politics

Japan to ask international court to settle S Korea isle dispute

230 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

230 Comments
Login to comment

Spoiled child crying to the teacher because they finally got a taste of their own medicine. Why these two countries can't behave as adults and sit down and work something out is beyond me. All of them, china, Russia, both Koreans and Japan need to grow up.

-15 ( +9 / -24 )

What are you, a peace keeper?!! Are you the imperial world police?!

-35 ( +5 / -38 )

Good move by Japan. Japan is obviously prepared to accept the decision of the ICJ, whichever way it goes. The big question is, will South Korea?

COME ON SOUTH KOREA, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. NO MORE RHETORIC. GO TO THE ICJ.

26 ( +36 / -10 )

And as usual Korea will not attend, Why would they throw up their ace? They will lose face if they lose but there is another way to spin up...Japan paid the judges.

7 ( +12 / -6 )

Come on, we can't complain about the constant tittle tattle between these nations and then still complain when one party tries to actually resolve it through the ICJ. Let's get a ruling on it once and for all, whichever way it goes.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

If Takeshima does belong to Japan as they claim, why doesn't Noda vist the islands just like Lee did? Japan and South Korea both need to overhaul their diplomatic relationship with each other.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

What are they gonna do if they lose?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

hatsoff Aug. 17, 2012 - 08:06AM JST COME ON SOUTH KOREA, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. NO MORE RHETORIC. GO TO THE ICJ.

South Korea does not have a dispute. Only illusional Japan keeps making up stories. Heck, even in 1870, Japanese didn't even know Dokdo existed, and the Japanese map never show the island. Koreans knew Dokdo. A territorial dispute can only be brought to the ICJ if Japan and Korea agree to settle it there. Korea sees no reason to take the sovereignty of Dokdo before the ICJ because they own it, so the Japanese cannot have their day in court. ICJ do not have any legal force.

-17 ( +5 / -22 )

As usual when Japan offers to settle the dispute once and for all, Korea runs like a little school girl.

Put up or shut up.

You may claim it but the truth of the matter is that you know it's not yours.

That's why Korea will not dare go to the ICJ.

18 ( +26 / -7 )

JoeBigs....where is your proof that Japan owns this island?

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

"Korea sees no reason to take the sovereignty of Dokdo before the ICJ because they own it, so the Japanese cannot have their day in court."

sfjp330: If they own it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then they shouldn't lose. And if Japan agrees to abide by the ruling this would settle the issue once and for all.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

I went to Google Maps and found it north of Oki islands and east of a Korean island Ulleung. It looks closer to Korea and is basically a dot but it's on a similar continental shelf as Japan. But so is everything else for that matter. Let the games begin.

Might as well complain about the size of pennies and dimes, two rocks about 200m wide each (ignore the clouds). Steep cliffs and a few buildings.

This is all about oil and gas rights and that's about it. I doubt if anyone ever lived there, so what are the claims made by both sides? Maybe someone knew a friend who knew a guy but yeah

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Thunderdome

That is all

2 ( +2 / -0 )

let me know if I went to the wrong islands!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330Aug. 17, 2012 - 08:18AM JST South Korea does not have a dispute. Only illusional Japan keeps making up stories.

That really does not fly in the face of world opinion. South Korea claims to have all the evidence to support their position. Japan is also risking losing the case by going before the ICJ. They are willing to put their arguments and evidence before the court. South Korea is not. Either South Korea does not want tthis issue to be permanently settled, or they have no confidence in their arguments and evidence. Korea supporters making big bold statements on internet webs sites mean absolutely nothing. In fact the bolder your statements are the bigger the question of why then does South Korea keep avoiding the ICJ becomes.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

CrazyJoeAug. 17, 2012 - 08:17AM JST If Takeshima does belong to Japan as they claim, why doesn't Noda vist the islands just like Lee did? Japan and >South Korea both need to overhaul their diplomatic relationship with each other.

Because to do so when South Korea is unilaterally occupying it would force an international incident on an unprecedented level. In he same way, if Japan has similarly occupied it, Lee would not have visited it.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

South Korea needs to back off NOW! This it is Japanese land, not South Korean land and the Rusk documents shows it. Case closed. BACK OFF!

1 ( +9 / -8 )

paulinusa Aug. 17, 2012 - 08:46AM JST. If they own it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then they shouldn't lose. And if Japan agrees to abide by the ruling this would settle the issue once and for all.

Up until 1870's, Japan didn't know Dokdo existed and Japanese acknowledged the ownership of Dokdo as Korean. Three decades later, Japan ridiculously called it 'terra nullius' describes territory that nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over, as "finders keepers", but the problem was Koreans already owned the island and used the island it for their fishing grounds.

If you look at the history of Japanese behavior, there is very little to support their actions. The Koreans were never notified of the Dokdo annexation in 1905, when Korea had already become a Japanese colony and had no power to protest the Japanese government's actions. The Japanese claims of this incorporation is invalid because it was done secretly and violates international laws. The Japanese stoled Dokdo in 1905 because of their military needs.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

sfjp330: I haven't the sightest idea who really owns these islands, but if all you say is true, Korea should call Japan's bluff and go to the court.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

alright....lets see what they say. Is china next?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Akemi Mokoto

Regardless of who has the correct claim, I would like to see a peaceful resolution, preferrably accepted by both sides.

I find it odd that South Korea is reluctant to go to court if their "proof" is watertight. But I would not judge on that alone, facts speak louder than gut feelings. Calls to grow up apply to both sides, this isn't about "he said, she said".

I'm wondering where does North Korea fit into all of this? If they are officially still at war with South Korea, do they claim the islands too?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Let the ICJ settle ALL these island disputes. Everyone is tired of the endless acrimony.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Even if Korea and Japan went to ICJ, I doubt Korean or Japanese government would follow an ICJ ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling. You have to remember that public opinions is very important in Korea and Japan, and it is really hard to believe that either government would respect a ruling on the sovereignty of Dokdo that would go against popular national opinion.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

sfjp330:

" South Korea does not have a dispute. Only illusional Japan keeps making up stories. "

Well, if the story is so clear, then Korea has nothing to fear from the ICJ, does she now?

I applaud the Japanese decision. I just hope the Korean side confirms now that they will abide by it too.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Territorial dispute is nothing new in history. To restore credibility and legitimacy, it is about time to present both sides to ICJ, for the outcome must be respect beyond pride and prejudice.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

ROK don't feel like they have to go to court to claim what is already theirs and I agree.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

WilliBAug. 17, 2012 - 09:23AM JSTWell, if the story is so clear, then Korea has nothing to fear from the ICJ, does she now? I applaud the Japanese decision. I just hope the Korean side confirms now that they will abide by it too.

You seem to know the Japanese claim of Dokdo. Why don't you tell us.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

If Takeshima does belong to Japan as they claim, why doesn't Noda vist the islands just like Lee did?

Because Korean soldiers (took over the isle) will shoot people approaching to the isle like Russians. They fired at fishermen catching fish around It in the past. It seems that Korean would never let any people (except Koreans) visit the isle.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

sfjp330

hatsoff Aug. 17, 2012 - 08:06AM JST COME ON SOUTH KOREA, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. NO MORE RHETORIC. GO TO THE ICJ.

South Korea does not have a dispute. Only illusional Japan keeps making up stories. Heck, even in 1870, Japanese didn't even know Dokdo existed, and the Japanese map never show the island. Koreans knew Dokdo. A territorial dispute can only be brought to the ICJ if Japan and Korea agree to settle it there. Korea sees no reason to take the sovereignty of Dokdo before the ICJ because they own it, so the Japanese cannot have their day in court. ICJ do not have any legal force.

All very well, but Japan is clearly ready to put it to an international decision and accept the result, even if it loses. Then, end of dispute.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Good decision. Even if the ICJ decision is not favorable for Japan, I'm willing to accept it. I also hope that Japanese government bring Senkaku problem to the ICJ. Japan insist there is not such a problem, but I can clearly see it.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Korea is actively exercising soveignty on the island. The ICJ would ruling South Koreas favor. Japan would lose face and that's why the haven't gone ahead with it.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Dear Korea, you lost. Thus it's not your Island. Such is war. Had others not come to your aid all of Korea would still be Japanese. Should the US return Texas to Mexico? No. Why? Because Mexico lost the war twice.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

You seem to know the Japanese claim of Dokdo. Why don't you tell us

When one gets these type of questions, instead of listing the arguments, the simple way to answer this is.

THERE ARE NO MAPS BY KOREANS PRIOR TO 1905 INCORPORATION BY JAPAN WHICH INDICATES TAKESHIMA(DOKDO)

There was a poster who continually posted that Japan didn't ask Korea to take this case to ICJ for over 50 years because they're afraid they'll lose. Well. There goes that theory. It's pretty sad that some people assume this because for years, Japan was merely showing good faith patience for they thought such an act after the 1965 treaty would hamper Japan-Korea relations as Japan knew Takeshima meant a significant more than Japan did.

In any case, even though it's the Koreans who are acting as though there is a dispute (recent Olympic, swimming, first presidential visit, Dokdo riders, newspaper ads all over world, Dokdo license plates, Dokdo is ours graffiti, Dokdo underwear, etc.) the Korean government will claim that their is no "dispute". But unlike that last request of 1962, Korea have then become a U.N. Member and a democratic nation in the age of the internet. If the MOFA of Japan plays this right, they'll advertise to the world that Korea isn't showing up because they're afraid they'll lose.

But then again, under DPJ, my best guess is that they'll just let it go and accept Korea's decision to decline the request.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Possible scenario 1: ICJ says the islands belong to Japan. S. Korea doesn't listen to them and nothing changes.

Possible scenario 2: ICJ says the islands belong to S. Korea. Koreans demand apology from Japan for trying to claim their islands, Japan refuses to apologise.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Cubic

If you go to the ICJ site, it indicates that under contentious jurisdiction (which Japan is requesting), it is a binding decision.

"By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment."

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Good decision. Even if the ICJ decision is not favorable for Japan, I'm willing to accept it. I also hope that Japanese government bring Senkaku problem to the ICJ. Japan insist there is not such a problem, but I can clearly see it.

Regarding the issue of the disputed isles, China will not bring the Senkaku case to the ICJ. China wishes but it can't do it, because China has big issues of some disputed isles in South China Sea. They took over isles by their naval force that belong to Philippine and Vietnam. And China is unfortunately holding the bigger issues of human rights of Tibet and Uighur. That's why China might want it but actually can't. Actually never heard that China wanted to propose it to ICJ.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Actually never heard that China wanted to propose it to ICJ.

Yes kwatt. They will never do. ICJ is the VERY LAST place China wants to go.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Why on earth would SK allow this issue to proceed to the ICJ when Dokdo belongs to them? Ridiculous!

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Yeah Japan should solve all their island disputes this way get the Russian controlled isles to be decided by the ICJ along with China's and Taiwan's claims as well too. ICJ may decide woh gets the isles by who governs the isles.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Let the court rule, I would love to see the outcome either way.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@

Even if Korea and Japan went to ICJ, I doubt Korean or Japanese government would follow an ICJ ruling that was not in their favor.

You "doubt". So you think it's a waste of time?

What is your infallible solution?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

sfjp330Aug. 17, 2012 - 09:17AM JST Even if Korea and Japan went to ICJ, I doubt Korean or Japanese government would follow an ICJ ruling that was not i>n their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling. You have to remember that public opinions is very important in >Korea and Japan, and it is really hard to believe that either government would respect a ruling on the sovereignty of >Dokdo that would go against popular national opinion.

That's hardly an excuse to not let it be settled at the ICJ. Not only would South Korea or Japan appear foollish asnd uncivilized in the eyes of the world but the country's credibility would be at stake.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Sunnysideup:

" Why on earth would SK allow this issue to proceed to the ICJ when Dokdo belongs to them? Ridiculous! "

Not ridiculous. That is the nature of a dispute. Both sides are right. That is why civilized countries use courts to settle a dispute in a civilized way.

