한일회담에 관한 대표단 보고서의 논점
POINTS IN THE MISSION'S REPORT ON KOREA-JAPAN TALKS
(Cable TS-000948, September 26, 1957)
The Japanese side suggested two alternatives on the property claims issue.
I. Alternative one brings little change on the previous position of the Japanese side on the question. To study analytically, however, there are two points of minor change, in connection with the wording "(the U.S. Memorandum) ... does not preclude the same Korean proposal on Korean claims as but forward to the previous Korea-Japan overall talks from being submitted by the Korean side for discussion and settlement at the overall talks to be resumed." The first point is that the wording in question is now connected with the so-called U.S. Memorandum, while the previous draft contained the words of the same effect but without referring to the Memorandum. The second point is that the words in question were previously uttered by the Korean side and agreed by the Japanese side but at this time they were uttered by the Japanese side and agreed by the Korean side. By the first point, it is by virtue of the U.S. Memorandum that Japan have no objection to placing the Korean claims on agenda at the overall talks. But it is very doubtful whether the Korean side really gains some by this change. The second point actually brings nothing, but it may be said that Japan's position on the Korean claims became less negative from psychological view point.
II. Alternative two bring no change on the previously proposed Japanese position from legalistic point of view. In the present draft documents, the U.S. Memorandum refered to in three places - Note Vervale, Agreed Minutes and Joint Communique. If reference to the U.S. Memorandum be avoided in these whole three places, then it would be worth studying. But deletion of the words from Note Verbale or some other has no legal significance so long as the words remain in other parts.
(Cable TS-000948, September 26, 1957)
The Japanese side suggested two alternatives on the property claims issue.
I. Alternative one brings little change on the previous position of the Japanese side on the question. To study analytically, however, there are two points of minor change, in connection with the wording "(the U.S. Memorandum) ... does not preclude the same Korean proposal on Korean claims as but forward to the previous Korea-Japan overall talks from being submitted by the Korean side for discussion and settlement at the overall talks to be resumed." The first point is that the wording in question is now connected with the so-called U.S. Memorandum, while the previous draft contained the words of the same effect but without referring to the Memorandum. The second point is that the words in question were previously uttered by the Korean side and agreed by the Japanese side but at this time they were uttered by the Japanese side and agreed by the Korean side. By the first point, it is by virtue of the U.S. Memorandum that Japan have no objection to placing the Korean claims on agenda at the overall talks. But it is very doubtful whether the Korean side really gains some by this change. The second point actually brings nothing, but it may be said that Japan's position on the Korean claims became less negative from psychological view point.
II. Alternative two bring no change on the previously proposed Japanese position from legalistic point of view. In the present draft documents, the U.S. Memorandum refered to in three places - Note Vervale, Agreed Minutes and Joint Communique. If reference to the U.S. Memorandum be avoided in these whole three places, then it would be worth studying. But deletion of the words from Note Verbale or some other has no legal significance so long as the words remain in other parts.
색인어
- 지명
- Japan
- 문서
- the U.S. Memorandum, U.S. Memorandum, the U.S. Memorandum, the U.S. Memorandum, Note Vervale, Agreed Minutes, Joint Communique, the U.S. Memorandum, Note Verbale