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

Takeshima*1
Arata Yokokawa
I. Geographical Scope
Takeshima is part of Goka Village, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture (Translator’s note: Currenly
Okinoshima Town, Shimane Prefecture). It is located in the Sea of Japan (37°9’30’’ north latitude and131°55’ east longitude) approximately 157 km northwest of Okinoshima Island of Shimane Prefecture(approximately 70 km from the Shimane Peninsula in Honshu Island), and approximately 213 km linearly
from mainland Japan. It is comprised of two small islands and numerous small outcroppings connectedwith the islands. Nishijima (Ojima) Island has the largest land area with 0.17 sq. km, nearly equal to theland area of Tokyo’s Hibiya Park. The second largest island, Higashijima (Mejima) Island, has 0.05 sq.
km. The total land area of Takeshima, including its approximately 40 small outcroppings, is 0.23 sq. km.
Takeshima is influenced by strong onshore winds. Its landmasses are bare rocks inhospitable for tree
growth and other vegetation, aside from some wild grass growing on the southwestern side of the island.
The highest point is found on Nishijima Island at 157 m above sea level. The Higashijima and Nishijima
Islands are divided by a water path approximately 150 m in width. The shoreline of both islands consistsof steep sea cliffs. Since the coastal areas of the island are hit by high waves and drinking water is scarceon the islands, Takeshima is unsuitable for human habitation.

II. History of Territorial Title
i. Early history
On the Korean Peninsula, in 1392, the Goryeo Dynasty was overthrown, and the Joseon Dynasty wasestablished. In order to control the many refugees who came to Utsuryo Island during the end of theGoryeo Dynasty, King Taejong (1401-1418) and King Sejong (1418-1450) adopted the so-called “evacuated island policy” on the island. Under this policy, islanders were ordered to return to the mainland
or were captured and taken to the mainland. As a result of the Joseon government’s measures, Utsuryo
Island remained an evacuated island for some 450 years until 1881.
Japanese people have travelled between Japan and Utsuryo Island since ancient times. After Utsuryo
Island became an evacuated island, more Japanese people started to make the passage to the island. Since
the Joseon government did not attempt to control it, Japanese people began to travel to Utsuryo Island
more in numbers. Utsuryo Island developed into a fishing ground of the Japanese people over about 100
years after the Japanese invasion of Korea during the Bunroku Period (1592-1596).
On May 16, 1618 in the early Edo Period, through Shintaro Matsudaira, the Lord of the Houki domain, Jinkichi Oya and Ichibei Murakawa of the Houki domain received permission from the Tokugawa* This article was originally published as 横川新「竹島」国際法事例研究会『日本の国際法事例研究（３）領土』慶應通信、1990 年、165-183 頁 .

