This article was translated by JIIA from Japanese into English as part of a research project sponsored by the Government of Japanto promote academic studies on the rule of law. JIIA takes full responsibility for the translation of this article.
To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your personal use and research,please contact JIIA by e-mail (jdl_inquiry@jiia.or.jp)
Citation: Rule of Law Series, Japan Digital Library (March 2015),
http://www2.jiia.or.jp/en/digital_library/rule_of_law.php

The Alleged Title over the Island of Takeshima Invokedby the Republic of Korea*1
Susumu Takai
Introduction
Syngman Rhee, at that time the President of the Republic of Korea (ROK), drew the so-called Syngman
Rhee line in the high seas surrounding the ROK on January 18, 1952, and Takeshima (1) was included
within it. On the same day, Japan issued a Note Verbale to the ROK protesting that the proclamation
was in violation of international law and reaffirming that Takeshima was a part of Japanese territory. Yet
since 1953, the ROK has been continually stationing its armed police officers on Takeshima and thereby
forcefully occupying it until today.
The ROK’s basic position on its territorial sovereignty to Takeshima is that, “The fact Dokdo is an
integral part of Korean territory is irrefutable in every aspect; historically, geographically and underinternational law” (2). Furthermore, it continues that:[t]he Government of the Republic of Korea’s position is steady that Dokdo has inherently been
Korean territory. The Government does not regard the Dokdo issue as a matter to be dealt withthrough diplomatic negotiations or judicial settlement. The Government will deal firmly and resolutely with any claims denying Korean sovereignty over the islands. Also, the Government willtake a firm and measured approach, based on objective and effective measures that will be moreconvincing to the international community (3).
Conversely, Japan’s consistent standpoint regarding its territorial sovereignty over the island is that:(i) “Takeshima is indisputably an inherent part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts andbased upon international law”; (ii) “the Republic of Korea has been occupying Takeshima with no basis
in international law. Any measures the Republic of Korea takes regarding Takeshima based on such anillegal occupation have no legal justification” (4). It also notes that “[t]he Republic of Korea has neverdemonstrated any clear basis for its claims that it had effective control over Takeshima prior to Japan’s
effective control over Takeshima and reaffirmation of its territorial sovereignty in 1905” (5).
After extensive diplomatic negotiations since 1952, Japan came to the conclusion that the diplomatic settlement of the dispute would be impossible and thereby proposed that the matter be entrusted to
the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the ROK rejected the proposal in its Note Verbale of
October 28, 1954 (6). In 2012, after the visit to Takeshima by ROK President Lee Myung-bak at that time,
Japan proposed to entrust the matter to the ICJ by a special agreement, and simultaneously to recourse
to mediation based on the exchange of notes concerning the settlement of disputes. However, the ROK* This article was originally published as 髙井晉「韓国の竹島領有論」防衛法学会編『防衛法研究』第 37 号、2013 年、51-67 頁 .

1

once again refused these proposals. This article will review the historical background to the dispute overTakeshima, and examine the official views, focusing on that of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tradeof the ROK in the light of international law.

1 The Potsdam Declaration and the Peace Treaty with Japan(1) The Korean Peninsula shortly after World War II
Japan annexed Korea by the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of August 1910, and thereafter exercisedsovereignty over the Korean Peninsula as a part of Japanese territory (7). When the Allied Powers defeated Japan in World War II, on August 15, 1945, Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration providingthat Japan’s sovereignty and geographical extent in the post-war period is supposed to be decided by
the Allies (8). Then on September 2 of the same year, Japan signed the instrument of surrender, which
ended Japan’s rule over the Korean Peninsula, and Japan and the Korean Peninsula were placed under
the control of the Allies.
The General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) provided forthe temporary occupation of the Korean Peninsula by dividing it into two zones along the 38th parallel,with the Soviet Union Far East Forces administering the northern part and the US military placed incharge of the southern part. Subsequently, on August 15, 1948, President Syngman Rhee declared the
independence of the Republic of Korea with Seoul as its capital, and then on September 9 of the same
year, President Kim Il-sung declared the independence of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
with Pyongyang as its capital, and both nations claimed that they were the sole legitimate state on the
Korean Peninsula.
Faced with two independent nations that both insisted they were the sole legitimate state on the
Korean Peninsula, the United Nations established the Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitationof Korea (UNCURK) after the Third General Assembly in 1948, and launched discussions toward thepeaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula. But on June 25, 1950, the North Korea forces suddenly
crossed over the 38th parallel and invaded the south with the goal of unifying the Korean Peninsula bymilitary force. The United Nations Security Council adopted resolutions 82, 83, and 84 in quick succession and called on United Nations member states to render assistance to the ROK. The subsequent
Korean War saw United Nations forces volunteered by its members states fight against the North Korea
army and Chinese forces, until the armistice agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. This agreement
divided the Korean Peninsula into north and south along the 38th parallel. The existence of two nations
that both claim the same territory as their own is an extremely rate case in international law (9).
Separate to this, from around 1947, the U.S. Department of State, which played a central role inoccupation policy, had examined the extent of the Korean Peninsula to be relinquished by Japan inaccordance with the Potsdam Declaration. The initial draft proposed by the United Kingdom delimited
the sphere of Japanese territory by drawing lines on the map by connecting small islands that are to be attributed to Japan. Yet the final draft determined the sphere by listing the names of the islands (10). Shortly
before the preparation of the final draft by the U.S. Department of State, William J. Sebald, who was theacting political advisor to SCAP in Tokyo, sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State recommending in its
sixth paragraph that “Japan’s claim to these islands [i.e. referred as Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima)] is old
and appears valid (11)”. This recommendation was eventually reflected in the final draft dated December
29, 1949. As a result, it was determined that Takeshima belongs to the territory of Japan.
Even after this decision, the ROK continued to make a final push to have Takeshima determined as