Lets see if Korea lives up to that standard.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

kaketamaAug. 17, 2012 - 09:54AM JST Good decision. Even if the ICJ decision is not favorable for Japan, I'm willing to accept it. I also hope that Japanese >government bring Senkaku problem to the ICJ. Japan insist there is not such a problem, but I can clearly see it.

Japan can't bring a claim agfainst itself to the ICJ. Either China or Taiwan will have to do it if they feel they have a strong enough argument and substantiation. I have little doubt that they won't, and even if they did, Japan would answer it and shut them out.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

YankeeXAug. 17, 2012 - 09:55AM JST Korea is actively exercising soveignty on the island. The ICJ would ruling South Koreas favor. Japan would lose face >and that's why the haven't gone ahead with it.

Another reason why South Korea should agree to settle at the ICJ.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Why on earth would SK allow this issue to proceed to the ICJ when Dokdo belongs to them? Ridiculous!

If they own them and can prove that they own them, why would they not? cause for all their bluster, they're chicken!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Why doesn't Japan want to settle Diaoyu dispute in front of ICJ?

Because the island is controlled by Japan.

Why does it wanna settle Dokto in front of ICJ?

Because it is a loser.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

3rd Party mediation is better than none at all. This might actually solve the problem instead of prolonging it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Without all the cards on the table, there is no way to say who the island belongs to. Korea obviously only has cards that say it belongs to them and Japan has cards that say it belongs to them. Japan, in my mind, is doing the right thing in having a mutual party see all the cards and decide. Japan is confident that they will win. But I'm sure they went to ICJ accepting the fact that a loss is possible. I don't see why Korea is being so stubborn.

It's like if siblings or friends are fighting saying something is "mine". What do they do? They go ask mom or a teacher. Simple as that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"Japan may find it difficult to bring the island issue to the ICJ, which requires an agreement between the disputing parties to take it to court or for one party to sue the other."

Since they are SKorean islands and SK knows that, there is no need for them to dispute the issue and go to the ICJ, which means Japan filing the claim not only shows they are unsure about their claim to islands, but it is also completely useless. Tell them to file a claim on the Senkaku islands while they're at it -- or wait, they don't feel the need to because they believe those islands belong to Japan and there is no need to file a complaint. Ah, the hypocrisy.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Imagine what would happen if the ICJ declared SK the rightful owner of the islands. Do you truly imagine Japan would then renounce any claim to them and stop calling it Takeshima? Sorry, boys and girls, as the decision of the ICJ is non-binding, Japan would never give it up despite the ruling. SKorean wouldn't either, but as they are not questioning their ownership of the islands, they clearly don't need to.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

If japans wins no doubt Korea will go out on a war.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

rogoteye: "If Japan wins..."

How are they going to win when SK won't go to the court? You need both parties, and SK doesn't feel the need to question its sovereignty, same as Japan does not with the Senkakus.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

That's why I said "if".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Since they are SKorean islands and SK knows that, there is no need for them to dispute the issue and go to the ICJ, which means Japan filing the claim not only shows they are unsure about their claim to islands, but it is also completely useless. Tell them to file a claim on the Senkaku islands while they're at it -- or wait, they don't feel the need to because they believe those islands belong to Japan and there is no need to file a complaint. Ah, the hypocrisy.

Nice of smitty to join in.

Your first sentence makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

Secondly, your second setences makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Why in the world would a nation that control and administer the lands file a suite ON BEHALF of the state that's claiming against it??? It's like a defendant filing a suit on behalf of the plaintiff's charges. There is a difference between a plaintiff and a defendant. Do you not comprehend this BASIC CONCEPT???

4 ( +8 / -4 )

fds: "If they own them and can prove that they own them, why would they not?"

If someone suddenly claimed the main island of Okinawa, would Japan not go to court to test it because they are chicken? No, they wouldn't go because quite clearly it's Japanese and the idea would be ludicrous. Same with Dokdo, and clearly Japan feels no need to bring up the Senkaku islands with the ICJ, does it?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Korean would have to consider the ICJ as long as most international communities think ICJ is not that bad for such disputes, same as Senkaku issue, but China will not bring it to ICJ first of all.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

All you silly people can make whatever claims you want about whose islands they are... But I highly doubt anyone here is really an expert on the issue.

Seems to me that having the international courts make a decision would be the only way to solve this peacefully, because you can spin the story in any number of ways. Korea "saw it first" and showed on maps, doesn't make it Korea's property. Proximity to whatever country also does not make it that countries property. I believe there are historic documents, particularly after WWII that may have some say in the matter.

In any case, It seems like Japan must have a better case if they are willing to go to court, but Korea is not... Does this not imply that Korea would have more to loose?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If someone suddenly claimed the main island of Okinawa, would Japan not go to court to test it because they are chicken? No, they wouldn't go because quite clearly it's Japanese and the idea would be ludicrous. Same with Dokdo, and clearly Japan feels no need to bring up the Senkaku islands with the ICJ, does it?

Actually, any nation can bring that claim. All they have to do is be a member of" Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory". Heck. Even your home country, Canada, can file this and Japan has to comply with the jurisdiction and decision.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Fascinating how some Americans here have total faith that the ICJ would only render a fair and sensible decision in this case. How many of them would sing an entirely different tune if this were about American soldiers going before the ICJ? I have not run across many supporting that, and the ones who don't go crazy dismissing that option.

No, I am afraid there is always a risk going to court over anything. Bribes, biased and politicized judges, and mistakes do happen. The difference here is that Japan has absolutely nothing to lose, since they do not have control of Dokdo and never will in any other peaceful way but a decision by the ICJ (assuming its obeyed!). The only one with anything to lose is Korea, so they don't want to play the game. And what Korea really stands to lose is political clout, because I don't think any ICJ decision will be obeyed.

Korea is in no hurry to go court over its territory than America is to go to court with those Native Americans claiming several western states as their independent territory. If I went to court claiming random pieces of land as my own year after year, do you think I could not win one case eventually, by hook or by crook?

These territory claims are very complicated, and take many different factors into account. That is why everyone has a slightly varying opinion, and that is why a court case would be a gamble for Korea. But I have decided that what really matters is military control, because no matter what a court decision, its going to go straight back to that. The ICJ and U.N. have no teeth. The only way Japan will get Dokdo is to fight for it. The threat of court is just bluster.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I would like to see SK and Japan at the ICJ so both sides can present evidence of their respective claims not just dodgy maps and rhetoric. I would also like to see both nations peacefully accept any ICJ decision. However, if the ICJ ruled in favour of Japan, do you think any Seoul government would simply agree and vacate the lumps that make up Deokdo? It would be political suicide and domestic factors in Korea (as well as elsewhere) are the major factor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboy: "Actually, any nation can bring that claim. All they have to do is be a member of" Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory"

I never said no one could make the claim. I said Japan wouldn't go to the ICJ to recognize it, and rightly so. So why would SKorea do the same when they are sure of their ownership?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I never said no one could make the claim. I said Japan wouldn't go to the ICJ to recognize it, and rightly so. So why would SKorea do the same when they are sure of their ownership?

Since Japan signed the declaration, they would HAVE TO no matter how ridiculous the other party's claim is. READ THE ENTIRE SITE!!!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Theres 2 islands...give the one closer to Korea to them and the one closer to Japan to them and get over it!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu…This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty.

The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands, but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/pdfs/g_sfjoyaku04.pdf

SK knows they will lose(ICJ) and they know Japan cannot use force like any other nation would in this situation.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

We can all post our opinions until the cows come home. But the fact of the matter is ROK is not budging. So what is JGovt next move? It better not be SDF going to those isle that much is for sure.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

oldsanno: "SK knows they will lose(ICJ) and they know Japan cannot use force like any other nation would in this situation."

SK knows it's their land, so they don't feel the need to dispute it. BOTTOM LINE.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

smithjapan:

" If someone suddenly claimed the main island of Okinawa, would Japan not go to court to test it because they are chicken? No, they wouldn't go "

Smith you are being silly here. If someone filed a ridiculous claim like that, obviously the court would not even accept it.

Takeshima/Dokdo is clearly disputed, and settling at the ICJ is the correct thing to do. Same for the Senkakus, only that (as others have pointed out), China and Taiwan would have to file the claim. If they did, I would hope Japan says it would accept the ruling.

It is not like something like this is without precedent. Remember the Aaland islands in the Baltic sea between Sweden and Finland? Both countries claimed them. Sounds familiar? They went to the ICJ (then "league of nations"), Sweden lost, and grudgingly accepted. End of story. No more blustering, no stupid activist demonstrations.

That is how civilized countries can and do settle disputes like this.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Utrack: "It better not be SDF going to those isle that much is for sure."

We both know if the SDF, which is not allowed to fight in war, were dumb enough to go to the islands they would be captured or shredded within minutes, and the US would not lift a finger because it has vested interests in BOTH countries. SK has jurisdiction and administration of the islands, which the whole world admits, and they would be as right in defending themselves there as Japan is of capturing vessels or swimmers on the Senkaku islands, and Russia is of capturing Japanese boats that fish off the Kuriles.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

WilliB: "Takeshima/Dokdo is clearly disputed, and settling at the ICJ is the correct thing to do."

Only for people who question the ownership. The onus is not on SK to do so.

"If they did, I would hope Japan says it would accept the ruling."

They never would.

"Concerning the Senkaku Islands, which China claims as part of its territory, Japan has effectively governed the islands, and the government maintains that a territorial dispute over the Senkakus does not exist."

There you go! Eat up the hypocrisy.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

omg, when will japanese realize that it's useless?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I've been talking about this with Japanese friends, family, and coworkers. I asked them what Japan should do and most of them suggesting "sharing" the island. Yeah, as if korea would ever agree to that.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

bicultural: "Yeah, as if korea would ever agree to that."

Would Japan agree to share the Senkaku islands with China? Or how about the fact that they flat out denied Russia when it offered to 'share' (give) two of the Kuriles currently in dispute? It would be a nice idea, but none of the governments, be it Japan, China, SK, or Russia, would agree to share, especially where potentially rich resources are involved.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Going to the ICJ gives both parties a face-saving means of peaceful resolution. It sounds like the ROK has a pretty strong case. They should jump all over this if they are as confident as they appear. The losing side can deflect domestic criticism by blaming the ICJ while claiming to be a responsible member of the international community. If the ROK did not want ICJ involvement, they should have left the status quo alone. It is a generally accepted rule of negotiation that you leave your opponent a face-saving means of retreat. Pres. Lee, by dragging the Emperor into this dispute, slammed that door shut leaving Japan with 3 choices: Abject Humiliation, Aggressive escalation, or the ICJ. No surprise that we are here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

kurumazaka: "Going to the ICJ gives both parties a face-saving means of peaceful resolution."

SK is not going to go to the ICJ for the same reason Japan will not go for the Senkakus -- they don't recognize any dispute.

"Pres. Lee, by dragging the Emperor into this dispute, slammed that door shut leaving Japan with 3 choices: Abject Humiliation, Aggressive escalation, or the ICJ. No surprise that we are here."

Seems they're going to get all three since, Korea won't go to the ICJ. Hope Japan had a back up plan.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The occupation of Takeshima has always been illegal by South Korea including the Maritime sovereignty declared by the 1952 "Syngman Rhee Line". The revised complete map of Japanese lands and roads published back in 1779 accurately recorded the islands showing no evidence of South Korea's recognition of the existence of the these group of islands. As a matter of fact , Japan had already established the sovereignty of Takeshima by the beginning of the Edo period in the mid-17th century at the very latest. After the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty South Korea was no able to add Takeshima while trying to get Japan to renounce all the right, title and claim. As a result the island was pronounced as part of the territory of Japan. Hence Japan had repeatedly protested against South Korea's action and that proposal has been rejected three times. Thus this situation will always remain the same until South Korea consents to Japan request by taking it to the International Court. However South Korea probably knows that the occupation of the island has no basis in International Law therefore it is a no win situation.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Yawn...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

We both know if the SDF, which is not allowed to fight in war, were dumb enough to go to the islands they would be captured or shredded within minutes

Sadly this is just not true. Neither side are push-overs at sea, the SDF are most certainly allowed to fight in a war if its decided its defensive, and I suspect the Japanese would win. What is really worrisome is where would it go from there?

and the US would not lift a finger because it has vested interests in BOTH countries.

