Japan renews claim on South Korea-held island

Both countries claim the island has been their own historically and under international law. How could one understand this?

Obviously the only solution to this dispute is to settle it at the ICJ.

It was the U.S., alarmed at the unilateral Syngman Rhee Line who advocated that Japan raise this issue at the ICJ back in 1952. To date South Korea has refused Japan's request to go before the ICJ to settle this dispute THREE TIMES, and South Korea has refused all three times.

Until the issue is settled Japan has every right to consider the Liancourt Rocks illegally occupied by South Korea. If South Korea had any confidence in itls claim they would jump to settle this issue at the ICJ and make Japan shut up for good. But they won't. Either it is a country with no honor or integrit, or it simply enjoys keeping relations with Japan adversarial.

SK’s are very proud of the Dokdo Islands. To the extent of death to protect them.

The territorial claim of the Japanese government on Takeshima is comical. Japanese people know what 'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima.

But, there is another small island called 'bamboo island' (Jukdo 竹島 in Korean) at 2 km (1 mile) east of Ulleungdo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukdo_(island)

You may see those abundant bamboos there: https://wayfaringflaneur.com/2018/09/02/jukdo%EC%A3%BD%EB%8F%84-bamboo-island/

Japanese government never mentions this real bamboo island (Jukdo in Korean) when they explain their territorial claim. They intentionally omit it, or obfuscate it with Ulleungdo. For example:

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/takeshima/page1we_000057.html

Long times ago, Japanese fishermen certainly recognized the existence of Jukdo 竹島 near Ulleungdo island. At that time, Takeshima did not designate the Liancourt Rocks, but Jukdo to Japanese fishermen. Both Jukdo and Ulleungdo are now Korean territories that Japan and the other countries acknowledge. Now the Japanese government claims the territorial right with a wrong name or a wrong location.

There are 7 Japanese islands called the same name Takeshima (竹島 bamboo island) along the coast of Japan, and all of them have bamboo: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6

But only one exception is the remotely-located Liancourt Rocks,called 'Dokdo' in Korean, which literally means a rock island. It is a consistency problem. Koreans knew that it consisted of rocks, and therefore bamboo could not grow there. The so-called bamboo island without any bamboo was just an imaginary island for Japan to forcefully occupy Dokdo in 1905. Now they still shout "the bamboo island without any bamboo is a Japanese territory". What a farce!

Both countries claim the island has been their own historically and under international law. How could one understand this?

Don't you realize it yet? SJ and SK 've been piling up lies over lies and deceiving not only the people in SK but also the entire world.

An update on the 7 Japanese Takeshima islands, as the contents of Wikipedia were changed.

There are 7 Japanese islands called the same name Takeshima (竹島 bamboo island) along the coast of Japan, and all of them have bamboo: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_(%E6%9B%96%E6%98%A7%E3%81%95%E5%9B%9E%E9%81%BF)

@sj

If you are so sure why doesn't the South Korean government go before the ICJ to present all your lengthy claims? You make it sound like it will be a slam dunk. Obviously South Korea feels otherwise.

@OssanAmerica

If you are so sure why doesn't the South Korean government go before the ICJ to present all your lengthy claims? You make it sound like it will be a slam dunk. Obviously South Korea feels otherwise.

You again ask a meaningless question. I am not any kind of representative for the S. Korean government, and I am not eligible to answer your question. My point is how funny the Japanese government is on every diplomatic issue. I just remind you that everybody in the world can enjoy it.

-sigh-

“Typical.”

Here we go again...

Our government and South Korean government have to pour salt into old wounds, blame each other for things that happened once and can't move forward, look rather into the future. Yeah, let's go into the future by comparing who has bigger チンチン.

So childish, both.

'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima.

By that logic, the Korean claim is bunk as well. Dokdo “独島” literally means “solitary island.” But it is part of a group of islands and not solitary at all.

