@ Anatoly Koshkin
Among the comments on one of my articles, I read the opinion of a female student: “Of course, there is no need to give up the Kuril Islands. I think they will be useful to us too. But since the Japanese so persistently demand the island, they probably have some reason for this. They say they refer to the fact that Moscow, they say, has no legal rights to own the islands.” I believe that clarification of this issue now, when the Japanese side is again exaggerating the so-called “territorial issue,” is especially appropriate.

The reader can learn about how the Kuril Islands, which belonged to the Russian Empire since 1786, passed from hand to hand from the relevant historical literature. Therefore, let's start from 1945.

In the 8th paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration of the Allied Powers on the conditions for the unconditional surrender of militaristic Japan it is written: “The conditions of the Cairo Declaration must be fulfilled, Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and smaller islands that we indicate.”

During the period of heated discussion within the top leadership of militaristic Japan about developing an attitude towards the Potsdam Declaration, namely, disputes about whether to capitulate on its basis or not, this point was practically not discussed. The Japanese “war party,” which did not want to lay down its arms, was not concerned about the territory of the defeated country, but own destiny. The generals agreed to capitulate only on the condition that the existing political system was preserved, the Japanese themselves punished war criminals, independently disarmaed, and prevented the occupation of Japan by the Allies.

As for territorial possessions, they were considered as a subject of bargaining when trying to get out of the war, avoiding capitulation. Sacrifice something, bargain something. At the same time, a special role in diplomatic maneuvers belonged to Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, torn away by Japan from Russia. These lands were supposed to be ceded to the USSR in exchange for its refusal to enter the war against Japan on the side of the United States and Great Britain. Moreover, in the summer of 1945, information was brought to the attention of the Soviet leadership about the possibility of a “voluntary” transfer to the Soviet Union of one of the main islands of the Japanese archipelago - Hokkaido, which, unlike South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, Moscow never claimed. This was allowed in the expectation that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, instead of declaring war, would act as a mediator between the warring parties in armistice negotiations on terms favorable to Japan.

However, history decreed differently. As a result of the USSR's entry into the war and atomic bombings Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese elite had no choice but unconditional surrender with the acceptance of all points of the Potsdam Declaration, which the Japanese government pledged to strictly observe.

In paragraph 6 of the Japanese Surrender Act of September 2, 1945, it is written: “We hereby pledge that the Japanese government and its successors will honestly implement the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, give those orders and take those actions that, in order to implement this declaration, require Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers or any other representative designated by the Allied Powers." Having accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese government also agreed with the point indicated in it about the future borders of their country.

In the “General Order No. 1” of the command of the Allied forces on the surrender of the Japanese armed forces, approved by US President Harry Truman, it was determined: “Include All(emphasis by the author) Kuril Islands to the area that must capitulate to the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Armed Forces on Far East" In carrying out this order, Soviet troops occupied the islands of the Kuril chain all the way to Hokkaido. In this regard, it is difficult to agree with the statement of the Japanese government that the Soviet command allegedly intended to occupy the Kuril Islands only up to the island of Urup, and occupied the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai only after “learning of the absence (of) American troops.” The geographical innovation invented after the war about the “non-inclusion” of these four islands into the Kuril ridge (Japanese name - Chishima retto) is refuted by Japanese documents and maps of the pre-war and war periods.

Of fundamental importance is the directive of the commander of the occupation forces in Japan, General Douglas MacArthur No. 677/1 of January 29, 1946, in which, in pursuance of the 8th paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration, the allied command determined the islands that were withdrawn from Japanese sovereignty. Along with other territories, Japan lost all the islands north of Hokkaido. The directive clearly stated that the Chishima Islands (Kuril Islands), as well as the Habomai group of islands (Sushio, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu, Taraku) and the island of Shikotan were excluded from the jurisdiction of the state or administrative authorities of Japan. The Japanese government did not object, because this was in accordance with the terms of surrender.

Following the publication of a directive in pursuance of the Yalta Agreement on the return of Southern Sakhalin and the transfer of the Kuril Islands to the USSR on February 2, 1946, by decree of the Presidium Supreme Council The USSR established the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk region in these territories and included it in Khabarovsk Territory RSFSR.

