The Southern Kuril Deadlock: effectiveness v. protest

INTRODUCTION. For 74 years, Russia and Japan have both claimed legal title over the four Southern Kuril Islands, paralysed by their controversy from making a post-WWII peace treaty and realising the full potential of their bilateral relations. This entire time, the islands have been governed in all aspects of their legal, political, and economic life, by the Russian side. This entire time, Japan has made diplomatic protests contesting the legality of Russian jurisdiction. With no international authority to determine which of the countries prevails, one wonders if the effective Russian control has not or should not have, by now, overcome Japanese protests – almost the only tool international law provides for states to prevent another’s title.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The international legal principles and doctrines at play are the overarching notions of effectiveness and stability, governing the resolution of any territorial disputes, the related doctrines of prescription and acquiescence, and the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur that aims to preclude territorial change if it originates in illegality – these are studied on the basis of contemporary works on the international law of territory and the general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, description, and deduction.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Effectiveness and stability lie at the heart of territorial change. Their derivative doctrines of prescription and acquiescence serve as tools for legitimizing title of dubious origins through long, peaceful and effective possession of territory absent protests from the former sovereign (and subject to the self-determination of the territory’s inhabitants), and, possibly, with the help of recognition by third states. Whether the opposing notion of ex injuria jus non oritur is an international legal principle remains debatable. The international law, however, in the politically sensitive matters of territory is too meek to provide a definite answer to when these concepts clash within the reality such as that of the Southern Kuril dispute.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In weighing the Russian effective control over the islands against Japan’s demands that the territories be returned to Japan, the key question is: does effective possession override protests, given the duration and quality of such effectiveness and such protests? It is argued here that such an answer would benefit the aim of stability sought by the international law and that in the situation at hand it should be a carefully qualified, but emphatic yes.

1. Barsegov Yu.G. Territoriya v mezhdunarodnom prave [Territory in International Law]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ. 1958. 270 p. (In Russ.)

2. Biriukov P.N. Kuril'skie ostrova: rossiisko-yaponskie otnosheniya (1920–2014 gg.) [The Kuril Islands: RussianJapanese Relations (1920–2014)]. – Bylye Gody. 2014. No. 34(4). P. 666–670 (In Russ.).

3. Elleman B.A., Nichols M.R., Ouimet M.J. A Historical Reevaluation of America’s Role in the Kuril Islands Dispute. – Pacific Affairs. 1999. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 489–504. DOI:10.2307/2761081

4. Buchanan A. The Legitimacy of International Law. – The Philosophy of International Law. Ed. by S. Besson, J. Tasioulas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. P. 76–97.

5. Cheng B. General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. 544 p.

6. Crawford J. Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law. The Hague: Hague Academy of International Law. 2014. 537 p.

7. Crawford J. The Creation of States in International Law. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2007. 870 p.

8. Elias T.O. The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law. – American Journal of International Law. 1980. Vol. 74. P. 285–307.

9. Gavrilov V.V. Challenges and Prospects of the Southern Kuril Islands’ Status. – Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2016. Vol. 7. Issue. 1. P. 301–305. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n1p301

10. Jennings R.Y. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1963. 130 p.

11. Johnson D.H.N. Acquisitive Prescription in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1950. Vol. 27. P. 332–354.

12. Kaikobad K.H. Some Observations on the Doctrine of Continuity and Finality of Boundaries. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1983. Vol. 54. P. 119–141.

13. Kelsen H. Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc. 1952. 461 p.

14. Klimenko B.M. Mirnoe reshenie territorial’nykh sporov [Peaceful Resolution of Territorial Disputes]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 1982. 184 p. (In Russ.)

15. Langer R. Seizure of Territory. The Stimson Doctrine and Related Principles in Legal Theory and Diplomatic Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1947. 313 p.

16. Lauterpacht H. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1947. 442 p.

17. Lee S.-W. Towards a Framework for the Resolution of the Territorial Dispute over the Kurile Islands. – Boundary & Territory Briefing. 2001. Vol. 3. Issue 6. P. 1–55.

18. MacGibbon I.C. The Scope of Acquiescence in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1954. Vol. 31. P. 143–186.

19. 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. P. 93–107.

20. Schwarzenberger G. Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge. – American Journal of International Law. 1957. Vol. 51. P. 308–324.

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

22. Shaw M. Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries – European Journal of International Law. 1997. Vol 3. P. 478–492.

23. Shaw M. Territory in International Law. – Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. 1982. Vol. 13. P. 71–92.

24. Title to Territory. Ed. by M. Shaw. Burlington: Ashgate. 2005. 525 p.

25. Stephan J.J. The Kuril Islands: Russo-Japanese Frontier in the Pacific. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1974. 279 p.

26. Streltsov D. Rossiiskii podkhod k territorial’nym konfliktam v Vostochnoi Azii [Russian Approach to Territorial Conflicts in East Asia]. – Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’. 2017. No. 9. P. 42–53. (In Russ.)

27. Streltsov D. Rossiisko-yaponskie torgovo-ekonomicheskie otnosheniya: est’ li novaya tochka opory? [Russian-Japanese Trade and Economic Relations: Is There a New Fulcrum?]. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2016. No. 1(46). P. 93–105. (In Russ.)

28. Untawale M.G. The Kutch-Sind Dispute: A Case Study in International Arbitration. – The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1974, October. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 818–839.

29. Vylegzhanin A.N., Neverova E.V. Rossiisko-yaponskie dogovorennosti o morskikh raionakh, primykayushchikh k Yuzhno-Kuril’skim ostrovam [Russian-Japanese Agreements Relating to the Sea Areas Adjacent to the Disputed Southern Kuril Islands]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 2. P. 35–57. (In Russ.)

30. Vylegzhanin A.N., Sokolova E.L. Priobretatel’skaya davnost’ v mezhdunarodnom prave [Prescription in International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2014. No. 2(94). P. 37–58. (In Russ.)

31. Williams B. The Russo-Japanese Visa-Less Exchange Program: Opportunities and Limits. – East Asia. 2003. P. 108–132.