2

being ROK territory in the final draft of the Peace Treaty with Japan. The ROK started the Korean War
cease-fire talks at Kaesong on July 10, 1951, and on July 19, the ROK’s Ambassador to the United States,
Dr. Yu Chan Yang, submitted a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State Acheson to stipulate Article 2(a) of thedraft so as to include “Jejudo, Geomundo, Ulleungdo, Dokdo and Parangdo” as parts of ROK territory(12). However, on August 10, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk rejected this demand, bystating that “[a]s regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, thisnormally uninhabited rock formation was […] never treated as part of Korea” (13). As a result, theattempt by the ROK to include Takeshima as a part of “Korea” being renounced by Japan through thePeace Treaty failed.
Following this sequence of events (14), on September 8, 1951, while the Korean War was still being
waged, the Peace Treaty with Japan was signed and it came into effect on April 28 of the following year(15). It provides that Japan recognize the independence of Korea, and delimits the sphere to which thesovereignty of Japan extends. That is to say, Article 2(a) of the Treaty defines “Korea” as “including theislands of Quelpart (Jejudo), Port Hamilton (Geomundo) and Dagelet (Geomundo)(16).”(2) Establishment of the Rhee Line by the ROK and Takeshima
On January 18, 1952, about one month before the Peace Treaty with Japan came into effect, ROK
President Syngman Rhee announced the “Presidential Proclamation of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas”
surrounding the Korean Peninsula, and unilaterally declared that the marine resources in the waters
belonged to the ROK.
This line, which generally followed the so-called MacArthur line (M line) being provided for onJune 22, 1946, by Article 2 of the Instruction of the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for
the Allied Powers (SCAPIN) 1033 (17), put Takeshima on the ROK side of the boundary. From a strict
point of view of international law, the so-called Rhee Line that demarked Takeshima as ROK territory is
qualified as an extremely unilateral and aggressive action that disregarded the interests of other countries
and that completely violated the basic principles of international law (18).
The M Line was a provisional boundary line within which Japanese fishing boats were allowed tooperate and was introduced by the Allies as a part of their occupation policy. It certainly placed Takeshimaon the ROK side, together with Ulleungdo and Jejudo, and the Article 3(b) of SCAPIN 1033 prohibited Japanese vessels from entering into the maritime area within 12 nautical miles from Takeshima.
Nevertheless, Paragraph 5 stipulates that it “is not an expression of Allied policy relative to the ultimate
determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concernedor in any other area”.
On January 28, 1952, Japan issued a Note Verbale (19) that strongly protested against the Presidential
Proclamation. It stressed that the content of the Proclamation was (i) entirely incompatible with thelong-established international principle of freedom of the high seas that had been established over along period; (ii) ran counter to the basic principle of international cooperation for the development andprotection of marine resources within the high seas; (iii) was utterly untenable under any of the accepted
ideas of an international society. As a result, (iv) Japan strongly protested by denying ‘the assumption or
claim’ of the ROK’s sovereignty over Takeshima (20). This Note Verbale by Japan was the opening shotin the territorial dispute between Japan and the ROK that has continued up to today over the territorial
rights to Takeshima.
The ROK replied to Japan’s protest by issuing a Note Verbale with an annex dated February 12 (21)stating as follows: as a sovereign state, the Presidential Proclamation for the development and protection3

of marine resources was more or less the same character as the ‘specified zone of seas’ that had been
unilaterally proclaimed by countries such as the United States, Mexico, and Argentina; and the fact that
the M Line of SCAPIN 677 (22) of January 29, 1946, placed Takeshima on the ROK side showed that it
belongs to the ROK. Finally, the ROK added that it did not feel inclined to enter into a full debate on thisissue.
Japan, in its Note Verbale (No.21/A2) (23) of April 25 of the same year, made a rejoinder that
rejected the claims of the Government of the ROK and insisted that Takeshima had been a part of Japan’s
territory up to that time based on four reasons; (i) Takeshima belongs to the village of Goka, Oki-gun,Shimane Prefecture, (ii) Paragraph 1 of SCAPIN 677 did not explicitly exclude Takeshima from theterritory of Japan, and Paragraph 6 expressly stated that the Directive is not the ultimate determinationof Allied policy; (iii) the M Line, which was a basis of the claim raised by the ROK, was not the Allies’ ultimate determination and had already ceased to exist by the time of SCAPIN 2046 of September 19,1949;(iv) there was no evidence to indicate that Takeshima had been belonging to the ROK for centuries.
Furthermore, based on SCAPIN 2160, the SCAP designated Takeshima as a bombing range in July
1951 and the U.S. military continued to use it for that purpose even after the Peace Treaty with Japancame into effect. Yet this designation was terminated in March 1953 in relation to fishing rights aroundTakeshima (24). The designation and removal of it took place without involving the government of the
ROK. This fact implies that both the United States and the other Allied Powers regarded Takeshima to
be Japanese territory.