The agreement of the Japanese government with the decision of the allied powers to withdraw all the Kuril Islands from the Japanese state is contained in the text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. Clause c) of Article 2 of the treaty states: “Japan renounces all rights, title and claims to the Kuril Islands and to that part of Sakhalin Island and the adjacent islands over which Japan acquired sovereignty under the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.”

Then the Japanese government proceeded from the fact that the Kuril Islands (Chishima Islands) ceased to be Japanese territory. This was clearly demonstrated during the ratification of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the Japanese Parliament. The head of the treaty department of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Kumao Nishimura, made the following statement in the House of Representatives on October 6, 1951: “Since Japan had to renounce sovereignty over the Chishima Islands, it has lost the right to vote on the final decision on the issue of their ownership. Since Japan, by the peace treaty, agreed to renounce sovereignty over these territories, this issue, to the extent that it relates to her, is resolved.” Nishimura’s statement in parliament on October 19, 1951 is also known that “the territorial limits of the Chishima Archipelago, which is referred to in the treaty, include both Northern Chishima and Southern Chishima.” Thus, when ratifying the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the highest legislative body of the Japanese state stated the fact that Japan had renounced all the islands of the Kuril chain.

After the ratification of the Treaty of San Francisco in political world There was a consensus among Japan that in the course of a peace settlement with the USSR, territorial claims should be limited only to the islands close to Hokkaido, namely, to seek the return of only the Lesser Kuril ridge of Habomai and the island of Shikotan. This was recorded in a parliamentary resolution adopted unanimously by all political parties Japan dated July 31, 1952. This effectively recognized the USSR's ownership of the remaining Kuril Islands, including Kunashir and Iturup.

Although at the Japanese-Soviet negotiations to end the state of war and conclude a peace treaty, the Japanese delegation initially put forward claims to all of the Kuril Islands and the southern half of Sakhalin, in reality the task was to return only the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan. Plenipotentiary representative of the Japanese government at the Soviet-Japanese negotiations 1955−1956. Shun'ichi Matsumoto admitted that when he first heard the Soviet side's offer of readiness to transfer the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan after the conclusion of the peace treaty, he “at first did not believe my ears,” but “was very happy in my heart.” After such a serious concession, Matsumoto himself was confident in the end of the negotiations and the speedy signing of a peace treaty. However, the Americans rudely blocked this opportunity.

IN Lately Japanese media and scientific research began to recognize the fact of an arbitrary demand for the “return of the northern territories” - the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai ridge under pressure from those uninterested in the Soviet-Japanese normalization of the United States and the anti-Soviet part of the Japanese establishment. It was they who came up with the previously non-existent propaganda slogan of “the fight for the northern territories” in March 1956. This was done in order to avoid the name Chishima (Kuril Islands) in slogans, which, as stated above, Japan has officially abandoned. By the way, it is important to realize that in addition to the requirement of the four southern islands of the Kuril chain, in Japan there is also a broad interpretation of the invented concept of “northern territories”, namely, the inclusion of the entire Kuril chain, up to Kamchatka, as well as Karafuto, that is, Sakhalin.

The legal basis for bilateral relations was created by the signing on October 19, 1956, and then the ratification of the Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan, which ended the state of war and restored diplomatic and consular relations between the two countries. As a gesture good will the then Soviet government agreed to include the following provision in the text of the declaration: “... The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state, agrees to the transfer to Japan of the islands of Habomai and the island of Sikotan (Shikotan), with the fact that the actual transfer of these islands Japan will be produced after the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan." By signing and ratifying this document, the Japanese government legally recognized the ownership of South Sakhalin and all the Kuril Islands by the Soviet Union, since the latter could only “transfer” its territory to another state.

As representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry have repeatedly pointed out, the position taken by the Japanese government indicates its open non-recognition of the results of World War II and the demand for their revision.

Note that the claims of the Japanese government to territories whose ownership is enshrined in the Constitution Russian Federation, fall under the concept of “revanchism”. As is known, in the political lexicon, revanchism (French revanchisme, from revanche - “vengeance”) means “the desire to revise the results of defeats in the past, to return territories lost in the war.” Attempts to accuse the Russian Federation of allegedly “illegal occupation and retention of the Kuril Islands,” in our opinion, create a situation where Russian government If such allegations continue at the official level, it has the right to raise this issue with the international community at the UN, as well as file a claim with the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Let us recall that Japan has “territorial problems” with all neighboring states. Thus, the government of the Republic of Korea strongly protests against the inclusion of Japanese claims to the Seoul-administered Dokdo Islands in government White Papers on foreign policy and defense, as well as in school textbooks. The tense situation also continues in the area of ​​the Japanese-held Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands, which the PRC claims, citing historical documents and facts. Needless to say, building up excitement around territorial claims to neighboring states does not unite, but divides peoples, sows discord between them, and is even fraught with confrontation, including military confrontation.

Everyone knows that Japan wants to receive from Russia part of the territories that are considered illegally taken from the country. Japan's territorial claims are expressed with enviable frequency. Each new Russian government receives new curtsies from the Japanese government. They convince senior representatives The Russian state is that they will certainly make the right decision and resolve the issue in favor of the Japanese, realizing that what happened earlier is nothing more than a misunderstanding.

But each time these claims differ and it is completely unclear what Japanese officials are actually seeking. Sometimes Japan's territorial claims extend to all of the Kuril Islands and part of Sakhalin, and sometimes the Japanese are satisfied with only four islands of the Kuril chain. It happens that two islands are enough for the Japanese - Shikotan and Habomai. Perhaps this tactic was developed specifically and the Japanese really hope that in due time it will bear certain fruits. But this year the Japanese have a problem in the form of a new old president, Vladimir Putin, who knows everything in detail possible options relations with its eastern neighbors and not strive to satisfy their demands. The whole “oriental cuisine” has become so boring that Japan cannot count on the fact that the assurances that this particular president will do the right thing and give up the Kuril Islands in favor of Japan will be heard and the claims will be satisfied. But objectively, it is not clear why Russia should return its territories to another country. After all, the history of the disputed territory is so complicated that it is very difficult for even a trained person to understand it.

And they were never the original “Japanese” territory. In the first half of the 17th century, this area was inhabited by Ainu tribes. The Japanese themselves accept the fact that the Ainu are in no way related to their nation. It is interesting that the history of Japan, published in the 18th century, talks about both the Kuril Islands and the island of Hokkaido itself as a foreign territory that has nothing to do with Japan. If we rely on cartographic data that was replenished during the era of great discoveries, then here too there cannot be a definite answer in favor of Japan. At these times, any state could consider as its own those territories that were the first to be included on such a map. Indeed, Japan had a map of the Kuril Islands much earlier than Russian cartographers did. This happened back in the thirties of the seventeenth century.

But examination of samples of this map leads to the conclusion that this map cannot in any way be considered accurate. It shows that there are several small islands north of Hokkaido, but does not indicate their exact sizes or coastline features. But in 1643, this gap was closed by Dutch navigators, who were the first to put accurate data about the islands on the world map. The leader of this expedition was Martin Freese. And at the beginning of the next century, scientists of the Russian Empire clarified the data and put the archipelago on maps. They also negotiated with the tribes inhabiting the islands. A few decades later they came under the rule of the empire. Thus, if we consider the territorial claims of Japan, it can be argued that those words that the Kuril Islands were originally Japanese lands, to put it mildly, are a substitution of facts that took place in history. Guided by history, it can be argued that the same Dutch who were the first to accurately describe the Kuril Islands and put them on maps have much more opportunities to lay claim to these territories.

However, the Dutch do not need these islands, while the Japanese suddenly wanted to take them into their own hands. The Japanese authorities are conducting systematic preparations for the return of territories, constantly raising this topic when communicating with the Russian side. Although after Japan lost the war of 1945, it could have ceased to be a sovereign state altogether. The same territories that were given to the union after the war can be considered a small price to pay for this loss. Japan itself, after the Russian Empire was defeated in the war of 1905, had much greater appetites for Russian territories. Then no one said anything about the fact that the Japanese took Sakhalin for themselves. The standards they produce are interesting. If you win, demand everything you like in your favor immediately and without appeal. And when the country itself lost the war, then it is also necessary to demand the return of territories. But in reality, such a policy has no right to exist. There is another historical document - the Shimoda Contract. According to this treaty, signed in 1855, the Kuril Islands, which are located north of Iturup, were given to Russia, and Sakhalin was to be developed jointly. Twenty years later, the terms of the contract changed, and the Japanese received control of the Kuril Islands, and Russia received all of Sakhalin.