1central government (Bakufu) for passage to Utsuryo Island (then Takeshima) (exclusive rights to develop
the island). Afterwards, for some 80 years, the two men engaged in fishing activities on the island, primarily for abalone. In those years, Takeshima (then Matsushima) was used as a navigational port on theway to Utsuryo Island from Okinoshima Island, as well as for a ground for hunting sea lions. Although
Tokugawa Iemitsu, Shogun of Japan, issued a sakoku (closed-door policy) directive and banned foreign
trade in 1639, the Bakufu continued to issue permissions for passage to Utsuryo Island and Takeshima.
The earliest documentary reference to Takeshima (Matsushima) is the following description in
Volume 1 of “Inshu (Onshu) Shicho Gakki [Records of Observations in Oki Province]” published in 1667.
Inshu (Okinoshima Island) is located in the northern sea…When one travels northwest for twodays and one night from the island, there is Matsushima. When one travels one more day, there is
Takeshima…The two islands are uninhabited. Viewing Goryeo from there is the same as viewing
Okinoshima Island from Izumo. Therefore, this island is the northwest boundary of Japan.
Furthermore, a written request submitted to the Tokugawa Bakufu in May 1681 by Kyuuemon
Katsunobu Oya, the third-generation descendent of the aforementioned Jinkichi Oya, contains the following description:
On the way to Takeshima (Utsuryo Island), there is a small island with a circumference of around20 cho. There are no grass and trees. The island consists of rocks. Twenty-five years ago, with thepermission of Shogun through Shirogoro Abe, I sailed to the island by boat. In this small island,I engaged in the work of hunting a few sea lions and collecting some fish oil. The distance from
Dougo Fukuura in Okinoshima Island to this small island is about 60 ri.
Subsequently, in 1692, a dispute arose between the Japanese and Joseon people over fishing operations in Utsuryo Island. The Bakufu instructed So Tsushima-no-kami, the Lord of the Taishu domain,to negotiate with the Joseon government. In September 1693, So dispatched Yozaemon Tada to Pusan as
the official delegate for the negotiations. However, due to the passive sakoku policy, the Bakufu decided
to prohibit Japanese people from sailing to Utsuryo Island (then Takeshima) as of January 1696.
Nonetheless, even after the prohibition of passage to the Island, Utsuryo Island (Takeshima) andTakeshima (then Matsushima) were clearly differentiated in Japan. People continued to recognize thelatter as Japanese territory, and thus, passage to Takeshima was never prohibited.
The memorandum of Hoki-no-kami Matsudaira dated January 23, 1696, shortly after the prohibition of passage, states as follows and shows that the locations of Takeshima (then Matsushima) and
Utsuryo Island (then Takeshima) were correctly understood:
1. In going to Matsushima to hunt, one stops there as it is on the way to Takeshima.
1. It is about 80 ri from Fukuura to Matsushima.
1. It is about 40 ri from Matsushima to Takeshima.
The “Takeshima Zusetsu [Explanation of Takeshima with Maps]” edited by Tsuan Kitazono during
the Horeki Period (1751-1763) contains the following description:
There is an island about 40 ri north of the west island (Nishijima) of Matsushima (Takeshima) in2Oki county. It is called Takeshima (Utsuryo Island). This island is close to Japan and next to Joseon
and is shaped like a triangle. Its circumference is about 15 ri.
…
The distance from Hakushu’s Yonago to Takeshima is about 160 ri by sea. One should go from
Yonago to Izumo, and then reach to Takeshima via Oki’s Matsushima. It is said that the distancefrom Oki’s Fukushima (Fukuura) to Matsushima is about 60 ri, and from Matsushima to Takeshima
is 40 ri by sea.
This document is noteworthy for the following reasons. First, it clearly notes that Matsushima (present Takeshima) belongs to Oki county in Japan by stating “Matsushima in Oki county.” Second, it
clearly describes that Matsushima (Takeshima) is comprised of two islands east and west, by noting“the west island (Nishijima) of Matsushima.” Thirdly, it accurately records the distances between themainland of Japan and Takeshima and between its mainland and Utsuryo Island.
Additionally, the “Chosei Takeshima Ki [The Account of Longevity Takeshima]” authored by
Takamasa Yada in 1801 states:
From Oki-Dogo, Matsushima (Takeshima) is located off the west-southwestern coast. The east wind
will get you to the island in two days and two nights. Assuming that 36 cho (3,927 m) is equivalent
to 1 ri, the distance is probably about 170 ri by sea. The island is mountainous and rugged. Its lengthis said to be 5 ri or 3 ri…However, it is said that the island has a water shortage when the hot sun
is out. The vessel Takeshimamaru is said to always have made a port call at this island during its
passage to Takeshima (Utsuryo Island). The so-called Matsushima is said to have been visible whena 150-ton cargo vessel was caught up in a storm on its way to Ezo Matsumae. Matsushima is locatedat the far end of Japan’s western sea.
The above description reveals that at the time, the Takeshimamaru, on its way to Utsuryo Island,commonly made a port call at Takeshima which was along the route, and that Takeshima belongs toJapanese territory although it is “located at the far end of Japan’s western sea.”
With regard to old maps, “Takeshima no Ezu [Diagrams of Takeshima]”, made around 1696 by
Ihei Kotani, a government official in Tottori domain, provides an accurate illustration of Takeshima’s
Higashijima and Nishijima Islands and associated reefs. Maps, including Sekisui Nagakubo’s “Nihon
Yochirotei Zenzu [Route Map of Japan]” (1775) and Juzo Kondo’s “Henyo Bunkai Zuko [Records andMaps of Boundary of Remote Areas]” (1804), depict two islands between Okinoshima Island and Korea.
The maps are unique in that Matsushima (present Takeshima), which is closer to Okinoshima Island, isdistinguished from Takeshima (present Utsuryo Island), which is closer to Korea.
ii. Confusion over the name of the islands
In Japan, until the late Edo Period, it was commonly understood that there were two islands on the Sea
of Japan between Oki and Korea; and furthermore, that the small island on the side of Japan was called
Matsushima and the island closer to Korea was called Takeshima (or Isotakeshima). This can be observed
from various documents and maps.
A French colonel, Jean François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse, surveyed Utsuryo Island for the3

first time and named the island “Dagelet” in 1787. Following this, a British lieutenant colonel, William
R. Broughton, surveyed the same Utsuryo Island and named it “Argonaute” in 1797. The two men had
different measurements for the island’s latitude and longitude, despite the island being the same Utsuryo
Island. As a result, the same island was depicted as two separate islands on subsequent European maps.
In 1840, Philipp Franz Balthasar von Siebold drew the “Map of Japan” by forcibly integrating this erroneous information with the map of Japan at the time. On the map, Argonaute, near Korea, was identified as“Takashima,” and Dagelet, near Japan, was identified as “Matsushima,” further adding to the confusion
over the name of the islands.
Later, in 1854, measurements taken by the Russian ship Pallada and other information revealed thatthe latitude for Argonaute was incorrect. This led to the disappearance of the name “Argonaute” and to theconsolidation of the names of Utsuryo Island into a single name, “Dagelet.” At the same time, the name“Takeshima” also disappeared, and Utsuryo Island came to be called “Matsushima” in Japan. Afterwards,
in 1880, a survey of the warship “Amagi” identified the accurate location of Utsuryo Island, an islandthat was recognized since ancient times. In 1905, when the islets that were known as “Matsushima” sinceancient times were incorporated into Japanese territory, the Meiji government formally named the islets“Takeshima” based on the following written response from the administrator of Okinoshima Island:
I deem Takeshima is an appropriate name. It is generally recognized that Matsushima and Takeshima
exist in seas east of Korea…Since there is no island called Takeshima other than this new island, it
is natural that we apply the name miscalled in the past to it and name a new island Takeshima as
commonly called.
From then on, in Japan, islands which were long known as “Matsushima” and “Takeshima” came tobe called “Takeshima” and “Matsushima,” respectively.
Thus, the islands now known as Takeshima means the islands which: (1) were called “Matsushima”
in Japan from the 17th century through the Meiji Period; (2) were called “Hornnet,” “Liancourt” and“Lyanko” during the 19th century, when there was confusion over the name of the islands; (3) are called
Takeshima in Japan since its incorporation into Japanese territory in 1905; and (4) are presently called“Dokdo” in the Republic of Korea (ROK).
iii. Incorporation into Japanese territory
From the beginning of the Meiji Period, Japanese people again began to cross the seas to foreign countries. They began to go to Utsuryo Island, which was still an evacuated island, to engage in lumberingand fishing operations. In turn, many people started to submit petitions to the government in order todevelop Takeshima, mistaking Utsuryo Island for the Japanese territory of Takeshima. The petitions
included “Petition to Develop Matsushima” by Sadaaki Kodama; “Petition to Develop Matsushima andTakeshima” by Heigaku Muto in 1876; and the “Petition of passage to Takeshima” by Takayoshi Toda,a warrior in Shimane Prefecture in 1877. In response to the petitions, the Meiji government in 1880
deployed the warship “Amagi” to confirm that Matsushima and Takeshima, referred to in the petitions,were indeed present-day Utsuryo Island.
In 1881, the Royal Inspector of Joseon who was dispatched to Utsuryo Island found Japanese people
engaged in lumbering at the island, and reported this to the Joseon government. In 1882, the Joseon
government lodged a protest to the Japanese government in the form of a letter under the name of Sim
Sun-taek, Minister of Rites, Protocol, Culture and Education. The Japanese government affirmed that4