The whole thing would through the American alliances into doubt and disarray so badly, that that is the main reason why Japan won't fight for them, and why Korea will also avoid war short of letting Dokdo go.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Alternate Universe: "Sadly this is just not true. Neither side are push-overs at sea, the SDF are most certainly allowed to fight in a war if its decided its defensive, and I suspect the Japanese would win."

Once any ships were launched from Japanese soil SK would have armed helicopters, war ships, and who knows what else ready to meet them. Japan would never win, not in a million years, and after that there would be no more 'dispute' about the islands. Any SDF still remaining would have to go back to Japan, tail between legs, knowing they tried to start a war and lost it. To be sure, the US and the world would chide both sides for what happened, but that would be all. Japan knows this, and hence would never take such measures. But let's say it came to that, and for whatever reason Japan managed to get a foothold on the islands -- SK would obliterate them the following day, and once again you'd have the same result -- any Japanese claims would be completely lost because they attacked Korean soil, with Korean troops on the island. No one would stand behind them after that, and it would endanger their other island claims as well.

"The whole thing would through the American alliances into doubt and disarray so badly, that that is the main reason why Japan won't fight for them,..."

It would indeed throw things into disarray, but the reason isn't because it would throw the alliance into question, it's because they could never do anything militarily without the US having its back. You can bet at least that Japan has quieted down about the US forces being present on their land, and the Ospreys are probably going to be welcomed instead of objected to. That's usually how it works when Japan faces a threat -- they stop whining and start welcoming. Unfortunately for Japan, SK is just as if not more important in terms of being stationed. They won't do a thing but caution both nations.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Smith, I suspect SK will go as that is the only way they will be able to shut Japan up. This isn't going away without outside mediation. This issue is a big stinking mess now because Pres. Lee forced the issue, during the Olympics just prior to Japan/SK showdowns in Soccer and Volleyball. He dumped gas on a hot, but largely contained, ember. This is a dispute that SK now has little choice but to recognize.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@ smithinjapan

We both know if the SDF, which is not allowed to fight in war, were dumb enough to go to the islands they would be captured or shredded within minutes, and the US would not lift a finger because it has vested interests in BOTH countries. SK has jurisdiction and administration of the islands, which the whole world admits, and they would be as right in defending themselves there as Japan is of capturing vessels or swimmers on the Senkaku islands, and Russia is of capturing Japanese boats that fish off the Kuriles.

Exactly,

0 ( +3 / -3 )

kurumazaka: " This issue is a big stinking mess now because Pres. Lee forced the issue, during the Olympics just prior to Japan/SK showdowns in Soccer and Volleyball. "

Actually, Lee admitted he was reacting to Japan's stance on the sex slave issue, its white-washing of textbooks, and other island disputes that Japan has bumped up their rhetoric on (ie. Senkaku). You seem to think this is entirely one sided, while it would be impossible for their to be a dispute with fewer than two parties.

"This is a dispute that SK now has little choice but to recognize."

Wrong. I can fully choose to do as it is doing now, and like Japan with the Senkaku islands proclaim there is no dispute at all and that it's SK land.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Why don't you address the hypocrisy of Japan denying any claim of an island dispute with the Senkakus but demanding SK go to the ICJ on Dokdo? It's a valid question none of you seem to be able to answer.

I would like to know too. What is the point of getting ROK's blood pressure up over isles that they govern? It makes no sense, unless J Govt wants folks to avert their eyes from something else. Speaking of which:

Where are the articles about Daiichi, there should be something about Daiichi and or Fukushima at least once a week. Progress reports at least. It's like there is a Blackout over news from Daiichi.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

smithjapan:

" "Concerning the Senkaku Islands, which China claims as part of its territory, Japan has effectively governed the islands, and the government maintains that a territorial dispute over the Senkakus does not exist."

There you go! Eat up the hypocrisy. "

I did not write what you "quoted" me as saying. Please try to respond to what people write, and not to your fertile imagination.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

WilliB: "I did not write what you "quoted" me as saying."

I did not quote you as saying it. It comes from the Yomiuri Shinbun.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120812002814.htm

"Please try to respond to what people write, and not to your fertile imagination."

I did and continue to, and I'd rather have a fertile imagination than a complete lack of one, especially when it comes to knowing the facts.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Smith, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding my position. I think Japan has a lot to gain and very little to lose from acknowledging SK sovereignty over that damned island. I think Japan in fact would respect a decision by the ICJ in the ROK's favor. (not so sure the same is true for SK) I'm looking at regional implications and what a victory SK/ Japan hostility is for China and North Korea. My point is not that SK has no grievances, but rather that Pres. Lee has dropped the ball very very badly. Btw, my above post, "yawn," was not directed at you.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@ AlternateUniverse

the Japanese maritime self-defense force is one of the best equipped navies in the world. And South Korea cannot afford to pull all forces away from their stations where they are there to defend against a North Korean attack. Most Japanese men might be limp wristed sissies these days, but there are enough who aren't serving in the SDF.

You do know that other countries are watching Japan's dispute of the Dodko isles which are governed by ROK. If Japan were to attack ROK which is highly unlikey but if. China could attack Japan's flank and you would have war on two sides. If I made the military descions in China that is what I would do. It is sure win for China that way.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

kurumazaka: "Smith, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding my position. I think Japan has a lot to gain and very little to lose from acknowledging SK sovereignty over that damned island."

My apologies if I misunderstood you, my point is just that SK doesn't need to go to the ICJ to prove something they believe is theirs is theirs, same as Japan won't go to the ICJ to prove the Senkakus belong to them.

" Lee has dropped the ball very very badly."

He did with the Emperor comments, I'll give you that, but otherwise I don't think so.

And no worries about the 'yawn'. I didn't think it was directed at me, and agree that the same news time and time again can be boring. :)

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@ kurumazaka

I think Japan in fact would respect a decision by the ICJ in the ROK's favor.

Well if that is the case then why is Japan bothering about the Dodko isles at all. South Korea governs those isles so why is JGovt beating their chests over them and Russia's isles the Kuriles. The PM and President can't even set foot on their own land without an outcry from Japan hollering Mine Mine. No No theirs theirs.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As I've stated before:

Japan wants to take this to the ICJ because they have nothing to lose. Korea has everything to lose.

Also, one of the judges at the ICJ is Hisashi Owada who served as president from 2009 to 2012. Having been re-elected in 2011, Owada will now serve until 2021. He is the father of Crown Princess Masako Owada.

Am I saying that he is biased and unfit to judge on this issue? No, because I don't know him personally. But I can say that he would NEVER qualify as a member of the jury for a case like this, let alone a judge.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Also, why doesn't Japan take the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai Islands) dispute to the ICJ? Because it doesn't need to!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Sir_Edgar: "Because it doesn't need to!"

Exactly, same as Korea doesn't need to indulge in Japan's claims to Dokdo.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Do it once for all and throw same ICJ proposal to Russia, S.Korea & China on ALL disputed territories. One combined case costs cheaper for taxpayers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What does South Korea has to lose if Japan cut off all the connections with them for example Japan has cut off finiancial support to South Koran's financial institutes? She can rely on China and sayornara to japan! This is the calculations of Preseident Lee! By the way, proud with you president Lee! Your slamming of Japan has made the Sino-Japanese trawler incident nimble! Your defiances against Japan has made Chinese leaders shy!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@nigelboy: There are plenty of both Korean AND Japanese maps showing Dokdo belongs to Korea.

Just take a look at this map by geographer Hiyashi Shihei that even goes as far as to say "Takeshima belongs to Korea": http://blog.daum.net/dwban22/3675

As a side note, "Takeshima" was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo at the time which Japan also claimed at one point. It seems the next island that Japan will claim, wherever it might be, is bound to be called "Takeshima". LOL.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Why not bringing the dispute to ICC,International criminal court? The south Korean has stolen the property of Japan, the island and inflamming the honour of the emperor of Japan!

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Ultrack, I wrote a big response then realized the whole damn thing can be said in just two sentences. If Japan wins at the ICJ, great! If they lose, they have a face saving retreat.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China could attack Japan's flank

The Chinese navy is in no position in terms of equipment to do this, especially given the American presence. Then there is Taiwan. There is no way they would do that. Its far less likely even than Japan trying to take Dokdo.

But I do believe that Japan could succeed in the short term in a fight for Dokdo. The fallout would be a different story though, but that would not include military action by China either, not unless the U.S. withdrew from Japan after. Even there, there is Taiwan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

WilliB: "Again, if Korea is so sure of its case, it should enjoy the opportunity to present it at the ICJ and send Japan packing."

And again, if they are sure of their case, why bother going? Japan seems in no rush to present their cause to the ICJ over the Senkakus. Why not? Ah, because they claim their is no dispute. SK claims the same, so why is it you guys always lose sight of that fact when you find it convenient?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

smithjapan:

" And again, if they are sure of their case, why bother going? " To repeat the obvious: To end the dispute. According to your logic, no dispute would ever get settled. We would not have courts. Those with boots on the ground would decide.

Granted, large parts of the world live like that, but not the civilized ones.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

it will not happen but if Japan attacked ROK the US would probably leave Japan an maybe the ROK because both of these countries are allies so the US can not take sides. With the US presence out of the picture and Japan concentrating on ROK why not have China at Japan's back. It is an easy win for China.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

smithjapan:

" And again, if they are sure of their case, why bother going? "

To repeat the obvious: To end the dispute. According to your logic, no dispute would ever get settled. We would not have courts. Those with boots on the ground would decide.

Granted, large parts of the world live like that, but not the civilized ones.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

WilliB: "To end the dispute."

You seem to think the dispute would end at the non-binding decision of the ICJ.

"According to your logic, no dispute would ever get settled"

So again, why not bring the Senkaku islands to the ICJ as well? You ignore that question pretty well while dictating what other nations should do. Japan claims there is no dispute when it comes to the Senkaku islands. Do you agree? South Korea says there is no dispute when it comes to Dokdo.

"Granted, large parts of the world live like that, but not the civilized ones."

Again, the Senkakus? Japan is not civilized?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

As anybody remembers the war between Argentina and England over Island Portlnad, this matter can only be settled by the war. ICJ bullshit ! Japan not only have problem with Korea, they have problems with Russia and China over the disputed islands. Unless Japan won over the war as Englad did over Argentina , who won by the way? Korea and China and Russia would not back up!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

smithjapan:

" You seem to think the dispute would end at the non-binding decision of the ICJ. "

Again, I said already that I hope Korea will agree to the decision, although I doubt it.

" So again, why not bring the Senkaku islands to the ICJ as well? "

Again, I said already that if China and Taiwan want to take their cases to the ICJ, that would be perfectly fine, and in that case I hope Japan would agree to abide the ruling.

Please read messages before posting questions that have been answered already.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If China or Taiwan goes to international court pressing their claim on the Senkaku islands, Japan will be so glad to attend. Whereas written records has shown that the takeshima island was taken by force by the Koreans by killing all Japanese inhabitants residing in these islands and shooting fisherman around the area, establishing their claim of ownership. But Japan decided not to go to war with Korea but rather tried to keep cool on the issue.

These islands has been under the control of Korea for decades and Japan is mum about the issue but for some strange reasons, the SOuth Korean Politicians starts to blabber about Takeshima when its election time or when the president is in trouble because of low approval rating.

