Talk:Treaty of San Francisco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

USA illegaly deounced the Jalta treaty of 1945 clauses which dealed with the Kuril islands that was why USSR refused to sigh the San-Francisco treaty

Oh really? How about making Japan the worlds largest US military base on the backsteps of the USSR?

-G

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Notes on Monetary Standards

I believe that it should be noted somewhere that all the money listed in this article is in gold-backed dollars and gold-backed yen. It would also be helpful if there were some comparison of this to current dollars. 219.163.12.72 10:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Oscar_the_Grouch

[edit] Parties of SFPT

"Thereby, China, not being a party on the treaty, was legally prohibited to be benefited from the sovereignty of Taiwan according to Article 25 in the treaty."

The Treaty of Taipei repeated the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco. I don't see how this statement holds. --Jiang 05:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.

First of all, there is a clear definition of the parties of SFPT.

SFPT Article 23 (a)The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which sign it, including Japan, and will come into force for all the States which have then ratified it, when instruments of ratification have been deposited by Japan and by a majority, including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power, of the following States, namely Australia, Canada, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The present Treaty shall come into force of each State which subsequently ratifies it, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

SFPT Article 25 For the purposes of the present Treaty the Allied Powers shall be the States at war with Japan, or any State which previously formed a part of the territory of a State named in Article 23, provided that in each case the State concerned has signed and ratified the Treaty. Subject to the provisions of Article 21, the present Treaty shall not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which is not an Allied Power as herein defined; nor shall any right, title or interest of Japan be deemed to be diminished or prejudiced by any provision of the Treaty in favour of a State which is not an Allied Power as so defined.

Neither China was not part of it.

Secondly, Treaty of Taipei repeated the conditions of the Treaty of San Francisco with a reason.

SFPT Article 26 Japan will be prepared to conclude with any State which signed or adhered to the United Nations Declaration of 1 January 1942, ........... Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any State granting that State greater advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present Treaty.

Thirdly, when I sign a contract with AT&T, it does not mean I am part of other contracts between AT&T and the rest of the world, even though the terms on the contracts look identical.

Lastly, I put this segment on in order to neutralize the POV about the "Instrument of Surrender of Japan" in the article. No matter whether it holds or not(apparently you would argue it does not), if one side's view is presented to the public, it requires the opposit side to be revealed to make the views neutral. As you mentioned to me last time: Let the readers be the judge. :) Mababa 01:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. Japan did not hand the sovereignty of Taiwan to any foreign power in the San Francisco Treaty. It only renounced its own rights. --Jiang 06:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Sure, I do see what you see. I guess I did not address your question. So may I ask what is your question again?Mababa 06:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You say article 25 prevented China from receiving the benefits conferred to the allies by this treaty. I say that this treaty did not confer any benefits in regards to Taiwan. Japan just renounced sovereignty. The benefit (handing sovereignty over to another power) was never given. --Jiang 06:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw that you removed a huge section from the article. Would you mind spell out your reason and had a discussion before you do that? Otherwise people would just reverting each other.Mababa 06:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Instrument of Surrender is not really relevant. Can you provide examples of where it is being used as an argument over the San Francisco Peace Treaty? Who is saying an armistice takes precedence over a treaty? We can also argue that the Taipei Treaty voided previous agreements with Japan so in that way sovereignty was reverted. --Jiang 06:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Apparently there is misunderstanding. I was NOT the person who initially put the Instrument of Surrender sentence into the article. I just noticed the original sentence on the instrument of surrender was a POV and tried to balance by puting a reverse argument. If you want to remove everything about Instrument of Surrender, I have no opinion. Let's do it. Oh, I just saw you reverted again.Mababa 06:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your argument about reverting Taiwan sovereignty in Treaty of Taipei is null since that treaty has been revoked after normalization between Japan and PRC. Therefore, the whatever in Treaty of Taipei voiding previous agreement is voided. Everything stood previously stands.Mababa 21:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The treaty was never revoked by another one. Both the US and Japan only "acknowledge" (as opposed to "recognize") the PRC claim over Taiwan. This aside, Japan can be said to have recognized the PRC as the ROC successor state, allowing the treaty to hold. --Jiang 00:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please refer to the talk page in Treaty of Taipei. I have offered the evidence that it was PRC asked Japan to revoke Treaty of Taipei. Japan delightfully abrogated it in 1972 right after normalization with PRC. There is no doubt in the history that Treaty of Taipei is gone forever. It does not hold.Mababa 07:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. Japan did not hand the sovereignty of Taiwan to any foreign power in the San Francisco Treaty. It only renounced its own rights. --Jiang 06:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not see this previously. This is a big mistery. Where did Taiwan sovereignty go? Yes, the treaty was silent on Taiwan sovereignty, i.e. whoever occupying there gets to continuing their occupation but not officially gets the sovereignty. That's why people invoked the Laws of war and developed the Taiwan cession model to tackle the big mistery in the international laws.Mababa 02:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is said that soveriegnty was deliberately vague because the US had the 7th fleet in the Straits then. If it wa explicitly announced that Taiwan was China's they'd be admitting that they were interfering in another country's internal affairs.