Utsuryo Island was Korean territory and issued the following notice, prohibiting Japanese people fromgoing to Utsuryo Island:
Japan and Korea have entered into an agreement which states that Japanese people would not sail tonor land on, without reason, the island that Japan calls Matsushima (also known as Takeshima) andKorea calls Ulleungdo, located at 37°30’ north latitude and 130°49’ east longitude. We hereby notify
thereof to the heads of local governments in order to avoid any confusion.
March 1, 1883
Grand Minister
Around 1897, fishermen from Oki discovered flocks of sea lions in Takeshima during their search
for a shipwrecked fishing vessel on Utsuryo Island. The fishermen killed and brought back to mainland
Japan 50 to 60 sea lions, and made considerable profit. On hearing this news, the people of OkinoshimaIsland began to hunt sea lions in large numbers in Takeshima from 1903, putting Takeshima sea lions at
risk of extinction. In light of the situation, one of the fishermen, Yozaburo Nakai, submitted the “Request
for Territorial Incorporation of Lyanko Island (Takeshima) and its Lease” to the ministers of the Home
Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture and Commerce on September 29, 1904. Nakai requested thegovernment to incorporate Takeshima into Japanese territory and to grant him a ten-year lease of theislets.
In accordance with this request, the government, after hearing the opinions of the Shimane prefectural government, decided on a Cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905, that it would name the islands
enumerated below as “Takeshima,” incorporate them into Japan, and place the islands under the jurisdiction of the administrator of Okinoshima Island of Shimane Prefecture.
We have examined the proposal made by the Minister of Home Affairs concerning the uninhabitedisland, which is located at 37º 9’ 30” N and, 131º 55’ E. and 85 nautical miles northwest of the Oki
Islands. The gist of the proposal is that there is no evidence of occupation by any other countries; anational named Nakai Yozaburo recently petitioned to incorporate the island, and to grant a concession thereof; he has already begun sea lion hunting at the island since 1903; for that purpose, hebuilt a hut for fishery, transferred laborers, and got proper fishing gear; it is necessary to confirm theaffiliation and the name of the island; the island shall be called Takeshima, shall belong to Shimane
Prefecture, and shall be put under the jurisdiction of the governor of the Oki Islands from now on.
We found that occupation of the island was established under international law, as evidenced bydocuments indicating that Nakai Yozaburo had moved to the island in 1903 and had been engaging
in fishery there. We thereby conclude that nothing prevents the incorporation of the island into
Japanese territory, making it belong to Shimane Prefecture, and putting it under the jurisdiction of
the governor of the Oki Islands. Consequently, a Cabinet decision is made as requested.
The government then instructed the governor of Shimane Prefecture on how to notify the public
about the content of the cabinet decision. Through a prefectural notice dated February 22, 1905, thegovernor announced that Takeshima came under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture, and issued anorder to this effect to the Okinoshima Branch Office.

