Paper short abstract:

This study examines the aspects of third-party countries’— the USA and UK—position and interest in relation to the "Northern Territories" settlement between Japan and the Soviet Union/Russia.

Paper long abstract:

The existence of the “Northern Territories” dispute between Japan and Russia is the main reason why no peace agreement has been concluded between these two states until now. Towards the end of the war these islands (the islands of Shikotan, Etorofu, Kunashiri, and the Habomai group) were used for a deal to bring the Russians into the war in the Far East that was agreed at the Yalta Conference by the USA, UK and the Soviet Union. Depending on the international situation the “Northern Territories” issue was treated differently by the third-party “concerned” countries after World War II. As it is known, Japan tried to exploit the settlement of the territorial issue by internationalizing it. In this regard, Japan expressed its desirability towards US and UK as primary nations involved in creating the issue through different arrangements, to support Japan’s claim over the territories prior and during peace negotiations with the Soviet Union. The studies that have been published to these days are narrowly focused on the cause of the territorial issue and third-party countries’ relation to the Northern Territory problem as a “concerned” nation received lees attention. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the aspects of third-party countries’ position and interest in relation to the Northern Territories settlement. This study is mainly based on the extensive research of archival materials conducted in the UK, US and Japan. The present study argues that despite the fact that UK and US belonged to the same camp of “democratic nations” during the Cold War, their positions towards the Northern territory settlement differed. Farthermost, each nation was concerned to protect its own short-term interests over justice reflected settlement of the issue.