[edit] Removed complicated text

I see no extra value of using quotes instead of simplifying text in a couple of sentences. (my edit). An encyclopedia is designed to be short and to the point. the quotations, especially the first one, was just plain confusing--Jiang 05:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for comment. Since it makes people wonder why China were not invited to the conference, I just thought that we might be able to explain a little bit. Not really necessary for the article, though. Thanks.Mababa 06:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Name of article

THe name of the article is confusing- what's wrong with naming it the Treaty of San Francisco? There are TWO treaties of peace with Japan- which makes this article extremely ambigous. This article even has a link to the Treaty of Taipei but named "The Treaty of Peace with Japan! I say we change the name of this article to the Treaty of San Franciso, point "The treaty of Peace with Japan to a disambiguation page (with links to both the Taipei and San Fran treaties) What do the rest of you folk think? On the meantime, I'm changing the name of the link to the "Treaty of Taipei" and just putting in treaty -User:Borisblue

[edit] Note on Senkaku and Taiwan disputes

Since I'm a partisan on this dispute, people need to watch my edits, but having said that....

It's really important to try to at least state the different arguments on these issues. The reason I made the edits that I made was that the original text seemed to imply that the issue was one-sided whereas both sides have some very good legal arguments to justify their positions. The basic situation is that IMHO both Senkaku and the Taiwan disputes are going to be impossible to resolve via a reading and interpretation of legal documents because the drafters of the documents were aware of the disputes and were very, very careful to draft the documents in a way that made the situation ambiguous.

Roadrunner 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The current article says: In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryūkyūs occurred along with the ceding of control over the nearby (uninhabited) Senkaku Islands without taking a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).

This is totally incorrect.

The United States Military Goverment (USMG) had jurisdiction over the Ryukyu Island group according to SFPT Article 4b. Under military law and the laws of war, "military government continues until legally supplanted." A (Japanese) civil goverment for the Ryukyus then supplanted USMG as of May 15, 1972. The Senkaku/Tiaoyutai island group was included in the territorial definition of the Ryukyu Island group according to the determination of the principal occupying power (United States of America, as per SFPT Article 23a). In other words, the Senkaku/Tiaoyutai group has already been returned to Japan as of May 15, 1972. Again, under military law and the laws of war, any disputes over any "territorial boundaries" in relation to geographic entities encompassed in the scope of the treaty will be determined by the principal occupying power. The United States is the principal occupying power and the United States' announced position is that the Senkaku/Tiaoyutai group was returned to Japan as of May 15, 1972 as part of the Ryukyus.

To elaborate further, the Republic of China has no claims to the areas of "Formosa and the Pescadores", much less the Senkaku/Tiaoyutai group. "Formosa and the Pescadores" were Japanese territory until April 28, 1952, and the SFPT did not award the sovereignty of these areas to the ROC. Additionally, as other posters have pointed out, not being a signatory to the SFPT, the ROC can gain no benefits thereof. Moreover, the ROC National Assembly has never passed a resolution which would serve to incorporate "Formosa and the Pescadores" into ROC territory, and that is the specific requirement of Article 4 of the ROC Constitution. Hence, it is very very clear that without "territorial title" to the areas of Formosa and the Pescadores, the ROC on Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Additionally, "Taiwan" (as spoken of in the Taiwan Relations Act), and over which the so-called Taiwan governing authorities exercise effective territorial control, does not include the Senkaku/Tiaoyutai group.

The PRC likes to claim jurisdiction over Formosa and the Pescadores, Senkaku/Tiaoyutai group, etc. based on the successor government principle, but such an argument quickly collapses when we realize that the ROC never had sovereignty over these areas in the first place. Hmortar 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for the numbers in the two tables

Overall, very little sources were cited in this article. Would someone please reference the appropriate publications that would augment the figures?--144.189.5.201 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)