2 The ROK’s Deprivation of Takeshima and Confusion over the Island’s Name
(1) The Deprivation of Takeshima
After the initial exchange of diplomatic notes, Japan maintained its effective control over Takeshima.
At the same time, the ROK was steadily preparing to deprivate Takeshima by force. In January 1953,
it ordered that Japanese fishing vessels crossing the Rhee Line were to be seized. In April, a volunteer
garrison landed on Takeshima for the first time. The ROK began to show physically its intention topossess Takeshima.
On May 28 of the same year, the “Shimane Maru,” a fisheries research vessel of Shimane Prefecture,
discovered ROK fishermen collecting seaweed and shellfish in Japanese territorial waters aroundTakeshima during its patrol of the island. The Government of Japan, in its Note Verbale of June 22(No.167/A2) (25), protested against the activities of these ROK fishermen within Japanese territorial waters. The ROK rebutted this allegation in its Note Verbale of June 26 (26) as follows; (i) Dokdo(Takeshima) is not a part of Japanese territory, and as previously pointed out in the Note Verbale ofFebruary 12, 1952, is part of the territory of the Republic of Korea; (ii) ROK deems it quite legal andproper for the 30 or more ROK fishermen to engage themselves in fishing in the territorial waters of theirhome country; (iii) Japan is by no means in position to lodge any protest against the operations of ROK
fishermen within ROK territorial waters.
On July 12 of the next year, the ROK troops that had been deployed to Takeshima fired upon the“Hekura,” a patrol boat of the Japan Coast Guard. In the following day, Japan released the Note Verbale(No.186/A2) (27) that once again refuted the ROK’s claims, asserting that: (i) as was stated in Note
Verbale (No.21/A2), Takeshima is a part of Japanese territory; (ii) Japan does not permit the operationsof ROK fishermen within Japanese territorial waters; (iii) it is evident that Takeshima belongs to Japan interms of international law. Japan attached a detailed six page statement describing the historical and legal

4basis for its sovereignty over Takeshima (28).
Japan responded to the forcible approach of the Government of the ROK by strengthening its control of Takeshima, to which the ROK strongly objected in its Note Verbale of August 4, 1953. Amongother objections, the ROK protested the fact that on June 25, a 9 man crew of a Japanese fisheries research
vessel landed on Takeshima and questioned the 6 ROK citizens on the island and then deported them;
then on the 27th, an 8 man crew of a Japanese fishing vessel landed on Takeshima; then on the 28th, 30
officials of Shimane Prefecture boarded two patrol boats of Japan Coast Guard and landed on Takeshima
and erected two landmarks saying “Landing Prohibited” (29).
The Government of Japan replied by issuing a Note Verbale (No205/A2) dated August 8 (30), stating that Takeshima belongs to Japan in the light of historical facts, international law, and the provisionsof the Peace Treaty with Japan, and rejecting the ROK’s alleged sovereignty over Takeshima as completely
groundless. The Government of the ROK released a 10 page rebuttal to the opinions of the Governmentof Japan as the annex to its Note Verbale dated September 9 (31).
Subsequently, on February 10, 1954, Japan released its rebuttal to the ROK’s arguments through a
Note Verbale that once expressed the opinion of the Government of Japan (32), and then on September
5, the ROK released an objection in the Korean alphabet to the Japanese written view expressed in the
documents attached to its Note Verbale (33). In this way, since the ROK’s “Presidential Proclamation ofSovereignty over Adjacent Seas,” Japan and the ROK have repeatedly and bitterly protested against theirrespective evidence for their territorial claims to Takeshima, and against the landing of Japan citizens on
Takeshima through each other’s Note Verbale. Despite Japan’s ongoing protests, the ROK has deprived
and stationed armed police officers at Takeshima until today.
(2) The names of Ulleungdo and Takeshima
The Ulleungdo of today was previously known as Takeshima or Isotakeshima during the Edo period,and from about 70 years from the beginning of the 17th century, the Oya and Murakawa families of
the Tottori Domain were granted licenses by the Shogunate to visit the island, where they engaged incollecting abalone, hunting sea lions, and harvesting bamboo and trees. When going back and forth to
Ulleungdo, both families used today’s Takeshima that was then called Matsushima. But at the end of
the 17th century, Korea and the Tokugawa Shogunate opened diplomatic negotiations on the territorial
rights to today’s Ulleungdo, and as a result, the Tokugawa Shogunate, which prioritized friendly relations
with Korea, prohibited both the Oya family and the Murakawa family from visiting and developing theisland.
However, the Tokugawa Shogunate did not prohibit their passage to Matsushima (today’s
Takeshima). This fact shows that the Tokugawa Shogunate recognized Matsushima as Japan’s territory.
Also, it only prohibited the families’ passage to today’s Ulleungdo, and did not suggest that the island was
the territory of Korea.
One of the causes of today’s dispute over the territorial rights to Takeshima is the confusion over theisland’s names in the Edo and Meiji periods. Specifically, in the second half of the 18th century, a British
explorer named James Colnet who came across Takeshima (today’s Ulleungdo) in his voyages named it“Argonaut Island”, while a Frenchman named Galaup de la Perouse called it “Dagelet Island”. Also, due tothe lack of accurate measuring techniques at the time, its position on charts was recorded in places thatwere not the island’s actual position. Also, it is said that from the middle of the 19th century, explorers
who came across Matsushima (today’s Takeshima) wrote the island’s names on their maps as “Liancourt
Rocks” or “Hornet Island.”5