Now Japan has enough of this pacifying thy neighbor attitude and thus want the issue be resolved by peaceful means. South Korea with all its attitude and confidence could not muster enough strength to deal with the issue but keep on saying its mine so i need not prove it...

Say whatever you want. Its getting tiring. There is no reasoning with a lunatic.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

WilliB: "Again, I said already that if China and Taiwan want to take their cases to the ICJ, that would be perfectly fine, and in that case I hope Japan would agree to abide the ruling."

Yes, you said that while conveniently ignoring the fact Japan doesn't consider any dispute. I wonder if Russia took the Kurile dispute to the ICJ what kind of panic attack Japan would have.

mikihouse: ..."Japan will be so glad to attend"

Would they now, given that they claim there is no dispute whatsoever.

"Whereas written records has shown that the takeshima island was taken by force by the Koreans by killing all Japanese inhabitants residing in these islands and shooting fisherman around the area, establishing their claim of ownership. "

Actually, records show that Japan didn't even recognize the islands as their own when the US tried to hand them to them in the signing of certain accords.

"Say whatever you want. Its getting tiring. There is no reasoning with a lunatic."

And Japan has proven that.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

These islands has been under the control of Korea for decades

When speaking of uninhabited areas its all you need to know. This is not Tibet or the Falklands, or even the Kuriles. There are no residents to consider. This map, that map. This ancient history, that ancient history. Forget it! Decades of military control? Well that settles it. Korea gets Dokdo. Japan gets the Senkakus. Lets move on.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Alternate Universe: "There are no residents to consider."

Actually, Koreans live on the islands year long. Only a couple, to be sure, but they are there, unlike the 2000 or so Japanese that claim it as their official residence.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

You know this is really just getting ridiculous... Japan, Korea, China, Russia, whatever should just get it over with... stop fooling around, God damn it, solve the damn problem among yourselves already. Christ... they are acting like a bunch of children. Japan, Korea, China and Russia have never exactly been mature nations. They're always so whiny, childish, paranoid, blaming everybody else for their problems... SO SICK OF THEM!!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Please read messages before posting questions that have been answered already.

WilliB

Correct. All those questions that smith raised has been answered at the very beginning but what he's essentially doing is just repeating the messages in hopes that the thread would look like his questions aren't answered.

As to the first point about whether or not ICJ decision is binding or not, it's answered in the ICJ page.

"By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment."

As to question why Japan doesn't go to ICJ in regards to Senkaku, first and foremost, neither China nor Taiwan ever suggested to go to ICJ unlike Japan is doing to Korea. The burden is on China or Taiwan to do so for they are, in civil case terms, a plaintiff and Japan becomes a defendant. China can very well make this a contentious case like the above quote by simply signing a "Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory" whereby Japan has to now only show up ICJ but be bound by the decision. The recent example of this is the ICJ case filed by Australia in regards to Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Since both states (Australia and Japan), signed the Declaration, Japan has to answer to Australia's ridiculous claims and both parties be bound by the decision of the ICJ.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I just love the double standard of some posters on this board: "They're Korea's islands! Japan stole them during the war! Korea believes that the islands belong to them!" Now take this same BS and replace "Korea" with "Japan" and replace "Japan" with "Russia" and the same people would be telling Japan to get over it. Japan is acting like the adult by going to the international court. Korea needs a diaper change.

0 ( +4 / -3 )

One of the two Dodko isles is called Jung-do. It is right off the coast of Yosu. Well sorry folks but ROK sold that isle for the low price of $ 500,000 USD.

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/jung-do.htm

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There are all kinds of arguments about the disputed isle that would never get anywhere, so better take this dispute to the ICJ. Most of international communities think this is much better way and the ICJ is not that bad for such disputes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'd love to see this settled for once and for all by the ICJ.

The problem is that the ROK knows it will lose, so it will never agree to it. They took the islands in 1954. Finders keepers, right?!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It's easy for Japan to risk something that they don't have. If the island is Japan's, why don't the Japanese go there and put a flag there? Oh that's right, they can't because they don't have it. This makes much sense as Korea going to the courts to decide if Seoul belongs to Korea. Why would Korea go to the courts over something that's already in possession of Korea and it's declared as part of Korea? If Japan wants the island so bad, then they need to take it militarily.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

If the island is Japan's, why don't the Japanese go there and put a flag there? Oh that's right, they can't because they don't have it.

If the country is Tibet's, why don't the Tibetans go there (Lhasa) and put a flag there? Oh that's right, they can't because they don't have it.

Are you cool with that?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Here are the summary of the Japanese actions triggered by LMB's visit to Dokdo and his remarks against the Emperor of Japan, which insulted the Japanese due to the fact the emperor is worshipped as a living god in Japan.

1) Japan has applied to the International Court of Justice, and has challenged Korea

2) Japan has told Korea that it will not renew the currency swap with Korea that's come due this October.

3) Japan has now started Korean product boycotts where they have stopped selling and promoting some Korean products like women's makeup and food stuff products. It's expected the Korean product boycotts will expand steadily, and possibly a full blown economic boycott.

4) Japan has cancelled the two country minister meeting that was scheduled

5) Japan has told Korea that they will not support a Korean who's running for one of the seats in the UN security council.

6) Korean embassy in Tokyo attacked by angry Japanese with a brick, followed by demonstrations by Japanese in front of the embassy. Now, KPOP star Big Bang's van vandalized in Tokyo due to anti Korean feelings.

What's next? Diplomatic cut off and military actions? None of these Japanese actions will work. The 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan stipulates that Japan from refraining to take this case to the ICJ. They have broken that promise, which makes the 1965 normalization treaty to become null and void.

Both Korea and Japan are well on their way of cutting off their relationship.

China has already stepped in and has suggested to Korea, to set up a new relationship to cooperate between China, Korea, and Russia, against Japan and isolate them in Asia.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Bring it Japan. Let's see what you guys have.

There is nothing but bemusement in Korea by all the Korean responses I have seen.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan stipulates that Japan from refraining to take this case to the ICJ.

Can you cite the specific verbiage?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

cucky3176Aug. 18, 2012 - 12:39AM JST

The 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan stipulates that Japan from refraining to take this case to the ICJ. They have broken that promise, which makes the 1965 normalization treaty to become null and void.

Wow, that's remarklable considering that it was South Korea that wanted any refrerence to islands left out. Do you normally just make things up and post them as if they were fact?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

2) Japan has told Korea that it will not renew the currency swap with Korea that's come due this October.

Though Finance Ministry has not formally stated this, "延長するかを含め白紙だ" , and since there are no automatic renewal in the agreement, the option to do so has always been Japan to decide.

)

Japan has now started Korean product boycotts where they have stopped selling and promoting some Korean products like women's makeup and food stuff products. It's expected the Korean product boycotts will expand steadily, and possibly a full blown economic boycott.

Isn't that like a daily campaign in Korea, especially by the Korean netizens?

Korean embassy in Tokyo attacked by angry Japanese with a brick, followed by demonstrations by Japanese in front of the embassy. Now, KPOP star Big Bang's van vandalized in Tokyo due to anti Korean feelings.

It was the Korean consulate in Hiroshima that was attacked with a brick. As for the demonstrations, Japanese embassy in Seoul had over 200 cases of demonstration just in 6 months. As for Big Bang's incident, the report states that the car belonged to the manager which he parked in the coin parking lot. The window was broke and passports/bags which contained cash were stolen. Based on the pictue, it looks like a simple black colored van with no resemblence of any association with BigBang.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nigel, from this man, Hosaka Yuji who has studied the Dokdo/Takeshima issue for 13 years and has carefully examined the 1965 treaty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2XRSejAmc&feature=player_embedded

I hear he's a very unpopular figure amongst Japanese nationalists.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Nigel, from this man, Hosaka Yuji who has studied the Dokdo/Takeshima issue for 13 years and has carefully examined the 1965 treaty.

Sorry chucky3176. I'm not fluent in Korean. Perhaps you could summarize his arguments for me. Thanks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Though Finance Ministry has not formally stated this, "延長するかを含め白紙だ" , and since there are no automatic renewal in the agreement, the option to do so has always been Japan to decide.

Even if that's true, don't bet on South Korea to continue the swap with Japan. Korea may just decide to lower the value of the Won to raise exports at the expense of Japan - regardless what Japan decides to do. Japanese have no ideal what a currency swap is, and the nature of it. The Japanese government had the nerve to tell the Koreans "they were trying to help the failing Korean economy but now we have to think about this". Yes, please go ahead and end the swap. Japanese keep believing they are lending money to Korea, when that is not even what it is. In fact, the actual swap hasn't even happened. It was a promise between Korea and Japan, to try to help each other because Korean currency is too low, while Japanese currency is too high. Please end the swap, let's see what will really happen. lol...

Isn't that like a daily campaign in Korea, especially by the Korean netizens?

Nope. There is no daily campaign in Korea to boycott Japanese products. Nobody buys Sony anyway. Not because of any boycotts, but because Koreans think they're crap. lol..

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Nigel, I'm not going to summarize the whole thing because it's too long. But that's one of the things he says, as well as the island belongs to Korea. He also says, Ironically, so does 20% of the Japanese high school students. lol...

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

**if the country is Tibet's, why don't the Tibetans go there (Lhasa) and put a flag there? Oh that's right, they can't because they don't have it.

Are you cool with that?**

the general rule is in any disputed area, possession gets 9/10 of the ruling.

How come UK don't go the court in regards to Gibraltar and Falkland?

Why don't the U.S go to the court with Guantanamo Bay?

Why don't Japan go to court over Daiyou and Okinawa? (despite what China's stand is on the ICJ). What about the Kurilies? Take them to the ICJ, Japan, what are you waiting for?

Oh that's right, Japan thinks Korea is a softer target, but too scared to do anything against China and Russia.

I'm in favor of Japan cutting off diplomatic relations with Korea. What do you say?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Please end the swap, let's see what will really happen. lol...

According to this article, it appears that Korea's 3 year bond went up 0.08 points which is the greatest upward recorded this year. 5/10/20 year bonds have increased as well. Furthermore, the 3 year bond recorded the highest trading volume of the year. Please note that this is happening just on some rumors that Japan may not extend the swap agreement.

http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2012/08/16/0200000000AKR20120816162551008.HTML

Nigel, I'm not going to summarize the whole thing because it's too long

I took the time to look up Hosaka's argument and what his referring to is this.

http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/JPKR/19650622.TPJ.html

The document is basically a bilateral exchange where both parties agree to resolve disputes through diplomatic channels. If this method is exhausted, it is agreed that both parties will take this to court if such avenue is agreeable by both parties.

His reasoning, which is very confusing, states that basically since Japan did not include the Takeshima dispute in the above document, it means that Japan could not bring this case to ICJ. (??? confusing, ain't it?) He also states that Japan knows this already so this is why even though Japan has verbally announced their intentions to go to ICJ, they have not done so offically through diplomatic channels.

Well. The article was dated August 14th.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120814-00000004-cnippou-kr

1 ( +1 / -0 )

According to this article, it appears that Korea's 3 year bond went up 0.08 points which is the greatest upward recorded this year. 5/10/20 year bonds have increased as well. Furthermore, the 3 year bond recorded the highest trading volume of the year. Please note that this is happening just on some rumors that Japan may not extend the swap agreement.

How's that going to not hurt Japan? The last time S.Korea's currency sank in 2008, S.Korean economy rebounded with a boon in exports at the expense of Japanese companies. Since then, S.Korean currency has come back up, and so has the exports slowed as well. Like I said, the swap was designed to help both countries. It was actually Japan who suggested the swap to be increased to what it is. And Korea only agreed to it even though they didn't need it, to help out Japan, at the same time fortifying further Korea's currency.

Don't forget, Korea already has swaps with US and China, Japan's is just another superflous insurance, but not totally essential. For Japan, it's one way to keep the Yen down in value so all those exporting companies don't go bankrupt.