@BeerDeliveryGuy

'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima.

By that logic, the Korean claim is bunk as well. Dokdo “独島” literally means “solitary island.” But it is part of a group of islands and not solitary at all.

If you want to follow the logic, you have to show some examples of other islands with the same name 獨島 that are solitary.

I have already shown the other Japanese islands called Takeshima that have bamboo:

竹島 (宮城県) - 宮城県本吉郡南三陸町の島。

竹島 (愛知県) - 愛知県蒲郡市の島。

竹島 (山口県) - 山口県山口市の島。

竹島 (熊本県) - 熊本県天草市の島。

竹島 (鹿児島県) - 鹿児島県鹿児島郡三島村の島。

竹島 - 多景島の別名。琵琶湖の島の1つ。

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_(%E6%9B%96%E6%98%A7%E3%81%95%E5%9B%9E%E9%81%BF)

MOFA site SJ linked already explains Takeshima is used to be called Matsushima and for those who understand Korean/Japanese, this Korean professor also explains pretty well about Takeshima

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEgp-dOrEQM

Wikipedia in English also lists another Takeshima:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshima_(Kagoshima)

And, of course, as I already expected, "the island is heavily forested with stands of Ryukyu bamboo."

Should I show more?

Sound legal arguments, substantiated and with merit presented before an International Judicial Forum such as the ICJ is the only thing that has any meaning in resolving this dispute. Going on and on about bamboo is meaningless.

The two claims…..

Government of Korea first…….

https://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/

Government of Japan

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000092147.pdf

Just another toxic means to bark at each other.

@OssanAmerica

Sound legal arguments, substantiated and with merit presented before an International Judicial Forum such as the ICJ is the only thing that has any meaning in resolving this dispute. Going on and on about bamboo is meaningless.

I agree, but the Japanese government has better go to the ICJ with a correct name, not with such a comical and oxymoronic name as "the bamboo island without any bamboo". Of course, together with the accurate coordinates of the island, probably with help of the GPS.

If your fixation on bamboo and nomenclature is at all representative of SK’s basis for their claim; well it’s no wonder they refuse to settle at the ICJ.

@itsonlyrocknroll

The two claims…..

Government of Korea first…….

https://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/

That site is not governmental, but an NGO's. The governmental site is: https://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/kor/

I was attracted to the Government of South Korean Youtube/video on the site.

Thank you for the link.

Our weekly dose of Japan-South Korea tension. My popcorn has gone stale.

@kennyG

MOFA site SJ linked already explains Takeshima is used to be called Matsushima and for those who understand Korean/Japanese, this Korean professor also explains pretty well about Takeshima

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEgp-dOrEQM

I do not have time to dispute all of his claims, but just one thing on the topic. The professor alludes that the 3rd island called 'Seokdo (stone island)' could exist south off Ulleung island (starting at 26 min at the video clip), but there are only 2 islands off Ulleung island: Jukdo and Dokdo.

The inaccurate distances on the old maps in the standards of the modern GPS can not justify his argument. Indeed, Seokdo (stone island) denoted Dokdo. The professor just tries to negate it with his ambiguous knowledge of linguistics which was not even his study area. To justify his own claim, he has to show any map of the 3rd island, but he can not. He seems to be ignorant of geology and geography. Look at the google map or other geomorphological profiles to realize that the 3rd island, whatever it is called, can not exist there. The area is a deep ocean, not a shallow coastal area.

What S. Korea did is Disgusting!

How did they get Japan's Island? ? ?

1954.

Once Japan was defeated by USA.

Our Army and Navy surrendered.

Forced to sign Article 9 renouncing War.

Then.... Then the Half of Korea came. Like a Hyena, like a vulture, Taking Japan's Island without having to Fight, without having to worry about retaliation or a War! Disgusting! We had this country on Friends list for decades! Shame!

Korean if you have any legs to stand on let's go to court and find out who's right!

