politics

S Korea slams Japan's video claim on disputed isles

52 Comments

South Korea has condemned Japan for publishing a video in 10 languages challenging its sovereignty over a tiny group of isles at the heart of a territorial dispute, demanding Tokyo remove it.

The film, published on Dec 11 by the Japanese foreign ministry on its own website and on YouTube, insists the isles in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), called Dokdo by Seoul and Takeshima by Tokyo, are its own.

The 90-second clip -- subtitled and dubbed in 10 languages including English, Korean, Chinese, French, Spanish and Arabic -- described Seoul's de facto control over the islets as "illegal".

"We gravely protest the publication of the video... and strongly demand that Japan remove these videos immediately," Seoul's foreign ministry said in a statement.

"We will never tolerate Japan's attempt to violate our territorial sovereignty and will respond resolutely," it said.

The ministry will publish videos on its own website and YouTube that counter Japan's claims in several languages later this month, its spokesman Cho Tai-Young told reporters.

The Japanese foreign ministry website also published a multi-language leaflet to accompany the video, arguing that Japan's connection to the islets stretches back more than 200 years.

Japan and South Korea have bickered for decades over control of the islets. The row escalated last year following a surprise visit by then South Korean president Lee Myung-Bak. In October, South Korea carried out a military exercise there.

Relations have also been strained by other issues of contention arising from Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule over the Korean peninsula.

Japan is embroiled in a separate row with China over another set of disputed islands, in the East China Sea.

Japan's foreign ministry also published this week a video reasserting its claim on the islands -- called Senkaku by Tokyo and Diaoyu by Beijing -- in 10 languages.

© (c) 2013 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Slamming it isn't going to do anything. The whole world already knows SKorea gets off on slamming Japan. But tell the world that you will prove Japan wrong once and for all at the ICJ, a ruling from which Japan is BOUND to comply, and you will accomplish something.

4 ( +17 / -13 )

Exactly OssanAmerica.

The South Korean government refuses to take the case to the ICJ.

Instead, they are content to use the WW2 atrocity/colonization 'card' to attempt to shame Japan and garner world sympathy to its cause.

You see this in the comfort women memorials in some U.S. cities, as well as some Korean American business owners using their businesses to promote this anti Japan propaganda (a dry cleaner printed Dodko material on some of its bags).

0 ( +14 / -14 )

So Japan claims Senaku because they are under J admin but denies K gov when the Islands are under K gov admin! Well the whole world can see the J gov hypocrisy & land grab going on here, memories of WWII here...

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Doesn't South Korea have similiar video claims and put propaganda ads all over the world?

2 ( +11 / -9 )

As known to everyone, diplomacy is an intellectual activity and decision-making derived from on-going analysis of current situations. It is the only worthy way for establishing cooperation with other countries in the international community. Therefore Japan, South Korea, and China should resolve all matters concerning the islands in the East China Sea peacefully based on provisions in the International law. Negotiation are always the most acceptable and proper way of solving any problem and should be the appropriate course of action to take with all parties concerned working together to achieve the aim of achieving cooperation and peace of the East China Sea issue of the disputed isles.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Japan right now is trying to move into a leadership role with respect to ASEAN and preserving freedom of navigation and the territorial/resource rights of smaller nations. I don't see any leadership value in this video. It looks like another tiny "tat" in a meaningless and endless "tit for tat" exchange of barbs with Korea.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

DJboothDec. 15, 2013 - 11:01AM JST So Japan claims Senaku because they are under J admin but denies K gov when the Islands are under K gov admin! >Well the whole world can see the J gov hypocrisy & land grab going on here, memories of WWII here...

No, the ICJ which is part of the UN was not created until AFTER WWII. In the case of Takeshima/Dokdo, Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ 3 times and South Korea has refused each time. In the case of the Senkaus, China has not asked Japan to settle at the ICJ even once. So what parallel are you seeing here that the "whole world" can not?

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Korea's inferiority complex surging up again. Face it, SK-kiddos! Takeshima is Japanese territory!

0 ( +15 / -14 )

Ah, let the video go, SK. Some crappy YouTube video doesn't change the fact that Dokdo is, and forever will be, South Korean territory.

Ossan: "But tell the world that you will prove Japan wrong once and for all at the ICJ, a ruling from which Japan is BOUND to comply, and you will accomplish something."

Yeah, you mean like Japan wants to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? Last I heard Japan said there was no dispute that the land was theirs. Yet, when South Korea takes the same stance on Dokdo they are suddenly wrong in your books. I think there's a word for that that starts with 'hypocrisy', and ends in 'undermining your argument'.

In any case, you guys constantly throw out this ICJ thing when it comes to island disputes which Japan has already lost, but never with the Senkakus, NEVER keeping in mind the fact that if the ICJ ruled the islands to be SK land Japan would NEVER agree to it (and vice-versa), and the judgement is non-binding. South Koreans live on, and administer the islands; facts even the US acknowledges (which made the Japanese government furious).

-12 ( +8 / -20 )

smithinjapan

" NEVER keeping in mind the fact that if the ICJ ruled the islands to be SK land Japan would NEVER agree to it"

Are you really, seriously REALLY saying that you've never heard of the "DECLARATIONS RECOGNIZING AS COMPULSORY THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE"?

That you don't KNOW Japan to be a signatory of the court's compulsive jurisdiction/rulings?

And that Japan MUST OBEY any ruling dished out by the ICJ?

That China and Korea REFUSE to sign to the aforementioned declaration?

Please, stop the pretence, will you!

12 ( +16 / -4 )

As I suspected the anti Japan crowd has no substance to back up their biases. All they can do is thumbs down comments and post irrelevant articles about Japanese atrocities. Style over substance.

The islands are clearly Japanese and they have every right to claim them.

Certainly the Japanese government has made its case in a rational and intelligent manner, compared to the slanderous and pointless anti Japanese rhetoric by the other side.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@smithin japan

You have been repeatedly told by lots of people here (including me) the difference between Takeshima and Senkaku, very logically and persuasively. You keep pretneding you have forgotten everything.

Korea should accept the trial at ICJ if they want to prove their sovereignty over Takeshima Islets to the international society, not by whining with ridiculous songs or posters.

China should file the case at ICJ if they want to prove their soverignty over Senkaku Islets to the international society, not by thretening with warships or fighter planes, or threating private airlines.

People already know why they would not do so.

Japan is not in the position to file the case of Senkaku. I know that you should be well aware of that.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Korea will always try to do their best to bug Japan. No matter what. Jelly till death!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I didnt knew that korea toom takeshima/dokdo by force in 1952

0 ( +2 / -2 )

smithinjapanDec. 15, 2013 - 01:01PM JST Ossan: "But tell the world that you will prove Japan wrong once and for all at the ICJ, a ruling from which Japan is >BOUND to comply, and you will accomplish something."

Yeah, you mean like Japan wants to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? Last I heard Japan said there was no dispute >that the land was theirs.

Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ THREE times and South Korea has refused each time. China has not asked Japan to settle at the ICJ even once. Whether Japan states that there is or is not a dispute has no bearing on China's ability to bring an action.

Yet, when South Korea takes the same stance on Dokdo they are suddenly wrong in your books. I think there's a >word for that that starts with 'hypocrisy', and ends in 'undermining your argument'.

South Korea does not take the same stance. They have been asked to settle at the ICJ THREE times and have REFUSED THREE TIMES. How is that the same as Japan which has not been asked to settle at the ICJ even once? Throwing out words like "hypocrisy" should be saved for when you make an accurate comparison that substantiates your point.

In any case, you guys constantly throw out this ICJ thing when it comes to island disputes which Japan has already >lost,

Again incorrect. The only way Japan can "lose" is either by ICJ ruling or by withdrawing it's claim. Neither of these events have occurred.

NEVER keeping in mind the fact that if the ICJ ruled the islands to be SK land Japan would NEVER agree to it (and >vice-versa), and the judgement is non-binding.

Did you read my original post wherein I state that Japan is "BOUND" to comply? How many times do posters havbe to tell you that Japan is a signatory to an agreement which makes accepting an ICJ ruling COMPULSORY? Please rad this so you don't keep repeating the same fallacy. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=I-4&chapter=1&lang=en

South Koreans live on, and administer the islands; facts even the US acknowledges (which made the Japanese >government furious).

Please provide a link substantiating this statement.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Sk live in takeshima you mean. When problems aroed they built a basketball court. Port and sent a guy to live there. Wonder what would happen if that happened in senkakku.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The United States does not recognize any one sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo).

"In July 2008, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) changed the name of the country to which Liancourt Rocks belong from South Korea to Undesignated Sovereignty and also changed the name from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks". Responding to this change, Gonzalo R. Gallegos, Acting Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. State Department, said on July 28, 2008 that the United States has long maintained a policy stance of neutrality on the islets, and that the latest change does not represent any policy change within the U.S. government."

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Ossan: "Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ THREE times and South Korea has refused each time."

And why shouldn't they? It's their land, literally. They live on it, and administer it. There's "no dispute", right?

"China has not asked Japan to settle at the ICJ even once."

Because China also feels there is no dispute, and they know Japan would not except given Japanese politicians literally saying "There is no dispute". So what's the point?

"Whether Japan states that there is or is not a dispute has no bearing on China's ability to bring an action."

No, that's just the blind Japan-supporter's stance. It has COMPLETE bearing on China's ability to 'bring an action', as if you needed the expanded ADIZ as proof. I mean, how much more of an exclamation point do you need?

"The United States does not recognize any one sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks "

Never said they did -- only said they recognize that SK administers and lives on the island.

overchan: "Sk live in takeshima you mean. When problems aroed they built a basketball court. Port and sent a guy to live there."

No, I said and meant Dokdo. The islands are not Takeshima except in the minds of people who celebrate it on Honshu or boats off the coast. Speaking of which, tell me... where do they celebrate Takeshima Day, exactly? I know that the people of SK that celebrate Dokdo can do so on Dokdo. Facts hurt, but fact it is that the islands belong to, are lived on, and administered by SK. The longer that continues to be the case, the sooner it will be internationally recognized as such. Same as with the Kuriles, although Japan has a bit of a bargaining chip with them.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

smithinjapanDec. 16, 2013 - 01:49AM JST "Ossan: "Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ THREE times and South Korea has refused each time."

And why shouldn't they? It's their land, literally. They live on it, and administer it. There's "no dispute", right?

That does not answer the question. All you are doing is rewording "we don't want to". Whether it's "their land" is to be determined by an objective applicable forum, in the this case the International Court of Justice, a part of the UN. South Korea is a country that has historically shown full support for international forum dispute resolutions.The president of the International Criminal Court, ICC also a part of the UN is a South Korean. Souh Korea has a judge sitting on the Tribunal for the International for the Law of the Sea. In fact the Secretary-GEberal of the U.N. itself is a South Korean. That pretty much wipes out any arguments for "South Korea won't get a fair trial". The FACT is that South Korea has refused to settle at the ICJ THREE times. Japan has refused ZERO times. Hence your attempted comparison is complete nonsense.

"China has not asked Japan to settle at the ICJ even once."

Because China also feels there is no dispute, and they know Japan would not except given Japanese politicians >literally saying "There is no dispute". So what's the point?

I seriously wonder if even you understand what you are saying yourself. The point is that China has NOT attempted to settle the Senkaku issue at the ICJ. Therefore making a comparison to the Liancourt Rocks is absurd.

"Whether Japan states that there is or is not a dispute has no bearing on China's ability to bring an action."

No, that's just the blind Japan-supporter's stance. It has COMPLETE bearing on China's ability to 'bring an action', as >if you needed the expanded ADIZ as proof. I mean, how much more of an exclamation point do you need?

Incorrect, that just YOUR interpretation to justify South Korea's position. Did ou bother to rad the link I gave you? Japan CAN NOT ignore a filing at the ICJ, it is COMPELLED to answer and it is COMPELLED to abide by an ICJ ruling. The ADIZ, regardless of what country's you are referring to is irrelevant to a discussion on the ICJ. I do not see why you even bring it up. Hence, what "exclamation point" are you referring to?

"The United States does not recognize any one sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks "

Never said they did -- only said they recognize that SK administers and lives on the island.

OK, anyone can see there are people put on the Liancourt Rocks by South Korea. Please provide a Link that the US recognizes Korean administration. I'm not sayng they don't. I'd just like to see substantiation.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

smithinjapan

Japan DOES NOT decide on what constitutes a dispute; the ICJ Does, just like any tribunal, provided a CLAIMANT STATE files a complaint.

Japan is NOT a claimant Vis China, re: Senkakus; China MUST initiate proceedings.

Perhaps in Canada Defendants are the ones tasked with starting court cases?

I can tell you this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world; but then again Canadians are special, or is it just you?

Japan MUST answer to any filling at the ICJ whether or not they accept the existence of a conflict.

And yes, the decision is BINDING on Japan.

Your insistence on Japan having to ACCEPT there's a dispute so that the case can proceed at the ICJ baffles me honestly.

For somebody who constantly gives the impression to be more intelligent than the entire Japanese Nation it's really surprising you don't know simple facts. From Maths, Politics, Astronomy, Law, to War Strategy and common sense, smithinjapan knows best.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Possession is 9/10th of the law where I am from. South Korea has possession enough said. Nihon has possession of the islands China wants enough said. Russia has possession of islands once belonging to Nihon enough said.

Short of war all this talk is just talk.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Give the rocks to the ROK. They are not important by themselves. Of course the problem is they would then want Tsushima or complain about other things. You have possession of the rocks and unlike PRC Japan is not sending ships.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

YuriOtani

In International Law, not protesting to territorial occupation amounts to acquiescence of said status; as time passes by, the occupier becomes the rightful owner/sovereign through effluence of time.

That's the reason why Japan protests every year to both Korea and Russia's occupation of what Japan regards as its territory.

Should Japan stop protesting they will be kissing goodbye to the islets legally, as this would amount to an acceptance of Korea's position.

The same principle applies/explain why Portugal have been protesting since 1815 to Spain’s illegal occupation of Oliveca/Olivenza; that's why Spain protests British occupation of the "rock" i.e. Gibraltar every year; that's why Argentina protests British permanence in the Falklands.

In relation to the Senkaku's, China now started to protest after having acquiesced for almost 70 years (should have protested from the beginning).

Some people here are simply ignorant of the law, yet like to argue as if they know all abou it.

Sorry Mods for the little digression but this has to be posted for the sake of perspective.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Utrack

Japanese Protest Over Medvedev Visit to Disputed Isles

http://en.ria.ru/news/20120703/174379834.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtaniDec. 16, 2013 - 07:08AM JST

Give the rocks to the ROK. They are not important by themselves.

I am afraid making concession with Korea will further deteriorate the relationship with Korea. You can see repeated pattern of this.

In 1696, there was a territorial dispute between Japan and Korea over Ulleungdo island. Japan conceded the island, hoping to improve the relationship with Korea. However, Korea took the concession as confession of wrong doing by Japan, and was infuriated and demanded apology in addition to concession. As a result, the relationship between the two countries further deteriorated.

Whenever Japan makes concession to Korea, Korea gets infuriated and demands apology. You see the same pattern all the way. Korea has no culture of compromising. If someone gives an inch to a Korean, the Korean has to take miles because compromising is wrong and taking everything is justice.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

zichiDec. 16, 2013 - 11:19AM JST CH3CHO You had to back peddle to 1696 to find something to support your argument?

Well I think if we go back to 1965 and consider South Korea's position today on many issues that the Treaty covered, it would support the argument. No?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Ossan America: " that you will prove Japan wrong once and for all at the ICJ, a ruling from which Japan is BOUND to comply". Japan hasnt even waited for a ruling from the ICJ over whaling, theyve already sent their whaling fleet this year. So why would they comply in the case of Takeshima / Dokdo. Moreover if Japan submitted its case for controlling the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands to the ICJ, it would undermine South Koreas refusal to do the same over Takeshima / Dokdo. @Peeping Tom, both sides have to agree to ICJ abritration. China cant just go to the ICJ if Japan doesn`t agree to accept the ruling

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

zichiDec. 16, 2013 - 11:19AM JST

Here is a link to Takeshima Kosho published in 1818, which is a collection of old materials on territorial disputes over Ulleungdo Island between Japan and Korea during 17th century. http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/2a343tan1648-1881/

On page 37 is a reprint of the memorandum dated March20, 1699 from Lord of Tsushima to foreign affairs official of Korea, in which Lord of Tsushima protested against the fact that Korean side kept demanding apology in addition to concession.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

aussie-musashi

It has already been pointed out ad nauseum that ONLY KOREA AND CHINA needs to agree before a case is presented to the ICJ.

These two countries are not signatories to the "Declarations Recognising the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ". THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO AGREE TO GO TO COURT!

Japan is a signatory, therefore HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER SUMMONS AND ABIDE BY ALL RULLINGS.

Japan DOES NOT need to agree to anything because of that declaration.

Seriously!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@CH3CHO That is interesting. It seems like this Korean thing of demanding for apology and what-have-you goes back centuries. It's really part of their history and culture. With a mindset like that, it's no wonder nobody takes Korea or Koreans seriously and their status worldwide remains lower than Japan. It's most likely to remain that way, too.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Peeping Tom: Links and evidence please

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

aussie-musashi

I am sure you can find out the link for the declaration, all by yourself.

Whether you're going to understand it or not it's another story.

I do not need anyone to translate it for me; that is what I do for a living

0 ( +2 / -2 )

aussie-musashiDec. 16, 2013 - 01:29PM JST "@Ossan America: " that you will prove Japan wrong once and for all at the ICJ, a ruling from which Japan is BOUND to comply".

Japan hasnt even waited for a ruling from the ICJ over whaling, theyve already sent their whaling fleet this year.

There exists no injunction preventing the Research Whaling issued by any court anywhere in the world. In contrast, Sea Shepherd are evading the US Federal Court injunction by resorting to subterfuge.

So why would they comply in the case of Takeshima / Dokdo. Moreover if Japan submitted its case for controlling the >Senkaku / Diaoyu islands to the ICJ, it would undermine South Koreas refusal to do the same over Takeshima /

Because Japan is a signatory to an agreement that makes compliance compulsory. Moreover, as it is China that has a claim on the Senkakus only they an initiate a proceeding by bringing an action to the ICJ. To date they have not done so. Japan can not bring an action against itself.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ossan: Once again, the hypocrisy is astounding... except it's not, really. Call it expected instead.

"Because Japan is a signatory to an agreement that makes compliance compulsory. "

So why doesn't Japan demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? Granted, China could refuse, but you don't see Japan willing to go to the ICJ over the islands at all, do you? Yet you demand other nations do so at the behest of a nation that doesn't have the gall to go to the same body of their own will. Tsk tsk. If Japan has nothing to lose, why not demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? I think we all know the answer is because of the hypocritical stand-point that there is 'no issue' with one dispute, but plenty with another when Japan is 'the victim'.

"Japan can not bring an action against itself."

They seem pretty intent on bringing things up when it's in their own interest, and if they have nothing to lose, why not do so here? I mean, you say SK should always go to the ICJ, so why not Japan suggest China do so and just end it?

Sorry, bud... you cannot deny the hypocrisy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

smithinjapanDec. 16, 2013 - 11:13PM JST Ossan Once again, the hypocrisy is astounding... except it's not, really. Call it expected instead.

There is no hypocrisy at all in my statements.

"Because Japan is a signatory to an agreement that makes compliance compulsory. "

So why doesn't Japan demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus?

Because, AS OTHER POSTERS HAVE TOLD YOU A THOUSAND TIMES, only a claimant can bring an action to a court. Japan can not bring an action against itself. The question you should be asking is Why doesn't CHINA demand goig to the ICJ?

Granted, China could refuse, but you don't see Japan willing to go to the ICJ over the islands at all, do you?

Is your thinking process in order? JAPAN IS A SIGNATORY TO AN AGREEMENT MAKING ANSWREING CLAIMS AT THE ICJ COMPLUSORY. And acceptance of an ICJ ruling is also COMPULSORY. Do you know that "compulsory" means?

Yet you demand other nations do so at the behest of a nation that doesn't have the gall to go to the same body of their >own will. Tsk tsk.

What are you talking about? Japan has asked South Korea to settleat the ICJ THREE times. South Korea has refused THREE times. What more is to say about that?

If Japan has nothing to lose, why not demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? I think we all know the answer >is because of the hypocritical stand-point that there is 'no issue' with one dispute, but plenty with another when Japan >is 'the victim'.

Japan can not "DEMAND" that China go to the ICJ. Do you honestly believe that China will take "orders" from Japan?

"Japan can not bring an action against itself."

They seem pretty intent on bringing things up when it's in their own interest, and if they have nothing to lose, why not >do so here? I mean, you say SK should always go to the ICJ, so why not Japan suggest China do so and just end it?

Sorry, bud... you cannot deny the hypocrisy.

0

Good| Bad

smithinjapanDec. 16, 2013 - 11:13PM JST

Ossan: Once again, the hypocrisy is astounding... except it's not, really. Call it expected instead.

"Because Japan is a signatory to an agreement that makes compliance compulsory. "

So why doesn't Japan demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? Granted, China could refuse, but you don't see Japan willing to go to the ICJ over the islands at all, do you? Yet you demand other nations do so at the behest of a nation that doesn't have the gall to go to the same body of their own will. Tsk tsk. If Japan has nothing to lose, why not demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus? I think we all know the answer is because of the hypocritical stand-point that there is 'no issue' with one dispute, but plenty with another when Japan is 'the victim'.

"Japan can not bring an action against itself."

They seem pretty intent on bringing things up when it's in their own interest, and if they have nothing to lose, why not do so here? I mean, you say SK should always go to the ICJ, so why not Japan suggest China do so and just end it?

Sorry, bud... you cannot deny the hypocrisy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So why doesn't Japan demand China go to the ICJ over the Senkakus?

As Ossan pointed out, a defendant in any court of the law for that matter, does not bring forth a suit on behalf of the plaintiff. This is common sense. There is no hypocricy since in this instance (Takeshima), Japan is the plaintiff seeking the return of the said island.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ossan: "There is no hypocrisy at all in my statements."

There is 100%, thank you. South Korea should go to the ICJ on Dokdo, but Japan doesn't need to with the Senkakus because they were not asked. To state that is a valid basis of ownership is nothing short of hypocrisy, like it or not.

"Japan can not "DEMAND" that China go to the ICJ. Do you honestly believe that China will take "orders" from Japan?"

That's the point; do you believe China will take orders from Japan? It's not a one way street, buddy. The sooner Japan stops playing victim and starts trying to work with other nations instead of isolating them, the better. As for SK and Dokdo, you don't have to like it, but you do have to admit the islands belong to SK. I gave you the links you asked for last night as to the US government, under your pal GWB, admitting SK control of the islands. Can give them again if it will make you happy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I submit that these two ancient countries deserve better than this.

Weird, aint' it? Korea could bring forth many of their "unsettled disputes" with Japan by simply signing this simple document.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Nigelboy

Yes, they could and probably would.

But for that to happen these countries most certainly need to send some of their "Legal Advisors" back to basics, because they are doing a disservice to these two proud Nations.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan should stop causing issues with SK when they need an ally in dealing with China. Neither issue is going to just disappear, but China is a problem, SK should be an ally. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and keep on topic. Like, right about now, Abe should NOT go to Yasukuni. Why stir up trouble?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But for that to happen these countries most certainly need to send some of their "Legal Advisors" back to basics, because they are doing a disservice to these two proud Nations.

My guess is that the absolute top ignored such legal advice on the account that their country "have done" or "will do" that will go against them under the international law.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Nigelboy

Could it be the case that some of these "Legal Pundits" post here as Korea/China adepts?

Just wondering.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Could it be the case that some of these "Legal Pundits" post here as Korea/China adepts?

I'm under the conclusion that people who do not understand this simple legal concept of "Declarations", "Compulsory jurisdiction", "claimant-respondent" do in fact exist among the population, hence the repeat arguments from the very same individuals for god knows how long.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

smithinjapanDec. 17, 2013 - 12:22AM JST Ossan: "There is no hypocrisy at all in my statements." There is 100%, thank you. South Korea should go to the ICJ on Dokdo, but Japan doesn't need to with the Senkakus >because they were not asked. To state that is a valid basis of ownership is nothing short of hypocrisy, like it or not.

This is my final attempt. Yes, South Korea should settle at the ICJ as Japan suggest. There really is no rational reason that they shouldn't. Which leaves one with doubt as to how sure South Korea are of their claim.

"Japan can not "DEMAND" that China go to the ICJ. Do you honestly believe that China will take "orders" from Japan?"

That's the point; do you believe China will take orders from Japan?

smith, YOU are the one who suggested that Japan instruct China to go to the ICJ. What you are saying or attempting to say makes no sense.

It's not a one way street, buddy. The sooner Japan stops playing victim and starts trying to work with other nations >instead of isolating them, the better

"Victim" of what smith?

As for SK and Dokdo, you don't have to like it, but you do have to admit the islands belong to SK. I gave you the links >you asked for last night as to the US government, under your pal GWB, admitting SK control of the islands. Can give >them again if it will make you happy.

Sorry but it turns out that the US position as far as the Secretary of State is concerned is that the US takes no position on the issue of Sovereignty. The Board on Geographic Names exists to standardize name usage and neither dictates, determines or reflects official US government position.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OssanAmerica Dec. 17, 2013 - 03:22AM JST Yes, South Korea should settle at the ICJ as Japan suggest. There really is no rational reason that they shouldn't. Which leaves one with doubt as to how sure South Korea are of their claim.

Why? What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or SK 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 for the most for Japanese or SK politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of the islands. So your back to square one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

sfjp330Dec. 17, 2013 - 05:40AM JST OssanAmerica Dec. 17, 2013 - 03:22AM JST Yes, South Korea should settle at the ICJ as Japan suggest. There >really is no rational reason that they shouldn't. Which leaves one with doubt as to how sure South Korea are of their >claim.

Why? What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or SK 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 for the most for Japanese or SK politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect >the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of the islands. So your back to square one.

Please read through my past posts in this thread which answer every question you just raised.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@gelendestrasse: China may appear to be a problem, but it doesn`t necessarily have to be one. I by no means agree with their taking over Tibet, or threatening Taiwan with war if it declares independence. The fact of the matter is, this situation suits Abe in his plans to re-militarise Japan. A fearful populace makes for a compliant and docile populace. He know has his secret protection law to muzzle the press as well

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

abe's gone mad... it's obvious he is fanning the conflict to justify his plans to abolish article 9 and push to strengthen Japan's armed forces by creating 'enemies' to defend & protect Japan from. imagine abe having the same or equal powers as the Imperial state once had and knowing his belligerence and radical claims against Korea and China so far is maintaining peace possibly with Japan regaining it's military might?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Korea would rather huff and puff than take it to the ICJ where they know they would lose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I didnt knew that korea toom takeshima/dokdo by force in 1952

Yes. It resulted in Korean government kidnapping, injuring, and killing Japanese fishermen which was immediately denounced by U.S. for their unilateral action. (Rhee line). This, of course, is not taught in Korea.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

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