The Russo-Japanese Dispute over the Ownership of the Southern Kuril Islands

Robert A. Collins

More than six decades have passed since the cessation of hostilities of World War II and yet Japan and Russia have failed to conclude a peace treaty. Dispute over ownership of four islands–Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, and Habomai–known as the Southern Kurils by the Russians and the northern territories by the Japanese, is the primary reason for lack of closure to WWII. Moscow refers to the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco as justification for their ownership while the Japanese refer to the 1855 Treaty of Shimoda as justification for its ownership of the disputed islands. Japan claims that although the Soviet Union attended the 1951 San Francisco Conference, it failed to sign and ratify the treaty, leaving the Kuril Islands provision null and void. The inability of both Moscow and Tokyo to reach a mutual agreement leaves WWII unresolved for Russia and Japan. Political and economic considerations continue to hinder settlement to the question of rightful ownership of the four islands, forestalling the signing of a Russian-Japanese peace accord.
This paper provides a review of the historical background of Russian-Japanese relations, their previous wars, territorial disputes, treaties regarding territorial claims in Northern Pacific Asia and points of international law regarding territorial disputes between nations. It analyzes current political, economic, and military importance of the Southern Kuril Islands and attempts to provide a clear analysis of both past and present negotiations, focusing on a way to settle the Southern Kuril Island dispute.