Ad hoc international arbitration is the key to improving Russian-Japanese relations

The subject. The article discusses the international legal positions of Russia and Japan that prevent the conclusion of a peace treaty between them and impede a radical improvement in relations, which is perceived as an urgent need for both sides.

The purpose of the article is to show the fundamental differences in the official positions of the governments of Russia and Japan and suggest a fundamentally new diplomatic and legal solution to the long-standing territorial dispute among the states, which will result in finally breaking the deadlock.

Methodology. The research is based on the methods such as historical research, formal logic, including analysis, synthesis, and modeling, as well as systematic, comparative and interpretation. Materials include national and international laws and scholarly articles, books relating to Russian-Japanese relations, as well as its international legal aspects.

The main results, scope of application. The authors note that the end of the Cold War transformed Europe. Since that time there have been a reformatting of military alliances, the unification of Germany, reconciliation of the nations warring since ancient times. All these are based on the recognition of the inviolability of the outcome of the Second World War and established territorial structure. In comparison with Europe, it had smaller consequences in Asia. All previous dividing lines and lines of conflicts are preserved. Nothing was done to reunite the divided nations. Reconciliation by and large also did not happen. One of the burning problems has remained the territorial claims of Japan to Russia on the four islands of the Southern Kuril and the unresolved long-standing dispute over affiliation of the islands. The international legal position of Russia is that the legal status of the islands was determined by the results of the Second World War. Japan proceeds from the premise that the Islands historically belonged to it and the actual sovereignty of Russia over them does not change the case. Since the international legal positions of the sides do not have any common ground, it is pointless to argue about them or try to change them.

Conclusions. In this situation the only possible wise and fair solution is to bring the dispute beyond the framework of bilateral relations for quite a long time, which will need to be used for their radical improvement. In the article the authors explain in detail how it can be done. In particular, it is proposed to establish a special Russian-Japanese international court ad hoc. The study explains and justifies its possible mandate, the procedure of formation and the role of the agreement establishing such a Court in the conclusion of a peace treaty between the sides. It is shown how and under what circumstances the activities of the Court can be successful and bring the desired results.

1. Biryukov P.N. Kuril Islands: Russian-Japanese Relations (1920-2014). Bylye Gody, 2014, no. 34, pp. 666–670. (In Russ.).

2. Vinnikova R.V. Territorial dispute between Russia and Japan: the history of the issue and international legal forms of settlement. Pravoporyadok: istoriya, teoriya, praktika, 2016, no. 4, pp. 40–45. (In Russ.).

3. Gavrilov V.V. South Kuril Islands: problems and prospects of determining the legal status. Aziatskotikhookeanskii region: ekonomika, politika, pravo, 2015, no. 2, pp. 75–85. (In Russ.).

4. Eremin V.N. Russia – Japan. Territorial problem: finding a solution. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 1992. 190 p. (In Russ.).

5. Il’inskaya O.I. Legal basis of territorial demarcation between Russia and Japan. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava, 2016, no. 5, pp. 129–141. (In Russ.).

6. Neverova E.V. The Southern Kuril Deadlock: effectiveness v. protest. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2019, no. 3, pp. 47–58. DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2019-3-47-58. (In Russ.).

7. Khlestov O.N. The South Kuril problem in Russian-Japanese relations. Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo, 2010, no. 4, pp. 2–8. (In Russ.).

8. Melkov G.M., Chamarov V.B. Territorial claims of Japan to Russia (international legal issues), in: Rossiiskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava, St. Petersburg, 2000, рр. 238–250. (In Russ.).

9. Boothe J.M. Kuril Islands Dispute: Case Study of Russian-Japanese Relations. 2013. 17 p. Available at: https://ru.scribd.com/document/134805746 (accessed: 17.01.2021).

10. Bowman G. Why Now Is the Time to Resolve the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2013, vol. 46, iss. 1–2, pp. 433–462.

11. Brown J.D.J. Japan, Russia and Their Territorial Dispute: The Northern Delusion. New York, Routledge Publ., 2016. 176 p.

12. Chotani V.M., Purushothaman U. Can Japan and Russia Reconcile?, ORF Issue Brief No. 110. ORF, Oct. 2015. 8 p.

13. Lee S.-W. Towards a Framework for the Resolution of the Territorial Dispute over the Kurile Islands. Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit Publ., University of Durham Publ., 2001. 55 p.

14. Stephan J.J. The Kuril Islands: Russo-Japanese Frontier in the Pacific. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1974. 278 p.

15. Williams B. Resolving the Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute: Hokkaido-Sakhalin Relations. London, Routledge Publ., 2007. 240 p.

16. Yamada Yu. Un conflit géopolitique persistant entre le Japon et la Russie. La question des «Territoires du Nord». Géostratégiques, 2010, no. 26, pp. 137–155. (In French).

17. Vylegzhanin A.N., Sokolova E.L. The statute of limitations in international law. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2014, no. 2, pp. 37–58. (In Russ.).

18. Sharma S.P. Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law. Leiden, Brill Publ., 1997. 358 p.

19. Johnson D.H.N. Acquisitive Prescription in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 1950, vol. 27, pp. 332–354.

20. Munkman A.L.W. Adjudication and Adjustment. International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes. British Yearbook of International Law, 1972–1973, vol. 46, pp. 93–107.

21. Schwarzenberger G. Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge. American Journal of International Law, 1957, vol. 51, pp. 308–324.

22. Grotius H. On the Law of War and Peace, Three books explaining the natural law and the law of nations, as well as the principles of public law. Moscow, Ladomir Publ., 1994. 868 p. (In Russ.).

23. MacGibbon I.C. The Scope of Acquiescence in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 1954, vol. 31, pp. 143–186.

24. Baburin S.N. The world of empires. The territory of the State and the world order. St. Petersburg, Yuridicheskii tsentr Press Publ., 2005. 495 p. (In Russ.).

25. Neverova E.V. International legal regime of the South Kuril Islands, Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2018. 320 p. (In Russ.).

26. Zilanov V.K., Koshkin A.A., Plotnikov A.Yu., Ponomarev S.A. Russian Kuriles: history and modernity, collection of documents on the history of the formation of the Russian-Japanese and Soviet-Japanese border. Moscow, Algoritm Publ., 2015. 399 p. (In Russ.).

27. Hara K., Jukes G. (eds.). Northern Territories, Asia-Pacific Regional Conflicts and the Aaland Experience: Untying the Kurilian Knot. London, Routledge Publ., 2009. 145 p.

28. Lambacher J. Nesting cranes: Envisioning a Russo-Japanese peace park in the Kuril Islands, in: Ali S.K. (ed.). Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2007, pp. 261–276.

29. Reisman W.M. Has the International Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction? American Journal of International Law, 1986, vol. 80, pp. 128–134.

30. Klimenko B.M. Peaceful settlement of territorial disputes. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ., 1982. 184 p. (In Russ.).

31. Shinkaretskaya G.G. Trends in the development of judicial means of peaceful settlement of international disputes. Moscow, Nota Bene Publ., 2009. 250 p. (In Russ.).

32. Abashidze A.Kh., Solntsev A.M. International law. Peaceful settlement of disputes, teaching aids for bachelor's and master's degrees students. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2018. 221 p. (In Russ.).