Japan's territorial claim beyond the post-war arrangements could open a floodgate

Editor's note: Cao Cong, a special commentator for CGTN, is a doctoral candidate at the School of Global and Regional Studies, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Southern Kuril Islands, known in Japan as the Northern Territories, remain a long-standing disputed area between Japan and Russia, left unresolved after World War II (WWII). Fundamental differences over historical claims, postwar arrangements and legal interpretations have kept the territorial dispute unresolved for more than 80 years, making it a persistent thorn in Japan-Russia relations.

Japan claims sovereignty over the chain of four islands, including Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai Islands, citing mainly the 1855 Treaty of Shimoda and the 1875 Treaty of St. Petersburg, which marked the initial peaceful border demarcations between imperial Russia and Japan. However, bilateral treaties concluded in the 19th century are not immune to the major historical changes that followed, still less can they override the international arrangements established after WWII.

Japan's defeat following its militarist aggression and the postwar international order established in its aftermath provide an important historical context for understanding the issue.

The 1943 Cairo Declaration, outlining the Allied anti-aggression policy and territorial goals for defeating Japan in WWII, stated that Japan would be stripped of all islands in the Pacific that it had seized or occupied since the beginning of World War I. The 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, defining the terms for Japan's surrender, stipulated that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out," and defined the limits of Japan's postwar sovereignty.

In the Instrument of Surrender signed in September 1945, the Japanese government pledged to faithfully carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. These documents and commitments constitute an important political and legal foundation upon which Japan was allowed to return to the international community after ending its war of aggression and accepting the consequences of defeat.

It should also be noted that the Yalta Agreement, concluded by the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom in February 1945 to discuss the post-war reorganization of Europe and Germany, also directly addressed the issue of the Kuril Islands, stipulating that they "shall be handed over to the Soviet Union."

Following Japan's surrender, the Soviet Union took control of the islands, a territorial reality that has continued to this day. Later different interpretations emerged over whether some of the islands were part of the "Kuril Islands" and over the legal effect of relevant documents.

Some right-wing forces in Japan are increasingly incorporating the islands issue into their political narrative of "breaking away from the postwar regime." They tend to selectively emphasize historical materials favorable to Japan and promote the notion of the islands as Japan's so-called inherent territory, while deliberately downplaying the profound impact that Japan's war of aggression and eventual defeat had on the territorial order of the region.

The risks posed by such a view of history extend far beyond Japan-Russia relations. Many territorial and maritime issues in the Asia-Pacific have complicated historical backgrounds. If countries are allowed to select the historical point that best serves their present-day political interests and arbitrarily challenge the territorial arrangements established after WWII, even relatively stable regional boundaries and the political order could be drawn into recurring disputes.

For complicated historical and legal disputes, the countries concerned need to seek solutions through peaceful consultation. The key is that the negotiations must respect the basic historical facts and must not be premised on denying the outcome of WWII or reinterpreting the international responsibilities arising from Japan's defeat.

Japan has long emphasized the importance of maintaining a so-called rules-based international order. If rules are to be respected, they should not be interpreted selectively according to Japan's own interests. Emphasizing only those historical documents that favor it while seeking to downplay or reinterpret postwar arrangements that do not support its territorial claims is a selective approach that will not win the trust of neighboring countries.

For more than eight decades since the end of WWII, an important foundation for peace and development in the Asia-Pacific has been the respect for the outcome of the war and the basic international arrangements established in its aftermath. Any attempt to use territorial disputes as a pretext to break free from the constraints of the postwar system and advance historical revisionism and remilitarization is bound to jeopardize peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)