan recognized the Republic of Korea (ROK), Korean aliens in Japan were classified as Chosenese, meaning affilaites of "Chosen" as a former Japanese territory. Only after 1965, when Japan recognized the Republic of Korea (ROK), did Japan began using "Kankoku/Chosen" to collectively label the "entity" with which which "Koreans" in Japan were affiliated.

The label "Kankoku/Chosen" means (1) the "Republic of Korea" (Kankoku), which controls the provinces south of the 38th parallel, and (2) the "former Japanese entity of Chosen" (Chosen), which includes all of the provinces on the peninsula, both those under ROK's control, and those under the control of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) north of the 38th parallel.

Drop in 1959-1964 Korean population

Alien registration statistics for 1959 and 1964, for aliens affiliated with Chosen (Kankoku does not yet exist in Japan's eyes), clearly show a sharp decrease in the population of registered Koreans (Chosenese) from 607,533 in 1959 to 578,572 in 1964. The 1964 figure also reflects losses and gains during the five-year interval from deaths, births, and changes of nationality. But it reflects especially the supervised "repatriation" from Japan to North Korea (DPRK) that which began at the end of 1959.

Koreans with registers in provinces of South Korea (ROK) dropped 23,844 from 588,784 in 1959 to 564,940 in 1964. Those with registers in North Korea provinces dropped 2,229 from 10,342 to 8,113 in the same years. Koreans whose province of registration was uncertain or unknown dropped 2,888 from 8,407 to 5,519.

While the numerical drop in Koreans affiliated with southern provinces is about ten times the drop in either of the other two categories, the percentage of Koreans with southern registers rises from 96.9 in 1959 to 97.6 in 1964. This percent has continued to increase, and since 1980s it has been over 98 percent.

2008 registration data

As of the end of 2008 -- among 589,239 registered Koreans aliens -- 577,809 (98.1 percent) had registers in ROK provinces. Only 2,769 (0.47 percent) -- about one-third the 1964 count -- had registers in provinces within DPRK's jurisdiction. The provinces of registration of 8,661 (1.47 percent), an considerable increase over the 1964 count, were uncertain or unknown.

All of the above north/south provincial figures and percents are my computations from published alien registration reports.

Top

Russo-Japanese settlements affecting subnationality

Disposition of Sakhalin and the Kurils

The southern part of Sakhalin (Karafuto) and the Kuril Islands (Chishima islands) would be retroceded to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). However, the USSR, though participating in the peace treaty conference, was not willing to join the treaty.

While Stalin participated in the both conference at Potsdam, he was not formally a party to the declaration because the USSR was not then at war with Japan. For the same reason, the declaration could not refer to the disposition of Karafuto (Sakhalin) and Chishima (the Kuriles).

In fact, Stalin had already agreed at the Yalta Conference in February that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan within a few months after the defeat of Germany, in return for which it would receive both Sakhalin and the Kuriles after the defeat of Japan.

Yalta Agreement

The Yalta Agreement, signed by Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston S. Churchill on 11 February 1945, mostly addressed postwar arrangements in Europe, but it concluded with an unnumbered agreement concerning Japan.

1945 Yalta Agreement
Agreement Regarding Japan The leaders of the three great powers -- the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain -- have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies on condition that: 1. The status quo in Outer Mongolia (the Mongolian People's Republic) shall be preserved. 2. The former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904 shall be restored, viz.: (a) The southern part of Sakhalin as well as the islands adjacent to it shall be returned to the Soviet Union; (b) The commercial port of Dairen shall be internationalized, the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union in this port being safeguarded, and the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base of the U.S.S.R. restored; (c) The Chinese-Eastern Railroad and the South Manchurian Railroad, which provide an outlet to Dairen, shall be jointly operated by the establishment of a joint Soviet-Chinese company, it being understood that the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union shall be safeguarded and that China shall retain sovereignty in Manchuria; 3. The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union. It is understood that the agreement concerning Outer Mongolia and the ports and railroads referred to above will require concurrence of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. The President will take measures in order to maintain this concurrence on advice from Marshal Stalin. The heads of the three great powers have agreed that these claims of the Soviet Union shall be unquestionably fulfilled after Japan has been defeated. For its part, the Soviet Union expresses it readiness to conclude with the National Government of China a pact of friendship and alliance between the U.S.S.R. and China in order to render assistance to China with its armed forces for the purpose of liberating China from the Japanese yoke.

