Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
    • Public Interest and Charitable Activities
  • Global Experience
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

May 30, 2013 by PKR

Japan and Russia move closer to peace treaty, but why now?

Japan and Russia never concluded a peace treaty at the end of the Second World War. The USSR’s seizure of a group of islands (called the Southern Kurils in Russia, and the Northern Territories in Japan) in the war’s final days became a rift in bilateral relations that no pair of leaders since then has been able to solve. But last month the two nations moved a step closer to formal peace with the issuing of a joint statement after meetings between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Japan’s premier, Shinzo Abe.

Most observers blame domestic concerns for the lack of a peace treaty after more than 60 years; neither country’s leaders want to appear weak to their own constituents. But economic concerns could trump electoral calculations and national pride. With the closure of most of Japan’s nuclear power plants following the 2011 disaster, Japan has become the leading buyer of Russian natural gas. Closer ties would also benefit the two countries in their dealings with China and the Koreas. And both Russia and Japan would like to start developing the disputed territories, something that won’t likely happen without a demarcation.

Right now it’s hard to say whether the benefits of a new treaty will be enough to overcome decades of inertia. As Temple University’s Tina Burrett argues:

Currently a lack of settlement is not preventing either state from pursuing their national economic goals. Economic ties between Russia and Japan have strengthened since the mid-2000s, despite worsening political relations between 2010 and 2012. Growing bilateral trade and investment removes a possible incentive for Moscow to offer territorial concessions and renders a settlement unlikely in the short term. In the long term, changing geopolitical dynamics in Northeast Asia — in particular a common interest in counterbalancing the influence of China — may offer a more promising route to resolution of the dispute.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Boundary Disputes, International Disputes/Dimensions of Sovereignty Tagged With: demarcation, Japan, Russia

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reports Record Amounts of Imports Subject to Antidumping and Countervailing Duties in FY2021
  • Number of U.S. Industries Filing Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Decreases Significantly in Fiscal Year 2021

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.