Newsletter

On August 14, 2014, the Northeast Asian History Foundation and the Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy (KIMS) co-hosted the academic conference on 'Protection of Sovereignty over Dokdo and Maritime Security.' The purpose of this event was to examine and discuss our protection of sovereignty over Dokdo and readiness for marine security in response to Japan's provocations, such as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to the shrine, its attempt to verify the Kono Statement, its declaration of the right to collective self-defense, its laying claims to Doko, and its complaint to the Korean navy's exercise on the sea near Dokdo.

In the opening speech, NAHF President Kim Hakjoon said, "Since Dokdo is clearly inherent Korean territory in terms of history, geography, and international law, territorial dispute between Korea and Japan over this island is in itself nonexistent. And Japan's insistence on bringing the Dokdo issue to International Court of Justice (ICJ) for resolution is not even worth discussion."

In the welcoming speech, KIMS Director Song Keun-ho said that by including the description "Korea is in illegal occupation of Dokdo" in the textbooks and teaching guidelines for primary, middle, and high schools from 2011, Japan was giving its youths the negative impression about Korea that "Korea is a country in illegal occupation of another country's territory and the Koreans are criminals' and this was increasingly likely to make them feel even hostile toward Korea. He also stressed that it was our basic position and policy direction "to go beyond the last 100 years and look ahead into the next 100 years while looking history in the face and develop ROK-Japan relations into a partnership."

In the congratulatory message, Chairman of the National Assembly's National Defense Committee Hwang Jin-ha said that the Japanese government's publication of the defense white paper this year that once again marked Dokdo as Japanese territory and stated that "the Dokdo issue remains unresolved" was a threat to Korean territory and a very serious behavior asking for isolation in the international community and deceiving the Japanese people.

At this joint academic seminar, presided over by former Korean ambassador to Japan Shin Gak-soo (current director of Korea National Diplomatic Academy International Law Center), there were presentations and discussions on a total of four topics.

First of all, I gave a presentation titled "Dokdo Issues and Actions under International Law,' reviewing Dokdo-related issues between Korea and Japan and trying to identify the actions to take under international law. Specifically, I presented legal measures in connection with Japan's suggestion for judicial resolution, mentioning the possibility that not only ICJ but International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) might deal with various cases concerning the sea and presenting ways to prepare for it.

For example, regarding the pending arbitration between the Philippines and China over the South China Sea, I pointed out that its result would also affect Dokdo. Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. But there are limitations on application of the procedures for disputes with regard to the exercise by a coastal state of its sovereign rights or jurisdiction (Article 297), and a state may declare in writing that it does not accept the procedures with respect to disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation, military activities, or in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations (Article 298). The Republic of Korea submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a written declaration (18 April 2006) that it did not accept any of the procedures, in relation to Japan's channel investigation in the East Sea. However, some action could turn into the matter of interpretation and application of the UNCLOS in relation to the New Korea-Japan Fishery Agreement, and lead to arbitration regardless of our will. As such, when exercising sovereignty in the sea near Dokdo, it is necessary to make careful legal judgment beforehand about the dispute resolution procedures under the UNCLOS.

Representative of 'The Dokdo=Jukdo Issue Research Net' Park Byung-seob gave a presentation on 'The Peace Treaty with Japan, and Dokdo and Jejudo.' The Peace Treaty was supposed to take care of the matter of territory clearly beyond doubt. But because of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, there was a change of direction toward concluding the treaty generously for Japan. The title to Dokdo kept changing in the course of the negotiation depending on the strategic decision by the powers like the U.S. and the U.K. and eventually Dokdo was not mentioned in the final Peace Treaty.

Mr. Park said, "In the Peace Treaty with Japan, Jejudo was recognized as Korean territory whereas there was no mention of Dokdo. SCAPIN 677, by which, for its purpose, Japan was defined to exclude Dokdo, the Habomai, Shikotan, etc., was not affected by the Peace Treaty with Japan because there was no legal basis that would abolish it automatically upon the effectuation of the treaty. As a result, Korea's and Russia's control over these islands have continued legally."

"As the value of the East Asia rim rises, Japan's provocations will become stronger, too"

Kyung Hee University Professor Kwon Se-eun gave a presentation titled 'The Strategic Significance of Dokdo and the East Sea Rim' where he explained that "in the post-Cold War era, the East Asia rim rose in economic value and took on a bigger geopolitical importance as the point of intersection of the powers of China, the U.S., Russia, and Japan." Therefore, predicting that the fiercer the competition surrounding the East Sea, the stronger Japan's claims to Dokdo would become, he demanded active response instead of quiet diplomacy, such as a development plan in connection with Ulleungdo in order to enhance the geopolitical value, while strengthening Korea's effective control over Dokdo.

Shindong-A editor Lee Jung-hoon gave a presentation on 'Protection of Dokdo and Korea's Maritime Security.' He argued that Korea had the weakest navy of the three Northeast Asian countries, and to make up for the weakness, needed to make efforts to enhance its sea power. For the protection of Dokdo, he also insisted, Korea's naval power relatively weaker than Japan should be enhanced, and especially Ulleundo should be used as the unsinkable aircraft carrier, and that 'the policy to raise 100,000 troops of the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard combined' should be put forward.

This seminar was a meaningful event to examine the Dokdo issue and discuss the actions to take under international law, the strategic significance of the East Sea rim, and the issue of maritime security for the protection of Dokdo. Considering the increasing geopolitical importance of Dokdo, I expect to see more studies and discussions ahead.