Abstract
When the United States terminated its seven-year occupation of Japan in 1954, it did so having signed a peace treaty. By contrast, the United States tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Hamid Karzai to sign a Bilateral Security Agreement to accompany the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Even if Karzai had agreed to sign, the draft agreement bears much stronger resemblance to an alliance than to a peace treaty; it does not reference hostilities between the United States and Afghanistan, nor does it include any version of the term “peace treaty.”
Highlights
When the United States terminated its seven-year occupation of Japan in 1954, it did so having signed a peace treaty.[1]
Even if Karzai had agreed to sign, the draft agreement bears much stronger resemblance to an alliance than to a peace treaty; it does not reference hostilities between the United States and Afghanistan, nor does it include any version of the term “peace treaty.”
The absence of peace treaties to conclude the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is emblematic of a larger trend
Summary
When the United States terminated its seven-year occupation of Japan in 1954, it did so having signed a peace treaty.[1]. The absence of peace treaties to conclude the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is emblematic of a larger trend. Three-quarters of nineteenth century interstate wars were accompanied by peace treaties. This number drops to approximately forty percent for the twentieth century as a whole, and to a mere fifteen percent for interstate wars after 1950. Like declarations of war[4] that used to accompany the start of conflict, peace treaties may be falling into desuetude. Peace treaties allow for the normalization of relations. Russia and Japan have certainly been hindered by the absence of a post-World War II peace treaty that would have normalized their relations.[6]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have