Harvard Law School then cited the protectorate treaty between Japan and Korea as one of four classic examples of a mandatory contract comparing the agreement to HIlter`s constraint on European countries. That is why Korea argued that the Eulsa Treaty did not agree. However, the Japanese side asserts that under international law, it is possible for two nations to sign a treaty in which one of them delegates diplomatic power and loses independence without ratification. In 1905, all Japanese scholars of international law insisted on the need for ratification without it being made public, as it was not necessary. After 1905, several theories did not convincingly claim that ratification was not necessary. Indeed, on the basis of the logic of the transitional law, a theory that was made after the signing of a contract cannot prove its validity at the time of signing. This treaty was confirmed by the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea as “already null and void”.” [9] In 2010, Japan argued that the chronological reference point for “already null and non-agreeable” was august 15, 1948, when the Government of the Republic of Korea was created. This position is disputed by the Korean analysis, which establishes the 1965 treaty as an acknowledgement of the cancellation of all Japanese-Korean treaties and agreements from 1904. [10] The original Japanese-language version of the Treaty of Eulsa, signed on November 17, 1905, is kept in the diplomatic archives of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (www.jacar.go.jp/goshomei/index.html) (Etsuro Totsuka) In recent negotiations between Japan, South Korea and Japan-North Korea, which discussed the possible invalidity of former agreements between Japan and Korea that illegally declare annexation, the focus was on the 1905 treaty between Japan and Korea. The scientific discussion on the validity of this treaty intensified around the year 2000, and it went beyond the realm of history and involved scholars of international law. The debate between Yu Tae-jin and Fukuju Unno is particularly important. The main points of contention may be summarily divided into 1.Issues of formality, such as the existence or absence of a ratification instrument and sovereignty transition procedures, and 2) whether Japan`s use of force against Korean representatives during the treaty signing process should be considered an obstacle to its validity.

This agreement remains in force for a period of fifteen years from the date of its signing and, at the end of that period, other agreements may be concluded by mutual agreement. [4] Aud.