How was the invasion of Japan by the USSR "legal" when the two had a neutrality pact dating to 1941 and Japan didn't commit any acts of war against the USSR? The USSR violated article two of the pact. The USSR had a neutrality pact with Japan and Japan had not violated it. The violation of such was a violation of international law. .
1. The USSR signed under neutrality.
2. Japan didn't commit any acts of war against the USSR.
3. The USSR invaded Japan.
4. Thus the invasion is illegal.
Q: Find the flaws in the logic.
5. I don’t know your purpose. I asked you, but you are not quoting the law yet. I don’t know what could be your goal here. There are such things as common sense and basic logic. You are trying to impose that international law is denying them. If it is it is defying itself.
Since you have found the source, it clearly explains that The USSR did not violate the law, and moreover it did not violate Article 2. You certainly read the source – didn’t you? If you did not, you were only cherry picking lines that could fit to your absurd points. If you did, you then decided to go into an intentional deception. In either case you are a disappointment.
The allied powers, including the USSR generally established the International laws. There are well known historical facts. Neither the US nor GB, nor any of the allies accused the USSR of violation of laws when it invaded Japan, no they could think about a slight possibility that such an idea could come to somebody’s mind. How does your mind work? Who are you and what is the purpose of your existence?
From your own source:
6. “The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.
In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.’’
No law, no treaty has in its goal achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.
The flaw is : Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR, thus 2. is a false premise.
Answer: 1. 2 . 3. are all fallacies of composition. It is all flawed
Not a treaty but a wartime committment that was never formalized in the form of a treaty .
7. Again you are making up a non-sense. What is ‘’the form of a treaty’’? How is it different from a wartime commitment? ¼ of my contracts are not signed, and ¼ of that ¼ are not even on paper.
Furthermore, you may occupy land in belligerant occupation PENDING the final status being determined in a treaty, but failing a treaty, annexation is illegal. .
Again, what law are you referring to, making up the non-sense? The land in the question may be said to be pending the final status. What treaty did ever the USSR enter in and fail?
Not illegal because it is a treaty that was signed by Japan as well as a large number of allied powers. However, there is nothing about annexation of territory. Japan surrendered claims to various territories, but sovereignty over them was not assigned to any nation, a critical element in accordance with international law to effect the state to state transfer. .
Again you are making things up, you are claiming that there are territories formerly claimed by Japan that now have no sovereignty. What are those territories? What does mean ‘’claims’’ to various territories?
Were the territories in the question – Japan or they were claimed by Japan? Did the USSR invade Japan or territories claimed by Japan? You are fond of verbal fallacies.
“ several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States” – is not annexation? Can you understand that there is some common sense that shouldn’t be broken? Whatever are the semantics they may constitute a speech, but they do not change the reality behind the words.
‘’The document officially renounces Japan's treaty rights derived from the Boxer Protocol of 1901 and its rights to Korea, Formosa (Taiwan), Hong Kong (a British colony), the Kuril Islands, the Pescadores, the Spratly Islands, Antarctica and Sakhalin Island.’’
If to apply your logic - the treaty of the Boxer protocol is violated…. Weren’t the “claims” of Japan legal according to the Boxer Protocol., if to apply your logic?
Did not the US hold islands in its posession.? Yes, it did. Would it give them back to Japan, if Japan and the USSR signed act of military partnership directed against the US? No. Why then the USSR should act any different?
There is still no provision for USSR annexation. .
Did I say a word about annexation in the quote?
Now you are in the state of denial. If you say THIS is irrelevant to the subject, then I don’t know what could be relevant, - I guess, only your absurd fantasies?
You can see the USSR is actuall acknowledging the need for a specific transfer in the treaty to effectuate a formal transfer of sovereignty according to this argument. The Kuriles (though Japan disputes the islands included in the chain) and southern Sakhalin were indeed "de-claimed" by Japan, but no transfer of sovereignty exists in the treaty. The USSR annexation had no legal basis. .
You just said ”irrelevant”, but you are addressing it? What really do you want from me? What is your purpose?
Where do you see that The USSR is ‘’actual acknowledging the need for a specific transfer in the treaty to effectuate a formal transfer of sovereignty’’ when you are reading the list of Soviet reasons why the treaty is in violation of agreements and purposes previously established? And how does it make the annexation not to have legal basis, when the annexation had happened 6 years before the treaty, and never was denounced? Who are you and what is the purpose of your existence?
Tiaoyutai was a part of Taipei prefecture according to a judicial decision in Tokyo in the 1930s. However, it is quite likely the Allied negotiators and the US officials charged with implementing the peace accord were unaware of this. .
I as well may go into history of the territories, down to the Boxer protocol, but this is really irrelevant and meaningless, as well as your accusation that they were “unaware”.
The USSR NOT signing the treaty was NOT illegal, but the USSR also can't derive any benefits from that treaty. .
Thanks, - you understand – it is not illegal.
Treaty is a contract - in a written or a verbal or any other forms – between two or multiple sides, any entity which does not enter in the contract does not have obligation to follow it, and if it does not follow it, it does mean it violates of a law – national or international. It is Common sense and basic logic.
What benefits did the USSR derive from that treaty? You are fond of verbal fallacies. What actions after 1951 did it ever take on the grounds of the treaty it was not a part of?
No, not illegal. So? It was illegal to annex the territory without the treaty providing a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty. .
Can you prove such a non-sense that absence of a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty in a treaty makes possession of a legally acquired territory illegal?
The annexation happened 6 years before treaty. It was legal – agreed upon the sides - at that time. Absence of a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty in the treaty may be a failure of the treaty, but it does not make the annexation illegal.