As indicated in the Foreword, this book contains chapters that address two questions. These are: 1) the historical evolution of the concept of âterritoryâ and 2) methods for resolving territorial disputes. Each chapter is a complete and independent work and the Foreword therefore introduced the essence of each. It demonstrates the mutual connections, albeit of a relatively loose nature, of these individual papers. However, their mutual connections do not end there. As the final section of this book, the Conclusion aims to provide further clarification of the cross-cutting connections across these nine chapters. These are in large part due to the research framework formed as part of preparations for publishing this collection.
As part of the research project explained in the Foreword, two study groups were set up to conduct research on the two questions, and the two editors of this book each served as the directors for their respective study groups. The authors of the papers in Part 1 and Part 2 of the book were members of the âStudy Group on the Historical Evolution of the Concept of âTerritoryâ,â and authors of the papers in Part 3 and Part 4 of the book were members of the âStudy Group on Methods for Resolving Territorial Disputes.â Besides the roundtable meeting held once a year when all of the members assembled, the two study groups held their own meetings from 2018, and each author had four opportunities to present their work through 2021. The project also encouraged interaction and exchange, whereby members of each study group could freely attend the other. However, this was not always easy because some members had to travel long distances in order to participate.
The covid-19 pandemic, meanwhile, actually contributed âpositivelyâ to this situation. It meant that all meetings for the two study groups in the final year took place virtually. Although this may have made it more difficult to engage in the same kind of detailed discussion as during in-person meetings, the online format nevertheless helped members based far away to participate more easily and also promoted interaction and exchange by these members as well. This research framework and the way in which it was implemented encouraged cross-cutting connections across all the papers at a variety of levels. Needless to say, the discussions within the respective study groups also have mutual connections.
Regarding the result of each group, as stated in the Foreword, the âStudy Group on the Historical Evolution of the Concept of âTerritoryââ had a shared
Similarly, as explained in the Foreword, the âStudy Group on Methods for Resolving Territorial Disputesâ had a shared research purpose of looking at âthe latest developments in international jurisprudence and other territorial dispute resolution cases as well as at changes in the usage and significance of international law concepts that are related to territory, taking up existing articles and commentaries on judicial precedents and, in particular, examining their points with Japanâs territorial issues in mind.â Based on this common purpose, the research of the study group came to provide a perspective on multiple specific issues regarding concepts and principles of international law related to territory that, combined, form a comprehensive whole. This notably extended to general observations of international law, covering not only international law related to territorial disputes, but also the validity of international law, assessment of the intent of sovereign States, and the mutual interaction between the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals and the concept of territorial disputes.
Turning to the cross-cutting connections between the two study groups, as discussed in the Foreword, all chapters in this book have a consistent and shared awareness of looking at Japanâs territorial issues. This aspect clearly and jointly defines the research conducted by the two study groups. Furthermore, reviewing suitable legal principles for resolving territorial disputes is meaningless unless it is premised on the definition of the concept of âterritory.â
In this way, the research of the two study groups obviously has mutual and cross-cutting connections. Looking at this in greater depth reveals that the research of the two study groups has multiple mutual connections, which brought synergy effect of the research by each group, as follows. First, question of how to treat an act of the State and the acts of Japan as a State forms a consistent theme across the respective perspectives and is covered by the authors of both study groups.
In trying to understand the acts of the State of modern Japan and the evidence thereof, authors from the âStudy Group on the Historical Evolution of the Concept of âTerritoryââ had different focuses and emphases regarding the
The study group also conducted complementary, that is to say indirect, examination of the state of affairs, in other words the âcontextâ by which policymakers and government officials more broadly, as well as scholars with influence at the time, formed their respective views. Specific focuses lay on the opinions of foreign diplomats (such as Ernest Satow) and political elements, such as Diet tactics and factional strife within the Government at the time.
Considering this shared awareness regarding âthe acts of the Stateâ by the âStudy Group on the Historical Evolution of the Concept of âTerritoryâ,â the âStudy Group on Methods for Resolving Territorial Disputesâ reviewed the acts of the State in relation to the requirement for territorial acquisition of âcontinuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty.â Display of territorial sovereignty must take place as an act of the State. Indeed, with regard to the Senkaku Islands and Takeshima, the questions of whether the acts of assertion by Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea (rok) are acts of the State and whether the intent of possessing the territory has been displayed by these States are important ones. Furthermore, there is also the question of whereupon acts of the State depend, and its consideration leads to an examination of the elements of intent related to territorial acquisition, such as acquiescence, approval, and protest by the relevant States.
The second element that connects the research across the two study groups is comparison of modern European international law and the East Asian spatial order. Modern European international law was formed based upon the modern European sovereign State system mainly from the 15th to 18th century and further developed in the 19th and 20th century. In this approach, the issue of âwhereupon acts of the State dependâ cited in the first point is a specific area of study. In other words, to understand the acts of the State, the research returned to the reality that notions of State differed in modern Europe and East Asia.
Obviously, the issue of mutual comparison of modern European international law and the East Asian spatial order was an essential subject for the two study groups to review. Mutual comparison of modern European international law and the East Asian spatial order was one of the most important bases of research for the âStudy Group on the Historical Evolution of the Concept of âTerritoryâ.â This point also applies to the âStudy Group on Methods for Resolving Territorial Disputesâ in the following way. Territorial issues related
Furthermore, looking at the issue of applicable laws for resolving territorial disputes, the issues of intertemporal law and critical date, which are procedural theories related to time, when placed in the unique context of Japanâs territorial issues, concern more than procedural principles and bring the discussion back to the fundamental problem of the legal order of the international community, specifically the relation between modern European international law and the East Asian spatial order.
The third element is the way in which the two study groups expanded their research scope related to the concept of âterritory.â The âStudy Group on the Historical Evolution of the Concept of âTerritoryââ dealt with concepts related to territory (hankoku: domain State; hanpÅ: domain territory; zokkoku: client state; hanto: territory; hÅdo: realm; kyÅiki: territory; etc.) and concepts related to the extension of territory (gaichi: overseas territory; leased territory; etc.). Furthermore, the âStudy Group on Methods for Resolving Territorial Disputesâ pursued research on whether historic titles can serve as territorial titles, the types of premodern/non-European titles related to territorial control, and the types of relationships between disputes regarding territory (i.e., territorial sovereignty) and coastal State litigation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The three points discussed above are just some examples of the shared awareness and research topics of the authors in this book. The research framework comprising two study groups clearly facilitated meaningful cross-cutting connections, not only between the study groups but also among the respective papers. In this respect, this book is the result of a collaborative effort by all of the authors. The two editors served as the main reviewers of the study groups based on this understanding and communicated shared comments that they considered to be appropriate to the authors after reading the drafts.
Nevertheless, each author ultimately had complete freedom to make decisions about how to handle the comments. This is because all papers compiled
Thus, this book is the result of both the independent research and the collaborative works by all the authors and those who were engaged in its publication.