• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
link

I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. Russia has illegally annexed Japanese territory following WWII in the absense of a peace treaty between the two. One large part, Japan no longer officially claims, but there are several smaller islands that are at the crux of an ongoing dispute between the two countries.

It will be interesting to see if any progress is made. Japan stands to be a huge customer for Russian natural gas, something definately in Russia's interests as they don't want to be completely dependant on China as a customer for its Far East gas reserves.
 
link

I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. Russia has illegally annexed Japanese territory following WWII in the absense of a peace treaty between the two. One large part, Japan no longer officially claims, but there are several smaller islands that are at the crux of an ongoing dispute between the two countries.

It will be interesting to see if any progress is made. Japan stands to be a huge customer for Russian natural gas, something definately in Russia's interests as they don't want to be completely dependant on China as a customer for its Far East gas reserves.

Ah thanks.

Keep us updated. I hope something good can come from this.
 
Ah thanks.

Keep us updated. I hope something good can come from this.

The subject may be of no interest to you, people calling themselves "us" , yet it is not a reason to troll demonstrating your shared inabilities.
 
link

I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. Russia has illegally annexed Japanese territory following WWII in the absense of a peace treaty between the two. One large part, Japan no longer officially claims, but there are several smaller islands that are at the crux of an ongoing dispute between the two countries.

It will be interesting to see if any progress is made. Japan stands to be a huge customer for Russian natural gas, something definately in Russia's interests as they don't want to be completely dependant on China as a customer for its Far East gas reserves.

Who says "illegaly"? Russia may think it was all legal.

I don't know what makes it to be interesting to you? Do you think Russia moving so agressivly, will make an exclusion for Japan?


Anyway, some info for you - what do you think?
Translated version of http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1052545&ThemesID=436

The current government headed by the country's Prime Minister Taro Aso pogryazlo in battles with the parliamentary opposition, is losing popularity among voters and all the forces trying to rescue from the world financial crisis is still relatively prosperous Japan. On the Russian front, so Tokyo has no room for major initiatives, and most would like at this stage to develop strong personal contacts with the two leaders in Moscow. "We believe that Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin - is firmly and very long time", - explained in connection with the diplomatic source in Tokyo.


Translated version of http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1080905&ThemesID=436

Premier Taro Aso of Japan wants to ask Dmitry Medvedev, as Moscow intends to build relations with Tokyo at a time when economic ties between the two countries are experiencing unprecedented growth, but a dispute over the South Kurils is still not resolved. This issue will be raised as the Russian president at a meeting to be held November 23 in Lima, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Japanese Prime talked about this in the interview, which gave before leaving the capital of Peru, the ITAR-TASS correspondent in Tokyo VASILIYU Golovnin specifically to "Kommersant."

- Japanese-Russian economic relations in recent years to strike their own development. Now they are in the most favorable condition for the whole period of its existence. Last year trade turnover between Japan and Russia exceeded $ 20 billion Thus, for Russia, Japan became the third trading partner among countries of the Group of Eight, after Germany and Italy. Perhaps this year's trade turnover will reach $ 30 billion, while next year it will add the liquefied natural gas, which will be delivered to Japan under the Sakhalin project.

Due to the expansion of economic relations are growing hopes for the future in various fields… .There is more work to conclude an agreement on the peaceful use of atomic energy.
-
- With regard to the automotive industry in Russia has already built assembly plants built by Japanese companies. In the future, is expected to expand the range of the industry by firms which will manufacture in the field components for these industries. There avtomobilestroitelnye company, which started the transportation of the Trans-Siberian railway cars ready made for export to Russia.
-
- - And how you look at the issue of a peace treaty and a dispute over the South Kurils? Do you think that the parties can make a compromise? How could he be?

- Japan and Russia - the important neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the recent Japanese-Russian relations in such formats as the Group of Eight, APEC, UN, Russia and the strengthening of ties with the Asia-Pacific region, the absence of a peace treaty due to the unresolved territorial issue seems really unnatural.
-
- During our meeting with President Medvedev, to be held in the margins of APEC summit, I intend to conduct serious negotiations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable final decision on the conclusion of a peace treaty.
-
As it became known "Kommersant", the Prime Japan Taro Aso at the recent meeting of the APEC summit in Lima with President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev handed over to his son, Ilya gift - a remote controlled flying model of a blue robokota Doraemona, popular cartoon characters and favorite son of the President of the hero. Now in Tokyo working on the idea to put in one of the cartoons on robokote a new character - the presidential cat Dorofeya. The project is seen as an important step in the rapprochement with Moscow.

