|
RECENT ENTRIES |
- • Pushkar Mela - 11.04
- • Days of the Dead - 11.02
- • Launch of the Ares I-X - 10.30
| February 25, 2009 | (Use j/k keys to navigate)  Email to a friend  Permalink |
Dokdo or Takeshima
Isolated, tiny and desolate, The Liancourt Rocks are the center of an international dispute that dates back to the 15th century. Koreans claim sovereignty over what they call "Dokdo", while the Japanese maintain that the islets are theirs, calling them "Takeshima". South Korea currently administers this collection of 90 islands and reefs in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), centered about halfway between South Korea and Japan - with only 2 permanent residents and 40 government workers stationed there (police, lighthouse keepers, Fishery Ministry personnel). Although the dispute is centuries old, it has heated up recently due to several incidents: increased efforts in Japan to call attention to the dispute itself, a flip-flop last year by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names where they briefly labeled the rocks as having "Undesignated Sovereignty" (undone by executive order within days), and the public observations in Japan of "Takeshima Day" on February 22nd. South Korean citizens have staged numerous protests against Japan over the past few years, some with extreme demonstrations, including a woman and her son who cut off a finger each, and one man who attempted to set himself on fire. (14 photos total)
A group of desolate volcanic islets known by North and South Koreans as Dokdo and by Japanese as Takeshima, is seen in this aerial view photo taken July 14, 2008. South Korea last year briefly recalled its ambassador from Tokyo in protest after Japan said it would write about the longstanding dispute about the islands in school textbooks. (REUTERS/Korea Pool/Newsis)
The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute has brought together the two Koreas in a small way - pictured here are North Koreans from the Korean History Academy attending the "Inter-Korean forum to oppose Japan's distorted history and Japan's manoeuvre to rob Dokdo" in Pyongyang, North Korea on November 13, 2008. It took six decades for the divided Koreas to meet to talk about Japan's colonial past, but it took them just two hours to agree they had common grievances with their Asian neighbour. (LEE JAE-WON/Reuters) #
A general view shows the two main islets in the disputed group - the larger West Islet is called Seodo by Koreans or Danshima by Japanese and the East Islet called Dongdo by Koreans or Joshima by Japanese. Photo taken from a South Korean police patrol ship near Dokdo islets August 25, 2008. (REUTERS/Noh Sun-Tag) #
South Korean police officers scuffle with a protester, second from right, as they seize a Japanese national flag from him during a rally against Japan's sovereignty claims over Dokdo/Takeshima, in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, Friday, Sept. 5, 2008. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon) #
The islands of Dokdo/Takeshima are seen in this aerial view. South Korea's Prime Minister Han Seung-soo visited the disputed islands on July 29, 2008, and criticised a U.S. government agency that had shifted its position on their ownership (the shift was later reversed by an Executive Order from president Bush). (REUTERS/Jeon Su-young/Yonhap ) #
An interactive Google Map of tiny Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which lie 217 km (135 mi) from mainland South Korea and 250 km (150 mi) from Japan proper. The total land area of the 37-plus islands is around 46 acres. View Larger Map #
More links and information
Desolate Dots in the Sea Stir Deep Emotions as South Korea Resists a Japanese Claim - NYTimes.com 8/30/2008
Liancourt Rocks - Wikipedia entry
Liancourt Rocks Dispute - Wikipedia entry
Dokdo-or-Takeshima? - blog dedicated to this question
Seoul 'prepared' to defend islets - Japan Times
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
#oyoyo
Rusk document stamped as "Secret".
The documents was written by Miss Fite and was not distributed to Japan and any other country.
and Rusk document has NOT any legal effect.
First, the most obvious error by the Japanese is The San Francisco Peace Treaty simply makes no mention of Dokdo Takeshima. The Allies simply couldn't arrive at an agreement and dropped the matter. This shows other countries couldn't agree with U.S. policy on this problem. Other nations (U.K. N.Z. Canada) that participated in the talks had a different approach to establishing Japan's limits. They wanted to follow the spirit of post wartime documents such as the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration and leave the contentious issue of outlying islands to be resolved outside of the treaty altogether. Commonwealth nations proposed a linear boundary between the Okinoshimas and Dokdo Takeshima. This was much more practical approach but it didn't work for America's military plan in northeast Asia.
The Rusk Papers and other U.S. correspondence Japan uses only represent the confidential views of the American government. While it is true Dean Rusk supported Japan's claim to Dokdo Takeshima the Rusk papers were secret memorandums that never materialized into American public support for Dokdo Takeshima. In fact the Japanese themselves were not aware of Dean Rusk's opinion. Striclty speaking, the Americans never openly supported the Japanese claim and since the early 1950s have remained neutral on this issue.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
Living in Korea as an expat you see the ferocity to which the Korean citizens talk about Dokdo.
I am sympathetic with them and think out of all that Japan has done to this nation and others, they could officially just hand it over to Korea and be done with it. They have a lot of islands anyways!
However, I don't think it is something to harm yourself over. But that is how some of the people here react. And I am not going to tell these people what to do.
If the opinion of Japan is unjust,South Korea should bring a case to International Court of Justice. It occupies, and the protest advertising is published in some country newspaper unlawfully in a surreptitious manner because of recognizing that we are thieves it not done so as for Takeshima.
#191
The agreement of Japan about the renunciation of her title is the most important in international law. The illegality of Allies are recovered by the agreement of Japan. There is no fact that Japan agreed to the renunciation about the title of Takeshima by multilateral peace treaty or otherwise. And, when the United States or other Allies demands the revision of the San Francisco treaty, a formal procedure is necessary. However, the United States or other Allies has not demanded the treaty revision. There is no fact that Japan agreed to the revision of the treaty either. Sorry, this is international law.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
P130-132
ROOTS OF TITLE
(e) Disposition by joint decision of the principal powers
After the defeat of the Central Powers in the First World War, and the Axis Powers in the Second World War, the leading victor states assumed a power of disposition, to the exercised jointly, over the territory of the defeated states. In the years 1919 and 1920 decisions were taken by the Supreme Council of Allied and Associated States; in 1943 and 1945 by meetings of leaders at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, and subsequently by meetings of Foreign Ministers, States losing territory as a consequence of dispositions in this wise might, and often did, renounce title by the provisions of a peace treaty to the areas concerned, but the dispositions were usually in possession prior to the coming into force of a peace treaty. The existence of this power of disposition or assignment is recognized by jurists, but they find it difficult to suggest, or to agree upon, a satisfactory legal basis for it. Some translate political realities into legal forms by supposing that the community of states has delegated such a power to the ‘principal’ or ‘great’ powers. Others, at least in relation to the Second World War, postulate a right to impose measures of security, which may include frontier changes, on an aggressor consequent on his defeat in a war of collective defence and sanction.
Much turns on the extent to which recognition and acquiescence may counteract any elements of illegality which may infect such procedures in some cases. Disposition of the kind normally are recognized by multilateral peace treaty or otherwise. In same cases, for example, the Geneva Conference of 1954, in regard to Indo-China, the express delegation of power prior to agreed disposition of territory ensures that a certain number of states are bound to accept the results of procedure.
(f)Renunciation or relinquishment
It is not uncommon for states to renounce title over territory in circumstances in which the subject-matter does not thereby become terra nullius (territory belonging to no state). This distinguishes renunciation from abandonment. Furthermore, there is no element of reciprocity, and no contract to transfer, as in the case of treaty of cession. Renunciation may be a recognition that another state now has title*1 or recognition of, or agreement to confer, a power of disposition to be exercised by another state or group of states.*2
A series of unilateral acts may constitute evidence of an implicit voluntary relinquishment of rights. Renunciation is to be distinguished from reversion, i.e. recognition by an aggressor that territory seized is rightfully under the sovereignty of the victim. Here, there is no title to renounce. Since the procedure of renunciation involves title alone, it may happen that the state losing title retains power of administration by delegation.
*1: For example see the treaty of St German-en-Laye of 10 Sept.1919
*2: See the treaty of St German, Arts. …….; and Art.2 of the Japanese Peace Treaty of 8 Sept. 1951;….
The document was written as a letter to the South Korean government. It was the reply to South Korea having asked to include Dokdo in the domain which Japan abandons. It was being described clearly that it was not a South Korean territory there. If independent to be sure, there is no legal effect. However, as what helps the interpretation of the San Francisco treaty, it is effective. It is what regulation of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is followed for. Therefore, a document cannot be disregarded. Because international society admits that Takeshima is a territory in Japan. Rule by South Korea is a reason called illegal occupation.
Japanese posters above.
The definition of Japanese territory was laid down by John Foster Dulles in his speech just before signing the Japan Peace Treaty (San Francisco Peace Treaty)
John Foster Dulles who help draft the Japan Peace Treaty and who signed it on behalf of the United States of America stated.
..."...What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago."...The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender terms..."
In other words, Japan's territory was defined by Potsdam even before the Japan Peace Treaty was drafted. Only an official ratification signed by the Allies could amend it, otherwise all other decisions made by Potsdam Declaration stand. Dokdo was excluded from Japan and remained so with the Japan Peace Treaty's Article 2.
The above text represents the public stance of America during the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This was spoken by the man who helped write the Japan Peace Treaty and was signatory. Dulles also stated if Japan had a problem with the territorial dispositions of Article 2 they must seek satisfaction via other solvents outside of the Japan Peace Treaty either bilaterally or by ICJ. Korea of course, prefers to deal with the issue bilaterally.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
Definite evidence to show that Takeshima was Japanese territory was discovered. It is the one that the map that the public office in which it had taken charge of the coast guard had managed was copied in 1836.
http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?Storyid=510745006 (Japanese)
Tokugawa shogunate(Edo Bakufu) forbade the Japanese to go to Ulleungdo in January, 1696. A part of Japanese scholar and South Korea have insisted that Takeshima where this had been called Matsushima as grounds at that time became a Korean territory, too. However, the insistence was completely denied by the discovered map. Takeshima is a territory in Japan rightly. South Korea must stop the invasion at once.
#194
The conquest became unlawful after ww1. It became impossible to acquire the territory of a defeated country only by the desir of the victorious country. (See #197) Then it is necessary to prove Japan agreed to renunciation if it is assumed that South Korea acquired Takeshima. The San Francisco treaty which was agreed by Japan didn't demand the renunciation of Takeshima. When did Japan agree to the renunciation of Takeshima?The Rusk Documents is also effective as a supplementary means for the interpretation of the San Francisco treaty.
#191
>also, SF treaty never mentioned that dokdo belong to Japan.
Umm. It is assumed that you bought the apartment house. A land agent owned the 201st room and the 202nd room in the apartment house. You bought the 201st room from the land agent. Only the 201st room was written in your contract. Do you say that the ownership of the 202nd room uncertain, because the 202nd room is not written in your contract?
The territory of the nation is also the same. Treaty of Nanking and Treaty of Shimonoseki never mention that Nanking and Hainan island belong to China. Do you think that Nanking and Hainan island was not the territory of China?
As for the territory where a legal position was not changed by the treaty, the current sovereignty is kept. If the legal effect which was not described in the treaty is created, the world might be greatly confused. And, the agreement of Japan is necessary for the transfer of sovereignty of Japanese territory. I think you should study the law.
#173. #176. #177. #180
>Russia and China proposed going to International Court of Justice (ICJ) to Japan. but we Japanese refused to go to ICJ.
Really? It is very strange. It is easy for China, Russia, and South Korea to go to ICJ with Japan. They does not need a compromis with Japan because Japan recognizes the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ.
The Statute of the International Court of Justice is here. http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0
Russia and China only have to recognized the jurisdiction of ICJ as same as Japan. If they do so, Japan cannot refuse ICJ.
And I have not heard that Russia and China proposed going to ICJ. When did Russia and China propose? When did Japan refuse the proposal?
#189.
No. Rusk Document is "draft". and it has 'no legal effect'.
I already said, According to US State Department report, This is after 'rusk document'(¡ØThis is important), report points out that
*"it can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding."
and it said,
*"If Korea can prove that, it can legally establish that Dokdo belongs to Korea.""
-----------------------
Conclusion : Japan claim
1. Sebald is our supporter!
>> However, as we will see, Sebald would later [in 1954] deny any U.S. recognition of Japanese ownership of Dokdo
2. Van fleet and Rusk are our supporter!
>> However, after Van fleet and Rusk document, 1954.8.26 -US, the State Department-
¤ýit can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding.
¤ýThe 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "minor islands," along with Honshu and Hokkaido, remain under Japanese sovereignty. So the State Department pointed out that there could be a controversy on whether Japan has rights to all the islands that are not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty, which succeeds the Potsdam Declaration. It added that it was also controversial whether those who drafted the treaty intended to include those minor islands.
3. US is our supporter!
>> However, as we see, US is not take Japan side position.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/US-Position-RE-Dokdo.jpg
#oyoyo
Rusk document stamped as "Secret".
The documents was not distributed to Japan and any other country.
and Rusk document has NOT any legal effect.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
First, the most obvious error by the Japanese is The San Francisco Peace Treaty simply makes no mention of Dokdo Takeshima. The Allies simply couldn't arrive at an agreement and dropped the matter. This shows other countries couldn't agree with U.S. policy on this problem. Other nations (U.K. N.Z. Canada) that participated in the talks had a different approach to establishing Japan's limits. They wanted to follow the spirit of post wartime documents such as the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration and leave the contentious issue of outlying islands to be resolved outside of the treaty altogether. Commonwealth nations proposed a linear boundary between the Okinoshimas and Dokdo Takeshima. This was much more practical approach but it didn't work for America's military plan in northeast Asia.
