Newsletter

Dokdo is a symbol of Korea's territorial sovereignty and an obvious territory of Korea. Nevertheless, Japan's provocations against Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo continue. Last summer, the Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee marked Dokdo as Japanese territory on its website. And they have refused to revise it, saying it is just a topographical expression.

Korea has already declared sovereignty over Dokdo in 1900 with the Korean Empire Edict No. 41. However, The National Museum of Territory and Sovereignty in Japan(reopened in 2020) emphasizes that Japan has legally dominated Dokdo under international law since 1905 and that Korea is illegally occupying it. Recently, Japan's provocations against the sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo are also on the extension. The history of Japanese invasion of sovereignty over Dokdo is based on Japanese colonialism and is still underway. In that sense, we will reconsider the historical calling and tasks that are given to us.

Japan's Policy to Strengthen International Legal Titles

NAHF published 『Territorial Sovereignty over Dokdo and International Legal Title II』, which paid attention to sovereignty over Dokdo. This book noted that the frame designed by Japan to distort the sovereignty over Dokdo in the long term is being converted into a policy to strengthen international legal titles. The reason Japan has shifted its posture is due to time series errors in history and limitations of the intertemporales recht of international law.

On the premise of this, we reviewed the nature of distortion inherent in the study on international legal titles of Japan based on Japanese colonialism. And we tracked down the lineage of Japan's international legal title, which is the policy basis for Japan's claim of sovereignty over Dokdo. In addition, we examined the problems of international law and precedents on the acquisition of colonial territory, and analyzed the study of international law in Japan by major titles.

The legal problems of Japanese studies on the titles of international law were reviewed

This book examines the distortion of principles of international law in Japan and its essential problems. The main points in the book are as follows.

The first chapter deals with 'the sovereignty over Dokdo and the review of Japan's claim to titles on international law'. In this chapter, we traced Japan's research on the titles of international law, which has laid the foundations for the Japanese government's claim to Dokdo. And the legal problems of titles were examined. This examined the legal problems of argument on historical titles of Minagawa Takeshi, the view of history on international law and the argument on sovereignty over Dokdo of Hirose Yoshio. In particular, the view of history on international law led by Hirose Yoshio is the result of the study on the titles of international law. His view presupposes an argument on noncolonization after World War I. In other words, we analyzed the errors of the arguments that 1) attempted to legalize the 'Treaty of Eulsa' and 'Japan’s Annexation of Korea', 2) claimed to have preoccupied the ownerless land, and 3) tried to legalize the annexation of Dokdo. The international law of the time claimed by Japan is a legal principle established when Japanese legal positivism is degenerated and the normativity of universal international norms is enhanced. In the 1935 Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, the International Federation cited the Eulsa Treaty, Forced Annexation Treaty as 'historically invalid' treaties. The report came out as the international efforts to turn international treaties into law. This International Federation’s report was carried on to the United Nations` International Law Commission’s 1963 report declaring that the ratification, approval and acceptance of a treaty under coercion or threat are invalid. As a result, we criticized Japan's claim that the ‘argument of sovereignty over Dokdo’ is a total distortion of the legal principle of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo.

The second chapter is 'the implication of sovereignty over Dokdo as a way to acquire territory under colonialism and international law'. In this chapter, we reviewed the 'issue of acquisition of territory within the concept of colonialism' that occurred in the process of international law development. We analyzed the legal problems in that Japan's ‘preoccupy’ presupposes the colonial expansion of the neo-imperialist era. And we confirmed that Japan treated Dokdo as an ownerless land and preoccupied it in 1905, related to Japan's pioneering project on colony. The Eulsa Treaty of 1905 and the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910 are invalid under international law because it was signed by the 'coercion of a state by the thread or use of force'. Nevertheless, Japan claims that it is valid because it is 'Coercion of a representative of a state'. Japan considered Korea as an object of international law, and at the same time they tried to preoccupy Korea's territory as ownerless land. We pointed out its legal contradiction.

The third chapter is ‘Review of sovereignty over Dokdo in the Rusk Documents and the San Francisco Peace Treaty’. Generally, disputes over sovereignty are contests of claims against titles under international law. So we emphasized that it is important to present convincing titles. When Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905, there was an agreement on the Territorial Dispute over Ulleungdo, and validity of the Daijokan Order was being maintained. In this regard, titles were not established under international law. Japan considered the absence of Korean protests as 'connivance' in order to establish the titles later. And they made a logic that justifies the annex of Dokdo based on this. However, Japan only had effective control for four years in the process of the Korea-Japan Annexation in 1910, with Korea's sovereignty limited. That alone does not establish a title to complete Japan's acquisitive prescription. The Rusk Documents also unilaterally accepted Japan's opinion, reflecting the change in the East Asian situation that began with the Cold War. In this respect, we criticized it as difficult to be recognized as an auxiliary means of interpreting ‘the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Article 2. (a)’.

The Respect of Territorial Sovereignty over Dokdo is The Starting Point of The Peace Community in Northeast Asia

The National Museum of Territory and Sovereignty in Japan, which reopened in the 120th anniversary of Korea's declaration of sovereignty over Dokdo, claims. “Japan has legally ruled Dokdo under international law since 1905.” This is in violation of the principles of post-war liquidation in colonial and imperial era. This principle is that the territory looted by violence and greed should be abandoned. Japan should recognize that the 'International Law of 1905' they claim was established when Japanese legal positivism was degenerated and the normativity based on universal international norms was enhanced. Japan's claim to distort the principle of international law based on Japanese colonialism is a serious violation of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo. In this respect, we urge Japan to carry out its historical and international responsibilities. And we hope that the publication of this book will contribute to the foundation of the Peace Community in Northeast Asia.