Japan and Korea's compeating claims to Dokdo/Takeshima Part One: Japan's claim

Once again, the Marmot has the Dokdo post of the day, so check it out for the latest information.

In an earlier post, a commenter asked me to give some proof of ownership of Dokdo, so I will lay out the competing claims (laced with generous heapings of my own opinion, of course).  I will use official documents as much as possible and then play 'Judge Yangban.' 

I will start with Japan's claim.  If I think it can be refuted out of hand, then I'll call it case closed, turn off my computer and call it a day.  If not, I will do another post on Korea's claim.

(NOTE: If anyone doesn't know this already, I have lived in Korea for several years.  My wife is Korean.  I do not claim to be strictly neutral on this.  However, it is possible that I might change my mind by the end of this post.  Being an American, I don't have a dog in this fight.  So I can keep appeals to emotion to a minimum.)

OK, you've been warned, so let's get to it.

(Note: To make it easier on myself, I'm going to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima as Takeshima for the rest of this piece.  I will refer to it as Dokdo if I have to I do another piece on the Korean claim.)

First up, let's check out the Japanese claim.  It is succinctly laid out in this release from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (release is in Green):

The Issue of Takeshima

March 2004

1. Japan's Consistent Position

(1) Based on historical facts and international law, it is apparent that Takeshima is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory.

(2) The occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken with absolutely no basis whatsoever in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Takeshima by the Republic of Korea based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification.

(Note: The Republic of Korea has yet to demonstrate a clear basis for its claims that, prior to Japan's effective rule over Takeshima and establishment of sovereignty, the Republic of Korea had previously demonstrated effective rule over Takeshima.)

2. Japan's Assertions Concerning Sovereignty of Takeshima

(1) Historical facts of Takeshima's sovereignty
In light of the following historical facts, it is apparent that at the latest by the middle of the 17th century, Japan had established sovereignty of Takeshima based on effective rule. After 1905 too, Japan's claim to sovereignty of Takeshima was reaffirmed as a modern nation state, based on a Cabinet decision, and in this way Takeshima has effectively been ruled by Japan.

(a) Japan has long known about the existence of Takeshima (then known as "Matsushima"). This is clear from many references to it in writing and on maps.

(Note: On the Kaisei Nippon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads) (1779) by Sekisui Nagakubo, the most representative of all published cartographic projections of Japan, the location of Takeshima is accurately recorded in its current position. Many other documents through to the Meiji era make the same reference.)

(b) At the beginning of the Edo period (1618) the Ohya and Murakawa families of Houki-Han were granted permission from the Tokugawa Shogunate to take feudal tenure of Utsuryo Island, and ever year the families conducted fishing on and around the island, sending some of their catch of abalone in tribute to the Shogunate. Takeshima was en route to Utsuryo Island and was used as a stopover port and for fishing. In addition, at the latest by 1661 the Ohya and Murakawa families had been granted feudal tenure of Takeshima from the Shogunate.

(c) In 1696, as a result of negotiations between Japan and Korea concerning fishing in the vicinity of Utsuryo Island the Shogunate prohibited passage of vessels to Utsuryo (Takeshima Ikken), but did not prohibit passage to Takeshima.

(d) In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its intention to possess Takeshima by a Cabinet decision in January, followed by a notification by Shimane Prefecture in February, officially incorporating Takeshima as part of Shimane Prefecture. Subsequently Takeshima appeared on the State Land Register, and a system of approval for sea lion hunting on Takeshima was introduced, which continued until its termination in 1941 due to the Second World War.

(2) Validity of the incorporation of Takeshima by the Japanese government in 1905
The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.

(Note: It is not an obligation under international law to notify foreign governments of measures to incorporate territory.)

