title, insofar as it is title, ceases to be a bilateral contractual relationship and becomes a real relationship in international law. Though contract may be a modality for transferring title, title is not a contractual relationship. Hence once it vests, it can no longer be susceptible to denunciation by a party to the treaty. Y. Frank Chiang, writing in the Fordham International Law Journal in 2004, expanded upon this argument and claimed that there are no international law principles which can serve to validate a unilateral proclamation to abrogate (or revoke) a territorial treaty, whether based on a charge of being "unequal," or due to a subsequent "aggression" of the other party to the treaty, or any other reason. According to United Nations Treaty Series Volume 138, the Japanese plenipotentiary, Isao Kawada, acknowledged "The present Treaty (Treaty of Peace) shall, in respect of the Republic of China, be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government," which included Taiwan (Formosa), Penghu (the Pescadores) through the Exchange of Notes No. 1. Regarding the effect of the Exchange of Notes No. 1, in 1964, Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Masayoshi Ōhira explained in the House of Councillors: "This note of exchange has nothing to do with the Republic of China's territorial sovereignty… The effect of this provision is under the prerequisite of the Republic of China's actual administration over these territories and clearly does not mean its Government has the territorial sovereignty over these territories. We used the word "control" to make such a connotation obvious." Later Japanese perspectives On Sept. 29, 1972, Japan and the People's Republic of China established formal diplomatic relations via the Japan–China Joint Communiqué. In 1980, while adjudicating a case concerning nationality, the Tokyo High Court wrote in its opinion that the treaty should lose its significance and should end as a result of the joint Communiqué. Japanese lawyers have also argued that the Treaty of Taipei and the subsequent Sino-Japan Joint Communiqué waived the rights of Chinese nationals to seek war compensation from the Japanese government or corporations based in Japan. Nearly all such lawsuits have failed, despite support for the victims from some quarters of the Japanese society. Meanwhile, Beijing stated in 1995 that the joint communiqué waived reparations claims from the Chinese government only, but not from private citizens. It may face increased