Same for the 1965 deal which the Korean refuses to open up, no other countries can look at or intervene, Korean refuses!

Korean also doesn't want to share the burden in East Asia! They have refused to join Quad Alliance! They are getting close to China instead!

I do not have time to dispute all of his claims, but just one thing on the topic. The professor alludes that the 3rd island called 'Seokdo (stone island)' could exist south off Ulleung island (starting at 26 min at the video clip), but there are only 2 islands off Ulleung island: Jukdo and Dokdo.

The inaccurate distances on the old maps in the standards of the modern GPS can not justify his argument. Indeed, Seokdo (stone island) denoted Dokdo. The professor just tries to negate it with his ambiguous knowledge of linguistics which was not even his study area. To justify his own claim, he has to show any map of the 3rd island, but he can not. He seems to be ignorant of geology and geography. Look at the google map or other geomorphological profiles to realize that the 3rd island, whatever it is called, can not exist there. The area is a deep ocean, not a shallow coastal area.

Please take your time and watch the video again and again because you're completely misunderstanding his claim, rather then posting here with inaccurate knowledge.

For those wondering why SK who administers the Takeshima/Dokdo islands does not take the matter to the IJC for final arbitration there is the matter of them not being signatory members of the IJC. Because they may lose. Say nothing and they maintain control.

My question is why does Japan not take the issues of the Senkaku's to the IJC or the Kurils either, given that Japan is a member of the IJC. Japan administers the Senkaku's (does not want to risk losing control) but not the four southern Kurils or "Northern Territories".

Many nations that have disputes over rocks or islands do not contest the matter in the IJC. The Philippines took China to arbitration because the "rocks" in question were inside their EEZ. They won the case and China refused to accept the ruling.

Arbitration at an International level only works when both sides agree to abide by the outcome. That hardly ever happens and is why there are so many border and territorial disputes in the world today.

People in a glass house should not throw stones, as the saying goes.

2 of the highest IQ countries in the world, imagine what these 2 democratic super powers could achieve together. what a waste....

I can't help but feel that these incessant bickering over islands in that region are just for reasons of strategic military positioning. There's just so much bad blood in that area.

If one acquires a tiny piece of island further out from one's own territory, it means a good buffer, a defensive position and a forward operation base. Of course other things like economic reasons come after.

This is the situation in SC sea , Taiwan, Senkaku/ Diaoyu, Northern Frontier/ Southern Kurils and Takeshima/Dokdo. Countries are trying to position themselves at vantage places, and under these circumstances position are quite entrenched.

So, as we bicker around here, always know what the end entails.

SJToday  11:08 am JST

@OssanAmerica

Sound legal arguments, substantiated and with merit presented before an International Judicial Forum such as the ICJ is the only thing that has any meaning in resolving this dispute. Going on and on about bamboo is meaningless.

I agree, but the Japanese government has better go to the ICJ with a correct name, not with such a comical and oxymoronic name as "the bamboo island without any bamboo". Of course, together with the accurate coordinates of the island, probably with help of the GPS.

Calling an island without bamboo "bamboo" is no less comical than calling the same island "solitary" when it isn't solitary.

But calling the Sea of Japan, a name used by the entire world including China and Russia, "East Sea" which makes absolutely no sense expect to a person standing on the Korean penninsula is indeed Comical.

In reality, global warming will fix many of these island claims as well as the man made islands China keeps building up.

Let’s not be churlish, the idiom possession is nine-tenths of the law, rings true.

The Government of South Korea is not likely to subject or risk agreeing to any ICJ adjudication.

That would be open to the accusation, politically, that the Government of Japan has due cause.

There is a more rudimentary political principal at sake, the underlying reasoning for this posturing.

Both Governments must play out the same brutal, historic intolerant conflict without end or reason.

An open wound that scabs still have been picked, and will continue to be, for centuries to come.