(3) Treatment of Takeshima in various documents during the Japanese occupation and post-war measures
In all of the documents regarding the series of measures taken prior to the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (Directive SCAPIN-677 issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on January 29, 1946, provides for an interim cessation by Japan of the exercise or attempt to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Takeshima, and Directive SCAPIN-1033 of June 22, 1946, places Takeshima outside the area delineated by the MacArthur Line, which established areas in which Japanese fishing, whaling and similar operations were authorized), it is made clear that the documents do not represent final decisions concerning the attribution of Japanese sovereign territory, and it is also clear that Takeshima is not excluded from Japanese territory. The statement issued following the Cairo Conference in 1943 stipulating that, "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed," in particular the reference to "territories which she has taken by violence and greed" in no way applies to Takeshima, which is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory.

(Note 1: In the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, it is clearly stated in published United States records that Japan did not include Takeshima in the definition of "Korea", the independence of which was approved and all rights, titles and rights of claim renounced.)

(Note 2: In September 1954 Japan proposed to the Republic of Korea that the issue should be submitted to the International Court of Justice, but this proposal was rejected by the Republic of Korea. At the time of normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, an exchange of documents concerning dispute settlement was concluded.)

OK let's take this bit by bit.

Section 1 (Japan's Consistent Position) Is a pretty standard preamble which simple states that Takeshima is Japanese and that the current Korean possession of Takeshima is illegal.  The most interesting thing here is the note:

(Note: The Republic of Korea has yet to demonstrate a clear basis for its claims that, prior to Japan's effective rule over Takeshima and establishment of sovereignty, the Republic of Korea had previously demonstrated effective rule over Takeshima.)

This is an important claim since it would mean that anything claim that Korea had to Takeshima would be invalid since Korea did not have effective control to enforce that claim.  I've looked around for a good definition of effective control but I couldn't find one (any help on this would be appreciated).  As best I can make out, effective control means being able to exercise a country's sovereign rights over a territory. 

By that definition, Korea has had effective control control over Takeshima with its coast guard station since 1954 while Japan had effective control from 1905 to 1945 (more on that below). 

One article in the Joongang Ilbo unintentionally backs up Japan's claim that Korea did not have effective control prior to its Japanese incorporation (also here in case the Joongang wises up and deletes it):

On April 30, 1882, an investigation team of 102 officers led by Inspector Lee Gyu-won arrived at Ulleungdo island. After a nine-day probe, seven days on foot and two days by boat, the mission recorded on the report, "78 Japanese loggers have infiltrated the island, and a wooden sign reading ‘Takeshima of the Great Japan' has been put up at the harbor."

In 1696, the 22nd year under King Sukjong's reign, 16 fishermen, including An Yong-bok of Dongrae, went to Ulleungdo island. When Mr. An saw Japanese fishermen and fishing boats, he rebuked them as to why they were on Korean soil. The Japanese responded that they were residents of Takeshima and came to Ulleungdo island for fishing. They claimed that Tokto was a part of Japanese territory.

While the writer intended the piece to show how the Japanese coveted Takeshima, it shows that on two different dates (in 1696 and 1882) Korea did not have effective control over the islands.

Section 2 (Japan's Assertions Concerning Sovereignty of Takeshima) lays out Japan's claim to Takeshima in three parts: the historical facts of Japan's claim, the legality of Japan's 1905 incorporation of Takeshima and the legal treatment of Takeshima during and after the American occupation of Japan. 

The historical claim:

(1) Historical facts of Takeshima's sovereignty
In light of the following historical facts, it is apparent that at the latest by the middle of the 17th century, Japan had established sovereignty of Takeshima based on effective rule. After 1905 too, Japan's claim to sovereignty of Takeshima was reaffirmed as a modern nation state, based on a Cabinet decision, and in this way Takeshima has effectively been ruled by Japan.

(a) Japan has long known about the existence of Takeshima (then known as "Matsushima"). This is clear from many references to it in writing and on maps.

(Note: On the Kaisei Nippon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads) (1779) by Sekisui Nagakubo, the most representative of all published cartographic projections of Japan, the location of Takeshima is accurately recorded in its current position. Many other documents through to the Meiji era make the same reference.)

