THE ROLE OF ISLANDS ON THE LAW OF THE SEAS - Ivanna Castro

Vista previa del material en texto

UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE YUCATÁN
Facultad de Economía 
Licenciatura en Comercio Internacional
“ADA. The role of islands on the law of the seas”
Seminario de Derecho Marítimo
Regina Guadalupe Carrillo Domínguez
Ivanna Montserrat Castro Caballero
María Gabriela Euan Segovia
Ximena Dariana Ramírez Banda
Individual part: Ivanna Castro
Based on the UNCLOS definition of an island, discuss whether or not the Isola delle Rose could be considered an island under international law. Consider factors such as its size, shape, and ability to sustain human habitation or economic life.
An island is characterized as a landmass that's encompassed by water and isn't huge sufficient to be considered a landmass. In any case, the lawful definition of an island can be more nuanced, and there are different variables that will be considered, such as the measure of the landmass, its perpetual quality, and its capacity to bolster human residence.
Within the case of the Republic of Rose Island, it was a man-made structure that was built on a stage within the Adriatic Ocean. Whereas it did have a certain level of lastingness, it was generally little and may not bolster an expansive populace. Moreover, it was not a common arrangement, which may affect its status as an island beneath universal law.
In any case, the Italian government eventually demolished the short-lived Republic of Rose Island in 1969. Hence, it is entirely speculative to ask whether it would have qualified as an island under international law.
Explain how the definition of an island under UNCLOS is related to the Isola delle Rose. How does the legal status of the island impact the actions of the characters in the movie?
The main character Giorgio Rosa declares the island a sovereign nation in the movie in order to avoid paying taxes to Italy and to establish a haven for liberty and independence.
The Republic of Rose Island, however, is regarded by the Italian government as an illegal creation and a danger to their territorial integrity. In response, they sent the military to evict the residents and destroy the island. Questions about the validity of state power and the extent to which individual rights can be preserved in the face of governmental authority are brought up by the struggle between the Republic of Rose Island and the Italian government.
The movie also looks at topics like independence, autonomy, and defiance of authority. In order to strike a balance between their desire for autonomy and the actual realities of political power and international law, they must take into account the island's legal standing as an independent nation.
Discuss the principle of sovereignty as applied to islands and artificial islands. How does this apply to the Isola delle Rose, given that it was an artificial structure built in international waters?
All states that have been recognized are subject to the principle of sovereignty, which is a fundamental idea in international law. Unfortunately, neither other countries nor the international community recognized the Republic of Rose Island, as it was portrayed in the film, as a sovereign state.
The Republic of Rose Island's founder, Giorgio Rosa, proclaimed the island's independence from Italy, but no other nation accepted his claim. As a result, unlike recognized states, the Republic of Rose Island was not subject to the notion of sovereignty. The status of the island was closer to that of a separatist movement or a unilaterally declared independent state.
Within the case of the Republic of Rose Island, its status as an autonomous substance was not recognized by other states, which implied that it did not have the same lawful standing as a recognized autonomous state.
Consider the broader implications of the Isola delle Rose case for international law and the management of natural resources in the oceans. How might this case impact future disputes over islands, rocks, and artificial structures in international waters?
The case of the Republic of Rose Island is an interesting example of a dispute over an artificial structure in international waters. It was a brief experiment in independence, but it brought up significant issues regarding the legitimacy of such structures and the degree to which they can be regarded as sovereign entities.
The Republic of Rose Island case may be used as a precedent in future disputes over islands, rocks, and man-made structures in international waters. What constitutes an acceptable claim to sovereignty over such structures is one important issue that might come up. Giorgio Rosa declared the Republic of Rose Island independent of Italy, but no other country acknowledged his claim. Similar claims of independence or sovereignty may come up in future disputes and may be rebuffed by other states or international organizations.
Another issue that may arise is the question of how to balance the rights of individuals or groups who inhabit such structures with the interests of the surrounding states or the international community. Future disputes may involve similar clashes between the interests of the individuals or groups who occupy such structures and the interests of the surrounding states or the international community.
Discuss the legitimacy of Italy's actions regarding the Isola delle Rose. What justifications did Italy use for its actions, and were they in line with international law? Could the international community have taken steps to prevent them, and if so, what actions could they have taken?
One of the main arguments was the construction of the island violated Italian sovereignty, as it was built within the territorial waters of Italy without permission from the Italian government. Additionally, the Italian government argued that the Republic of Rose Island was a threat to public safety, as it lacked adequate infrastructure and safety measures to protect the inhabitants.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states have sovereignty over their territorial waters, which extend up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. This means that the construction of the Republic of Rose Island within Italian territorial waters without permission could be seen as a violation of Italian sovereignty.
In a hypothetical situation where a state takes similar action against an artificial structure in international waters that is recognized as a sovereign entity, the international community may take steps to prevent such action from taking place.
One of the options for dealing with these kinds of problems is the Diplomatic pressure can take many forms, including statements of condemnation from other states or international organizations, diplomatic protests, and the imposition of economic sanctions.
Another option that the international community could consider is legal action. This could involve challenging the offending state's actions in an international court or tribunal, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 
Finally, in extreme cases where a state is using force against a sovereign entity in international waters, the international community could consider using military force to prevent or stop the aggression. 
Let’s go back to the beginning of our course and remember Thucydides’ phrase “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. Do you think that it applies to this case? What broader implications does this case have for the protection of small states and vulnerable communities in the face of powerful nations?
One of the most suggestions of the case is the significance of universal law and the requirement for a solid legitimate system to secure the sway and autonomy of little states and powerless communities.
Little states and helpless communities regularly need financial and military control to secure themselves against more effective countries. Hence, it is basic that they work at the side of other states and worldwide organizations to construct unionsand mobilize conciliatory and financial assets to ensure their sway and freedom.
Finally, the case of the Republic of Rose Island underscores the need for a more equitable and inclusive international system that gives voice to small states and vulnerable communities.
This can be achieved through reforms to international institutions and governance structures that ensure that the voices and interests of small states and vulnerable communities are heard and considered in international decision-making processes.
CASE OF STUDY “Islas Spratly”
· Rappel des faits
The Spratly islands dispute is a regional maritime territorial sovereignty dispute which involves six countries in the South China Sea – China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Underscored by the prospects of large natural energy reserves, control of strategic global maritime areas, and shifting global power dynamics, the dispute has significant international geo-strategic, economic, political and legal implications. (Gonzales, R. 2014)
China's claim to the Spratlys dates back to their discovery by the Chinese in the second century B.C., which was shortly followed by the establishment of Chinese administration over the islands. Following their initial discovery and use of the islands, the Chinese sent numerous expeditions to the islands, starting in about 111 B.C. In addition to governmental use and exploration of the islands, the Chinese point to the fact that fishermen from Hainan used the Spratlys as emergency or seasonal homes throughout this period. This use would strengthen the Chinese claim. Perhaps more importantly, the Provincial Government of Kwangtung issued five licenses between 1921 and 1932 for the exploitation of the island’s resources.
Actors: China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia
China:
claims all islands in the Spratly region. According to Marcus Hall's "Trouble Brewing in the South China Sea" assessment, China entered the dispute in three phases.(9) The first phase encompassed China's claim to the Paracel Islands (which are north of the Spratly Islands) in the 1950s. The second phase took place in 1974, when China seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam. The third phase began on 14 March 1988, with China's military engagement with Vietnamese forces over the removal of China's flag from a newly claimed shoal. The military clash resulted in China gaining possession of 6 islands in the Spratly region.
China's claim to all islands in the Spratly archipelago stems from its historical presence in the region, dating as far back as the Han dynasty of the 2nd century, BC. (1 According to Marcus Hall's evaluation, China's historical claim is dubious and neglects similar historical claims by Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia. Moreover, China's historical interpretation of its sovereignty rights ignores current international law.
The Philippines:
claim approximately 60 of islands in the Spratly region. Joint exploration with Royal Dutch/Shell Group and Alcorn International near the Palawan Island will raise the Philippines annual oil production from the 3,000 b/d produced in 1991 from 7 wells in the South China Sea.
Vietnam:
claims part of islands in the Spratly region. Vietnam's only oil well in production as of 1991 is the White Tiger field, 400 km west of the Crestone block. In 1992, however, Vietnam hastened leasing to foreign exploration.
Taiwan:
claims all islands in the Spratly region. The Spratly Islands are strategically important to Taiwan for two reasons: (1) important shipping lanes pass through waters surrounding the Spratly Islands; and, (2) the South China Sea, in general, is fish abundant. Thus, Taiwan feels compelled to protect its interests.
Malaysia:
is the earliest oil operator in the sea and claims 3 islands and 4 rock groups in the Spratly region. As of 1992, Malaysia was running 90 oil- producing wells, with $210 million planned for further development between 1992 and 1995.
Brunei:
claims the Louisa Reef in the Spratly region, located adjacent to its coastline. Brunei became an active player in the Spratly disputes only within recent years. Production of its 9 oil fields in the South China Sea hovers around 143,000 b/d.
Indirect Actors:
the United States:
The United States could become involved on two fronts -- commercial and military. U.S. businesses participating in offshore exploration in the disputed islands have a commercial stake in how inter-state tension and disputed claims are resolved. On the military side, the United States has a mutual defense pact with the Philippines, yet analysts indicate the Spratly disputes are unlikely to invoke the pact.(17) The United States would, however, likely take action if maritime activity was restricted in a manner inconsistent with international law.
Japan:
Like the United States, Japan has a vested interest in the resolution of the Spratly disputes. The disputed region is located near Japan's principal oil imports' shipping lanes. Moreover, Japanese companies are involved in some of the exploration endeavors in the disputed territory.
ASEAN members:
ASEAN members are concerned that the U.S. withdrawal of military troops from the region and the Soviet Union's disintegration will leave the region without a counterbalance to China.(18) Although many western analysts view China's military capabilities as obsolete, China's military might in the ASEAN region is still superior, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The Spratlys, in their totality, make up only a land area of about 10 km2, with a total surface area of 10 km2. However, they are scattered over a large part of the South China Sea, comprising an area of between 160,000 and 180,000 km2. Sea, comprising an area that ranges from 160,000 to 180,000 km2 of sea that, in the of sea that, with their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), occupy an extraordinarily large area of more or less 5,000 km2 of sea. extraordinarily large area of more or less 534,000 km2. In other words, an area similar to Spain. (Lalinde, M. 2019)
Figure 1. Spratly Islands Map
Source: Lalinde, M. 2019.
The truth is that all the litigants in the Spratly territorial conflict are aware that this dispute aware that this dispute is a drag on regional relations, especially with China, while at the same time they are aware that there is a growing and beneficial China, while at the same time they are aware that there is a growing and beneficial economic interdependence vital to the development of their respective economies. Economic interdependence is vital to the development of their respective economies.
· Question de droit
This semi-enclosed East Asian Sea, which is bordered by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia, is currently the scene of the most serious latent maritime security conflict in the world. Broadly speaking, it is possible to identify three levels of conflict: the first and most fundamental is that of sovereignty claims over emerged territories, such as the Spratly Islands; the second is that of claims over maritime zones generated by the islands or the surrounding coasts of the coastal states, which mainly affect the sovereignty and jurisdiction rights; the third is that of disputes over maritime zones generated by the islands or the surrounding coasts of the coastal states, which mainly affect the sovereignty and jurisdiction rights; the third is disputes over the use of the oceans and marine resources, the use of maritime routes and the conduct of military activities - under the pretext of free navigation - between coastal states and user states. In the case of the South China Sea, the situation is particularly complicated as the three dimensions are intertwined.
As regards the first category, that of territorial sovereignty, this falls outside the scope of UNCLOS, since the Convention has no mandate to arbitrate on sovereignty issues. In the second and third cases, UNCLOS could play a key role in the management and eventual resolution of disputes. The Convention has a section - XV - thatoffers mechanisms within the reach of the States Parties. However, although UNCLOS has played a role in numerous international summits, such as that of ASEAN, in practice it has never been effectively implemented and tends to be misunderstood or even misused in relation to the South China Sea. This is partly due to the areas in which UNCLOS shows its limitations, which are outlined below.
 First, because of "semi-enclosed maritime cooperation". Article 123 of the Convention stipulates that coastal states bordering a semi-enclosed sea shall cooperate, inter alia, in the management, conservation, prospecting and exploitation of biological resources. However, despite several announcements, there is no institutional arrangement - similar to the Regional Fisheries Management Organization - in the South China Sea. In the same situation is marine scientific research, another example of how this arrangement has not worked in the region.
Secondly, the stagnation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC) in the South China Sea, which, in accordance with the spirit and principles of UNCLOS, ten ASEAN member states, together with China, adopted in 2002. This document seeks to promote cooperation in areas such as: protection of the marine environment; scientific research; safety of navigation and communications at sea; search and rescue operations; and combating transnational crime. However, the Working Groups created by the DOC have not produced any concrete cooperation projects and have been relegated to mere discussion forums.
 Third, UNCLOS guarantees coastal states the right to claim maritime zones of the territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelf as sea areas within national jurisdiction. In the case of EEZs, a coastal state may extend the zone up to 200 nautical miles (nm) from the line of departure, and in the case of the continental shelf, under certain circumstances, up to a limit of 350 nm. By virtue of this, some state parties have claimed extended continental shelves in the South China Sea2. Such claims conflict with the "Nine-Dot Line" that was drawn by the government of the People's Republic of China in 1947 - long before the birth of UNCLOS - and which Beijing considers its Traditional Maritime Boundary Line3. At this point, UNCLOS has exacerbated maritime disputes in the area.
Fourth, it is worth considering the "arbitration" in relation to the South China Sea. Pursuant to Annex 7 of UNCLOS, an ad hoc tribunal was established in 2013 to deal with the case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China. Three years later, the tribunal rendered its arbitral award that upheld almost all Philippine submissions. China did not participate in or recognize the tribunal's rulings. Now, this award gives the United States and its allies another pressure point on China to promote its interests in the South China Sea, and more generally, in the Asia-Pacific. The award's denial to China of maritime EEZ and continental shelf rights for the Spratly Islands, and in particular, its ruling that the Low Tide Rise is not subject to appropriation, has maximized the mobility of the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea. Moreover, the ruling that Mischief Reef belongs to the Philippines opens up the possibility of serious armed conflict in the region.
Finally, there is the key point of "freedom of navigation", a consolidated right enshrined in UNCLOS (Article 87): all countries can enjoy freedom of navigation beyond the territorial sea of a coastal state. Normal navigation in the South China Sea has never been in question. However, the US and its allies have been sending military vessels - including aircraft carriers - to the area in the name of "freedom of navigation", for military purposes and with the aim of containing and confronting China's rise. These actions are increasingly frequent and increase the risk of a military conflict in the South China Sea. It is possible to assert that some Western powers have abused the freedom provision of UNCLOS to pursue other objectives. (Zou, K. 2022)
•	Resolution of the case
Currently, the dispute over the Spratly Islands remains unresolved. Over the years, the countries involved have resorted to a variety of legal and diplomatic actions to address the dispute.
One of the main forums for addressing the dispute has been the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Several of the countries involved have made sovereignty claims based on UNCLOS, but these claims overlap with each other and have been subject to dispute.
In addition, some countries have taken unilateral actions to reinforce their sovereignty claims. For example, China has built artificial islands and established military bases in the disputed area, leading to tensions with other countries.
Diplomatically, bilateral and multilateral negotiations have been conducted among the countries involved, but no agreement has been reached so far. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has tried to mediate in the dispute, but has struggled due to differences among its member countries and their individual interests.
In terms of final decisions, there has been no clear outcome in the dispute over the Spratly Islands. The situation remains fluid and it is difficult to predict how it will be resolved in the future (Monares, D., 2020)
•	Importance and transcendence of the case
The case of the Spratly Islands is significant for the legal status of the islands under international law due to the overlapping sovereignty claims by several countries. This has led to a prolonged territorial dispute that has called into question the applicability of international law in this area and has generated uncertainty about the legal status of the Spratly Islands. In terms of management of natural resources, the dispute has had significant implications. The region is rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, fish, and minerals, and is believed to host some of the world's largest gas and oil reserves. The lack of an agreement on sovereignty has led to uncoordinated and disorderly exploitation and extraction of these resources, creating tensions and raising concerns about the environmental impact. Furthermore, the dispute has brought up the issue of maritime boundaries in the South China Sea. Sovereignty claims have extended beyond the Spratly Islands and have included other archipelagos and maritime areas, generating tensions over the delimitation of maritime boundaries.
Lastly, the dispute has had significant implications for international relations. Tensions between China and other neighboring countries, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, have increased due to the Spratly Islands dispute and have had an impact on bilateral and multilateral relations in the region. The dispute has also attracted the attention of extra-regional powers such as the United States, adding an additional element of complexity to the situation (Thayer, C., 2017). 
In summary, the case of the Spratly Islands is important because it raises key issues about the legal status of the islands under international law, the management of natural resources, maritime boundaries, and international relations. The dispute has generated tensions between the involved countries and has had significant implications in the region and beyond (Hayton, B., 2014)
CASE OF STUDY “The Kuril Islands or the Northern Territories”
· Rappel des faits
The Kuril Islands are a volcanic archipelago administered as part of Sakhalin Oblast in the Russian Far East. The islands stretch approximately 1,300 km. The area separates the Sea of Okhotsk from the Pacific Ocean, and is made up of a small chain of 56 islands stretching between the Japanese island of Hokkaido and Russian’s Kamchatka Peninsula.
Since the final days of World War II, Japan and what was formerly the Soviet Union have remained caught in a territorial dispute which concerns four islands off the northeast coast of Japan: Shikotan, Kunashiri, Etorofu (or Iturup), andthe Habomai group. The Japanese describe the disputed islands as the Northern Territories. The four islands sit off the northeast coast of Hokkaido, the most northern of Japan's main islands, and two of them, Kunashiri and Etorofu, are the southernmost islands in a chain of twenty islands stretching north to the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula. The Russians call this chain of islands the Kuril (or Kurile) Islands. The former Soviet Union occupied the islands at the end of World War II, and since that time Tokyo has argued vehemently for their return to Japanese sovereignty. As is the case in most territorial disputes, the arguments of each side encompass not only legal claims, but also historical, geographical, strategic, and economic assertions. 
The Russian view
Although Moscow disputes the Japanese version of the early history of the islands in question, the main focus of its arguments for sovereignty over the territory is the various agreements made between the Soviet Union and the other Allied powers in the final period of World War II which give Russia sovereignty over the four disputed islands. 
Russia asserts that it had developed all of the Kuril Islands long before Japan had even claimed the island of Hokkaido (now the northernmost of Japan's main islands), an island south of the Kuril chain and on which the Japanese Matsumae clan lived. First, Japanese claims are invalid because between 1711 and 1738 the Kuril Ainu became Russian citizens, and sovereignty over all the islands passed to Russia at that time. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, only a small part of the southern peninsula of Hokkaido was colonized by the Japanese Matsumae principality. Next, in 1798, Japan tried to incorporate all of Hokkaido into its country but was unable to govern it, and a proclamation to that effect in 1834 was "purely nominal." Moscow also argues that one of the two nineteenth century treaties giving Japan control over certain parts of the Kurils was signed by Russia under duress, and that both agreements were later nullified by Japan's unwarranted attack on Russia and subsequent unequal Treaty of Portsmouth ending the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. 
As stated earlier, the Russians in their arguments for sovereignty place the most importance on the several agreements made among the Allied powers near the end of World War II. First, the Yalta Agreement is a "legally binding international treaty." It explicitly stated that the Soviet Union should receive the Kurils and Sakhalin Island upon Japan's defeat, and it incorporated the Potsdam Declaration, which Japan agreed to when it signed its surrender. The Potsdam Declaration established that the Allied powers would determine Japan's post-war territorial boundaries. From the Soviet perspective, in 1945 Japan was irrevocably defeated and signed an unconditional surrender. Therefore, it "must yield all land but its native islands to the World War II allies." Moreover, Soviet repossession of the Kuril Islands acted in the nature of a reprisal against Japanese aggression in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904.
In 1951, Japan formally renounced all title to the Kuril Islands and the southern end of Sakhalin Island in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. During that time, the Japanese Prime Minister did not distinguish Kunashiri and Etorofu Islands from the rest of the Kuril chain, although he did argue that Shikotan and the Habomais were excluded, and therefore, no real misunderstanding existed as to whether the treaty term, "Kuril Islands," included the disputed islands.
The former Soviet Union valued the islands for their strategic military significance as a pathway to the Pacific Ocean, and although the military importance of the disputed islands is presumably less since the break-up of the former Soviet Union, Russia still maintains defensive as well as economic and nationalistic interests in the islands.
The Japanese view
Japan's claim to sovereignty over the four islands is based primarily on the historical argument that these islands are separate from the rest of the Kurils and are inherently Japanese. Tokyo asserts that the Japanese first discovered and explored these islands. Japanese merchants and officials, from the Matsumae Clan of Hokkaido Island, visited and traded with the Ainu, the indigenous population of the Kurils, including the four disputed islands, early in the 1600s, a century before any Russians became aware of the islands. The Ainu later became a Japanese minority. National maps of Japan depicted all of the Kurils, the Northern Territories, and Sakhalin Island in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Geographically, these islands have botanical and climatic conditions similar to the rest of Japan. 
Tokyo also claims that even after the Russians began to inhabit the Kurils, the Japanese prevented them from occupying the disputed islands, and the pre-World War II treaties show that Russian influence never extended below Urrupu Island, which is north of the four disputed islands, until the 1945 invasion. Russians began arriving in the Kuril chain early in the eighteenth century, and subsequently, the Japanese officials on the disputed islands of Kunashiri and Etorofu prevented the Russians from expanding south of Uruppu island to this disputed territory by expelling the last of the Russians from Etorofu in 1788. In 1798, the Japanese surveyed Kunashiri and in 1800, they constructed a sign reading "Etorofu, Japan.". After a number of clashes with the Russians and several discussions initiated by the Russians on designating a border, the Treaty of Commerce, Navigation, and Delimitation was finally negotiated in 1855. The treaty provided as follows: (1) The boundary between the two countries was positioned between the Etorofu and Urrupu islands in the Kuril chain; (2) Etorofu and the islands south of it, including the rest of the disputed islands, belonged to the Japanese; (3) Urrupu and the islands north of it passed to Russian possession; (4) and Sakhalin remained for mixed settlement. In 1875, Russia and Japan signed a treaty exchanging the Japanese part of Sakhalin island for the Kuril Islands north of Etorofu, specifying eighteen islands by name. Following the Russo-Japanese War, Russia "agreed to cede to Japan" the southern half of Sakhalin and its adjacent islands in the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905.
Tokyo argues that the secret Yalta Agreement between the Allied powers and the Soviet Union, which permitted the conveyance of "the Kurile Islands" to the Soviet Union in return for it entering the war against Japan, is "irrelevant. " First, Tokyo asserts, it did not know of the Yalta Agreement when it signed the surrender. Nor was the Agreement mentioned in the Potsdam Declaration which Japan accepted at its surrender, and therefore, Yalta is not legally binding on Japan. Second, Japan asserts that "Kurile Islands" does not include the four disputed islands. In 1956 the United States interpreted the Yalta Agreement merely as a "statement of common purposes" which had no ''legal effect in transferring territories. Although Japan gave up title to the Kuril Islands under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Tokyo continues to maintain that the four disputed islands are distinct from the Kurils. Furthermore, the Soviet Union did not sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty and therefore is precluded from claiming a right under it, especially as it did not name who the beneficiaries of the islands would be.
Japan's interest in the four disputed islands is "a matter of legitimacy and heritage." The territory is considered part of "ancestral" Japanese land, and correct boundaries "mark off that which is Japanese from that which is non-Japanese .... ,"
· Question de droit
· Why The Northern Territories have been under illegal occupation by the Soviet Union, and then Russia?
· Who has legal sovereignty?
· What are the historical rights of each side?
· How many several treaties have been trying to solve the case? 
International pacts
In 1951, the Allies(France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union) and Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty and made Japan give up its rights, title and claim to the Kuril Islands”. Also, the treaty does not recognise the sovereignty of the USSR on them.
With the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration in 1956, the diplomatic relations were restored and improved between the countries and Soviet Russia offered to give away the two islands closest to Japan but was rejected by Japan as these two constituted only 7 percent of the land.
During the final days of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin’s allies began to speak in support of a proposal to cede, or to sell, the islands to Japan at the cost of US $20– 50 billion. During his visit to Japan in 1990, Yeltsin proposed a “five-staged program for settling territorial claims”. The plan consisted of: 
1) officially recognizing the “Kuril problem”, 
2) demilitarizing the islands, 
3) declaring the territory, a zone of free enterprise, 
4) signing a peace treaty and establishing “unified management” over the islands, and 
5) a complete overview of the Kuril issue by a future generation of politicians.
The Neutrality ¿Pact between Japan and the Soviet Union (April 1941) 
The pact placed responsibility upon Japan and the Soviet Union to mutually respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of the other. The pact was to remain in force for a period of five years. If denounced by either Contracting Party a year before the expiration of that period, it shall be considered to be automatically extended for the next period of five years. The Soviet Union declared that they wished to denounce the pact in April 1945, but it remained in effect until April 1946.
Addressing the Eastern Economic Forum on September 12, 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin came out with an initiative to sign a peace treaty with Japan without any preliminary conditions by the year’s end.
At a meeting in Singapore on November 14, 2018, Putin and Abe agreed to step up the peace treaty talks on the basis on the 1956 declaration on ending the state of war. Japan’s Asahi said back then that Abe had pledged that if some of the islands were handed over to Japan, it would not deploy any US bases on them.
The two leaders once again agreed to intensify the peace treaty talks at their meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on December 1-2, 2018. The first round of consultation between the two countries’ top and senior diplomats was held on January 14, 2019. The parties agreed to look at new projects for joint economic activities on the Kuril Islands. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after the talks that Moscow was not going to discuss its sovereignty over the southern Kuril Islands. Two days later, he pointed out that Japan’s territorial claims run counter to the country’s liabilities under the United Nations Charter, which says that the outcome of World War II is not subject to review.
· Resolution of the case
To resolve and maintain peace in the region, several treaties and agreements were signed between Russia and Japan but failed to settle the dispute.
In 1855, the Treaty of Shimoda was signed between Japan and Russia which gave Japan control of the four southernmost islands and the remaining land was given to Russia. After 20 years in 1875, the two signed the Treaty of Saint Petersburg and Russia in exchange for control of Sakhalin Island ceded the ownership of the Kurils islands to Japan. However, Soviet Russia seized the region again at the end of the world war. The Yalta Agreement was signed in 1945 and formalized in 1951 as a treaty of peace with Japan. Under this agreement, the islands were ceded to Soviet Russia and Japanese people were deported and replaced by the Soviets. In 1951, the Allies (France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union) and Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty and made Japan give up its rights, title and claim to the Kuril Islands, but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union’s sovereignty over them. With the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration in 1956, the diplomatic relations were restored and improved between the countries and Soviet Russia offered to give away the two islands (Shikotan and Habomai) closest to Japan. Japan agreed to this and the declaration ended the state of war between the two countries. But the Kuril Islands dispute persisted in the form of interpretation of territorial provisions.
Although negotiations regarding sovereignty over the Kuril Islands have been on and off for many decades, little progress has been made. The dispute continues and Japan still claims historical rights to the southernmost islands and has tried repeatedly to persuade the Soviet Union and, from 1991, Russia to return those islands to Japanese sovereignty. 
Continued military operations by Russian forces are causing simmering tensions to heighten, while Japan’s stance on the invasion of Ukraine could be a potential nail in the coffin for any form of resolution. At some point in time both Russia and Japan have owned the entire chain of Kuril Islands, and it seems unlikely in the current environment that a compromise will be found.
· Importance and transcendence of the case:
Indigenous People of the Kurile Islands
Towards the end of World War II, due to their integration into Japanese society, the Ainu people on the Kurile Islands were almost entirely assimilated into the Japanese population, leaving hardly any pure-blooded Ainu people behind. The remaining few Ainu people on the islands left along with the Japanese population and became scattered throughout Japanese society, eventually leading to their disappearance. Consequently, there are no longer any direct descendants of the original indigenous inhabitants of the Kurile Islands.
Roles and legal pacts that developed the disputes
We want to make a review of the transcendence in each historical time:
Given the constantly changing world, Japan and Russia have a significant role to play in ensuring stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific area. It is unnatural that 67 years have passed since the end of World War II and there is still no peace treaty between Japan and Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to find a solution to the Northern Territories issue and finalize a peace treaty.
1855. The Treaty of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation between Japan and Russia
The Treaty of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation between Japan and Russia peacefully determined the border between the two countries to pass between Etorofu Island and Uruppu Island. This also legally confirmed the border as lying between the Four Northern Islands and the Kurile Islands.
1875. The Treaty for the Exchange of Sakhalin for the Kurile Islands
In accordance with the Treaty for the Exchange of Sakhalin for the Kurile Islands, Japan received all the rights to the Kurile Islands from Russia, in exchange for the cession of the rights on the island of Karafuto (Sakhalin). In this treaty, the Kurile Islands were taken to be a string of 18 islands, Shumushu Island being farthest north and Uruppu Island being the farthest to the south. The names of the Four Northern Islands (Etorofu Island, Kunashiri Island, Shikotan Island, Habomai Islands) were not included. This fact indicates that the Four Northern Islands clearly differentiated from the Kurile Islands, are indisputably an inherent part of the territory of Japan that have never been the territory of any other countries.
September 1951. San Francisco Peace Treaty
Under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands and the south part of Sakhalin over which Japan acquired sovereignty because of the treaty of Portsmouth. However, as made clear by the Treaty of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation between Japan and Russia and the Treaty for the Exchange of Sakhalin for the Kurile Islands, “the Kurile Islands” indicates Uruppu Island and the islands to the north and does not include the Four Northern Islands.In an Aide-Memoire from the Department of State of the US, dated 7 September 1956, it was stated “The United States has reached the conclusion after careful examination of the historical facts that the islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri (along with the Habomai Islands and Shikotan which are a part of Hokkaido) have always been part of Japan proper and should in justice be acknowledged as under Japanese sovereignty” making clear their understanding of the matter. Furthermore, the Soviet Union, not being a signatory to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, is not in the position to interpret the treaty.
Unfortunately, Putin has made no progress in signing a treaty. His attitude toward Japan’s territorial claims is clearly expressed in his repeated statements about the integrity of Russia’s territory and especially in his statement in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on September 3, 1999: “Does anyone say that the government plans to cede the Kurils? We negotiate, we acknowledge the problem, but transfer of the Kurils is out of the question”. With neither side willing to make territorial concessions, the situation is stalemated.
Given that neither the Russian nor the Japanese leadership is willing to take the political risks necessary to resolve the dispute, the status quo is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, this will not prevent the two countries from continuing to strengthen their relationship in other areas, as both sides seek to hedge against the economic and political consequences of China's rapid emergence as East Asia's leading power. As energy trade expands and bilateral security cooperation deepens in the coming years, the World War II territorial dispute will become increasingly irrelevant to both governments and the public. This development, in turn, could allow a compromise solution to emerge in ten to twenty years.
References
	Gonzales, R. (2014). The Spratly Islands Dispute: International Law, Conflicting Claims, and Alternative Frameworks for Dispute Resolution. Las Vegas. Page. 3-4.
	Gorenburg, D. (2012). The Southern Kuril Islands Dispute. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, 226, 1-7.
Hayton, B. (2014). The South China Sea: the struggle for power in Asia. Yale University Press.
	Kaczynski, V. M. (2007). The Kuril Islands Dispute Between Russia and Japan: Perspectives of Three Ocean Powers. Russia's Foreign Policy: Key Regions and Issues, 79.
	Kuroiwa, Y. (2013). Russo-Japanese territorial dispute from the border region perspective. Revista UNISCI, (32), 187-204.
	Lalinde, M. (2019). The Spratly Islands: The conflict that separates China from the countries of Southeast Asia. Chna Politics International Electronic Symposium. Page. 2 – 3. 
	Lyttle, C. (2022, September 8). Where are the Kuril Islands and why are they so important to Russia and Japan? Retrieved from https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/where-are-kuril-islands-important-russia-japan/
	Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2018). Northern Territories issue. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/pamphlet.pdf
	Monares, D. (2020). Hegemonía china sobre islas Spratly: ficción o realidad. Estudios internacionales (Santiago), 52(195), 87-110.
	Quillen, A. (1993). The Kuril Islands or the Northern Territories: Who Owns Them - Island Territorial Dispute Continues to Hinder Relations between Russia and Japan. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1509
	Thayer, C. A. (2017). The South China Sea: Lynchpin of the Shifting Strategic Balance. C3s, last modified March 12. 
The Sasakawa Peace Foundation. (n.d.). Northern Territories issue. Island Studies Information Center. https://www.spf.org/islandstudies/info_library/northernterritories--index.html
Yadav, P. (2022, May 9). Explained: What Is the Kuril Islands Dispute Between Russia and Japan Since World War II Yet. Retrieved from https://www.indiatimes.com/explainers/news/what-is-the-kuril-islands-dispute-between-russia-and-japan-since-world-war-ii-yet-569087.html
Zou, K. (2022). The limits of current legislation in the South China Sea. Dalian Maritime University, China.