Even in the midst of a pandemic.

itsonlyrocknrollToday  06:28 pm JST

Let’s not be churlish, the idiom possession is nine-tenths of the law, rings true.

The Government of South Korea is not likely to subject or risk agreeing to any ICJ adjudication.

That would be open to the accusation, politically, that the Government of Japan has due cause.

There is a more rudimentary political principal at sake, the underlying reasoning for this posturing.

Both Governments must play out the same brutal, historic intolerant conflict without end or reason.

An open wound that scabs still have been picked, and will continue to be, for centuries to come.

Even in the midst of a pandemic.

0( +0 / -0 )

> billygonzoidToday  06:13 pm JST

Also worth noting that Korea wasn't a signatory to the San Francisco Treaty. The two Koreas were busy fighting each other over their own territory at the time....

0( +0 / -0 )

> billygonzoidToday  06:07 pm JST

Why should Korea trust the ICJ? These international entities sound grand, but there's no guarantee of impartiality. It's possible the judges there have there own personal reasons for siding with America (bigger world influence than Korea) and Japan (bigger world influence than Korea). And it was America's fault that Dokdo didn't revert to Korea in the Treaty of San Francisco. It assumed Dokdo was part of Japan because Japan had annexed the island in 1905. There is a book that everyone posting here should read (although it might be difficult to find): 'Territorial Issue Between Japan and Korea - Case of Takeshima/ Dokdo.' This was written by Seichu Naito, a graduate of Kyoto University and Professor Emeritus of Shimane University. It's a fairly neutral book, but was written to show the weak points of Japan's case. Take, for example, this:

"It is noteworthy that in the first draft of March 20, 1947 through the fifth draft of November 2, 1949, Takeshima/ Dokdo was on the list of specific islands to be renounced by Japan" in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. America, as usual, didn't have a clue what it was doing.

Like WHO siding with China?

Superb! Then how come South Korea's been stressing "This is THE International Consensus"?

So much for the reasoning to bash what you call revisionism

When it comes to local disagreements regarding islands around Japan, many commenters keep referring to "international law".

I think what they really mean is Japans version of international law.

In the case of Dokdo, this local issue is what it is, would the International community or the ICJ really be too concerned with this.

They can renew any claims they want, the fact still remains Dokdo still is lived on, administered, and owned by South Korea. PERIOD.

Alan Harrison: "When it comes to local disagreements regarding islands around Japan, many commenters keep referring to "international law". I think what they really mean is Japans version of international law."

Spot on. Because they keep saying, "Well... shucks... why doesn't SK go to the ICJ, as Japan has asked, to prove it's there's?" and then they turn around if the same is suggested for the island dispute with China and say, "Well, Japan doesn't need to go the ICJ because we know the islands are ours! There is no dispute!"

Well, likewise, SK sees no dispute, which makes sense. The islands are theirs, it's fact, and so they have no more need to entertain the idea there's a dispute than if you sat across the street from my house and claimed my car is yours and we should go to court over it.

billygonzoidToday  06:07 pm JST

"It is noteworthy that in the first draft of March 20, 1947 through the fifth draft of November 2, 1949, Takeshima/ Dokdo was on the list of specific islands to be renounced by Japan" in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. America, as usual, didn't have a clue what it was doing.

In the 6th draft the US took the position that the Liancourt Rocks are not included. And that is how the final draft ended and was signed by 49 countries. Previous drafts don't matter.

Also worth noting that Korea wasn't a signatory to the San Francisco Treaty. The two Koreas were busy fighting each other over their own territory at the time....

You claim that Japan renounced the Liancort Rocks in the first through 5th drafts of the San Francisco Treaty. But then you state that that the ROK was not a signatory to that Treaty. That obviously makes their occupation of the Liancort Rocks illegal. Firstly, if Japan were to renounce the Rocks per the early drafts it would only be to one of the other 48 signatory nations. Not the Republic of Korea who did not attend and did not sign. Secondly, the final draft did not call on Japan to renounce the Rocks.