Further complicating matters, a “Map of Japan” published by a German physician named Philipp
Franz von Siebold after he returned to Holland shows two islands in a line named “Takashima Argonautisland” and “Matsushima Dagelet island” between the Korean Peninsula and Oki. Also, Commodore
Matthew Perry’s “Chart of the Seas around Japan” that he took with him on his expedition to Japan showed
three islands in a row named “Argonaut Island,” “Matsushima Dagelet Island,” and “Hornet Island” but anote written on the chart next to “Argonaut Island” indicates that it did not exist (ncht Vorhanden)”. In
this period, the Japanese at the time knew quite well where both Takeshima and Matsushima were andwhat country each belonged to, but subsequently, due to the confusion over the islands’ names, today’s
Ulleungdo that is assumed to be “Matsushima Dagelet Island” came to be called Matsushima, and today’s
Takeshima came to be called Liancourt Rocks (Ryanko Island) or Hornet Rocks.
It was on January 28, 1905, that the Japanese government made a Cabinet decision to incorporate
today’s Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture. The Oya and the Murakawa families had abandoned the
management of Takeshima (today’s Ulleungdo) and a man named Yozaburo Nakai who was a resident ofOki, petitioned the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Agriculture
and Commerce on September 29, 1904, “to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Japanese territory and to
grant him a 10 year lease (34)” so that he could stabilize his business on the island.
Following the Cabinet decision, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the Instruction No.87 (35)on February 15, 1905, requesting that the name of Liancourt Rocks be changed to Takeshima and that
the Shimane Prefecture Governor place the island under the jurisdiction of the Oki Island Government
Office. The Shimane Prefecture Governor, on the 22nd of the same month, made a public announcementof these developments in Notification No.40 (36). The Meiji government’s measure to incorporate today’s
Takeshima into its own territory, which it had recognized to be Japanese territory since the Edo period,
was to meet the requirements of international law to confirm today’s Takeshima as Japan’s territory.
The reason why Japan named the island as Takeshima was that the Oki Island Governor of thattime requested to do so, because its original name of Matsushima was already being used on sea charts
for today’s Ulleungdo (37). One cannot deny that the new name has made today’s territorial dispute more
complicated, although this was due to the confusion over the island’s name at the time.

3. The ROK’s official position its own title to Takeshima(1) The SCAPIN 677 and Dokdo
The ROK officially sums up in five points its vindication of its sovereignty over Takeshima (38).
Immediately after the crystallization of the territorial dispute between the two countries, the ROK had
relied on SCAPIN 677, in the annex of the Note Verbal of February 12, 1952 discussed above. Yet it
subsequently added the Peace Treaty with Japan as a basis for its argument:[…] while the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) temporarily ruled
the country after liberation, Dokdo was excluded from those territory controlled and administeredby Japan in accordance with the Supreme Command for Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No.
677. Later, Dokdo’s exclusion from Japan’s territory was reaffirmed by the Treaty of Peace with Japan,
better known as the San Francisco Treaty, of September 8, 1951 (39).
Japan successfully addressed the SCAPIN 677 argument in its Note Verbale (40): it was nothing
but a provisional measure during occupation policy providing for the governmental and administrative

6

separation of certain outlying areas from Japan. Therefore at that time, not only Takeshima (Liancourt
Rocks), but also Ulleungdo, Jejudo, the Nansei Islands, the Ogasawara Islands, the Kuril Islands, andother islands were excluded from the scope of Japan’s sovereignty.
However, Paragraph 6 of SCAPIN 677 states that “[n]othing in this directive shall be construed
as indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in
Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration,” and so this directive was not the ultimate determination of theAllies policy on Japan’s sovereignty over islands. The final draft of the Peace Treaty with Japan preparedby the U.S. State Department rather maintained Takeshima as a part of Japanese territory, which was
embodied in Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan as was examined above.
But with regards to Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan, the ROK asserts that:[a]mong Korea’s some 3,000 islands, the said article refers to only Jejudo (Quelpart), Geomundo(Port Hamilton), and Ulleungdo (Dagelet) as examples. Therefore, the mere fact that Dokdo is notdirectly mentioned in the said article does not suggest that Dokdo is not included among thoseterritories of Korea separated from Japan (41).
This explanation is followed by an unique interpretation of the relevant instruments:
In consideration of the Allied Powers’ stance reflected in the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and SCAPIN
677 of 1946, Dokdo must be regarded as having been included among the territories of Korea separated from Japan (42).
Contrary to this unique interpretation by the ROK, in the sequence of the Cairo Declaration,
SCAPIN 667, and the drafts by U.S. Department of State for the Peace Treaty with Japan, Article 2(a) of
the Peace Treaty embodies the Allies’ ultimate determination: the Allies did not determine that Takeshima
was a part of territory that should be separated from Japan; it is rather clear that the Allies determinedthat Takeshima belongs to Japan.
(2) Historical Korean documents and Dokdo
In addition to the previously described provision of Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan, the ROK
makes use of the following historical documents as the evidence of its title over Takeshima. It claims thattoday’s Takeshima, which it calls Dokdo, has throughout history continuously been ROK territory (since
1530). The evidence the ROK points to support its claim that historically Dokdo was ruled by the ROK as
its territory are mainly descriptions in official documents, to which it added the following explanations(43). The “Treatise on Geography of the Sejong Silloc Jiriji” (1454) has the following description; “Thetwo islands of Usan (Dokdo) and Mureung (Ulleungdo) are located in the middle of the sea due directly
east of the hyeon (Uljin Prefecture)... The two islands are not far apart and are visible on a clear day. They
were called Usan-guk or Ulleungdo during the Silla period.” From the “Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam” (1531), it quoted the following; Usando and Ulleungdo “are also called Mureung or Ureung. The
two islands are located in the middle of the sea due directly east of the hyeon (Uljin Prefecture).”Further, the ROK cites “Dongguk Munheon Bigo” (1770), which describes on Usando (Dokdo) and
Ulleungdo that “Together, these two islands comprise Usan... According to Yeojiji (Geography of Korea),
it is said that Ulleung and Usan are both territories of Usan-guk and that Usan is what the Japaneserefer to as Matsushima (old Japanese name for Dokdo)”. In “Man-gi Yoram” (1808), it describes that7

