Tokyo, October 30, 1958

GIST OF TALES SEVENTEENTH SESSION SUB-COMMITTEE ON VESSELS, COMMITTEE ON KOREAN CLAIMS

1. Time and place:
3:00 p.m. - 5:10 p.m. October 28, Room 411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side:
Mr. LEE, Ho
Mr. CHOI, Kyu Hah
Mr. CHIN, Pil Shik
Mr. CHEE, Chul Keun
Mr. MOON, Chul Soon
Mr. ROH, Jae Won
Japanese side:
Mr. AWASAWAS, Kazuo
Mr. TAKANO, Tokichi
Mr. YABE, Masanobu
Mr. HANDA, Go
Mr. TSUCHIYA, Minao
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. AWASAWA:
During the previous meetings of this Sub-committee, we have exchanged views on the legal basis for the Korean claims for return of vessels under Agenda item "A". As for the Japanese side, we wished to make clear the positions of both sides. It is the view of the Japanese side that the fact that a long time has passed and situations changed during the years should be put into consideration in the settlement of this problem.
As for the Korean stand in this regard, may I understand that the Korean claims for the return of vessels is based on the SCAPIN No.2168 and Ordinance No.33 of USAMGIK?
Mr. LEE:
That is right. We discussed at the previous meeting on this matter, and also enough discussions had been made at the first and second Korea-Japan Talks on the legal basis concerned. Therefore, I do not see any more necessity to repeat the same argument. What we must do here and now is to proceed with the substantial discussions for the return of vessels.
Mr. AWASAWA:
As has been repeatedly made clear, the position of the Japanese Government is that SCAPIN was effective between SCAP and the Japanese Government, and Korea has no place therein. Besides, since SCAPIN was issued during the time of Allied Occupation, it holds no more legal power after the coming into force of the Peace Treaty. Therefore, I would like to be informed of any concrete legal basis on the part of the Korean side for its claims under Agenda "A".
Mr. LEE:
As regards your insistence that SCAPIN has nothing to do with us on the assumption that it stood only between SCAP and the Japanese Government, I can not agree with you, because SCAPIN No.2168 was issued on the basis of USAMGIK Ordinance No.33 and the Japanese Government recognised the disposition of the property concerned by the U.S Military Government, under Article 4,(b) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and, under Article 21, Republic of Korea is entitled to the benefit of the said article. As to your view that SCAPIN has a lost its validity after the Peace Treaty, I like to point out that the Japanese Government assumed obligation to return the vessels to the Republic of Korea by the SCAPIN under reference. It did not fulfill its obligation despite the fact that the Korean Government had repeatedly demanded for the return of the vessels. Therefore, as long as the Japanese Government has not carried out its obligation, there exist the obligation for Japan and the right for Korea regarding the vessels under reference.
Mr. TAKANO:
According to Article 4, (b), such Ordinance was applied only to the properties in Korea, and, therefore, such ordinance has no direct relations with SCAP or Japanese Government.
Mr. LEE:
The issuance of SCAPIN No.2168 had legal bearings on Ordinance No.33, and their effects were equally recognized by the Japanese Government under Articles 4, (b) and 21 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Furthermore, the legal location of a vessel is its registration.
As to the basis for our claims, under SCAPIN No.2168, we can point out two grounds: SCAPIN No.2168 has legal bearings on Ordinance No.33, and dispositions under Ordinance No.33 were recognized by Japan under articles 4(b) and 21 of the Peace Treaty. As to the SCAPIN No.2168 itself, the Japanese Government assumed obligations to return the vessels under reference by the issuance of the SCAPIN and there has been no change in the status of the obligation.
Mr. TAKANO:
I should like to make it clear that, under Article 4(b), the Japanese Government only recognized the validity of the dispositions of properties made by the military governments concerned, and Japanese Government recognized nothing more or less than what was stipulated in the said article.
Mr. CHOI:
