Dokdo/Takeshima Island Sovereignty Dispute

Dokdo/Takeshima Island Sovereignty Dispute

Photo Credit: Bryan Dorrough

Introduction

        The dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima’s sovereignty between South Korea and Japan is thought of a major obstacle in current South Korean-Japanese relations. Dokdo/Takeshima is comprised of two rocky islets and thirty-two smaller outcroppings in the East Sea/Sea of Japan. (Lee, 2010, pgs. 741-742) The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute is significant because it is considered the most significant problem in South Korean-Japanese relation that prevents reconciliation and moving forward together for the two countries. (Kim, 2004, pg. 48)

History

        Dokdo/Takeshima (it will be referred to as Dokdo for the remainder of the paper) was first mentioned in historical texts as far back as the 12th century. Dokdo is mentioned in the oldest still existing Korean text, Samguk Sagi, (History of the Three Kingdoms) as being conquered by one of Korea’s three kingdoms, Shilla in 512 AD. (Kim, 2011, pg. 437) Dokdo remained under Korean sovereignty until Japan legally took control of the island (Kim, 2014, pg. 36) on February 22, 1905 using the Announcement of Island Possession No. 40. (Bae, 2012, pg. 31)

The controversy began after Japan was defeated in World War II. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was the peace treaty that ended the war in the Pacific between Japan and the Allied forces on April 28, 1952. (Bong, 2011, pg. 310) However the peace treaty did not address the issue of who owned Dokdo. (Bae, 2012, pg. 34) Although not explicitly given back to South Korea, South Korea claimed ownership of Dokdo and was given its jurisdiction of Dokdo from the United States’ Army Military Government in Korea in 1948 when South Korea became a state. (Bae, 2012, pg. 35) In 1952 Syngman Rhee, President of South Korea, issued the Presidential Declaration on the Territorial Waters, which included a peace line to create maritime borders with Japan. Dokdo was on the Korean side of Rhee’s peace line further cementing South Korea’s claim to the islets. (Kim, 2011, pg. 438) Over the years South Korea has installed a number of facilities on Dokdo. South Korea constructed a monument on the islets in 1953, a lighthouse a year later, a helicopter landing pad in 1981, a radar facility in 1993, and an anchorage in 1996. (Kim, 2011, pg. 438)

When South Korea and Japan normalized relations in 1965 both sides failed to reach an agreement or a set of procedures to reach a decision about Dokdo’s sovereignty. (Bong, 2013, pg. 195) The two sides did agree to a Joint Regulation Zone, which allowed Japanese fishermen to fish around Dokdo, which was not permitted before 1965. (Bukh, 2014, pg. 7) Beginning in 2005 Japan began to intensify its claim to Dokdo, which it previously had been quiet about for around 20 years. (Kim, 2014, pg. 49) In 2005 the Shimane Prefecture, which administered Dokdo when it was under Japanese control, created a Takeshima Day. It was a gesture that indicated that Japan legally had the right to possess Dokdo. The Japanese Ambassador to South Korea stated that Takeshima was in fact Japanese territory also during 2005. (Kim, 2014, pg. 49) Then in 2008 Japan published middle school teacher guidebooks that stated Dokdo was Japanese territory. (Kim, 2011, pg. 434) (Bong, 2013, pg. 196) Japan intensified its efforts using schoolbooks to state its claim to the islets stating that Dokdo belongs to Japan and that South Korea is illegally controlling the land. (Kim, 2011, pg. 434)

       

The history of Dokdo’s ownership is relevant to the dispute today because both sides use historical evidence to support their claims for Dokdo’s sovereignty and it highlights the process of how both groups came to form their geographic identity affiliation with Dokdo. South Korea uses the fact Dokdo was under Korean control from 512AD to 1905 as proof of its sovereign rights over Dokdo. South Korea then point to the jurisdiction of Dokdo given to it by the United States Army Government in Korea and the fact it has had physical possession of Dokdo from 1948 to present day. Japan supports its claim to Dokdo with its legal annexation of the island in 1905, and that Dokdo was never explicitly given back to the Koreans in the San Francisco Peace Treaty or the normalization of relations with South Korea treaty in 1965.

