A detailed account of the first Japan–Korea talks in 1952, focusing on claims issues, the invalidation of old treaties, cultural property restitution, and the legal confrontation over whether past treaties were “null and void” or merely “ineffective,” including the India–Britain property precedent cited by Japan.

June 8, 2016

The following continues from the previous chapter.
All emphasis in the text other than the heading is mine.

The First Round of Talks
The first round of talks was held from February 15 to April 25, 1952.
The agenda included issues such as claims, the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty (the issue of invalidation of old treaties), and the return of cultural properties.

At the first Claims Committee on February 20, 1952, the Korean representative, Lim Song-bon, stated that “Korea, as a state liberated from Japan, and the Allied Powers, which achieved victory in the war against Japan, can acquire the property of the Japanese government and Japanese nationals in similar ways,” warning Japan that the Japan–Korea talks would depend on whether Japan accepted this claim.
Korea asserted that it possessed rights equal to those of the Allied Powers and justified the confiscation of Japanese property remaining on the Korean Peninsula.
Korea cited as the basis for its claims Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which stipulated that “Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused during the war,” as well as the rights of each Allied Power to seize and dispose of Japanese property, seeking to gain benefits from Japan by positioning itself as a member of the Allied Powers.

At the first Property Claims Committee on February 21, 1952, the Korean side presented in the outline of the Korea–Japan Property and Claims Agreement that “old books, works of art, antiques, other national treasures, original map plates, and bullion and silver brought from Korea should be returned.”
On February 23, the Korean side defined these as having been “removed by unnatural methods, such as seizure, against the will of the Korean people.”

At the fourth Basic Relations Committee on March 5, 1952, Korea submitted a “Draft Basic Treaty between the Republic of Korea and Japan,” the Article 3 of which stated that “the Republic of Korea and Japan confirm that all treaties concluded between the former Korean Empire and Japan before August 22, 1910, are null and void.”

At the fifth Claims Committee on March 10, 1952, when the Japanese side stated that India, even after independence, had recognized British property within India, the Korean side responded that “Korea was liberated because Japan surrendered unconditionally in the Pacific War, and therefore the relationship between India and Britain is different,” arguing that India, which became independent under an agreement with Britain, and Korea, which was liberated as a result of Japan’s defeat, were fundamentally different, and that Korea became independent as a result of opposing Japan.

At the fifth Basic Relations Committee on March 12, 1952, the Japanese side requested deletion of the clause, stating that “since all treaties and agreements between Japan and the Korean Empire have already ceased to exist, inserting such a provision is meaningless.”
The Korean side maintained that “treaties prior to 1910 were concluded against the will (the collective will of the nation) and therefore must be retroactively invalidated,” while also acknowledging that there were theoretical legal problems with this position.

Japan argued that since the former Korean Empire had ceased to exist as a subject of international law, the Republic of Korea was a separate state with no continuity, and that it was meaningless to now raise the invalidity of treaties that had already ceased to exist.
In response, Korea claimed that the Republic of Korea was the successor state to the Korean Empire, asserting that “even if not on the Korean Peninsula, the nation continued overseas, as stated in the March First Declaration.”
However, the Korean Empire ceased to exist in 1910, while the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was established in Shanghai in 1919, and there was no continuity between the two; moreover, the claim that “treaties prior to 1910 were against the collective will of the nation” was not based on factual evidence.

At the sixth Basic Relations Committee on March 22, 1952, Japan submitted a “Draft Treaty of Friendship between Japan and the Republic of Korea.”
Korea requested the deletion of Article 1, which stated, “in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and in a manner responsive to good-neighborly relations between the two countries.”
The Korean representative, Lim Song-bon, also stated with regard to the example of Britain and India that there were fundamental differences between Japan–Korea and Britain–India relations, emphasizing that India was a dominion of the British Empire that became independent with Britain’s consent, and that Korea had not consented to annexation by Japan.

At the seventh Basic Relations Committee on March 26, 1952, Japan proposed that the existing “treaties and agreements are at present ineffective,” but Korea insisted that they should be regarded as “null and void from the beginning.”

At the eighth Basic Relations Committee on April 2, 1952, the Japanese side included in the preamble the wording that “all treaties and agreements concluded between Japan and the former Korean Empire are ineffective in the relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.”
While Japanese records state that “agreement was reached on all articles except that the Korean side attached a reservation to part of Article 1,” the Korean record, Brief Notes on the Japan–Korea Talks, states that no compromise was possible regarding the “issue of invalidation of old treaties.”
However, parts of the Korean record have been unnaturally deleted.

At an informal meeting on the same day, April 2, 1952, between Matsumoto Shun’ichi and Representative Ryang, no objections were raised by Korea when the Japanese side presented a revised proposal.
At informal meetings between Matsumoto Shun’ichi and Representative Ryang from April 16 to 18, 1952, the Korean side stated that deliberations could not proceed unless Japan renounced its claims to property left on the Korean Peninsula.
At an informal meeting on April 21, 1952, between Matsumoto Shun’ichi and Representative Kim, the Korean side reopened the issue of the preamble to the Basic Treaty and demanded the wording “null and void,” while the Japanese side countered that “ineffective” was “the best possible formulation, and this point is absolutely non-negotiable.”
Representative Kim argued that within the Korean government there had also been hardline opinions advocating replacement with “illegal.”

This manuscript continues.