Annex

DIFFERENT VIEW OF KOREAN SIDE ON JAPANESE PROPOSAL REGARDING PROBLEM OF PROPERTY AND CLAIMS
Korean side sets forth its different view on Japanese proposal concerning property and claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan, and the gist of explanation thereon, submitted at the preceding session as follows:
It is true, as Japanese side indicated, that the key point for solving the problem on property and claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan lies in how Japan construes the spirit of USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33, which Japan recognized under the paragraph (b) of the Article 4 of the Peace Treaty. Japanese side asserted that the said Military Ordinance No. 33 providing that “Properties of Japan or its nationals in Korea are vested in and owned by the U.S. Military Government in Korea” is not the provision for the acquisition of ownership for confiscation, but the one for that of the trust ownership for custody of enemy property. However, in the above Military Ordinance, there is no such an expression as to justify the view of Japanese side. On the contrary, the Ordinance directly provides for the acquisition of ownership by the U.S. Military Government in Korea which has never been described in the usual enemy property custody act. Accordingly, in view of the subsequent disposition made by the U.S. Military Government in Korea the facts that all those vested properties (including the proceeds) were unconditionally transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea to be used for the benefit of its nationals in accordance with “the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States” dated September 11, 1948, the assertion of Japanese side has no ground.
Herewith, let us, for a while, observe how Japanese assets outside of Japan were disposed of in the Peace Treaty by the Allied Powers.
Firstly, concerning Japanese properties in the Allied countries, it is provided in the Article 14 of the Peace Treaty that to the Allied countries themselves the authorization finally to dispose of them is given and to the private owner, only the right to be granted by their national laws.
Secondly, as to Japanese assets in countries which were at war with any of the Allied Powers, it is provided in the Article 16 of the said Treaty that no authorization to dispose of them is given to the private owner and all of them are transferred to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Thirdly, regarding Japanese assets in the liberated country, such as the Republic of Korea, the Article 4 of the said Treaty has made Japan recognize the disposition by the said Military Ordinance-the disposition by which all Japanese assets in Korea were vested in and owned by the U.S. Military Government in Korea and thereafter transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea. That is to say, in Korea, the Allied Powers took the disposition concerning the said Military Ordinance No. 33, as one of dispositions to let all Japanese assets outside of Japan-proper be non-Japanese all over the world. Accordingly, in all those dispositions, private ownership was just ignored or at least regarded lightly.
Japanese side recognized that though confiscation of its private property in the allied, neutral and the axis countries by their national laws is a violation of the principle of non-confiscation of property owned by the individuals of the enemy country under the international law, it is possible only through Japan’s consent in accordance with the Peace Treaty; while Japan does not recognize disposition of the said property in Korea. Japanese side asserts herself that as it is a violation of the said principle described in the Article 46 of “the Hague Regulation Concerning the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare” that the U.S. Military Government in Korea confiscates the private property in its enemy country under or by its directive, Japan is unable to recognize the said disposition. The reason is that Japan recognizes as valid only the legitimate disposition made by the Occupied Forces under the International Law and does not recognize as legitimate any disposition unauthorized to the Occupied Forces by the International Law.
However, Japan has recognized the USAMGIK Ordinance without any reservation, pursuant to the paragraph (b) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty. Therefore, if the explanation of Japanese side is that though confiscation of those Japanese assets by the enemy property law which is the national law of the United States is a violation of the principle of non-confiscation of private property of the hostile country under the international law, it is only possible because Japan concurred to the Article 14 in the said Treaty, then the disposition, in the case of Korea-the disposition recognized by Japan in accordance with the Article 4 in the said Treaty, -even if the final acquisition of ownership of those Japanese assets by the U.S. Military Government in Korea by or under its Ordinance No. 33 is a violation of the principle of nonconfiscation of private property, has also been legitimately granted by the same reason as in the case of the United States. Japan’s recognition of the paragraph (b) of the Article 4 and its concurrence to the Article 14 and 16 of the said Treaty are same in their nature. Is there any difference between the unconditional recognition of the abovementioned Ordinance No. 33 and the concurrence to Article 14 and 16 of the said Treaty even if dispositions of those properties in the Allied countries by themselves and of those properties in Korea by the U.S. Military Government in Korea were out of the international law?
Furthermore, it can be deemed doubtful that Japanese side, insisting on the importance of the principle of non-confiscation of private ownership described in the Article 46 of the “Hague Regulation”, the principle of non-confiscation of private property of the enemy country and the principle of respecting private ownership prescribed in the Article 17 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” states that these principles are legitimized only by the consent of the Japanese Government and not by that of its private owner, even if private ownership is to be confiscated in all above cases. Because it is also one of demands of these principles not to let the nation dispose of its nationals’ properties against their will. Accordingly, as to those properties outside of defeated countries after the end of war, it is to be rather considered that the principle of disposition to separate such a private ownership from its national nature, even if it is private ownership, from the viewpoint different from the said principles, had already grown up since the World War I and has been established after the world War II. Disposition of all those assets outside of the country is made only to properties located out of its mainland under the higher and more powerful ideal, notwithstanding the thought of respecting private property. In the case of Korea, such a disposition was made only on the property of Japan or its nationals in Korea, and as to the property of Korea or its nationals in Korea or that of Japan or its nationals within Japan Proper, the thought of the said respecting of private ownership was fully maintained. Therefore, our Korean side cannot help expressing its great regret for such conclusion of Japanese side that, without understanding such a historical reality and by very hasty and easy-going interpretation to be convenient for itself, disposition for the final acquisition of ownership under or by the Military Ordinance No. 33 and the unconditional transfer of ownership to the Government of the Republic of Korea are violations of the international law.
In short, all properties of Japan or its nationals in Korea on or after August 9, 1945 were vested in and owned by the U.S. MG in Korea on September 25, 1945, under its Ordinance No. 33 recognized by Japan, pursuant to the paragraph (b) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty and thereafter owned by the Government of the Republic of Korea in accordance with the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States dated September 11, 1948. Accordingly, there is no property of Japan or its nationals in Korea. Therefore, the objective of special arrangement by the paragraph (a) of the Article 4 in the said Treaty is to find out the means and ways for the disposition of property and claims of Korea or its nationals toward Japan or its nationals. The said provision gives such an expression as of the mutual agreement, but it is only because it provides comprehensively both the problem on property and claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan and the problem thereon between the area prescribed in the Articles 2 and 3 of the said Treaty and Japan.
As stated above, it is nothing but an action based on its vested ownership that the Government of the Republic of Korea disposed of those vested properties under its policy.
In the above, the fundamental position of Korean side has been clarified in connection with the view of the Japanese side. However, in short, Korean side cannot but be of such a deep impression that Japanese side, in its elements, has not yet been aloof from the idea of the old relation of domination.
Japanese side asserts its original right and asks for the reaffirmation thereof, based on the idea that it is fair and proper that Japan or its nationals possessed most of these properties in Korea as of August 9, 1945. However, such an assertion may be of implication of bringing forth a new economic annexation and of the request of Japan for a new “slavery condition of Korea” specified in the Cairo Declaration.
This committee is a kind of sub-committee, but the discussion on the problem of property and claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan has to start from being aware of the political significance therein. The paragraph (b) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty was provided in consideration of the political and economic independence of the Republic of Korea in conformity with the paragraph (a) of the Article 2 in the said Treaty. Accordingly, it can be said that embracing a doubt about the said provision is just same as doing so about the political and economic independence of the Republic of Korea.