But after Japan's victory in 1905, it itself broke the treaty. As a result, the Treaty of Prtmunda made southern Sakhalin and the Liaodong Peninsula subject to the Japanese. And fishermen were able to fish in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, Sea of ​​Japan and Bering Sea near Russian territories. Later, Japan also forced the Empire to pay huge indemnities and disarm the entire Far East. The victory of the USSR in 1945 allowed Stalin to return everything to its place, Sakhalin, the Liaodong Peninsula and the Kuril Islands again returned to Soviet power. In addition, the allies dissuaded Stalin from laying claims to the northern part of Hokkaido, but the winners cannot be judged.

So why do neighbors from the east want to take back the southern Kuril Islands, because losing the war put everything in place. The Japanese could try to return their territories from China - Port Arthur, and the Mariana Islands can be taken away from the United States, these are the southern territories that the Japanese so lack. And after all these territories are happily returned to them, they can turn to northern neighbors. It is better now to pay attention to seismic activity and the consequences of the tsunami.

View of Balaklava, TASS

Territorial claims to Russia, as to the most big country on the planet, the phenomenon is not new and Russia’s reaction in this matter is a real reason for pride. For each “disputed” territory, he calmly and politely, with sympathy and understanding, tries to explain that all the lands belonging to Russia and the Russian people will forever remain in Russia. But the leaders of a number of countries do not want to take this obvious position into account, continually making noise around the so-called “disputed” Russian territories.

But the most interesting thing is that Russia does not make territorial claims to any country in the world, and as it has happened historically, this is how it has turned out. After all, if we start presenting, we will have to remember the powerful Russian Empire, whose territory in the 19th century amounted to 21.8 million km² (that is, 1/6 of the land) - it ranked second in the world, after the British Empire. And this does not take into account the territory of Alaska, which was part of it from 1744 to 1867 and occupied an area of ​​1,717,854 km², without taking into account the Aleutian Islands, as well as parts of the Pacific coast of the USA and Canada... Russia does not remind us of all this, but it could ...

So, which countries have territorial claims against Russia?

The Republic of Korea: Noktundo Island

Noktundo has belonged to the Korean Joseon Dynasty since the 15th century. In 1587, a battle took place on its territory between detachments of Jurchen nomads and a local garrison under the command of Li Sunsin, national hero Korea.

During the shallowing of the northern branch of the Tumannaya, the river bed changed from time to time, as a result of which Noktundo sometimes connected with the land of Primorye. Despite this, the territory of the island continued to be under Korean jurisdiction.

In 1860, without the consent of the Korean side, Noktundo ceded to the Russian Empire in accordance with the Beijing Treaty between Qing China and Russia. Throughout the 20th century, the territory of the island was part of the Khasansky district of Primorsky Krai.

In 1990, the USSR and the DPRK signed an agreement on establishing the state border line along the Tumannaya fairway, thanks to which the territory of the former island was recognized as Soviet. This deal was not recognized South Korea, which continues to consider Noktundo's territory its own.

Japan: Kuril Islands

Perhaps the most relevant today are Japan's claims against Russia regarding the southern Kuril Islands: Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Habomai archipelago. These territories first appeared on the map of Russia in the middle of the 18th century, when the captain of the Russian fleet, Martyn Petrovich Shpanberg, marked the Lesser Kuril Ridge on it. Catherine II formalized these annexations by decree of 1786, calling them “lands acquired by Russian sailors.”

However, already in 1855 they were transferred to Japan according to the Treaty of Shimoda as a guarantee of “permanent peace and sincere friendship between Russia and Japan.” This agreement was followed by the St. Petersburg Treaty, according to which all the Kuril Islands were transferred to Japan in exchange for the Japanese part of Sakhalin. The latter was subsequently lost during the Russo-Japanese War.

The chance to return the lost territories presented itself after the Yalta Conference on February 11, 1945, at which an agreement was reached on the USSR's entry into the war against Japan, subject to the transfer of Southern Sakhalin and all the Kuril Islands to it. In accordance with this agreement, General of the Allied Forces Douglas MacArthur in 1946, by a special Memorandum, excluded from the territory of the Country rising sun The Kuril Islands (Chishima Islands), the Habomai (Habomadze) group of islands and Sikotan Island.

However, a peace treaty between Russia and Japan was never signed. Japan refused to recognize a number of the Kuril Islands, which were transferred to Russia, as “Kuril Islands”. According to the official position of the Land of the Rising Sun, the islands of Iturup, Shikotan, Kunashir and Habomai (Southern Kuriles) were not part of the Kuril Islands and Japan did not abandon them.