President of Russia |

January 24, 2009 12:30
Saturday Dmitry Medvedev had a telephone conversation with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso.
Dmitry Medvedev and Taro Aso discussed various practical issues relating to their countries' bilateral cooperation, including in the energy sphere. The successful implementation of joint energy projects in Russia's Far East, projects that hold major regional importance, was highlighted as an example of successful interaction between the private and public sectors.
Both sides expressed their satisfaction with the intensity of Russian-Japanese meetings at various levels and discussed the agenda for contacts in the near future.
 
Who says "illegaly"? Russia may think it was all legal.

It was illegal because in order for territory to be legally transferred from one state to another, it must be done in a properly drafted and ratified treaty in which the transfer is specifically mentioned.

I don't know what makes it to be interesting to you? Do you think Russia moving so agressivly, will make an exclusion for Japan?

Not likely, which is why I don't expect any real breakthroughs to be made.

Anyway, some info for you - what do you think?
Translated version of http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1052545&ThemesID=436

The current government headed by the country's Prime Minister Taro Aso pogryazlo in battles with the parliamentary opposition, is losing popularity among voters and all the forces trying to rescue from the world financial crisis is still relatively prosperous Japan. On the Russian front, so Tokyo has no room for major initiatives, and most would like at this stage to develop strong personal contacts with the two leaders in Moscow. "We believe that Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin - is firmly and very long time", - explained in connection with the diplomatic source in Tokyo.

The Aso government is not popular, that is correct. Again, I don't expect Russia to make any significant concessions nor do I expect any major proposals from Japan save for a renewal of Japan's claims to the Chishima Islands. Karafuto, though also illegally annexed by the Soviet Union and some maps still show it as a disputed territory of Japan, does not seem to be a real part of the dispute between the two countries.

Premier Taro Aso of Japan wants to ask Dmitry Medvedev, as Moscow intends to build relations with Tokyo at a time when economic ties between the two countries are experiencing unprecedented growth, but a dispute over the South Kurils is still not resolved. This issue will be raised as the Russian president at a meeting to be held November 23 in Lima, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Japanese Prime talked about this in the interview, which gave before leaving the capital of Peru, the ITAR-TASS correspondent in Tokyo VASILIYU Golovnin specifically to "Kommersant."

Was there any follow up on the talks in Lima? Any information about reactions?

Japanese-Russian economic relations in recent years to strike their own development. Now they are in the most favorable condition for the whole period of its existence. Last year trade turnover between Japan and Russia exceeded $ 20 billion Thus, for Russia, Japan became the third trading partner among countries of the Group of Eight, after Germany and Italy. Perhaps this year's trade turnover will reach $ 30 billion, while next year it will add the liquefied natural gas, which will be delivered to Japan under the Sakhalin project.

The ecomonic ties are good for both countries. Russia needs a major customer in the Far East other than China to not be completely dependant on a single market. South Korea and Taiwan, while smaller, can also be signifncant export markets for Russian gas.

Due to the expansion of economic relations are growing hopes for the future in various fields… .There is more work to conclude an agreement on the peaceful use of atomic energy.
-

Sounds fine.

And how you look at the issue of a peace treaty and a dispute over the South Kurils? Do you think that the parties can make a compromise? How could he be?

I think the issue is best resolved either by a third party arbitrator OR through the ICJ. Russia's case is VERY weak on that point due to the lack of a transfer provision in a post war peace treaty.

Japan and Russia - the important neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the recent Japanese-Russian relations in such formats as the Group of Eight, APEC, UN, Russia and the strengthening of ties with the Asia-Pacific region, the absence of a peace treaty due to the unresolved territorial issue seems really unnatural.

But Russia just can't sweep aside Japan's concerns over the Chishima Islands and to a lesser extent over Karafuto. (to use the Japanese names for South Kuriles and South Sakhalin respectively)

- During our meeting with President Medvedev, to be held in the margins of APEC summit, I intend to conduct serious negotiations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable final decision on the conclusion of a peace treaty.
-

Again, what was the result of this discussion?

BTW, please proofread the translations you post because there were some areas where the translations were quite flawed and in a couple of places, I couldn't make out the meaning of what was written. Thanks.
 
A few points.

1. In 2/3 of your post you argue/comment on Aso’s statements (interview), I am not to defend or argue Aso. He has politics, and I am not to judge. I am rather quite ignorant of japan.

2. As to legality, it is again your opinion. Aso does not express such. I don’t have mine at all. Japan, Germany, Italy were utterly wrong. They lost. The USSR according to its obligation to the US exterminated Japan on its part. I don’t know if the US included/allowed the annexation in the obligations, but most likely it would be fair for the US not to object.

3. Most likely you are correct, - no confessions on both sides. But. But. But. If the countries go into close business/political mutually beneficial cooperation it – cooperation will include mutually beneficial sharing of the disputed territory. The dispute may become mute.