       

South Koreans formed their geographic identity affiliation to Dokdo through Dokdo’s proximity to another Korean island, Ullungdo. Dokdo can be seen from Ullungdo during a clear day. (Van Dyke, 2007, pg. 157) But Koreans also formed their affiliation to Dokdo because Dokdo was perceived as being Korean territory for around 1400 years. It was then solidified further when the South Korean government took control of the islets without any physical interference from neither Japan nor the United States. Japanese formed their geographic identity affiliation to Dokdo through their legal annexation of the islets and administration of Dokdo for around 40 years. It was further solidified when Dokdo was not explicitly returned to South Korea in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Joint Regulation Zone, which allowed Japanese fishermen to enter Dokdo’s waters.

Japan’s Perspective

        Japan’s perspective on the dispute over Dokdo is simple. Japan believes it gained legal ownership of Dokdo in 1905 (Kim, 2011, pg. 439) (Kim, 2014, pg. 36) and has never legally relinquished ownership since then, while South Korea controls the islet illegally. (Lee, 2010, pgs. 741-742) Japan uses the San Francisco Peace Treaty as strong evidence that Dokdo belongs to Japan. Japan interprets that the San Francisco Peace Treaty decided what territories would be given to South Korea and Dokdo was not among the territories stated, so Dokdo and other territories not named belong to Japan. (Kim, 2011, pg. 439) (Lee, 2010, pg. 742) Therefore, Japan believes it was not justifiable for it to be expelled from Dokdo. (Bong, 2013, pg. 192) In the treaty Japan specifically agreed that, “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Degelet” (Lee, 2010, pg. 742) The treaty also failed to specify all the territories it was supposed to give up and to which states those territories would join. (Hara, 2001, pg. 362) With this understanding of the San Francisco Peace Treaty Japan has called South Korea’s occupation of Dokdo and South Korea’s reasoning for doing so as invalid and illegal in accordance with international law.

The Japanese point to the famous Rusk letter as evidence that Dokdo is Japanese territory. (Hosaka, 2014, pg. 146)  For instance, when President Rhee of South Korea created his peace line to include Dokdo Japan retorted that it was unlawful because it violated the international law of the open seas. (Kim, 2011, pg. 439) The letter specifically stated, “As regards the island of Dokdo […] never treated as a part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.” (Hosaka, 2014, pg. 153)

The Japanese government believes South Korea implicitly dropped its sovereignty claim to Dokdo when Dokdo was not included in the normalization of relations between South Korea and Japan treaty in 1965 (Yoon, 2008, 70) Japan also argues that South Korea gave up its claim to Dokdo’s sovereignty by agreeing to include Dokdo in the neutral zone in the Japan-Korea Fishery Treaty of 1998. The Japanese see that treaty as South Korea’s abandonment of its exclusive zone surrounding Dokdo implying it had abandoned its claim to Dokdo. (Kim, 2011, pg. 439) Finally, Japan believes it has the better claim to Dokdo since South Korea refuses to take the dispute over Dokdo to the International Court of Justice. Japan claims South Korea will not take it to the ICJ because it has a weak claim and will lose to Japan’s claim under international law. (Kim, 2011, pg. 439)

       

Japan perspective makes sense and has a strong claim over the sovereignty of Dokdo. Choson Korea did technically sign agreements with Japan giving it jurisdiction and eventually annexation of Korea and its territories. Legally Dokdo was transferred to Japanese control. And no matter what was implied about the San Francisco Peace Treaty the treaty never explicitly transferred sovereignty of Dokdo to Korea from Japan. There have been no agreements from the international community forcing Japan to give up its claims, or calling Japan’s claims invalid or false. Finally, Japan’s assertion that South Korea’s claim to Dokdo is weak cannot be ignored when Japan correctly points out South Korea will not bring the case of the islets’ sovereignty to the international courts. From Japan’s perspective if South Korea had a strong claim why would it refuse to go to court?

       

Japan has a strong spatial pattern argument to support its claim over Dokdo. Dokdo is only 64km away from the northwest coast of Japan, while Dokdo is 210km east from South Korea’s mainland. (Bong, 2013, pg. 192) Distance-wise Dokdo is closer to Japan’s mainland than South Korea’s that can be seen in the map below. Also visible in the map is that Japan has larger islands closer to Dokdo than South Korea. While the Oki Islands are approximately twice the distance to Dokdo than South Korea’s Utsuryo/Ulleungdo Island, the Oki Islands are over twice as large than Utsuryo/Ulleungdo Island. It can be argued that Utsuryo/Ulleungdo Island is too small and insignificant and South Korea’s argument that Dokdo is an appendage to Utsuryo/Ulleungdo Island is invalid.

South Korea’s Perspective

        South Korea’s perspective focuses on its historical claim to Dokdo and its physical control of the islets since 1952 to support its ownership of Dokdo. The rest of the South Korean perspective is counter-arguments to Japan’s perspective. South Korea has an extremely strong historical argument for the sovereignty of Dokdo. There are three historical Korean texts that refer to Dokdo and Korean ownership before even one historical Japanese document mentions the islets. (Kim, 2011, pgs. 437-438) In fact the Japanese government confirmed that Dokdo belonged to Choson Korea during the late 17th century. (Kim, 2011, pg. 438) (Van Dyke, 2007, pg. 166) South Korea’s historical claim on the islets is superior to Japan’s. (Hara, 2001, pg. 374)

       

South Korea heavily relies on 20th century documentation that supports South Korea’s control of Dokdo to justify its perspective on why the islets are Korean. The South Korean government refers to the Supreme-Commander-for-the-Allied-Powers-Instructions (SCAPIN), when South Korea and Japan were occupied by the Allied powers post-WW2, as legal support. On January 29, 1946, the Allied Powers issued SCAPIN no. 677, which include that, “Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan… and excluding… Liancourt Rocks” (Lee, 2010, pg. 743) (Bae, 2012, pg. 35) On June 22, 1946 SCAPIN No. 1033 was released, which created the MacArthur Line. Dokdo was put on the outside of the area Japan could control. (Lee, 2010, pg. 743) South Korea additionally points out Dokdo is within the Korea Air Defense Identification Zones. (Bae, 2012, pg. 35) South Korea refers to President Syngman Rhee’s peace line, which included Dokdo on the South Korean side of the line, as evidence of the strength of its claim.

       

South Korea’s perspective includes many reasons why Japan’s perspective is incorrect. According to Koreans the San Francisco Peace Treaty could not determine the sovereignty of Dokdo. The South Koreans correctly assessed that the peace treaty only included the three Korean islands to be returned by Japan, but the total number of islands returned to Korea was 3,215. They claim the peace treaty was not to be taken literally for which islands were to be returned and the treaty was merely listing a few islands to “illustrate the status of the remaining outlying islands.” (Lee, 2010, pg. 744) Even if the San Francisco Peace Treaty is viewed as implying it belonged to Japan, South Korea did not sign the treaty. Therefore South Korea was a third party. (Lee, 2010, pg. 759)  The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly states, “A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third state without its consent.” (Lee, 2010, pg. 759) Therefore the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not bind South Korea.

       

Koreans argue that the Rusk Letter cannot be used as support against South Korea’s claim to Dokdo. First of all the letter was unofficial. It had no legal standing and only reflected the opinion of some in the United States government. Additionally, the letter only took into account the Japanese perspective about the sovereignty of Dokdo. The letter claimed Korea had no historical basis for its claim, while Japan had a strong historical claim to Dokdo. (Hosaka, 2014, p.155) That has since been proven incorrect. While Japan argues South Korea gave up its claim to Dokdo in the treaty to normalize relations between South Korea and Japan, South Korea argues the same thing about Japan. South Koreans interpret the absence of Dokdo in the treaty as Japan’s admittance that Dokdo belongs to Korea, especially with Japan’s refusal to have normal relations with Russia until the Northern Territories sovereignty issue is dealt with. (Lee, 2010, p.756) The South Korean government also has a rebuttal to Japan’s claim that South Korea gave up its claim to Dokdo with the 1998 fishery accord between the two countries. The South Korean government argues that Article 15 of the fishery accord states that the sovereignty of Dokdo is a separate issue that is not part of the fishery accord. (Bong, 2013, p.192)

       

