1 日本在條約對千島群島放棄的用語是跟福爾摩沙放棄的用語是一模一樣的.
2 千島群島的地位我前面的PO文就有講了,他的地位是跟琉球一樣.
不然不可能拿出來對等比較.這是很簡單的邏輯問題.
這也是為什麼杜勒斯提醒崇光揆的原因.
不管最後蘇聯有沒有跟日本簽約都無法改變這個法理上相等的事實.
3 既然如此千島群島=琉球=台灣.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d31
United States Position. We should continue to support Japan’s claim to the
Habomais and Shikotan on the theory that they are not part of the Kuriles and
remain part of Japan. It is our view that under the San Francisco Treaty,
Japan renounced all claim to the Kuriles and South Sakhalin and that
disposition of these territories is pending. The Soviet Union has attempted
formally to annex them. There are strong political reasons for encourgaging
Japan’s claim to at least part of the Kuriles: the Kuriles are strategically
important to the free world; Japan and the Soviet Union are the only two
logical contenders for the Kuriles although some form of international
control is theoretically possible; continued inaction on the part of Japan
and the other free nations may constitute tacit recognition of the Soviet
occupation. There are also reasons why we should not seek to change the
status quo: any United States action supporting Japan’s claim to the Kuriles
might appear to reflect on our position under the San Francisco Treaty in the Ryukyus and might
affect the status of Formosa, which Japan also renounced under the treaty;
encouragement of Japanese irredentism in the north might also encourage it in
the south; the hostile presence of the Soviet Union on Japan’s northern
border will serve as a constant irritant in their relations. Onbalance, however, it would appear desirable that as a minimum we offer no
objection to efforts on the part of Japan to get all or part of the Kuriles,
either as part of a deal whereby Japan might recognize a valid Soviet claim
to South Sakhalin (along the lines of the Japan–Russia treaty of exchange of 1875) or even on
the basis of a Soviet recognition of Japan’s residual sovereignty over all
or part of the Kuriles, comparable to our position in the Ryukyus and the
Bonins. We should also support any proposal by Japan to refer territorial
issues to the International Court of Justice.
美國的立場.我們應該繼續支持日本對齒舞群島與色丹島他們不是千島群島的一部分這個
論述.他們是我們在舊金山和平條約下的觀點,日本放棄所有對千島群島與南庫頁島且那些
領土的立場是懸而未決的.蘇聯企圖正式併吞他們.這裡有強烈的政治理由去鼓勵日本主張
至少部分的千島群島:千島群島戰略上對自由世界是重要的;日本和蘇聯是唯一兩個對千島
群島邏輯上的爭奪者儘管一些國際上控制的形式是理論上可行的;繼續在部分日本和其他
自由國家的不作為可能構成默示承認蘇聯的佔領.這也是為什麼我們不應該尋求改變現狀
的理由:任何美國支持日本主張對千島群島的動作可能出現在舊金山和約下我們對琉球的
立場帶來影響且可能影響到日本也在條約下放棄的福爾摩沙地位,在北方鼓勵日本人民的
民族主義可能也在南方鼓勵他;總而來看,然而,它可能出現一個最低令人滿意的限度我們
建議不反對日本盡部分的努力去取得所有或部分的千島群島,藉以日本可能承認一個蘇聯
對南庫頁島(以1875年日本與俄羅斯交換和約的方式)合法的主張的一個部份的交易或者以
蘇聯承認日本對千島群島部分或全部的剩餘主權為對等的基礎下,可比的上我們對於琉球
與小笠原群島的立場.我們應該也要支持任何由日本提議把領土的歸屬爭議提交到國際法
院.