You see, Korea can't lose. If the currency value sinks, Korea's industrial machine will kick in again and exports will rise to become a boom at the expense of Japanese competitors. If Korea feels currency is too low, it can ask China and US to step in to swap more money. China is more than willing to help out, especially when it means it's going against Japan. One way or other, it doesn't hurt Korea at all, Nigel.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Following youtube movie is critical. This Japanese movie was also broadcasted by Korean medias as well.

Movie shows series of old Japanese maps describing Takeshima and then shows series of Korean maps describing the island Korean claims to be Takeshima(Korean name, Dokdo island).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w7wHekOQM8&feature

CONCLUSION: THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE KOREAN OLD MAP THAT SHOWS TAKESHIMA!!

The island Korean claims to be Takeshima is NOT actually Takeshima, but a different island, "干山島" with different location,(sometimes appears a west, north, south and east side of "鬱陵島") and different shape(not split like Takeshima)... turned out it is just a TINY ISLAND right next to "鬱陵島"....

Isn't this CRAZY????

It is also said American PRofessor who used be in Korea and brought this conclusion was kicked out from Korea because of his claim...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

How's that going to not hurt Japan? The last time S.Korea's currency sank in 2008, S.Korean economy rebounded with a boon in exports at the expense of Japanese companies. Since then, S.Korean currency has come back up, and so has the exports slowed as well. Like I said, the swap was designed to help both countries

Not equally. It's the country that's receiving the hard currency in exchange for their soft currency benefits the most, while the other country merely benefits in that trading partner wouldn't collapse. There is little benefit for Japan while the risk is much greater.

It was actually Japan who suggested the swap to be increased to what it is.

It was Korea that requested it.

http://jp.reuters.com/article/forexNews/idJPTK087544020120817

Don't forget, Korea already has swaps with US and China, Japan's is just another superflous insurance, but not totally essential. For Japan, it's one way to keep the Yen down in value so all those exporting companies don't go bankrupt.

If I'm not mistaken, the 2008 swap deal with USA (FRB) expired. The won Yuan swap is worth about $56 billion? The one Japan has is $70 billion.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

hachikou, are you talking about Gerry Bevers? lol... He wasn't kicked out of Korea. He was just not renewed by his university for the contract. He made a big stink at the time, but then later, he admitted the school didn't renew the contract. lol... He got another job with another school in Korea, after that nobody knows what happened. lol.. FYI, there are three old documents in Japanese that says the island is Korean, says Hosakawa Yuji. He says Japan wasn't even that interested in the island until 1977 when the new 200 mile EEZ maritime international law came into effect. Why would Japanese say the island belongs to Korea when it belongs to Japan? Isn't that a little strange? lol..

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@ hachikou

OH, so that is where is isles are, I was looking in the wrong place. But I went to google earth after going to the link you posted and google earth says the isles are Korea's

0 ( +1 / -1 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w7wHekOQM8&feature

Korean claims the island "干山島" on Korean old map is "竹島 Takeshima (Korean name, Dokdo 独島)". But 竹島 is located a little bit east side of "鬱陵島" island, and its geographical feature is two split rocks.

Japanese old maps are accurate , and shows its correct location and its shape, clearly "竹島 ", while on Korean map, "干山島", which koreans claim to be "竹島 " appears different locations, nothing like "竹島 ",... Then where the heck is "干山島", Korean claimes to be "竹島 ", ?? It turns out there is a Tiny island called, "竹嶼 Jukudo" next to "鬱陵島" island, possibly that is the one.

ahhhh..

btw "竹嶼 Jukudo", which is also written as same name as "竹島 " soemtimes. So it is confusing, but completely different island different shape..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Nigelboy, it was Japan who suggested to increase the swap to $70 billion, from what Korea suggested at $56 billion. It was in the Korean paper, quoting Korean government officials. The Japanese government was extremely enthused to increase the amount if I may say so, for some strange reason lol... The Japanese move may keep down the value of Korean Won a little, but that's only going to help out Korean exports, making Korean products cheaper abroad, while your Japanese products go up in price the other way. lol.. Let's face it Nigel, Japan has zero leverage on Korean economy. You are not China or USA. Japan can do anything they like, but it's going to backfire soon if they don't be careful.

By now, China's ideal of China+Korea+Russia ganging up on Japan looks pretty tempting.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120817-00000025-rcdc-cn

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Nigelboy, it was Japan who suggested to increase the swap to $70 billion, from what Korea suggested at $56 billion. It was in the Korean paper, quoting Korean government officials. The Japanese government was extremely enthused to increase the amount if I may say so, for some strange reason lol...

Perhaps it seems strange because that's not the way it went as per my link from Reuters.

There are so many ways to keep the Yen down one of which is purchasing more foreign bonds (.i.e. U.S.) with minimal risk. There's absolutely no point in accepting a volatile soft currency in (Won) which had experience a major crisis in October of 2008 and February 2009.

The mere fact that foreign investors sold of Korean bonds (highest volume/highest upward in interest rate that day) on a mere suggestion that Japan "might reconsider" tells me that you're just boasting.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

nigel, your reuter link only says that the Japanese government denies Korea's government's claim that it was Japan who wanted to increase the swap line. Everything was behind the curtain dealings, nobody knows what really went on. So it's a tie on that regard.

But It all lays it out here, why the swap stoppage won't harm much for Korea.

http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2958036&cloc=joongangdaily|home|top

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The truth behind Japan's claims

The truth behind Japan's claims made through the pamphlet called "10 Issues of Takeshima"

http://www.korea.net/Government/Current-Affairs/National-Affairs/view

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I hope people around the world to be aware of the MENTALITY of Koreans...

I watch this video...(same one i posted earlier)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w7wHekOQM8&feature=relmfu

then I watched next video below showing how Koreans from youngsters to the older appealing "Takeshima belongs to Korea!!", throught advertisement, newspaper, trying to brainwash in many different languages,... but avoiding one single place... yes International Court...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_H5YFm5lU

What's the right word??? CULT?? sad sad Korean people..

funny thing is,... until recently, majority of Japanese people are not intersted in this Takeshima issue.. now that's Japanese people's mentality??

1 ( +4 / -3 )

ROK Documents prove that old name Usando is current Dokdo

The Silla Kingdom (57 BCE-935 CE) annexed Usanguk, comprising Ulleungdo and Dokdo, in year 512, since when the name Dokdo started appearing in official documents. Sejong sillok jiriji (1432), for example, referred to Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Mureungdo and Usando, respectively. Goryeosa (History of Goryeo, 1451), Sinjeung dongguk yeoji seungnam (Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea, 1530), Dongguk munheon bigo (Reference Compilation of Documents of Korea, 1770), Man-gi yoram (Book of Ten Thousand Techniques of Governance, 1808) and many others show that Usando was an old name for Dokdo. They also prove that Usando referred to Dokdo for at least several centuries until the early 20th century.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No hachikou, it's Japanese mentality to get worked up over one remark about the "Emperor" of Japan who is worshipped as god. All these hostile retaliations against a country, just because Japanese felt insulted due to one remark made about the King of Japan. How can he be an emperor when he has no empire? How can he be a deity when he's just another normal human?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

It is sad so much ill will has been generated over these rocks. It shows once again how pride and hubris is an ever present danger. Pride has always been troublesome for Japanese males. Really we should drop all claims to the rocks and concentrate our efforts on improving relations. It will allow the Republic of Korea to soften its stance towards Japan. If not it will be one less club they can use against Japan.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Quote from korea.net:

History is not something that can be arbitrarily stitched together from disparate parts. Dokdo was the first piece absorbed by Japan when it invaded the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910). For Japan to insist on possession of Dokdo is no different from denying Korea's history of liberation from Japanese rule. Japan's claim over Dokdo implies that it has never abandoned territorial ambitions even after its illegal occupation of the Korean Peninsula ended in 1945.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboy Aug. 18, 2012 - 03:30AM JST Not equally. It's the country that's receiving the hard currency in exchange for their soft currency benefits the most, while the other country merely benefits in that trading partner wouldn't collapse. There is little benefit for Japan while the risk is much greater.

Your wrong about South Korea. Currencies from Japan and South Korea are considered to be hard currencies. Soft currencies are governments from developing countries that sets unrealistically high exchange rates, pegging their currencies to a currency such as the U.S. dollar. I don't consider South Korea as a developing country.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japanese citizens demanding war and boasting that they can take Seoul in a week because Korea insulted the emperor.

http://kohada.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/4649/1344942967/l50

I just knew they really never changed from their old habitual historic ways. lol...

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

chuky3176 Japanese citizens demanding war and boasting that they can take Seoul in a week because Korea insulted the emperor. http://kohada.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/4649/1344942967/l50 I just knew they really never changed from their old habitual historic ways. lol...

So, you think all the people in Japan are turning into war time criminals again...??? You are saying like chinese news papers. Maybe, you should meet more people.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

caravinca0, I was just joking. It's pretty amusing to read the nonsense, just as hachikou, nigelboy, and others keeps posting videos and articles about the nutty Koreans that are supposed to represent Korea.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

This is Japan's position on Senkakou/Daiyou Islands dispute with China.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120709003776.htm

This sounds exactly like the South Korean position on Dokdo/Takeshima. In fact, if you take out any reference to Japan/China/Okinawa/Senkakou, you may even make a mistake thinking is a comment issued by the Korean side! LOL... But if this doesn't show us the hypocrisy of Japan, what does?

As the Senkakus are an integral part of Japanese territory, the government must avoid causing misunderstanding at home and abroad that there is a territorial dispute over the islands.

If it fails to do this, it could harm national interests.

"The purchase of the Senkaku Islands concerns transferring ownership of domestic land. It i not a diplomatic matter," a senior official at the Foreign Ministry said Saturday.

The government will continue to explain its position to China and Taiwan if they persist in claiming sovereignty over the islands.

While the International Court of Justice in The Hague deals with territorial and other disputes between countries, Japan is not considering filing a complaint with the U.N. body, according to sources.

"If the government approaches the World Court [to resolve the issue], it would give the impression that Japan acknowledges the existence of a territorial dispute over the islands. This is China's intention," a government source said.

A dispute can only be brought before the World Court if the countries involved in the dispute agree to settle it there. Even if China files a complaint with the World Court, Japan would not respond to such a move, according to the sources.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

chucky3176 Aug. 18, 2012 - 05:55AM JST A dispute can only be brought before the World Court if the countries involved in the dispute agree to settle it there. Even if China files a complaint with the World Court, Japan would not respond to such a move, according to the sources.

We already know this many times over. What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan, South Korea, or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what does it matter? What is important the most for Japan, South Korea, or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of Dokdo or Senkaku. So your back to square one.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That's correct sfjp330. Japan is demanding from Korea what Japan is not willing to do in regards to China. You see the irony and the hypocrisy in this? All those people who are claiming Korea as cowards for not going along with Japan into ICJ, just shut the h*ll up!

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Sfjp330

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/g_ninchi.html This is the japanese claim why they insist the island belongs to Japan . I don't know where you got the idea that Japan didn't know it's existence till1870 as you said, it seems to be your illusion. At least what it's written there is what Japan will tell the ICJ , you have got to read through both claims first and have your opinion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

chucky3176Aug. 18, 2012 - 06:54AM JST That's correct sfjp330. Japan is demanding from Korea what Japan is not willing to do in regards to China. You see >the irony and the hypocrisy in this? All those people who are claiming Korea as cowards for not going along with >Japan into ICJ, just shut the h*ll up!

South Korea are cowards for not going along with Japan into ICJ.