5

Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40
The islands located at 37°9’30’’ north latitude and 131°55’ east longitude, a distance of 85 nautical
miles northwest the Okinoshima Island, shall be designated as Takeshima, and are hereby placed
under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima Branch Office of this prefecture.
February 22, 1905
Bukichi Matsunaga
Governor of Shimane Prefecture
After Takeshima was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture, studies and surveys of Takeshima
were conducted pursuant to the order of the governor of Shimane Prefecture. In May 1905, the administrator of Okinoshima Island submitted an application to the governor of Shimane Prefecture to
register Takeshima’s land area as “23 cho, 3 tan, 3 se bu” (Japan’s old system of measurement). Shimane
Prefecture registered Takeshima in the land-book as government owned land according to this request.
In April of the same year, Shimane Prefecture revised its fisheries control regulations to introduce alicense system for the hunting of sea lions in Takeshima. In June of that year, a license was granted to
the Takeshima Fishery Company, a registered company set up by four individuals, including Yozaburo
Nakai. The company immediately commenced the hunting of sea lions. In 1906, the company submitted
a request to lease the government owned land of Takeshima. The governor of Shimane prefecture granted
the company a license of the five-year lease of the property. Since then, fishing operations in Takeshima,
mainly involving sea lions, abalone, and wakame seaweed, continued until their suspension in 1941 due
to Japan’s entry into war. Land use fee from licensees was paid to the national treasury every year.
In the meantime, in November 1905, the second Japan-Korea treaty was concluded. The Great Han
Empire became a protectorate of Japan, and in 1910, was annexed into Japanese territory.
In 1939, an administrative measure was taken to incorporate Takeshima into the Goka Village area.
In 1940, the administration of Takeshima was transferred to the Maizuru Naval District as its naval
land. Nevertheless, in November 1941, it issued the order which gave Choshiro Yahata in Goka Village
permission to use the naval land for the hunting of sea lions, the collecting of seaweed and seashells, andthe preservation of breeding grounds.
On November 1, 1945, following the end of World War II, administration of Takeshima was transferred from the navy to the Ministry of Finance pursuant to Article 2 of the Order for Enforcement of the
National Property Act. This situation continues to the present.

III. Developments after World War IIi. Occupation and control of the Allied Powers, and Takeshima
Following the end of WWII, the “Basic Initial Post-Surrender Directive to Supreme Commander for the
Allied Powers for the Occupation and Control of Japan” was issued by the General Headquarters of theSupreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) on November 1, 1945, thereby limiting Japan’s sovereignty to the four islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku, and the smaller islands determinedby the Allied Powers. On January 29, 1946, a memorandum of the General Headquarters of SCAP, titled“Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan (SCAPIN-677)”,
directed Japan to cease exercising governmental and administrative authority over Utsuryo Island,
Quelpart Island, as well as Takeshima. This was followed by a memorandum of the General Headquarters