“Ulleungdo is located in the middle of the sea due directly east of Uljin...According to Yeojiji (Geographyof Korea), it is said that Ulleung and Usan are both territories of Usan-guk and that Usan is what theJapanese refer to as Matsushima (old Japanese name for Dokdo).” In addition, “Jeungbo Munheon Bigo”(1908) describes on Usando (Dodo) and Ulleungdo that “Together, these two islands comprise Usan.
Addendum: It has now become Uldo-gun. Today, it is known as Ulleung-gun.” The ROK refers to theseofficial documents as evidence for its title.
All these references really say is that there was a state called Usan located directly to the east of Korea
and that it was comprised of two islands, Usando and Ullengdo, which lay close to each other. Yet theGovernment of the ROK has used the descriptions in “Dongguk Munheon Bigo” and “Man-gi Yoram”
that “Usan is what the Japanese refer to as Matsushima” as evidence that Usan-do, whose Japanese namewas Matsushima, is today’s Dokdo.
However, whereas one comes across such island names as Usando, Ulleungdo, Mureung and Urengin these documents, nowhere is there any mention of Dokdo. Also, it would be difficult to verify theidentity of these islands in the light of today’s designation of the islands in relevant areas. Furthermore,
the assertion “Usan is what the Japanese refer to as Matsushima,” which can be found in “Dongguk
Munheon Bigo” and “Man-gi Yoram,” refers only to the old book “the Yeojiji” as the reference; no oldmaps nor documents that identify that Usan-do is today’s Takeshima were quoted as evidence.
Moreover, the ROK relies on a description of Usan-do in “Sejong Sillok Jiriji” that Usan-do andMureung-do are not far apart from each other and are visible on a clear day as evidence that implies that
Usan-do is Dokdo. But in accordance with the methods of description that were the convention in ROK’s
topographical compilations of that time, it only means that both islands were not that far away from the
Korean Peninsula and could be seen from the mainland; it does not indicate that today’s Takeshima canbe seen from Ulleungdo. One must bear in mind that today’s Takeshima is located more than 215km far
away from the Korean Peninsula. As a result, the ROK’s interpretation of these historical documents,
insisting that Usan-do is Dokdo that is today’s Takeshima, is nothing but a unique interpretation madeby the ROK.
(3) Dokdo in the Edo and Meiji period
The ROK relies on several historical events and instruments, such as the capture of An Yong-bok, Japan’s
directive that prohibited sea passage, and the directive of Japan’s Dajokan, as evidence suggesting thatJapanese government in the Edo and Meiji periods basically recognized that Dokdo, which is today’s
Takeshima, was a part of ROK territory (44).
An Yong-bok is a person who came to Japan twice in 1693 and 1696 during the reign of King
Sukjong in the Korean Joseon period. The Government of the ROK of that time recorded in “Annalsof King Sukjong” in 1696 that An Yong-bok told the Japanese fishermen he encountered in Ulleungdo
that “Matsushima is Jasando (Dokdo) and it is Korean territory.” It is also recorded that he went over toJapan to lodge a protest against Japan’s encroachment on the Korean territories of Ulleungdo and Dokdo(45). The ROK argues that these actions taken by An Yong-bok constitute evidence of the ROK’s title
to Takeshima. Also, the ROK insists that the 1693 kidnapping of An Yong-bok triggered the Ulleungdo
Dispute between Korea and Japan (46).
The incident in which the Tokugawa Shogunate expelled An Yong-bok from Japan is known as the“Takeshima case”. An Yong-bok was arrested when he returned to Korea, with charges of the alleged
violation of the closed-country policy of the Government of Korea at that time. It is said that the “Annalsof King Sukjong,” to which the Government of the ROK refers, briefly describes a criminal investigation

8

against and interrogation of him.
The records appearing in the “Annals of King Sukjong” is just testimony delivered by An Yong-bok,
who attempts to avoid punishment for the alleged crime. There are many contradictions between his
testimony and the Japanese records of his examination while he was in Japan. Doubts about the credibility of his testimony simply cannot be dismissed. For example, regarding An Yong-bok’s testimony thathe encountered Japanese on Ulleungdo and ordered them to leave it since it was Korean territory, thisseems doubtful because he arrived there at a time in 1696 after Japan’s ban on passage to the island hadgone into effect. So we are left with the impression that the testimony of An Yong-bok lacks credibility.
He is a person whose origins are obscure and who acted as a private individual, not as a representativeof the Korean government charged with executing state policy. For these reasons, the persistence of his
testimony would be hard to substantiate under international law.
The ROK also invokes “the Takeshima and another island” directive as evidence for its title overthe island. This directive was issued in relation to a Shimane Prefecture inquiry to the Ministry ofHome Affairs under the name of Jiro Sakai asking for incorporation of Takeshima and another islandin the national land registration. The Ministry judged that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was of no concern
to Japan, but referred the case to the Dajokan for approval. In March 1877, the Dajokan directed thatfor “Takeshima and another island,” it should bear in mind that Japan has nothing to do with them. The
ROK’s interpretation of this directive is that “Takeshima” referred to today’s Ulleungdo and that “anotherisland” referred to Dokdo (now called Takeshima), and Shimane prefecture need not give thought toregistering and developing their land. In other words, it is the understanding of the ROK that the Meiji
government directed that Ulleungdo and today’s Takeshima are “of no concern to Japan and so need not
be reclaimed.” However, the ROK cannot provide any explanation for why this “another island” should
be considered to be Dokdo (today’s Takeshima).
There was still considerable confusion over the island’s name at the time of the Dajokan’s directive,
with names such as Matsushima, Takeshima, Matsushima Dagelet Island, and Argonaut Island, etc. Evenso, the Meiji government continued to regard today’s Takeshima as Japanese throughout this period ofconfusion, as I have already discussed. Accordingly, the mention in the directive that Japan has nothing to do with “Takeshima and another island” cannot have meant Takeshima (now Ulleungdo) andMatsushima (now Takeshima), as the ROK’s interprets the phrase (47). A more natural interpretation
would be that the words referred to a single island, Ulleungdo, with two names, since Ulleungdo wasthen known in Japan as both Takaeshima and Matsushima.
(4) The Korean Empire’s Governance of Dokdo
The ROK stresses that at the turn of the 20th century, Korea reaffirmed its ownership of Dokdo andacted to govern it (48). The Korea’s Imperial Edict No. 41 of October 27, 1900, is invoked to support
this claim. This Edict was to strengthen the legislation of the local government of Ulleungdo and statedthat “Ulleungdo shall be renamed Uldo and the post of inspector [dogma] shall be promoted to county
magistrate [gunsu],” and the changes were approved by the Emperor on the following day and publishedas Imperial Edict No. 41 in the government’s official gazette on October, 27, 1900 (49). Article 2 provided
that “The location of the county office shall be Teha-dong, as regards the districts, all Ulleungdo as wellas Jukdo and Seokdo [Dokdo] shall be placed under the jurisdiction of [Uldo-gun (Uldo country)].” But
according to the explanation of the ROK, the provision that “…All of Ulleungdo as well as Jukdo and
Seokdo [Dokdo] shall be placed under the jurisdiction of [Uldo-gun (Uldo country)]” clearly indicatesthat the Uldo-gun district includes Dokdo under its jurisdiction (50).

9The ROK emphasizes that administrative measures based upon the Korean Imperial Edict No. 41,
which placed Dokdo under the jurisdiction of Uldo-gun, clearly indicates that today’s Takeshima belongs
to the ROK. However, no evidence indicating that “…all of Ulleungdo, as well as Jukdo, and Seokdo[Dokdo]” in Article 2 of the Edict refers to Dokdo has been provided. Also, as we have seen above, many
names of islands appeared in the historical documents as well as in this Imperial Edict invoked by the
ROK, such as Usando, Mureungdo, U-leung-do, Ulleung-do, Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo. However,no explanation, which identifies Dokdo, thereby today’s Takeshima, was provided.
Furthermore, further proof of the Korean Empire’s recognition of and rule over Dokdo can befound, the ROK adds, in Directive No.3 of the State Council of the Empire of Korea of 1906, which wasa response to the news that Japan had incorporated Takeshima a year earlier. The Directive stated thatthe claim that Dokdo had become Japanese territory “is completely groundless” and ordered the county
magistrate of Uldon-gun to inquire again in to the situation. Rather, the ROK firmly recognized Dokdo
as a part of Korean Empire, and actually exercised its sovereignty over it. However, the mere fact that an
investigation was ordered because the Korean Empire considered Japan’s incorporation to be “completely
groundless” cannot be seen as evidence that it ruled the island that is today’s Takeshima.
If the ROK takes the position that today’s Takeshima has been its territory since the time of the
Korean Empire, it would have been insufficient for the ROK to simply order an investigation into the territorial incorporation by Japan in 1905. The ROK needs to show evidence which establishes facts, such as
its objection to Japan’s conduct or its own measures incorporating the island into its own territory. When
compared to the fact that at the end of the 17th century Korea requested that the Shogunate prohibit
sea passage to today’s Ulleungdo, based on the evidence provided by the Korean Imperial Edict No.41
and the State Council’s Directive No.3, it seems unclear whether the Korean Empire actually exercised
effective control over the island that is today’s Takeshima.
(5) The Illegality of Japan’s Incorporation of Dokdo
The ROK maintains that the steps Japan took to incorporate Takeshima, such as 1905 cabinet decision
and Shimane notice No.40, were violation of international law (51). As was explained earlier, Japan took
the opportunity provided by the petition to the ministries by Nakai Yozaburo in September 1904 to lease
Liancourt Rocks to once again carry out an on-site survey and it confirmed that there was no “no trace of
any other country being in control of them.” On January 28 of the following year, the Cabinet decided torename Liancourt Rocks, for which the petition to lease had been submitted, as “Takeshima”, and to place
it under the jurisdiction of the Oki Island Governor. Based on the Cabinet decision and the instruction of
the Minister of the Interior, on February 22, the Shimane Prefecture Governor issued Shimane Prefecture
Notice No.40, stating that “The islands located at 37° 9’ 30” North Latitude and at 131° 55’ East Longitude
and 85 nautical miles northwest of Oki Islands, shall be named Takeshima and assigned from now on to
the head of the public office on the Oki Islands.” This was the procedure by which Japan drew Takeshima
into its territory.
The Edo and Meiji governments were adequately aware of today’s Takeshima whether they wentby the name of Matsushima or Liancourt Rocks, and they understood clearly that they were Japanese.
Today’s Ulleungdo was a separate matter.
As was previously mentioned, the Oya family and Murakawa families engaged in gathering abalone
and hunting sea lions on Takeshima (today’s Ulleungdo) and following a request from Korea to prevent
Japanese from landing on the island, the two governments started negotiations over ownership of it. The
negotiations eventually resulted in the Tokugawa shogunate’s acknowledgment that today’s Ulleungdo