"The 1965 treaty between Korea and Japan stipulates that Japan from refraining to take this case to the ICJ"

So are you going to substatiatie this statement you made?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

shanks8532 Aug. 18, 2012 - 07:17AM JST. I don't know where you got the idea that Japan didn't know it's existence till1870

The Japanese Meiji government of Japan made it clear in 1877 that Ulleung Island and Dokdo were Korean territory, saying they had nothing to do with Japan. Japan didn't know Dokdo existed in 1870. Meiji government incorporated Dokdo into Japanese territory in 1905, even it recognized the islands as belonging to Korea.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

hanks8532 Aug. 18, 2012 - 07:17AM JST. This is the japanese claim why they insist the island belongs to Japan .I don't know where you got the idea that Japan didn't know it's existence till1870s.

In the early 1870's the Japanese considered Usando to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. In 1895, the Japanese realized that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but in the early 1870's, Japanese believed that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo. At the time, there is no Japanese map that shows Usando as Liancourts. They all show it as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. In 1877, the Japanese had come to realize that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

sfjp330

Thanks! Yes, your theory seems perfect if you only listen to Korean side. According to Japanese government people regularly went to the island in 17century to get shellfish, so they must have known the existence.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Shanks8532 Aug. 18, 2012 - 08:43AM JST your theory seems perfect if you only listen to Korean side.

No. This is based on Japanese documents. In the 1877 Japanese Kobunruko Documents, Japan's Meiji Government Formally acknowledged Dokdo as Korean territory.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

But It all lays it out here, why the swap stoppage won't harm much for Korea.

Well, back in Jan of 2008, Korea had a comfortable foreign reserves of $263 billion but look what happened.(crisis in October of 2008) Speculators are ruthless. And if the recent bond transactions based on unconfirmed rumors triggers such movement, I don't see where you get all these chest pumping confidence.

This is Japan's position on Senkakou/Daiyou Islands dispute with China.

I took the liberty of finding the original article in Japanese. It's more like an extended assumption from the writer IMO. I mean, I haven't seen a ministry official comment on "what if's" especially in light of the fact that the other party is China. But then again, when China hasn't mentioned about ICJ possibility to Japan, the comparisons are moot.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They all show it as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. In 1877, the Japanese had come to realize that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

sfjp330. You do realize that Jukdo is not the current Takeshima/Dokdo, right? Just wondering cuz I don't know what you're arguing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Looking at the 2008 Korean currency crisis, Yoon Jeung-hyun, Ministry of Strategy and Finance in 2009 criticized Japan for NOT HELPING earlier.

http://japanese.joins.com/article/575/117575.html?sectcode=A10&servcode=A00

One minute, they demand help. The next minute, they claim it was too slow. And the next minute, they claim they didn't need it. Reminicent of 1997 crisis, Korea style.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No. This is based on Japanese documents. In the 1877 Japanese Kobunruko Documents, Japan's Meiji Government Formally acknowledged Dokdo as Korean territory.

Yes I know the documents but there are differences in interpretation between Korean and Japan, like Japan didn't mentioned about the controversial island in the documents, They mentioned different islets because the controversial island were called differently. Calling the controversial island with a different name long time ago is not only what Japan used to do , but Korea, too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sfjp330Aug. 18, 2012 - 08:55AM JST "Shanks8532 Aug. 18, 2012 - 08:43AM JST your theory seems perfect if you only listen to Korean side." No. This is based on Japanese documents. In the 1877 Japanese Kobunruko Documents, Japan's Meiji Government >Formally acknowledged Dokdo as Korean territory.

Korea supporters keep listing reason after reason why South Korea SHOULD go to he ICJ.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ossanjapan.....Japanese supporters like yourself keep listing reason after reason why Japan SHOULD go to Yasukuni and the ICJ.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don't understand what you're trying to say here..

I took the liberty of finding the original article in Japanese. It's more like an extended assumption from the writer IMO. I mean, I haven't seen a ministry official comment on "what if's" especially in light of the fact that the other party is China. But then again, when China hasn't mentioned about ICJ possibility to Japan, the comparisons are moot.

So why doesn't Japan take Russia to ICJ? Oh that's right, Japan knows it can't win in court, and scared of Russia. But as for Korea's case, Japan has nothing to lose, and they'll be happy if their trolling nets them a favorable decision at the ICJ, however remote of a possibility that is. South Korea refuses to go to ICJ, for the same reason Japan gives its reasons against going to ICJ for the dispute with China.

possibility of Japan winning at the ICJ if Korea goes along with it = 5% chance possibility of Japan winning at the ICJ if Korea doesn't go along with it = 0% chance

There's nothing really complicated here.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Fixed.

The possibility of Japan winning at the ICJ if Korea goes along with it = 5% chance, but the possibility of Japan winning at the ICJ if Korea doesn't go along with it = 0% chance

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Getting back to the "Dokdo is ours" silly campaigns mentioned previously, a casual third party observer will automatically assume that at this time, "Dokdo is not yours" and are campaigning it to get it back. Also if I may add, the mere fact that your brothers and sisters are doing this all over the world are shining examples of the existence of the dispute.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

sfjp330Aug. 18, 2012 - 09:50AM JST Ossanjapan.....Japanese supporters like yourself keep listing reason after reason why Japan SHOULD go to Yasukuni >and the ICJ.

Duh sfjp. Japan is the one suggesting taking it to the ICJ. So when J-supporters list reasons why Japan owns the islands then they are simply supporting Japan's position. But when K-supporters go on and on about all the reasons why SKorea owns them it is contradictory to Skorea's position of evading going before the ICJ.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

chucky3176Aug. 18, 2012 - 10:13AM JST The possibility of Japan winning at the ICJ if Korea goes along with it = 5% chance, but the possibility of Japan >winning at the ICJ if Korea doesn't go along with it = 0% chance

Proof that South Korea are cowards and do not have confidence in winning. The smallest dogs have the biggest bark.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This exemplifies the South Korean mode of thinking. While stating that Japan's propsal to settle before the ICJ "does not deserve even a passing notice" at the same time they "vow to take stern measures unless Japan withdraws it's propsal to the ICJ". LOL. So which is it?

"SEOUL/TOKYO, Aug. 17 (Yonhap) -- South Korea vowed to take "stern measures" on Friday unless Japan withdraws its proposal to take the issue of Dokdo, Seoul's easternmost islets claimed by Tokyo as its territory, to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

"We make it clear that the Japanese proposal does not deserve even a passing notice as there is no territorial dispute over Dokdo because it is clearly a Korean territory historically, geographically and under international law," Seoul's foreign ministry spokesman Cho Tai-young said.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2012/08/17/61/0301000000AEN20120817009700315F.HTML

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Some people here say that if China filed a suit over disputed islets, Japan would not stand in the court, it is not true really.

1, They haven't never filed a suit in the international court for the islets. 2, If China did, Japan must stand in the court, rejection is not allowed because Japan has agreed the folllwing declaration. 選択条項受諾宣言=optional article accepting declaration??? Not sure in English .

So the idea that Japan would do the same thing as Korea is doing now, is out of point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboy: "As to question why Japan doesn't go to ICJ in regards to Senkaku, first and foremost, neither China nor Taiwan ever suggested to go to ICJ unlike Japan is doing to Korea."

So, because Taiwan and China haven't gone to the ICJ in regards to Senkaku it answers why Japan hasn't? Nice try at deflection, but you guys still haven't answered the question: why does Japan feel there is no island dispute with the Senkakus but insist there is a dispute with Dokdo? Why doesn't JAPAN go to the ICJ over the Senkakus (not China, not Taiwain, but Japan)?

You guys still can't answer. I'm not asking why Taiwan and China won't go to the ICJ over the islands, I'm asking why Japan won't of it's own volition, and won't even acknowledge there's a dispute when there clearly is in that case, whereas they make a fuss that SK claims there is no dispute in the same regards.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Ossan: "Proof that South Korea are cowards and do not have confidence in winning. The smallest dogs have the biggest bark."

Those dogs stand guard on and administer Dokdo... all Japan can do is yap from boats far off-shore.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

So why doesn't Japan take Russia to ICJ? Oh that's right, Japan knows it can't win in court, and scared of Russia. But as for Korea's case, Japan has nothing to lose, and they'll be happy if their trolling nets them a favorable decision at the ICJ, however remote of a possibility that is. South Korea refuses to go to ICJ, for the same reason Japan gives its reasons against going to ICJ for the dispute with China.

Japan did so in 1973. I think Korea has a lot to gain. They can stop these silly "Dokdo is ours" campaign (underwears, motorcycle riders, newspaper ads, banners in every international sporting events, swimming stunts, graffitti, etc.) I find it strange that these people campaign this all over the world except the ICJ. As a third party observer, I would think that by doing these stunts, they will assume that "Dokdo is not ours" and your fighting to get it back. Even though the government claims that their are no disputes, the people there sure do not act like it. Another gain is that by winning the decision, you could really "stick to Japan". As for China, there is a reason why they don't even mention the word "ICJ".

I find it ironic that states with territorial disputes with Japan are not signatory to "Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory" under ICJ whereby they are obligated to recognize and abide by the jurisdiction and judgement of the organ. Coincidence?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nice try at deflection, but you guys still haven't answered the question: why does Japan feel there is no island dispute with the Senkakus but insist there is a dispute with Dokdo?

How's this. Because neither (China nor Taiwan) suggested Japan to take this to ICJ.

It's not a deflection smith. As I mentioned previously, what you are essentially asking is for the defendant to file a civil claims on behalf of the Plaintiff for his/her claims.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

smithinjapan

Please look up 選択条項受諾宣言 in English, if China did, Japan would have to accept it. Unless there is no lawsuit from China or Taiwan, why Japan has to bring it to ICJ? They have to do it first since they know Japan is not allowed to turn down the claim before ICJ.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mistake, Unless there is no >>>>> As long as there is no.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So in summary Japan is a coward to not take the Russians to ICJ, and too chicken sh*t to take China to ICJ, - because they would all mean those countries will retaliate on Japan by 100 times. Just look how Japan folded like a cheap suit case when China pressed Japan a little. But it's perfectly OK to take Korea to ICJ because Korea is a soft target. That's what it all boils down to IMO. Well, as that Yonhap article says, this could turn ugly if Japan keeps racheting up the rhetoric against Korea who is working on its own retaliations against Japan. And unlike issues with China and North Korea which divided the opinions in Korea, South Korea has the complete backing of the entire population against Japan. I say the first thing SK should do is to nullify the 1965 treaty and completely shut down the diplomatic relationship. Then support and work with China and Russia on their territorial problems with Japan. An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

So in summary Japan is a coward to not take the Russians to ICJ, and too chicken sh*t to take China to ICJ

Quite the contrary chucky. This was answered already.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You've answered what? I didn't see any answers to why Japan won't get mad at Russians and boycotting Russian products and threatening them with words to take them to court. Yes, brave Japan, let's see what you're made out of, instead of taking it all out on Korea, because of failures dealing with China and Russia.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I didn't see any answers to why Japan won't get mad at Russians and boycotting Russian products and threatening them with words to take them to court.

Russian products?

As to the threat of court, I answered them earlier.

I'll repeat.

"It's pretty sad that some people assume this because for years, Japan was merely showing good faith patience for they thought such an act after the 1965 treaty would hamper Japan-Korea relations as Japan knew Takeshima meant a significant more than Japan did."

Replace Korea with Russia. Replace Takeshima with Northern territories. Replace 1965 treaty with Yelstins Five Steps solution in 1990.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You didn't answer anything. You're talking in riddles.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

You didn't answer anything. You're talking in riddles.

Well let me replace it for you.

"It's pretty sad that some people assume this because for years, Japan was merely showing good faith patience for they thought such an act after the Yeltsin Five Steps solution in 1990 would hamper Japan-Russia relations as Japan knew Russia meant a significant more than Japan did

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So Japan is just being patient and kind to Russia? lol.. oh please..

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Nigelboy: "How's this. Because neither (China nor Taiwan) suggested Japan to take this to ICJ."