The Rusk Papers and other U.S. correspondence Japan uses only represent the confidential views of the American government. While it is true Dean Rusk supported Japan's claim to Dokdo Takeshima the Rusk papers were secret memorandums that never materialized into American public support for Dokdo Takeshima. In fact the Japanese themselves were not aware of Dean Rusk's opinion. Striclty speaking, the Americans never openly supported the Japanese claim and since the early 1950s have remained neutral on this issue.
#193 puyopuyo
You brainwashed by Japanese media.
Korea's postion is clearly state at #177.
And this.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~korean/SpecialAnnouncement/DokdoIsland.pdf
There is NO evidence that Japan occupied and controlled this island before 1905.(even before 1953!)
The occupation of Diaoyutai islands by the Japan is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Diaoyutai islands by Japan based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification.
why you japanes illegally occupy Chinese territory? Diaoyutai Islands is cleary Chinese territory. Please, Go to ICJ, thief!
If the opinion of Japan is unjust,China should bring a case to International Court of Justice.
#197, #198
SF treaty never mentioned that Dokdo belong to Japan.
The 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "minor islands," along with Honshu and Hokkaido, remain under Japanese sovereignty. So the State Department pointed out that there could be a controversy on whether Japan has rights to all the islands that are not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty, which succeeds the Potsdam Declaration. It added that it was also controversial whether those who drafted the treaty intended to include those minor islands.
Korea to prove that Dokdo was treated as part of Korean territory before 1905, when the islets went under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture. If Korea can prove that, it can legally establish that Dokdo belongs to Korea."
1905 Shimane Notice was stamped as "Circular for inner members".
The Notice was not distributed to any other country.
1905 Shimane Notice has NOT any legal effect.
NO. SF Treaty never mentioned Dokdo belong to Japan.
Also, Until 1953, Japan never says, Dokdo belong to Japan.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/01/117_37253.html
Japan has claimed sovereignty over the rocky islets, but a document dating from 1951 showed that the Japanese government excluded Dokdo from its territory.
``Prime Ministerial Ordinance No. 24,'' issued on June 6, 1951, stated that Japanese territory was Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and nearby islands and excluded Jeju Island, Ulleung Island and Dokdo.
it was the first time a government ordinance did, according to the institute.
my impression is, that the koreans are, sadly, a little bit nuts about this rock. cutting of fingers, setting themselves on fire, killing a national symbol of another nation. way to go, in order to get taken seriously.
yes, might be, that japan has been an ass in history. so was germany. i am german. i know the guilt of my country, but i am not guilty for this, so are most of todays japanese not to be blamed for this dispute. strangely enough, you s. koreans seem to be still quite connected to this centuries old thing.
stupid. humans are stupid. esp. right here, in the way most of you koreans are reacting to this article. wise up, open you mind and see, what you are doing. peace is a goal, not war.
The Japan Peace Treaty is very clear about which territories belonged to Japan and Dokdo was NOT included.
Rather than cite legal opinions about the matter, simply quote the man who drafted the Japan Peace Treaty and signed it on behalf of America.
Before John Foster Dulles signed the Japan Peace Treaty in San Francisco he stated;
"...What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago."...The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term..." "...Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty..."
The bottom line was, only the Potsdam Declaration had the legal authority to define Japan's territory. It's ratified version the Japan Peace Treaty laid out Japan's territory. As John Foster Dulles clearly stated above, if Japan had a problem with her territory, she had to seek other measures outside of the Japan Peace Treaty either bilaterally with the other nation or through international measures. Korea wishes to settle the Dokdo issue bilaterally.
Any other legal interpretations apart from John Foster Dulles statement are simply speculation or opinion.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
Poster 201, this dispute is not about a couple of rocks. Dokdo Island is being territorialized by Japanese right wing nationalists who wish to extend Japan's limits an additional 160 kms into Korean territory.
#189.
No. Rusk Document is "draft". and it has 'no legal effect'.
I already said, According to US State Department report, This is after 'rusk document'(¡ØThis is important), report points out that
*"it can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding."
and it said,
*"If Korea can prove that, it can legally establish that Dokdo belongs to Korea.""
-----------------------
Conclusion : Japan claim
1. Sebald is our supporter!
>> However, as we will see, Sebald would later [in 1954] deny any U.S. recognition of Japanese ownership of Dokdo
2. Van fleet and Rusk are our supporter!
>> However, after Van fleet and Rusk document, 1954.8.26 -US, the State Department-
¤ýit can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding.
¤ýThe 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "minor islands," along with Honshu and Hokkaido, remain under Japanese sovereignty. So the State Department pointed out that there could be a controversy on whether Japan has rights to all the islands that are not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty, which succeeds the Potsdam Declaration. It added that it was also controversial whether those who drafted the treaty intended to include those minor islands.
3. US is our supporter!
>> However, as we see, US is not take Japan side position.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/US-Position-RE-Dokdo.jpg
#oyoyo
Rusk document stamped as "Secret".
The documents was not distributed to Japan and any other country.
and Rusk document has NOT any legal effect.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-sf-truth.html
First, the most obvious error by the Japanese is The San Francisco Peace Treaty simply makes no mention of Dokdo Takeshima. The Allies simply couldn't arrive at an agreement and dropped the matter. This shows
other countries couldn't agree with U.S. policy on this problem. Other nations (U.K. N.Z. Canada) that participated in the talks had a different approach to establishing Japan's limits. They wanted to follow the spirit
of post wartime documents such as the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration and leave the contentious issue of outlying islands to be resolved outside of the treaty altogether. Commonwealth nations
proposed a linear boundary between the Okinoshimas and Dokdo Takeshima. This was much more practical approach but it didn't work for America's military plan in northeast Asia.
The Rusk Papers and other U.S. correspondence Japan uses only represent the confidential views of the American government. While it is true Dean Rusk supported Japan's claim to Dokdo Takeshima the Rusk
papers were secret memorandums that never materialized into American public support for Dokdo Takeshima. In fact the Japanese themselves were not aware of Dean Rusk's opinion. Striclty speaking, the Americans
never openly supported the Japanese claim and since the early 1950s have remained neutral on this issue.
1905 Shimane Notice was stamped as "Circular for inner members".
The Notice was not distributed to any other country.
1905 Shimane Notice has NOT any legal effect.
#193 puyopuyo
You brainwashed by Japanese media.
Korea's postion is clearly state at #177.
And this.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~korean/SpecialAnnouncement/DokdoIsland.pdf
There is NO evidence that Japan occupied and controlled this island before 1905.(even before 1953!)
The occupation of Diaoyutai islands by the Japan is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Diaoyutai islands by Japan based on such an
illegal occupation have no legal justification.
why you japanes illegally occupy Chinese territory? Diaoyutai Islands is cleary Chinese territory. Please, Go to ICJ, thief!
If the opinion of Japan is unjust,China should bring a case to International Court of Justice.
#197, #198
SF treaty never mentioned that Dokdo belong to Japan.
The 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "minor islands," along with Honshu and Hokkaido, remain under Japanese sovereignty. So the State Department pointed out that there could be a controversy on whether
Japan has rights to all the islands that are not mentioned in the San Francisco treaty, which succeeds the Potsdam Declaration. It added that it was also controversial whether those who drafted the treaty intended
to include those minor islands.
Korea to prove that Dokdo was treated as part of Korean territory before 1905, when the islets went under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture. If Korea can prove that, it can legally establish that Dokdo belongs
to Korea."
@alex
If some rapist criminal says, "Your wife is mine." Then, What do you think>
Japan and Korea is not a equal stance.
Japan is absolutery lie, and keep pushing their distortion and cover-up of history.
http://english.dokdohistory.com/museum/m_j_history02.html
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~korean/SpecialAnnouncement/DokdoIsland.pdf
@alex
"still quite connected to this centuries old thing."
>>
This island incorporated by Japan in 1905.
5 years later, Korea was annexed by Japan.
It cleary connected to this centuries old thing.
#203 #204
>No. Rusk Document is "draft". and it has 'no legal effect'.
See #194 and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 32. The Rusk Documents and drafts of the treaty are also effective as a supplementary means for the interpretation of the San Francisco treaty. The wish of South Korea is not International Law.
#203
>If Korea can prove that, it can legally establish that Dokdo belongs to Korea.
In International Law, the agreement of Japan is needed for the transfer Japanese sovereignty.(See #197) That is, it is necessary to revise the San Francisco treaty and Japan agree the revise.
However, Japan has not agreed on the treaty revision. The Allies did not propose the treaty revision and notify. Therefore, Mss Fite documents is only internal examination and not effective in International Law. The rusk documents is effective because it is preparation material of the San Francisco treaty on which Japan and Allies agreed. If the treaty based on Mss Fite documents existed, the document will have been effective. However, any treaty doesn't exist.
#205
>There is NO evidence that Japan occupied and controlled this island before 1905.
There is NO evidence about the effective control by Korea.
#205
>Please, Go to ICJ, thief!
Yes. Let's go! China, Russia and South Korea can easily go to ICJ with Japan. Because Japan has already admitted the jurisdiction of ICJ based on the Statute of ICJ Article 36.
Why does not China propose the trial by ICJ? China has never proposed ICJ.
#205
The evidence of the acts(effective control) admitted by the trial is as follows. Please teach me. What activity did Korea do before 1905?>Korea to prove that Dokdo was treated as part of Korean territory before 1905
REALLY!? You should teach to this South Korean's legal scholar. He is worried because there is no evidence of the effective control by Korea before1905.
After reviewing the links provided, I highly recommend the following two. The first contains many links to both Japanese and Korean viewpoints, maps, and other historical documents. The second is nicely illustrated and easy to follow.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~korean/SpecialAnnouncement/DokdoIsland.pdf
#205
*August 9, 1945:Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration
*September 2, 1945:Japanese surrender instrument was signed
1.July 19, 1951: Conversation between Korea and U.S.
2.August 10, 1951:Rusk Documents
3.September 5, 1951: Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference
4.International law scholar(Ian Brownlie See#197)
*The agreement of Japan is necessary for the renunciation of the Japanese territorial sovereignty. (Brownlie)
*The acceptance of Potsdam Declaration doesn't mean the execution of renunciation.(Dulles and Rusk)
*Takeshima is not included in Article 2 of the San Francisco treaty.(Rusk, Van fleet etc.)
It repeats. The Allies cannot renounce Japanese territory without the agreement of Japan. It is only in Japan that can renounce Japanese territory in International Law. When did Japan renounce the territorial sovereignty of Takeshima?
#205
When it becomes impossible to object, the South Korean takes out an irrelevant topic. In that sense, I think that the typical reaction returned. We are discussing Takeshima and Senkaku Islands(Diaoyutai islands) is unrelated. What you should do is to show the fact that denies the evidence that I presented. Takeshima is to admit a Japanese territory if it cannot be done.
#205
When did China propose to go to ICJ? China has never proposed. Japan has already approved the jurisdiction of ICJ. Therefore, it is easy for China to bring a charge against Japan.
I cannot find the name of China and South Korea on the list of the countries which recognize the jurisdiction of ICJ. They call oneself a peaceful country. Why do they run away from ICJ?
The insistence of which it was only a draft was the rusk document was heard for the first time. Your insistence is a lame excuse.
The rusk document is a letter from Dean Rusk to You Chan Yang. Do you say not putting out only by the draft?¡¡Rusk was an Assistant Secretary of State, and You Chan Yang was an ambassador of garrisoned U.S. South Korea at that time. Because it introduces the rusk letter with The report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East(1954), it is certain to have been posted.
And, the rusk document is legally effective to interpret the San Francisco agreement as already explained. The union country recorded a clear intention that made Takeshima belong to Japan in the San Francisco agreement. Therefore, there is no authority on International Law that rules Takeshima in South Korea. Takeshima has been invaded by South Korea. There is no person who comes to like countries that continue the invasion. One of the reasons why Japanese feelings to South Korea have deteriorated is here. I think that it is an entrance of the Japan-South Korea relation construction of the truth to recover the administrative right of Japan. It is certain that feelings to Japanese South Korea pick up by the administrative right of Takeshima being recovered.
I agree it is very difficult to it though I hope South Korea voluntarily restores Takeshima. It is because it is certain for the South Korea people who have been taught, "Dokdo is our Tertry" not to be able to consent, and to lose the public prop though any political power. I support the use of International Court of Justice as the the next best thing. Isn't there diplomatic negotiation not to mention being not able to solve it in the war because it is a strategy of it of the best because it doesn't solve it that it looks up at the third party's judgment either? Does it run about trying to escape that International Court of Justice shows the judgment and why runs about trying to escape South Korea? South Korea permanently is an aggressor state and will exist?
#205
Your point is wrong. This is the list of countries which declare the recognizing the jurisdiction of ICJ. Japan keeps updating her declaration every two years after 1958.
* Australia (22 March 2002)
* Austria (19 May 1971)
* Barbados (1 August 1980)
* Belgium (17 June 1958)
* Botswana (16 March 1970)
* Bulgaria (21 June 1992)
* Cambodia (19 September 1957)
* Cameroon (3 March 1994)
* Canada (10 May 1994)
* Costa Rica (20 February 1973)
* Cote d'Ivoire (29 September 2001)
* Cyprus (3 September 2002)
* Democratic Republic of the Congo (8 February 1989)
* Denmark (10 December 1956)
* Djibouti (2 September 2005)
* Dominica, Commonwealth of (31 March 2006)
* Dominican Republic (30 September 1924)
* Egypt (22 July 1957)
* Estonia (31 October 1991)
* Finland (25 June 1958)
* Gambia (22 June 1966)
* Georgia (20 June 1995)
* Germany (30 April 2008)
* Greece (10 January 1994)
* Guinea, Republic of (4 December 1998)
* Guinea-Bissau (7 August 1989)
* Haiti (4 October 1921)
* Honduras (6 June 1986)
* Hungary (22 October 1992)
* India (18 September 1974)
* Japan (9 July 2007)
* Kenya (19 April 1965)
* Lesotho (6 September 2000)
* Liberia (20 March 1952)
* Liechtenstein (29 March 1950)
* Luxembourg (15 September 1930)
* Madagascar (2 July 1992)
* Malawi (12 December 1966)
* Malta (2 September 1983)
* Mauritius (23 September 1968)
* Mexico (28 October 1947)
* Netherlands (1 August 1956)
* New Zealand (23 September 1977)
* Nicaragua (24 September 1929)
* Nigeria (30 April 1998)
* Norway (25 June 1996)
* Pakistan (13 September 1960)
* Panama (25 October 1921)
* Paraguay (25 September 1996)
* Peru (7 July 2003)
* Philippines (18 January 1972)
* Poland (25 March 1996)
* Portugal (25 February 2005)
* Senegal (2 December 1985)
* Slovakia (28 May 2004)
* Somalia (11 April 1963)
* Spain (20 October 1990)
* Sudan (2 January 1958)
* Suriname (31 August 1987)
* Swaziland (26 May 1969)
* Sweden (6 April 1957)
* Switzerland (28 July 1948)
* Togo (25 October 1979)
* Uganda (3 October 1963)
* United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (5 July 2004)
* Uruguay (28 January 1921)
It is only UK which declares in the permanent member of the United Nations. Because the United States lost a suit by trying a Nicaragua case, she withdrew the declaration. France withdrew the declaration for the nuclear test. China, Russia, and South Korea have never declared. I think that the big power should defend International Law. However, the big power is running away from ICJ and International Law. If China declares, China can prosecute Japan about Senkaku Islands. If South Korea declares, Korea can prosecute Japan about Tsushima. And, Japan cannot refuse the lawsuit. But China does not declare. China has never insisted going to ICJ about Senkaku Islands.
Korea's Tokdo Island is 92kilometers southeast of the island of Ullungdo, marking the eastern boundary of the country. Tokdo is located a 37¡Æ14¡Ç18¡Ènorth latitude and 131¡Æ52¡Ç12¡Èeast longitude. Its administrative district and adress is San 1¡37 Tokdo-ri, Ullung-up, Ullung-gun Country, Kyongsangbuk-do Province, Korea.
Tokdo comprise 34 rock islets, including the two most prominent, Tongdo and Sudo.
Tongdo on the east is 99.4 meters above sea level, is 64,698 square meters in size. And Sudo on the west is 174 meters above sea level is 91,740 square meters in size. Therefore, Including a reef, Tokdo's total is 186,173 squre meters.
Tokdo comes from the word Sukdo, "rock island." In the dialect of Ullungdo, Sukdo, the main of Tokdo, is pronounced "tokdo." Tokdo was formed 4.5¡2.5 million years ago. It is mostly volcanic tuff and other volcanic rock.
Although Tokdo has long been known as a barren piece of rock, plants and flowers have flourished in its volcanic soil for thousands of years, giving it a variant beauty from season to season.
Plantains, dandelions, purslanes, goosefeet, berries and panies. These all grow in the alleys, gardens, and doorsteps across Korea. Noticeable or not, they have been with Koreans since the beginning of time. The mention of their names warms the Korean heart.
Tokdo and Ullungdo were both called Usan in ancient times becaues they both belonged to the Usan Kingdom. Koreans came to know them in A.D. 512 when King Chijung of the Shilla Kingdom sent an expedition led by General Yi Sabu to Usan aboard a ship which had a carving of a lion on its bow.
Since then, the Korean people have sailed the blue waters of the East Sea(or Sea of Chosun) to visit the islands. Tokdo has also been called Sambongdo, "Island of Three Peaks," and Kajido, "Island of Sea Lions." Its rugged rocks of various shapes have inspired many legends.
Petrels and seagulls lay their eggs here, consoling the solitude of the island. On a clear day, Tokdo can be seen from Songinbong, "Saint's Peak," on Ullungdo as it is only 92kilometers southeast of the island. The nearest point in Japan are the islands of Oki Gunto, 161 kilometers to the southeast, from where Tokdo cannot be seen regardless of weather.
In modern history, Tokdo became a part of the Korean administrative district in 1900 according to Royal Decree No.41 issued by King Kojong. The decree upgraded Ullungdo, which had been part of Samch'ok Country, to a country, and placed Sukdo, "Rock island," under its jurisdiction.
#210.
Korean hypothesis
1.A standard pronunciation of the "Stone（石)" is SOK.
2.However, there are the provinces where the "Stone（石)" is pronounced "DOK" and the provinces pronounced "DOL".
3.It seems that the resident in Ulleungdo pronounced "DOK".
4."DOK" is the same pronunciation as "独(DOK/TOK)".
5.Then "Stone-island（石島)" in the Royal Decree No.41 is same as "Dok-do(独島)"
However, this hypothesis is not approved. Because the resident in Ulleungdo was pronouncing the "Stone（石)" not "DOK" but "DOL". This is a Ulleungdo map of 1906. http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif
It is written, the pronunciation of "亭石浦" is "Cyon(亭)-DORO(石:Stone）-Bo（浦)". International Law demands specific evidence without the doubt.
#208
You have the obligation to show the evidence if there is no legal effect in putting in of Japan Takeshima in 1905 to a Japanese territory. As for worth once still before it and Takeshima, the evidence ruled by Korea has not been shown. The decree in 1900 is useless. Grounds are only thin distortions.
Usan-do is jukdo according to Seungjeongwon ilgi and the record at other Korean dynasties. I want you to show evidence to deny this fact.
Japanese poster above. You are mistakingly posting the articles of Ian Brownlie as modern law. This is wrong. Ian Brownlie is simply giving his interpretation of law, he is not a judge nor jury. Selectively cutting and pasting a few select passages from millions of related legal publications is rubbish. If you a lawyer, (not a chance) please state your credentials or go away. We really aren't interested in your theories unless you have a degree or the proper education to back your ideas. Better yet why don't you go back to your lobbying on wikipedia?
The map you posted above is interesting!! This is Korea's Ulleungdo Island in 1906.
Can you see the characters for "temporary Japanese villages" on the map?" This shows the location of illegal Japanese settlements on Korean's Ulleungdo Island!
Can you see the characters "watchtowers" next to the name on the map you posted? This is one of three Japanese Naval Watchtowers that Japan forcibly installed on Korean land when they invaded Korea in 1904!
You can see the same map with historical context here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-2.html
I find it quite funny the map you posted to "disprove" Korea's claim is proof that Japan was illegally occupying Korean land!!
At the turn of the century in 1900, Japan used three names for Liancourt Rocks. They used Matsushima, Riankodo, and Yangkodo. We know the Koreans used Yangko, and Dokdo. There is no reason to believe they didn't have another. Documents from this time show Ulleungdo's residents described Dokdo as a "stone island." The warship Niitaka's interview of an Ulleungdo resident states Dokdo was a "stone island" Also Nakai Yozaburo who trespassed on Ulleungdo also described Dokdo as a stone island.
Dokdo is the only island in Ulleungdo's vicinity that lacked a clear name fits the description and if you have another plausible theory I'd love to hear it.
Japanese records consistently excluded Dokdo from their territory or as this record shows Japan considered Dokdo as part of Korea. In fact, in 1837 a Japanese man was caught trespassing on Korea's Ulleungdo. In the records and maps that followed it is clear Japan considered Dokdo as attached to Ulleungdo and part of Korea.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html
*Famous international law scholar Brownlie is not applied to South Korea.
*The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is not applied to South Korea.
*Only South Korea is effective though the title of the conquest became invalid in International Law.
*Though the specific evidence of effectitive control is necessary in International Law, It is unnecessary for Korea.
*The indirect presumption is effective for South Korea though it is invalid in International Law.
*There is no legal value of the occupation if another country protests in International Law. But, the present Korean occupation is effective though Japan is protesting.
Apparently, International Law seems not to be applied to South Korea, and to be applied an original rule. Most of the evidence of modern ages is a record made by Japan. And, the Japanese evidence has not proven the activity of the Korea government. There is no evidence that the Korea government controled effectivery. There is no evidence that shows the exercise of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation by the Korea government. The judicial precedent of ICJ denies all Korean claims. But, they shout that Dokdo is Korean territory in international law. I cannot understand.
#228
The Korea empire has already opened the country to the world. Then there were a lot of Japanese who lived in Korea at that time. Your conception is very interesting. A Japanese town in USA is illegal for you.
>The warship Niitaka's interview of an Ulleungdo resident states Dokdo was a "stone island" Also Nakai Yozaburo who trespassed on >Ulleungdo also described Dokdo as a stone island.
This is the original text of the warship Niitaka's diary
「松島ニ於テ『リアンコルド』岩 實見者ヨリ聽取シタル情報『リヤンコルド』岩 韓人之ヲ獨島ト書シ 本邦漁夫等 略シテ『リヤンコ』島ト呼称セリ」
The Korean writes 独島（Dok-tou: isolate island) the Riyankorudo rock(Japanese pronunciation of Liancourt Rocks). This shows that Korean name of the Liancourt Rocks was not "stone island" but "isolate island". Stone-island（石島)" in the Royal Decree No.41 is not Liancourt Rocks. Moreover, this is Japanese record. Please present the evidence that the Korea government made.
Mr oyoyo are you the same poster who was banned from wikipedia? I think you are a Japanese lobbyist called Opp. I remember last year when wikipedia had to ban you for vandalizing their pages!! That's right now I remember!!
You are that creepy Japanese guy who thinks he is a lawyer!!
Look if you are a lawyer, please state your law background, and credentials otherwise you are just rambling. There are many interpretations to law, whether or not Mr Brownlie's interpretations of law are applicable is up to a judge. Lawyers (not you) cite laws, juries listen and then judges render decisions.
As I've said, there is plenty of reason to rationalize that the Seokdo (stone island) in Ordinance 41 was Dokdo because quite simply the residents of Ulleungdo described it as such. If you have another theory I'd like to hear it. I have already asked you once.
You see Japan claimed the rocks as ownerless, however, we know Japan already ceded Dokdo to Korea in 1695. This was made clear in 1837. It's funny how you avoided the page above, creepy Opp.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html
#231
>There are many interpretations to law, whether or not Mr Brownlie's interpretations of law are applicable is up to a judge.
Sorry, The scholar who admits the title of the conquest since WW1 doesn't exist.
>Seokdo (stone island) in Ordinance 41 was Dokdo because quite simply the residents of Ulleungdo described it as such.
Seokdo is Dokdo, because I think so. Such an insistence is not admitted by International Law. Specific evidence without the doubt is necessary.(See #229)
>This was made clear in 1837. It's funny how you avoided the page above, creepy Opp.
Regrettably. In International Law, the map doesn't become the evidence of the effective control. And, the take a passage to the Ulleungdo was prohibited as a result of the trial. Sorry, the take a passage to Takeshima was not prohibited. Please shoe me the evidence of the Korean effective control.
I think you should read Judicial precedent.
oyoyo = puyopuyo
Oh, Stupid Japanese still screaming!
I didn't read all of your garbage.
Please don't trolling.
#217
Korea's posiotion is #177.
Japan has never proposed ICJ.
The occupation of Diaoyutai islands by the Japan is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Diaoyutai islands by Japan based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification.
#218
Wow. Are you serious?
He never says, He is worried because there is no evidence of the effective control by Korea before1905.
He says, WE SEEK MORE and MORE EVIDENCE. BUT IT IS NOT MEAN, there is no evidence of the effective control by Korea before 1905.
lol
#220
Please don't trolling.
answer is #212
#226.
"Dokdo" name record first found by 1904 Japanese Navy Docuement ÏÚùæãæÍÔûÜú¼ÔÑìíò¼. "Korean called Liancourt rocks as Dokdo." When 1905 Japan incorporate this island, they hide this fact.
http://english.dokdohistory.com/museum/m_j_history02.html
After that, Korean governer says, ¡°It is totally groundless that Dokdo has become Japanese territory,¡± and went on to order ¡°an investigation and report on the situation and on what the Japanese have done.¡±
OK?
Korean did not know Dokdo's existence for thounsadns of years? Basically, it is a IMPOSSIBLE claim.
I am puyopuyo and am not oyoyo. Since the opinion is expressed in English which is not a native language, my report also has a grammatical error and difficult expression has not been carried out. If oyoyo wrote the thing written by me, supposing it carries out recognition, it is impolite to oyoyo. By the way, the fact that the Korean dynasty recognized Usan-do to be Jukdo is the kana currently checked. Although it is understanding if Seungjeongwon ilgi and Ilseong-rok are read.
ILL SETTLE THIS, HERE AND NOW!
...it's american land :D
:p
>Japan has never proposed ICJ.
It tells a lie like this why. It is in South Korea that refuses International Court of Justice(ICJ). Japan proposed that they entrusted the decision to ICJ belonged the island on September 25, 1954. However, because South Korea had refused, court of ICJ was not opened. Afterwards, Japan keeps making a similar proposal every year. Since South Korea has also refused them, the still abnormal state continues.