 It assumed Dokdo was part of Japan because Japan had annexed the island in 1905.

And Imperial Korea said absolutely nothing about such annexation in 1905. Don't bother bringing up

things like it was under Imperial Japan already. Imperial Korea had all the rights to claim for it's territory if it believed the rocks belonged to it, as all they had lost then was it's diplomacy rights.

They can renew any claims they want, the fact still remains Dokdo still is lived on, administered, and owned by South Korea. PERIOD.

Alan Harrison: "When it comes to local disagreements regarding islands around Japan, many commenters keep referring to "international law". I think what they really mean is Japans version of international law."

Spot on. Because they keep saying, "Well... shucks... why doesn't SK go to the ICJ, as Japan has asked, to prove it's there's?" and then they turn around if the same is suggested for the island dispute with China and say, "Well, Japan doesn't need to go the ICJ because we know the islands are ours! There is no dispute!"

Well, likewise, SK sees no dispute, which makes sense. The islands are theirs, it's fact, and so they have no more need to entertain the idea there's a dispute than if you sat across the street from my house and claimed my car is yours and we should go to court over it.

Go and tell all those Korean lunatics to stop complaining about 36 years of Japanese days then.

Ahhh, here we go again... the entire Nation of Japan's further existence depends entirely on the Hinomaru flying over a few acres of rock that, apparently, someone else lives on. How is it that Japan can raise adults whose maturity is a light to the world yet elect only government officials whose judgement and immaturity has not progressed beyond puberty? What we see here is rightly called "Sqabbling" and comes from the sound Swedish chickens make when fighting over a corn kernel. When the two estranged brothers, Hanguk and Nihon, get to doing this, barnyard sounds are all that is heard: "Squabble!" "Squabble" [It's mine!] PECK "SQUAAA!" "Squabble!" "Squabble"! [NO! It's mine!] My gawd, guys...have some dignity...

ICJ may be a good venue in which to judge whose claim is correct. The catch is the ICJ won‘t take up a lawsuit unless two parties agree to participate in court proceeding. So what shall be done to address this problem?

How about an NGO forum to discuss the issue? I have proposed that with the Senkaku/Diaoyudao issue, too.

Solutions to get Takeshima back:

America is the key.

Key part in getting Takeshima back.

Key part in removing Comfort Women statues Korean built around the world.

Key part in making sure they don't break the 2015 deal and the 1965 deal.

South Korea needs America... and America needs Japan in East Asia.

Dear Nippon, we have more power over South Korea then you realize. Just like the chemicals the Korean needs to build everything.

Japan must claim yearly to not lose the claim. Anyway it would be better if Japan became more present with this problem. They're always in defensive mode rather than taking the initiative - worldwide. Meanwhile SK activists are taking over maps with Dokdo and East Sea, especially the free OSM where the Liancourt Rocks were completely taken by SK, even the Japanese description for Japanese IPs has been deleted and defined as illegal (with the fantasy id "wrong name"). The result can be seen on many other maps worldwide that take the free OSM map as a basis. Japan must become more present, building up international pressure on SK to finally accept an ICJ ruling.

So, the US military which occupies Japan did NOTHING when South Korea attacked and took over the islands. It's clear the US military occupation of Japan has nothing to do with the defense of Japan.

There are literally old Japanese maps that illustrates Dokdo / Takeshima as Korean territory...

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210219000811&ACE_SEARCH=1

But calling the Sea of Japan, a name used by the entire world including China and Russia, "East Sea" which makes absolutely no sense expect to a person standing on the Korean penninsula is indeed Comical.

I believe that the international standard for this little peice of water is : Sea of Japan (East Sea).

Marcelito

You expect Japan to be a floormat to America, I DON'T!! When America makes mistakes affecting Japan I'll always point them out! Deal with it!

