The dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima between South Korea and Japan is a complex and long-standing territorial conflict that has strained relations between the two countries for decades. To understand this dispute, it’s essential to examine the historical context, legal arguments, and current situation surrounding these small islands in the East Sea/Sea of Japan.
Historical Background
The roots of the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute can be traced back to the early 20th century:
- In 1905, Japan incorporated the islands into Shimane Prefecture, claiming them as terra nullius (no man’s land).
- This action occurred shortly before Japan’s colonization of Korea in 1910, which lasted until 1945.
- After World War II, during the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, South Korea requested that the United States include Dokdo/Takeshima among the territories Japan should renounce.
- The U.S. rejected this request, stating that the islands were “never treated as part of Korea” and were Japanese territory.
- In 1952, South Korea unilaterally established the “Syngman Rhee Line,” incorporating Dokdo/Takeshima within its territorial waters.
- Since 1954, South Korea has exercised de facto control over the islands.
South Korea’s Claims
South Korea asserts its sovereignty over Dokdo based on several arguments:
- Historical ownership: Korea claims it recognized Dokdo as its territory as early as 1696.
- Effective control: Since the 1950s, South Korea has taken various actions to demonstrate sovereignty, including:
- Constructing a territorial monument (1953)
- Building a lighthouse (1954)
- Allowing citizens to settle on the island (1980)
- Constructing various facilities (1981-1996)
- Symbolic importance: For many Koreans, Dokdo represents independence from Japanese colonial rule.
Japan’s Claims
Japan maintains that Takeshima is its sovereign territory based on the following arguments:
- Historical recognition: Japan claims it has recognized the existence of Takeshima since the 17th century.
- Formal incorporation: The Japanese government officially incorporated Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.
- San Francisco Peace Treaty: The treaty, which established the post-World War II order, did not include Takeshima among the territories Japan had to renounce.
- International law: Japan argues that South Korea’s occupation of the islands is illegal under international law.
Current Situation
As of 2025, the dispute remains unresolved:
- South Korea continues to exercise de facto control over the islands.
- Japan has proposed referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) three times, but South Korea has rejected these proposals.
- The conflict has led to various diplomatic incidents, including recalls of ambassadors and public protests.
- Both countries use the dispute in domestic politics and education, further entrenching their respective positions.
Who’s Right?
Determining which side is “right” in this dispute is challenging due to the complex historical and legal arguments presented by both countries. However, several factors are worth considering:
- Effective control: South Korea has exercised de facto control over the islands since the 1950s, which could strengthen its claim under international law.
- Historical evidence: Both countries present historical documents and maps to support their claims, making it difficult to establish clear ownership prior to the 20th century.
- International recognition: The San Francisco Peace Treaty’s exclusion of Dokdo/Takeshima from territories Japan had to renounce could be seen as favoring Japan’s claim.
- Legal process: Japan’s willingness to submit the dispute to the ICJ could be viewed positively in terms of seeking a peaceful resolution.
What Do We Do Now?
The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute remains a contentious issue between South Korea and Japan, with both sides presenting compelling arguments for their claims. While South Korea currently maintains control over the islands, Japan continues to assert its sovereignty. Resolving this dispute would require either bilateral negotiations or submission to an international legal body for arbitration. As it stands, the question of which side is “right” remains open to interpretation and debate, with historical, legal, and political factors all playing significant roles in the ongoing conflict.
Comments