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

Author(s):  
YI Tae-Jin
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Dean Aszkielowicz

Australia’s trials ended in April 1951, and just a few months later in September, the San Francisco Peace Treaty signalled that the Occupation would end the following year and Japan would return to the international community. A nationwide petition movement in Japan began calling for the repatriation of war criminals who had been convicted by Allied courts and resided in overseas prisons, such as some of those convicted by Australia who were now imprisoned on Manus Island. Meanwhile, other war criminals who were convicted by Australian courts resided in Sugamo Prison in Tokyo, and the Japanese government was bound by Article 11 of the peace treaty to keep them in prison until the convicting country allowed their release. Article 11 was not enough to reassure the Australian government that the Japanese would respect the decisions handed down in its war crimes courts, however, and this made the government anxious over repatriating the war criminals on Manus. In Japan, the petition movement began to pressure the Japanese government and the Australian embassy for the return of these prisoners.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-42
Author(s):  
Kimie Hara

Various issues were left unresolved in the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan. The Takeshima/Dokdo problem is no exception. A close examination of the post-war territorial disposition of Japan suggests that these issues were left unresolved under the strong influence of the Cold War. The treaty was prepared and signed in a multilateral framework, in which several issues were linked together. However, their historical and political linkages have been neglected or overlaid by other features over the years. Remembering its Cold War origin and multilateral linkages, settlement of the Takeshima/Dokdo problem may be considered together with other outstanding issues in a broader multilateral framework. There are important lessons to learn from the European experiences, including the 1975 Helsinki Declaration (Accords). A workable settlement formula would include mutual concessions and collective gains among the concerned parties in East Asia.


1986 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Dingman

Historians have examined the Japanese peace settlement of 1951 in a variety of ways. A few have treated it as an episode in the ongoing evolution of the structure of international relations in the Pacific and East Asia. Most have focused on the interaction between the principal victor, the United States, and vanquished Japan, weighing the negotiating successes and failures of each and assessing the impact of the settlement on subsequent Japanese-American relations. Recently still other historians have exploited newly available archival materials to analyze the role middle-range powers such as Australia and Britain played in shaping the 1951 peace treaty. While this research has revealed a great deal about the San Francisco peace settlement, it has left unexplored the part small powers played in a major restructuring of the Pacific/East Asian international order.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document