6

of SCAP dated June 22 of the same year (SCAPIN-1033), which placed Takeshima outside of the so-called
MacArthur Line and banned Japanese vessels and their personnel from approaching closer than 12 miles
to Takeshima (later revised to 3 miles by a memorandum dated September 19, 1949 [SCAPIN-2046]).
Accordingly, Shimane Prefecture issued prefectural ordinance no. 49 dated July 26, 1946 to delete sea lion
hunting in Takeshima from the scope of its fisheries control regulations. Nonetheless, the measures takenby the General Headquarters of SCAP should not be seen as the ultimate determination of Japanese
territory, as is made evident in Paragraph 6 of the aforementioned memorandum dated January 29, 1946:“Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate
determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.”
The Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed on September 8, 1951, making the restoration of Japanesesovereignty certain. In the meantime, the Republic of Korea (ROK) took steps to restrict fishing operations of foreign vessels in its coastal areas through the establishment of fishery protection areas. On
January 18, 1952, the ROK issued the “Presidential Proclamation of Sovereignty over the Adjacent Seas
(Syngman Rhee Line Declaration)”, unilaterally proclaiming sovereignty over the adjacent seas which
included Takeshima.
Supported by well-established international precedents and urged by the impelling need of safeguarding, once and for all, the interests of national welfare and defence, the President of the Republicof Korea hereby proclaims:
1. The Government of the Republic of Korea holds and exercises national sovereignty over the shelf
adjacent to the peninsular and insular coasts of the national territory…protecting, preserving
and utilizing…all the natural resources, mineral and marine (Abridged).
2. The Government of the Republic of Korea holds and exercises national sovereignty over the seasadjacent to the coasts of the peninsula and islands of the national territory, no matter what theirdepths may be (Abridged).
3. The Government of the Republic of Korea hereby declares and maintains the lines of demarcation, as given below…The zone to be placed under sovereignty and protection of the Republicof Korea shall consist of seas lying between the coasts of the peninsular and insular territories of
Korea and the line of demarcation made from the Continuity of the following lines:
a. from the highest peak of U-Am-Ryung, Kyung-Pung-Kun, Ham-Kyong-Pukdo to the point(42˚15’N - 130˚45’E)
b. from the point (42˚15’N - 130˚45’E) to the point (38˚00’N - 132˚50’E)(Abridged)
4. This declaration of sovereignty over the adjacent seas does not interfere with the rights of freenavigation on the high seas.
On January 28, 1952, the Japanese government immediately lodged a protest to the ROK. With
regard to Takeshima, the Japanese government asserted:
In the Proclamation, the Republic of Korea appears to assert territorial rights over the islets in the
Sea of Japan known as Takeshima. The Japanese Government does not recognize any such assumption or claim by the Republic of Korea.
The MacArthur Line was fully abolished on April 25, 1952, shortly before the entry into force of7the Treaty of Peace with Japan. On April 28, the state of occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers was
dissolved with the entry into force of the peace treaty. As the provision of Article 2, Paragraph (a) of thetreaty did not include Takeshima on the list of territories Japan renounced, Takeshima was placed backunder the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture with the entry into forceof the treaty.
On July 26, 1952, the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee designated Takeshima as an air force exercise area
to be utilized by the U.S. Forces in Japan, in accordance with Article 2 of the Administrative Agreement
under Article III of the Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America. On March 19,
1953, Takeshima was removed from the exercise areas.
On June 19, 1953, Shimane Prefecture issued Notice No. 352, granting joint fishing rights for
Takeshima’s adjacent waters to the Federation of Okinoshima Island Fishery Cooperatives from June
18, 1953 to August 31, 1961. In addition, the prefecture issued a public announcement dated June 19,
1953, granting Tadashige Hashioka and two others in Goka Village, Ochi District, Shimane Prefecture
permission to hunt sea lions in Takeshima from June 10, 1953 to December 31, 1965.
On February 26, 1954, the director of the Hiroshima Regional Bureau of the Ministry of International
Trade and Industry granted licenses to Tomizo Tsuji and two others at their requests to establish mining
rights for phosphate in Takeshima and its adjacent waters.
Since 1953 to this day, however, Japanese people have not engaged in fishery and mining operationsin Takeshima, due to Korean fishermen’s fishing operations on the island and ROK authorities’ continued
occupation of the island.
ii. The ROK’s territorial claim and Japan’s responses
Japan and the ROK have disputed over Takeshima ever since the ROK announced the proclamation ofsovereignty over the adjacent seas on January 18, 1952 and included Takeshima within the Syngman
Rhee Line that was established based on the proclamation. The Japanese government protested the ROK’s
proclamation in a note verbale dated January 28, 1952. In response, the ROK asserted as follows in a noteverbale dated February 12 of the same year:
The Government of the Republic of Korea merely wishes to remind the Japanese Governmentthat SCAP, by SCAPIN No.677 dated January 29, 1946, explicitly excluded the islets (Takeshima)from the territorial possessions of Japan and that again the same islets have been left outside of the
MacArthur Line, facts that endorse and confirm the Korean claim to them, which is beyond any
dispute.
On April 25 of the same year, the Japanese government objected as follows: “SCAP’s memorandum
dated January 29, 1946 no more than ordered the Japanese government to cease exercising or attempting
to exercise governmental or administrative authority over Takeshima, and is unrelated to its attribution.
Similarly, the MacArthur Line is not an expression of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries, or fishing rights.” Along with this, the Japanese
government noted that the ROK’s assertions do not provide grounds under international law, and that
discussions of this nature have become wholly unnecessary due to the abolishment of the MacArthur
Line on this day of April 25.
On May 28, 1953, a fishery experimental vessel of Shimane Prefecture “Shimanemaru” discovered,8while conducting a development study of the Tsushima Warm Current, that approximately 30 Korean
fishermen had landed on Takeshima and engaged in the harvesting of abalone, wakame seaweed, andother products. On June 23 of the same year, the Japanese government lodged a protest to the ROK
government and dispatched patrol vessels of the Maritime Safety Agency several times to the islands tocontrol the activities. Nevertheless, even after this, Korean fishermen continued their fishing operationsin Takeshima.
On July 12, 1953, the Japanese government dispatched a patrol vessel of the 8th Regional Coast
Guard Headquarters “Hekura” (450-ton) to Takeshima to conduct its fourth local survey. The vessel
found approximately 40 Koreans on Takeshima, including armed police officers. When Japan demanded
them to leave the islands, the ROK authorities fired approximately 40 bullets upon the patrol vesselusing carbines and light machine guns. This was the “shooting incident involving ROK authorities in
Takeshima.” On the next day, July 13, the Japanese government lodged a strong protest to the ROK in
which the Japanese foreign ministry sent a note verbale to the ROK mission to Japan. In addition, theJapanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement dated the same day which expressed its opinions
regarding Takeshima to the following effect:
Takeshima, over which disputes arose between Japan and Korea after 1693 and where fishing by
Japanese people was later prohibited by an order of the Bakufu, concerns the period when present-day Utsuryo Island was called Takeshima or Kantakeshima and is not present-day Takeshima.
It is evident from the literature, old maps, and other sources that since ancient times, Japan knew
about present-day Takeshima by the name of Matsushima and considered it a part of Japanese
territory. Takeshima is without a doubt a part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts
and based on international law. Prior to the Japan-Korea annexation, the Japanese government
already placed Takeshima under the jurisdiction of the administrator of Okinoshima Island of
Shimane Prefecture through Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 dated February 23, 1905. Since
then, Takeshima was under the valid control of Japanese people until shortly before the outbreakof the recent war. During these years, no country questioned Takeshima’s attribution to Japan…
Furthermore, the peace treaty does not contain any provisions indicating that territories whichwere Japanese territory prior to the Japan-Korea annexation would be ceded to Korea.
On September 9, 1953, the ROK government challenged the statement of the Japanese government
regarding Takeshima on eight grounds: 1. The ROK’s historical title to Dokdo (Takeshima); 2. Effective
rule over Dokdo; 3. Geographical proximity between Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) and Dokdo; 4. Illegalityof the Japanese government’s incorporation of Dokdo; 5. The ROK’s peaceful and continuous exercise ofsovereignty over Dokdo; 6. The removal of Dokdo from Japanese territory pursuant to the memorandumof SCAP dated January 29, 1946; 7. Relevance with the Treaty of Peace with Japan; and 8. Relationshipbetween maneuver areas for the U.S. Forces and Dokdo.
Furthermore, the ROK government asserted:
In conclusion, it is the view of the Government of the Republic of Korea that Dokdo is indisputably
a part of the Korean territory in the light of its historical and geographical background and in viewof the accepted notions of international law regarding the territorial ownership of the land.
In response to the views of the ROK government, on February 10, 1954, the Japanese government