Even if it rewrites description of the map and textbook which are used among the main countries from Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo, it does not lead to problem solving. It is because attribution in Japan is clear in the San Francisco treaty. There is such a just basis in the opinion of Japan. However, there is no basis in a South Korean opinion. It will be satisfactory if illegal occupation is carried out till when. Are they going to stay as an aggressor forever?
Mr Japanese lobbyist. Japan cannot use the 1905 annexation for a legal basis for few reasons.
First, territorial claims must be open and public. This means there must be an announcement to the extent other sovereigns could be aware enough to contest the claim. When Japan annexed Dokdo there was no external announcement at a central government level. Japan's annexation of Dokdo was clandestine and not made known beyond a prefecture level. A regional government has absolutely no effect in the forum of international politics.
Did you know that Japan's only "public announcement" was a tiny broken ad on the second page of a regional newspaper. Did you know this "public announcement" didn't even mention the internationally recognized name of Dokdo at the time (Liancourt Rocks)? Japan's didn't even give the name of the island they annexed. Of course, no foreign nation would have been aware of Japan's annexation. Thus, it's clear Japan's seizure of Dokdo was not open and public.
Also, the ICJ makes it clear, territorial land claims must be natural and peaceful. Japan annexed Dokdo during the largest war of the day while fighting for the exclusive right to colonize the Korean peninsula. This is neither a natural nor peaceful way to lay claim to new territory. Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an inseparable part of Japanese aggression into Korean land.
Read the truth Mr Lobbyist.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
Here is a legal study of Korea's claim to Dokdo. He is qualified on the subject Mr Opp, however you are not. His solution is an equidistant line between Korea's Ulleungdo and Oki Islands. I agree with this or at least the current 12 mile boundary Korea maintains today. That is fair.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jonvandyke-doc.pdf
1. In 1876, Japanese government showed that Dokdo is Korean territory (ðÈàØÔÔú äÍÓñ)
2. UN Map (1946) Dokdo is Korean territory
3. In 1754 France map, In 1740 English map - Dokdo is Korean territory
4. In 1886, ðÈàØÏÐîïÓñ shows that Dokdo is Korean terriroty.
5. In 1531, ãæÔÔÏÐæ°ò¢ã¯Õ shows that Dokdo is Korean territory
6. In 1785, ß²ÏÐïÈåÁñýÓñ(Japanese map) shows that Dokdo is Korean territory.
7. In 1854, Russia Navy Map show that Dokdo is Korean territory.
I have more evidence..
Again, Here is the good academic document from Japanese scholar.
This document tell everything.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kazuo-hori-doc.pdf
The paper of JON M.VAN DYKE which you have found is wonderful. It may be able to do just because it is you who have found such a wonderful paper. It is advising the South Korean government to present a case to the court to the International Court of Justice. The Japanese government has already set up the jurisdiction. If South Korea presents a case to the court, a court can be opened immediately.
Since Japanese Annexation of Korea, education and a fund are injected into South Korea by Japan, and it has been the method of copying Japan further and has accomplished fast progress of delay one step from Japan. Although this "historical fact" is common sense for the modern Asia historian in the world, only the historian of this South Korea and Japan does not mention a humorous thing. Even if a South Korean historian splits a mouth, he cannot say, "Is helped by Japan, it copied and our country grew up." A Japanese historian is fearful and cannot say a South Korean complexion "Japan did the contribution important for South Korean development." Both assert the history fabricated by one side, and it is common in that one side has shown children the history of a lie in consideration of a degree very much at a partner's complexion.Kazuo Hori is one of such a historians.
If he with such backgrounds tells Takeshima, what deviation is probably will be guessed easily. His opinion has a conclusion previously and is only actually making an excuse for justifying it. I hear that Korea has not governed Takeshima that it can say from the objective fact. If it has not ruled over, naturally it will not be taken. That is, the opinion of a South Korean called the first island where Dokdo fell victim to colonial rule is exactly a historical fabrication. There is no weight of the evidence in the thing written by those who help a historical fabrication.
If old map becomes an evidence, Korea (both North and South) is Chinese territory, China is Mongolian's territory...
Don't forget...He is a real south korean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uECizhheY8
Korea belongs to either Japan or China.
Mr. Huber from Boston belongs to Korea
Dokdo is korea`s land,
According to Korea and China`s history "Dokdo is belongs to Korea."
Even japan`s old book says Dokdo is belongs to Joseon.
Joseon is a country before korea. And "The True Record of the Joseon Dynasty" says it is belons to Joseon. And the last king of Joseon build new country and it became Korea. Long time ago Joseon`s people lived in Dokdo.
But japanese invaders plunder Dokdo, So Joseon dynasty said don`t live in Dokdo because of dager. So no one live in Dokdo for a long time.
And japanese said no one lived at Dokdo so it is not Korea`s land,
There is many reasons that Dokdo is belongs to korea but it`s too hard to say here. Because is too long.
Nationalism, creating pointless conflicts since Mesopatamia.
Korea has not solved the most fundamental subject. Japan names it Takeshima in 1905 and it cannot be proving that the island included in the territory in Japan is the same as that of Usando currently recorded on Korean ancient documents. Unless this proof is made, the island taken by Japan cannot be claimed.
The real truth behind the 2008 Brochure, published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
http://english.dokdohistory.com/03_inform/issue_view.asp?i_ident=2973
Here is the Another documnet from Japanese scholar
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura-doc.pdf
Even the Meiji Government, which annexed Dokdo in 1905, initially recognized Dokdo as Korean territory.
http://english.dokdohistory.com/dokdo-history/dokdo-korean-territory.asp
The ratio of the real distances in kilometers and the distances in ×ì on the 1877 document are about the same. 120×ì:80×ì (distance on 1877 document ratio=.66) 240km:157km (actual distance ratio in km =.65)
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html
Japanese keep claim that "Korean did not know Liancourt Rocks existence for thousands of years."
Let's clarify this. Your logic start from "Korean did not know Liancourt Rocks existence for thousands of years."
Let's see this photo, Liancourt Rocks cleary visible in Korea terrtory(in Ulleungdo).
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-from-ulleungdo3.jpg
How can Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? huh? even visible in their territory?
Your logic is failure logic, because start from inaccurate presumption.
#249
I thank for your having introduced a Korean claim.
However, the document which was shown to reinforce a Korean claim does not have persuasive power at all. On the contrary, I am enough if I deny a Korean claim. For example, "Fishing Rights in the Sea fo Korea 1, which indentified Dokdo as an annex of Ulleungdo,part of the larger Gangwon Province, Korea" and explanation are added to a document introduced in the next Web, but this is really irresponsible.
http://english.dokdohistory.com/dokdo-history/dokdo-korean-territory.asp
I understand it if I have the following read in detail.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/kankaitsuugyo-1903/
Please read particularly following page 3s.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/kankaitsuugyo-1903/10.jpg
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/kankaitsuugyo-1903/11.jpg
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/kankaitsuugyo-1903/12.jpg
Furthermore, a map sticks to this book. There is not mention called Dokudo in the map.
Let's point it out one more. "Chosen suiro-shi (JoseonCoast Pilot), Second Edition(1899) It is written down with ", but this book is published in 1907.
http://ambitious.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/hoppodb/gaichi/doc/0E011013000000.html
It is a mistake to assume that it was published in 1899 by regarding Liancourt-rocks as Takeshima. Because Liancourt-rocks was named Takeshima by Japanese Government, and having been admitted into the territory in 1905 is because is it. This island has not been called Takeshima before 1905. Even such fabrication is done, and South Korea keeps invading Takeshima that is Japanese territory and brainwashing nationals.
It is only proven that South Korea was occupying Takeshima in the effect with can say that the territory incorporation measures of Japan of 1905 is invalid. Korea has not shown such an evidence.
This island has not have not any bamboo. Even such fabrication is done, and Japan keeps invading Dokdo that is Korean territory and brainwashing nationals. It is only proven that Japan was illgally annexed Dokdo is invalid. Japan has not shown such an evidence.
#250.
Now, Japanese claim that "Our document is fabricated!"
"Our mistake!" "It is a mistake to assume that it was published in 1899 by regarding Liancourt-rocks as Takeshima."
That's the typical reaction that you will hear from Japanese. Too bad..Japanese always avoid responsibility. and when they meet fact, they always said, "It is a mistake!" Ugly cowardly selfish Japanese culture.
The 1903(Before Japan illegally annexation year 1905) Japanese Black Dragon Fishing Guide
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
Japanese right-wing group called the Black Dragons. On the second page above, Dokdo is listed under Gangwon Province (Korea) and bracketed under Ulleungdo Island. In addition the manual is titled The Black Dragon's Chosun Fishing Guide.
Translation of the 1903 Japanese Black Dragon Fishing Guide.
The second page above is the Black Dragon Chosun Fishing Guide's index (click image). Highlighted in red by the author is the subtitle for Korea's Gangwan Province and bracketed below is "Yangkodo" or Liancourt Rocks. This shows that those Japanese fishermen who frequented the region regarded Dokdo as both part of Korea (Gangwan Province) and as an appended island of Ulleungdo. Surely, if the Japanese fishermen of the day regarded Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan, the island would not be in a Korean fishing manual listed under the jurisdiction of Gangwan Province and bracketed under Korea's Ulleungdo Island.
The relevent text is as follows:
"...About 30-ri south-east of Ulleungdo, and almost the same distance north-west from Japan’s Oki county, there is an uninhabited island. One can see it from the highest point of 山峯 (mountain) in Ulleungdo when the weather is fine.
Korean and Japanese fishermen call it “Yanko”, its length is about 10-cho. Its coast is full of bends and twists, thus, it’s easy for fishing boats to be in anchor and to escape winds and waves. However, it is very difficult to get firewood and drinking water, one can dig the ground for several shaku (1.0 ? 1.5meters) from the surface but hard to get water.
1. Usando was not Dokdo? Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? -> Lie.
even Japanese document said,
" One can see it from the highest point of 山峯 (mountain) in Ulleungdo when the weather is fine."
2. Before 1905, Even japanese right wing group classifed dokdo as Korean' territory.
The 1903(Before Japan illegally annexation year 1905) Japanese Black Dragon Fishing Guide
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
Japanese right-wing group called the Black Dragons. On the second page above, Dokdo is listed under Gangwon Province (Korea) and bracketed under Ulleungdo Island. In addition the manual is titled The Black Dragon's Chosun Fishing Guide.
Translation of the 1903 Japanese Black Dragon Fishing Guide.
The second page above is the Black Dragon Chosun Fishing Guide's index (click image). Highlighted in red by the author is the subtitle for Korea's Gangwan Province and bracketed below is "Yangkodo" or Liancourt Rocks. This shows that those Japanese fishermen who frequented the region regarded Dokdo as both part of Korea (Gangwan Province) and as an appended island of Ulleungdo. Surely, if the Japanese fishermen of the day regarded Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan, the island would not be in a Korean fishing manual listed under the jurisdiction of Gangwan Province and bracketed under Korea's Ulleungdo Island.
The relevent text is as follows:
"...About 30-ri south-east of Ulleungdo, and almost the same distance north-west from Japan’s Oki county, there is an uninhabited island. One can see it from the highest point of 山峯 (mountain) in Ulleungdo when the weather is fine.
Korean and Japanese fishermen call it “Yanko”, its length is about 10-cho. Its coast is full of bends and twists, thus, it’s easy for fishing boats to be in anchor and to escape winds and waves. However, it is very difficult to get firewood and drinking water, one can dig the ground for several shaku (1.0 ? 1.5meters) from the surface but hard to get water.
Japan named Takeshima on January 28, 1905, and incorporated it into Japanese territory. This procedure is the one that it followed International Law, and doesn't have the wound at all. That is, there was no challenge from which country. It goes against the facts though Korea is insisting that it was not able to protest because a diplomatic right was being deprived by Japan. Korea is protesting against the agreement revision that strengthens the alliance of Japan and Britain in August, 1905. Korea was able to say the objection from this to the Takeshima owning of Japan like clearness. However, the reaction was not shown. Korea was not to have recognized Takeshima as a territory of the home country in 1905.
The Korean is to object as follows in case of this, saying that "Dokdo is our territory from the 6th century". However, Usan-do was a territory in Korea in writing in an old document. On the other hand, evidence that Takeshima of today is Usan-do is not shown. It is negative because it is not suitable for the historical fact though some theories were recited by Korean people. Usan-do is Jukdo east offshore of Ulleungdo according to the material of the Korean dynasty end.
Since Korea did not have the report from Japan, it is claimed that the admission by Japan is invalid. However, it is a view of the specialist of a large majority of international law that there is no necessity for a report. Moreover, the official report of Japan's admission is carried out from Shimane Prefecture. Press reports are also carried out in response to it. It was never carried out in secrecy.
It can be confirmed that incorporation by Japan of 1905 was lawful by the San Francisco agreement that came into effect in 1952. Takeshima is not included in the list of the region that Japan should return Korea. It is admitted that this is not the one done by an act owning by the Takeshima Day book violence. Such a fact was disregarded, and owning the island was one-sidedly declared, and however, South Korea added gunfire to the fishing boat of Japan and the ship of the inshore patrol, and seized it. And, Takeshima was unlawfully occupied. Such an act of South Korea is obviously an invasion.
They do not become the proofs of the effect rule by Korea though the quay is made though Korea makes the lighthouse. It is because Japan is protesting. Because the solution by a diplomatic negotiation of Japan- Korea cannot be hoped, it is reasonable to try to obtain the decision of International Court of Justice for the problem solving. However, because Korea doesn't agree, court is not opening it.
#252.
