Seokwoo Lee
62 Woodstock Rd.
St. Antony's College
University of Oxford
Oxford OX2 6JF
United Kingdom

Phone: (44) 7715 339 844 (Direct)
Fax: (44) 1865 554 465 (College)
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
        [log in to unmask]


RE: “Interpretation of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers’
Instructions (SCAPINs), and Their Implications on Territorial Disposition
and Boundary Demarcation”


Dear All:

Please accept my compliments. I trust that you are having a rewarding time.

Please find below the Basic Background on the issue: “Interpretation of the
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers’ Instructions (SCAPINs), and Their
Implications on Territorial Disposition and Boundary Demarcation”, and the
question I would like to make an inquiry about.

1. Basic Backgrounds:
Allied to the wartime resolutions, made at Cairo, Yalta, and Potsdam,
certain Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers’ Instructions (hereinafter
“SCAPINs”) also dealt significantly with the territorial dispositions over
the disputed islands in East Asia, including the Kurile Islands and
Liancourt Rocks/Tokdo/Takeshima (hereinafter ‘Liancourt Rocks’). In the case
of the Liancourt Rocks, the General Headquarters of the SCAP gave SCAPIN No.
677 entitled “Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying
Areas from Japan” on January 29, 1946 which stated: “The Imperial Japanese
Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise,
governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or
over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such
areas.” (Art.1) And it further stated that “For the purpose of this
directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan ...
and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands … and excluding …
Liancourt Rocks…” (Art.3)

This instruction is considered one of the significant legal instruments that
could decide the destiny of the Liancourt Rocks, especially in favor of
Korea. Korea continuously maintains that SCAPIN 677 decreed the cessation of
Japanese administration over various non-adjacent territories, including the
Liancourt Rocks, and this is a strong indication of what the Allied Powers
desired to dispose of. In response to this Korean claim, Japan argues that
SCAPIN 677 suspended only Japanese administration of the various island
areas, including the Liancourt Rocks, and it did not preclude Japan from
exercising sovereignty over this area permanently, as the United States also
opined in the same vein.

A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a
bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of
the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil
authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on
Western Honsu. The action of the U.S.-Japan Joint Committee in designating
these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified
according to Japanese interpretation.
The United States recognized that the question of international sovereignty
was outside SCAP’s authority. As SCAPIN 677 itself stated that “Nothing in
this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating
to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8
of the Potsdam Declaration,” (Art.6) the United States also pointed out that
in all SCAPINs to the Japanese Government regarding authorization of areas
for Japanese fishing and whaling which were established under SCAP, there
appeared a statement providing essentially that “the present authorization
is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of
national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the
area concerned or in any other area.” (SCAPIN No. 1033: Area Authorized for
Japanese Fishing and Whaling, 1946/6/22, Art.5)

During my previous field trips to the U.S. National Archives, I could locate
one document, which did not show the author, date, and related institute of
the report. The report is “Summaries of FEC Policy Statements and Certain
SCAP Directives to the Japanese Government, with Proposals for Disposition
in the Peace Settlement with Japan” regarding the relationship between
territorial questions and SCAPIN 677, to the effect that it “defines present
area of Japanese jurisdiction and provides a starting point for decisions on
details of territorial adjustments.”

2. Questions:
What are the legal implications of the SCAPINs, in particular SCAPIN 677, on
Territorial Disposition in East Asia after World War II? Is there any case
in law that dealt with the legal implications of the post-war administrative
directives on territorial disposition and boundary demarcation?

While looking forward to hearing from you soon, please accept the assurances
of my highest regards.

Sincerely,

Seokwoo Lee
Oxford



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp