-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Russian patrol kills Japanese fisherman
- Thread starter Albatross
- Start date
kage69
Lifer
While I think the Russians have always been a bit pushy concerning their borders, according to them the fishing vessel tried to ram the Border Patrol vessel. If that's the case then they were warranted in opening fire I believe. Keep in mind too that international dispute aside, crab fishing there is illegal. If the Japanese boat had been following the law this wouldn't have happened.
That being said, I do believe the islands rightfully belong to the Japanese.
That being said, I do believe the islands rightfully belong to the Japanese.
kage69
Lifer
That seems a little harsh, but I agree with you - Japanese fleets (Chinese as well now) are flat out brutal to global fisheries. What's the ratio, Japan consumes one third of all the seafood in the world? Seems every modern society chooses to believe there is no such thing as a finite resources. 😉
I'm reminded of a certain Greenpeace amateur video where their boat actually rams a Japanese whaler hunting in illegal waters. Japanese crew start lobbing butcher knives at the activists!
No doubt. If we're looking into growing choice beef steaks in a dish, then it stands to reason the same can be done with tuna steaks. MMmmm, meat that has never come into contact with waste or pollution, sign me up...
Albatross
Platinum Member
yes it`s a mess.but practically,the only reason Russia got those islands is that it oportunistically entered the war in last days and japan had no friend in the US.
"The treaty does not formally state which nations are sovereign over these areas"
in the wiki for the Treaty of San Francisco
theeedude
Lifer
I think Japan missed the opportunity to get the best deal when Russia was weak and broke in the 90's. Now Russia is planning to spend a lot of money to develop those islands, and then, as Putin likes to say Japan will get "ears from a dead donkey" instead of Kurils. Not to mention, Japan and China will compete for access to Russia's natural resources, so confrontation with Russia will just end up leaving them out in the cold, literally and figuratively.
theeedude
Lifer
Yep, If Japan gave up any claim to those islands, then they are definitely not Japanese, and since Russia is the only one legitimately claiming them, they are indeed Russian. And if Japanese are going to poach in Russia's territorial waters, and then try to run away from Russian patrol boats, they accept the full consequences of their illegal actions, including accidents like this.
Albatross
Platinum Member
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2316501,00.html
The Soviet Union invaded the Japanese-held southern portion of Sakhalin island and the southern Kurile islands in the weeks after the Japan?s surrender on August 15, 1945, and 17,000 people expelled. The incursion is still regarded in Japan as a gross act of treachery that flouted the Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco
Article 77b of the Charter of the United Nations, which applies trusteeships to "territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War."
Article 3 of the treaty formally put the Ryukyu Islands, which included Okinawa, and the Amami, Miyako, and Yaeyama Islands groups, under U.S. trusteeship. The Amami Islands were eventually ceded back to Japan on December 25, 1953, and in 1969 U.S.-Japan negotiations authorized the transfer of authority over the Ryukyus to Japan to be implemented in 1972. In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryukyus occurred
The Soviet Union refused to sign the Treaty of San Franscisco. No separate peace treaty has been signed with Japan even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991
_______
even the US was attacked by Japan,it gave back all the islands.not so with russia,everybody knows that russia needs more land.next time,do your own homework.
The Soviet Union invaded the Japanese-held southern portion of Sakhalin island and the southern Kurile islands in the weeks after the Japan?s surrender on August 15, 1945, and 17,000 people expelled. The incursion is still regarded in Japan as a gross act of treachery that flouted the Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco
Article 77b of the Charter of the United Nations, which applies trusteeships to "territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War."
Article 3 of the treaty formally put the Ryukyu Islands, which included Okinawa, and the Amami, Miyako, and Yaeyama Islands groups, under U.S. trusteeship. The Amami Islands were eventually ceded back to Japan on December 25, 1953, and in 1969 U.S.-Japan negotiations authorized the transfer of authority over the Ryukyus to Japan to be implemented in 1972. In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryukyus occurred
The Soviet Union refused to sign the Treaty of San Franscisco. No separate peace treaty has been signed with Japan even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991
_______
even the US was attacked by Japan,it gave back all the islands.not so with russia,everybody knows that russia needs more land.next time,do your own homework.
Good for the US, it was their own decision, the USSR decided not to give the islands back.
p.s. I don't see countries jumping on their right to return lately. hehehe. Do your own homework, Times article is not a legal document interpretation.
August 8, 1945 - U.S.S.R. declares war on Japan then invades Manchuria.
October 24, 1945 - United Nations is born.
AFAIK, UN charters don't have retroactive jurisdiction.
Albatross
Platinum Member
first you say:
What do you mean "stole" Kurils? Japan gave up their ownership of all Kuril Islands per Treaty of San Francisco after WWII
The Soviet Union refused to sign the Treaty of San Franscisco
then you come with this meaningless stuff:
August 8, 1945 - U.S.S.R. declares war on Japan then invades Manchuria.
October 24, 1945 - United Nations is born.
AFAIK, UN charters don't have retroactive jurisdiction.
so what?
Albatross
Platinum Member
russia didn`t recognize the treaty which said japan renounced that islands.in soviet eyes they just took those island by force.moreso,that UN charta specifically refers to territories " which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War" so in this case retroactive jurisdiction does apply.
"Russia claimed them as result of WWII operations":exactly.and since japan and russia are still at war japan could "claim" them back.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