(b) At the beginning of the Edo period (1618) the Ohya and Murakawa families of Houki-Han were granted permission from the Tokugawa Shogunate to take feudal tenure of Utsuryo Island, and ever year the families conducted fishing on and around the island, sending some of their catch of abalone in tribute to the Shogunate. Takeshima was en route to Utsuryo Island and was used as a stopover port and for fishing. In addition, at the latest by 1661 the Ohya and Murakawa families had been granted feudal tenure of Takeshima from the Shogunate.

(c) In 1696, as a result of negotiations between Japan and Korea concerning fishing in the vicinity of Utsuryo Island the Shogunate prohibited passage of vessels to Utsuryo (Takeshima Ikken), but did not prohibit passage to Takeshima.

Utsuryo is the Japanese name of Ulleungdo, which is now firmly Korean.  It would seem that Japan's original claim to Takeshima was tied to its claim to Utsuryo, which it abandoned in 1696.  Also, the 1696 order, while clearly demonstrating Japans waiving of its claim to Utsuryo, does not mean that Korea had similarly waived its claim to Takeshima.  This only means that ownership of Takeshima was (perhaps) still in dispute.

(d) In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its intention to possess Takeshima by a Cabinet decision in January, followed by a notification by Shimane Prefecture in February, officially incorporating Takeshima as part of Shimane Prefecture. Subsequently Takeshima appeared on the State Land Register, and a system of approval for sea lion hunting on Takeshima was introduced, which continued until its termination in 1941 due to the Second World War.

I'll talk about this in the next section.

The legality of the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima

(2) Validity of the incorporation of Takeshima by the Japanese government in 1905
The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.

(Note: It is not an obligation under international law to notify foreign governments of measures to incorporate territory.)

This does nothing to prove that Takeshima was actually Japanese since it only confirms Japan's claim to the islands.  As seen in the Joongang Ilbo article linked about Korea did not waive its claim to the island:

The (Takeshima) petition was approved (in Japan) on Jan. 28, 1905. Furthermore, Japan built a naval watchtower on Tokto on Aug. 19, 1905. Sim Heung-taek, the governor of Ulleungdo island, learned of Japan's occupation of Tokto on March 28, 1906, when an official of Shimane Prefecture slipped it. While the Royal Court of Korea was furious, the protest of the waning Great Han Empire was futile.

However, the fact that Korea did not know about the Japanese watch tower for seven months after it was built shows that Korea did not have effective control of Takeshima during that time.

Still, the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima in to Shimane Prefecture did not settle the issue.  It simply created a reversal of the roles of the antagonists we see today (with Korea in effective control but Japan still claiming possession).

I do have to talk about one part of that section: "There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima."  The second part of that sentence is just simply wrong and about as close to a bald faced lie as you will see in a diplomatic document (which is saying a lot).

In fact Korea incorporated Takeshima as part of Korea in 1900, five years before the Japanese incorporation, as part of Korean Imperial Ordinance No. 41, which reads (in part):

Imperial Ordinance No. 41

On the redesignation of Ullng county, as Ullng and the Change of the Title of Island Superintendent to County Magistrate

Article One

Ullngdo shall be redesigrated Ullng county, placed under Kangwn province; the title of Island Superintendent shall be changed to County Magistrate; it shall be incorporated into the administrative system and the county shall be of grade five.

Article 2

The county office shall be located at Taehadong; the county shall have under its jurisdiction the whole island of Ullngdo, Chukto and Sokto. (Note:  Chukto and Sokto are the Korean names for the two main islands of Takeshima)

Either the Japanese are not aware of this ordinance or they are just choosing to ignore it.

That final note ((Note: It is not an obligation under international law to notify foreign governments of measures to incorporate territory.) is there because the Japanese government failed to notify any other nation to their claim in 1905. 

