ABSTRACT
From Yalta Blueprint to San Francisco System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Wartime International Agreements on Territorial Disposition of Japan . . . 17 The Yalta Blueprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Potsdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 General Order No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 The Moscow Foreign Ministers’ Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Establishment of Two Korean Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The Korean War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Toward the “Unresolved Problems”: Korea and Takeshima/ Tokdo Disposition in the Japanese Peace Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Early US Studies of Japanese Territorial Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 T-Documents, CAC-Documents, SWNCC and MacArthur Line
Early Drafts of the Peace Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 March 1947 Draft, August 1947 Draft, January 1948 Draft
Reopening of Peace Treaty Preparation and Sebald’s Commentary . . . . . . 29 October 1949 Draft, November 1949 Draft
Sebald’s Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 December 1949 Draft
Dulles and Peace Treaty Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 August 1950 Draft, “Seven Principles,” March 1951 Draft
British Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 US-UK Joint Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
May 1951 Draft, June 1951 Draft Korea’s Status in the Peace Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 The ROK Government’s Request for Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The San Francisco Peace Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Proclamation of the Rhee Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
After San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Status of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Takeshima – Resource Development, International Law, Complication of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The disposition of Korea in Article 2 (a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty has two important implications for the “unresolved problems” of contemporary regional international relations. The first is the status, or recipient, of the “Korea” that Japan renounced. Although the Treaty stipulates Japan’s recognition of Korea’s independence, it does not specify to which government or state Korea was renounced. There was then, and is still, no state or country called “Korea,” but two states, the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north. Furthermore, neither Korean government was invited to the Peace Conference, and normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and the two Koreas was left as another “unresolved problem.” Japan and the ROK normalized their diplomatic relations in 1965, but there has still been no such normalization with the DPRK.
