뉴스레터

There are very few issues in Korea today that receive as much attention from the general public as the Dokdo issue. The Dokdo issue has been a persistent source of conflict between Korea and Japan since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, until the early 1990s, the issue rarely blew over. It merely lingered in the background as potential source of bilateral conflict.

From 1996 onward, however, the coverage of Dokdo in the Korean press and media grew exponentially. Why?

In 1996, Korea and Japan became signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and both nations declared their respective EEZs as extending 200 nautical miles from their coastlines. Naturally, determining the maritime boundaries in the East Sea became an issue. However, the two countries could not come to an agreement without resolving the issue of Dokdo's sovereignty. Japan began to make claims over Dokdo with unprecedented intensity and frequency, and in tandem, Korea's defiance intensified. In the meantime, a growing number of Japanese became aware of the Dokdo issue. In effect, changes in international maritime laws brought the Dokdo issue to the fore. The bottom line is that the Dokdo dispute will not subside until the issue of EEZ boundaries in the East Sea is resolved.

However, there are a few misunderstandings regarding the determination of EEZ boundaries in the East Sea that are circulating in the Korean press and public opinion. First, for Dokdo to qualify for its own EEZ, it must be an "island, not rocks." Second, for Dokdo to qualify as an island, there must "two or more permanently residing households, vegetation, and potable water." Third, once Dokdo is recognized as an island, the EEZ boundary in the East Sea between Korea and Japan will be the halfway point between Dokdo and Oki Islands, the nearest Japanese territory. These are assertions that have appeared frequently in Korean news dailies. However, they are not grounded in international law.

"Households, vegetation, and potable water" are not sufficient legal qualifications

The above argument derives from Article 121 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The article defines an island to be "a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide." It is stipulated that "rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf" (Article 121(3)).

Major Korean dailies have said we must avoid using "Liancourt Rocks," the name the West has long used to refer to Dokdo, arguing that if Dokdo is not construed as an island, it will not be entitled to its EEZ. They go on to claim that Dokdo can qualify as an island if it has "two or more permanently residing households, vegetation (or forest), and potable water" and urge that efforts must be made to realize these conditions. Accordingly, there are calls for and sometimes even campaigns to increase the number of Korean households in Dokdo from the current one to two, to plant trees to develop a forest, and to secure an adequate supply of potable water by installing a water purifier.

The fact is that there is a lot of debate among scholars of international law concerning the definition of "rocks" in UNCLOS Article 121(3). However, one thing is certain. "Rocks" do not necessarily refer to a rocky island but to any very small island regardless of its geological composition. Therefore, there is no need to make an issue out of whether Dokdo is called "rocks" or an "island."

Similarly, there is no legal basis for the claim that Dokdo will not be considered rocks as per UNCLOS Article 121(3) but can qualify as an island and claim its own EEZ and continental shelf if it has "more than two permanently residing households, vegetation, and potable water."All that UNCLOS stipulates regarding the matter is as follows: "rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own." "Residents, vegetation, and potable water" may be important considerations in determining whether an island is entitled to its own EEZ, but they are not necessary and sufficient legal conditions. That is, just by having another household move to Dokdo and developing a forest there with government support or assistance from the Korean society at large does not mean that Dokdo will automatically be entitled to its own EEZ.

EEZ delimitation should be based on "equitable solution"

Furthermore, even if Dokdo qualifies as an island that can claim its own EEZ, it does not mean that the halfway point between Dokdo and Oki Islands will automatically be recognized as an EEZ boundary in the East Sea. The two matters are separate. Regarding the delimitation of the EEZ between neighboring states, UNCLOS only suggests the principle of "equitable solution." Median or equidistant line is commonly used as an equitable delimitation principle in regular topography. However, UNCLOS intentionally avoids specifying such a principle. The idea is to prevent major distortions in maritime jurisdiction due to the existence of a small island in an equivocal location.

In fact, there have been many instances in which islands much bigger and more populous than Dokdo have not been recognized by international society as the grounds for determining median lines in maritime delimitation. That is, median lines are actually not equitable when it comes to determining maritime jurisdiction. The population and land area of Japan's Oki Islands are several times greater than those of Dokdo. If EEZ delimitation in the East Sea is left to objective judgment, Dokdo cannot be considered an equal to the Oki Islands. Hence, it is highly unlikely that median line between Dokdo and Oki Islands will be designated as an EEZ boundary.

Be that as it may, the Korean media have been putting forth dubious arguments that have influenced public opinion. These arguments and reports, which are based on a patriotic misunderstanding, cannot contribute to a proper understanding of the Dokdo issue.