Legal treatment of Takeshima after 1945

(3) Treatment of Takeshima in various documents during the Japanese occupation and post-war measures
In all of the documents regarding the series of measures taken prior to the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (Directive SCAPIN-677 issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on January 29, 1946, provides for an interim cessation by Japan of the exercise or attempt to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Takeshima, and Directive SCAPIN-1033 of June 22, 1946, places Takeshima outside the area delineated by the MacArthur Line, which established areas in which Japanese fishing, whaling and similar operations were authorized), it is made clear that the documents do not represent final decisions concerning the attribution of Japanese sovereign territory, and it is also clear that Takeshima is not excluded from Japanese territory. The statement issued following the Cairo Conference in 1943 stipulating that, "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed," in particular the reference to "territories which she has taken by violence and greed" in no way applies to Takeshima, which is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory.

(Note 1: In the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, it is clearly stated in published United States records that Japan did not include Takeshima in the definition of "Korea", the independence of which was approved and all rights, titles and rights of claim renounced.)

(Note 2: In September 1954 Japan proposed to the Republic of Korea that the issue should be submitted to the International Court of Justice, but this proposal was rejected by the Republic of Korea. At the time of normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, an exchange of documents concerning dispute settlement was concluded.)

This whole section can be boiled down to this: that the USA and the other allied powers which took Japan's surrender did not say that Takeshima was not part of Japan and did not say that Takeshima was part of Korea.  The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs leaves it at that, hoping that readers will infer the rest: that the allies said that Takeshima was part of Japan and that is was not part of Korea.

If you have to read those last two sentences again in order to understand what they are saying, that is the point.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is intentionally muddying the waters here to try to make readers think that because the allies did not say that Takeshima is Korean, they must have meant that Takeshima is Japanese.  That is simply not the case.

The Korean press is also guilty of reading too much into the post-surrender documents.  Check out a caption in this piece from the Chosun Ilbo:

Caption from the Chosun Ilbo:  "A British government map produced in March 1951 for Allied Command. Japanese territory is inside the solid line. While the Dokdo and Ulleung islands are marked with their Japanese names of Takeshima and Utsuryoshima, they lie outside the line and are thus Korean territory." (emphasis mine)

Yangban Note: Somebody is being a little uptight with his logic here.  The fact that they are listed as outside of Japanese control does not automatically mean that they are recognized as Korean.  The San Francisco Peace Treaty does not mention the status of Takeshima.

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs is correct in asserting that documents related to the allied administration of Japan were not meant to be the final word on Takeshima.

My final word on this part is this; the allied documents do not assert Korean sovereignty over Takeshima, neither do they assert Japanese sovereignty.  The one thing that they clearly do is invalidate Japanese effective control over Takeshima prior to 1945.  Therefore Japanese claims to Takeshima based on the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima to Shimane Prefecture carry no more weight than Korea's 1900 claim based on its Imperial Ordinance No. 41.

The first note  (Note 1: In the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, it is clearly stated in published United States records that Japan did not include Takeshima in the definition of "Korea", the independence of which was approved and all rights, titles and rights of claim renounced.) is correct but, once again, it does not define Takeshima as part of Japan either. 

The second note (Note 2: In September 1954 Japan proposed to the Republic of Korea that the issue should be submitted to the International Court of Justice, but this proposal was rejected by the Republic of Korea. At the time of normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, an exchange of documents concerning dispute settlement was concluded.) does little to bolster Japan's claim to Takeshima.  Unwillingness to go to the World Court can not be taken as proof that one country's claims are invalid.  That is especially true in a case like this since Korea, having effective control over Takeshima, has nothing to gain from taking it to the court. 

It should also be noted that Japan is in no hurry to take the dispute over the Senkaku Islands (were Japan has effective control) to the world court.

Conclusion

The release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (March, 2004) states that Japan's claim to Takeshima rests on three principles: (1)that Takeshima is historically Japanese, (2)that the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima by Japan is legally valid and (3)that, while the occupation authorities placed Takeshima outside of Japanese administrative control, it did not invalidate Japan's rightful claim to the islands.