4. For now the card cannot be played by either side, - it is my opinion. It is positive for Russia and Japan to develop fair and mutually beneficial relation – it is my opinion – it is a win-win situation – it is my opinion. As such relations are developed – they will serve as a base for a reasonable solution of the problem, - or as an alternative they can go on the path of hostilities and confrontation, and that would be the path leading away from any reasonable solution.
In my opinion the both sides do moves for good - in contrast with the US moves towards Russia. A win-win business -is more promising than I will win you will loose business.
5. I use automatic google translation, sorry, whatever you can make, -I cannot spend my time proof reading it.If there is something that is specifically important – rather than getting a general idea – I may try,- but it is the matter of my time.
 
Last edited:
2. As to legality, it is again your opinion. Aso does not express such. I don’t have mine at all. Japan, Germany, Italy were utterly wrong. They lost. The USSR according to its obligation to the US exterminated Japan on its part. I don’t know if the US included/allowed the annexation in the obligations, but most likely it would be fair for the US not to object.

I generally agree with your post, so I will only comment on this.

It is a matter of customary international law that the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty. No such treaty exists between Russia and Japan regarding the Chishima Islands and Karafuto. This is the same concept regarding the illegality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.

You are right that the Axis powers were utterly wrong, but all of the territory transferred from Italy and Germany to other states was provided for in post war peace treaties. The same can not be said regarding Chishima, Karufuto, and other pre-war Japanese territories.
 
I generally agree with your post, so I will only comment on this.

It is a matter of customary international law that the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty. No such treaty exists between Russia and Japan regarding the Chishima Islands and Karafuto. This is the same concept regarding the illegality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.

You are right that the Axis powers were utterly wrong, but all of the territory transferred from Italy and Germany to other states was provided for in post war peace treaties. The same can not be said regarding Chishima, Karufuto, and other pre-war Japanese territories.
You are not linking to ‘’customary international law’’ that ‘’the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty’’ which would be applicable in the situation.

The territory was acquired during the ‘’legal’’ war.

1. Yalta conference. The USSR and allies make a deal – was it illegal?
2. The USSR fulfilled its ‘’legal” obligation towards the US and went to war against Japan. War is usually about acquiring territories. Was it illegal?
3. The US and GB drafted the treaty regarding Japan, where certain territories of Japan were annexed by the US and other countries. Was it illegal?
4. The USSR refused to sign the treaty as it considered it to be vague and directed against its interests and agreements of the Yalta conference –was it illegal?
‘’ The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[5] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. having no legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.” – Was it illegal?
‘’There is also some ambiguity as to over which islands Japan has renounced sovereignty. This has led to both the Kuril Island conflict and the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute.’’
Was it illegal for the USSR not to sign under some ambiguity?


This is the same concept regarding the illegality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.
It is not exactly the same,as the documentsshow, but thre are similiarities.
I don'tknowwhat is your need to bring hamas in and compare its development with development of Japan. Anyway:

War is about acquiring territory. Arabs started wars to acquire Israel territories. Those wars were as illegal as Hitler’s or Japan wars. In the result, like Allied powers captured and re-mapped German and Japanese territories, Israel had exactly the same rights to re-map acquired territories according to the precedent established; the only difference was that Israel did it on a very minor scale.

It is like you are suggesting that Allies were to stop at Normandy if Hitler had said ‘now peace, I am sorry’. Or they were supposed to stop at borders of Germany?

All the meaning of annexation is – don’t start war and you wouldn’t loose your territory, money (compensation), etc. As remapping of Germany and Japan pursued interests of making the world safe from resurrection of fascism/imperialism, actions of Israel were directed to make it safer from resurrection of Arab aggression. It is not like Arabs have ‘’the right’’ to say ‘ Oops, it didn’t work this time, let us go back to what was in the beginning and try again, and again, and again, and again, until we acquire all your territory.’ Israel has a full right to acquire and annex Gaza at its will, as the US acquired and annexed Japanese territories (as the territories were before 1939), or like the Western powers acquired and re-mapped ME territories after WWI.

As well if Israel, the US, Russia did not sign cluster bomb treaty it would not be illegal for them to use cluster bombs, your siggestion of the otherwise is extremely subjective.
 
The subject may be of no interest to you, people calling themselves "us" , yet it is not a reason to troll demonstrating your shared inabilities.

Who the **** are you? And please re-structure your sentence so it makes a little bit of sense, please. If you are using the internet slang term "troll", then you are using it wrong.
 
You are not linking to ‘’customary international law’’ that ‘’the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty’’ which would be applicable in the situation.

The territory was acquired during the ‘’legal’’ war.

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.

1. Yalta conference. The USSR and allies make a deal – was it illegal?

Not a treaty but a wartime committment that was never formalized in the form of a treaty.