Both sides exhausted arguments on this matter, and we have exchanged enough views now as well as in the past. Further, past records contain enough of what was said and others on this matter. We must, therefore, as Mr. LEE said, adhere to the committee's works of proceeding with substantial discussions on the agenda "A", I would like to add that, at the second session of the Vessels Conference held in 1951, both sides exchanged copies of relevant notes of SCAP memoranda. Our deiegation at that time, showed to the Japanese side a copy of note which SCAP sent to the Korean Government, in which SCAP clearly stated that SCAPIN 2168 had legal bearings on USAMGIK Ordinance No.33,
Further, if the Japanese Government had fulfilled its obligations by returning those vessels to Korea, there would not have been any necessity to repeat the legal argument regarding the matter. In this connection, we have never ceased to claim the return of the vessels under reference. In order to finalize the problem, we must enter into substantial discussions on agenda A.
Mr. TAKANO:
It is regrettable that the Japanese stand on this matter is not received by the Korean side. But I would like to state that SCAPIN No, 2168 holds no legal validity now, and the recognition of the validity of the dispositions of the property made under Ordinance No.33 has its limits as is prescribed in the Article 4(b) of the Peace Treaty.
Mr. LEE:
It is also very regrettable that the Japanese side is not inclined to agree to it that the obligations once imposed on the Japanese Government should be fulfilled.
As regards the interpretation of Article 4(b) of the Peace Treaty, it is the position of the Korean side that the Ordinance No.33 itself is the disposition of property, and thus the Japanese Government had recognized the validity of such disposition under the said article of the Peace Treaty,
Mr. TAKANO:
We hold the view that the Ordinance itself cannot be the disposition of property in view of the wording of Article 4(b) of the Peace Treaty.
Mr. CHOI:
As regards Ordinance No.33, our view is that those vessels which were registered in Korea rightfully fell within the scope of Ordinance No.33, and were thereby included into those assets transferred from the United States Government to the Korean Government by terms of the Agreement on Initial Financial and Property Settle ment Between the Government. of the United States of America and the Republic of Korea of September 20, 1948. Therefore, the ownership of vessels in question had been duly transferred to the Korean Government. What Japan should do now is to execute the return of vessels to their rightful owners, and Japan had recognized the effect of the disposition of the U.S. Military Government under Article 4(b) of the Peace Treaty.
Mr. LEE:
Now, we are doing just the repetition of the legal argument of which we have already made clear the basis of our claims. We should enter into the substantial discussions for the implementation of Agenda item A, for which I hope the Japanese side will cooperate with us. I also would like to add that more than 6 months have passed since we started the committee works but we were not able to achieve any substantial result during the period.
Mr. TAKANO:
We, too, well know that we should carry out the committee works more quickly, but I must say that the discussions on the legality of the claims are also a part of the substantial discussions concerned.
Mr. LEE:
As the legal basis on this mattsr is quite clear, it is my belief that there would be no more necessity for any further discussions. But, for your better grasp of the points thereof, I would like to reiterate (1) that USAMGIK Ordinance No.33 itself is the disposition of the property concerned, and, by virtue of Articles 4(b) and 21 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Japanese Government had recognised the validity of the disposition thereof and that the Japanese Government had assumed obligations under SCAPIN No.2168 to return the vessels under reference to the Republic of Korea, and, as the Japanese Government has not fulfilled its obligations, no change of situation whatsoever has been brought about in connection with this obligation on the part of the Japanese Government.
Now, as to the date for the next meeting, let us meet again on October 31, coming Friday.
Mr. AWASAWA:
Due to other business especially in connection with the Diet, we cannot but propose to hold the next meeting on November 4, next Tuesday.
Mr. LEE:
If so, no objection.
(Before the meeting was adjourned, the Sub-committee had agreed to the joint press release which reads: "The Sub-Committee on vessels continued substantial discussions on vessels, and it was decided that the next meeting would be held at 3:00 p.m. on November 4, 1958.")

- The end -