Of these three points, I believe that the first is the strongest (which is strange considering how much emphasis Japan puts on the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima).  Japan has a claim to Takeshima going back as far as 1618.  While it gave up claims to nearby Utsuryo island in 1696, it never gave up its claim to Takeshima.  In the 17th and 19th centuries, it was Japanese (not Korean) subjects who were making us of the islands.

As for points 2 and 3, I will repeat what I typed before: 'the allied documents do not assert Korean sovereignty over Takeshima, neither do they assert Japanese sovereignty.  The one thing that they clearly do is invalidate Japanese effective control over Takeshima prior to 1945.  Therefore Japanese claims to Takeshima based on the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima to Shimane Prefecture carry no more weight than Korea's 1900 claim based on its Imperial Ordinance No. 41.'  Therefore, its a wash.

So, considering that the nearest landfall to Takeshima is Korea's Utsuryo (Ulleungdo in Korean), Japan's claim to Takeshima can only be considered valid if it has a stronger historical claim than Korea does.  Based upon the evidence that I have seen, Japan's historical claim can not be dismissed.  Therefor, I will have to do some research on Korea's claim before coming to my own conclusion.

(I will get the Korean post done tomorrow if Lady Yangban gives me the free time to do so.  If not, I'll have it posted early next week.)

Comments

[passerby]

>The county office shall be located at Taehadong; the county shall have under its jurisdiction the whole island of Ullngdo, Chukto and Sokto.

>Either the Japanese are not aware of this ordinance or they are just choosing to ignore it.

No, we aren't.
See the map of Ullungdo on this page.
http://www.geocities.jp/nobuo_shoudoshima/takeshima-2.html
You will see that three islands comprise Ullungdo, the main island and the much smaller Kwanundo and Chukdo to the east. Japan has always contended that the three islands in Ordinance 41 points to these three islands, not to present-day Takeshima. Note that both Chukto and Takeshima are written as "bamboo island" in Chinese characters. It seems a far more natural interpretation than the Korean claim that the latter two are present-day Takeshima, two pieces of rocks located 80 km away. I think it is the Koreans who are choosing to ignore the fact that another island named "Takeshima (bamboo island)" exists in the extreme vicinity of Ullungdo.

I also think that proximity cannot be made the basis of territorial claims. Historically speaking, Japan (Tokugawa government) regarded Ullungdo as its territory, which resulted in a bitter dispute similar to that of today over Takeshima. Interestingly, before the Meiji era, it had been Ullungdo that had been called Takeshima by the Japanese. Shogun Tsunayoshi agreed to officially acknowledge Ullungdo as Chosun territory as a show of friendship. This act by the shogun infuriated his subject Konyo Aoki who contended that the rightful ownership of Ullungdo (Takeshima) by Japan is clearly written even in ancient Chinese history records. But what was done was done. Today, not even the craziest right-winger can validate a claim that Ullungdo is historically Japanese territory.

That the Tokugawa government regarded present-day Takeshima (then known as Matsushima) as Japanese territory is clear in a record of an execution of a fisherman, Yaemon Aizu, in 1836. His offense was that he reported to officials that he would be going to Matsushima (present-day Takeshima), but actually went to Ullungdo (Tokugawa-period Takeshima, by then Chosun territory), which was a serious breach of the isolation policy. In short, he was punished for going to a foreign country. It is clear from this ruling that fishing on Matsushima (present-day Takeshima) was considered OK since it was Japanese territory.

[passerby]

Just a little more on how the Lioncourt rocks came to be known as Takeshima
The Japanese government in 1905 chose to change the name of Matsushima to Takeshima because of the confusion of island names between Japan and the West.
In 1787, a Frenchman, Galaup de la Perouse, discovers Ullungdo and names it Dagelet Island. (Note that “discover” is used to mean that it was discovered by the westerners.)
In 1789, a British, James Colnett, discovers Ullungdo, and due to inaccurate coordinate measurement, thinks it a different island and names it Argonaut Island.
Thus, for some time, there were actually two Ullungdo islands drawn on Western maps for some time.