The opinion of a private enterprise does not serve as a basis of a territory. The position of the Japanese government was shown in 1905 according to international law. And international society accepts it. On the other hand, Koreans say that the position of the Korean government was shown in 1900. However, a basis is not in the opinion.
#255
Even the Meiji Government, which annexed Dokdo in 1905, initially recognized Dokdo as Korean territory.
http://english.dokdohistory.com/dokdo-history/dokdo-korean-territory.asp
The ratio of the real distances in kilometers and the distances in ×ì on the 1877 document are about the same. 120×ì:80×ì (distance on 1877 document ratio=.66) 240km:157km (actual distance ratio in km =.65)
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html
In 1904 this guide was published for the purpose of informing Japanese nationals the nature of doing business in Korea. Within this publication was a section about business (fishing etc.) in Kangwan Province.
This book treats Dokdo Island (Liancourt-Yankodo) is much the same way as the Japanese Black Dragon Fishing manual in how it lists Ulleungdo and Dokdo. On the center page above can be seen the heading for Kangwan Province (Ë°ê«Ô³) with Ulleungdo (ê¦×ÕÓö) as the next chapter. The following page continues from there and the next chapter gives a brief description of "Yangkodo-«ä«ó«³Óö" (Dokdo) The following chapter describes Jukpyeon on Korea's mainland in Kangwando. In other words this manual again lists Dokdo more as Korean territory. The page itself decribing Dokdo is titled "Korean Business Guide"
Below is a translation of the relevent text:
Yankodo (Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo) Yankodo is in the center between Ulleungdo and Japan's Oki Island at a distance of about 30ri. Even if mooring is available offshore, it's difficult to find firewood and drinking water. Abalone, sea cucumber, agar-agar can be harvested offshore. Even though many sharks inhabit the waters, many can't be caught because of the sealions in the area.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
#257
I point it out again, but there is not it with a thing having a decisive influence even if the private recognition can be taken into account in a territorial problem. It is necessary for the government to make intention of the possession clear in comformity with an international law. The measures that Japanese Government of 1905 took were right such things. What I named it Takeshima and added to the Japanese territory was legal. There was no thing which made an objection against Japanese Takeshima possession.
And, as for the admission to the Japanese territory of Takeshima, the global community recognizes the thing that there is not with a thing performed by violent technique. It was performed through San Francisco treaty. Korea should read Article 2 of the San Francisco treaty many times. Takeshima is not added to the local list which Japan must give back to Korea. With the early draft, Takeshima was surely added to the local list which Japan must give back to Korea. However, Takeshima was finally excluded by the list. It is not because Japan put be underhandedness pressure. Allied powers confirm that a procedure of 1905 was taken in comformity with an international law and are nothing but treasure. Anyway, it is what the global community accepted that Takeshima is a Japanese territory. What Korea occupies without being concerned with it is natural in response to criticism of the heartlessness.
Opp, (puyopuyo) international law states territorial land claims must be peaceful.
Japan annexed Dokdo during the Russo Japanese War for the explicit purpose of defeating Russia in Japan's process of colonizing Korea. This was not peaceful. Japan's whole motive for incorporating Dokdo was to install military watchtowers and telegraph lines.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
The word you used was "violent" but the legal definition used by Max Huber was "natural and peaceful"
Second, territorial land claims must be open and public. Here publicity would be open and public enough that other interested sovereign nations would be aware of Japan's incorporation so countries could have the opportunity to contest. This was not the case with Japan's annexation of Dokdo. There was no official announcement beyond a local level. Prefectures have no say in the field of international politics.
Japan's so-called announcement of her incorporation was a tiny ad on the second page of a local newspaper. In fact, Japanese announcement doesn't even mention the name of the island they incorporated at all.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-expansionism-politics.html
We also know Japan's incorporation was not a case of "prior occupation" nor "terra nullius" The "Success Story of Nakai Yozaburo" records that even before Japan annexed Dokdo Koreans were also involved in the seal hunting industry along the with the Japanese. Thus, not only were the Koreans cognizant of Dokdo Takeshima, they also had an economic interest in the island before the Japanese military seized the rocks. Additionally, Korean involvement on Dokdo was legitimately undertaken from her own sovereign territory while Japan's activities were through trespassers and squatters illegally living on Chosun's Ulleungdo Island.
Opp, regarding the San Francisco Peace Treaty, please read post 211 again.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty makes no mention of Dokdo Takeshima. The American representative who drafted the Japan Peace Treaty and signed it (John Foster Dulles) made it clear, if Japan had a problem with territories not mentioned in Article 2, Japan would have to seek other solvents either bilaterally or through mediation.
In other words, the Allies chose not to deal with the Dokdo Takeshima issue, the island was not granted to Japan at all. At the very least, Korea was not signatory and is no way subject to the terms of the Japan Peace Treaty document anyway.
#259
You are a suspicious person. I am not OPP. You should become more obedient. Any kind of problem should improve more prospects if I do so it.
That aside, You say bluff very much that San Francisco treaty does not conflict with reversion of Takeshima. When "Takeshima is a Japanese territory", the San Francisco treaty makes it clear. With the draft of the early days of the San Francisco treaty, Takeshima was included in the area that Japan paid to Korea. However, Takeshima is finally taken off the local list which Japan gives back to Korea. This is the fact that anyone accepts. In other words it means that "Takeshima recognized the global community as a Japanese territory". It is the liar who rarely watches it whether it is a particularly obstinate human being not to accept this fact. I strongly hope that you belong to neither.
Japan conformed to an international law in 1905 and named it Takeshima and was admitted into the Japanese territory. The global community received this. There was not the thing which objected to Japan possessing Takeshima. This is a fact. Though there is a claim to "be invalid because there was not a report to the Korea government", the internationalist of the great portion shows the opinion not to be necessary of the report. That Takeshima was admitted as a Japanese territory is conveyed with the newspaper.
Korea says that Dokdo is an island seized by Japan, but should show the evidence that Korea possessed forward than Japan admits you in 1905. Such an evidence has been never shown. In other words it means that Japan names an island without what Korea possessed Takeshima and was admitted. How may you take the thing which there was not away from Korea in a Korean island if you do it?
No, Opp you are wrong.
The issue of Korea's sovereignty over the Dokdo prior to 1905 and the legality of Japan's annexation are separate issues. Whether or not Korea claimed the island has nothing to do with Japan's claim being illegal.
There were many drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty many of these drafts gave the islands to Korea, some to Japan and some excluded the island. In the end the islands were left out altogether. Japan was signatory to the Japan Peace Treaty she allowed Allied Command to dictate the definition of her nation as her agent. Without consent from Allied Command, Japan cannot exercise control and sovereignty over Dokdo.
As I've stated, John Foster Dulles, the American who drafted the Japan Peace Treaty and signed it, made a speech before the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
John Foster Dulles stated
"...What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago."...The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term..." "...Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty..."
He clearly stated if Japan was not happy with the terms of Article 2 (territory) they had to seek solvents outside of the Japan Peace Treaty. This would mean either bilaterally or through International mediation (ICJ) At any rate, it was clear by his statement, the issue of Dokdo Takeshima was not resolved by the Japan Peace Treaty.
I told you above Opp.
First, the 1905 annexaton was not "peaceful" It was a military annexation done at the height of the largest war of the day (Russo-Japanese War) while Japan militarily occupied Korea during a time while Japan fought to colonize Korea.
Second, the incorporation was not open and public. There was no central government announcement only a prefectural meeting. This "newspaper announcement" you talk about was a tiny ad on the second page of a local rag. It didn't even mention the islands name!! How could any interested nation have known? In fact, many Japanese themselves didn't even know Japan annexed the rocks until much later.
The colonial era is dead ,and Japan's claims to lands she "acquired" during this painful era must also die....
#261
Well. You are what persistent. If it is in OPP, and I say and say how many times, do you understand it? Can you understand English?
I must advise you before arguing in a concrete point. When you have to learn the rudimentary way of thinking of the international law. It is the thing which it is signed, and was ratified to have effect regardless of a draft. It is common sense. I cannot recognize even it, and it is vicious political advertising to scatter perversion. Do you want to let Japan and Korea grow away?
I seem to like a speech of John Foster Dulles, but can understand the meaning? Or you cannot understand it to me or seem to twist it around right.
Was transparent; stop telling a lie. Because if it reads historical materials properly, it easily comes out that your and your friend tells a lie. If there are normal comprehension and judgement, Korea dynasty should be able to understand that even existence of Takeshima did not come around. Even if you seem to stand, I do not "reveal even the name of the island with a local newspaper" and said, and I understand what is named Takeshima by the image which you offered because I can read Japanese. Do not make remark that it is not based on a fact more than this.
If you want to argue with me, it welcomes you. But I will refuse it if you force reason by your belief.
I understand international law quite well.
Max Huber himself stated territorial land acquistions must be peaceful. Japan's annexation can be proven to be an act of military aggression by a few pieces of evidence.
1. Nakai Yozaburo's diary records Yamaza Enjiro's statement that Liancourt Rocks had to be incorporated to build watchtowers to monitor hostile (Russian) ships in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) this was in September of 1904.
2. The logbooks of the warship Tsushima in November 13th 1904 record the instruction to survey Liancourt Rocks for military watchtowers and telegraph lines.
3. The military survey map drawn by Commander Yamanaka Shibkichi shows the idea location for building watchtowers on Liancourt drawn on November 20th 1904.
4. The detailed construction report for military facilities to be built on Liancourt Rocks was submitted on January 5th 1905 to the director of the Japanese Navy's Hydragraphic Dept. (Kimotsuki) He was very instrumental in guiding Nakai Yozaburo's application to lease Liancourt Rocks.
All of the proof above show Japan's motives for annexing Liancourt Rocks was military, not peaceful. They all were before Japan's February 1905 annexation. This is historical proof and I've given you the link above to show the original records from Japan's own historical archives in this link. Can't your read English or are you so blinded by your own nationalism?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
The meaning of John Foster Dulle's speech was simple. America did not have the right to unilaterally make decisions on the disposition of former Japanese territories. Although America supported Japan's claim to Takeshima (for military reasons) they could not make a judgement without full agreement with the other signatory nations of the Japan Peace Treaty. This is why Dulles told Japan to seek another way to solve the Dokdo Takeshima problem.
The speech I referred to was simply the same thing Dulles told the Japanese in another correspondence. See this document.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dulles-doc1.jpg
Korea was cognizant and economically involved on Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese seized the islands. Thus, in hindsight, Japan's claims of "prior occupation" and/or "terra nullius" can be seen as false.
#263
I was relieved to hear that you completely understood an international law. The reason is because it does not hear the selfish claim that many Koreans and people of pro-Korea say, and it finishes it.
You said that the admission by Japan of 1905 was invalid. You point out the reason that the reason is because Japan was going to use the island strategically. There is one or the thing that there must be it before examining a claim of this you. It is to clarify whether Korea ruled this island before 1905. I think you who completely understand an international law to have you understand that this procedure is indispensable. And I think that I have you agree to suggestion of this me promptly.
Of me is going to know it, and there is not the evidence that Korea ruled over forward than Japan admits the island that Japan named Takeshima in 1905. Do you have the evidence that Korea ruled this island before 1905?
Well let's look at Japan's claim.
For Japan's claims to be valid they used the legal doctrine "terra nullius" meaning occupation.
This means the island must be "unoccupied" at the time of Japan's annexation. Japan stated on her claim, that one Japanese citizen was currently "occupying" (living on) Liancourt Rocks at the time of Japan's incorporation. However, we know this is false. First Liancourt Rocks has no water and cannot sustain life for an extended period of time. Second the logbooks of the Japanese warship Tsushima records the hut Nakai Yozaburo had built was gone and destroyed.
So in this case, Nakai Yozaburo's case of "occupation" involves his seasonal seal hunting activities on Liancourt Rocks in 1904.
However, as I've mentioned, Koreans were also involved on Liancourt Rocks at this time and even before Nakai Yozaburo applied to lease Liancourt Rocks. Thus, the island was not "no man's land" or unoccupied at the time of Nakai Yozaburo's claim.
Korean activities on Liancourt were valid and Japan's were not. This is because the Japanese activities on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) were all undertaken through the illicit squatting and trespassing of Japanese on Korea's Ulleungdo Island. Nakai Yozaburo and the other Japanese were involved in the illegal trespassing on Korean territory. Korean activity on Liancourt Rocks was from Chosun's sovereign land.
As I've stated before, the Japanese Navy's desire to annex Dokdo for military purpose proves Japan's motives for seizing the islets was an act of military aggression. As Max Huber stated, territorial land acquisitions must be peaceful. This is a separate issue from Korea's claim entirely.
In other words, because Japan's claim is proven as false, on so many points mentioned above, there is little reason to scrutinize Korea's because they currently administer over Dokdo Island. When Japan can present a valid claim of their own, perhaps their claims can be entertained.
Thank you.
#265
You said "Korean activities on Liancourt were valid". However, you do not show the evidence. Do you insist that activity in Korean Liancourt Rocks was effective based on any kind of fact?
It is the official history book which Korea dynasty edited and the situation that it may be said that the description about Liancourt Rocks is nil to see a record. How will you explain this fact? The description of Usan-do is read from the sixth century, but is surely too different from a figure of Liancourt Rocks when I analyze the article. Rather it matches Ulleungdo or a state of Jukdo of the northeast offing of Ulleungdo. In other words I cannot but suppose that Korea dynasty did not recognize Liancourt Rocks to be the domain of the own country. Korea does not have the right to make an objection against Japanese admission if Korea dynasty did not recognize Liancourt Rocks to be own country territory. (Naturally do you who completely understand an international law know it?) Therefore importance and I point it out whether there is the fact that Korea influenced Liancourt Rocks before 1905 when Japan names it Takeshima and was admitted.