1956 Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration

日本国とソヴィエト社会主義共和国連邦との共同宣言 (日ソ共同宣言)

Signed in Moscow 19 October 1956
Recognized by Diet 5 December 1956
Ratified by Cabinet 7 December 1956
Ratification attested 8 December 1956
Ratifications exchanged 12 December 1956

Came into force on 12 December 1956 (Treaty No. 20)

Between June 1955 and October 1956, Japan and the Soviet Union attempted to negotiate a peace treaty. However, they were unable to settle their different territorial claims, and so in lieu of a peace treaty, on 19 October 1956 they signed an agreement called the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration.

In this declaration, the two countries agreed to end the state of war between them and restore friendly relations (Article 1) and to exchange diplomatic missions (Article 2). The USSR agreed to support Japan's application for membership in the United Nations (Article 4) and facilitate needs of unrepatriated Japanese in the Soviet Union (Article 5). The two countries agreed to continue peace treaty negotiations after normalization, and the USSR agreed to transfer the Habomai islands and Shikotan island to Japan -- after the conclusion of a peace treaty (Article 9).

Well into the 21st century, the declaration continues to be the basis for peace treaty negotiations -- which continue to fail because of terriotrial issues.

Habomai and Shikotan

The 1956 is the basis for Russia's contention that it is obliged to transfer to Japan only two of the four that Japan insists are part of its "Northern Territories" (北方領土 Hoppō Ryōdo) -- consisting of the four major island groups and islands in what have also been called "Minami Chishima" or the "Southern Kuriles". William Sebald, the US State Department's "Acting United States Political Adviser to SCAP" (POLAD) during much of the Occupation of Japan, SCAP's Political Adviser on Foreign Affairs during most of the Occupation of Japan, made the following observation in passing in his Occupation memoirs (With MacArthur in Japan, New York: W.W. Norton, 1965, page 250, purple bold emphasis mine).

Governor Tanaka of Hokkaido called with a petition asking for the return of the Kurile and Habomai islands. The disposition of the Kuriles had been decided, of course, at the Cairo and Yalta conferences. The Habomai Group, which likes within three miles of Hokkaido, had not been mentioned at any of the wartime meetings, but Soviet troops had occupied these islands shortly after the surrender and had refused to depart.*

* The "Habomai Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands" and Shikotan Island among others are mentioned in SCAPIN 677 (January 29, 1946) as excluded from the territory over which the imperial Japanese government might have any governmental or administrative authority. This SCAPIN was prepared by Government Section, GHQ, SCAP.

Sebald is mistaken. The Cairo Declaration made no reference to any Soviet territories -- for the Soviet Union was not a party to this declaration, nor could it have been, since it was honoring the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941. It honored this pact until well after the Potsdam Declaration, which incorporates the terms of the Cairo Declaration but not those of the Yalta Agreement.

Although knowledge of the Yalta Conference was public, the Yalta Agreement -- which stated that "The Kuril islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union" -- was kept secret, as it would have revealed the USSR's intentions to join the Allied Powers in the declared war against Japan, to say nothing of its intentions to retake territories it had recognized as belonging to Japan, or ceded to Japan, in earlier treaties.

SCAPIN-677 does exclude from "Japan" for the purpose of the directive "the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island" (Paragraph 3). However, it also clearly states that "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration" (Paragraph 6). And Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration states "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

In other words, when accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, Japan did not agree to the loss of any of the territories that the Yalta Agreement stated would be "returned to" or "handed over" to the Soviet Union.

Japan did, however, place itself at the mercy of the phrase "and such minor islands as we determine". And this determination was essentially made during the drafting of General Order No. 1, which stipulated which territories then occupied by Japan were to be surrendered to which military commanders of which Allied states.

While General Order No. 1 of 2 December 1945 included "Karafuto, and the Kurile Islands" -- the 17 August 1945 draft of the order mentioned only "Karafuto".

Top

Territorial settlements

ROC and PRC, ROK and DPRK, and the USSR and Russia

By William Wetherall