9

responded as follows: 1. The ROK inaccurately cites literature and facts, including the articles related to
An Yong-bok in “Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam [A Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of theGeography of Korea]” and “Sukjong sillok [Annals of King Sukjong],” which the ROK presents as groundsof its territorial title. Furthermore, they are interpreted erroneously and do not support the ROK’s claims.
2. All of the literature and facts that the ROK presents as proof of its valid control over Takeshima,including the report of Sim Heung-taek, the County Magistrate of Utsuryo Island, and Yozaburo Nakai’srequest for the territorial incorporation of Takeshima and its lease, are cited inaccurately and do notserve as grounds for the ROK’s claims. 3. The Japan-Korea Protocol dated February 23, 1904 and theJapan-Korea Agreement dated August 22, 1904 have no relevance to the incorporation of Takeshima
into Japanese territory. 4. The SCAP memorandum dated January 29, 1946 and the peace treaty are notinterconnected. This is also illustrated by the fact that the Nansei Shoto Islands, over which the Japanese
government had ceased administrative authority pursuant to the same memorandum, were reverted
to Japan. 5. Since ancient times, the Japanese people knew of the existence of Takeshima, considered ita part of the territory of Japan, and had accessed it as is evident from various resources, including the“Inshu Shicho Goki [Records of Observations in Oki Province]” of 1667 and the records of Kyuuemon
Katsunobu Oya of 1681. 6. Japan’s incorporation of Takeshima into its territory on January 28, 1905
fulfilled the requirements for acquiring territory that are deemed necessary under modern internationallaw. 7. The ROK did not consider Takeshima as ROK territory before and after the incorporation of
Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, as is revealed from “Daehan Jiji [Map of Great Han Empire]”and “Hanguk Tongsa [Painful History of Korea].” Additionally, the Japanese government asserted that,“Takeshima is without a doubt a part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts and in view of
the requirements for territorial acquisition under international law.” On September 25, 1954, the ROK
government published in newspapers a refutation of the views of the Japanese government.
Meanwhile, from 1954, ROK authorities began to be assigned permanently to Takeshima and aseries of shootings then occurred which were targeted at Japanese patrol vessels.
The content and total number of notes verbale that the Japanese government sent to the ROK government over the Takeshima dispute during a nine-year period from 1952 to 1960 are as follows.

10Notes Verbale that Japan Sent to the ROK over the Takeshima Dispute(January 1952-December 1960)

Main Content

Year
Total 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Total

24

2

5

9

2

1

2

1

1

1

Opinion describing why Takeshima is aterritory of Japan

3

—

1

1

—

1

—

—

—

—

Proposal of referral to the International
Court of Justice

1

—

—

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

Protest against the issuance ofTakeshima postal stamps

1

—

—

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

Protest against the notice on the establishment of a lighthouse

2

—

—

1

1

—

—

—

—

—

Protest against “intrusion into territorial waters,” “illegal fishing,” “facilities,”“permanent stationing of authorities,”“shooting incident”

15

—

4

5

1

—

2

1

1

1

All other denials of the ROK’s territorial claim

2

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Gaimusho Chosa Geppo, Vol. 2, No. 5 (May 1961)

With the ROK’s continued “illegal occupation” of Takeshima, the Japanese government continued tolodge protests against the ROK government every year thereafter. The note verbale sent on December 26,
1961 stated as follows:
1. The Government of Japan has conveyed on numerous instances to the ROK Government that
Takeshima is a part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts and based on internationallaw. The Government of Japan has repeatedly lodged strong protests over the illegal occupationof Takeshima by the authorities of the ROK Government.
2. Despite this, during a survey of Takeshima on December 3, 1961, Japan’s Maritime Safety Agency
patrol vessel “Hekura” found that the ROK Government had still not removed the lighthouse,houses, flag poles, radio facilities, and other structures that it had set up on the islands, andfurthermore, that ROK authorities were staying at the islands.
3. The Government of Japan hereby once again lodges a strong protest against the ROK Government
for continuing to illegally occupy Takeshima, a Japanese territory, notwithstanding the repeatedprotests of the Japanese Government. The Government of Japan demands the ROK Government
to promptly withdraw its authorities from the islands and remove all structures on the islands.
Since 1971, Japan’s response to the Takeshima dispute has been unveiled in the Diplomatic Bluebook(Japan’s Diplomatic Activities) published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The 1987 edition of the
Diplomatic Bluebook stated as follows:
Japan has repeated its protest against the ROK’s illegal occupation of Takeshima Island. A Japanese11