I expect a clear answer from you.
Wow..it's really shocking and scary to find Japenis they are doing nothing wrong. Japenis custom to think that "We do not go to ICJ with China and Russia. (South Kuril islands, Diaoyutai Islands) we Japanese refused to go to ICJ. because we anyhow wanted island must belong to japan! However, when we Japenis put pressure go to ICJ with korea(we Jap nothing to loose!), that is perfectly normal and OK." Typical Jap double standard..cowardly and sickening.
here is the another good document.
http://gount.badpixel.net/Dokdo_is_Korean_Territory_(ENG).pdf
http://gount.badpixel.net/Dokdo_is_Korean_Territory_(ENG).pdf
As I've said before.
First, Japan's "incorporation" was not peaceful as territorial land claims must be. It was a military land grab Japan undertook for her to colonize the Korean peninsula.
Second, it was not open and public to the extent other interested sovereigns would have been made aware so they could contest it.
Third, Japan's claims of prior occupation can be proven false by their own records from the diary of Nakai Yozaburo himself.
Puyo, plese read over what I've posted above. Korea currently administers over Dokdo. Because Japan has no historical claim, and their 1905 annexation was flawed on so many points, there really is no point redrawing the modern boundary between Japan and Korea in the year 2009.
So, if you can't put forth a claim for Japan, please stop bashing Korea's.
Thank you very much!!
#267
Thank you for comment. Though I thanked you in having given an answer without escaping, I was disappointed at the content. You seem to do not mean to meet my demand. You seem to be the intention that continues saying only your claim one-sidedly without listening to my claim. It is not argued in this.
What I demand from you is to want you to show the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima before 1905. The Japanese admission is not invalid if there is not the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima before 1905. It is insisted that you took Takeshima away from Korea so that Japan uses it strategically. You must prove that Takeshima was a Korean territory before since you insist that you "seized" it than Japan is admitted. If it is not made, your claim cannot but come to say with silly talk based on a simple delusion.
The claim of Takeshima possession based on Korean arbitrary historical materials interpretation had better say "a Dokudo myth". By the way, will you understand a kanji(Han character)? You had better be careful if you read only the document which a Korean translated. Because the reason is because it may replace the document with "Dokudo" without permission entirely if written as "Usando".
I correct comment ahead. It was an error of the comment to #268 that sentenced to comment to #267 in #269.
#269.
I expected a clear answer from dokdo-takeshima.com, but my expectation was not granted. I am very disappointed.
It is an identification of best thing to show that Korea did not know the island where Japan names what was not shown Takeshima in 1905, and the evidence that an island known as Liancourt Rocks in Europe and America was ruled over by Korea before 1905 admitted you into in. In other words Korea does not have historic grounds to insist on possession of Takeshima. Besides, it means the international law that Korea insists on possession of Takeshima doing a groundless thing. Therefore, the present conditions are the illegal occupation of the Japanese territory by Korea, and it is a clear act of aggression.
The Korean will argue for a claim of this me. According to Samguk Sagi, I should understand that it was our territory from 512 years. Japan will be said not to say an unstable thing by them. A description that clothes belonged to Silla surely has Usan-guk in Korean ancient documents. If Usan-do was Usan-guk, their claim is true. However, as for the problem, Usan-do and Takeshima are whether it is the same island. Japan names Takeshima with Usan-do in 1905 without putting doubt into in Korea and does it when it is the island where it was admitted into. However, it develops that the thought that is considered to be common sense among Koreans when I read Korean ancient documents carefully is a mistake. When it is Ulleungdo or Jukdo, the description of Korean ancient documents about Usan-do is readable. For example, Takeshima is an island only of a rock; and here agriculture. Inhabitants of more than 80 continuing living again in an island without almost fresh water. Nobody can deny this fact. Korea should wake from a group fantasy as soon as possible.
Puyopuyo. Can I just call you poo for short?
It is you who fails to impress me. You have given readers here absolute zero reason as to why in the year 2009 we should divide the boundary of Korea and Japan on a the basis of a war-time colonial era annexation. Zero.
The Koreans currently administer over Dokdo and have done so for well over 50 years. If the Japanese wish to challenge Korea's claim to the island they must present a case worthy of being adjudicated upon.
There are many things we now know about Japan's 1905 that couldn't be addressed at the time.
First as I've shown above, Japan's 1905 claim of occupation was not superior to Korea's at the time.
The Koreans were actively engaged on Dokdo before the Japanese annexed the islands. Korea involvement on Liancourt Rocks was legitimately undertaken from Chosun soil while the Japanese did so while squatting and trespassing on Korea's Ulleungdo.
The Japanese cannot claim an island on the premise it was "ownerless" when in fact they already conceded the islets were Korean territory at least three times before. (1870 Report on Chosun, 1837 Hachiemon Incident, 1877 Kobunruko Records and by numerous maps)
Second, the Koreans contested the annexation the moment they were notified in 1906. The Japanese have placed the onus on the Koreans to have contested more vehemently, however we know the Korean lost the chance to conduct state to state affairs as of August 1904.
Japan's 1905 claim to Dokdo was a clear act of military aggression in Japan's bid to win the Russo Japanese War and to colonize the Korean peninsula. As Max Huber continually placed emphasis that land acquisitions must be "peaceful" and continuous I'm afraid Japan's claim doesn't wash.
On top of that, Japan's 1905 claim was not "open and public". Shimane Prefecture's announcement was not declared at a central government level it was internal. We know regional governments have zero power in the forum of international politics. Also, Japan's newspaper "announcement" made no mention of either Matsushima or Liancourt Rocks and was a tiny ad on the second page of a regional newspaper.
The issue of Usando's identity depends on what records we cite. There are both Japanese and Korean records that state Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo). Anyongbok claimed both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) as part of Korea's eight provinces. He also stated it was 50ri away, this means it was not Jukdo Islet. This was recorded in the Murakawa records of 1696. From this claim, the Japanese raised no objection at all.
The Japanese say Seokdo of Ordinance 41 is not Dokdo. The Koreans say it is. There is no evidence that Seokdo (Rock Island) is any other island other than Dokdo. The only islet near Ulleungdo ever referred to as a rock island is Dokdo. Unless Japan can find at least one shred of proof otherwise why should Korea give up Dokdo?
Poo, you are putting the cart before the horse. You are telling the Koreans to live up to your demands of proof of sovereignty when the reams of documents at dokdo-takeshima.com show Japan either thought Dokdo was Korean or consistently excluded the islets from their own territory.
Please find a new hobby, Dokdo will always be Korean land.
#272
Thank you for a tedious speech.
I will advise you before entering the main subject. You should stop adding a strange nickname to another person. Because you seem to spread it with a man without dignity by oneself.
A long speech is not necessary. I want you to answer more briefly.
You said,"The Koreans were actively engaged on Dokdo before the Japanese annexed the islands." It is the grounds that I demand. I want you to show the evidence that can confirm the fact that a Korean was active with Takeshima lively before than Japan is admitted. If it is not made, all of your claims becomes meaningless. If you self-declare to understand International Law completely, it will be able to be understood that my demand is right.
My friends study Korean ancient documents. According to them, it is said that it is very likely that Korea did not recognize Takeshima to be a territory of oneself. They are not at all Japanese loyalists. They are based on an objective fact; and of Korean ancient documents analyze it. They study the history in the manner that a scientist studies nature. Their study makes a great difference with making a story to push forward anti-Japan activity like somebody by force. I approve of their claim. Because the reason is because it is fair.
By the way, will you notice it in spite of yourself? When you seem to come to lose an argument, I come to speak ill of a sparring partner. You show really plain reaction. It seems to have confessed your defeat by oneself to have been going to add a strange nickname to me. You should stop telling a lie. For your mental health, you had better stop telling a lie. You may not notice that oneself tells a lie in fact.At all events I recommend that you have a checkup with a psychiatrist.
Poo, don't ramble international law to me unless you are an international lawyer. If you are, (not a chance) please quote your name and credentials and then verify. Otherwise your theories about law (and mine) are purely hypothetical interpretations.
If you understood law at all, you would have addressed and rebutted the numerous points I have made above. But predictably, as I suspected, you simply "demanded" I answer your questions. As if I'm on trial or something. Poo, you don't set the bar or the standards Koreans (and I) have to answer to. Aren't you going to address any of my points above?
Let's look in detail about the circumstances when the Japanese annexed Liancourt Rocks. Both Koreans and Japanese were involved on Dokdo Island in the early part of the 20th Century this was before Nakai Yozaburo submitted his claim to lease Liancourt Rocks.
Nakai's whole basis for his title was the islands were ownerless however Nakai and the Japanese to whom he submitted his application to were aware Korea had an invested interest in the island. Thus, Japan had an obligation to convey her intentions of the annexation in an "open and public" enough forum for Koreans to raise an objection. However, Japan did not.
Even the Director of Japan's Hydrographic Department who was instrumental in pushing forth Nakai Yozaburo's application admitted. "The ownership of the island is not clear" In other words, Japan themselves were not even sure about the status of Dokdo when they seized the rocks. It turns out the Koreans did think Dokdo was theirs when they objected in 1906.
If your Japanese lobbyists, erm I means "friends" were academics they would take all of the available data Korean AND Japanese and draw conclusions bases on ALL of the evidence we have.
Instead, Japanese Takeshima lobbyists insist Koreans only draw from the pool of Korean data which was must less advanced at the time. This is because Japanese records kill Japan's claim.
Tell your Japanese friends to be more objective and study all the available data instead of putting their spin on the ambiguous ancient maps. Tell your Japanese friends to study the Russo-Japanese War. It will help them understand why the Japanese Navy annexed the island in the first place. Tell your Japanese friends to study Korean records about Japan's civilian invasion of Korea's Ulleungdo Island, Dokdo's most proximal land.
Finally, what is "international law"?
The international laws you cite were the rules colonial states used over a century ago to seize lands from weaker nations or native peoples whom they deemed "unenlightened". Meiji Japan pushed the natives of Hokkaido out of their island. Japan seized the Ryukyus from their natives as well. In the same manner Meiji Japan swarmed Korea's Ulleundo Island and used these activities as the basis for their claim to Liancourt Rocks.
When Japan's Director of Hydrographics decided Japan should seize Dokdo in 1904 he simply took a baseline measurement from both coastlines of Japan and Korea and claimed because Dokdo was marginally closer to Japan than Korea, they could grab the island. However, what consideration was given to the residents of Korea's Ulleungdo Island? None. This was because by this point Japan was already occupying Ulleungdo for at least 2 years with their own police force.
Today, modern law states Ulleungdo Island can claim an EEZ because it is large an inhabitable and so can Japan's Oki Island. Thus the most practical solution is an equidistant line drawn between both of these island. However, even todays 12 nautical mile boundary drawn between Ulleungdo and the Oki Islands gives almost an equal amount of ocean to both Korea and Japan so, why aren't you and Japan happy?
Because, Japan is greedy. Even with the world's 5th largest area of ocean (4,500,000sq kms) Japan still wants more.......... what a shame.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2008_August_4/ai_n28076734/
STFU about your international law.
It's been ours and now the US acknowledges S. Korea as the owner of Dokdo islands.
You should go to ICJ and complain about Japan sinking. They might get your attention. Go study geography first before talking to me about international laws.
"My friends study Korean ancient documents. According to them, it is said that it is very likely that Korea did not recognize Takeshima to be a territory of oneself. They are not at all Japanese loyalists. They are based on an objective fact; and of Korean ancient documents analyze it. They study the history in the manner that a scientist studies nature. Their study makes a great difference with making a story to push forward anti-Japan activity like somebody by force. I approve of their claim. Because the reason is because it is fair."
Read what you type, IT IS VERY LIKELY but guess what they were wrong. God go to a 4 year university not a god damn 2 year college
#274.
Thank you for comment. (Apart from what repeat the strange nickname that Poo says)
When I take only a demand, you criticize it. However, what I demand is a main premise to do an argument with you and me that there is the meaning. This problem solves the island where you are known to as Liancourt Rocks in Europe and America before 1905 when Japan admitted Takeshima if I show the evidence that Korea made effective control. Japan cannot do the island that Korea ruled with a territory. But there is not that Takeshima was ruled by Korea once. Of the power of the state that economic activities are performed with the rule to say here, and taxes are collected is that is used. There is not the description I look at where of Korean ancient documents, and to indicate that a Korean ruled over Dokto and the island (Takeshima whom in other words is a Japanese territory) calling today. Rather Korea is only a thing indicating that I did not recognize Takeshima to be a Korean territory.
When you insist that you are invalid because admission of Takeshima by Japan was performed during Russo-Japanese War, I understand it. Generally speaking, the admission in the situation that is not peaceful is not accepted. The territory which I got must be given back by war. But Takeshima has not been a Korean territory. Therefore, I must say that your idea fails. You must show the evidence that Korea put Takeshima under the control of it before that Japan is admitted into so that your idea holds good. Therefore I demand it to show the evidence that Korea ruled the island before 1905 when Japan admitted Takeshima. You may think my demand to be persistent, but want you to take it when I make power you do not carry out a useless activity, and to finish it.
#275.
Thank you for comment.
It is Korea to refuse to go to the International Court of Justice. Japan suggests the solution of the territorial dispute in the International Court of Justice all the time from 1954. If Korea agrees, the court is opened promptly. The U.S. Government supports the solution in the International Court of Justice, too, and it is told the intention to Korea. However, Korea refused both the Japanese suggestion and the American advice. This is a fact.