The South Korean government has its reasons why it will not go to the ICJ about the status of Dokdo. One of the main reasons is that South Korea views Dokdo already Korean territory, so its sovereignty cannot be sent to be determined by the ICJ. (Lee, 2010, p. 754) (Kim, 2011, p.438) However, there is also a logical case that South Korea would win the case with the ICJ disproving Japan’s assumption that South Korea refrains from going to the ICJ because it has a weak claim. First off South Korea has a strong historical claim to Dokdo that overshadows Japan’s historical claim. In fact because Japan claims its sovereignty of Dokdo began in 1905 it effectively admits it has no historical claim to the islets. Japan’s claim is further hurt by the fact it claims its sovereignty when it occupied the Korean peninsula from 1905 to 1945 because the international community has agreed that the way Japan took control of Korea was considered illegitimate and wrong. Since Japan has a weak claim to Dokdo it would need evidence of strong protest to keep its claim relevant. However many international observers see the absence of the Dokdo issue in the 1965 normalization relations treaty with South Korea as admittance to South Korea’s superior claim to Dokdo.  (Van Dyke, 2007, p.194-195)

       

South Korea has an overall strong basis for its claim of Dokdo’s sovereignty. It has an extremely strong historical basis that even Japanese historical documents agree with. It also has documentation supporting Korean sovereignty of Dokdo after Japanese occupation. Add the fact that South Korea has virtually controlled Dokdo without any challenges by Japan or the international community strengthens its claim. If it mattered to Japan as much as it claims it would not have allowed South Korea to have physical possession of the island for over 50 years. The South Korean perspective also has logical counter arguments for the Japanese claims, while the Japanese claim does not directly counter Korea’s claim.

       

South Korea has a spatial pattern argument to support Korean sovereignty of Dokdo. While, it is not as strong as Japan’s it still has one. Japan’s mainland might be closer to Dokdo, South Korea’s Utsuryo/Ulleungdo Island is twice as close to Dokdo than the Japanese Omi Islands. Korea’s evidence that Ulleungdo Island is compelling especially when people on Ulleungdo Island can see Dokdo and Ulleungdo fishermen have been able to fish around Dokdo for hundreds of years.

Global Forces

        While the Dokdo dispute is a Japanese- South Korean issue there are global forces that have affected the issue. These global forces have helped to foster tension in regards to ownership of Dokdo. If the San Francisco Peace Treaty had included Dokdo’s ownership there would be no dispute over its ownership between South Korea and Japan today. However, the US omitted Dokdo’s status to help further US Cold War goals. (Lee, 2010, p. 761) The US and its goals and aims prevented the decision on Dokdo’s status and the direct actions of the US have allowed the issue to remain. Hence a global force directly affected this territorial dispute because the US could have ended the dispute in 1951, but allowed it to continue in accordance with its position. The US position has been to not get involved and to allow South Korea and Japan settle it on their own. (Bae, 2012, p. 36)  The Dokdo dispute is not the only island dispute Japan has. Japan has a dispute with Russia over the Northern Territories and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands with China. Therefore any change in policy concerning the Dokdo dispute will affect Japan’s bargaining position in its other island disputes. (Bong, 2013, 196-197)

Issue Resolution

        A solution to this issue will be difficult. The South Koreans will accept nothing short of full sovereignty over Dokdo. For South Koreans Dokdo is closely associated with Korean sovereignty (Kim, 2010, p.18) and think of the issue as being one of the victims fighting Japanese aggression. (Kim, 2014, p.51) The Japanese on the hand believe they need to achieve international recognition for islands they believe belong to them to help repeal the injustice committed to Japan when it had to give away territories it believed was theirs. (Bong, 2013, p. 192) An agreement will not be reached unless South Korea is given sovereignty over the islets. So, a solution to this issue requires South Korea being granted sovereignty of Dokdo. However, to appease the Japanese the South Koreans can share the supposed benefits of the island. The island has military value as whoever controls the island can observe navy movement in the East Sea/Sea of Japan. (Kim, 2011, p. 443) South Korea could make a joint observance post with Japan, so both countries enjoy the military value of the island.