2. The USSR fulfilled its ‘’legal” obligation towards the US and went to war against Japan. War is usually about acquiring territories. Was it illegal?

The USSR had a neutrality pact with Japan and Japan had not violated it. The violation of such was a violation of international law. Furthermore, you may occupy land in belligerant occupation PENDING the final status being determined in a treaty, but failing a treaty, annexation is illegal.

3. The US and GB drafted the treaty regarding Japan, where certain territories of Japan were annexed by the US and other countries. Was it illegal?

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.

4. The USSR refused to sign the treaty as it considered it to be vague and directed against its interests and agreements of the Yalta conference –was it illegal?

There is still no provision for USSR annexation.

‘’ The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[5] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. having no legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.” – Was it illegal?

Irrelevant. 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.

‘’There is also some ambiguity as to over which islands Japan has renounced sovereignty. This has led to both the Kuril Island conflict and the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute.’’

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. The USSR NOT signing the treaty was NOT illegal, but the USSR also can't derive any benefits from that treaty.

Was it illegal for the USSR not to sign under some ambiguity?

No, not illegal. So? It was illegal to annex the territory without the treaty providing a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty.

War is about acquiring territory. Arabs started wars to acquire Israel territories. Those wars were as illegal as Hitler’s or Japan wars. In the result, like Allied powers captured and re-mapped German and Japanese territories, Israel had exactly the same rights to re-map acquired territories according to the precedent established; the only difference was that Israel did it on a very minor scale.

Wars are to gain territory, and transfer of such territory is formalized by a peace treaty. The USSR invasion of Japanese territory was a violation of its treaty with Japan and thus a violation of international law. Furthermore, as there was no treaty formalizing a change in sovereignty, the technical legal status would be belligerant occupation, not dissimilar to that of Israel in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The ISraeli annexation of those territories DOES have a parallel save for the fact that Israel's war was legal while the USSR invasion was not. Other than that, the two are pretty similar. The situation of Western Sahara has some parallels as well as there was no transfer from Spain to Morocco, but Morocco marched in to claim it anyway with no legal basis.

It is like you are suggesting that Allies were to stop at Normandy if Hitler had said ‘now peace, I am sorry’. Or they were supposed to stop at borders of Germany?

No, it is far from the same. Germany started the war with the Allies in Europe. The USSR remained neutral until the last month of the war in the Pacific and invaded an already beaten Japan.

All the meaning of annexation is – don’t start war and you wouldn’t loose your territory, money (compensation), etc. As remapping of Germany and Japan pursued interests of making the world safe from resurrection of fascism/imperialism, actions of Israel were directed to make it safer from resurrection of Arab aggression. It is not like Arabs have ‘’the right’’ to say ‘ Oops, it didn’t work this time, let us go back to what was in the beginning and try again, and again, and again, and again, until we acquire all your territory.’ Israel has a full right to acquire and annex Gaza at its will, as the US acquired and annexed Japanese territories (as the territories were before 1939), or like the Western powers acquired and re-mapped ME territories after WWI.

It is not legal to annex territories belonging to another state without a treaty. Israel has NO right to annex Gaza nor does it have a right to annex the West Bank. Look through the history of modern territory transfers and you will find that they are accompanied by a clause formalizing those transfers in treaties. Even in the case of the US, all of its territorial expansion with the exception of Hawaii was effectuated through treaties.

As well if Israel, the US, Russia did not sign cluster bomb treaty it would not be illegal for them to use cluster bombs, your siggestion of the otherwise is extremely subjective.

If they don't sign the cluster bomb treaty, but it becomes regarded as customary international law, there are two possibilities:

1. The non-signatories through their statements and actions accept the provisions of the treaty, thus falling under its provisions; OR

2. The non-signatories from the outset signal their non-acceptance of the provision by their words and deeds and this do NOT fall under its provisions.
 
Who the **** are you? And please re-structure your sentence so it makes a little bit of sense, please. If you are using the internet slang term "troll", then you are using it wrong.

You have not contributed a single thought to the subject in 2 out of 2 posts on this tread. You have posted how many posts ? – it is reasonable to conclude that in 1,748 posts you have not contributed a single thought to any subject. You live your life without any thought and you are not alone, you have a company here, how many thanks do you have?

Carry on – you will be thanked.
 
You have not contributed a single thought to the subject in 2 out of 2 posts on this tread. You have posted how many posts ? – it is reasonable to conclude that in 1,748 posts you have not contributed a single thought to any subject. You live your life without any thought and you are not alone, you have a company here, how many thanks do you have?

Carry on – you will be thanked.

NO

3 out of 3

you sir are wrong.
 
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?

Irrelevant. .
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.
 