I hope that you suggest to Korea to go to the International Court of Justice.
Poo as I've said numerous times. The issue of Korea's validity to title and Japan's are separate issues.
In other words, your dissatisfaction with Korea's basis for title doesn't legitimize Japan's. Yes "peaceful" exercise of effective control over territory is a constant rule of law conveyed by Max Huber in his ICJ rulings throughout many years.
I've shown you numerous cases above of historical evidence the Japanese considered Dokdo as Korean territory. I've also shown you why Japan's 1905 annexation is illegal. Korea currently administers over Dokdo so really why should Korea relinquish the islets when Japan's claim is without merit? Also, we must scrutinize both Japan and Korea's legal cases when we are trying to see which one has merit.
What you are trying to do is impose the "modern" laws of 19th Century colonialism and imperialism on Chosun (Korea). This was nation when at the time wasn't even capable of maintaining the basic services to her people. This is similar to asking other peoples such as Native Americans etc to prove legal title to their lands. They too had no concept of the "legal" processes of claiming land during the 19th Century, Chosun was a squalid, backward state during this time.
International "law" in 1905. We from a purely "legal" standpoint we might say the Japanese colonial annexation of Korea was legal...maybe. But what fool would argue Japan's colonial rule over Korea is legal today? (some Japanese I've heard) At this time the world was a very different place Poo. Women couldn't vote and child labor was even legal. What I mean is, it's one thing to argue something was legal in 1905 but it's far a far different thing to retroactively impose these laws a century later when the economic, demographic and political situation is so different. Do you understand Poo?
Asia has changed dramatically since 1905 and yet these crackpot Japanese lobbyists like Poo here, insist we revisit Japan's expansionist era and push back Korea's territorial limits to the colonial era. How shocking this is! No wonder Koreans hate Japanese foreign policy so much. No wonder there is so much hatred toward Japan in Asia, thanks to people like Poo above.
Takeshima was not accepted as part of Japan. The Allies defined the territory of Japan in the terms of surrender after WWII. That was specified by the Potsdam Declaration. Japan territory was limited to the four main island groups and such minor islands "as we determine" No further instructions were given with regard to Dokdo and thus whatever judgements were made remained as specified in Article 2 of the Territorial provisions clause. If Japan had any other problems she had to seek solvents outside of the Japan Peace Treaty. Japan cannot exercise sovereignty over Takeshima without an explicit instruction from Allied command. On the other hand, Korea was not signatory and thus not subject to the terms of the Japan Peace Treaty.
Didn't I tell you this before. Are you O.K? Read post 201 above and follow the link.
Poo, America's official position in NOT to go to the ICJ, that was from confidential memorandums of the 190. America's official statement is that Japan and Korea solve the issue amicably in any manner ie bilaterally or through international solvents.
After the tragedies of 1910 and 1945, Korea will never allow any other nations to define her territorial limits EVER again. I totally agree with Korea's refusal to go to the ICJ, this is the right choice!!
#279.
Thank you for comment. However, you do a speech without the long contents as ever. You repeat "the story" that yourself wrote. You seem to do not mean to answer my question somehow or other. However, your "excellent opinion" becomes meaningless at all unless you can show the evidence that Korea made effective control before admission of Takeshima by Japan of 1905.
Japan at the time of 1905 was desperate for revising the unequal treaty that it was made to link to U.S.A. and the European countries. Japan was the best time when I made an effort to be able to conclude the relations that were equal with U.S.A. and European countries. Therefore, Japan did not think that I would open a territory by an unjust method. Rather it is a historical fact that Japan acted carefully so that it is not taken unfair advantage of weakness in U.S.A. and the European countries. In U.S.A., in the U.K. and Russia would not fall silent when admission of Takeshima by Japan was an unjust thing either. Even Chinese (for the Qing dynasty) that regarded itself as an Asian leader should have protested a Japanese step. But there was not the country to protest. The reason is because they did not think that it is unjust that Japan admitted Takeshima. Today's Korean says that "Korea was not able to protest it because it was confined the diplomacy right to Japan", but it is against a fact. Japan borrowed Korean land for war with Russia, but there was the noncommissioned officer who was going to sell the land without permission. The Korea government which noticed this does severe protest for Japan. Japan arrested the noncommissioned officer and was lacking in a trial and returned land to an owner. I feel this case ashamed. However, this case shows that the claim of today's Korean that "Korea was not able to protest Japan" is not fair. Japan accepted protest of the Korea government and coped faithfully. Japan did not leave an illegal act.
You should answer my demand without avoiding it. You must show the evidence that Korea did effective control of Takeshima before 1905. It is the same as your having admitted a defeat not to show the evidence. If you admit a mistake obediently, I forgive you. Because anyone may make a mistake. I do not wonder if I judge it without being informed of all facts even if you reached a wrong conclusion. However, it will be that you are called a racist if you continue carrying out an anti-Japan activity without admitting a mistake.
Poo, you say that Japan's occupation of Korea was legal? That shows what a crazy right-wing lobbyist you really are.
Japan borrowed Korean land!!?? Ha Ha. Yeah right Poo, they "borrowed it" for 40 years!!
The Japanese landed in Incheon on February 8th, marched into Seoul and coerced the Korean government into signing the Japan Korea Protocol. Coercion is not legal in this modern day, maybe it was a hundred years ago. But again it shows how Japan's activities in Korea and the area were hostile acts of military aggression, long before they seized Dokdo a year later.
When you ancestors fought the Russians for the right to control the Korean peninsula and ultimately Korea itself the British were supportive of Japan. In fact all, major powers supported Japan's colonization of Korea. Even when the Koreans sent a delegation to the Hague to plead for Chosun's independence the world ignored Korea's cries for help and their nation.
Poo, So what you are saying is because other nations did not protest Japan's annexation of Korea it was "legal" Does this mean Japan can annex Korea today? Of course not!!
The statements you've made prove my points exactly.
First. Japan's demands for Dokdo are antiquated relics of the colonial era that have no place at all in modern Asia.
Second, Only a few crazy Japanese right wing lobbyists (like yourself) and Japan's greedy MOFA hang on to this desperate notion they have "legal" title to Dokdo a century after the Imperial Navy annexed the rocks while in the process of stripping away Korea's sovereignty.
Poo, Koreans have stated for over 50 years they incorporated Liancourt Rocks as "Seokdo" in the year 1900. I've seen no concrete evidence from the Japanese side that proves otherwise.
You want "evidence" that Koreans "effectively controlled" Liancourt Rocks when by 1904 the nation of Korea didn't even "effectively control" their own country. You say Korea had the "right" to protest Japan's annexation of Dokdo and they did. Shim Heung Taek, Ulleungdo's governor clearly stated "Dokdo was part of Uldo County" Also newspapers in Seould also denounced Japan annexation of Dokdo. As long as we know Japan controlled all of Korea's state to state affairs we will never know what became of Korea's objections. Korean's could have been threatened or just ignored.
As I've said before Poo, Japan is in no position to demand anything from Korea. If Japan wants the world to listen to their case for Dokdo they must present a least one good reason why the modern boundary between Japan and Korea should be pushed back to the colonial era. Japan must explain why we should use a forceful expansionist land grab to define Korean territory in this peaceful modern day. Please explain Poo, the world would like to hear!!
By the way, here is some homework for you. Do you know what Uti Possidetis is? Why don't you enter that into the English to Japanese translator you've been using?
#281.
Do not move a point at issue. You ask me a question, but must ask you a question after answering my question. If you do not answer, I do not intend to answer your question.
I repeat my question for you once again. You show the evidence that did effective control of the island, and Korea is before 1905 when Japan admitted Takeshima into a Japanese territory. If you cannot show that Korea did effective control before than Japan admits Takeshima, Korea cannot insist on possession of Takeshima. This is based on the principle that even an abecedarian of an international law knows. And it is the point that judges of the International Court of Justice examine uppermost. Therefore this is the most important point at issue. An argument of this problem does not make ends meet unless I make this point clear.
You insist that admission by Japan is null and void in the reason that admission by Japan was performed during Russo-Japanese War. However, I must point out that Korea is for your the claim assuming having done effective control before admission by Japan. You seem to regard rule of Takeshima by Korea as a matter of course, but I have doubt toward the thought. Because it is only the description that cannot but suppose that they did not know existence of the island that a book calls with Takeshima in these days according to the ancient documents of Korea dynasty. There is not a description to show that Korea ruled Takeshima in those ancient documents definitely.(You may say that the description that clothes belonged to Silla has Usan-guk, but Usando is not Takeshima. The real situation is too different from contents written in the ancient documents. Furthermore, I must point out that Usando written in some maps made in Korea does form same as today's Jukdo. It is written in those maps that an island in the position of Jukdo is Usando. It is clear that a Korean claim it is assumed that "Dokdo was ever called Usando", and to occupy Takeshima does not consist.) If you want to continue insisting that Korea ruled it, you have to show the evidence. And persuade me. I expect a clear answer from you.
Poo, Chosun maps are not the best source to determine the identity of ancient Usando for a number of reasons.
First, most if not all these maps show non-existant islands on the South of shore of Ulleungdo. This was because these maps were copied from Pak Seok Chang's 1711 map. This map also showed the "So-Called Usando" as next to Dodong Harbour where he placed his stone marker. The data on this maps was sourced in part from the Ulleungdo Sa-Jeok. Notice how the "Jukdo" on this map is also drawn South of Jeojeondong on Ulleungdo and directly east of Dodong Harbour.
Usando cannot be Jukdo because of a few reasons.
Usando is referred to in both Korean and Japanese records as "The island Japanese call Matsushima" The Koreans called Jukdo as such and the Japanese called Jukdo as Igashima. Usando is described as being about a days travel from Ulleungdo. Usando was said to be 50ri from Ulleungdo. All of these facts rule out Jukdo Islet.
Poo, I'm sorry but as usual, you have missed the basic point here. Korea currently administers over and controls Dokdo Island. It is Japan who has the burden of proving they have a historical claim and a legal case worth presenting before the ICJ.
There are many records that show Dokdo Island belonged to Korea. First, the records of the Hachiemon trespassing incident showed the islets were Korean. Second, the 1870 Report on Chosun also shows Dokdo was Korean. Also numerous maps drawn by Japanese tell us the islands were Korean.
ALL Japanese maps either omitted Dokdo or rightfully showed the islets as Korean
Your argument relies on your interpretation of this so called internatonal law. You say Korea's title to Dokdo is illegal because it was inchoate.
I say Japan's claim is false because it was:
1. Not open and public.
2. A military aggression.
3. Also inchoate because there is no mention of either Matsushima or Liancourt Rocks.
4. Not a case of "terra nullius" or occupation because Japan had already declared the islets as Korean numerous times before.
So Poo, your argument is typical rhetoric of the Japanese government. You are putting Korea's claim under scrutiny when Japanese records clearly show Dokdo was Korean. You are trying to omit reams of historical documents and maps that show the true owner of Dokdo is historically Korean. Your whole argument is that we work from the premise Japan's 1905 claim is bulletproof and beyond scrutiny. I gave you four reasons why this is not true and you haven't even attempted to refute any of my statements at all. Just the sad demand I prove Korea's title when they already are sitting on the rocks for over 50 years. You are in no position to demand anything Poo.
Why don't you visit this website below and learn the truth about Dokdo? It seems you need to be educated outside the Japanese classroom. You must learn to think outside of the Japanese box you've been locked in.
dokdo-takeshima.com
#283.
You said that "you should have found a new hobby" for me once. However, it seems to be you not me to have to find a new hobby. Because the reason is because Korea cannot yet show the evidence that effective control did Takeshima in you before from 1905 when Japan admitted Takeshima as a Japanese territory.
You express dissatisfaction unless I am going to refute your four claims. I do not think your four claims to confute it right now. Because your claim is going to do the argument that lacked in a premise. Your claim is seen to me to regard that Korea ruled Takeshima before 1905 when Japan admitted Takeshima as a matter of course. However, as for you, nothing shows the evidence. There is not it, and the Korea government can show no evidence only with you so far, too. No, you seem to insist that they say precisely this and that, but all your claims fail logically. You are fascinated by the story that you made with oneself. You are not going to be over the one step from one's world either. Therefore you do not understand documents. You take out only a convenient place from documents and yell with "Dokto is a Korea territory". I do not think that I have constructive arguments under such situation. You stick a selfish label on a Japanese remark and ignore it. Though I participate in plenty argument if you listen to a Japanese claim and will examine actual relations seriously, an argument does not intend to increase it if you tell "recognition" used only in your world that does not pass through the inspection of actual relations one-sidedly. It is waste of time.
>Usando cannot be Jukdo because of a few reasons.
Unfortunately I cannot agree to your this claim.
You insist with 'Usando is referred to in both Korean and Japanese records as "The island Japanese call Matsushima" The Koreans called Jukdo as such and the Japanese called Jukdo as Igashima.'. A basic error is included in your claim. In other words the Japanese does not call Usando Matsushima. It is An Yong-bok to have connected Matsushima( today's Takeshima) with Usando, but there is an error in his geography recognition, and the then Korea dynasty recognizes that there is mendaciousness to him. We cannot believe that such a man said. In the first place it gets together not the recognition of the private citizen to decide the reversion of the territory it recognizes it, and how a ruler governed it. In this case it is important what kind of recognition Korea dynasty had if I say. Therefore it is a map made in Korea that we must pay attention to. A map made except an extremely early thing in most Korea pictures Usando in the east offing of Ulleungdo. The form is the same as today's Jukdo, besides. Nobody was able to make the map without permission in both Japan and Korea. The manufacture of the map was performed with the approval of the ruler. Therefore, the ancient map may be said to be reflection of the recognition of the ruler. In other words, as for Usando for then Korea dynasty, the possibility that is today's Jukdo is to be very high. (I think that I may conclude, but say modestly here.) In addition, the person whom a Korean ancient map wants to watch should watch the column of the right side of the following site:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/)
>Usando was said to be 50ri from Ulleungdo.
It is recorded with "5ri" in "Ulleungdo Sajeok" of the place that is the report which explored Ulleungdo of 1694. Because Korean 1ri is equivalent to 0.4km, 5ri is equivalent to 2km. There is Jukudo to 2.2km from Ulleungdo. Therefore, We judge Usando which Korea dynasty recognizes with Jukdo and must be it. I think the disproof that you gave to be completely a mistake.
>First, the records of the Hachiemon trespassing incident showed the islets were Korean.
Do you really understand this case? This case of 1836 is a stowing away case to Ulleungdo by Aizuya-Hachiemon. He got permission to go for to Matsushima and departed. However, he went ahead through the route to go to for Ulleungdo. And he took a lot of products of Ulleungdo home with him. In other words it had no problem that he went to Matsushima, but he was punished to Ulleungdo which was a Korean territory because he performed it. This case offers the positive evidence that Matsushima( today's Takeshima) was a Japanese territory if I express it in other words. How may it be said that today's Takeshima is the evidence that was a Korean territory if I interpret it? ¡¡It will be that people for you who insist who lost such a common course in the world drop the eyebrows.
In addition, I want you to refer to the following site about this case.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1836-chronicle-of-takeshima-incident.html
For yourself of circumstances you are what well good at change a fact, and interpreting historical materials and comment.
It is not the peninsula whole that I said the land which Japan borrowed from Korea with #280, and it is the land which it borrowed so that Japan installs an observation tower in Gangweon Do. A Japanese merchant conspired with Mayor of observation tower and, just after Russo-Japanese War, has sold the land. I introduced the case that the Korea government which knew it protested the commander prefecture, and got back the land. Refer to the following sites in detail.
http://db.history.go.kr/url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-mk_024_001_000_0020(Korean)
This implication is that the Korean claim that I was not able to protest because the Korean diplomacy right was limited by Japan was a lie to have been proved. The Korea government protested Japan, and it was shown injustice made by a Japanese when there was the example that regained sold land. As for what this example can say, a claim that I was not able to "protest it because the Korean diplomacy right was limited by Japan" is not to consist. In other words they did not protest Japan because the Korea government did not recognize Takeshima admitted into the Japanese territory in February, 1905 by Japan to be their domain. "This island was said with the sacrifice of the beginning of the Korea aggression by the Japanese imperialism" as if it were true after 1953, but it is to have been a lie. Because merely Korea did not recognize Takeshima to be a domain of oneself, they did not protest Japan.
It is an act to infringe Japanese sovereignty to insist on the dominium of the island without what they influenced, and it is never anything else except the act of aggression for Japan that Korea continues staying in Takeshima. I think that I am not mysterious even if fought as for this situation. The reason why it is not fought is that I wish Japanese Government is settled by a peaceful method. And the Japanese citizen supported such a policy of the Japanese Government. However, Korea continued piling up an established fact of the Takeshima rule in defiance of Japanese suggestion. Many Japanese begin to think that they "cannot fall silent to see it anymore". They think that they must prove that a Korean act does not have legitimacy by showing a fact. It is not right "turning to the right" or "reinvasion" and you label a Japanese fair claim as "an irresponsible remark", and to criticize. Korea should refute it not feelings theory for a Japanese claim logically. And you should admit that insistence of oneself is an error if you cannot refute it logically. Because it leads to looking the history in the face.
You should show the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima before 1905 if you think that you can make a mistake in my claim. It is necessary for you to show which Korean documents it is written for then. Even if you say that "Korea influenced Dokto" without showing grounds, as for it, I can stream down what I do not consider with the effective argument to my claim beforehand.
Poo, the Ulleungdo Sajeok makes NO mention of Usando. Why don't you back to the books and do your homework?
The Ulleungdo Sajeok mentions an island 5ri to the East of Ulleungdo (Jukdo) and another island (Dokdo) to be less than 300ri to the Southeast of Ulleungdo. Jang also stated though he saw Dokdo he did not see any Japanese land, this shows Koreans of the day did not consider Dokdo as part of Japan at all.
The map drawn by inspector Bak Seok Jang was influenced by this inspection and it may have caused him to draw and island due East with "Haejang Bamboo" on one side as mentioned in Jang Han Sang's 1696 report.
Can you see the location of this "Usando" on all of these maps? Almost every Chosun map of Ulleungdo shows this "Usando" as directly East of Ulleungdo's Dodong harbour and South of Jeojeondong (todays Naesujeon beach) They are all copies of Bak's 1711 map which was influenced by the Ulleungdo Sajeok. They also show a vaguely drawn island directly Southeast of Ulleungdo. These maps showing non existent islands are copies and the silly claims that the shape is this Usando is same shape as Jukdo...? The shape of the other islands is also the same as Jukdo.
Koreans aren't the only ones who stated Usando was Matsushima. There are also Japanese records that state "Usando is what we Japanese call Matsushima"
Hachiemon did not receive "permission" to voyage to Matsushima when he went to the area. Nowhere in the questionable link you gave me does it say he received permission to voyage to Dokdo. Hachiemon looked at maps and noticed niether Ulleungdo nor Dokdo were coloured as Japanese or Korean. However, did you notice the maps drawn related to the incident afterwards? They all showed Ulleungdo and Dokdo the same colour as Korea (in red) I wonder why the same bullshit website you linked me to only shows a tiny map in black and white.....hmmm. The correspondence that followed show Japanese considered Dokdo and Ulleungdo as Korean.
Poo, as long as Japan controlled all foreign affairs between Korea and Japan you cannot say with certainty Korea didn't protest further about Japan's annexation of Dokdo. Secondly as I've said, the Governor of Ulleungdo protested, Korean media protested (two newspapers) and so did the Korean scholar Hwang Hyeon. You don't set the bar for what level of protest constitutes a valid objection.You are using unrelated incidents to draw assumptions.
Please don't link me to that horrid Japanese right wing lobby forum. It's just a bunch of biased articles published by "Professor" Shimojo (the father of Japan's Takeshima Day) and a collection of Japanese Takeshima advocates who don't even have the integrity to post their real names!
Knowing who is behind that right wing Japanese "forum" from Japan's MOFA and Shimane Prefecture do you really think anyone can trust their biased data?
Again as I've stated and you fail to refute. Numerous historical records prove Korea is the true onwer of Dokdo. You refuse to refute the historical records of your own ancestors that prove in 1696, 1836, 1870 and 1877 Japan declared Dokdo as either Korean and/or excluded the islands from their territory.
As I've also stated, Japan's 1905 claim was.
a. An act of military aggression (not legal)
b. Not open and public (not legal)
c. Inchoate (no mention of the island's name)
d. Not a case of occupation or terra nullius as the islet was already ceded to Korea
Plese enjoy the website below, and try to stay from the nasty Japanese government propaganda website you linked me too.....
dokdo-takeshima.com
I have forgotten nothing. I forgot that the recognition of the Korean about Usando changed with the times. There was a dispute first whether Usando and Ulleungdo were the same islands. The Korean recognized that there was Usando between the west of Ulleungdo that is Ulleungdo and the Korean Peninsura next. The Korean recognized Jukdo in the east offing of Ulleungdo to be Usando from a half in the 18th century.
The island that Jang Han-sang looked at to east around 2km of Ulleungdo must have been Jukdo, but he did not recognize this island to be Usando. Because the reason is because Usando was almost regarded as Ulleungdo as an island of the isometry in the west of Ulleungdo in the times that he lived in. And Usando recognized An Yong-bok to have the west of Ulleungdo. (There is a possibility that he recognized that the north side of Ulleungdo has Usando). There is the document which recorded his testimony when I visited Japan to let Japan admit that Ulleungdo is a Korean territory. By ancient documents titled "Memorandum on the visit of a Korean ship in the 9th year of Genroku", it was told the old family of the Oki island.
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_00/index.data/oboe-kaidoku.pdf
According to it, as for An Yong-bok, what I insisted on when Ulleungdo which a then Japanese called Takeshima and the island that a then Japanese called Matsushima were Korean territories was recorded. It was written that he showed a Korean map and explained it then. The map which he had is not specified. However, I think that I am very likely to be a map made in 1630 or a map made in 1674. Usando is drawn on the west of Ulleungdo in a map of 1630, and Usando is drawn on the north side of Ulleungdo if it is a map of 1674. At all events it is reliable an island only of a rock in southwestern 92km of Ulleungdo namely a then Japanese calls An Yong-bok with Matsushima, and to have thought the island that Japan named Takeshima in 1905 to be Usando. ¡¡
However, the Korean robs Japan of Takeshima and names Dokdo today without they believe Takeshima with Usando, and doubting it. There is not the historic fact that Korea influenced, and the international law top lets Korea insists on the possession of the island without the authority, and the armed police be stationed. This is an infringement of the Japanese sovereignty by Korea. Speaking frankly, Korea is an aggression nation. If there is the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima before 1905, a Korean possession claim is well-grounded. But the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima once is never shown.
On the other hand, there is the positive evidence that influenced Takeshima in Japan. "Illustrative Map of Matsushima"(http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/mid-17th-century-illustrative-maps-of.html) is it. This map estimated that it was drawn at the middle in the 17th century is the oldest map which I drew Takeshima on. It was an old map, but form of the islands that did not change in comparison with the latest map very much either was pictured. The Japanese Takeshima possession has the proof that the international law top is positive. The admission by Japan of 1905 is legal, and that Takeshima is a Japanese territory is reaffirmed by San Francisco treaty of 1953. There is not it except that Korea shows the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima before 1905 so that Korea breaks a Japanese viewpoint in the international law.
In addition, the person who wants to know on your mark how the recognition of the Korean changed in detail of Usando wants you to refer to the next site.
http://sites.google.com/site/liancourtrocksoldmap/Home/1300-1711-korean-antique-maps
Poo, the Murakawa documents from Oki clearly show Anyongbok declared 2 islands Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima as part of Gangwan Province. Japan raised no objection at all to these claims. In fact in the correspondence from months earlier it was determined that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were NOT part of Japan at all.
Anyongbok did not say Usando was to the West at all, Poo. Stop making silly half-baked assumptions. He stated it was about a days travel from Ulleungdo en route to Oki Islands where he landed at Nishimura. This would have been East of Ulleungdo of course.
The Murakawa records are at the link below
dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-anyongbok-2.html
Yes Poo, the Japanese have presented maps of Dokdo. However, records show the did not consider the island as Japanese but rather as appended sister island of Chosun's Ulleungdo Island.
Again, you didn't mention the Hachiemon trespassing incident of 1837. As I've said, these records kill Japan's claim to Dokdo.
dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html
So why didn't Japan honour their promise to stay away from Dokdo.
First, only a few years after the Shogunates declaration to stay off Ulleungdo in 1840, inaccurate European maps began to cause confusion about the location of Dokdo. This meant the Japanese government and some civilians lost contact about Dokdo.
Second, the Shogunate government was toppled in 1868 and the aggressive expansionist Meiji Government disregarded the isolationist policies of the Shogunate. Japan began to seize territory from neighbouring indigenous people (Ryukyus, Hokkaido etc) and weaker nations (Taiwan, Korea) In 1905, Japan annexed Dokdo while in the midst of the long colonization process of the Korean nation.
I've pointed out why Japan's 1905 annexaton was illegal above Poo. Please read again, if you can read English or have someone translate it for you instead of using a computer translation software.
Dokdo is mine
I am Korean
Therefore dokdo is Korean's island
You guys [puyopuyo, oyoyo] have been running this thread for three months now. Close the thread, and just sit back tight until ICJ comes into play.
>>288
I bet you five dollars that you're a Japanese/Japanophile impostor. From my understanding, Koreans have a better understanding of English grammar than you think they do.
It is stupid to argue that Korea refusing to take the Dokdo issue to the International Court of Justice implies that Dokdo belongs to Japan. If Mexico suddenly laid claim to California and demanded the U.S. to take the issue to the ICJ, would the U.S. agree to do so? Of course not. There is no reason for the U.S. to defend its sovereignty over a land that (at least from the U.S.'s point of view) unquestionably belongs to her. Taking the issue to the ICJ is already admitting that California is disputed territory.
even though the Korea has all the evidence and proofs, japan still doesn't acknowledge Korea's right over Dokdo. It is officially administered as Korea's territory and. japan's attitude is not appropriate in this global era. They need to really be honest with intenational affairs even though they are reluctant to do so.
Korea does not have evidence to become the grounds to possess Takeshima. Korea cannot show the evidence that influenced Takeshima on the international law top historically. Since there is not the evidence that Korea ruled Takeshima before it, the admission of Takeshima by Japan of 1905 is legal without a piece of cloudiness. It is confirmed some other time by the process of the postwar processing of World War II, and the reversion of Takeshima is settled by the San Francisco treaty that is a peace treaty with Japan. This is world common sense. Korea taking out SCAPIN677 into as grounds does not have the reason.
Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
The Japanese people say, 97% of the world map marks' Sea of Japan ' so give up. But Korean people say, 3% of the world map marks ' East Sea'so we will start fighting.turn this.