The territorial dispute only worsened under the conditions of “ Cold War" In 1956, the USSR, according to the maritime declaration, was ready to cede the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan, leaving behind the strategically important Kunashir and Iturup. However, in the event of such a compromise, the United States threatened the Land of the Rising Sun with the deprivation of the Ryukyu archipelago with the island of Okinawa, which was then under American control.

The failed compromise was, in fact, the last precedent in history when the Kuril issue could move forward. The Treaty on Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, adopted shortly after this, legitimized the presence of American troops on Japanese territory, which was naturally regarded by the USSR as a threat to its own interests. The dispute “about the northern territories” has reached a complete dead end.

Today, the four islands of the South Kuril Islands, as well as the status of the Northern Islands and South Sakhalin, remain the main stumbling block in Russian-Japanese relations, which prevents summing up the results of World War II and signing a peace treaty. According to Russia's position, all the Kuril Islands, including Iturup, Shikotan, Kunashir and Habomai, as well as all of Sakhalin, belong to the Russian Federation. legally, following the Second World War.

Russia is still ready to make concessions in the form of the islands of Habomai and Shikotan. Japan, whose position is consistently supported by the United States, considers all the Southern Kuril Islands to be its ancestral lands, illegally occupied by Russia, and the Northern Kuril Islands and Southern Sakhalin as territories with an uncertain status. For its part, a peace treaty is possible only with the return of all four disputed islands. At the same time, there is a third force - the indigenous Ainu people, who insist on their sovereign rights to the Southern Islands.

The situation sometimes reaches the point of absurdity. Thus, in 2012, the Japanese government officially expressed regret in connection with the visit Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Kunashir Islands, calling these “serious obstacles in bilateral relations.”

Return of the Kuril Islands – Foundation stone foreign policy current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Today, Japanese media take the position that the territorial issue has finally moved forward, due to Vladimir Putin's statement that the lack of a peace treaty with Japan is abnormal.

Latvia: claims to Pytalovo

The legacy of the revolution and the subsequent division of the Russian Empire was a long-term territorial dispute between Russia and Latvia over the Pytalovsky district of the Pskov region. This territory was transferred to the latter under the terms of the Riga Peace Treaty between Soviet Russia and Latvia of 1920. According to the official Latvian version, when determining the border in 1920, the ethnographic principle was applied. According to other sources, Latvia insisted on transferring this region to it, since it had an important railway junction. In any case, Pytalovo became part of the separated Latvia, and was soon renamed Jaunlatgale.

But the lost territories were returned twenty years later, in 1940, after Latvia was included in the USSR as the Latvian SSR. And in 1944, Pytalovo and the surrounding area became part of the RSFSR, after liberation from Nazi occupation. After the collapse of the USSR, Latvia refused to recognize these territorial changes, calling its inclusion in the Union of Socialist Republics an occupation, and Pytalovo an illegally annexed territory, insisting on the return of the 1920 borders. Area with a telling name“Pytalovo” became a source of irritation in relations between Moscow and Riga for a long time.

He disrupted the signing of the Russian-Latvian border agreement when Latvia unexpectedly included in the project a unilateral, “clarifying” declaration with claims to these territories. According to Latvian politicians, the fact that Pytalovo was owned by Russia violated the Latvian constitution, according to which the border (naturally, corresponding to the 1920 border) cannot be changed without the consent of citizens in a referendum. In response to this, Vladimir Putin said his famous phrase: “It’s their ears that come from a dead donkey, not the Pytalovsky district.”

Latvia could have insisted for a long time on its undoubted ownership of the “five kilometers” of the Pskov region, if not for its desire to join the European Union, one of the main requirements of which is clearly defined borders. In 2007, President Vike-Freiberga renounced her territorial claims, expressing the hope that this would: “help unfreeze the really frozen relations with our eastern neighbor.”

Finland: the Karelian question

While Latvia has abandoned its territorial claims, in Finland the number of public organizations, advocating the return of Karelia and other territories lost during the Second World War. Vesti Karelia reported about the upcoming public discussion on hypothetical ways of returning Karelia, which could take place in the very near future. According to them, among the initiators are the revanchist organization ProKarelia, the Karelia club, as well as the magazine Karjalan kuvalehti.