Last edited:
Wars are to gain territory, and transfer of such territory is formalized by a peace treaty. .

Again, you are making up a rule. Not formalizing by a peace treaty is not illegal. It was not illegal for 6 years until 1951, it was not illegal for 21 more years, it is not illegal today, it is never illegal. Sometimes it may be - like both Russia and Japan put it – “unnatural”, or pending, or troubling, ---- AFTER A CERTAIN TIME AND UNDER A CERTAIN AND NEW Circumstances -----but it is not illegal.

The USSR invasion of Japanese territory was a violation of its treaty with Japan and thus a violation of international law. .

You repeat your falsification. See 5. and 6.

Furthermore, as there was no treaty formalizing a change in sovereignty, the technical legal status would be belligerant occupation, not dissimilar to that of Israel in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. .


It is not furthermore since the above is false, but it may be similar.

The ISraeli annexation of those territories DOES have a parallel save for the fact that Israel's war was legal while the USSR invasion was not. .

You repeat your falsification. See 5. and 6
No, it is far from the same. .
False as based on false premises.
Besides –
Germany started the war with the Allies in Europe.
Arabs started war against Israel.
The USSR remained neutral until the last month of the war in the Pacific and invaded .

Under request of the US and considering 6.
an already beaten Japan. .
Japan was not beaten. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic. Japan became beaten upon capitulating.
It is not legal to annex territories belonging to another state without a treaty. .
Another repetition. Answered 3 times.
Israel has NO right to annex Gaza nor does it have a right to annex the West Bank. .
As the above is false, the conclusion is false, too.

Look through the history of modern territory transfers and you will find that they are accompanied by a clause formalizing those transfers in treaties. Even in the case of the US, all of its territorial expansion with the exception of Hawaii was effectuated through treaties. .
The territories considered here are justone example out of many that you are using verbal fallacy – semantics again. In history annexation territories may happen decades and even centuries before any formalization. Again you repeat unknown, unquoted and non-sensual rule of yours. It is annoying. Japan was offered a peace treaty before the invasion by the USSR. It refused to enter it, - then according to you logic the territories taken by the US were supposed to be immediately given back to Japan, - and the US were holding them illegally – they had no formalization. Israel offered Arabs to enter a peace treaty. Arabs refused to enter it… the same story.
If they don't sign the cluster bomb treaty, but it becomes regarded as customary international law, there are two possibilities:

1. The non-signatories through their statements and actions accept the provisions of the treaty, thus falling under its provisions; OR

2. The non-signatories from the outset signal their non-acceptance of the provision by their words and deeds and this do NOT fall under its provisions. .

I cannot even figure out semantics of your verbal fallacy, - you have made a bunch of definitions and used them frivolously. It seems you agree with me in 2 by making up your own non-sensual law ‘’from the outset signal their non-acceptance’’, which just happens to agree with the international law. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic, - non signing IS ‘’the outset signal of their non-acceptance‘’. Thus if they didn’t sign it their use cluster bomb is no violation of international laws.

To make it a bit easier for you – there are supreme international laws, - you don’t have to sign them, but if you break them you become an international outlaw. As an example using certain types of cluster bombs to achieve certain goals can make a non-signatory an international outlaw. As an example – you have broken all laws of common sense and basic logic in your post, and thus you put yourself in the position of an outlaw.
 
Last edited:
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.

Looks about right.

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.

Before I begin to lecture you, I must ask if you are familiar with the concept of customary internationa law?

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.

Sure it was a violation. Japan and the USSR signed a treaty of neutrality. Japan did nothing to violate that treaty. The USSR invaded. A clear treaty violation, especially as Article 2 INCLUDED the provision of allies becoming involved in the war. According to your theory, Japan could have invaded the USSR legally because the USSR was at war with Germany, but Japan didn't.

USSR-Japan Neutrality Treaty said:
ARTICLE ONE

Both Contracting Parties undertake to maintain peaceful and friendly relations between them and mutually respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of the other Contracting Party.

ARTICLE TWO

Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.

The later Soviet denunciation of the agreement was unilateral and a violation of that pact.

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?

International law existed PRIOR to the end of WWII and the customary law of state to state transfer of territory requiring a treaty pre-dated WWII.

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.’’

This is from the Denunciation issued by the USSR. It lacks legal basis.

No law, no treaty has in its goal achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.

So, it is possible to comply with Kyoto?

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.

How was Japan aiding Germany in its war against the USSR? Japan had its hands tied with China, the USA, and other allies in the Pacific.

Answer: 1. 2 . 3. are all fallacies of composition. It is all flawed

On what basis?

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.

Prior to 1969, all treaties were expected to be signed by competant authorities representing the negotiating nations, then be ratified by whatever means is provided in the respective countries' governmental systems, then instruments of ratification deposited as stipulated in the treaty. Your agreements/contracts are not treaties.

