APAN

Vol.6 No.1
2023
ISSN 2433-4456

REVIEW

Historical Observations
on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War:In Search of a Domestic Foundation
for Japan’s Security
Kaoru Iokibe

Original Title to Territory:
To What and to What Extent Is the Conceptof Title to Territory Applied?
Tomoko Fukamachi

Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception:
The Influence of Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh’s
1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Minglingof the Two Oceans]
Monika Chansoria

THE J A P A N
I NS T I T UTE O F
IN T E R NA TI O NA L

Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons
for Japan?
Valérie Niquet

A F FA I R S

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instructionof the Council of StateThe Takeshima Documents Study GroupThe Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), founded in 1959, is an independent nonpartisan
policy thinktank specializing in foreign affairs and security policy. On top of a wide range of
research programs, the institute promotes dialogues and joint studies with other institutions
and experts at home and abroad, and makes foreign policy proposals to the government, anddisseminates information on international relations to the public. The institute, together with alarge network of affiliated scholars, aims to serve as an indispensable resource on international
affairs in a complex world.

Publisher : Kenichiro Sasae, President, JIIA
Editor in Chief : Asako Takashima, Research Fellow, Japan Information Center, JIIAThe opinions expressed in the articles in Japan Review do not necessarily reflect the opinions
or positions of the Japan Institute of International Affairs. No article or any part thereof may be
reproduced without the express permission of JIIA.

For subscription (subscription fee may apply) and any other inquiries, please write to:
Japan Review, the Japan Institute of International Affairs,
3rd Floor Toranomon Mitsui Building, 3-8-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Japan 100-0013

ISSN 2433-4456

Published by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
Designed and Printed in Japan by Taiheisha.Ltd

APAN

Vol.6 No.1
2023

REVIEW

1 Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Searchof a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security ���������������03

Kaoru Iokibe
Kaoru Iokibe is professor at the Graduate Schools of Law and Politics, the University of Tokyo.
His research area is the political and diplomatic history of modern Japan. He has publishedthree books in Japanese: Okuma Shigenobu and Party Politics: Origin of Multi-party system(2003), on the formation of viable opposition party in Japan; History of Treaty Revision (2010),
about Meiji Japanʼs restoration of sovereignty through the revision of “unequal treaties” (nowunder translation into English); and History of Deception: Insincere Politics of Sincere Society(2020). He was an Academic Associate, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard
University, in 2021–22 to promote his recent research on the postwar Japan-US Alliance.

2 Original Title to Territory: To What and to What Extent Is the Concept ofTitle to Territory Applied? �������������������������21

Tomoko Fukamachi
Professor of public international law at Fukuoka Womenʼs University. She obtained Master ofLaws (Kyushu University) and completed the doctoral coursework (Kyushu University). Her
main publications include “Hokkyoku ni okeru ryōyū, kyōkai mondai no tenkai [Territorial
and Maritime Claims in the Arctic],” Kokusaihō gaikō zasshi [The Journal of International Law
and Diplomacy], Vol. 110(3) (2011); “Kokusai saiban ni okeru “zen kindai/ hi ōshu no ryōikishihai” no enyō to hyōka [Application and Evaluation of “Pre-modern/Non-European Territorial
Control” in International Courts and Tribunals],” Kokusaihō kara mita ryōdo to nihon [Japan’s
Territory under International Law] (UTP, 2022) (both in Japanese).

3 Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception: The Influence of Mughal
Prince Dara Shikoh’s 1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Mingling of the
Two Oceans]���������������������������������31

Monika Chansoria
Dr. Monika Chansoria is a Tokyo-based Senior Fellow at the Japan Institute of International
Af fairs (JIIA) since 2017. Previously, Dr. Chansoria has held many senior research1

appointments, including, at the Fondation Maison des Sciences de lʼHomme (FMSH, Paris);at the Cooperative Monitoring Centre, Sandia National Laboratories (Albuquerque, U.S.); and,at the Hokkaido University (Sapporo, Japan). She has solely authored five books on Asiaʼssecurity affairs, including China, Japan, and Senkaku Islands: Conflict in the East China Sea
Amid an American Shadow (Routledge © 2018) and Nuclear China: A Veiled Secret (© 2014)
among others. Dr. Chansoria is also a Senior Contributing Author & Analyst at Japan Forward
Inc., Tokyo, where she writes a regular column on Asiaʼs geopolitics and history.

4 Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons for Japan? ��������40

Valérie Niquet
Valérie Niquet, Ph.D. (Sorbonne University) is Head of the Asia department at FRS (Fondation
pour la recherche stratégique), and senior fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs(JIIA). She was a a lecturer at Keio University (Tokyo) on Sino-Japanese relations from 2014 to
2021. She has published extensively on strategic issues in Asia, Japanʼs foreign policy as well as
the evolutions of the Chinese political system. Valérie Niquet is also a consultant for the French
ministry of Foreign Affairs Center for prospective and strategy (CAPS). Her latest publications
include Le Japon en 100 questions, Tallandier, 2021 and Taiwan face à la Chine, Tallandier,2022. Her latest media contributions include AFP, Le Monde, The Diplomat, the Japan Times
as well as Radio programs such as Radio France Internationale, France Culture or the Voice ofAmerica. Valérie Niquet is Chevaier de lʼordre national du mérite.

5 A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State ������48
The Takeshima Documents Study Group2

Kaoru Iokibe

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China
Nuclear Cold War:In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security
Kaoru Iokibe
Abstract
Russiaʼs invasion of Ukraine has led to a growing historical awareness that we may now
be in an interwar period like that between the two world wars, and that this period may be
coming to an end. At the same time, the presence of nuclear arms as the ultimate weapon
has reemerged. This paper is inspired by these repetitions of the past.
First of all, I confirm the present phase of international confrontation, taking George
Kennan as my guide.
Secondly, I survey the history of the “ultimate weapon.” Viewing the nation-state as thefirst ultimate weapon, I consider what sugggestions the efforts to prevent the outbursts of
its destructive power may provide in order to prevent the use of todayʼs ultimate weapon of
nuclear arms.
Thirdly, focusing on nuclear deterrence, I consider how the tripolar deterrence among
the U.S., China and Russia differs from the U.S.-Soviet bipolar deterrence that was the
keynote of the Cold War.
Fourthly, based on the above arguments, I discuss the domestic foundation needed forJapanʼs policy towards China.

1. 75th Anniversar y of George Kennan’s X Article
Guidance for Historical Obser vations

There have been numerous discussions on how the U.S., Japan, Europe, and other
Western countries should deal with the threat from Russia and China. I am a historianspecializing in Japanese political and diplomatic history, so I hope to contribute my twocentsʼ worth using past experience as guidance.
It is probably safe to say that the Western countries have entered a cold war with China andRussia. In light of Russiaʼs invasion of Ukraine, they have imposed harsh economic sanctions on
Russia to support Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has even talked about the use of
nuclear weapons in his attempt to intimidate the Western countries. On the other hand, China isperceived as posing an even greater challenge to the international order than Russia.
While China and Russia have a cooperative relationship, they are not allies. This cooperative
relationship requires the West to pursue a balance with the combined military power of the twocountries. The absence of an alliance also compels the West to adopt a two-pronged conceptual
strategy on the assumption that these two countries will take independent actions.
Historical observations are precisely necessary for a complex and difficult situation like this.
Focusing solely on the current situation may result in short-sighted or inflexible responses.
This essay is a translation of an article published online on December 9th, 2022. It can be accessed at:https://www.jiia.or.jp/jic/20221209.html. The information in this essay is current as of December 2022.