protest was filed on the basis of a survey by a patrol boat of Japan’s Maritime Safety Agency inNovember 1986. Japan has taken up the issue at various meetings with the ROK.
iii. Proposal of referral to the International Court of Justice
From 1952, Japan and the ROK repeatedly exchanged written responses over their dispute over the titleof Takeshima. Nevertheless, in 1953, an incident took place involving the shooting of a patrol vessel ofthe Maritime Safety Agency by ROK authorities in Takeshima. In 1954, notwithstanding the repeated protests of the Japanese government, the ROK erected territorial markers, established a lighthouse,and stationed coast guard personnel in Takeshima. Through the accumulation of such measures, theROK began to proactively use power over Takeshima in order to legitimize its occupation of the islands. In view of the difficult situations to settle the Takeshima dispute through negotiations with the
ROK, the Japanese government issued the following note verbale on September 12, 1954, proposingthat the Takeshima dispute be settled at court by referring it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
(Translator’s note: provisional translation)[The Takeshima issue] is a territorial dispute touching on basic principles of international law; thus,
the only fair mode of settlement is to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice and toreceive its ruling. The Government of Japan eagerly desires a peaceful resolution and so proposes to
the Government of the Republic of Korea that this dispute be submitted to the International Courtof Justice under an agreement between the two governments.
The Government of Japan firmly believes that the Government of the Republic of Korea willagree to refer the final resolution of this dispute to an organization of the highest fairness andauthority, namely, the International Court of Justice, and looks forward to receiving a prompt andfavorable response.
The Government of Japan hereby pledges to faithfully abide by whatever judgment theInternational Court of Justice reaches.
The ROK rejected Japan’s referral proposal in the following memorandum dated October 28, 1954:(Translator’s note: provisional translation)
Dokdo [Takeshima], as the Government of the Republic of Korea has made clear at every opportunity, has been part of Korean territory since ancient times and remains so today…
The proposal of the Japanese Government that the dispute be submitted to the International
Court of Justice is nothing but another attempt at the false claim in judicial disguise. Korea has
territorial rights ab initio over Dokdo and sees no reason why Japan should seek the verification ofher rights before the International Court of Justice. It is Japan who conjures up a quasi territorial
dispute where none should exist…
The people of the Republic of Korea are determined to protect Dokdo and thereby maintainthe integrity of our nation. In that sense, the Government of the Republic of Korea has no need torefer the question of its sovereignty over Dokdo to a verdict of the International Court of Justice.
iv. Domestic court rulings
The following are two examples of cases in which the Takeshima dispute was raised before a Japanesecourt.

12

1. Case concerning a state compensation claim (October 18, 1960, Tokyo District Court)
Plaintiff: Toru Higo
Defendant: The Government of Japan<Facts>The Plaintiff transferred his registered residence to Takeshima, Goka Village, Ochi District, Shimane
Prefecture on September 25, 1959 and made repeated attempts to go to the said location. However, thePlaintiff was unable to go ashore and reside in the said location due to the stationing of the ROK armed
forces. The Plaintiff sought 50,000 yen in damages compensation on the account that the Prime Minister,
who exercises the public authority of the State, intentionally failed to request the dispatch of the SelfDefense Forces to Takeshima, or the U.S. Forces in Japan in accordance with the Japan-U.S. Security
Treaty, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s obligations to do so.
<Summary of Ruling>
The court stated that the government’s obligation to have foreign forces withdraw from occupied territoryis a public legal obligation and is not a private legal responsibility owed to respective individuals. While
the government of Japan recognizes that Takeshima is no doubt a territory of Japan, the court determined that whether or not to take measures to realize the withdrawal of ROK forces from Takeshima is apolitical issue and is not a legal issue to be determined by the court. On this account, the court dismissed
the claims of the Plaintiff.
(1959 [Wa] 7961, Shomu Geppo [Monthly Bulletin of Litigations], Vol. 6, p. 2100)
2. Case concerning a claim for compensatory damages (November 9, 1961, Tokyo District Court)
Plaintiff: Tomizo Tsuji
Defendant: The Government of Japan, Shimane Prefecture<Facts>In 1954, the director of the Hiroshima Regional Bureau of the Ministry of International Trade andIndustry granted the Plaintiff a license to mine phosphate in Takeshima. From 1954 onwards, however,the ROK rejected Japanese administrative authority by force; and therefore, the Plaintiff was unable tocarry out mining operations. During this period, Shimane Prefecture levied the mine-lot tax, among
other fees, on the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff claimed that the government of Japan does not exercise the right of taxation in
Takeshima where the administration of the government does not extend in reality, and by extension,
does not exercise the right to levy and collect the mine-lot tax for the islands. On this basis, the Plaintiff
requested the court to affirm that Shimane Prefecture’s collection of the mine-lot tax was illegal andthat the Plaintiff had no obligation to pay the said tax. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleged that he incurredsignificant losses because he could not conduct mining operations in accordance with the mining right
granted to him because of the ROK’s illegal occupation of Takeshima. The Plaintiff sought the paymentof compensatory damages by the governments, on the account that the losses were the result of the
Cabinet’s or the Prime Minister’s neglect of obligations to take effective and appropriate measures toprotect and restore rights and interests in Takeshima.