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?

The 1941 Treaty of Neutrality with Japan. I am not making up non-sense.

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?

Because of how the Peace Treaty of San Francisco was drawn up, there were several territories left with undetermined status following its ratification (including the island where I currently life). That still doesn't give the USSR legal carte blanche to annex the 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.

They invaded Japanese occupied territories.

“ 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.

What islands were ceded to the United States.

‘’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.’’

Does not result in transfer of sovereignty.

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?

What is your point?

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?

What islands?

Did I say a word about annexation in the quote?

Then how did the USSe acquire Karafuto and Chishima? Accretion?

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 obviously have a VERY limited understanding of basic concepts of international law.

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?

China makes the same claim. It doesn't change the fact that wartime commitments don't always become included in the post-war treaties. Potsdam et. al. were important, but not treaties.

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”.

I am quite familiar with this history. However, there is no legal means for transfer of the territories to Russia.

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.

Treaty in verbal form? You are really reaching. Treaties are written, signed, then ratified before instruments of ratification are deposited in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

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?

The USSR was not even a party to the treaty.

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?

Customary state practice, a VERY important source of international law - commonly regarded as importnat (or nearly so) as treaty law and the decisions of international tribunals.

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.

The annexation was illegal. There is no treaty provision for sovereignty to pas from Japan to the USSR. You may not understand the concept of customary international law, but it is valid and very important.
 
Again, you are making up a rule. Not formalizing by a peace treaty is not illegal. It was not illegal for 6 years until 1951, it was not illegal for 21 more years, it is not illegal today, it is never illegal. Sometimes it may be - like both Russia and Japan put it – “unnatural”, or pending, or troubling, ---- AFTER A CERTAIN TIME AND UNDER A CERTAIN AND NEW Circumstances -----but it is not illegal.

Not formalizing a peace treaty is NOT illegal, however annexing a territory from another state in the absense of such a treaty IS illegal.

You repeat your falsification. See 5. and 6.

You claim falsification where none exists.

False as based on false premises.
Besides –
Germany started the war with the Allies in Europe.
Arabs started war against Israel
.

But Japan did NOT start a war with the USSR, the USSR started it. In accordance with article two of the aforementioned treaty, the USSR had an obligation to maintain its neutrality.

Under request of the US and considering 6.

Still a violation of the 1941 treaty.

Japan was not beaten. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic. Japan became beaten upon capitulating.

So? Doesn't change the fact that the USSRs invasion was a violation of its treaty commitments and the following annexation of territory was illegal.

Another repetition. Answered 3 times.

Not answered adequately.

As the above is false, the conclusion is false, too.

What is false?

The territories considered here are justone example out of many that you are using verbal fallacy – semantics again. In history annexation territories may happen decades and even centuries before any formalization. Again you repeat unknown, unquoted and non-sensual rule of yours. It is annoying. Japan was offered a peace treaty before the invasion by the USSR. It refused to enter it, - then according to you logic the territories taken by the US were supposed to be immediately given back to Japan, - and the US were holding them illegally – they had no formalization. Israel offered Arabs to enter a peace treaty. Arabs refused to enter it… the same story.

In modern international law, for a territory to be transferred from one state to another, a treaty must effectuate the treaty. This is customary international law. I am not making it up. It is reality, confirmed by state practice.

What territories would you say the US is currently holding illegally based on this logic?

The Egyptians HAVE entered into a peace treaty with Israel. No cession of Gaza to Israel was effectuated by the treaty.

I cannot even figure out semantics of your verbal fallacy, - you have made a bunch of definitions and used them frivolously. It seems you agree with me in 2 by making up your own non-sensual law ‘’from the outset signal their non-acceptance’’, which just happens to agree with the international law. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic, - non signing IS ‘’the outset signal of their non-acceptance‘’. Thus if they didn’t sign it their use cluster bomb is no violation of international laws.

I think I said that last sentence. You are obviously not familiar with the use of customary international law, and its continuing evolution.

To make it a bit easier for you – there are supreme international laws, - you don’t have to sign them, but if you break them you become an international outlaw. As an example using certain types of cluster bombs to achieve certain goals can make a non-signatory an international outlaw. As an example – you have broken all laws of common sense and basic logic in your post, and thus you put yourself in the position of an outlaw.

Not if they signified from the outset that they to not accept its provisions. Other states may penalize you for it, but it doesn't make you an international outlaw. For example, Israel did not accept the nuclear NPT from the outset. Though its provisions have become generally accepted as customary international law, since Israel opposed their provisions from the outset, it is not bound by them. Difficult concept for the novice to understand, I suppose, but this is a reality of international law.
 