During its history, Karelia was a Swedish duchy, a Korelsky district, and an Olonets governorship. This land has become disputed more than once.

The Karelian question arose as a result of the terms of the Tartu Peace Treaty of 1920, at the end of civil war in Finland and the Soviet-Finnish war. According to its terms, Western Karelia became the property of Finland. The territories were returned during the Second World War, and the Karelian-Finnish population was evacuated to Finland. In 1956, the Karelo-Finnish SSR was transformed into an autonomy within the RSFSR.

Despite the fact that Finland does not officially raise the issue of revising borders, in the country, according to recent polls, 38% of respondents are in favor of the return of Western Karelia. In 2011, the leader of the ProKarelia movement, already known to us, Veikko Saksi, came up with a similar initiative, reporting that the return of Karelia to Finland complied with all EU standards. However, the President of Finland, Sauli Niiniste, during his working visit to Moscow in 2013, denied this information, saying that he had never heard such a proposal among Finnish legislators.

China: dispute over 17 hectares

Today, China has territorial claims to almost all of its neighbors. Russia is no exception. More recently, in 2005, the Russian-Chinese border underwent changes in the form of 340 square kilometers: a plot of land in the area of ​​Bolshoy Island and two sections in the area of ​​Tarabarov and Bolshoy Ussuriysky islands, at the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri rivers, came under the jurisdiction of the PRC. However, this was not the end of China’s territorial claims to Russia.

In 2012, when checking the state border between the countries, China announced the need to shift it deeper into Russia, putting forward a claim to “originally Chinese” 17 hectares of the Altai mountainous area. It is worth noting that the dispute arose due to a small area of ​​inaccessible territory, located at an altitude of 2500-3000 meters, and not equipped, on this moment, checkpoints. As a result, the Chinese side was unable to provide any documents to support its claims to the Altai 17 hectares, which overnight turned into disputed territories.

Ukraine Crimea

The Crimean peninsula, on which the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol are located, became part of Russia on March 18, 2014, following the results of a referendum held on its territory, in which the overwhelming majority of Crimeans voted for reunification with Russia.

When seceding from Ukraine, Crimea used the same grounds as it did in 1991 when seceding from the USSR, namely:

• The right of peoples to self-determination
• Security threat due to coup d'etat
• Continuation of centuries-old historical traditions

Ukraine, of which Crimea had previously been a part, had already lost its previously existing statehood at the time of the referendum, since the coup, during which the current president was deposed by parliament with obvious violations of constitutional procedures, automatically placed all power in the country outside the constitution and legally destroyed the state as such.

The results of the referendum are not openly recognized by Ukraine and the West; the rest of the world for the most part simply avoids the issue. In any case, the topic will remain open for some time, among other things, because in 1954 Crimea was transferred to Ukraine with different borders - since then the northern part of the Arabat Spit with the village of Strelkovoe still remains in the Kherson region. In general, the issue is closely connected with the future fate of Novorossiya.

TERRITORIAL CLAIM - a claim by a state to any territory with the aim of establishing its sovereignty over it. etc. It can be bilateral or multilateral, when the same territory, the exact territory of which has not been established, is claimed by two or more states. In these cases, it occurs. For unilateral T.p. the applicant state does not doubt the legal status or affiliation of a given territory to a particular state, but for some reason believes that this affiliation should be changed. Such claims do not form a territorial dispute, since they are not based on a dispute about the legal rights of the parties (who have real rights and who have imaginary ones), but there is simply a desire of one side to change the territorial status quo. One-sided etc. may be expressed in the desire of the state to change in its favor the border established in accordance with international law without precise definition beyond the territory to which it claims. One-sided etc. may be considered as contrary to modern international law, since, according to its norms, all changes in ownership state territory are resolved either on the basis of the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations, or by agreement of the relevant states. One-sided etc. poses a threat to the territorial integrity and inviolability, the sovereignty of the state whose borders are disputed, significantly worsens relations between the relevant states, and is fraught with the possibility of serious armed conflicts. Unilateral claims have been made by a number of states regarding Antarctica or parts of it. They are not recognized by other states, but are not rejected, but frozen under the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.

Economics and law: dictionary-reference book. - M.: University and school. L. P. Kurakov, V. L. Kurakov, A. L. Kurakov. 2004 .