A German, Dr. Siebolt reads in Japanese literature that there are two islands between the Oki Island and the Korean peninsula, the one closer to Japan named Matsushima, and the one closer to the Korean peninsula named Takeshima. Thus, according to the Western map, he concludes that the closer Dagelet Island must be Matsushima, and the further Argonaut Island as Takeshima. However, in 1854, the Russian navy remeasures the coordinates and finds that Argonaut Island and Dagelet Island are the same island, the latter having been accurately mapped in the first place. Thus the Argonaut Island eventually disappears from Western maps.

An extremely complicated situation arose with the discovery of the Lioncourt rocks by a French whaling vessel in 1849 and the discovery of the Hornet rocks by the British in 1855, prior to the disappearance of the Argonaut Island from the maps. Although the Lioncourt rocks and the Hornet rocks were both the same island, in some Western maps, the Argonaut, Dagelet, Lioncourt, and Hornet were depicted as four separate entities on a single map. By 1870, most maps had dropped Argonaut Island (and the name Takeshima), and by 1900, only Dagelet Island (Matsushima) and Lioncourt (= Hornet) rocks remained. Due to the erroneous naming of Dagelet Island (Ullungdo) as Matsushima, the name Takeshima (the Japanese name for Ullungdo) was lost.
In 1905, when the Japanese government decided to make a modern claim to the Lioncourt rocks, it revived the name by giving the island the name of Takeshima.

[Andy (AKA: The Yangban)]

passerby,

Interesting stuff. Do you have any links to that in the 'world language?'

[passerby]

No, sorry. These are all information from several Japanese sites.
You know how the uneducated right-wing Japanese stink at English (^o^).

And sorry, I've discovered a misspelling in my former posts.
Lioncourt Rocks should be Liancourt Rocks.

[Taka]

Good job on the information. I myself do not know who to side really. But I think even if it was Japanese or Korean exactly, both countries have to stop acting like little kids and actually try to resolve the issue. Both sides should have compromises (such as giving Liancourt Rocks to South Korea if they abandon trying to change the name of the Sea of Japan to East Sea) so at least both can deal with more important issues such as the strain between Taiwan and China and the nuclear threat of North Korea. I'm pretty sure that South Korea and Japan can live without a few traulers of fish each year. This dispute is probably costing more than they'd actually gain from the fishing.

[Little Kim]

(Yangban Edit: This was deleted for ethnic trolling. I'm usually pretty tolerant of 'provocative' statements, but this one went over the line.)

[urecco]

please let me explain about the map pruduced by the British gov't.
It was produced on March 1951 and the treaty was concluded on September.There were 9 proposision about the territory of Korea.First five propositions mentioned Lioncourt rocks as Korean territory.From sixth proposition it was ommitted.
This Map is British proposition and it was refused.

http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/10FRUS.html

[urecco]

one more.you mentioned "Chukto and Sokto are the Korean names for the two main islands of Takeshima"
but...AFAIK,Chukto refers small rock islet located nearby Ullungdo(West of Ullungdo).
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_5.html
there is no evidence what Sokto refers.
Korean say Sokto refer to Dokdo because it sounds similar.However until 1904 no one call Takeshima Dokdo.
If they had recognized sokto as Takeshima(Dokdo),they would have claimed about it when Japan proclaimed it belonged to Japan.
Some Korean say Dokdo was called Usando.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200401/200401150014.html
However,Usando was sometimes used as another name of Ullungdo and sometimes refered Shukto.
The map you can see from the link shows Usando as Ullungdo.Because he place where Usando exsits on the map is exactly where Ullungdo exists.
You can see from the German map produced in 1970 the location of Ullungdo and Takeshima.
http://wsv.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/tenji/maps/img0073.jpg
the small island near 150 degree line is the one.

What Korean people claim has no consistency.
What was Dokdo called? Usando? Chukto? Sokto?
Do they have any their own map which shows Dokdo before 1905?