ARTICLE TWO
Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.


Signed :

Contracting power R.
Contracting power J.



The third party G attacks Contracting power R.
Contracting power J enters/ exists as a military ally of the third party G and Contracting power J aids the third party G in destroying Contracting power R.

Contracting power R has all legal right to destroy both the 3 rd party G and Contracting power J.


You cannot lecture me on customary international law or anything else, because you cannot be an expert in customary international law or anything else due to total absence of common sense and basic logic.

You have made another post where

1. You have omitted my premises
2. Based your post ( as the previous one ) on total absence of common sense and basic logic, - the same claim that Contracting power R broke law in the consideration above.
 
ARTICLE TWO
Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.


Signed :

Contracting power R.
Contracting power J.


The third party G attacks Contracting power R.
Contracting power J enters/ exists as a military ally of the third party G and Contracting power J aids the third party G in destroying Contracting power R.

Contracting power R has all legal right to destroy both the 3 rd party G and Contracting power J.

Article two of the treaty is quite clear. It says if one of the two contracting powers becomes involved in a conflict, the other must maintain neutrality. What part of this do you not understand.

Furthermore, as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan, your point, even if it had merit, is completely irrelevant and moot.

You cannot lecture me on customary international law or anything else, because you cannot be an expert in customary international law or anything else due to total absence of common sense and basic logic.

Are you even aware of customary international law? Obviously not. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly.

2. Based your post ( as the previous one ) on total absence of common sense and basic logic, - the same claim that Contracting power R broke law in the consideration above.

The violation of the treaty by the USSR is SO OBVIOUS that only an unapologetic apologist for USSR/Russia could be blind to it.
 
Last edited:
Justone:

Two questions:

1. Are you familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law?

2. Did you know that the primary source of customary international law is "state practice"?
 
Maybe you should re-read his post. It would appear that he is interested, thus the "keep us updated" remark. :shock:

Maybe you should re-read the tread. He confessed. But you still can push his thanks button as you are of the same company.
 
Maybe you should re-read the tread. He confessed. But you still can push his thanks button as you are of the same company.
Your lack of comprehension is apparent, but I will bite: Where did he confess to anything other than you failing to grasp his post?
 
Article two of the treaty is quite clear. It says if one of the two contracting powers becomes involved in a conflict, the other must maintain neutrality. What part of this do you not understand. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly.

The article ARTICLE TWO says:
Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.


What part of this do you not understand?
Japan did not maintain neutrality by aiding Germany in its conflict with the Allied Powers as well as directly conducting military operations against the Allied powers.
Furthermore, as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan, your point, even if it had merit, is completely irrelevant and moot.

No, furthermore there are no words “as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan” in the Article 2. You have made them up. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly and just make things up.
Using Furthermore is another verbal fallacy of yours. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic.
as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan, your point, even if it had merit, is completely irrelevant and moot.
1. Actions of Japan prior the completion of the conflict between the USSR and Germany had made the treaty meaningless.
2 The USSR’s completion of Germany partially happened due to mutual obligations between the USSR and The US. One of the obligations of the USSR was aiding the US in destroying Japan.
3 The conflict between the USSR and Germany was only a part of the conflict the USSR was imposed. The USSR was in a conflict not only with Germany, but with all military allies of Germany, as well it was part of the Allied power fighting Germany, Italy, Japan as well as allies of the later three.
4.This is a common sense.
Are you even aware of customary international law? Obviously not.
Two questions:

1. Are you familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law?

2. Did you know that the primary source of customary international law is "state practice"?
What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.

You cannot be familiar with any laws because you are denying the simple basis of all laws I have been pointing to:
‘’No law, no treaty has in its goals achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.’’

Upon actions of Japan (which were listed) after signing the treaty, as well as upon the change is circumstances (which were listed) the treaty lost its sense, the goals of the treaty were forfeited.

You obviously are not familiar with any laws BECAUSE you have been completely ignoring and avoiding common sense and logic, the listed actions of Japan and the listed changes in circumstances.

Like you have been forfeiting goals and possibility of a resonable debate.
 
The article ARTICLE TWO says:
Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.

Japan observed neutrality vis a vis the USSR. Japan did not attack it. You claim that Japan helped Germany against the USSR. How? Japan was focused on China and the USA in the Pacific. They were a little too occupied in those theaters to help Germany against the SOviets. The USSR violated the treaty.

What part of this do you not understand?
Japan did not maintain neutrality by aiding Germany in its conflict with the Allied Powers as well as directly conducting military operations against the Allied powers.

How did Japan aid Germany against the SOVIET UNION, the other contracting party in the treaty.

No, furthermore there are no words “as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan” in the Article 2. You have made them up. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly and just make things up.