10was Korean and its decision to prohibit passage to it, which both families were reluctantly forced toaccept.
The ROK argues that Japan’s annexation of Dokdo, based on the principle of the occupation ofterra nullius, constituted a violation of international law, for it is a clear infringement of the undeniable
sovereignty of Korea over the island from ancient times to the recent Empire of Korea.
As was pointed out, however, the Meiji government was operating under the assumption that today’s
Takeshima had been Japanese since Edo period. Having recently gained recognition as a member of theinternational community, Japan was only taking steps to satisfy once again the necessary requirements
for today’s Takeshima’s incorporation (52). Accordingly, the incorporation of today’s Takeshima was not
occupation of territory that had been terra nullius from the start but official reaffirmation of the statepractice over territory to which the Japanese had continuously exercised sovereignty since the distantpast in order to satisfy the formal requirements of international law (53). In particular, this was an action
taken as a state practice. The presumption of the ROK that the legal basis of Japan’s incorporation of theisland was the principle of occupying terra nullius is a misunderstanding of the actual situation.

Conclusion
The dispute over the sovereignty to Takeshima between Japan and the ROK was triggered by the Japanese
objection to the “Presidential Proclamation of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas” by the ROK. The ROK’s
sovereignty arguments has been denied by Japan during the initial stage of the exchange of Notes Verbale.
Nevertheless, the ROK maintains the same arguments, which contain numerous logical flaws and thereby provide little of the requirements of international law.
It seems that the weakest point of the ROK’s argument is that it presents “Dokdo” as today’s
Takeshima. It is the interpretation of the ROK that Usan-do is located adjacent to Ulleungdo, which seems
to be Dokdo (today’s Takeshima). The names of various islands are shown in the vicinity of Ulleungdo.
However, none of them are named Dokdo in historical documents or on historical maps.
With regards to this point, the ROK has presented the following explanation of how Usando cameto be called Dokdo: in the dialect of Korea’s Gyeongsang Province at that time, “Dok” meant rock orstone, so “Dokdo” meant rock island or stone island. But today, “Dokdo” means an isolated island, and atsome time even the history books came to refer to it as Usan-do or Sambong-do (54). All this is perhaps
a reasonable explanation for how Usando came to known as Dokdo over time. Even so, it fails to explain
why we should identify Usando with today’s Takeshima.
(1) Takeshima is the collective name for the Western Island (Male Island) and the Eastern Island (Female
Island) and numerous surrounding rocks. It is approximately 157km from Oki, around 92km from
Ulleungdo, and approximately 215km from the Korean Peninsula. It is located in the Sea of Japan
131°52’ East longitude and about 37°14’ North latitude.
(2) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, Dokdo : Korean Territory, p. 8, available at <http://www.
mofat.go.kr/mofat/popup/2008_dokdo/lang/eng.pdf>, (as of June 8, 2012).
(3) Ibid., p.2.
(4) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, Japan’s Consistent Position on the Territorial Sovereignty overTakeshima, available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/index.html> (as of August17, 2012).
(5) Ibid.
(6) Diplomatic documents exchanged between Japan and the ROK (from January 28, 1958 to December