And once again you fail to answer the question. SKorea is not taking the issue of Dokdo to the courts, same as China or Taiwan are not taking the issue of the Senkakus to the ICJ. Japan is bringing the latter, but not the former. Why? The answer is that Japan does not recognize any dispute in the case of the Senkakus, but does with Dokdo. Unfortunately, as with Japan not recognizing any dispute with the Senkakus, SK also does not recognize any dispute with Dokdo. So why the hypocrisy?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Japan is bringing the latter, but not the former"

Oops... got my latter and former mixed up.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboyAug. 18, 2012 - 09:38AM JST

Looking at the 2008 Korean currency crisis, Yoon Jeung-hyun, Ministry of Strategy and Finance in 2009 criticized Japan for NOT HELPING earlier. One minute, they demand help. The next minute, they claim it was too slow. And the next minute, they claim they didn't need it. Reminicent of 1997 crisis, Korea style.

There's nothing in the article you sourced that says Korea is demanding economic help. Can you give us a few more sources for this Japanese, US, China economic rescue package of the Korean economy in 2008?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

And once again you fail to answer the question. SKorea is not taking the issue of Dokdo to the courts, same as China or Taiwan are not taking the issue of the Senkakus to the ICJ. Japan is bringing the latter, but not the former. Why? The answer is that Japan does not recognize any dispute in the case of the Senkakus, but does with Dokdo. Unfortunately, as with Japan not recognizing any dispute with the Senkakus, SK also does not recognize any dispute with Dokdo. So why the hypocrisy?

In essence, what you are saying that China or Taiwan are not taking the issue of the Senkaku's to ICJ because there is no dispute.

Thanks.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

shanks8532Aug. 18, 2012 - 11:29AM JST

smithinjapan

Please look up 選択条項受諾宣言 in English, if China did, Japan would have to accept it. Unless there is no lawsuit from China or Taiwan, why Japan has to bring it to ICJ? They have to do it first since they know Japan is not allowed to turn down the claim before ICJ.

Again, let's iterate this with what smithinjapan is pointing out. Nobody wants to go to the ICJ, not Korea, not China, and not Russia. But Japan is the one instigating to go to court with Korea, but Japan is silent when it comes to China and Russia. So the matter of China not wanting ICJ is moot point. It is Japan that is pressing this matter, and it is Japan being hypocritical, criticizing Korea for not being brave, yet Japan is not nearly brave to start the ICJ with China (waiting on China isn't good enough).

And LOL, this is Japan's own position on their dispute with China:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120709003776.htm

As the Senkakus are an integral part of Japanese territory, the government must avoid causing misunderstanding at home and abroad that there is a territorial dispute over the islands.

If it fails to do this, it could harm national interests.

"The purchase of the Senkaku Islands concerns transferring ownership of domestic land. It i not a diplomatic matter," a senior official at the Foreign Ministry said Saturday.

The government will continue to explain its position to China and Taiwan if they persist in claiming sovereignty over the islands.

While the International Court of Justice in The Hague deals with territorial and other disputes between countries, Japan is not considering filing a complaint with the U.N. body, according to sources.

"If the government approaches the World Court [to resolve the issue], it would give the impression that Japan acknowledges the existence of a territorial dispute over the islands. This is China's intention," a government source said.

A dispute can only be brought before the World Court if the countries involved in the dispute agree to settle it there. Even if China files a complaint with the World Court, Japan would not respond to such a move, according to the sources.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

There's nothing in the article you sourced that says Korea is demanding economic help. Can you give us a few more sources for this Japanese, US, China economic rescue package of the Korean economy in 2008?

Yes Dog. Economic Rescue package in a form of an emergency currency swap. Thank you.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The quoting system is just screwed up.

Here's the fixed.

Again, let's iterate this with what smithinjapan is pointing out. Nobody wants to go to the ICJ, not Korea, not China, and not Russia. But Japan is the one instigating to go to court with Korea, but Japan is silent when it comes to China and Russia. So the matter of China not wanting ICJ is moot point. It is Japan that is pressing this matter, and it is Japan being hypocritical, criticizing Korea for not being brave, yet Japan is not nearly brave to start the ICJ with China (waiting on China isn't good enough).

shanks8532Aug. 18, 2012 - 11:29AM JST

smithinjapan

Please look up 選択条項受諾宣言 in English, if China did, Japan would have to accept it. Unless there is no lawsuit from China or Taiwan, why Japan has to bring it to ICJ? They have to do it first since they know Japan is not allowed to turn down the claim before ICJ.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

chucky,

You're playing the same game as smith. Your Yomiuri article was addressed already.

So the matter of China not wanting ICJ is moot point

No it isn't. ICJ's contentious cases are binding and as per their website, " it is rare for a decision not to be implemented" since both parties have agreed to abide by it beforehand. The actual loser of the case will no doubt tarnish her prestige, but not abiding by the decision decided by a global organ will tarnish even more.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

nigelboy: "In essence, what you are saying that China or Taiwan are not taking the issue of the Senkaku's to ICJ because there is no dispute."

Yes and no, but of course you want to mean Japan is uncontested on the matter. I'm saying that they don't bring it the table for the same reason Japan does not -- they consider the land theirs and there is no dispute. Korea doesn't consider Dokdo a dispute, so why should they go to the ICJ?

Once again: "Japan effectively controls the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. Japan's official position is that it does not recognize any territorial dispute over the Okinawa Prefecture islands."

SKorea's official position is that there is no dispute, and therefore no need for them to beg the ICJ to find in their favour, as with Japan's official position. And yet you guys cannot admit the hypocrisy.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

nigelboy.... nigelboy.... knock knock...: "No it isn't. ICJ's contentious cases are binding and as per their website, " it is rare for a decision not to be implemented" since both parties have agreed to abide by it beforehand. "

Why isn't Japan taking the issue of Senkaku to the ICJ as it threatens (but won't) take the issue of Dokdo? Please don't deflect from answering by saying Taiwan and China haven't challenged them, I'm asking why JAPAN hasn't taken it to the ICJ when they are so willing to do so to 'solve' the Dokdo issue?

Look forward to your deflection.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes and no, but of course you want to mean Japan is uncontested on the matter. I'm saying that they don't bring it the table for the same reason Japan does not -- they consider the land theirs and there is no dispute. Korea doesn't consider Dokdo a dispute, so why should they go to the ICJ?

As I stated from time to time, Japan has requested the issue to be settled via ICJ to Korea, while China hasn't even whispered the word "ICJ" to Japan. If they initiated the said request, then IMO, there exists a dispute.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Let me make it real simple smith.

Japan is already in the chambers of ICJ since they signed the declaration. If China wants to go there, they can go at any time if they choose to do so.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

So again, you cannot answer the question, nigelboy. I'm not asking why China hasn't whispered the issue to the ICJ, I'm asking why Japan hasn't, and hence the hypocrisy with Dokdo. With Dokdo, according to Koreans, there is no dispute, same as with Japan on the Senkakus. It's amazing that you deflect on that time and time again as a so-called 'answer'.

It's not a dispute when only one nation comes forward -- the same nation that claims there is no dispute with other islands nations and refuses to come forward then.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

So again, you cannot answer the question, nigelboy. I'm not asking why China hasn't whispered the issue to the ICJ, I'm asking why Japan hasn't, and hence the hypocrisy with Dokdo. With Dokdo, according to Koreans, there is no dispute, same as with Japan on the Senkakus. It's amazing that you deflect on that time and time again as a so-called 'answer'.

It's answered clearly smith. The problem with your comparison is completely off the mark since it's the burden on China to initiate the process. As I stated previously, what you are essentially asking is for a defendant (who doesn't believe he/she should be a defendant) to file a lawsuit on behalf of a potential Plantiff(who hasn't indicated that he/she will sue) on his/her claim. The logic just does not make sense.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

smithinjapan

Japan is taking a stance that Senkaku islets are theirs and no dispute with any other countries. If Japan started to file a suit for Senkaku Islets, it would mean that Japan admits there is a dispute, of course, they didn't have to do it from their side unless China or Taiwan files the case. It is very natural, isn't it? But this time, the difference in stances between Japan and Korea is that when either of them is asked to go to court, Korea refuses, but Japan wouldn't refuse, to be precise, not allowed to do so. So you can't compare Japan 's stance to Korea's. As for a dispute with Russia. Japan suggested that they should go to court in 1972, but Russia refused. It's not like Japan didn't do anything.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"isle dispute"

It's really just a rock dispute.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nigelboy: "As I stated previously, what you are essentially asking is for a defendant (who doesn't believe he/she should be a defendant) to file a lawsuit on behalf of a potential Plantiff(who hasn't indicated that he/she will sue) on his/her claim. The logic just does not make sense."

Agreed, hypocrisy. And yet I have no doubt you have said Korea should step forward and answer the ICJ call when they have no belief they are or should be a defendant. Keep trying, though.

shanks: "Japan is taking a stance that Senkaku islets are theirs and no dispute with any other countries. If Japan started to file a suit for Senkaku Islets, it would mean that Japan admits there is a dispute, of course, they didn't have to do it from their side unless China or Taiwan files the case."

Thanks for proving my point. SK doesn't need to file a case with Japan as there is no dispute whom the islands belong to.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

nigelboy: "If China wants to go there, they can go at any time if they choose to do so."

So why doesn't Japan want to go there on said issue like they want to go there with Dokdo? Again, you fail to answer the obvious hypocrisy.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The reason that South Korea does not want to take the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo-Takeshima) dispute to the ICJ is that it has no old maps or documents to back up any historical claim to the Rocks. There is not even one old Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks under any name, and there are no documents to show that Koreans ever traveled to the Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.

In all of Korean history, there are only two references to an island that was probably Liancourt Rocks. Both references described them as being visible to the east Ulleungdo, the closest Korean island to Liancourt Rocks. One of those references stated very clearly that the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was "attached to Japanese territory" and the other suggested it.

On July 22, 1714, Korean official Jo Seok-myeong reported to the Korean King Sukjong that Korea's east coast defenses were in need of repair. The official believed that Korea must not only be ready for any future Japanese invasion by way of the Japanese island of Tsushima, but also by way of the Korean island of Ulleungdo.

In the following translation of that 1714 entry, notice the sentence that says, "Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory." The island that Koreans recognized as being Japanese territory was almost certainly Liancourt Rocks since there are no other islands visible to the east of Ulleungdo, except for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (once called "Usando"), which is only 2km off Ulleungdo's east shore.

Gangwon Provincial emissary Jo Seok-myeong discussed the neglected coastal defenses in the Yeongdong region. Here is a summary: "I listened carefully to the people in the ports who said, 'Pyeonghae and Uljin are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory.' In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong and Ganseong, so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared."

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1714-july-22-island-east-of-ulleungdo.html

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Thanks for proving my point. SK doesn't need to file a case with Japan as there is no dispute whom the islands belong to.

Smithy the problem is, SK is not the one filing a case it's Japan unlike your endless rant on Senkaku. Really nobody is taking your argument seriously and since a person with half a brain can see through it. You clearly have no defense on why SK is clawing and stomping resisting to be taken up at ICJ in which SK may decline the preceedings but also state a clear reason why.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

One of the interesting points of this dispute is the US renewing their position stating they will not take side.

I believe the US in the past took side on SK holding back Japan from taking it up to ICJ due to US's concern against NK and PRC. Since then NK dictator changed and PRC taking a hardliner in the Southern China sea but shows very little interest in the Korean peninsula. So the US may have felt it is time for the two allies to sort things out on themselves giving the blessing to Japan to do whatever they thought necessary to end the dispute.

Another point is that PRC is actually wanting to know the out come of the ICJ ruling so they can devise their own defense against the many dispute they have with their neighboring countries in case they have to follow the same route.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SamuraiBlue: "Smithy the problem is, SK is not the one filing a case..."

Exactly my point! It's a problem when SK doesn't do it, but it's okay when Japan doesn't do it with the Senkakus. Good on you for finally understanding.