What are you talking about. Are you such a Russia/USSR apologist that you can't see the logical fallacies in your own arguments?

Simple facts.

1. USSR and Japan sign a neutrality pact that includes neutrality even if one becomes involved in a war.
2. Japan maintained neutrality with the USSR despite the fact that a global war was underway.
3. War in Europe ENDED in May, 1945, so claims that Japan was aiding Germany when the USSR attacked Japan in the summer of 1945 is completely non-sensical.

Using Furthermore is another verbal fallacy of yours. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic.

Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.

1. Actions of Japan prior the completion of the conflict between the USSR and Germany had made the treaty meaningless.

Japan maintained neutrality in the conflict between Germany and the USSR. Nothing you have said changes that fact.

2 The USSR’s completion of Germany partially happened due to mutual obligations between the USSR and The US. One of the obligations of the USSR was aiding the US in destroying Japan.

The USSR did not make that commitment to help the US. The USSR wanted to wipe out Germany because GErmany invaded the USSR. Let's not play revisionist history. Regardless, it was still a violation of the USSR's treaty violations.

3 The conflict between the USSR and Germany was only a part of the conflict the USSR was imposed. The USSR was in a conflict not only with Germany, but with all military allies of Germany, as well it was part of the Allied power fighting Germany, Italy, Japan as well as allies of the later three.

Once again, Japan could have used the same logic, but never opened up a second front against the USSR in the Far East. Japan was upholding the treaty. The USSR violated it.

What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?

Do you know what this is and its importance in international law?

The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.

I will take it that you do NOT know what the importance of customary law is.

You cannot be familiar with any laws because you are denying the simple basis of all laws I have been pointing to:

What law are you referring to?

‘’No law, no treaty has in its goals achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.’’

Did you make this up? There have been plenty of treaties where compliance is difficult of nearly impossible. Kyoto comes imediately to mind. What is the nonsense of the 1941 Neutrality Treaty? NAPs have been common in the history of the interaction of states.

Upon actions of Japan (which were listed) after signing the treaty, as well as upon the change is circumstances (which were listed) the treaty lost its sense, the goals of the treaty were forfeited.

Japan maintained neutrality vis a vis the USSR. Nothing you have presented changes that. You can say Japan was at war with the Allies, which is true. However, Japan was NOT at war with the USSR.

You obviously are not familiar with any laws BECAUSE you have been completely ignoring and avoiding common sense and logic, the listed actions of Japan and the listed changes in circumstances.

I shall ask again.

1. Do you know what customary law is?
2. Are you aware of its importance in the development of international law?

Another non-response will be taken as complete ignorance on your part of these very BASIC principles of international law.

Like you have been forfeiting goals and possibility of a resonable debate.

:rofl
 
You have not make any new statements regarding the subject but just have ignored my arguments and exactly repeated statements of your previous post.

They all were answered and some of them more than once. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned. I don’t even know if should I repeat or accent for others who visit this tread.

Germany attacked the USSR when Japan has a treaty with Germany where Japan was taking obligations to provide military, economic and political aid to Germany - not excluding but rather including Germany’s military actions in Europe. Since Japan didn’t withdraw from the treaty with Germany when Germany undertook military action against the USSR (within conditions of the treaty beween germany and Japan) its treaty with the USSR lost any legal validity, lost any sense.

If Kyoto comes to your mind as an example of a treaty which has non-sense as its goal and impossibility to comply with it, I can only congratulate you. It seems like you are quite a discoverer of things nobody can think about.
The US - during all time of its confrontation with the Empire of evil never thought about accusing it in breaking the international law by withdrawing from treaty of Tripoli, I mean from treaty with Japan. I can imagine that now professors of law do it today - I don’t know how widely liberal lunatics are spread in Universities today, but the US has never proposed such a bogus idea on international stage. May be Obama’s administration will push this accusation on Russia, - who knows, all kind of things may be expected, but I still think it will take time before any common sense will be exterminated by your type in the US.


All you have added is desertion to statements “Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.’’ such a Russia/USSR apologist’’, - which is pathetic, and again it proves that you are not capable of reasoning.


I am rather the US history apologist as the US have never accused the USSR in what you are accusing.

I am very sympathetic to Russia for a number of reasons, but it does not have anything to do to my attitude to the USSR.

Your spreading the term the USSR on only the Russian Federation when you look at all other former members of the USSR, - like they have nothing to do to the USSR, - proves that you are not only ignorant and unreasonable, but also most likely a pathetic Russophobe. When people who suffer from lack of reason, ignorance and phobia express the named symptoms talking about Russia they make me even more sympathetic to Russia.

Russia rulez. Look into the KGB eyes:

http://efficientawesomeness.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/putin_rules.jpg


and die.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom