Abstract

The United States originally did not specify the extent of “unconditional surrender” to mean only Japan’s military surrender or a full occupation of the country by Allied forces to contain the spread of Communism in East Asia and the Pacific. Japan’s two different uses of the SFPT—as a historical evidence of territorial sovereignty regarding Dokdo and a negation of that very identity regarding the Kuriles—is a symptom of the ambiguity behind “unconditional surrender.” Japan can enhance its positional clarity in the disputes by providing a precise definition of “unconditional surrender” and ascertaining the SFPT’s relevance to this objective. Japan can accordingly assign the SFPT a singular identity as a historical evidence of territorial sovereignty or an official instrument dictating terms of Japan’s surrender, whereby territorial concessions can better be understood as tools to dismantle Japanese imperialism.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call