Newsletter

Question

Recently, Tokyo is openly making strategic moves to refer the Dokdo issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Let us examine the history of Japan's strategic moves to turn Dokdo into a disputed area.

Answer

Dokdo is emblematic of the period in history in which Japan invaded and ruled Korea as a colony and of Korea's surmounting of the challenges by gaining independence. The Allies stated in the Cairo Declaration (1943) that "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed," and in the ensuing Potsdam Declaration (1945) that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (the Allies) determine." Their position remained unchanged in the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in San Francisco (San Francisco Peace Treaty). Once Korea was liberated from Japan, Dokdo was placed under the control of the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK), until the establishment of the Republic of Korea government on August 15, 1948. Since then, Dokdo has been under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea.

Japan's Strategic Moves to Turn Dokdo into an Internationally Disputed Area Fail in Both Between the Two Countries and the International Community

From October 20 of the same year when its government was established, the ROK launched into negotiations with Japan in order to sort out a series of issues, including the retrieval of Korean cultural properties from Japan, fisheries, the legal status of Koreans in Japan, and claims against Japan under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. At the same time, the ROK government, even in the midst of the Korean War, issued the 'Declaration of Sovereignty Over Neighboring Waters,' declaring internationally that Dokdo was under Korean jurisdiction. But as the so-called 'MacArthur Line' was to disappear when the San Francisco Peace Treaty would come into force in 1952, the Syngman Rhee administration declared the Peace Line with the purpose of protecting fish resources in the waters around Dokdo and exercising sovereignty over the territorial waters and the continental shelf. Despite Japan's continued protests afterwards, the Peace Line had been maintained until the conclusion of the 1965 ROK-Japan Basic Relations Treaty. In negotiations for the normalization of bilateral diplomatic ties, Japan attempted to include the Dokdo issue in the agenda in order to turn Dokdo into a disputed area, only to fail. And for the 46th session of the UN General Assembly in 1991, when both the ROK and the DPRK joined the U.N., Japan also failed to have the territorial issue included in the agenda. In other words, it was officially confirmed that the ROK and Japan had no territorial issues in both between the two countries and the international community.

Japan's Attempts to Turn Dokdo into a Disputed Area Are Bad Moves

Care must be taken not to fall for Japan's strategic moves to turn Dokdo into a disputed area. Japan's position, prompted by ROK President Lee Myung-bak's recent visit to Dokdo, is that they will independently refer the Dokdo issue to the ICJ. Japan is going all out for publicity by holding press conferences for international journalists and advertising their intention of addressing this issue in the international community including the UN General Assembly. Even though they are well aware that it is impossible to refer the issue to the ICJ without agreement between the two countries, Japan continues to make such moves in an effort to promote Dokdo to the world as an internationally disputed area. However, in light of Japan's recent conflict with China over the Senkaku Islands, it is clear that Japan's such strategic moves have been bad moves. The current international order requires any and all disputes to be resolved amicably. On the other hand, international law in general does not require that every single dispute be brought to international trial. Japan is contradicting itself by asserting that the Senkaku Islands are not disputed while insisting on referring the Dokdo issue to the ICJ, and this contradiction only shows a lack of veracity in its proposal for international trial for the Dokdo issue.