In addition the two maps above never say "East Sea" nor "Sea of Korea".

[melonbarmonster]

You can stand on Ullungdo and stare at Dokdo. Regardless of what the islands were called, Koreans have been living on Ulungdo and have known about Dodkdo's existence throughout history.

Mind you that 1951, Japan claimed Dokdo as well as Ullungdo, as indicated by the German map urecco has posted up for us.

For me, the harbinger of Japanese claims on the island seems to go back to 1905 when Takeshima was "claimed" by Japan and administered by Shimane. Mind you that Japan had already invaded Korea in precursor to invasion of China. I think the argument is that because of KOrea's failure to respond to the 1905 claim, Dokdo is legally Japanese.

But then again, SF treaty although it doesn't specifically mention Dokdo does make it clear that territories gained by Japan during its imperial conquests are to be given back in which case, 1905 claim on Takeshima would be invalid.

[urecco]

Japan proclaimed her sovereignty over Takeshima in 1905.It was not invasion.Japan had treated Takeshima as own territory nearly 300 years.
There is no reason to make it invalid and no treaty mentioned about it.
If the treaty does not mentioned anything,there is no change.

[passerby]

Dear melonbarmonster,

Korea insisted at the end of WWII that not only Ullungdo and Cheju but also Tsushima and Takeshima (Dokto) were theirs. But their claim to Tsushima was negated shortly thereafter. On August 10, 1951, Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, replies in writing that "Based on the information we have, the U.S. concludes that at no time in history has the Liancourt Rocks ever been a territory of Korea." Upon receiving this letter and realizing that the US will not give Takeshima to Korea, President Lee Seung-Man announces the Lee Line on Jan. 18, 1952 (before the SF Treaty came into effect) and takes Takeshima by force. Since then, over 20 Japanese fishermen have been killed, more than 20 injured, and nearly 4,000 captured by the Korean navy. The captured fishermen were not returned to Japan until 1965, when the Japan-Korea Treaty was concluded. Lee knew very well that Takeshima was not included among the islands forfeited by Japan in the SF Treaty and that the allies did not regard it as an island taken by Japan during its imperial conquest.Under normal circumstances, such an action would have meant war, but since Japan was tied down by the pacifist constitution given to it the the U.S., we could only file official complaints against the Korean govenrment.

No wonder the Japanese media and the public used to regard South Korea to be a militant country and North Korea to be the peace-loving one. Curiously, it was the Sankei Shinbun, the parent company of Fusosha (publisher of the history textbook Koreans love to hate), that continued to take the opposite stand in defense of South Korea.

I think the Korean claim that Usando=Dokto is absurd because it is clearly stated in their historical record of Silla that "Usando is an island 40 km wide and 40km long." Definitely not Takeshima. Another record says, "Usanguk, also known as Ullungdo." In the Records of Taejong (1417, 17th year of King Taejong), it says that, "86 people live on Usando, and there are 15 houses and some fields." Now, as you know, Takeshima has no source of fresh water, and could not possibly have supported the permanent residence of such a large group of people. The Korean claims are pretty lame, I think. Why doesn't the Korean government just come out and say, "It's ours because we took it by force and control it now."

[oranckay]

As for "effective control," I think that needs to be considered in the context of law and common practice (as understood in NEAsia) at the time, not now. The "effective control" argument cannot explain international behavior in 1905. I don't want to argue it here but I think Japan knew quite well what it was doing at the time, and it recognized Dokdo as Korean many times prior to 1905 even though there were not Koreans living there or a Korean lighthouse or whatnot, meaning it didn't think "effective control" was meant anything either way. Territory was recognized as belonging to one country or the other without "effective control" being an issue.

The official Japanese gov't sites talks about the points where it claimed Ulleungdo and/or Dokdo along the way, but it makes no mention of the times when Japan recognized either/or as Korean. I just lost six months of bookmarks so I'll have to get you something on that later.

[Dingles]

I agree, passerby korea should just point out that they stole takeshima and tell japan to shove it. Everyone who knows and understands korea knows that they dont know how to behave on the internatinal level, so nobody would be suprised.