1112, 1976), pp. 119-121, available at <http://www.pref.shimane>lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/takeshima04c.data/4-6-01.pdf> (as of August 6, 2012).
(7) Article 1 of Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty (signed August 22, 1910, came into effect on 29th of thesame month). His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes the complete and permanent cession to His
Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea, and Article 2. His
Majesty the Emperor of Japan accepts the cession mentioned in the preceding article and consents
to the complete annexation of Korea to the Empire of Japan.
(8) Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (signed July26, 1945; accepted August 14 of the same year)
prescribes that “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty
shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we
determine.”(9) Both countries would not renounce their claim to be the only nation on the Korean Peninsula after
Japan had been expelled from it, but in actual terms they were two nations with their border being
the 38th parallel north, and they joined the United Nations at the same time on September 17, 1991.
The Government of Japan concluded the Japan-Korea basic treaty with the Government of the ROK
on June 22, 1965, and recognized the Republic of Korea as a sovereign state on the Korean Peninsula.
(10) Subsequently, the ROK claimed that Takeshima was ROK territory, based on evidence of a map
drawn by the Ministry of Defense, but the same map shows that other minor islands that later
become Japanese territory, such as the Bonin Island and the Nansei Islands, are not within the line
indicating Japanese territory, so this demonstrates that this map does not show the Allies’ ultimate
decision.
(11) Foreign Relations of the United States, Vol. VII, Part 2 (1949), p. 900, available at <http://goecities.jp/
tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/frus.jpg> (as of July 5, 2012).
(12) A letter sent from Korean Ambassador to the United States Dr. Yu Chan Yang to U.S. Secretary of State
Acheson, available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/area/takeshima/g_sfjoyaku.html> (as of July 5, 2012).
(13) A letter sent from Dean Rusk, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to
Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador to the United States, available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/
area/takeshima/g_sfjoyaku.html> (as of July 5, 2012).
(14) Regarding the relation between Japan’s territorial right to Takeshima and Article 2(a) of thePeace Treaty with Japan, please refer to Takashi Tsukamoto, “The San Francisco Peace Treaty andTakeshima: from the collection of U.S. diplomatic documents,” National Diet Library Research andLegislative Reference Bureau, The Reference, No. 389 (1983); Takashi Tsukamoto, “The Peace Treaty
and Takeshima (revisited)”, The Reference, No. 518 (1994).
(15) The Treaty of Peace with Japan, signed September 8, 1951, came into effect on April 28, 1952.
(16) Article 2 (a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan prescribes that “Japan shall recognize the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port
Hamilton and Dagelet.”(17) General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Area Authorized for JapaneseFishing and Whaling (1946), available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/area/takeshima/g_sfjoyaku.html>(as of July 5, 2012). Article 3(b) of this memorandum states that, “Japanese vessels or personnel
thereof will not come approach closer than 12 miles to Takeshima nor have any contact with saidisland.” Also, Article 5 prescribes that, “The present authorization is not an expression of Allied
policy relative to the ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or
fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area.”12(18) Zengo Ohira, Shudan Anzen Hosho to Nihon Gaiko [Collective Security and Japan’s Diplomacy](Hitotsubashi Shobo, 1960), p. 164.
(19) Diplomatic documents exchanged between Japan and the ROK, supra note 6, pp. 1-2.
(20) Furthermore, in the proclamation the Republic of Korea appears to assume territorial rights overthe islets in Japan Sea known as Takeshima (otherwise known as Liancourt Rocks). The Japanese
Government does not recognize any such assumption or claim by the Republic of Korea concerningthese islets which are without question Japanese territory.’ Ibid., p. 2.
(21) Diplomatic documents exchanged between Japan and the ROK, supra note 8, pp. 3-6.
(22) General Headquarters Supreme Commander for Allied Powers, Governmental and Administrative
Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan, available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/area/takeshima/g_sfjoyaku.html> (as of July 5, 2012).
(23) Diplomatic documents exchanged between Japan and the ROK, supra note 6, pp. 7-9.
(24) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, “7. Takeshima as a U.S. military bombing training zone”,
available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/g_sfjoyaku.html> (as of July 5, 2012).
(25) Diplomatic documents exchanged between Japan and the ROK, supra note 8, pp. 10-11.
(26) Ibid., p. 12.
(27) Ibid., pp. 13-14.
(28) Ibid., pp. 15-20.
(29) Ibid., pp. 21-23.
(30) Ibid., pp. 24-25.
(31) Ibid., pp. 29-30.
(32) Ibid., pp. 44-58.
(33) Ibid., pp. 78-93.
(34) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, “4.The incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture,”“Petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks and to issue a lease”, available at <http://www.mofa.go.jp/
mofaj/area/takeshima/g.hennyu.html> (as of July 5, 2012).
(35) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, “Minister of the Interior Instruction No. 87”, ibid.
(36) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan “Shimane Prefecture Notice No. 40”, ibid.
(37) Shimane Prefecture General Affairs Division, ed., “Shimane Prefecture Administration Documents1”, November 15, Meiji 37 “No.152, Answer of the Oki Island Governor Bunsuke Higashi to‘No.1073’”, (published in Collection of materials related to Takeshima No. 2), pp. 49-50.
(38) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 2, pp. 3-6.
(39) Ibid., p. 7.
(40) The Government of Japan, Note Verbale, April 25, 1952 (No.21/A2).
(41) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, Dokdo, Korea’s Beautiful Island (English version), available at <http://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/#> (as of June 8, 2012), p. 30.
(42) Ibid.
(43) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 41, pp. 14-15.
(44) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 2, p. 4.
(45) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 41, p. 20(46) Ibid.
(47) Takashi Sugihara, “‘Takeshima and another island should be understood as being of no concern toJapan’ Reconsidered: with special reference to the ‘petition to reclaim Matsushima’ submitted by
Kensuke Oya and another person in 1881”, available at <http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/admin/pref/13

takeshima/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-1/takeshima04_j.html and http://www.pref.
shimane.lg.jp/admin/pref/takeshima/web-takeshima/takeshima04/sugi/take_04g08.html>.
(48) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 2, p. 5.
(49) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 41, p. 25.
(50) Ibid.
(51) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ROK, supra note 2, p. 6.
(52) Ohira, supra note 18, p. 169.
(53) Ibid., p. 170.
(54) Attached documents to the Note Verbale of September 9, 1953, supra note 6, p. 32.

14