Japan has supported the USA at every turn, military, economic, the dollar, Quad alliance.

Where is your S. Korea?

Getting close to North Korea and China.

@Alan Harrison

I believe that the international standard for this little peice of water is : Sea of Japan (East Sea).

Actually the international IHO standard is 18th sea. That's the official IHO name.

The Koreans are making cars at least as well as Japan’s for a cheaper price.

And the K-pop and acting? Well, Japan just doesn’t compare-they deserve Dokdo for their efforts!

The Koreans are making cars at least as well as Japan’s for a cheaper price.

Cheaper yes. As well? No. There's a reason why Japanese cars are desired world wide, and that's not why Korean cars are selling. Korean cars are selling because they are cheap.

Obviously the only solution to this dispute is to settle it at the ICJ

@Ossan, c’mon, I know you know what I’m about to say.

The case can only be brought to the ICJ if both sides acknowledge a dispute exists. South Korea claims that the territory is indisputably theirs. Therefore the ICJ has no jurisdiction.

This is the EXACT SAME position Japan takes on the Senkakus. Japan refuses to go to the ICJ by refusing to acknowledge the existence of a dispute.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The islands claimed by both Japan and Korea are called "Tokuto" in Korean. The place name is naturally analyzed as toku+to. Toku sounds like take of "Takeshima" in Japanese. This suggests that ancient people, when there was no distinction between Japanese and Korean, called the island by the same name.

ReynardFoxToday  03:13 am JST

Obviously the only solution to this dispute is to settle it at the ICJ

@Ossan, c’mon, I know you know what I’m about to say.

The case can only be brought to the ICJ if both sides acknowledge a dispute exists. South Korea claims that the territory is indisputably theirs. Therefore the ICJ has no jurisdiction.

Wrong: Both parties do not need to recognize that there is a dispute. What is required is that both parties recognize ICJ jurisdiction and agree to accept ICJ ruling. If a country is a signatory to this Agreement, if another country brings a claim against it at the ICJ, it is mandatory to answer.

Japan is a signatory to this Agreement. South Korea is not. And they refuse to join. South Korea claiming that there is no dispute is not what keeps this matter from being settled at the ICJ.

This is the EXACT SAME position Japan takes on the Senkakus. Japan refuses to go to the ICJ by refusing to acknowledge the existence of a dispute. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Wrong again: Japan, being a signatory to the Agreement recognizing ICJ jurisdiction and rulings, can not refuse to answer any claim brought against it at the ICJ.

What you are failing to grasp is that it is up to the claimant to bring a case to the ICJ. Japan can not bring a case against itself.

It is up to China to bring a claim against Japan at the ICJ. But they refuse to do so because that would open the door to claims by other nations with which it is in dispute. Furthermore, China hsa already declared upon the outcome of the PI v China zat the Permanent Court of Arbitration (another UN judicial forum) that they would not accept any "Internation jurisdiction over it's natuonal sovereignty".

Your attempt to equate the Liancourt Rocks dispute to the Senkaku Islands dispute is completely flawed.

My assumption is that stone-age people migrated, in wave after wave, from Southeast Asia including Micronesia to the Japanese archipelago by hand-cut canoe on the northward-bound strong current called the Kuroshio. They were the original settlers who later formed the foundation of Jomon culture in central Japan.

Then multitudes of people with bronze culture came from the continent via the Korean Peninsula in hordes, dividing the Japanese archipelago into north and south. The new comers were called the Yayoi people. Today, we see the vestiges of that division in the forms of Ainu and Uchinaa (Okinawa) cultures.

It was during these periods the islands in question might have been called by the same name.

Japan doin what China sayin bout Tiauyutai/Senkakus.

Just taking them back home would help. The same for the islands north of Hokkaido. Those invading communists from Seoul, Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow need soon surely a message and an example. They won’t learn so much from status quo or letting them go on with annexations, in contrary, it encourages them to take more and more.