See what “TERRITORIAL CLAIM” is in other dictionaries:

Legal Dictionary

TERRITORIAL CLAIM- the claim of any state to any territory in order to establish its sovereignty over it. etc. can be bilateral and multilateral, when the same territory, the exact identity of which is not established,... ... Legal encyclopedia

territorial claim- when any state claims any territory in order to establish its sovereignty over it. etc. can be bilateral (multilateral), when two (or more) states claim the same territory. In these cases... ... Large legal dictionary

See Territorial Claim... Legal Dictionary

Russian-Japanese relations in the last decade have been complicated by a problem called the problem of the so-called northern territories. It should be considered in the context of the entire process of territorial demarcation between Russia and Japan.

This process began in the 1st half of the 19th century, when the Russians and Japanese met each other in the Kuril Islands area. These islands were of interest as a fishing area for marine animals for Russian industrialists. And for the Japanese who lived on the island of Hokkaido, they were a fishing zone.

The Kuril Islands were in the 17th century. discovered and mastered by the Russians. The indigenous population of the islands (Ainu) was brought under the citizenship of the Russian Tsar.

1855 - the first border treaty was concluded. The northern part of the Kuril Islands was assigned to Russia, the southern part to Japan. The demarcation point is Iturup Island. Sakhalin was declared an undivided territory.

In 1875, a new Russian-Japanese border treaty was concluded. All of Sakhalin went to Russia, and the northern part of the Kuril Islands to Japan.

During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan first occupied all of Sakhalin, and then received it under the Portsmouth Peace Treaty southern part.

1941 - The Neutrality Pact is signed. This document made it possible to avoid the Soviet Union being drawn into hostilities in the Far East at the height of the Great Patriotic War.

During negotiations with Western partners in the anti-Hitler coalition, Stalin at the Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences stipulated the USSR's entry into the war with Japan with a number of demands. He demanded the return of the southern part of Sakhalin to the USSR and the restoration of what was lost after the defeat in Russo-Japanese War lease rights to the Liaodong Peninsula with the cities of Port Arthur and Dalniy. In addition, the Kuril Islands and the Chinese-Eastern Railway(CER), sold to Japan in 1935.

On April 5, 1945, the Soviet government announced the denunciation of the Neutrality Pact with Japan. During military operations, among other territories, South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands were liberated.

In 1946, these territories were included in the Sakhalin region of the RSFSR. The USSR received the cities of Port Arthur, Dalniy and the Chinese Eastern Railway under an agreement with China, and then returned them to the latter after the victory of the Chinese communists in the civil war.

1951 San Francisco - peace treaty with Japan, there was no USSR. Japan abandoned South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.

1956 - Joint Declaration of the USSR and Japan (restoration of diplomatic and consular relations between the two states). The USSR was ready to transfer to Japan part of the South Kuril Islands, namely the island of Shikotan and the Habomai island ridge. Soviet leadership and announced its rejection of the provisions of the Moscow Declaration of 1956.

From 1960 to the early 1990s. the situation around the peace treaty was frozen. The Soviet Union denied the existence of territorial problems, and in Japan, the majority of political forces advocated the return of the “northern territories” (ITURUP, KUNASHIR, SHIKOTAN, HABOMAI), linking this issue with all other issues of the development of relations with the USSR.

1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian leadership made efforts to intensify dialogue with Japan, but they never yielded tangible results.

A new stage in relations with Japan began after V. Putin became President of the Russian Federation. During the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Dz. Koizumi to Russia, he and V. Putin signed the Russian-Japanese Action Plan with the aim of giving a new quality to bilateral relations, which should correspond to the potential capabilities of both states.

Regarding the conclusion of a peace treaty and related territorial problems, the parties, within the framework of the adopted plan, identified the following tasks for themselves:

1) intensify negotiations in order to quickly resolve the remaining problems;

2) explaining to the public of the two countries the importance of concluding a peace treaty”;

3) further development visa-free exchanges between island residents and Japanese citizens;

4) cooperation in the field of harvesting marine biological resources;

5) search for forms of joint economic activity in the area of ​​the islands

More on the topic Japan's territorial claims to Russia: origins, solutions:

1. Japanese-Russian relations at the present stage. The territorial problem as a geopolitical factor in the relationship between Russia and Japan: stages and solutions
2. Causes, origins of tension in the Middle East and ways to achieve peace and security
3. 1. Ways, approaches and methods of solutions in a conflict situation