13

<Summary of Ruling>
The court stated that the mine-lot tax is applied on the basis of the enjoyment of mining rights per se.
The court noted that even if the ROK had rejected Japanese administrative authority over Takeshima,
the area for which the Plaintiff possesses mining rights and to which the said tax applies, this in and of
itself gives no reasons for the extinguishment of the right of taxation, which is a function of exercise ofadministration by the Japanese government over the Plaintiff, a Japanese national. If the case is such thatthe government’s exercise of administration over the mine-lot area no more than became de facto infeasible, then this does not legally extinguish the aforementioned mining right. Accordingly, the government
does not lose the right to levy and collect the mine-lot tax for the mining right. On this account, the court
rejected the Plaintiff ’s request to affirm that he had no obligation to pay the mine-lot tax.
Moreover, the court stated that under existing law, neither the Cabinet nor the Prime Ministerhas obligations under positive law to take certain measures to repel the illegal occupation of a territory
by another country for the purpose of protecting and restoring rights that particular nationals have inthe occupied area. The settlement of territorial disputes is a highly diplomatic issue which should bedetermined and carried out in view of various circumstances, including the existing relationship withthe counterpart country, the stance and domestic situation of the counterpart country, relations withthird countries, and other international situations in general. Hence, the court dismissed the claim forcompensatory damages in this case, which assumed that the government has a legal obligation to takemeasures to protect and restore the mining right of the Plaintiff.
(1968 [Gyo] 139, Gyosei Jiken Saiban Reishu [Compilation of Judgments of Administrative Cases],Vol. 12, p. 2252)
v. Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea
The Japan-ROK meetings which continued for approximately 14 years from 1951 were brought to fruition with the conclusion of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea on
June 22, 1965. Nonetheless, the treaty contains no provisions that set forth the settlement of the territorial
dispute over Takeshima. Japan and the ROK did no more than provide the following in the Exchange ofNotes Constituting an Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlementof Disputes: (Translator’s note: provisional translation)
Unless otherwise agreed, the two Governments shall settle disputes between the two countries primarily through diplomatic channels and, when they fail to do so, shall seek settlement by mediationin accordance with procedures to be agreed upon between the two Governments.
With regard to the attribution of Takeshima, on August 9, 1965, Foreign Minister Lee Tong-won of
the ROK stated in a Special Committee of Korean National Assembly as follows: “It is a fact that notes areexchanged for the settlement of disputes. This is a conventional and common practice at international
meetings. History shows that misunderstandings and frictions arise in relations to treaties even between
friendly countries after time has passed. Therefore, we exchanged notes on solutions, that is, how tosettle disputes in the chance that a dispute arises, particularly over fishing issues or compensation claims.
Foreign Minister (Etsusaburo) Shiina and Prime Minister (Eisaku) Sato of Japan expressed understanding that the Dokdo issue could not be covered by the Exchanges of Notes.”
At the Japanese Diet, House of Councillors member Bunzo Ninomiya asked Foreign Minister Shiinaa question about different interpretations of the exchange of notes concerning the settlement of disputes

14

between Japan and the ROK. Foreign Minister Shiina gave the following response at a meeting of theHouse of Councillors’ Special Committee on the Japan-ROK Treaty and Other Matters on November 26,
1965: (Translator’s note: provisional translation)
Based on an objective examination, it can be said that Takeshima is the biggest dispute between thetwo countries…As you are aware, it is not written anywhere that the Takeshima dispute is excluded
with regard to the settlement of disputes. It is clear that Takeshima is a dispute. It is not an issue
as whether it is written “Takeshima” or “Dokdo”. Obviously, [Takeshima] is a critically important
dispute between the two countries. Therefore, we will strive to settle this matter by negotiations
through conventional diplomatic channels. And it was agreed that if negotiations fail, we would
strive to settle the matter by mediation as agreed upon between the two countries. Consider why
this important Exchange of Notes was agreed upon. It is clear that the parties of the two countries
took into account this Takeshima dispute in drafting the Exchange of Notes.
Similarly, at a meeting of the House of Representatives’ Special Committee on the Japan-ROK
Treaty and Other Matters on October 27, 1965, a question was asked as to “whether, as stated in the
Korean National Assembly, Foreign Minister Shiina and Prime Minister Sato expressed understandingthat the Takeshima dispute could not be covered in the Exchange of Notes Concerning the Settlement of
Disputes.” Prime Minister Sato answered:
I would like to make it clear here that that is not the case.
Foreign Minister Shiina also responded:
Like the Prime Minister, I didn’t express such understanding.
Japan takes the position that as the issue of the attribution of Takeshima was not settled at JapanROK meetings and the Exchange of Notes does not stipulate the exclusion of the Takeshima dispute fromits coverage, the Takeshima dispute, therefore, should be settled in accordance with the said Exchange
of Notes.
vi. Current situation in Takeshima
On February 14, 1983, House of Councillors member Yutaka Hata submitted written questions regarding the current situation in Takeshima to the President of the House of Councillors Masatoshi Tokunaga,as outlined below.
1. The basic understanding of the Japanese government regarding the Takeshima dispute
2. The current situation in Takeshima
3. Countermeasures of the Japanese government
4. Diplomatic measures of the Japanese government
5. Whether or not Japan acquiesces the ROK’s effective control
In response to the questions, Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone sent a written response throughthe President of the House of Councillors on February 22, 1983 as follows:

15

With regard to 1.,
Takeshima is indisputably an inherent part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts andbased on international law. The government deeply regrets that the ROK government has built
various facilities in Takeshima and continues to illegally occupy the islands.
With regard to 2.,
Based on repeated patrols, it has been found that at present, structures have been built in Takeshima,including a lighthouse, watch house, barracks, concrete buildings, iron-made towers, and antennas.
The patrols have also found that security personnel are assigned to Takeshima.
With regard to 3. to 5.,(1) It is the basic policy of the government to settle the dispute between Japan and the ROK over
the territorial title of Takeshima by peaceful means. The government has strongly conveyed
to the ROK government through diplomatic channels that the ROK’s territorial claims overTakeshima cannot be accepted. Based on repeated patrols, the government has repeatedly protested the ROK’s establishment of facilities and continued illegal occupation. The government
does not acquiesce the illegal occupation of the ROK.
(2) The government has made diplomatic efforts vis-à-vis the ROK. In 1982, Japan raised thisdispute at the working level during Foreign Minister Lee’s visit to Japan in July. Also, the government lodged a protest against the ROK based on a result of the patrol of the adjacent seas ofTakeshima on October 28.

16