[sadika]

im 12 and i and in our class we had a forin exchange student from korea and she's been writting to us abou they might go to war and were studying it so im not going to take sides yet

[wedgie]

Maps made by Japan of Chosun (Korea) clearly show Dokdo and Ulleungdo as Korean soil. This is prior to the 1905 claim by Japan. This renders Japan's terra nullius (no-man's land) claim as nonsense. Look at the map.
Dokdo and Ullengdo are inside the maps border. The map was made in 1886.
http://www.truthofdokdo.or.kr/kor/html/dataroom_text_map06.html

[wedgie]

Here are some maps with English showing Japanese maps that support Korea's claims.
http://www.tokdo.co.kr/english/tokdo_33.htm

[wedgie]

You can see in this military map also previously listed that despite Korea being occupied by Japan, Ulleungdo and Dokdo were still considered part of mainland Korea and the 1905 Incorporation of Dokdo had not been enacted.
http://kr.blog.yahoo.com/realtimejr/1461189.html

[Korean]

I'm Korean so I'm very interested in Dokdo stuff.
It's obviously our island. We have Doko almost 100 years. Japanese government keeps insiting that Dokdo belongs to Japan but.. as you know, that weird government lies A LOT.
They lie on their textbook about World war. If any of you say that Dokdo is not Korean's in Korea, all of people will tear you because we already got enough mad from Japan. Don't say.
I don't know why that crazy people are lying, I don't know how they support their opinion because that must be lie.I don't want to know.

I can tell some facts(not fakes) about Dokdo.
A long time ago, a General named Lee Sa Bu(I'm nor sure about how to write his name in English)
got that island. It's written in Korean history book. SeaJongSilLok-JiLiJi,the Korean history book,in 50th page 3rd line, it says Dokdo belongs to Korea.
And Japanes insist their opinion with nothing(of cours thay have reasons but that's never true)

If any of you want to be against my opinion, sand me an E-mail. I can't say a lot of information in English.

Don't trust Japanes governament.

[wedgie]

You don't have to be a genius to figure this out via the internet. If you access Japanese 19th century maps you can see the Chinese characters Japan put on both Ulluengdo and Dokdo. From there you can see the Japanese 1870 agreement giving control of these isles to Korea. The Han-ja characters of Dokdo on the Japanese maps correspond with the Han-ja characters on the 1870 document posted on Korean Dokdo websites.

[Eoghan]

I am shocked.
I studies World History in Europe and America, and I learned that Takeshima belongs to Korea.

But what Japaneses are doing?
They are claiming that Takeshima is their land like thieves.
I know that Tokto is the real name.
Anyways, I started to distrust Japaneses since they are showing immaturity and ugliness in diplomacy.

[Kaiser]

I also studies World History and I know that Takeshima doesn't exists in World History.
If you see the real map back in 800 A.D, it is stated that Dokdo is in East Sea of Korea.
I know that Japan is falsifying the truth and concealing theie ugly past, but this ugly diplomacy starts to disgust with my loving of Japanese products..
Whatever, I now understand why Koreans and Chineses don't even treat Japaneses as human being

[Round table]

No matter how hardly Japaneses claim, we all know that it is a Korean Territory.
Japaneses! Stop your childish behavior!
At least act mature not kindergarteners!

[English]

I am from England and I obviously believe that it is belonged to Korean Territory.
With regarding to WWII, you will recognize how distrustful Japanese are..
I would rather flush Japaneses if I were a Korean.

[Andy (AKA: The Yangban)]

Eoghan, Kaiser, Round Table, English,

It is pretty clear that the same guy wrote all four of those comments. I generally don't like double posting but I'll let this stay since it is funny.

[Takeshima]

Andy, you have just met a VANK netizen. Anyway, Coreans like that actually believe that flooding websites with nonsence will prove their point.

Anyway, keep up the good work giving both sides and letting people decide on their own.