There are supposedly economic benefits from Dokdo as well (Kim, 2011, p.443), so South Korea could share some of the profits and resources from Dokdo with Japan. Since all of Japan’s island disputes are interconnected in exchange for letting South Korea have sovereignty of Dokdo South Korea will intercede on behalf of Japan in its other disputes. South Korea for instance has better relations with China than Japan does, so South Korea could be an intermediary between China and Japan to reach an agreement. Also in exchange for sovereignty South Korea could make more concessions on its EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) to Japan. Japan appears to have a less emotional response to Dokdo than South Korea. Therefore South Korea should share in the military and economic value with Japan to convince Japan to abandon its sovereignty claims.

An integrative geographic analysis is helpful in finding a solution for this issue because on the surface there does not seem to be any tangible reasons why South Korea and Japan are in conflict over this small island. However, looking into the issue and how both countries view and wish to use the land and water of Dokdo a solution can be found. Dokdo is not very hospitable, but it has military value and economic value. It has already been proven that the island can be used to monitor other navies and that is exactly what South Korea is doing with the island and what Japan also wishes to do. Japan also has focused on the economic benefits of possessing the value especially with its hard work to convince South Korea to allow Japanese fishermen near Dokdo. The island is not only historically and emotionally important, but also important because it has other uses for humans that have been discovered using integrative geographic analysis.

Summary

        The issue over ownership of Dokdo is a complicated and long standing issue between South Korea and Japan. Both sides’ perspectives focus on different elements of the issue. The Japanese focus on the legality of their claim and lack of legality South Korea’s claim post 1905. The South Koreans instead focus on their historical backing and the fact they have had control of Dokdo for over 50 years. Both sides have a spatial pattern argument. However this issue does not exist in a vacuum and so global forces such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty have affected the issue, usually in a negative manner. There are solutions to this issue, but it will require compromise by both sides. However, until this issue is resolved South Korean-Japanese relations will remain strained at best.

Works Cited

Bae, Chinsoo. 2012. Territorial issue in the context of colonial history and international politics: The dokdo issue between korea and japan. The Journal of East Asian Affairs 26, (1) (04): 19-51, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Bong, Youngshik D. 2011. Sixty years after the san francisco treaty: Its legacy on territorial and security issues in east asia. Asian Perspective 35, (3) (07): 309-314, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Bong, Y. D. 2013. Built to last: The dokdo territorial controversy. the baseline conditions in domestic politics and international security of japan and south korea. Memory Studies 6 (2): 191; 191,203; 203, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Bukh, Alexander. "Shimane Prefecture, Tokyo and the Territorial Dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima: Regional and National Identities in Japan." The Pacific Review, 2014, 1-24. Accessed November 20, 2014.

Hara, Kimie. 2001. 50 years from san francisco: Re-examining the peace treaty and japan's territorial problems. Pacific Affairs 74, (3) (Fall): 361-382, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Hosaka, Yuji. "Is the so-called 'Rusk Letter' be a Critical Evidence of Japan's Territorial Claim to Dokdo Island?." Journal Of East Asia & International Law 7, no. 1 (September 2014): 145-146. (accessed November 25, 2014).

Ikegami, Masako. 2009. Solving the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute: Searching for common ground through the aland model. The Journal of East Asian Affairs 23, (1) (04): 1-22, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Kim, Ji Young. 2014. Escaping the vicious cycle: Symbolic politics and history disputes between south korea and japan. Asian Perspective 38, (1) (Jan): 31-60, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Kim, Sungbae. 2010. Understanding the dokdo issue: A critical review of the liberalist approach. The Journal of East Asian Affairs 24, (2) (10): 1-27, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Lee, Seokwoo, and Jon Van Dyke M. 2010. The 1951 san francisco peace treaty and its relevance to the sovereignty over dokdo. Chinese Journal of International Law 9, (4) (12): 741-762, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Min, Kim Hee, and Jinman Cho. 2011. A new approach to a territorial dispute involving a former colonizer-colony pair: The case of the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between korea and japan. Korea Observer 42, (3) (10): 431-459, (accessed November 25, 2014).

Van Dyke, Jon. "Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary." Ocean Development & International Law 38, no. 1-2 (2007): 157-224. Accessed November 23, 2014.

Yoon, Tae-Ryong. 2008. Learning to cooperate not to cooperate: Bargaining for the 1965 korea-japan normalization. Asian Perspective 32, (2): 59-91, (accessed November 25, 2014).