"You clearly have no defense on why SK is clawing and stomping resisting to be taken up at ICJ in which SK may decline the preceedings but also state a clear reason why."

Because it's their land, bottom line. Same as Japan not recognizing any dispute with the Senkaku islands, SK does not recognize any dispute over Dokdo. They live on and have administered the islands for more than 50 years, and to them there is no problem. Japan can shout itself red in the face all it likes, why would SK contest something they already own? Again, as with Japan on the Senkakus, there is simply no dispute for SK over this island. You've been given your answer on that question more than a dozen times, you just refuse to see it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Still at it.

It's simple smith. You can point out the double-standard/hypocricy argument if and only if China requests Japan to settle this via ICJ. Right now, since this has not happened, you are calling for a hypocricy based on an hypothetical scenario. Nobody is buying it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

smithinjapanAug. 18, 2012 - 11:24AM JST "Ossan: "Proof that South Korea are cowards and do not have confidence in winning. The smallest dogs have the biggest bark." Those dogs stand guard on and administer Dokdo... all Japan can do is yap from boats far off-shore.

No smith, the SKorean police officers on the Liancourt rocks are just doing their jopb. The ones doing the barking and yapping are the Soth Korean government which is too cowardly and immature to settle at the ICJ, and all the Korean apologists on the net posting reason after reason why SKorea SHOULD go to the ICJ.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

smithinjapanAug. 18, 2012 - 07:52PM JST "SamuraiBlue: "Smithy the problem is, SK is not the one filing a case..." Exactly my point! It's a problem when SK doesn't do it, but it's okay when Japan doesn't do it with the Senkakus. Good >on you for finally understanding.

Japan already controls and administers the Senkakus. They cannot file an action at the ICJ. Who are they going to claim against, themselves? They can only answer a claim if filed by another country. Unless this happens, comparing the Senkaku issue to the Takeshima issue on this basis is assinine.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Going to the court is one solution, but would it really be ideal? Whoever loses will either not accept it or forever claim that it wasn't fair.

Maybe both countries should ask themselves whether they really, really need to have them. Why is it so important. it's obvious to me that Takeshima is of huge symbolic importance to Korea. Even if - and especially if technically Japan has a better case, why couldn't Japan make a big deal about the fact that as a gesture of friendship between the two countries, they will recognize the island as Korean. It's closer to Korea, Koreans effectively own them, and it's obvious that there is so much emotional attachment to them. Have a ceremony on the Island where the PM or Emperor or both make a statement that Dokdo Island is Korean and will forever be a symbol of the friendship between the two countries.

Japan has plenty of other islands, and let's face it - would it really effect anyone here if Takeshima were called Dokdo? Whether or not Japan can say that the war was 70 years ago and compensation has been paid etc etc, the fact is that Koreans won't be forgetting the pre-war years anytime soon (and with good reason).

"Why these two countries can't behave as adults and sit down and work something out is beyond me. "

Tmaries comment is probably representative of anyone looking at this from the outside.

The two countries need to think about how they want to relate to each other from now on.

We need statesmen and not politicians. Everyone talks about the analogy of two kids fighting over a toy and going to the teacher. But that's the whole problem. Whoever wins will not doubt be jumping up with glee and saying "haha i won,you lost".

Korea is being childish. But maybe Japan has to think about the best way to handle a situation when the younger kid is behaving badly, but they still remember getting bashed up by the bigger kid.

And Japan needs to realize that IF the two Koreans ever united, Takeshima will be an even bigger issue. Is it really worth fighting over? Really?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The fact that Japan is willing to take it to the ICJ shows who is the more mature of the two. If Korea is so certain of it's claim. Why are they not jumping at the opportunity to prove it lol. It would be like Russia trying to prove it's sale of Alaska to America was not valid lol. I am sure they wishing that now when Grand Duke Konstantin, the emperors brother, who headed the Admiralty, believed that it would be better to get rid of Alaska haha.

Read more here: http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/06/51364629.html

This is similar in the since that no one even knows if there is anything on these worthless rocks as is just speculation. So wouldn't it be in Korea's best interests to prove it if they are so certain of their claims? Japan is at least showing it wants to put an end to the dispute one way or the other. Time Korea put it's money where it's mouth is and man up.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Right... and Japan will have the International Court in their pocket just like the IWC.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Both sides believe to have hard evidences that they own those little silly rocks, and the problem is that both side think the other side is lying or being unreasonable. The fact that the issue has become this big between the two already is an embarrasement. Just get it done with it once and for all. Korea, go to ICJ and claim and prove that they have no dispute.

Those stupid little rocks manifested the nature of disrespect between these two nations. A TOTAL EMBARRASEMENT AND DISAPPOINTMENT for those who love both these two countries and who seek peace and mutual respect between the two!!

Bribes? Come on, look at the list of judges. If you can't believe them, you wouldn't be able to believe any court of justice small or big. Or does this mean the judges in Korea can be bribed? Come on you are better than that! In addition to that, the head of the UN is a Korean now, he won't allow that to happen. Japan is bringing the issue to court because they believe that they are confident about the evidences they have, then go present yours and crush Japan's confidence as you always wanted to. Believe in the system, UN has survived the test of time for some good reasons.

Japan, why can't you let these little rocks go? They are really small. Can't you be content with all those pretty islands nobody else is claiming ownership? Takeshima/Dokto are small pieces of worthless rocks and they ain't even green. So tiny that they are represented as dots on the map. Koreans are somehow emotionally attached to these two rocks because they have turned these into symbol of their defense against the Ghost of Empire which you have already reasonably forgotten for a long long time. In fact, it is all your fault because you consistently refused to treat their wound for more than half century. Now it is all costing you. For that, as a native citizen, I am so disappointed with you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ultimately... no matter what the ICJ decides if it were brought to them.... the country that lost in the decision would just ignore the verdict.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How can anyone say in seriousness that ICJ is controlled by Japan? It must a joke to say so?

Australia has gone to ICJ over Japanese whaling. Japan agreed to deal with it there. Although I can not imagine Australia will win, at least Australia is proper enough country to take argument to court so that it may be settled. I respect Australia for it, and of course Japan agreed to have the resolution there.

As Japan has requested to go to ICJ over Takeshima, South Korea should agree also, if they 100% believe they are not illegally occupying one of the Japanese territory.

China and whoever also should to to ICJ over Senkaku islands. Japan will respond for sure, same as with whaling.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan is bringing the issue to court because they believe that they are confident about the evidences they have

Obviously they don't have the confidence vis a vie Chinese. Why don't Japan bring that case to ICJ, and solve this problem with the Chinese once and for all? Oh that's right, Japan has the Daiyou island, why should they go to court? That's the official Japanese official responses.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I don't see Japanese telling the Chinese to file for ICJ. Instead you get responses like this from Japan.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120709003776.htm

Is Japan afraid of losing their island? Oh that's right, when the shoe is on the foot, it's different. Right.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Why is Japan saying this (that they'll not even consider filing the ICJ), when they're demanding Korea a complete opposite? So far nobody has stepped up here and answered this question, other then giving out weak excuses.

While the International Court of Justice in The Hague deals with territorial and other disputes between countries, Japan is not considering filing a complaint with the U.N. body, according to sources.

"If the government approaches the World Court [to resolve the issue], it would give the impression that Japan acknowledges the existence of a territorial dispute over the islands. This is China's intention," a government source said.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan considers the "Sankankou" as not a disputed territory, but an integral part of Japan. The Japanese government has repeated this over and over.

And same thing for Korea.

Korea considers the Tokdo island as not a disputed territory, but an integral part of Korea. Would Korea go to court to argue if Korea should be part of Korea or Japan? Of course not.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Koreans will never hand over Dokdo to Japan, because it represents the first step in 1905's annexation of Korea, by Japan who has never admitted they did anything wrong in Asia. Koreans have promised that this will never happen again, so this island means a lot to Korea. On the other hand, before the latest news happened, most Japanese didn't even know or care about the island.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

hey chucky guy, if you have not noticed, China on Senkaku/Daiyou is exactly where Japan is on takeshima/Dokdo.

They could do this themselves, they are one of the S.C. and they even have the priviledge to deny the verdict if they do not like it. They don't do it because this kind of issues is not as big deal as these two countries think it is. They know it well. China's attitude is more mature than the two of us, at least its leaders are.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sigh. These hypothetical "hypocricy" argument doesn't end...

Let's give another example so that we could put a rest to this.

J: "There are absolutely no doubt that Senkaku islands are inherent territories of Japan based on historic and most of all, based upon international law."

Q: "But what supports your validity of your statement?"

J: "Our evidence and case are so convincing and strong, NO COUNTRY has ever challenged the legality of our claims. (i.e. ICJ). In fact, we are so sure that we are signatories to Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory" under ICJ whereby we are obligated to recognize and abide by the jurisdiction and judgement of the organ."

K: "There are absolutely no doubt that Dokdo islands are inherent territories of Korea based on historic and most of all, based upon international law."

Q: "But what supports your validity of your statement?"[

K:" Again, there are absolutely no doubt that Dokdo islands are inherent territories of Korea based on historic and most of all, based upon international law"

Q: "I ask again sir. But what supports your validity in your statement?"

K: "................Apologize !!! Compensation!!!....."<--------(we're at this stage)

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Koreans tourists to Japan have been warned by Japanese groups who say the tourists watch their backs because the groups say they will start hurting the tourists. Korean embassy and tourism offices have received faxes from the groups telling the Koreans cock roaches to stay out of Japan. Also several Korean legations to Japan have been attacked by Japanese. The Japanese are starting to act like the Chinese riots against Japan in China. There have been a slew of Japanese protests in front of Korean tourists arriving in Japan, with some tourists being shoved and shouted at. The Zainichi Koreans who are permanent residents of Japan have also been threatened with death threats. The Korean foreign ministry have issued a travel advisory to Koreans traveling to Japan, warning of safety problems. Japan is no longer safe travel destination for Koreans, as tours to Japan have been canceling at fast pace. There were several Japanese cities who were touring Korea for their travel promotion. They've all been canceled. As for the Japanese tourists arriving in South Korea, there have been no visible change due to the hostilities between the two countries.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

nigelboy

Well said!! That's the difference !

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Maps and borders have changed thousands of times in the last 3,000 years. In recent years you need not take over another country in order to dominate you just needed to out gun it economically but control over mineral resources is back at the forefront and will be for the forseeable future. This is about greed... make no mistake... but it is also about security. Russia grabbed Japan's northern territories at the end of WWII and now benefits from vast LNG deposits. LNG that Japan now has to pay for. No country can afford to be frivilous with resources.... wars are fought over them and rightfully so. It is the same as handing over your lunch money to a bully.... if you do it once he'll know you're an easy target and continually take your money until you put up a fight.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Korea has the right to turn it down. How the world sees their doing so, however, can be an issue.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Korea has the right to turn it down. How the world sees their doing so, however, can be an issue.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Take it to the ICJ with nothing but impartial people. Present as much evidence as you can to the court to support your claim and leave it up to them. Same needs to be done up north as well since Putin is acting up. China too :D

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Nigelboy, well stated. That is pretty much what it boils down to.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

>sfjp330Aug. 17, 2012 - 08:41AM JST JoeBigs....where is your proof that Japan owns this island?

You want proof, well that is simple.

Japan is willing to take this to court Korea will not.

If Korea had a leg to stand on Korea would be running head first into the ICJ, but instead they run away faster than a dog runs from a hungry Korean.

Proof is in Korea's action period.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The most redicolous claim ever. If they want to take Dokdo to an international court. I'd say Korea take Japan for crimes against humanities during WW2.. And those are serious crimes.. Japan has to stop their aggression and nonsense now! They have issues with China, Russia, and Korea over territories. It's funny Japan is the only country having territorial issues. There always creating more problems. This will put them in at a disadvantage and i reccommend they stop this nonsense!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites