politics

South Korea slams Japan's 'ludicrous' island claim

127 Comments

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

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

127 Comments
Login to comment

So far, you haven’t mentioned the evidence I presented which shows ICJ is not included as a means agreed by two countries to solve the disputes. If you are right, why do you think such evidence exists?

調停-mediation, legal means which includes ICJ.

One more thing, if there was an agreement by both governments to settle this matter(?) via ICJ, please tell when and how it was made?

The agreement was made on the June 22, 1965. How? Who cares.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboy,

So far, you haven’t mentioned the evidence I presented which shows ICJ is not included as a means agreed by two countries to solve the disputes. If you are right, why do you think such evidence exists?

One more thing, if there was an agreement by both governments to settle this matter(?) via ICJ, please tell when and how it was made?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Did I say the statement by Japanese government you cited has something to do with 1965 Treaty? No, I didn’t. What I meant was Japanese attempt to take Dokdo conflict to ICJ violates Korea-Japan Treaty.

Which part? Cite the part!

Why don’t you explain “the special agreement” in your own words if you refute me? You agree the special agreement you referred to has nothing to do with Korea-Japan Treaty, don’t you? That’s what matters.

Why would it matter? It's basically an agreement by both governments to settle this matter via ICJ. Why do you not understand this simple concept?

It doesn’t matter how you think. The fact Japanese people should know is Japanese government in 1965 agreed to not use ICJ in solving disputes between Korea and Japan.

That's not what it states. This is getting quite ridiculous.

In this official document, ICJ is not included as a means agreed by two countries to solve the disputes as Mr. Matsusmote stated and Asahi Newspaper reported in 1965.

調停-arbitration, legal means.

This document was cited August 21' 2012

http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/8/0821_01.html

Simple. Slam dunk.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelbody,

Treaty has nothing to do with it. Please state which section it violates.

Did I say the statement by Japanese government you cited has something to do with 1965 Treaty? No, I didn’t. What I meant was Japanese attempt to take Dokdo conflict to ICJ violates Korea-Japan Treaty.

I think you are confused. The special agreement I referred to is linked below. Please read and understand

Why don’t you explain “the special agreement” in your own words if you refute me? You agree the special agreement you referred to has nothing to do with Korea-Japan Treaty, don’t you? That’s what matters.

I don't think so. They initiated based on the “Exchange of notes constituting an agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the settlement of disputes" executed on June 22, 1965

It doesn’t matter how you think. The fact Japanese people should know is Japanese government in 1965 agreed to not use ICJ in solving disputes between Korea and Japan.

I think the problem with you basically is that you cannot comprehend the entire text which based on my experience, is typical of Korean's counterargument. I know it’s your typical excuse when it’s impossible for you to refute Korean argument any more.

The said document is linked again, below.

Let me translate what your link says about the way to solve the disputes between Korea and Japan.

“The governments of the two countries settle disputes through diplomatic channels except for the cases with separate agreements and when a dispute cannot be settled through diplomatic channels, both governments would seek resolution through mediation according to the procedures to be agreed on by the two parties.”

(両国政府は、別段の合意がある場合を除くほか、両国間の紛争は、まず、外交上の経路を通じて解決するものとし、これにより解決することができなかつた場合は、両国政府が合意する手続に従い、調停によつて解決を図るものとする。)

In this official document, ICJ is not included as a means agreed by two countries to solve the disputes as Mr. Matsusmote stated and Asahi Newspaper reported in 1965.

Mr. Matsusmote : Japan sees there’s a dispute over Takeshima and Korea concludes it’s Korean territory. (Japanese) Government’s explanation it can be solved by a meditation is a scam.

Asahi Newspaper : In regard to Dokdo, Japan insisted the referral to ICJ, but changed to the position of solving through the modification and intercession by a third country and through the diplomatic channel which is one level below due to the strong objection by Korea.

If you continue being obstinate, I can introduce you more evidence showing Japan agreed not to use ICJ in solving Dokdo dispute in Korea-Japan Treaty.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As for the statement by Japanese government you cited, it’s nothing but a unilateral Japanese stance on proposal to ICJ, which shows Japan has no intention to comply with what she agreed in 1965 Treaty.

Treaty has nothing to do with it. Please state which section it violates.

If you don’t accept my exact interpretation for you on “a special agreement”, please explain about when and how that special agreement was made in detail. There's no such a special agreement so far.

I think you are confused. The special agreement I referred to is linked below. Please read and understand.

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

As I explained before, your link to MOFA of Japan doesn’t prove Professor Hosaka’s assertion is false and instead it proves Japanese government is trying to violate Korea-Japan agreement by asking Korea to go to ICJ. Japanese proposal to go to ICJ is not a calm, fair and peaceful way both Korean and Japanese governments agreed in 1965.

I don't think so. They initiated based on the “Exchange of notes constituting an agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the settlement of disputes" executed on June 22, 1965,

The said document is linked again, below.

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

I think the problem with you basically is that you cannot comprehend the entire text which based on my experience, is typical of Korean's counterargument.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

nigelboy,

??? Japan can't take the issue of Takeshima to ICJ unless Korea agrees to it. This is a no brainer. What is your point, really?

Take a look back at your comment. If you don’t understand my comment, it means you don’t understand what you commented.

As for the statement by Japanese government you cited, it’s nothing but a unilateral Japanese stance on proposal to ICJ, which shows Japan has no intention to comply with what she agreed in 1965 Treaty.

This time it’s a twisting of your own government’s stance or you have a problem with reading comprehension. “a special agreement” your government refers to is a necessary agreement Japan should make with Korea before proceedings to the ICJ, which means Japan is well aware that Korea has no any obligation to accept Japanese proposal to ICJ without a special agreement. In other words, proceeding to ICJ was not an option included in an agreement of 1965 Treaty.

If you don’t accept my exact interpretation for you on “a special agreement”, please explain about when and how that special agreement was made in detail. There's no such a special agreement so far.

As I explained before, your link to MOFA of Japan doesn’t prove Professor Hosaka’s assertion is false and instead it proves Japanese government is trying to violate Korea-Japan agreement by asking Korea to go to ICJ. Japanese proposal to go to ICJ is not a calm, fair and peaceful way both Korean and Japanese governments agreed in 1965.

Let me this time introduce Ashahi Newspaper report which verifies there was no mention of ICJ solution in Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 and I expect you to stop making reckless attempts to deny the fact Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 excluded ICJ from the lists of means to solve Dokdo dispute.

“In regard to Dokdo, Japan insisted the referral to ICJ, but changed to the position of solving through the modification and intercession by a third country and through the diplomatic channel which is one level below due to the strong objection by Korea. ”

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12jwVxdvU4RkJOU9kSj5T109_qoN6BQitbm85B8NLd2E/edit

NYtoday,

Thank you for giving me your feedback. It's a great encouragement to me. I appreciate it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow, good debate. I don't necessarily agree with Suin Kim and other Dokdo people but it's really nice to see someone like Suin Kim who presents source to backup up his/her statement. It shows dedication. Too many trolls everywhere and they ruin people's opportunities to learn from each other.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I meant “recognition” that Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ. Was there another recognition Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ before 1962?

??? Japan can't take the issue of Takeshima to ICJ unless Korea agrees to it. This is a no brainer. What is your point, really?

LOL! “Twisting" is your typical attitude when you find there’s no way out. I was talking about the fact Korea-Japan Treaty didn’t choose ICJ as a means of solving Dokdo dispute. Yes, there’s no way to resolve it under legal proceedings without Korean agreement because Korea and Japan agreed so in 1965. Japan should comply with the Korea-Japan Treaty.

..1.On August 21, (2012) the Government of Japan proposed to the Government of the Republic of Korea to institute proceedings before the International Court of Justice by a special agreement between the two countries and proposed about conciliation based on the “Exchange of notes constituting an agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea concerning the settlement of disputes” on the dispute over the sovereignty of Takeshima to settle it in a calm, fair and peaceful way based on international law....

There is no violation on the treaty (I believe you mean the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea) for it doesn't address it.

What’s is your point?

I believe Professor(LOL) Hosaka claimed that under the agreement linked below, the Japanese government is prohibited from even requesting the Korean government to settle this dispute.

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

Hosaka's assertion.

http://japanese.joins.com/article/487/157487.html

Which proved false in August 21, 2012 when in fact, the Japanese government did indeed made their third request.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/8/0821_01.html

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Theoretically yes; practically no!

“Theoretically yes” means Japan can proceed a claim against China if Japan wants if Japan wants. As you mentioned, everybody knows Japan has no reason to initiate a claim about the ownership of the Senkaku Islands, but it’s different story from “Japan can’t take Senkaku dispute to ICJ” as Mr. OssanAmerica insists. “can’t” and “doesn’t” are not same. If Japan wants to solve the dispute of Senkaku in ICJ, Japan can, but Japan doesn’t want to.

nigelboyAug. 15, 2014 - 12:19AM JST

Nope. Check the date of the document and check the date of when the second offer by the Japanese government to take this to ICJ.

I meant “recognition” that Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ. Was there another recognition Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ before 1962?

Nope. It simply states that unless Korea agrees to a dispute, there is no way to resolve it under legal proceedings.

LOL! “Twisting" is your typical attitude when you find there’s no way out. I was talking about the fact Korea-Japan Treaty didn’t choose ICJ as a means of solving Dokdo dispute. Yes, there’s no way to resolve it under legal proceedings without Korean agreement because Korea and Japan agreed so in 1965. Japan should comply with the Korea-Japan Treaty.

Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty. No it's not.

Please explain why not. I already explained why Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty.

But I do recall your fellow gyopo poster claiming that "Japan can't raise the issue of Takeshima after 1965" because of some secret pact. I believe it was a guy named Hosaka who presented it to the Korean media which made news there. That lasted for a few months when Japanese government did in fact request again for the third time.

What’s is your point?

Mr. Hosaka Yuji is not “gyopo”.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It was the first recognition Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ. The next recognition of 1965 was Japan can’t use ICJ card afterwards.

Nope. Check the date of the document and check the date of when the second offer by the Japanese government to take this to ICJ.

Mr. Matsusmote understood ICJ was not the card Japan could use anymore. I wonder what his response about Japanese attempt to drag Dokdo into ICJ today would be if he’s still alive .

Nope. It simply states that unless Korea agrees to a dispute, there is no way to resolve it under legal proceedings.

Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty.

No it's not. But I do recall your fellow gyopo poster claiming that "Japan can't raise the issue of Takeshima after 1965" because of some secret pact. I believe it was a guy named Hosaka who presented it to the Korean media which made news there. That lasted for a few months when Japanese government did in fact request again for the third time.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Theoretically yes; practically no!

If this were to become the usual practice we would be living in a much messed up world.

Why would Japan do that anyway?

Japan is not disputing ownership, China is. Therefore the LEGAL ONUS is on China to initiate proceedings disputing Japan's claim, not the other way around.

Theory and practice don't necessarily go hand in hand, as we all know.

Remember: is up to China to challenge Japan's ownership, not Japan's burden to prove otherwise.

Regards.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Peeping_TomAug. 13, 2014 - 08:04PM JST

Thank you for responding.

This is what I understand:

Japan can initiate Court proceeding against China as a Claimant for solving the dispute on Senkaku lslands. In this case, from Japan’s point of view, it’s to ask the judges to stop the provocation(?) of China on Senkaku Islands because they are Japanese land, not to ask them about the ownership of those. Of course, deliberation on the ownership of those islands would be conducted in the court though.

nigelboyAug. 14, 2014 - 12:33AM JST

Negative. What transpired afterwards is basically the first step in the said document which was to convince Korea to settle this case via ICJ.

It was the first recognition Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to ICJ. The next recognition of 1965 was Japan can’t use ICJ card afterwards.

Asahi Newspaper reported what a Japanese politician Mr. Matsusmoto stated on the result of Korea-Japan treaty omitting the mention of ICJ on Oct. 1965.

“Japan sees there’s a dispute over Takeshima and Korea concludes it’s Korean territory. (Japanese) Government’s explanation it can be solved by a meditation is a scam.“

「日本側は 竹島は “紛爭” の中に含まれるといつているが、韓国側は、韓国領土と 断定 しており、 政府が調停で 解決できると說明しているのは、ペテンだ」

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TCqVISG6thUzwEo-jpxdYhnzdINcJLNP8LfBgxFuWDs/edit

Mr. Matsusmote understood ICJ was not the card Japan could use anymore. I wonder what his response about Japanese attempt to drag Dokdo into ICJ today would be if he’s still alive .

Japanese government knows referring Dokdo issue to ICJ is an obvious violation of Korea-Japan Treaty.

And like clockwork, you go on with your "wish" list.

If you feel uneasy with this document, think as you like that the said document was not secret or whatever. It doesn’t make any difference.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yes.

Negative. What transpired afterwards is basically the first step in the said document which was to convince Korea to settle this case via ICJ.

And like clockwork, you go on with your "wish" list.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"I don't know much about the law, but from comments of my link above, I think the definition of Claimant/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent provided by Peeping_TomAug doesn’t apply to all cases. If you have a different opinion, I welcome."

The definitions of who's who and who does what remains the same whatever the circumstances.

A Claimant will ALWAYS petition and the Defendant will respond.

This is a universal rule; maybe not in Canada (or so JT's expert resident-a Canadian implies).

The nature of a Claimant/Defendant can and indeed should vary from case to case.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"I don't know much about the law, but from comments of my link above, I think the definition of Claimant/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent provided by Peeping_TomAug doesn’t apply to all cases. If you have a different opinion, I welcome."

The definitions of who's who and who does what remains the same whatever the circumstances.

A Claimant will ALWAYS petition and the Defendant will respond.

This is a universal rule; maybe not in Canada (or so JT's expert resident-a Canadian implies).

The nature of a Claimant/Defendant can and indeed should vary from case to case.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This document? No

Yes.

.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Don’t mislead This document had kept secret until when Japanese government disclosed by the order of the court. There more Japanese secret documents related to Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 which Japan refused to open for the reason that "put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.“

This document? No.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

zichiAug. 12, 2014 - 04:36AM JST

I think the status of Claimant/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent are not fixed both in domestic and international courts. It can be changed according to the nature of the claim. In case of Senkaku, Japan can be a claimant.

Japan sees China is a military threat to Japan as much as Japan feels the need to alter the law. Therefore, Japan can work as a Claimant/Plaintiff if Japan wants to solve the tention in ICJ.

I don’t know much about the law, but from comments of my link above, I think the definition of Claimant/Plaintiff and Defendant/Respondent provided by Peeping_TomAug doesn’t apply to all cases. If you have a different opinion, I welcome.

nigelboyAug. 13, 2014 - 12:39PM JST

There isn't anything 'secret' about this document for the Declaration that Japan signed is for public viewing. We know when the dispute started. We also know that Japan has asked Korea to settle this matter via ICJ so the logical method is a special agreement

Don’t mislead This document had kept secret until when Japanese government disclosed by the order of the court. There more Japanese secret documents related to Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 which Japan refused to open for the reason that "put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.“

“Eight years ago, the South Korean government released its diplomatic files pertinent to the negotiations of the 1965 treaty. But since Seoul's interpretation of the Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation has remained at odds with Tokyo's, the citizens group demanded disclosure of the government’s documents to find out how the Japanese side negotiated the agreement.

The official position of the Foreign Ministry is that in principle, diplomatic documents are to be disclosed after a 30-year waiting period. However, the ministry has been anything but willing to abide by this principle.

The ministry's stated reason is that disclosure of the documents in question would "put Japan at a disadvantage in future negotiations with South Korea and North Korea.“

<http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201311200033 >. .

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That conclusion has no relevance to learning Japan knew Dokdo issue was not included in the category of dispute... Was there any action taken to utilize U.N. charters and ICJ charters afterwards? After 3 years of this recognition, Japan agreed to use other means than ICJ. Actually, Japan didn’t make any proposal for ICJ until 2012 after 1965. Japanese government knew exactly Japan can’t drag Korea into ICJ.

Again proving yourself that you couldn't read the document. I'm constantly amazed how Koreans mind works for they actually try to convince themselves the opposite of what the document states.

There isn't anything 'secret' about this document for the Declaration that Japan signed is for public viewing. We know when the dispute started. We also know that Japan has asked Korea to settle this matter via ICJ so the logical method is a special agreement.

No brainer.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboyAug. 12, 2014 - 12:40AM JST

It basically concludes that there needs to be a special agreement in place for both parties for the case to be presented to ICJ.

That conclusion has no relevance to learning Japan knew Dokdo issue was not included in the category of dispute... Was there any action taken to utilize U.N. charters and ICJ charters afterwards? After 3 years of this recognition, Japan agreed to use other means than ICJ. Actually, Japan didn’t make any proposal for ICJ until 2012 after 1965. Japanese government knew exactly Japan can’t drag Korea into ICJ.

This isn't news worthy unless you omit this page and twist the footnote as you and the Korean media

You are desperate to downplay the news of Japanese secret document which is detriment to Japanese position on ICJ.

Your quote again, sir.

It was a question and you concluded as if I said so. It’s definitely twisting of my comment. You should have given your own answer such as “No. Japan had no intention to conceal its false claim over Dokdo by keeping Korea to go to ICJ.” and explain the reason. Jumping to the conclusion based on your own assumption is a twist.

Your links are simply "wishing" that Meiji government thought Takeshima belonged to Korea.

Show me an evidence. It’s surprising you twist your country’s own official document. If it was wished so, was Dokdo then a Japanese land or terra nullius?

OssanAmericaAug. 12, 2014 - 02:36AM JST

Japan can not bring a claim against itself. Nor can it bring a claim on behalf of another country.

Going to ICJ with Senkaku dispute does not necessarily mean Japan claims against Japan or on behalf of China. As far as I know, if Japan has a complain, Japan can bring a claim to ICJ. At least, Japan can suggest China to go to ICJ.

The following link shows examples implying Japan can take Senkaku dispute to the ICJ, but Japan doesn’t. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tIwg91rrtI0bR2xs_rp3EhN9irnd8T_mbBA8fCs-nRo/edit

Do you know the difference between a Plaintiff and a Defendant?

Why don’t you ask those who sugges the idea of Japan’s taking Senkaku issue in my link above?

Yes it is. Because unless that evidence is submitted before a Court of Law, you don't know if it's "valid" or not. You are just calling it valid to support your position.

Thus, it means you are not sure Japanese evidence is valid or not. Then, you’d better stop pretending Japan has a valid claim over its neighbor’s land before going to ICJ.

Someone who doesn't understand legal matters obviously.

I tink the people in my link are in better positions than you are in understanding the legal matters.

The United States still think so. However, that the U.S. considers South Korea;s occupation to be illegal and that it should be settled at the ICJ is clea

Without any evidence? Making a groundless assertion makes all of your claim unreliable.

Groundless? Did you not read the Van Fleet Report statement?

You don’t need to cite an invalid and out-dated Van Fleet’s statement again. Read you comment again. You said “considers” not “considered”. US the only signatory of the Allied Powers supported Japanese false claim is not the same country as 60 years ago in terms of Dokdo issue. US knows there’s no any interests for them in siding Japanese claim on Dokdo.

What do you think a decision by the International Court of Justice would be? South Korea is in violation of that 1965 clause by continuing to SHAMELESSLY refuse to settle the dispute at the ICJ.

It seem you need to study "Exchange of Official Document for the Settlement of Disputes“ defined in Korea-Japan treaty which verifies Japanese submission of the Dokdo issue to the ICJ violates the treaty. My comments continues in the link below. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15QHhj2vh0cdhadFR6LwYTNW4u4tpxW6rC0WTI5PQ-Io/edit

LeChatBotteAug. 12, 2014 - 02:41AM JST

I respect your backing Japan’s position even though you treat all of my comments as assumption.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Three letters would resolve this: ICJ. But I guess blowing hot air is more favourable to those looking for election/re-election.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I think peeping toms comment above explains the legal positions but some are ignoring that?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/south-korea-slams-japans-ludicrous-island-claim#comment_1826287

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Suin Kim,

How about Japanese guideline? It seems you believe Japanese claim is more valid without knowing exactly how Japanese people are guided by their government.

Apparently again, your own assumptions. Whoever I believe is right doesn't even matter; but I back Japan's position in settling the matter in the Court of Law, at the ICJ.

And yes, the article I sent backs my own assumptions and those of many people:

Bringing the row to the ICJ comes with complications but in the long run might be the only feasible way to resolve the dispute.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Suin KimAug. 11, 2014 - 09:48PM JST OssanAmericaAUG. 11, 2014 - 08:02AM JST Individuals and nations alike need to have reasons before going to court. If Korea doesn’t have reasons and as long >as there’s no lawful obligation to go to ICJ, it’s not something to be criticized especially by Japan.

If that is true then South Korea needs to shut it's piehole whenever Japan does or says anything about Takeshima. South Korea by their own actions and words has all the reason to go to to the ICJ and make Japan shut up for good. But they are afraid of losing.

If Japan is a civilized nation enough to try to settle disputes by the rule of law, Why doesn’t Japan attempt to refer the >Senkaku issue to the ICJ? It looks Senkaku issue looks more disputable than Dokdo issue.

Here we go again. Japan already controls the Senkakus. Japan can not bring a claim against itself. Nor can it bring a claim on behalf of another country. ONLY China can bring a claim to the ICJ but they refuse to do so because to do so would open the door to other Asian nations bringing THEIR claims against China to the ICJ, and like South Korea, China has no confidence in winning in Court of Law. Are you capable of understanding the difference between Takeshima and Senkakus? Do you know the difference between a Plaintiff and a Defendant?

"Are you incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in claiming that you are right and all the evidence is in your favor, but at the same time refusing to present that evidence at the ICJ and putting the issue to bed for good? This is what we call "shameless"."

Having valid evidence and refusing to present them in the court are not hypocritical.

Yes it is. Because unless that evidence is submitted before a Court of Law, you don't know if it's "valid" or not. You are just calling it valid to support your position.

They are different stories. Besides, I said personally I don’t mind if Korea decides to go to the ICJ. From the >beginning, I focused on subjct of the evidence of Japanese claim. The obvious hypocrisy is Japanese different manner >on territorial disputes. Someone well described it as follows: “Japan is more than happy to call for the ICJ when the other country is in possession of the disputed territory (e.g. >Korea) but when they possess the territory, they have a different view on the merits of international >adjudication.Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? No.” (From http://opiniojuris.org/2012/09/20/why-wont-japan-send-the->senkakudiaoyu-islands-dispute-to-the-icj/)

Someone who doesn't understand legal matters obviously. Please use google to look up the meanings of Defendant and Plaintiff and what each can do in a court of law. I bet even in South Korean Courts, a Plaintiff must bring a claim against a Defendant. Not the other way around.

"It is evidence that Japan is not the only country that thinks South Korea's occupation of the Liancourt Rocks is illegal"

Which country thinks South Korea's occupation of he Liancourt Rocks is illegal now? I mean “now”.

The United States still think so. But we will not be involved in issues of sovereignty.

"However, that the U.S. considers South Korea;s occupation to be illegal and that it should be settled at the ICJ is clear"

Don’t make a groundless assertion. Currently, U.S. officially maintains neutral. Can you show any evidence U.S. >considers it should be settled at the ICJ?

Groundless? Did you not read the Van Fleet Report statement? " 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." "Unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal. The United States had concluded Japanese sovereignty over the rocks. The dispute over the rocks might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice. As the San Francisco Peace Treaty* shows, Liancourt rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) were not included in the list of islands which Japan should give back to Korea." -Report of Van Fleet Mission to the Far East 1954.

I remind you Korea-Japan treaty of 1965 didn’t mention ICJ solution for any possible dispute between the two >countries and listed only "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as a means of solving the disputes. In >spite of this agreement, Japan keeps asking Korea to go to ICJ giving an impression to the international community >that Korea doesn’t comply with the law, which is very shameless. As Japanese secret document of 1962 stated, Japan >has not legal ground to drag Korea into ICJ.

What do you think "mediation by a third party" means? What do you think a decision by the International Court of Justice would be? South Korea is in violation of that 1965 clause by continuing to SHAMELESSLY refuse to settle the dispute at the ICJ. Your arguments are GROUNDLESS.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I read entire document in the link. I don’t need quote all of them. What matters is Japanese document said Dokdo was not included in the category of dispute in Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ..... (わが国の强制管轄權受諾宣言は、裁判所付託お 義務的と 認める紛爭お 「宣言の 日付以後の 事態又は 事實に関して, 同日以後に發生する全ての紛爭に」限定しているから,わが国が竹島問題お同宣言 にいる紛爭のカテゴリーに 含まれると解することはできないと 考えられる)

Conveniently omitting page 229 which the document itself is titled "竹島問題を日韓両国が国際司法裁判所へ付託する際の手続きについて” (The process in which Japan and Korea submit the dispute of Takeshima to International Court of Justice). This said page explains how this can be done through utilization of both U.N. charters and ICJ charters. It basically concludes that there needs to be a special agreement in place for both parties for the case to be presented to ICJ.

This isn't news worthy unless you omit this page and twist the footnote as you and the Korean media did to come up with this leap of faith conclusion that "Japan didn’t categorize Dokdo as international dispute as it arose before Japan announced its compulsory jurisdiction over the island in 1958 according to the Japan’s secret document of 1962 " (Your quote)

I didn’t say “Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ=to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false”. Did I? You are one of the Japanese who don’t care twisting what their counterparts say on Dokdo issue.

"......Then, why does Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ and try to make Korea look bad? Is it a means to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Dokdo is false?"

Your quote again, sir.

I have stuck to the facts and evidence related to the subjects in the discussion. What you have to do is refuting my comments likewise. You don’t need to attack me in this way if you don’t expect me to agree with what you say. I didn’t make such assumptions.

Far from it. Sorry. Your links are simply "wishing" that Meiji government thought Takeshima belonged to Korea. Nothing more.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

LeChatBotteAug. 11, 2014 - 04:01AM JST

First of all, I forgot to link the Japanese official documents excluding Dokdo from Japan and Korean exercising sovereignty over Dokdo in the previous post.

http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/01/japan-has-nothing-to-do-with-ulleongdo.html http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/hos-takeshimaulleongdo-and.html http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/12/matsushimapresent-takeshima-doesnt.html http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2013/02/korea-placed-dokdo-under-jurisdition-of.html

Which assumption you indicate and why? I said I welcome any opinion different from mine. I accept different opinions, and just refute them if I need to, which is not an inability to consider others have different opinions.

most of the discussions I've had with Korean or Chinese people following their governments' guidelines for online discussions

Are you well aware of Korean or Chinese government’s guidelines? How about Japanese guideline? It seems you believe Japanese claim is more valid without knowing exactly how Japanese people are guided by their government. Again, I tell the facts based on the evidence and I sometimes make assumptions, but they are also based on the facts, not my own imagination.

Thank you for sharing your own assumption based on an article. I already read that article which, I think, written relatively in objective manner. Yes, it’s scaring to think a nation loses its land ruled for 60 years. Reasonable people might think no politicians on earth let that happen. I think you found the answer to your assumption Korea is afraid to go to ICJ in this article.

And indeed, Takeshima was not "returned" to Korea like you said (see OssanAmerica's previous post)

If Korea owner doesn’t take Dokdo, who can? Are you talking about Van Fleet’s statement? I responded to it. Please show any evidence the Allied Powers, the signatories of SF Treaty, except U.S. said Dokdo was Japanese land then. Have you ever heard of SCAPIN 677 which separated Dokdo from Japan? That’s the agreement of the Allied Powers.

nigelboyAug. 11, 2014 - 04:25AM JST

I read entire document in the link. I don’t need quote all of them. What matters is Japanese document said Dokdo was not included in the category of dispute in Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ..... (わが国の强制管轄權受諾宣言は、裁判所付託お 義務的と 認める紛爭お 「宣言の 日付以後の 事態又は 事實に関して, 同日以後に發生する全ての紛爭に」限定しているから,わが国が竹島問題お同宣言 にいる紛爭のカテゴリーに 含まれると解することはできないと 考えられる)

And one more thing, Korean media didn’t twist as you misled.

taking a leap of faith that "to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false" is a classic example of how the Korean counterparts have debated this issue for years

I didn’t say “Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ=to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false”. Did I? You are one of the Japanese who don’t care twisting what their counterparts say on Dokdo issue.

As LeChatBotte indicated above, what you are doing here is "elevating your assumptions". When done carelessly, you are merely "wishing"

I have stuck to the facts and evidence related to the subjects in the discussion. What you have to do is refuting my comments likewise. You don’t need to attack me in this way if you don’t expect me to agree with what you say. I didn’t make such assumptions.

OssanAmericaAUG. 11, 2014 - 08:02AM JST

Individuals and nations alike need to have reasons before going to court. If Korea doesn’t have reasons and as long as there’s no lawful obligation to go to ICJ, it’s not something to be criticized especially by Japan.

If Japan is a civilized nation enough to try to settle disputes by the rule of law, Why doesn’t Japan attempt to refer the Senkaku issue to the ICJ? It looks Senkaku issue looks more disputable than Dokdo issue.

Are you incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in claiming that you are right and all the evidence is in your favor, but at the same time refusing to present that evidence at the ICJ and putting the issue to bed for good? This is what we call "shameless".

Having valid evidence and refusing to present them in the court are not hypocritical.They are different stories. Besides, I said personally I don’t mind if Korea decides to go to the ICJ. From the beginning, I focused on subjct of the evidence of Japanese claim. The obvious hypocrisy is Japanese different manner on territorial disputes. Someone well described it as follows:

“Japan is more than happy to call for the ICJ when the other country is in possession of the disputed territory (e.g. Korea) but when they possess the territory, they have a different view on the merits of international adjudication.Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? No.” (From http://opiniojuris.org/2012/09/20/why-wont-japan-send-the-senkakudiaoyu-islands-dispute-to-the-icj/)

It is evidence that Japan is not the only country that thinks South Korea's occupation of he Liancourt Rocks is illegal

Which country thinks South Korea's occupation of he Liancourt Rocks is illegal now? I mean “now”.

However, that the U.S. considers South Korea;s occupation to be illegal and that it should be settled at the ICJ is clear

Don’t make a groundless assertion. Currently, U.S. officially maintains neutral. Can you show any evidence U.S. considers it should be settled at the ICJ?

That South Korea acted illegally and counter to the U.S. position, and continues to refuse to settle at the ICJ exposes the "shameless: nature of that country,

I remind you Korea-Japan treaty of 1965 didn’t mention ICJ solution for any possible dispute between the two countries and listed only "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as a means of solving the disputes. In spite of this agreement, Japan keeps asking Korea to go to ICJ giving an impression to the international community that Korea doesn’t comply with the law, which is very shameless. As Japanese secret document of 1962 stated, Japan has not legal ground to drag Korea into ICJ.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Suin KimAug. 10, 2014 - 03:24PM JST

OssanAmerica Why is it shameless Korea doesn’t accept Japanese proposal?

Because civilized people (and nations) settle disputes by the rule of law. South Korea's persistent refusal, as well as your attempted justification for it what is casually known as "lame excuses". Are you incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in claiming that you are right and all the evidence is in your favor, but at the same time refusing to present that evidence at the ICJ and putting the issue to bed for good? This is what we call "shameless".

As to the statement of Van Fleet, is it the evidence Dokdo is Japanese land or what?

It is evidence that Japan is not the only country that thinks South Korea's occupation of he Liancourt Rocks is illegal, and that the proper means of settlement s at through the ICJ. If you read the statement it makes it clear that it does not address sovereignty so why you raise this question is bewildering.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated in 1953: “Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima >to Japan, and despite our participation in Postdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement, it does not >rpt not necessarily follow US automatically responsible for settling or intervening in Japan's international disputes, >territorial or otherwise, arised from peace treaty. US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to >treaty.” U.S. dropped support for Japanese claim long time. Isn’t it time for Japan to stop depending on what U.S. said as one >of the signatories of SF Treaty 60 years ago?

The above statement simply declares that the US is not responsible for settling Japan's disputes, In the same way that the US is not responsible for settling South Korea's disputes, However, that the U.S. considers South Korea;s occupation to be illegal and that it should be settled at the ICJ is clear. It was the United States that advised Japan to immediately make a claim as soon as Sot Korea unilaterally took it's illegal action, Japan does not depend on the US on this or any other territorial issues because it has no application to the issue of sovereignty, That South Korea acted illegally and counter to the U.S. position, and continues to refuse to settle at the ICJ exposes the "shameless: nature of that country,

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I found out it’s you who twist what Korean media say. You intentionally skip the main point of the document and blame that Korean media twist. The main point

I did not. I gave you the entire link which indicate otherwise. What you quoted are at the tail end and are in "(. )". which amounts to no more than a footnote. With you not being able to read the entire memo and focusing on this mere footnote and taking a leap of faith that "to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false" is a classic example of how the Korean counterparts have debated this issue for years. This cult like behavior is the reason why the Japanese counterparts are ridiculing the immature behavior of Koreans.

As LeChatBotte indicated above, what you are doing here is "elevating your assumptions". When done carelessly, you are merely "wishing" Wishing Korea had sovereignty over Takeshima before Japan's legal incorporation. Wishing Japan had ill intentions by not announcing the said incorporation loud enough. Wishing 1962 document intent is that "conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima is false".

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Suin Kim,

Your elevating your own assumptions to facts doesn't make them more facts. And your inability to consider that other people might actually have different opinions - and they could be more valid - has characterized most of the discussions I've had with Korean or Chinese people following their governments' guidelines for online discussions.

Indeed Korea being afraid to go to the ICJ is my own assumption. But it's a point of view shared by quite some people apparently: http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/the-icj-and-the-dokdotakeshima-dispute/

Moreover, South Korea’s refusal to even consider bringing the case before the ICJ ironically bolsters Japan’s position (albeit not legally) because it can be interpreted that Seoul fears its legal claim may not hold up after ICJ arbitration. This perception is strengthened further as South Korea tries to actively assert its sovereignty through steps to solidify its administration of the islands.

And indeed, Takeshima was not "returned" to Korea like you said (see OssanAmerica's previous post)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Returned? SKorea stole the Takeshima and killed more than 30 Japanese fishermen there in 1952.

Korea stole Dokdo from whom? Dokdo was the Korean land Imperial Japan took by greed in 1905 in the course of colonizing Korea. It’s a fact as shown in a map by Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department under the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office. <http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/evidence3-japanese-incorporation-of.html

Korea didn’t kill the Japanese fishermen to steal Dokdo. It was a Korean choice to stop the Japanese fishermen trespassing on Korean land.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Dokdo is historically Korean land which was stolen by Imperial Japan and returned to Korea.

Returned? SKorea stole the Takeshima and killed more than 30 Japanese fishermen there in 1952.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Does anyone know the word the Koreans used for " ludicrous"?

It's not a very common word in English.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tinawatanabeAug. 08, 2014 - 11:52PM JST

Your questions are not worth my time. I hope the majority of Japanese don’t have a historical view like you and I’m sorry to hear such a crude racist expression.

OssanAmericaAug. 09, 2014 - 12:19AM JST

Why is it shameless Korea doesn’t accept Japanese proposal? Did Korea agree to accept it and break that agreement? Did ICJ order Korea to accept Japanese proposal and Korea refuse? Korean stance on ICJ does nothing wrong with the international rule. It’s definitely shameless Japan claims Korean land based on the falsehood and tries to drag Korea into ICJ. Be reminded Korea-Japan treaty of 1965 didn’t mention ICJ solution for any possible dispute between the two countries and listed only "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as a means of solving the disputes.

As to the statement of Van Fleet, is it the evidence Dokdo is Japanese land or what?

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated in 1953:

“Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Postsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan, and despite our participation in Postdam and treaty and action under administrative agreement, it does not rpt not necessarily follow US automatically responsible for settling or intervening in Japan's international disputes, territorial or otherwise, arised from peace treaty. US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty.”

U.S. dropped support for Japanese claim long time. Isn’t it time for Japan to stop depending on what U.S. said as one of the signatories of SF Treaty 60 years ago?

nigelboyAug. 09, 2014 - 12:20AM JST

I found out it’s you who twist what Korean media say. You intentionally skip the main point of the document and blame that Korean media twist. The main point is this :

“It can be said our country shouldn’t interpret Dokdo issue can be included in the category of disputes in Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ because the disputes that Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction recognize as mandatory submission to the court limits to the disputes arose after the date of Japan’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction.”(わが国の强制管轄權受諾宣言は、裁判所付託お 義務的と 認める紛爭お 「宣言の 日付以後の 事態又は 事實に関して, 同日以後に發生する全ての紛爭に」限定しているから,わが国が竹島問題お同宣言 にいる紛爭のカテゴリーに 含まれると 解することはできないと 考えられる)

In other words, Japanese clarified in 1962 Japan can’t take Dokdo issue to the court because it was 1952 when Korea declared sovereignty over neighboring seas before Japan accepted compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in 1958. Japanese secret document of 1962 is worth raving of Korea media

Japan agreed to list "diplomatic settlement" or "mediation by a third party" as possible solutions to any dispute between the two countries, without mentioning the ICJ in Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965. It’s likely Japan did so based on the recognition of 1962.

In conclusion, it’s shameless Japan demands Korea for the ICJ rule on Dokdo.

If Korea was deprived of diplomacy right by Japan, it means Korea was under control of Japan. If you think Korean protest was important, have you ever thought of the reasons why Japanese government of 1905 didn't let Korea know about Japanese action at the time of incorporating Dokdo?

1899 大韓地誌 states the eastern boundary of Korea at a limit of 130 degrees 35 minues. 1906 July 13, "Hwangseong Shinmun" confirms the boundary of Uldo County exludes Takeshima.

It’s an empty refutation. If you want, I can give you the reasons. Instead, let me introduce you what a Japanese history scholar Hibatakke Sekko wrote in his article carried in a Japanese journal “歷史地理 (Historical Geography)” in 1930 when Korea was under colonization of Japan.

“Takeshima and Ulleungdo belong to Gangwon Province of Korea, and they constitute the eastern limit of Korea.” ”

LeChatBotteAug. 09, 2014 - 01:08AM JST

I’m not a historian, either. Finding flaws of Japanese logic on Dokdo doesn’t require to be a historian. The real facts are very simple to understand, but Japanese government skillfully twist them.

I checked the assumptions and conclusion you said I made . One is a fact, not my own thinking and the other one is what I think but it’s based on reasonable judgements. Japan says “Dokd is an inherent part of territory of Japan.” because Japan established the sovereignty over Dokdo by mid-17th century and mention through Japanese fishermen’s dropping by in Dokdo on the way to Ulleongdo. Go to MOFA homepage of Japan and check it yourself. Japanese historical documents said Dokdo was not Japanese land no matter what the Japanese fishermen did in Dokdo in 1969s and reconfirm it in 1870 and 1877. This is my assumption : Japanese government might hope those documents disappear.

As to “it would be so obvious Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo would be easily turned out to be illegal because Dokdo was Korean land then”, that is the possible reason why Japan uses the theory of inherent land which can be easily proven to be false by Japanese official documents. If somebody thinks I’m wrong, I welcome the other opinions about why Japanese government is saying Dokdo is Japanese inherent part in spite of Edo and Meiji governments exclusion of Dokdo from Japanese land.

When Japan incorporated, Korea was exercising sovereignty over Dokdo. From Japanese side, Japanese Meiji government’s document stated “Regarding the islands in question, they are known to have nothing to do with our country as per documents prepared in the first month of the 9th year of the Genruko (1696) after the entry of the Koreans into the island.” The islands in question indicate Ulleongdo and Dokdo.

Has Korea said Korea is afraid of going to ICJ? It’s your assumption, right? Korea has no reason to ask the judge to decide whether Dokdo is Korean land or not because Korean sovereignty over Dokdo is not in question and Korea has no obligation to accept Japan’s proposal. Dokdo is historically Korean land which was stolen by Imperial Japan and returned to Korea. Personally, I think it would be OK if Korea decides to go to ICJ, but I respect Korean government’s position on ICJ and hope Japan does, too.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Another example of a pacific nation baiting Japan if Korea wants to claim the islands then agree with japan for arbitaratoin. the continued chest beating of Korea and China is getting boring.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Ossan Thanks for the link. Very detailed and gives plenty of historical evidence and maps that refute Korean claims. The section on Korean gimmicks is interesting as well.

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

JAPAN: What's ours is ours and what's yours is ours TOO!!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If annexation is harbinger to claims then this is over since Japan lost the war and gave up all 'annexed' land with surrender. Also the empty island policy assumes Chosun's sovereignty over Dokdo islands which Japan didn't dispute... which is why it "claimed" Dokdo terra nullis 1905 like it "claimed" Korea in 1909. Empires don't claim lands that's already part of itself during its imperial conquests. Japan didn't "claim" Hokkaido or Osaka at the turn of the century

Those aren't the arguments used. And no. Empty island policy that Joseon dynasty implemented does not in any way shape or form "assumes" sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo.

The logic used by some are simply mind boggling.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If annexation is harbinger to claims then this is over since Japan lost the war and gave up all 'annexed' land with surrender. Also the empty island policy assumes Chosun's sovereignty over Dokdo islands which Japan didn't dispute... which is why it "claimed" Dokdo terra nullis 1905 like it "claimed" Korea in 1909. Empires don't claim lands that's already part of itself during its imperial conquests. Japan didn't "claim" Hokkaido or Osaka at the turn of the century.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Suin Kim,

I will give you that, I am not a historian and will never pretend to be so I can't say I thoroughly understand the Japanese psyche. But it seems that instead of understanding it yourself you are just making your own assumptions and deriving your own conclusions from them:

When Japan says “Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan.”, it means it was Japanese land even before Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo.

it would be so obvious Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo would be easily turned out to be illegal because Dokdo was Korean land then.

If it would be so obvious that Japan's claim would be easily turned, why not go to the ICJ and settle things once and for all? What is Korea afraid of?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You admit Japanese government is quick to react anything Korea no matter how minor they are

??? I claimed the opposite.

It clearly shows Japanese government then realized they couldn take Dokdo issue to ICJ and besides, there was no any mention of ICJ in relation to Dokdo issue even in the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965. Thus there’s nothing wrong with Korean refuse to go to ICJ today. Then, why does Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ and try to make Korea look bad? Is it a means to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Dokdo is false?

No. It shows the protocols of taking Korea (who is not a member of the U.N. at that time) to take the case to ICJ. Your logic of "Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ"="to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Takeshima/Dokdo is false" is simply absurd. I really don't know how your mind works.

You are wrong. Korean "empty island" policy doesn’t mean Korea abandoned those islands and allolwed Japan took them.

Never stated that. I was responding to your fellow comrade's assertion that " Japan you did not magically discover and claim islands that Koreans on Ullungdo have been staring at and fishing on for thousands of year in 1905"

His/her dates are screwed. Perhaps you should take it up with your fellow comrade.

If so, let me tell you this. It was 1910 when Japan officially annexed Korea, but Japan started to deprive Korea of diplomatic right in 1904

"Foreign" diplomatic right. What was stripped away were diplomatic right to negotiate with other nations besides Japan. This does not however, removed the right to engage in diplomatic talks with Japan. 1899 大韓地誌 states the eastern boundary of Korea at a limit of 130 degrees 35 minues. 1906 July 13, "Hwangseong Shinmun" confirms the boundary of Uldo County exludes Takeshima.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Sui Kim stop using "shameless" so often because in the eyes of the world outside the Korean Peninsula, it's South Korea that is pretty "shameless" in refusing to accept ICJ jurisdiction over this issue.

"The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). 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."

"Unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal. The United States had concluded Japanese sovereignty over the rocks. The dispute over the rocks might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice. As the San Francisco Peace Treaty* shows, Liancourt rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) were not included in the list of islands which Japan should give back to Korea."

Report of Van Fleet Mission to the Far East 1954.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Suin Kim, So you can not give me evidence or detail as I thought. Famous Japanese expression about Koreans, "Koreans lie as they breathe" I give you evidence to rebutt with.

At that time, Korea was part of Japan, and many Koreans were in Japan's army. There is no reason for Japan's army to kill Koreans. If Japan's army killed Koreans, why didn't you say it until today? If you accuse Japan, you have to explain how many, where, what year and date, etc..not just "countless were killed.."

I guess in Korea it must be easy to accuse in court if you don't have to submit any evidence.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

LeChatBotteAug. 08, 2014 - 06:12AM JST

It seems you don’t know much about Japanese logic on Dokdo. When Japan says “Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan.”, it means it was Japanese land even before Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo. In 1905, Japanese cabinet decided to incorporate Dokdo on the pretext of "terra nullius". Definitely, Japanese government then didn’t say Dokdo was Japanese inherent land because there were Japanese official records saying Dokdo was not a Japanese land. Shamelessly, the current Japanese government claims both at the same time. Isn’t it clear it’s a contradiction? Why can’t Japan give up the theory of inherent land? If Japan discards it, it would be so obvious Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo would be easily turned out to be illegal because Dokdo was Korean land then. There’s a fact you should know. There was no any recognition by the International Community Dokdo was"terra nullius" at the time of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo. Japan incorporated it in a very clandestine manner. The way of Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was quite different from that of Japanese incorporation of other lands. It’s a long story to write here. I link here. <http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo.html > On the matter of claiming sovereignty over Dokdo, Japanese government is never honest. That’s what Japanese citizens should know.

tinawatanabeAug. 07, 2014 - 11:27PM JST

If you want I think I can investigate the names of Japanese fishermen who were killed by Koreans. Do you think you can give me the names of the countless number of Koreans, and how they were killed because Koreans always accuse Japan without concrete evidence.

Why does the names matter? Imperial Japan’s cruelty towards Koreans are uncomparable to what Korean government did to 44 Japanese fishermen to protect Korea. What I want to say is Japanese shouldn’t behave as if they are the victims.

nigelboyAug. 08, 2014 - 12:23AM JST

I disagree for it's the other way around for it's the Korean government who has been quick to react to anything Japan no matter how minor they are.

You admit Japanese government is quick to react anything Korea no matter how minor they are. Then, there should be Japanese government's reaction if Korean media twisted the interpreatation of Japan's secret document and make Japan look shameless.

What the Korean media focused on was the last part (footnote, basically) which it states that even though Japan has signed the declaration recognizing the court as compulsory, it may be difficult to bring forth even if Korea signed the same document based on the date. (1958).

It clearly shows Japanese government then realized they couldn take Dokdo issue to ICJ and besides, there was no any mention of ICJ in relation to Dokdo issue even in the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965. Thus there’s nothing wrong with Korean refuse to go to ICJ today. Then, why does Japan keep asking Korea to go to ICJ and try to make Korea look bad? Is it a means to conceal the fact Japanese claim over Dokdo is false?

And that seems to be the fundamental problem within the Korean population when discussing such matters because you have very little choice but to put faith in the Korean media that reported this nonsense.

Can you read Korean and know exactly what Korean media say without depending on the other sources? If you do, that’s great. I know Japanese a little. If I’m able to read Japanese perfectly, it would be very helpful to find out how some Japanese people twist and lie about Dokdo issue.

your insistence that Japanese government doesn't respond to this ridiculous Korean media, therefore she is not "reliable" is simply your attempt at shifting goal posts.

It’s because so many times I have witnessed there are some Japanese who willingly twist and sometimes lie about the matters of Dokdo in favor of Korea.

nigelboyAug. 08, 2014 - 06:26AM JST

That would be impossible since Joseon Dynasty had an "empty island" policy (no Koreans were allowed to live on the islands) which lasted for 460 years which was finally lifted in 1882.

You are wrong. Korean "empty island" policy doesn’t mean Korea abandoned those islands and allolwed Japan took them. Japanese document “竹島版圖所屬考” well explains those islands were still Korean land in spite of an "empty island" policy. “尋テ「毅宗十三年王聞鬱陵島地廣土肥可以居民遣溟州道監倉金柔立往視柔立回秦云島中有村落基趾七所多生柴胡藁本石南草於是移東郡民以實之後廔爲風濤所蕩覆舟因還其民云々」 然レハ當時其民ヲ移シ其地ヲ空フセシ者ノ如シ。毅宗十三年ハ我二條帝ノ平治元年ニシテ本年辛巳ヲ距ル事七百二十二年ナリ。此七百二十二年前此島高麗ニ屬スル三證ナリ”

nigelboyAug. 08, 2014 - 09:27AM JST

Annexation 1910.

Do you want to say Korea had power to protest the Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 because Japan annexed Korea in 1910? If so, let me tell you this. It was 1910 when Japan officially annexed Korea, but Japan started to deprive Korea of diplomatic right in 1904 and a Japanese Resident-General was deployed to Korea in 1905. Most importantly, Korea could learn of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo one year after in 1906 by a verbal notification of officials of Shimane Prefecture who unexpectedly visited Ulleongdo. Of course, Korea protested even though it couldn’t reach Japanese government. You’d better stop saying Korea could protest if she wanted because Korea was a free country then.

therougouAug. 08, 2014 - 11:05AM JST

Existence of individual Japanese maps that exclude these rocks doesn't really mean anything if they validly claimed the islands by international law.

The existence of Japanese maps that exclude these rocks proves Japanese claim Dokdo is Japanese inherent part is false and the existence of Japanese including Dokdo as Korean land proves Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal undert the international law. There’s no way to defend Japanese false logic on Dokdo.

Japan obtained Takeshima lawfully, and then Korea stole it. But don't worry, Japanese don't hate Koreans for it. Its history

If Japanese know the real history, not the fake one, especially about Dokdo, they would be ashamed of what their government is doing now.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Risk? What risk? According to South Korea they have all the evidence that's needed to establish Korean ownership as a fact for a thousand years. Or are you really saying that they are NOT confident in their "evidence" and feel there is a risk that the ICJ would rule in Japan's favor?

Yes to the latter, if you read my other posts. Korea's whole argument now seems to be that Japan suddenly claimed the empty island with only a few Japanese on it, rather than it being an inherent part of Japan. Although as mentioned above it is essentially the same thing as you have to make a claim at some point for it to officially be part of your country.

There are much more than that. Maps of Korea showing Dokdo as part of Korea is here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aYqXZcMrtYn1Lue1vUjBN3DPNoP303V0TOpAqmbEnU/edit

Any Korean map? If it was part of Korea surely Korea would put it on their own map? Existence of individual Japanese maps that exclude these rocks doesn't really mean anything if they validly claimed the islands by international law. Japan obtained Takeshima lawfully, and then Korea stole it. But don't worry, Japanese don't hate Koreans for it. Its history.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboy: "Annexation 1910"

That's why Japan was nuked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Be grateful to the US for not annexing Japan.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

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.

Annexation 1910.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

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.

Annexation 1910.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

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.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

erbaviva: "getting boring SK, go prove it."

For the proof, review Japan's ancient maps. Many delineate that Dokdo belongs to Korea. That's why the claim is "ludicrous".

Do not covet your neighbor's.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

therougouAug. 07, 2014 - 11:02AM JST Now why is South Korea afraid to go to the ICJ and shut Japan up for good? I would give you 2 main reasons: 1) Its not worth the risk as they have control of the "islands" already.

Risk? What risk? According to South Korea they have all the evidence that's needed to establish Korean ownership as a fact for a thousand years. Or are you really saying that they are NOT confident in their "evidence" and feel there is a risk that the ICJ would rule in Japan's favor?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Sillyness. No Japan you did not magically discover and claim islands that Koreans on Ullungdo have been staring at and fishing on for thousands of year in 1905. Let's let bygones be bygones and leave your fascist imperialist claims where they belong

That would be impossible since Joseon Dynasty had an "empty island" policy (no Koreans were allowed to live on the islands) which lasted for 460 years which was finally lifted in 1882.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Suin Kim,

If Dokdo was Japan’s an inherent land, why did Japan incorporate it on the basis of terra nullius? Does it make sense? In fact, Japan had never owned Dokdo prior to 1905

It seems you are a bit confused on the definition on "inherent territory", If territory like Takeshima is recognized by the International Community at the time as "terra nullius" i-e belonging to no one, it can be acquired at that time and if Japan asserts sovereignty on it, it can become part of her "inherent territory" (in 1905). There is no contradiction there.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

in history.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Sillyness. No Japan you did not magically discover and claim islands that Koreans on Ullungdo have been staring at and fishing on for thousands of year in 1905. Let's let bygones be bygones and leave your fascist imperialist claims where they belong.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Japanese government has been very quick to depend their positions on the matters of Korea-Japan relations no matter how minor they are. This case is not a minor issue. If I don’t see any response from Japanese government like your insistence Korean media twists Japanese government’s document which isn’t helpful to Japan’s ICJ card, it means what you said is not reliable at all.

I disagree for it's the other way around for it's the Korean government who has been quick to react to anything Japan no matter how minor they are. Case in point, this particular article.

Like I stated before, the "secret" document that the Korean media were raving about was simply a document that explains how to initiate the proceeding to the International Court of Justice. Also note that since Korea was not a member of the U.N. at that time, there were other protocols within the U.N. charter that Japan has to go through in order to get this through. What the Korean media focused on was the last part (footnote, basically) which it states that even though Japan has signed the declaration recognizing the court as compulsory, it may be difficult to bring forth even if Korea signed the same document based on the date. (1958).

Having said that, it's quite a reach to conclude based on that footnote in your statement that "Japan didn’t categorize Dokdo as international dispute "

I can’t read Japanese

And that seems to be the fundamental problem within the Korean population when discussing such matters because you have very little choice but to put faith in the Korean media that reported this nonsense.

And to add, your insistence that Japanese government doesn't respond to this ridiculous Korean media, therefore she is not "reliable" is simply your attempt at shifting goal posts.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Suin Kim, If you want I think I can investigate the names of Japanese fishermen who were killed by Koreans. Do you think you can give me the names of the countless number of Koreans, and how they were killed because Koreans always accuse Japan without concrete evidence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

therougouAug. 07, 2014 - 05:10PM JST

You do realize that no Japanese except some nutcases even care about those rocks, right? In Japan, those who care about Dokdo are called nutcases? Then, Japanese government is encouraging more and more Japanese including the young children to be nutcases. Someday in the future, Japan would be a weird country with full of nutcases. It would be sad for Korea to have a neighboring country like this.

You will have no need for tears when you come to realize that Japan doesn't hate Korea for taking Takeshima, rather they just think Koreans are a little strange for defending it like their lives depend on it. I don’t care Japan does or doesn't hate Korea. I just hope Japan stop false claim over its neighbor’s land. As to the Koreans who defend Dokdo like their lives depend on it, what is your criteria defining such Koreans?

The fact is Korea has no maps showing Takeshima as part of Korea, so they try to find 1 or 2 random Japanese maps that may or may not indicate it is part of Korea. The fact that it is not on any Korean maps at all pretty much sums up Korea's claim to the islands.

If you think the old maps matter, what do you think about the fact Japan has no accurate maps showing Dokdo as part of Japan? Japan has maps including Dokdo, but none of them shows only Dokdo, not along with Ulleongdo, as part of Japan. There are not only 1 or 2 Japanese maps indicate Dokdo is part of Korea. There are much more than that. Maps of Korea showing Dokdo as part of Korea is here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aYqXZcMrtYn1Lue1vUjBN3DPNoP303V0TOpAqmbEnU/edit

tinawatanabeAug. 07, 2014 - 09:20PM JST

SKorea killed and injured 44 Japanese fishermen when they took Takeshima in 1952. I don't think Japanese like it. Imperial Japan killed the countless number of Koreans. I’m just curious if you understand some Korean people have a good reason to hate Japan. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Japan.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Japan doesn't hate Korea for taking Takeshima

SKorea killed and injured 44 Japanese fishermen when they took Takeshima in 1952. I don't think Japanese like it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But the only way Koreans can do against Japanese who wrongly believe Korea illegally took their land and they should take it back is making them see the real truth on the history of Dokdo even though it doesn't work effectively. I feel sad about this.

You do realize that no Japanese except some nutcases even care about those rocks, right? You will have no need for tears when you come to realize that Japan doesn't hate Korea for taking Takeshima, rather they just think Koreans are a little strange for defending it like their lives depend on it.

Back to the discussion though, your source which is hosted on a Korean site and mentioning an "unnamed Japanese" doesn't really do anything to prove that these islands belong to Korea. There will always be tons of information supporting Korea's stance as every Korean seems to care about the issue as previously mentioned. The fact is Korea has no maps showing Takeshima as part of Korea, so they try to find 1 or 2 random Japanese maps that may or may not indicate it is part of Korea. The fact that it is not on any Korean maps at all pretty much sums up Korea's claim to the islands. The San Francisco treaty just adds icing on the cake.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

LeChatBotteAug. 07, 2014 - 03:50AM JST

It seems you misunderstood. It was Japan, not Korea, recognized that prior to 1905 those islands were terra nullius. Japan meant Dokdo was nobody’s land and incorporated it. It’s definitely contradictory to Japan’s current claim Dokdo is an inherent part of territory of Japan. If Dokdo was Japan’s an inherent land, why did Japan incorporate it on the basis of terra nullius? Does it make sense? In fact, Japan had never owned Dokdo prior to 1905. Japan’s Edo and Meiji Governments declared Dokdo was not Japanese land. Korea didn’t annex Dokdo in 1952. Dokdo was given to its original owner according to the Postdam Declaration which carried out Cairo Declaration stipulating "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed" How can I prove Dokdo was the land taken by Japan’s greed? See <http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/evidence3-japanese-incorporation-of.html

nigelboyAug. 07, 2014 - 03:59AM JST

I don't think the Japanese government has any reason to retort Korean media/scholars "discovery" that props up now and then. It's a running joke, really. It's simply unfortunate that Korean people are not aware of how much they are embarassing themselves.

Japanese government has been very quick to depend their positions on the matters of Korea-Japan relations no matter how minor they are. This case is not a minor issue. If I don’t see any response from Japanese government like your insistence Korean media twists Japanese government’s document which isn’t helpful to Japan’s ICJ card, it means what you said is not reliable at all.

OssanAmericaAug. 07, 2014 - 04:14AM JST

Read this. It's in English. Saves us both the time, http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com Now why is South Korea afraid to go to the ICJ and shit Japan up for good?

Are you asking me to read all the posts of your link? It’s very time consuming ,isn’t it? I don’t ask you much. Please just show one evidence showing Dokdo is an inherent territory of Japan. Why can’t you? For Japanese, knowing correctly why Dokdo is Japan’s land takes priority over complaining repeatedly why Korea doesn’t accept Japan’s proposal for ICJ.

Sam TrumbullAug. 07, 2014 - 07:44AM JST

Going back and forth about history on this issue is a waste of time.

You are right. I often feel arguing about history on Dokdo issue takes up my time. But the only way Koreans can do against Japanese who wrongly believe Korea illegally took their land and they should take it back is making them see the real truth on the history of Dokdo even though it doesn't work effectively. I feel sad about this.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Another reason they don't go to court is,

3) They take great joy in complaining anything to Japan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Now why is South Korea afraid to go to the ICJ and shit Japan up for good?

I assume you mean "shut" Japan up. I would give you 2 main reasons:

1) Its not worth the risk as they have control of the "islands" already.

2) There is nothing really to shut up to begin with. Korea are the ones complaining. Japan only mentions the fact that there is a dispute and maybe includes their name for it on a map. All of the real noise comes from SK.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Suin Kim

Dokdo is administered by South Korea and IS de-facto Korean Territory.

Going back and forth about history on this issue is a waste of time. The reality is that South Korean gov't will not agree to mediation by ICJ nor will they freely hand over Dokdo to Japan to ease tensions.

The only way Japan can take possession of Dokdo is by force -- of which Japan has absolutely no international support. Even Japan's main ally, the US, will not support any aggressive actions against South Korea. The Americans value stability in the region NOT an armed conflict between it's two main Asian allies.

Now to respond to your statement that Dokdo is Inherently part of Korea -- I'm not so sure. But Dokdo is de-facto part of Korea for the foreseeable future.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Claimant/Plaintiff

He/she/it initiates Court proceedings. This rule applies throughout the world (except Canada as it would appear).

Japan is the Claimant in the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute.

South Korea cannot start proceeding in this instance; Japan has to.

Defendant/Respondent

He/she/it answers proceeding commenced by the Claimant/Applicant/Plaintiff.

Defendants cannot initiate Court proceedings anywhere in the world (although it seems they can, in Canada)

All a Defendant can do is to issue a counter-claim, in which case he/she/it will become the Claimant in the secondary action.

Japan is the Defendant Vis China in the Senkaku issue.

Japan can't start proceedings; China must to it.

Some people seem to struggle with these simple legal concepts.

Peeping Tom is a real English Solicitor/ Lawyer for our Yankee friends.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan never refused to go to the ICJ. Former PM Noda said Japan would not initiate an application to the ICJ. That's a big difference. Why would Japan initiate? Japan has had possession of the islands since 1895. China is the party challenging Japan's possession so China should file an application to the ICJ. Japan will meet China in court, as long as China agrees to accept whatever the court rules. Why spend all that time and money preparing a legal case if it is not binding? . The truth is that China doesn't want to take the matter to court.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Suin KimAug. 07, 2014 - 03:06AM JST OssanAmericaAug. 07, 2014 - 12:31AM JST I asked first, but you ask for my response to your question without answering my question. Who is wrong? According >to your logic, you ignore my question because you are unable to show any evidence explaining why Dokdo is an >inherent part of Japan and Dokdo belongs to Japan.

Read this. It's in English. Saves us both the time, http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com

Now why is South Korea afraid to go to the ICJ and shit Japan up for good?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I can’t read Japanese. If Korean media twists Japanese government’s secret document as you say, there must be a Japanese government’s refutation on this. Is there any?

I don't think the Japanese government has any reason to retort Korean media/scholars "discovery" that props up now and then. It's a running joke, really. It's simply unfortunate that Korean people are not aware of how much they are embarassing themselves.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Japan incorporated Dokdo in 1905 based on terra nullius (Nobody’s territory). However, however Japanese government today claims Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan. What a contradictory! Japan dare to distort its own history for the false claim over Korean land.

Suin Kim,

Very twisted reasoning you have here. I think I'm starting to understand all those Korean claims about Japan "distorting" history now. If South Korea recognizes that prior to 1905 those islands were terra nullius and Japan incorporated them at the time. Then they were Japanese since 1905 making its annexation by SK in 1952 illegal in the Court of Law.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

OssanAmericaAug. 07, 2014 - 12:31AM JST

I asked first, but you ask for my response to your question without answering my question. Who is wrong? According to your logic, you ignore my question because you are unable to show any evidence explaining why Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan and Dokdo belongs to Japan. Let me tell you the decisive evidence Japan’s claim over Dokdo is false. Japan incorporated Dokdo in 1905 based on terra nullius (Nobody’s territory). However, however Japanese government today claims Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan. What a contradictory! Japan dare to distort its own history for the false claim over Korean land.

virgo98 and MountBlade, do you believe all of what they say? That’s fine. Please pinpoint just one evidence you believe it shows Dokdo is Japan’s land.

nigelboyAug. 07, 2014 - 12:58AM JST

I can’t read Japanese. If Korean media twists Japanese government’s secret document as you say, there must be a Japanese government’s refutation on this. Is there any?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

If SK calls this "ludiculous" claim, then Japan should stop being nice to the country. If LDP tried to extend a hand to the country, their helm would be in jeopardy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

FYI, Japan didn’t categorize Dokdo as international dispute as it arose before Japan announced its compulsory jurisdiction over the island in 1958 according to the Japan’s secret document of 1962 related to S.Korea-Japan basic treaty of 1965 which Japanese government reluctantly released

Nope. It states that even though Japan has signed the declaration recognizing the court as compulsory, it may be difficult to bring forth even if Korea signed the same document based on the date. However, it goes on state that in order for this case to be heard by ICJ, Korea and Japan can still execute via special agreement. (Article 36, part 1)

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/chaamiey/56287828.html

But as usual, Korea media and the followers twist the document's interpretation. Nothing new.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Japan's Consistent Position on the Territorial Sovereignty over Takeshima

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/index.html

Simple one: Historical Verification of Takeshima/Dokdo by a high school student

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZB4QGSh8g

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Suin Kim,

You, like all South Korea supporters are unable to answer why South Korea has refused to settle the issue at the ICJ three times. So you ignore the question. Japan immediately claimed South Korea's occupation of the Liancourt Rocks illegal in 1954 the same year South Korea took physical control of them. Your country is the only one playing games and the whole world recognizes this.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

OssanAmericaAug. 06, 2014 - 09:19PM JST

What is Japan’s arguments and evidence showing Dokdo is Japanese land? Can you explain? Let me argue this first. If you realize Japanese government’s claim is totally false, you can see the absurdity of Japan’s Japan’s proposal for ICJ and find the answer why S. Korea ignores Japan’s proposal.

FYI, Japan didn’t categorize Dokdo as international dispute as it arose before Japan announced its compulsory jurisdiction over the island in 1958 according to the Japan’s secret document of 1962 related to S.Korea-Japan basic treaty of 1965 which Japanese government reluctantly released.

http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2014/06/decades-old-japanese-document-says.html

SamuraiBlueAug. 06, 2014 - 09:43PM JST

I don’t play a poker game. Can you simply show the evidence why Dokdo is Japan’s land?

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Smithinjapan

All you're doing concerning this thread is to show clearly that you don't know what a plaintiff/defendant is!

And also what each of them is supposed to do.

Alternatively you're just playing silly, which doesn't help/add anything constructive to the discussions.

Korea is in the wrong and you ought to know it.

Regards

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So you admit you cannot answer my question as to why Japan has never asked China, plain and simple.

Not really. In fact, Japan has asked all nations to settle disputes based on "rule of law" and urged everyone to join the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ.

"......Japan has always valued the “rule of law” and contributed to strengthening it. After joining the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Japan consistently recognized the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory and took the lead in practicing the “rule of law.”

Japan is leading the world in its personnel and financial contribution to international judicial institutions. Besides the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Japanese judges have served also at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and Japan has provided the latter three with the largest financial support. Japan is asking each country to kindly offer financial support to the Extraordinary Chambers of Cambodia facing severe financial crisis at the moment.

Supporting the United Nations in promoting the “rule of law” continues to be a huge challenge. Once again, in cooperation with the United Nations, I call for nations to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ as Japan did and for non-member countries of the ICC and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to join at an early date.

There are still a number of territorial and maritime disputes in many parts of the world. It is the philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as a shared principle in the international community, to settle disputes in a peaceful manner based on international law. Japan, under any circumstance, is determined to comply with the principle and seek peaceful solutions based on international law. The world should pay more attention to the role the international judicial institutions can play in the peaceful settlement of disputes...."

U.N. General Assembly Speech by PM Noda.

And of course, China replies.

http://news.searchina.ne.jp/disp.cgi?y=2012&d=0927&f=politics_0927_020.shtml

So in broad terms, Japan has asked and was refused.

As to your opinion on who has a better claim, you have shown very little knowledge on the subject matter so I don't think you are in a position to acess those claim.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Suin Kim

On the poker table you only get to see the opponent's hand when you call.

The only thing I have seen is SK folding again and again.

If you want to see let's have SK call and make a stand for a change.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

There are two islands - why not just take one each and rename the entire area "Friendship Islets" or something similar? It would show a harmonious relationship between SK and JP instead of all this bickering nonsense!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Suin KimAug. 06, 2014 - 09:03PM JST To the supporters for Japan’s claim on Dokdo : Please present any evidence showing Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan and belongs to Japan. You should be able >to explain why Dokdo is Japan’s land before asking Korea to go to ICJ.

Anyo Suin. Japan has asked South Korea THREE times to settle the issue at the ICJ. This obviously means that Japan has its arguments and evidence ready for litigation in a Court of Law. South Korea has refused ALL THREE TIMES. Why don't YOU explain why South Korea is afraid of going to the ICJ?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

To the supporters for Japan’s claim on Dokdo :

Please present any evidence showing Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan and belongs to Japan. You should be able to explain why Dokdo is Japan’s land before asking Korea to go to ICJ.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

smithinjapanAug. 06, 2014 - 05:30PM JST

The ICJ has no binding judgement, PERIOD. A whole lot of people don't recognize said 'jurisdiction', which is nil. And seriously, do you honestly believe if voted against Japan, South Korea, or China would follow any ruling given by the ICJ? NONE of them would,

LOL. You have shown what distorted world view you have.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Putting developmemts between Korea and Japan over the territorial claim over Takeshima/Dokudo on a brief historical perspective, let me remind youb all that they go as far back as the early 17th century, when the then-Korean court asked the Tokugawa shogunal government twice, through the then- Tottori clan if they considered Takeshima as part of Japan, and the shogunal government authorities answred in the negative twice. It was just prior to the " battle at Sea of Japan during the Russo-Japanese war that the Imperial Japanese government dicided to put up a lighthouse and watch tower on the top of the island to keep a watchful eye on the Russsian Baltic Fleet sailing from the Indian Occean into the Tusima Straits, laying down an undersea cable for cablegram connecting the island to Hiroshima. By this time Imperial Japan had made arrangements annex Korea, depriving the country of its diplomatic sovereinty. Japan had already forced Korea to sighn an agreement to let Japan jhave the use of any part of the country to make it easier for Japan to go ahead with a war with Russia. This historical fact should be enough to give the lie to the claim made on the home page set up b y the Foreign Ministry that Takeshima/Dokudou is an integral part of Japan.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Get both South Korean and Japanese UN delegates to play rock, scissors, and paper for the islands on the floor of the UN and put an end to it. Then have the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Philippine delegates do the same for the other rocks in an elimination lightning round.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

nigelboy: "Sorry smith. I see two posters including you who cannot distinguish the difference between "asked but was refused" and "never been asked"."

So you admit you cannot answer my question as to why Japan has never asked China, plain and simple. Thank you. THAT is enough to prove that I'm right -- not Japan being asked and refusing, but the fact that THEY have never asked. Or, nigelboy, show me where Japan has asked China to go to the ICJ. You can't, can you? I believe that in the case of Senkakus, Japan has the better claim, and one of the reasons is that they have held, unmanned mind you, the islands for such a period of time. South Korea, likewise, also has the better claim over Dokdo -- and guess what? they're going nowhere while Japan and others here whimper about how "it's different" with China when Japan refuses to ask the latter to go to the ICJ. It's the same with the island issue in the north -- who recognizes them as Japanese any more (besides Japan) after Russia has been living on them and administering them for so long?

virgo: "At least I know you have been argued down many times by others including OssanAmerica in this "plaintiff - defendant" argument about Takeshima and Senkaku in the past."

Wrong. They just say one thing then when you point out the hypocrisy they cannot address it, or in Ossan's case, you, because it's pretty clear Japan's not interested in asking it to go to the ICJ in some cases when the only argument those you mention have in terms of Japan's claims is that Japan asks SK to go.

"By the way, JT, as someone mentioned above, it is "Sea of Japan", not "East Sea (Sea of Japan)", the most concession we can give though is "Sea of Japan (East Sea)." Please just follow the global standards. What source are you based on?"

Was going to 'argue you down', but I see Sam beat me to it.

CH3CHO: "Korea will evade Takeshima lawsuit for it does not recognize the jurisdiction of ICJ. That is the difference."

Nope, not at all. The ICJ has no binding judgement, PERIOD. A whole lot of people don't recognize said 'jurisdiction', which is nil. And seriously, do you honestly believe if voted against Japan, South Korea, or China would follow any ruling given by the ICJ? NONE of them would, much as you are probably keen to suggest Japan might. Japan has been on the world stage before with other issues and when pressured to back down or voted or losing a lawsuit said, "This is an attack on our culture!" or, "It's not an international issue!" or, "We'll do it anyways!". Don't kid yourself into thinking one nation is a saint while the others are not.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

sjfp330:

" From a South Korea perspective, Dokdo is actually not a disputed island, since South Korea are not the ones arguing over its sovereignty. "

Well, by that logic, there are no disputed territories anywhere, or are there? Because the occupier never "argues over sovereignty". Glad you solved all the world`s problems at one stroke...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

From the article --

including one with South Korea over a group of islands in the East Sea (Sea of Japan).

East Sea (Sea of Japan) LOL

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Still arguing over the Liancourt Rocks?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@smithinjapan

We all know the reason is because they don't feel they need to, which is the same with SK on Dokdo. Period. Stop dancing around it and admit the hypocrisy.

Don't refer it as "we all know".

At least I know you have been argued down many times by others including OssanAmerica in this "plaintiff - defendant" argument about Takeshima and Senkaku in the past.

Still you raise it in the same way again and again. You may be the person who admit the hypocrisy.

By the way, JT, as someone mentioned above, it is "Sea of Japan", not "East Sea (Sea of Japan)", the most concession we can give though is "Sea of Japan (East Sea)." Please just follow the global standards. What source are you based on?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

My 2 cents - US purposely "gave" Senkakus/Diaoyu to Japan for "administration" in 1972 but took no position on sovereignty of the islands. This is a very ingenious tactic for the superpower. Her action in 1972 has kept China and Japan in tension and to US benefits, it can leverage business deals from China and can push Japan forward to counter China's rise. International politics is not always as clear as it seems.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

we never scared SK!

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@Crush Them. "Given a vote as to which country they want' or shall I say 'independent'? Be realistic.

Ever asked the islanders of Diego Garcia or Okinawa? You don't hear them from the powerful western media does not mean their struggles don't exist.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OssanAmerica said: "...why doesn't South Korea accept Japan's proposal and show the world just how "ludicrous" Japan's claims are at the International Court of Justice?"

Well, MANY times South Korea, China, the Philippines and other nations, and now all concerned member nations of the United Nations, have asked Japan to offer an admission of guilt, an unconditional apology and OFFICIAL government-funded compensation to the Sex Slaves euphemistically called Comfort Women. Japan's latest response was "We are not obligated to do so."

Well, I think South Korea, instead of just simply ignoring Japan's useless demands to take the Dokdo matter to the ICJ, should just say "We are not obligated to do so."

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

The same applies to its dispute with Russia. Shove it.

As far as the dispute between governments, yes. But there is one big difference with the Kuriles. While Dokdo has no real civilian population, the Kuriles do. The inhabitants of each island separately should be given a vote as to which country they want, or if they want independence. Both governments can shove it with regard to the Kuriles.

We must never allow populated areas to be considered spoils of war. Never ever.

The Senkakus and Dokdo can be spoils of war. No problem there unless some country wants an all new war. Then that country can shove it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

We need to take up a collection for nappies and pacifiers for South Korea. Then ship them to the National Capitol building in Seoul to be distributed to citizenry. Any ideas for a drop off site?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

"In short, Japan grabbed and held the Senkakus, so Japan gets them. And now Japan turns around and won't recognize the same thing done to them by South Korea?? Shove it Japan. Just shove it. I hate hypocrites almost as much as I hate land grabbers. If Japan wants to keep the Senkakus, they need to shut their faces about Dokdo."

A taste of its own medicine and the pot calling the kettle black.

The same applies to its dispute with Russia. Shove it.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Japan bashers? Mostly what I see here are Japan bashers and Japan butt kissers going at it frankly. I am neither.

As with the Diaoyu/Senkaku issue, I see valid historical claims. But I don't put those first, and so I support Japan on the Senkakus for reasons of long and continuing military control. I hate to lend so much credence to such control, but I don't see a way around it except for war to break out.

With Dokdo/Takeshima I see some rather limp wristed historical claims, but are followed by Japan's Imperialistic land grabbing again. They grabbed the Diaoyu/Senaku islands in 1895 and Dokdo/Takeshima in 1905. Damned if I am going to recognize such overbearing actions on their own, especially since Japan did the 1905 land grab in secret.

But then we have all of Japan's land grabbing resulting in a massive war that Japan thankfully lost. And a few years after that South Korea did their own land grab. Well, I hate these unilateral land grabbers in any case I think both South Korea and Japan stink for it. But, as I said earlier, I see no way around long standing military control except for war. I cannot support war in the case of basically uninhabited rocks, although I might feel differently if there was a significant civilian population there.

In short, Japan grabbed and held the Senkakus, so Japan gets them. And now Japan turns around and won't recognize the same thing done to them by South Korea?? Shove it Japan. Just shove it. I hate hypocrites almost as much as I hate land grabbers. If Japan wants to keep the Senkakus, they need to shut their faces about Dokdo.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Sorry smith. I see two posters including you who cannot distinguish the difference between "asked but was refused" and "never been asked".

If China had asked and Japan refused, you will FINALLY have a point. You can shout hypocrisy and many will agree with you. Until then, your argument has absolutely no merit.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

'ludicrous' island? Never heard of it.

South Korean government saying that Japan's actions could strain relations... Come on Japan, try to be cool and reasonable like South Korea.

Am I bad to make jokes about an already comical situation?

(There are 2 islands, how about 1 each?)

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The rocks are not really liveable, at least not easily. There are 2, count 'em, 2 people living there ...or maybe just one, if one died. Until recently, Korea kept most other visitors to a minimum. There are some nice caves, I hear.

To be precise, the Korean government PAYS them to live there. The reason?

Korean' government assertion is that based on their old text, the island of "Usan" is the current Dokdo/Takeshima. The text in 1417 also mentions in that in island of Usan, 15 household and 86 people resided there and the resident there would bring back to the mainland such commodities as bamboo, calf skin, and yam.

As you guessed, the Korean government did try to test grow some vegetation but failed.

I wish I was joking but it simply tells you the absurdity and the lengths they go through.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Ossan: and once again, the deflection. Nigelboy, too. While you guys are busy answering the question of "why doesn't Japan ask China to go to the ICJ" with, "well... China has never asked!", you still fail to answer why with the Senkakus JAPAN does not ask China... You know, since your point is about how honorable Japan is in asking South Korea and all. So, why don't Japan ask, guys?

We all know the reason is because they don't feel they need to, which is the same with SK on Dokdo. Period. Stop dancing around it and admit the hypocrisy.

-17 ( +6 / -23 )

South Korea slams Japan's 'ludicrous' island claim

This coming from the country that aggressively colonized Takeshima after WWII. This coming from the country that repeatedly refuses to take the Takeshima debate up with ICJ. Yeah, Japan's the one being ridiculous. Get real South Korea.

It's funny how right wing nationals want to take this issue to ICOJ but refuses to take Diaoyu island to the same courts as suggested by the Chinese.

You've got that backwards my friend. China isn't even a signatory of the ICJ. They don't recognise it's authority. And yet, they are the ones claiming sovereignty. Japan has been saying that there is no dispute because as far as they're concerned, Senkaku is a part of Japan. They administer the islands, and always have. China even stated that Senkaku Islands were Japanese, right up until the discovery of oil near the islands. If China wants the Senkaku Islands, it will have to become a signatory of the ICJ and take this case up with them. They'll lose of course, just as South Korea would if they were to do the same.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Korea displays bully behavior as usual until the back is against the wall. All territorial disputes should be resolved by ICJ and international body, thus not by unilateral claim, occupation, and bullying for the whole area.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

MGiganteAug. 06, 2014 - 09:45AM JST

Because Japan doesn't believe there is a dispute. Therefore Japan would never acknowledge the dispute by asking the PRC to come to the ICJ.

In Senkaku case, China is the plaintiff and Japan is the defendant. A plaintiff has to file the complaint first. No lawsuit starts by defendant filing a complaint.

If China files a complaint, Japan will have to defend itself at ICJ for Japan has acknowledged the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ. Korea will evade Takeshima lawsuit for it does not recognize the jurisdiction of ICJ. That is the difference.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

@Asianhometown

Game over Japan. SK already has a permanent station on the island with people actually living there. If Japan thinks it owns it then ask Abe to fly over there and let's see what will happen.

LOL, Japan doesn't care enough to try to take over those little rocks by force. They are fine with calling them their own while Korea actually goes through the trouble of seeing over them. Its the Koreans that are complaining here, don't forget.

It's funny how right wing nationals want to take this issue to ICOJ but refuses to take Diaoyu island to the same courts as suggested by the Chinese.

Suggested when? This article seems to indicate the opposite is true. Please note that your random Chinese friend does not equal China. http://cjicl.org.uk/2012/12/07/the-senkakudiaoyu-islands-two-perspectives-on-the-territorial-dispute-part-i-2/

In this regard, it can be said that the Japanese side of the gate to the ICJ is indeed unlocked, even though Japan is unlikely to open it by itself. Nevertheless, China has shown no signs whatsoever of referring the matter to the ICJ so far.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Maybe they should just junken for the stupid islets.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well if Japan's claim is "ludicrous" then why doesn't South Korea accept Japan's proposal and show the world just how "ludicrous" Japan's claims are at the International Court of Justice? Three times Japan has asked and three times South Korea has refused. Until South Korea shows some integrity and goes to the ICJ to shut Japan up for good, I will continue to discount all the chest beating nonsense from South Korea as their fear of being unable to prove their argument in court.

Exactly. It's just Korea and Koreans blowing a lot of hot air as usual. Fat chance that it will convince anyone but themselves. These people need to get over their deeply seated, massive inferiority complex.

And this was mentioned in related articles in the past in which you continue to flee.

And your eloquently written comment is much like SK. "it's mine, mine mine,mine!

LOL. You have to give him an 'E' for effort. For many Koreans and their supporters they just feel the need to defend this issue even if they're not making any sense. It's something they can't control, like that han and hwabyeong inside of them. Having all those emotional, sappy Korean dramas they love to watch doesn't help either.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

They are lived on and administered by South Korea

The rocks are not really liveable, at least not easily. There are 2, count 'em, 2 people living there ...or maybe just one, if one died. Until recently, Korea kept most other visitors to a minimum. There are some nice caves, I hear.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

@smith

They are lived on and administered by South Korea, something which the world clearly recognizes (much to Japan's ire, I might add).

Do you have any references to back this up? Just curious. Wikipedia only mentions they are disputed islands and North Korea supports SK on this issue.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

SK, what you want? we japanese never scared of you.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Then why don't Japan ask China to settle Senkaku/Diaoyu at the ICJ? It's free for Japan to ask. Do you see Japan doing this? Nope.

Because Japan doesn't believe there is a dispute. Therefore Japan would never acknowledge the dispute by asking the PRC to come to the ICJ. Therefore, the onus is on the PRC to bring Japan before the ICJ, not the other way around; e.g., it is the responsibility of the disputed party to bring the matter to the ICJ, not the other way around or it hurts your position.

The Takeshima dispute is also somewhat different from the Senkaku Islands dispute, because Japan respects the ICJ while the PRC does not.

What a lot of people don't know is that Japan has signed on to the the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction statute, which means if any country were to take Japan to the ICJ the Japanese side would be compelled to respond (they can't ignore the lawsuit like the PRC is doing with the Philippines).

7 ( +14 / -7 )

AsianhometownAug. 06, 2014 - 08:31AM JST Game over Japan. SK already has a permanent station on the island with people actually living there. If Japan thinks it owns it then ask Abe to fly over there and let's see what will happen.

So what you're saying is that SK has illegal immigrants in Japan?

... because if you were to apply your line of logic to the U.S. then Mexico would officially own most of the southern U.S.A.

Time to change the official language of Texas to Spanish hombre!

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Another day, another moan fest from SK about islands.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

ICJ are the same guys who always deflect the question of why Japan never wants to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus, which the J-government claims there is 'no dispute' over. And please, don't bother 'defending' the contradiction with the typical, "That's different!" or, "You're a J-basher!" crap.

It's answered just a while ago

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-defence-paper-warns-over-chinas-dangerous-acts-in-sea-air#comment_1825605

And this was mentioned in related articles in the past in which you continue to flee.

And your eloquently written comment is much like SK. "it's mine, mine mine,mine!

14 ( +23 / -9 )

OssanAmericaAug. 06, 2014 - 09:14AM JST Incorrect. Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ THREE times. China has NEVER asked Japan to settle at the ICJ.

Then why don't Japan ask China to settle Senkaku/Diaoyu at the ICJ? It's free for Japan to ask. Do you see Japan doing this? Nope.

-14 ( +11 / -25 )

sfjp330Aug. 06, 2014 - 07:52AM JST From a South Korea perspective, Dokdo is actually not a disputed island, since South Korea are not the ones arguing >over its sovereignty. This is similar to Japan’s position with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China >Sea.

Incorrect. Japan has asked Soputh Korea to settle at the ICJ THREE times. China has NEVER asked Japan to settle at the ICJ.

13 ( +24 / -11 )

Yes, the issue should be taken to an international body for judgment. In case it goes Japans way , the decision can be welcomed as just and fair and the said International body praised. If it doesnt go Japan`s way, it can be bluntly refused and labeled as " regrettable " and "not reflecting facts". Kind of like the UN's recent recommendation on comfort women. Voila...easy.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

OssanAmerica: "Well if Japan's claim is "ludicrous" then why doesn't South Korea accept Japan's proposal and show the world just how "ludicrous" Japan's claims are at the International Court of Justice?"

You guys really don't get it, do you? They are NOT disputed islands by the South Korean government. They are lived on and administered by South Korea, something which the world clearly recognizes (much to Japan's ire, I might add). Japan has doubts to its claim so it desires to take it to court. Now, you guys constantly crying about the need for SK to take it the ICJ are the same guys who always deflect the question of why Japan never wants to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus, which the J-government claims there is 'no dispute' over. And please, don't bother 'defending' the contradiction with the typical, "That's different!" or, "You're a J-basher!" crap.

Japan's little, "let's name all the islands childish tit-for-tat lunacy they engaged in has clearly gotten the effect they wanted -- to alienate themselves further. And now Russia has called off any talks with Japan over sanctions on the Ukraine issue, so they may as well unname those islands while they're at it.

The islands are South Korean, like it or not, and they do not need to go to the ICJ to claim territory tha already belongs to them. And the more time passes, the more everyone recognizes them as South Korean land... except Japan, of course. Japan and the Japanophiles on here bang their fists about it, but there's nothing they can do so they try to flip it and say SK needs to 'prove' it the way they refuse to prove it with other island issues themselves.

-18 ( +17 / -35 )

South Korea is correct and Japan is wrong in this case. Those islands belong to SK.

Its truly regrettable that Japan is standing behind this ludicrous claim.

Luda....Luda......Ludacris. Move )#'%'%, give up your claim...."#$$"....give up your claim.

-35 ( +5 / -40 )

Game over Japan. SK already has a permanent station on the island with people actually living there. If Japan thinks it owns it then ask Abe to fly over there and let's see what will happen.

It's funny how right wing nationals want to take this issue to ICOJ but refuses to take Diaoyu island to the same courts as suggested by the Chinese.

-21 ( +11 / -32 )

I did look into this dispute a while back. I think there are points on both sides, but the Japanese argument is fairly strong. I think SK ought to be willing to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice to settle it.

I'm sure the reason they don't is if the judgement goes toward Japan, they will have clearly more Japanese territory, and especially control of the water around it, closer to their shores, and they will look like idiots for having behaved the way they have for so long. If the judgement went to South Korea, Japan would accept it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute

9 ( +13 / -4 )

getting boring SK, go prove it.

They have - they possess it and their ex-PM has visited it. If the Japanese government think they own it, let them set foot on it. I'd love to see those Japanese nationalists try approaching the islands.

-22 ( +8 / -30 )

More propaganda on the part of the South Korean government to foist upon the world its spurious claim to ownership of a Japanese possession.

10 ( +17 / -7 )

eniumfields Aug. 06, 2014 - 07:35AM JST Settle it to the International Court of Justice and it's over. Japan loses or win, everyone's happy.

From a South Korea perspective, Dokdo is actually not a disputed island, since South Korea are not the ones arguing over its sovereignty. This is similar to Japan’s position with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. Nothing will change.

-11 ( +11 / -22 )

Yeah more reassertions of claims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Picture caption: It should be Sea of Japan(East Sea) or just Sea of Japan.

Settle it to the International Court of Justice and it's over. Japan loses or win, everyone's happy.

25 ( +26 / -1 )

getting boring SK, go prove it.

24 ( +31 / -7 )

Well if Japan's claim is "ludicrous" then why doesn't South Korea accept Japan's proposal and show the world just how "ludicrous" Japan's claims are at the International Court of Justice? Three times Japan has asked and three times South Korea has refused. Until South Korea shows some integrity and goes to the ICJ to shut Japan up for good, I will continue to discount all the chest beating nonsense from South Korea as their fear of being unable to prove their argument in court.

26 ( +36 / -10 )

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