3
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

I will attempt to make historical observations based on the concepts of “ultimate weapon”
and “ultimate war.” From there, I would like to undertake a preliminary discourse on what is thedomestic foundation needed for the implementation of policy toward China.
However, first, I would like to refer to the experience of the previous Cold War for guidanceon the historical view to be adopted in order to arrive at policy conclusions.
The year 2022 happens to be the 75th anniversary of George Kennanʼs article published under
the pseudonym “X” which laid out the basic strategy for the Cold War. I would like to start mydiscussion using the 75th anniversary of the X Article as my vantage point.

The Life Histor y of George Kennan
Kennan was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in February 1904, the month the Russo-Japanese
War started. He stated in his memoirs that he hailed from a “family of settlers.” When he enteredPrinceton University, he recalls being very self-conscious, but he studied very hard. He joined theDepartment of State in 1925.
While he was an introvert academic type, he participated in the practice of diplomacy. These
two aspects meant that he achieved limited career advancement but was able to make uniqueintellectual contributions to U.S. diplomacy.
Kennan published his article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” in Foreign Affairs in 1947. (InGeorge Kennan, American Diplomacy, Expanded Edition [Amerika Gaiko Goju-nen], Iwanami
Gendai Bunko, 2000) In consideration of his position as a State Department official, he used thepenname “X.” This X Article was highly acclaimed.
This was two years after the end of World War II. It was a time when optimism was waningand doubts were rising inside the U.S. government on whether it would be possible to work with
the Soviet Union, which had fought with the U.S. against the Axis powers, after the war.
Kennan studied Russia intensively. He became so knowledgeable of Russian literature that
he wanted to become an expert on Anton Chekhov. He knew about the Russian governmentʼshistory of suspicion, aggression, and expansionism against the outside world. The Soviet Unionʼsbelief in Marxism, which was antagonistic toward capitalism, aggravated such tendencies. Thisknowledge was also based on Kennanʼs own experience working at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.
The X Article argued that the U.S. should do away with its optimistic illusion about the USSRʼs
intent.
On the other hand, the USSRʼs overall national power was inferior to the Western camp,so war was not imminent. He advised “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of
Russian expansive tendencies.” The identity of X soon became known, and Kennan came to beremembered as the “father of the containment policy.”
It was important to rehabilitate West Europe and Japan to enable them to resist the infiltrationof Soviet communism (mostly the nonmilitary aspects). Kennan was deeply involved with theformulation of and messaging on the Marshall Plan for the economic recovery of Europe. He also
contributed to the shift in the occupation policy for Japan.
However, Kennan was in the mainstream of policymaking for only more than two years.
He was critical of the founding of NATO and West Germany, as well as the development of thehydrogen bomb. He believed that such confrontational military posture was neither patient nor
vigilant. Perhaps translating “containment” as advocated by Kennan as fujikome [confinement] inJapanese has a slightly stronger aggressive nuance than what he intended.
Kennan returned to Princeton University in 1950 to work as a scholar. While he did serve asambassador to the USSR and Yugoslavia subsequently, he failed to establish good relations withthe host country governments and his home office, so his tenure was short-lived. He died in 2005.
Perhaps being a scholar is the secret to longevity.

4
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

Difference with the Present (1) —Paradigm of Confrontation

Kennanʼs basic strategy under went many revisions even during the last Cold War, so it was
merely a basic doctrine. It goes without saying that this strategy cannot be applied unamended
today. First, I would like to examine the difference with the X Articleʼs assumptions to further our
understanding of the present.
First, the paradigm of confrontation is different.
The X Article was premised on a bipolar U.S.-Soviet confrontation. While the Cold War in Asia
became multipolar subsequently due to the intensifying China-Soviet confrontation, this was aprocess beneficial to the West. On the contrary, China and Russia today share a strong sense ofrivalry against the West, and they are in a cooperative relationship.

Difference with the Present (2) —Trust in the Enemy
Second, the level of trust in the challenger is different.
Kennanʼs assumption was that the USSR believed that time was on its side. According tocommunist doctrines, capitalism was bound to collapse. Regarding the Soviet Unionʼs perception,
the X Article stated: “The theor y of the inevitability of the eventual fall of capitalism has thefortunate connotation that there is no hurry about it.” It asserted that the USSR was in no rush,
so unless the West engaged in provocation out of impatience, the probability of a Soviet militaryattack was low.
In this connection, Kennan trusted the USSR of being capable of making rational decisions on
the power balance. Since the challenger was a country with inferior national power that reckoned
time was on its side, containment would be effective.
Do China and Russia today have time on their side?
No such confidence can be seen from Russia. Its main exports of oil and natural gas wereincreasingly being avoided amid the drive to decarbonize in response to climate change. Russia
appears to be attempting territorial expansion while there is still demand for these exports.
However, Europe is striving to reduce its dependence on Russian resources, so China and India
are buying them cheap. War and economic sanctions are accelerating Russiaʼs decline.
China is catching up with the U.S. in military and economic power, so it can be said that timeis on its side. However, what is the long-term outlook? Population decline is already taking its
toll in China. There is an estimate that even if its GDP overtakes the U.S. in 2033, there will be areversal in 2050, and China will never be able to catch up again. It will not be surprising if China isanxious to take whatever it can while it still has the momentum.
Therefore, rationality must not be overestimated. There will probably be different opinions
on China. However, as seen in its obsession with the zero Covid policy, the situation is such thatXi Jinpingʼs words are difficult to reverse, even by himself. It is highly possible that there will beeven less room for dissent inside the regime under the third term of the Xi regime which started
in October, rendering it more vulnerable. Needless to say, trust in Russiaʼs rationality is evenlower.
This might be the beginning of the end of authoritarianism. A regime that suppresses
disagreeable opinions will come to suppress even disagreeable information, resulting in its
making fatal mistakes eventually. While the advancement of sur veillance and information
manipulation technology may nip disagreeable opinions and information in the bud, this may
actually dig the regimeʼs own grave in the long run. That is to say, the global degeneration of
authoritarianism may be happening. However, this process is destabilizing the world for the time
being. The road to the end of the end will be long and tortuous, and there is no guarantee that
democracy will not end ahead of this end and that mankind will not be wiped out by a nuclear war.
Come to think of it, there was still time until victory or destruction in the situation understood byKennan 75 years ago.
5Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

Difference with the Present (3) —Trust in Allies
Third, trust in the Western system is different.
How long would “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment” take? When and how
would it bring about changes in Soviet conduct and its regime? This was the theme of anotherarticle published in 1951 dubbed the second X Article, “America and the Russian Future.” (InAmerican Diplomacy, Expanded Edition) Kennan asked for peopleʼs patience in this article. Since
the USSR was not a country that would change under outside pressure, people must wait for theRussian people to change their thinking. However, it would not do to simply wait. Kennan left
behind the inspiring words that this was a wait for “time to be gained for the working of more
hopeful forces.”
He was saying that if the U.S. made its democracy work properly, this information would
gradually penetrate the USSR and lead to changes. Kennan tended to take a pessimistic view of U.S.
diplomacy and the domestic political situation behind it. Will he be able to find a “more hopefulforces” in the polarized America today? The pride and hope he had in U.S. democracy 75 years
ago was so impressively strong.

The Effect of Area and Historical Studies
However, there is still something to learn from Kennan beyond the contexts cited above. This has
to do with Kennanʼs being an area studies scholar with a strong historianʼs leaning. Why is thisgood?
Nuclear deterrence used to be the centerpiece of the theories of Cold War strategy. In
particular, the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) theory claimed that there could be no nuclear
war because in an all-out nuclear war, attack by one side and retaliation by the other side would
result in fatal damages on both sides. This was based on the Game Theory premised on therationality of both sides.
However, with nuclear proliferation, there are more entities now that might resort to nuclear
attacks, rendering this assumption of rationality untenable. There might be countries which
would resort to intimidation or use of nuclear arms even at the expense of widespread casualties
among its own people. This is even more plausible in the case of non-state terrorists. For thisreason, the “tailored deterrence strategy” based on an intrinsic understanding of the challengerʼs
goals and values – what it hopes to gain and what it does not want to lose – is being advocated in
U.S. nuclear strategy since the beginning of the 21st Century. This will require an accumulationof a variety of area studies.
Furthermore, China has increased its nuclear arsenal. While its delivery systems are stillinferior to those of the U.S. and Russia, it has become the number three nuclear power. Greater
complexity brought to the Game Theory of nuclear deterrence by a tripolar paradigm, compared
to a bipolar structure, will be discussed below. Moreover, it appears to be difficult to have trust in
Chinaʼs and Russiaʼs rationality at a level comparable to that in the old Soviet Union. While the U.S.
is an ally, its mindset and interests may not be identical with those of Japan.
Universally costly bets – that losing may mean the annihilation of a countryʼs people – areplaced on the table of nuclear deterrence, so it would seem that analysis transcending thecharacter of individual actors is possible. Yet, the players at this table represent a diverse variety
of mentalities and cultures. There is no guarantee that they share the same view on the value ofthe bets let alone the rules. In areas other than nuclear deterrence, it is even more necessary to
make efforts to pursue security by constantly thinking in consideration of the actorsʼ character.

Kennan’s View of the Russians
It is particularly important to understand the Russian personality at present. I have engaged inacademic exchanges with Russians in the past. The discussions on the Russian side were very
6
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

interesting. I came to know about their truly commendable genuine enthusiasm for democracy
and international cooperation. On the other hand, there was no lack of advocates of unabashedpower politics, and their uninhibited observations without concern for any taboos had the appealof the forbidden fruit. At the same time, they harbored a sense of rivalry against Western values
and opinions and displayed a rebelliousness at times, asserting that Russia was not bound by
them. A certain childishness arising from both admiration and inferiority complex could be felt.
Kennan was able to offer an explanation for such confusing impressions. For example, when
he was working at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, he submitted a memorandum entitled “Russia –Seven Years Later” to Ambassador W. Averell Harriman in September 1944. He later revealed in
his memoirs that he had been confident that this memorandum was even better than the X Article
and that he was hurt by the lack of response from his superior. (George F. Kennan Memoirs, I [Joji・
F・Kenan Kaikoroku Ⅰ], Chuokoron Shinsha, 2016)“To him [the Russian], contradiction is a familiar thing. It is the essence of Russia. West andEast, Pacific and Atlantic, arctic and tropics, extreme cold and extreme heat, prolonged slothand sudden feats of energy, exaggerated cruelty and exaggerated kindness, ostentatious
wealth and dismal squalor, violent xenophobia and uncontrollable yearning for contact withthe foreign world, vast power and the most abject slavery, simultaneous love and hate for thesame objects: these are only some of the contradictions which dominate the life of the Russian
people.” (pp. 477–478)“Lies” as Seen in Russia
Since the Russians lived in contradictions, there was no permanent truth. Truth was somethingthat changed according to the circumstances from time to time. The sublime pain of the “soul”
living with contradictions was the flip side of the coin of human opportunism. Kennan explained
the world ʼ s criticism of Russiaʼ s deception in the following terms at the risk of not being
understood by his readers.
“ What do we mean by this? We mean that right and wrong, reality and unreality, aredetermined in Russia not by any God, not by any innate nature of things, but simply by men
themselves. Here men determine what is true and what is false.
The reader should not smile. This is a serious fact. It is the gateway to the comprehension ofmuch that is mysterious in Russia.” (p. 479)

How Do Russians Resist?

We are watching with keen interest how the Russian people will respond to Putinʼs orders or
resist such orders. Since historically, the Russians had consistently received orders from despotic
governments, Kennan believed that the following prediction would be valid.
“The Russian people have dissembled for so many centuries that they have dignified thequality into a national virtue. In contrast to Western nations, they can dissemble graciously
and good-naturedly – without resentment, without bad manners, without impatience. In thisthey have challenged, and challenged successfully, the power of the Kremlin.
By this, I do not mean to say that they are politically dissatisfied. But when the influence of theregime comes too close to those mysterious recesses that we may call – at the risk of banality– the Russian “soul,” then the people quietly and politely disengage themselves behind an
impeccable series of superficial responses, leaving their masters not quite sure what they
7
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

meant by the demure tone in which they murmured, ʻWhy, yes. Of course.ʼ”(pp. 443–444)

Half of the Expectation
I would not put all my bets on such an opinion. The more unequivocal observations on national
character are, the more they tend to be arbitrar y. I believe that in reality, there is a bigger
difference between individuals than between nations. Moreover, each individual with his own
character follows impersonal normal calculations of gains and losses in most situations in life. The
same is true for all countries, so it should be possible to find rational explanations for Chinaʼs andRussiaʼs maneuverings in most cases.
However, when it comes to crucial basic policies and decision-making, that is, in cases thatentail multiple serious conclusions and require thorough calculation of pros and cons, where theability to calculate falls short, the character of the decision-makers may become more dominant.
For example, Russiaʼs decision to withdraw from Kherson is reckoned to be a rational one.
Yet, its very decision to invade Ukraine was a mistake in terms of its realistic interests. Russia isalso making one decision after another and taking one action after another to continue its invasion
that will bring serious damages not only to Ukraine, but also to itself.
China ʼs specific maneuverings are even more rational than Russia ʼs. However, I do notbelieve that its current national policy of carrying out hardline diplomacy, expending enormous
resources for military expansion and to extend its international influence, and driving itself into
the role of challenger to the international order is in Chinaʼs interest.
There is a limit to putting trust in rationality. Therefore, we shall put half of our expectation on
Kennanʼs view of the world as an amalgamation of actors with diverse characters.

Militar y Preparedness but Not Militarization
To think in the opposite way from Kennan will mean ignoring individuality and applying a uniform
idea to various situations. It is probably appropriate to call such a way of thinking militarization.
All soldiers shoot when the commander gives the order. It will not be possible to shoot in unison
if each soldier thinks about whether the order was valid, who the targets are, what sort of life they
have lived, and who are their family members. Applying uniform ideas by ignoring individuality islike soldiers who are trained to shoot without thinking.
In his collection of philosophical writings published in 1993, Around the Cragged Hill: A
Personal and Political Philosophy [Nijisseiki wo Ikite̶Aru Kojin to Seiji no Tetugaku], (Chuko
Classics, 2015) Kennan stated:
There is, in military thinking, a certain absolutist quality that strongly resists anything thattends to obscure or to impair this purity of motive and action [to annihilate the enemyʼs forces– Iokibe].
Wariness of militarization was consistently behind Kennanʼs arguments. While military power
is necessary, militarization must not be tolerated. I think his excessive wariness of militarization
made him overly averse to militar y rivalr y against the Soviet Union. However, wariness of
militarization per se is valid.
Kennan was concerned that U.S. diplomacy after Hitler started the Russo-German War
was leaning excessively toward cooperation with the Soviet Union due to its focus on defeating
Germany and Japan. He advocated the reconstruction of Japan and Germany in order to stem
the expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence. This was accepted in U.S. diplomacy. However,
he went on to criticize U.S. preoccupation with military rivalry due to its confrontation with the
USSR, resulting in his fall from the mainstream of policymaking.
8
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

There were also pitfalls in Kennan ʼ s arguments. Since the USSR had become a global
challenger, Kennanʼs understanding of Russia and the solutions drawn therefrom would appear
to be applicable to all areas in the world. Such solutions, however, did not exactly fit the specificcircumstances that var y by region, with insuf ficient militar y focus in cer tain regions andexcessive confrontation in others. There has been criticism that to the extent that the X Article
offered clearcut propositions, it was obviously an oversimplification, neglecting the uniquecontext of the East European countries. Even for someone knowledgeable of a national character,there is still a limit to the range of national characters that can be learned in depth, so there is aconstant risk of distorting and disregarding other characters based on such limited knowledge.
This is a common pitfall for area studies researchers.
The era when Kennan enjoyed influence was only a short period when the U.S. was movingfrom cooperation to confrontation with the USSR. But precisely for this reason, he had critical
viewpoints valid for both the era of cooperation and confrontation.
Kennan also came to criticize longer-term U.S. foreign policy. While he hoped that the U.S.
would become an ideal that inspired the world, he was against imposing the American ideal on theworld. The reason was this would either lead to ignoring the history and circumstances of othercountries and engaging in self-gratifying pontification or costly intervention in the worst case. On
the other hand, he criticized isolationism as well. While isolationism meant exercising restraint
regarding military intervention in other countries, Kennan might have sensed militarization in its
assumption that the outside world is a dangerous place contaminated by imperialism.
Kennanʼs American Diplomacy, Expanded Edition (Iwanami Gendai Bunko, 2000) discussed
U.S. diplomacyʼs unstable vacillation between isolationism and idealism. This work establishedhis reputation as a diplomatic historian.
Above all, Kennanʼs wariness of militarization shows the West how to fight. Military poweris important. When dealing with China or Russia, security cannot be attained merely throughdialogue. Dialogue cannot begin without possessing self-defense capability and making the otherside understand that it will face devastating retaliation if it attacks. However, to be dragged into
militarization by military necessity will mean becoming of the same ilk as China and Russia. The
West will lose its moral superiority and lose sight of the meaning of “hope” in the process of time
being “gained for the working of more hopeful forces.” This will not only be regrettable but will
also mean losing the Westʼs advantage.
The Allied forcesʼ air raids on Hamburg toward the end of World War II resulted in 70,000
deaths. When Kennan visited the ravages left behind, he wrote in his diar y: “ for moral
principles were a part of its [the Western worldʼs] strength. Shorn of this strength, it was nolonger itself; its victories were not real victories.” (Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal andPolitical Philosophy, p. 271)
Perception of the present may change if history is understood in light of a certain concept.
One may realize that the direction being taken at present tends to have been repeated in the past
– albeit in a different context and form – with unsatisfactory results. One may even find someform of indirect guidance on what needs to be done. Reading Kennan, one gets a feeling that this
could be possible.

2. Historical View Predicated on the Ultimate Weapon
Peace through the Ultimate Weapon
Until tension heightened with China and Russia, most people had thought that they could live in a
postwar period indefinitely. Yet, today, there is a sense that this could be an interwar period and astrong premonition that we are about to enter yet another period of war.
If we are in an interwar period, this has indeed been a long interwar period because with
9
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

the advent of nuclear arms as the ultimate weapon, the superpowers have exercised restraint inorder not to trigger a war. Ironically, the ultimate weapon made this prolonged peace possible.
At present, Russiaʼs behavior has made the prospect of unleashing the ultimate weapon a realpossibility. While the probability of Russia actually using nuclear weapons is low in the present
situation, one cannot help but be conscious of this threat, and it is now feared that the interwar
period may be coming to an end.
If mankind never learns and war occurs repeatedly, history can be understood as a repetitionof interwar periods. The benefit or unleashing of the ultimate weapon will probably determine thecontinuation or end of the interwar period.

The Long Interwar Period after the Napoleonic Wars
The ultimate weapon before nuclear arms was the nation-state. Napoleon, who inherited the fruitsof the French Revolution, conquered almost the whole of Europe at one time. With the people
regarding their own fate as being tied to the state and accepting conscription, the state came to
be able to mobilize enormous human resources. Napoleonʼs talent in concentrated deployment of
massive forces was integrated with the nation-state.
Britain, France, Russia, Austria, and other great European powers had no choice but to accept
the concept and structure of the nation-state, albeit at different times. However, they strived to
avoid the full mobilization of the destructive power of the nation-state. These countries would
suffer intolerable damages if they fought a full-fledged war against each other. They were also
imperial powers that ruled over multiple nationalities in their own countries or possessed colonies
overseas, so bringing up the ideal of national independence would be rather troublesome. From
1815, following Napoleonʼs downfall after losing the Battle of Waterloo, the great powers includingFrance had paid attention to the balance of power among themselves, resulting in a prolonged
interwar period.
Wars also occurred even during this period. The Crimean War fought in 1853–56 between
Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia (Italy) on one side andRussia on the other resulted in 640,000 deaths, so it may not be valid to regard this as part ofthe inter war period. However, this war converged into a limited battle over the naval fort ofSevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula because under Austrian pressure, Russia was restrained in
its incitement of Balkan nationalism. In the end, it can be said that the imperial powers fought for
their pride in a running battle that lasted a whole year. This, aggravated by an epidemic, resulted
in an appalling number of casualties.
The wars that ended in the unification of Italy in 1861 and the unification of Germany in
1870, as well as the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05
demonstrated the difficulty of stopping the forces of the awakening nation-states.

How Interwar Periods Come to an End
How do inter war periods end? Challengers to the international order are either formidable
enemies or dangerous enemies.
A formidable enemy is a force that possesses the ultimate weapon as well as other capabilities,
such as Germany which succeeded in industrialization, expanded overseas, and was becoming animperial power.
A dangerous enemy is a force that possesses only the ultimate weapon. The Balkan statesthat gained independence from the Ottoman Empire were a case in point. They were midsized and small nation-states that were unlikely to become imperial powers and their only goal
was to become consummated nation-states. For this reason, they waged wars repeatedly overcompatriots living outside the countr y or foreign elements inside the countr y. This situation
was made worse by the lack of agreement on the definition of nation due to the entanglement of
10Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

different races and religions. Furthermore, Russia, which claimed to be a champion of the Slavic
people, was encouraging the Balkan states to assert themselves internationally.
The strategy for maintaining an interwar period where the ultimate weapon is involved iscomplicated. The dangerous enemy is more dangerous because it tends to resort to the ultimate
weapon. On the other hand, serious long-term confrontation is necessary in dealing with theformidable enemy. However, the formidable enemy has something to lose and it has othercapacities to choose than the ultimate weapon. Generally speaking, it is desirable to cooperatewith the formidable enemy to restrain the dangerous enemy.
Two Balkan Wars occurred from 1912–1913. In the first Balkan War, Serbia, Bulgaria, andGreece seized the Balkan territories, the Crete Island, and other parts of Turkey (Ottoman
Empire). In the Second Balkan War, Serbia, Greece, Romania, and Turkey took land from
Bulgaria, which was thought to have grabbed too much in the First Balkan War. While thisweakened Turkey and boosted Russiaʼs prestige, in reality, Russia and the other major powers
were beginning to have trouble controlling the Balkan states.
Serbian nationalism, in particular, came to regard the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had asizable Serbian population, as its main target after it defeated Turkey. On June 28, 1914, a Serbiannationalist assassinated Austriaʼs Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia.
This would have been a situation in which the great powers should cooperate to prevent the
rampage of the nation-states of the Balkan Peninsula. However, the assassination of its heir to thethrone won Austria strong international sympathy for a while, resulting in a major discrepancy inthe major powersʼ policies.
Austria thought this was a golden opportunity to subjugate Serbia. With the consent of its ally
Germany, it presented extremely tough demands. Since Serbia rejected some of the demands,
war was declared on July 28. By that time, sympathy for Austria was waning.
Russia and its ally France had wanted Serbia to make concessions in order to avert a crisis.
Serbia had accepted its responsibility for the assassination incident but was only resisting
demands that might infringe on its sovereignty, such as allowing Austrian officials to participate
in the investigation of the incident. Therefore, Russia could not abandon Serbia. It ended up
issuing a general mobilization order.
Austro-Hungary and Russia and their respective allies Germany and France also went to war.
After the German forces violated Belgiumʼs neutrality, Britain also joined the war. Thus, WorldWar I started and lasted until 1918. There were 9.5 million casualties among the military forcesalone, and over 7 million noncombatants lost their lives.

Short Interwar Period after World War I
The interwar period after World War I was very short because the power of the ultimate weapon
was diminished. Several empires collapsed after the great war, and there was a proliferation ofnation-states. This brought about more small independent nations such as the Balkan states, thebreaking up of existing nations, and independence movements in other countries. This was alsoa source of weakness and instability that led to the rise of a new empire, which mobilized thecitizens making full use of the structures of the nation-state and aspired to expand beyond theterritory of the nation-state.
In Russia, a revolution occurred during World War I, which led to the founding of the Soviet
Union. The USSR handed over part of its territor y to Germany then dropped out from thefighting. However, Germany was also defeated in the war and lost large tracts of its territory.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved. Multiple independent nations came about amid
the resulting power vacuum in Central and Eastern Europe. It can be said that the impetuous
adoption of the ideology of nation-state rendered it difficult to maintain the balance of power.
Furthermore, a double standard was also applied in the division of German people between
11Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

different nations, such as Germany and Austria. This facilitated Nazi Germanyʼs expansionism
beyond its national border in the 1930s on the pretext of unification with compatriots in othercountries.
Britain and France had adopted an appeasement policy for a period but declared war after
Germany invaded Poland. Thus, World War II started in September 1939.
Similar events occurred in East Asia, albeit under different circumstances. After Japan
succeeded in establishing a nation-state at an early stage, the national independence movementon the other side of the ocean spurred the military invasion of the continent.
Even at the time of the First Sino-Japanese War, there had already been advocates of taking
advantage of ethnic conflict to occupy the whole of China. Mitogaku [a school of Japanese
historical and Shinto studies] stressed differences by nation. This had a significant influence on
Kokugaku [National Learning] aimed at differentiation from the Sino-civilization and antiforeign
exclusionism that sought to expel Western powers. Naito Chiso, a kangaku [premodern studyof China] scholar who adhered to this line of thinking, argued that while Toyotomi Hideyoshi
was a great hero, he failed in his advance into the continent because he attempted the expedition
with Japanese samurais alone. He claimed that since the Manchus founded the Qing Dynasty, it
would have been possible to recruit forces in China with the “trick” of inciting the Han peopleʼs“heroic struggle to restore the ancient regime.” (Naito, “Open Up a New Japan in the Orient,”
Shin-Nippon, No. 2, 1894) If the Han people would not be subservient to the Manchurians, it isdoubtful if they would be subservient to Japan. Did he mean that this could be done with some
sort of “trick”?
The Xinhai Revolution of China occurred in 1911, prior to the start of World War I. The Qing
Dynasty collapsed, and the Republic of China was founded. The problem now was how the Hanpeople would control the minority nationalities. From time to time, the Japanese army took theopportunity to machinate cooperation with the independence movements in Manchuria and Inner
Mongolia. In 1931, the Kwantung Army instigated the Mukden Incident. The last Qing emperor,
Puyi, was installed as the emperor of Manchukuo.
The Japan-China relationship deteriorated. Japan advocated Pan-Asianism and anticommunism
in its attempt to draw China closer to Japan. Although it had little hope for long-term success aslong as it upheld Manchukuo as a fait accompli, Japan wanted to stir up Chinese nationalism andchannel the animosity toward Britain, the U.S., and the Soviet Union.
The Second Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937. Japan failed to win a total victory in the allout war against the Han people. As one strategy to reverse the unfavorable situation, it attempted
to cut off the supply route from the south for the Chiang Kai-shek regime supported by the West.
At that time, vast areas in Southeast Asia were colonies of Britain, France, and the Netherland.
Japan advanced southward using the local independence movements.
While the expansion of Japanʼs military actions to Manchuria, the Kannai region [all Chinese
territory south of the Great Wall], and Southeast Asia appeared to be suicidal, it can also be said
that this was in pursuit of people who would conveniently engage in “heroic struggle to restore
the ancient regime” and ultimately serve Japanʼs purpose. However, Japan probably did not see
the same potential in Siberia. While the start of Germanyʼs attack on the Soviet Union in June
1941 presented an excellent opportunity for Japan to advance northward, it did not make thismove.
Japanʼs advance southward was also motivated by the desire to obtain natural resources inSoutheast Asia. From the American point of view, Japan was not only challenging the international
order in Asia but was also grabbing the resources Britain needed for its resistance to Germany,
thus endangering the European battlefront. After Japan occupied the southern part of French
Indochina (Vietnam) in July, the U.S. imposed a total oil embargo. The Japanese navy depended
on the U.S. for oil so it was apprehensive that the situation would become even more unfavorable
12
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibewith time. Japan then attacked Pearl Harbor in December, plunging into war against the U.S.

How to Prevent the End of This Interwar Period
Some 55 million lives were lost in World War II, making this the most destructive war in history.
Moreover, the majority of casualties were civilians. This was because on top of Germanyʼsholocaust, both sides resorted to extensive air raids. Subsequently, the U.S. dropped the nuclear
weapons it developed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USSR also succeeded in developing
nuclear arms, which led to a confrontation between two camps in the Cold War, both possessing
large numbers of the ultimate weapon.
Ironically, this prevented another great war. Both camps understood that an all-out nuclear
war would be suicidal, so a sort of cooperative relationship to prevent such war was built.
Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, an international
order centered on the Western camp was established.
This international order is facing a serious challenge today. The formidable enemy this time is
China. It possesses not only nuclear arms, the ultimate weapon, but also enormous conventional
forces and economic power. The typical dangerous enemy is North Korea, which surges ahead
in its development of nuclear arms and missiles. And now Russia is about to join the list ofdangerous enemies. Its conventional forces are fighting a desperate war of attrition against
Ukraine, while the process of breaking away from dependence on Russian energy resources is
progressing in Europe. Nuclear weapons are now one of the few advantages Russia has left.
The advent of low-yield nuclear weapons led to assertations that they will prevent a worldwide
nuclear war. Yet, I feel uneasy. This is because considering the example of the last ultimate
weapon, nation-states, failure to make serious efforts to control small nation-states like the Balkan
states, which would not be capable of starting a world war on their own, led to the first step
toward a world war.
The lesson learned from World War I is that the proper way to respond to a crisis is tocooperate with the formidable enemy to restrain the dangerous enemy. There are numerous
issues, such as climate change and epidemic prevention, that may further aggravate the plightof the West and mankind unless China cooperates. I believe that China is willing to makecontributions on these issues.
This is because unlike Russia, Chinaʼs national character is the product of a long history as thecenter of the Sino-civilization. While Russia shows strong antipathy and independence born out of
the contradiction between admiration of Western civilization and an inferior complex, China wants
to be the leader of universal values. If there is no likelihood of success, it may indeed behave like
Russia but it will not miss an opportunity to epitomize such values.
However, todayʼs ultimate weapon, nuclear arms, is different from the past ultimate weapon,
nation-states. In the sense that nuclear arms can annihilate an entire people or even mankind,
it is not only the strongest, but literally the ultimate weapon. It may bring about an ultimate
war that will mean the end of mankind or truly extensive irreparable damages. Therefore, it is
not only necessary to prevent war based on a historical perspective premised on the ultimate
weapon, but also to have a common understanding between allies and enemies on the predictableconsequences of an ultimate war and join hands in preventing such a war. That is, a historicalview predicated on the ultimate weapon must be supplemented with a historical view predicatedon an ultimate war.

3. Historical View Predicated on an Ultimate War
Why Is a Historical View Predicated on an Ultimate War?
Ishihara Kanji, who plotted the Mukden Incident, was a well-known proponent of a historical
13
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

view predicated on an ultimate war. He believed that an ultimate world war would be carried out
by attacking the enemy population with powerful weapons carried on long-range aircraft. The
ultimate weapon Ishihara imagined was very similar to the nuclear arms developed subsequently.
He reckoned that eternal peace would come under the victor in an ultimate war. The Mukden
Incident was one of his answers when thinking of what needed to be done for Japan to become
the victor.
In a sense, Ishihara Kanji did what needs to be done in the nuclear age to a certain extent.
The MAD theory that came later followed the logic of Ishiharaʼs historical view predicated onan ultimate war in that the necessary actions under this theory were premised on an ultimate
war, although the goal was not to win the ultimate war but to prevent one. For this purpose, what
needed to be done was for both the U.S. and the Soviet Union to possess retaliatory capability
to inflict fatal damages on the enemy if attacked with nuclear arms. (Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara estimated in 1964 that at least 400 nuclear bombs must survive a first attack.) Since
there could be no victor in an ultimate war, such a war would be avoided.
The idea of preventing an ultimate war also needs to be developed in the tripolar nuclear cold
war between the U.S., Russia, and China.

Is the Nuclear Threat Real?
I might be criticized for overestimating the probability of a nuclear war. There are as yet no signs
that Putin will actually make nuclear attacks. While the current situation is said to be the mostserious nuclear crisis since the Cuban Crisis, experts have concluded in their explanations thatfor now, such a probability is low. The Westʼs deterrence is still effective at present. Although
Putin may indeed use nuclear arms in a situation that may lead to his downfall, such as Ukraineʼsretaking the Crimean Peninsula, at this point, the Ukrainian forces have yet to achieve this on thebattlefield. It is a common tendency to turn to such optimistic talk, but is this a valid analysis of
the present situation?
It is said that even if Putin uses nuclear arms, he will probably use low-yield nuclear devices in
Ukraine. In such a case, NATO will use force against Russia, not in Russia itself, but on Russianforces in Ukraine or its Black Sea Fleet will be attacked with conventional weapons. That is, there
is unlikely to be an immediate nuclear war between Russia and NATO.
In other words, it is generally believed that only amateurs talk nervously about the nuclear
threat. I am a historian specializing in the late 19th century, so I am indeed an amateur. Yet, I do
have my concerns as an amateur.
First, I have a feeling that the asymmetry of Russia fighting on the one hand and NATO not
fighting on the other may lead to different understanding on the escalation of the confrontation.
For the West, Russiaʼs use of nuclear arms deserves a harsh punishment, so punishing it withconventional weapons is actually being considerate so as not to escalate the situation.
However, from the Russian point of view, it may see this as being attacked by NATO eventhough it has only attacked Ukraine. If Russia begins to use nuclear arms in reaction to this,it seems that no plan is in place to prevent escalation by Putin, who will become even more
irrational.
Ukraine cannot be counted on to cooperate in preventing an escalation because it is the party
that is most frustrated by the asymmetry, since it is the one resisting Russiaʼs aggression without
NATOʼs participation. Although Ukraine will be the first one to suffer damages if Russia uses lowyield nuclear arms, NATOʼs entering the war will tip the power balance in its favor overnight.
The explosion on the Crimean Bridge and drone attacks on air bases inside Russian territory
have seriously provoked Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinkenʼs remark three days ago(Dec. 6) that, “We have neither encouraged nor enabled the Ukrainians to strike inside of Russia”
appears to indicate that Ukraine is seen as a risky ally.
14
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

Too much talk about a nuclear war crisis will lead to insensibility to the tragedy happening
on the battlefield. Ukraine and East Europe are already facing serious damages and threat from
Russian conventional forces. If Japan and the U.S. talk only of their fear of the use of nuclear
arms, they may be accused of being insensitive and unreliable allies. However, there is something
to be done from an objective distance. West Europe, the U.S., and Japan that bred the originatorof the historical view predicated on an ultimate war (Ishihara Kanji) should be the ones to deepen
the thinking on ultimate war even as they support Ukraine.
Second, the optimistic talk has too many caveats, such as “for the time being ” When amissile landed on Poland on Nov. 15, many people must have broken into a cold sweat andquestioned themselves as to whether they had not been complacent on account of these caveats.
Even in the past Cold War, the threat of an immediate nuclear war had not been constantly
present. Yet people continued to refine the theory of nuclear deterrence. There was a continuous
reciprocation of the thinking that the worst scenario could be avoided by preparing for it during
peacetime. Although this was drear y and unpleasant business, it was the wisdom needed tosurvive the Cold War, and it served as a galaxy that shone dimly on postwar history. Are we fully
putting our forebearsʼ wisdom into practice in the present Cold War?

Tripolar Nuclear Deterrence
To be fair, practicing such wisdom now is admittedly more difficult than before.
Several studies have already been published on nuclear deterrence under a tripolar structureof the nuclear powers. It has been pointed out that theoretically, this will be much more difficult
than in a bipolar paradigm. (Discussed expertly in Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., “The New Nuclear
Age,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2022）People tend to become optimistic in two cases: when
there is a plan and when there is no plan. I am worried that the latter may be the case at present.
Will thinking in terms of the actual confrontation and not along the line of the Game Theory
open up new prospects? Unlikely. If an all-out nuclear war occurs between the U.S. and Russia andboth sides come to suffer serious damages, Chinaʼs hegemony will be established. Since China is
not an ally of Russia, it will probably stay clear of the nuclear war.
Although mankind may perish from radioactivity and drastic climate change anyway, until that
day China will put pressure on other countries to secure all possible resources for its people andWestern countries will have little power left to resist Chinaʼs self-centered behavior. China too will
be desperate, so the threat or use of nuclear arms cannot be ruled out from its possible options.
China calls nuclear deterrence “weishe,” which means not only to stop the other party but also has
the nuance of forcing it to do something. Even greater misery and absurdity may persist after anultimate war that will even make the expression “ultimate war” seem too naive and exasperating.
Under a bipolar U.S.-Soviet rivalry, theoretically, the U.S. president would at least be able topush the nuclear button to stop the evil empire from dominating the world. His ability to push thisnuclear button deterred the USSR from launching nuclear attacks. However, under the tripolar
U.S.-Russia-China structure, pushing the nuclear button will hand over hegemony to China, whichis the greatest threat. I doubt if the U.S. president will be able to make such a decision.
This is because the U.S. is defined by democracy, and it has a strong aversion to plunging its
people into miserable and humiliating conditions. It is also not only a democracy, but its economy
also consists of free competition. The combination of these two tends to give rise to disparity anddiscontent with such disparity. A strong resentment that the elite unjustly neglected the citizens
has given rise to the Trump faction in the Republican Party. Can America tolerate a scenario in
which the Democratic president and his close aides board Air Force One (U.S. Air Force aircraft
used by the president) to sur vive after pushing the nuclear button and take command overthe nuclear war and the catastrophic postwar era while the people die violent deaths or hide innuclear shelters surviving on canned food?
15
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

The world American politicians live in consists of two self-contained societies of the two
major parties. The U.S. president will always have to live with his reputation in his own party
and criticism from the opposition party throughout his life and even after he dies. Trump is a
traveling salesman roaming this self-contained society who has decided to leave his sense of
shame at home. That is why he was able to come up with clever, strange, and bad moves beyond
the imagination of the members of this society. Discounting such an exception, presidents are
sensitive about their posterior reputation. He will have to be prepared to face harsh criticism tostart a U.S.-Russia nuclear war under a U.S.-Russia-China tripolar setup. The psychological hurdle
to making the decision to launch a nuclear attack on Russia will be much higher than in the caseof a bipolar world.
Nuclear deterrence will not be effective against the other party unless preparations are madeto use nuclear arms when the necessity arises. I believe the U.S. will launch a nuclear attack if
Russia crosses the red line. However, there is no guarantee that Putin realizes that. Authoritarianleaders, while paying attention to and counting on the confusion and absurdity brought about by
democracy, tend to underestimate the determination of democratic countries. Prewar Japan also
made this mistake. If Russia comes to have lower regard for U.S. nuclear deterrence, this may
make it easier for Russia to take provocative action.
It is difficult to stop Russia from escalating the confrontation. If this is to be attempted, thesurest solution is to make Ukraine cease hostilities. Yet, it will be difficult to tell Ukraine to stop
fighting as long as it still has the will to fight. The next best solution is to reduce aid to Ukraine,
thus delaying its advance as a result, in order to avoid a situation where Putin will be tempted touse nuclear arms.
However, as long as a Russia with its current national character exists, even if the present
Ukraine war ends or Putin steps down, it will only mean deflecting a crisis for the time being.
Even so, this may still be an option since it will save many lives and livelihoods. However, thiswill be at the expense of losing the Westʼs moral superiority and give the challenger possessing
nuclear arms false hopes. Will this not lead to an even greater crisis?
Factors that evoke thoughts about such a scenario can be found in the media reports we
receive. They make us worry that the anchors securing the international order, such as nuclear
deterrence and aid to Ukraine, are being removed one after the other.

Inertial Thinking
Inability to think of an effective solution for tripolar nuclear deterrence is terrible but falling into
inertial thinking out of intellectual weariness is even worse.
The optimistic thinking cited above is an example of inertial thinking.
There may be even more sophisticated forms of inertia. Some may think of reducing the
tripolar paradigm into a bipolar one and reverting to the good old MAD theory. This is possible if
the U.S. declares that when an all-out nuclear war breaks out with Russia, similar nuclear attacks
will be launched on China as well. Since Chinaʼs not being an ally of Russia and not participatingin the U.S.-Russia nuclear war is complicating matters, lumping China and Russia together will
result in a bipolar arrangement.
This will be a precipitate and outrageous policy that is not even worth discussing. Yet sadly,
the policy of making such a declaration will be effective to some extent. While China will be
furious, above all, it will desperately try to stop Putin from escalation. Although Xi Jinping has
already expressed opposition to the use of nuclear arms, China should be able to make further
contributions. It can offer options that the Western countries are unable to provide, including
awesome economic inducements, providing political asylum, and abduction and confinement.
There are precedents of abduction and confinement by China even for a dignitary of Putinʼsstatus.
16
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

Anti-Japanese riots known as the Imo Incident erupted in Korea in 1882. The Qing Dynasty
resolved this by abducting the Daewongun (the kingʼs father) Yi Ha-eung, who was thought to be
the mastermind behind the unrest, and taking him to Tianjin. In 1936, Chang Hsueh-liang took
Chiang Kai-shek prisoner to make him cooperate with the Communist Party of China to form ananti-Japanese united front. China has not only succeeded in abduction and confinement but has
also achieved the goal of such action.
The historical view predicated on an ultimate war can be restructured within certain limits
even under the U.S.-Russia-China tripolar paradigm. That is, on the premise of an ultimate war
and if China is forced to assume that it will be embroiled in this ultimate war, Russia can be
deterred to the extent that China can restrain Russia.
I am opposed to the policy of making such a declaration [of nuclear attack on China if anuclear war breaks out with Russia]. Either this will become a laughingstock because it will not
be taken seriously, or moral superiority will be decisively lost.
Will the Pentagonʼs experts be able to come up with a reliable prescription if this matter is left
in their hands? The “2022 Nuclear Posture Review” released by the Defense Department in late
October is cause for some concern.
It not only confirmed the intent to possess the capability to fight a nuclear war with both China
and Russia. The policy advocated by President Joe Biden during his presidential campaign that
nuclear weapons shall be used for the “sole purpose” of nuclear deterrence has been rejected.
It also stated clearly that the principle of “no first use” will not be adopted. This means that it ispossible that the U.S. may be the first to use nuclear arms in conventional warfare.
The principle of “no preemptive use” has not been negated, which means that the U.S. will
not start a war with nuclear attacks. However, the “Nuclear Posture Review” appears to haveeliminated any principle that will forbid a nuclear attack on China if, for example, China wages
war against Taiwan while there is a rising crisis of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
That is to say, nuclear deterrence between the U.S. and Russia is not completely reliable.
While a policy of U.S.-Russia-China nuclear war is not one that can be adopted, this may be usefulas a subject of hypothetical debate. Yet, it appears that safety mechanisms in policy have somehow
been removed without such a debate.

Security as an Independent Academic Field
Will Japan be able to contribute to the discourse on nuclear deterrence?
Since the invasion of Ukraine, comments by security experts have gained greater acceptanceand they are in greater demand. This is a good thing. However, perhaps because these experts
have been given a cold reception so far, Japanese experts, while very capable, are few in number.
This small number of experts are working very hard, appearing on TV, giving speeches, andparticipating in international conferences.
I think despite the manpower shor tage and their limited access to the latest militar y
information compared to U.S. and European experts, they are striving to obtain information andconveying what they know to us.
Naturally, they tend to tell us only what the situation looks like for now. While that is indeed
the first requirement, since they are somewhat removed from live information in the first place,
why not investigate various views of history and include contribution to broadening the Westʼsframework of thinking in their agenda? If they are not good at doing this, it will also be interestingfor scholars in other fields to brainstorm and make suggestions.
This is because discussions with a broader range than government policy needs to be
conducted by private citizens. This is no longer only a desirable undertaking in a general sense.
The Western governments must not adopt the policy of declaring a nuclear attack on China in theevent of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war. However, private discussions should include the fact that this17
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Security

policy, despite its brutality, is a very likely offshoot of the historical view predicated on an ultimatewar.
The government must work for the relaxation of tension while enhancing the countr y ʼsdefense capability. Private citizens should argue that the challenge to the international orderhas become riskier with the start of a tripolar nuclear cold war and urge China to cooperatein averting an ultimate war. With substantial discussions at the private level, the government
will be able to minimize its provocative language. The best cooperation can be achieved withthe government and private citizens each accepting their different roles. Hence, the need forindependent scholarship.
Experts who are only able to quickly detect what is actually happening will not be enough.
Scholarship is the creation of knowledge (not the creation of facts). To know what somebody elseknows is not scholarship. Scholarship requires knowledge of what is not known to others basedon what everyone knows.
For sure, since information accessible to all is limited in the field of security, linkage with thepractice of security is important. Certain Japanese experts appear to refrain from imagination that
goes beyond actual practice because they are faithful to their mission and not because they makelight of independent scholarship. The Japanese government is also not restricting the freedom ofscholarship in the field of security. Both parties are preoccupied and seriously short of manpower.
Still, I am strongly advocating the independence of scholarship because I know that the experts I
respect are also independent scholars and they will not be bothered by my support.
I have forgotten to mention that improving the performance of missiles and strengthening
missile defense have also been cited as a solution to the tripolar nuclear cold war. That is true but
it will take time and money. In contrast, the independence of scholarship is an urgent requirement
for security.

4. Rise of the Silent Majority
Policy toward China from the Two Historical Views
While the historical view predicated on the ultimate weapon emphasizes the need to cooperatewith China, the historical view predicated on an ultimate war claims that China should begiven a strong warning. In order for Japan to sur vive, it needs a delicate package of carrot
and stick policies toward China, as well as a strong domestic consensus in support of thesepolicies. Considering the complexity and difficulty of the situation, this consensus must support
extraordinary balance of mind, resourcefulness, and perseverance. To use an analogy from theDoha Soccer World Cup, this is like seizing the chance for victory in the match against Germany,remaining calm in the game with Costa Rica, and not losing hope in the game against Spain –although I failed in all three counts.
Japanʼs policy toward China so far has been torn between two outspoken minority groups –the pacifists and people with anti-Chinese sentiments – and has navigated a narrow path in order
not to offend either group as much as possible. While this might be reasonable domestically, it
does not make sense internationally. Executing a delicate policy package is difficult.

The Emperor and Achilles
How can these vocal minorities be made to reconsider? The Emperor played a role in the
prewar period. Exactly 130 years have passed since the clash between the oligarchy government
dominated by feudal domain cliques and the opposition parties came to a head at the fourth
Imperial Diet (late 1892-early 1893). When such emotional exchanges as Diet Member Yukio
Ozaki asking if the budget could not be cut even by a single cent and Finance Minister Kunitake
Watanabe retorting “no” reached an impasse, the Emperor issued an edict calling for harmony,
18
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Kaoru Iokibe

thus settling the situation. In response to the opposition partiesʼ criticism of the cost of naval
expansion, the edict indicated that part of the spending would be paid by savings from theimperial household expenses and urged the government to carry out administrative reforms andreduction of expenditures, thus expressing hope for the House of Representativesʼ cooperation.
With this, the opposition parties engaged in consultations with the government, resulting in anagreement on the budget. Japan won in the naval battle in the Sino-Japanese War 18 months after
this.
There is no doubt that the edict was using the Emperor for political purposes. In the firstplace, the presence of active minorities was desirable. Laying the groundwork to suppress
them came with serious side effects. Militarization moved ahead in the 20th Century using theEmperor as symbol, resulting in tragic consequences for Japan and its neighbors.
Achilles is known as the strongest warrior in the Trojan War. Yet in Homerʼs “Iliad,” he did notjoin the battle until the final part of the story. All the other warriors, such as Mycenaean Greek
King Agamemnon and Hector, son of Trojan King Priam, fought desperately even knowing thatthe appearance of Achilles would turn the tide. Achilles also had his weakness, which came tobe termed Achilles tendon today. He was prophesied to die if he joined the battle. That is how it
should be in a world created by mortals.

Silent Majority
Today, the Emperor cannot and should not play a role similar to that in the prewar years. The
only force that can overwhelm the minorities is probably the silent majority.
However, the silent majority will remain silent barring an earthshaking event, so it will
be difficult for it to play a political role. During the turmoil over the revision of the Japan-U.S.
Security Treaty in 1960, Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi stated: “I must listen to the silent voices.”
When mass demonstrations protesting Kishiʼs revision of the treaty surrounded the Diet, it
would appear that all the vocal people were opposed to the treaty. Kishi reportedly said: “Thedemonstrators are a minority. The baseball stadiums and movie theaters are all full and nothing
has changed in the streets of Ginza.” That was an objectionable remark, more so because he
had a point. Even though there is a silent majority, there is no denying that normally, they do not
express their political views, and they are all in baseball stadiums, movie theaters, or Ginza.
I also appreciate the good aspects of old Japanese politics. Although the House ofRepresentatives censured the oligarchy government at the fourth Imperial Diet, Japan presented
a united front during the Sino-Japanese War. Regardless of their position on the war, the people
cooperated in an emergency. The demonstrations subsided after the Security Treaty revision
was approved by the Diet, and the new Security Treaty became the foundation of Japanʼs security
and prosperity. On the other hand, Kishi, whose high-handed political methods stood out, wasforced to step down. From the long-term point of view, it would seem that a balance was achieved.
However, this was in an era when the source of threat was in London or Paris or Moscow. The
threat at present is more imminent. Not only the providence of popular sentiment, which has
been exerting an influence without our realizing it, but also meticulous discussions by thepolicy community and the leadersʼ decisions, as well as the consensus supporting them, will benecessary.
As if in response to this age of crisis, I have a feeling that the silent majority left the baseballstadiums and showed up in public spaces after the fatal shooting of former Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe on July 8. Although many people opposed the state funeral on Sept. 27, when the funeral was
actually held, more than 25,000 people queued up to offer flowers at the Kudanzaka Park.
As many as 330,000 demonstrators surrounded the Diet during the protests over the Security
Treaty, so it can be said that 25,000 people is a small number. Yet, this was amid the Covid
pandemic on a hot weekday, and the silent majority is supposed to be silent. Even just the tip
19
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Historical Observations on the U.S.-Russia-China Nuclear Cold War: In Search of a Domestic Foundation for Japan’s Securityof the iceberg of this group was already quite impressive. For sure, there were fer vent Abe
supporters who added to the number. However, it is conceivable that people who were criticalof Abe, who resented the procedures leading to the state funeral, and who were not keen about
the state funeral were included. Yet the queue of people who came to send off the former prime
minister who had worked very hard for national administration and who met an untimely death
extended as far as Yotsuya. Their silence overwhelmed the protests against the state funeral.
It is interesting that the rightists also do not appear to be celebrating without reserve. They
might have felt that the queue of the silent majority was not the same as their own procession.
They might have also resented the fact that the highlight of the memorial service for Abe wasthe condolence speeches by Yoshihide Suga and Yoshihiko Noda. While Suga had assisted Abe
as the chief cabinet secretary, he is more of a pragmatist who has not inherited Abeʼs ideology.
Noda was prime minister during the Democratic Party administration. He was asked to deliver a
condolence speech because he was the political adversary of Abe, who led the opposition Liberal
Democratic Party at that time.

The Kishida Administration’s Mission
As the rightists look on with displeasure, the Kishida administration is also in confusion fromthe attacks of the leftists. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is not necessarily good at managing
the administration. In the first place, it is regrettable that his aspiration and will in steering theadministration to do something remains unclear. Yet, he could be representing the lethargy of thesilent majority through a mysterious bond. There is unlikely to be another leader in the politicalworld today who will listen to the voice of the silent majority while maintaining a balance of mind
like Kishida. Such is the prime minister we have today.
There will be no lack of forces wanting to use the silent majority for political ends. However,the silent majority has disappeared after forming long queues to offer flowers on that day. They
indeed made an appearance but did not stay. They are following Homerʼs script.
Japan is beginning to walk a critical tightrope with the other Western countries where
falling off will be fatal, but it might have made a good start. For now, we would like the Kishidaadministration to bounce back.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author. They do not represent the views of theJapan Institute of International Affairs.

20Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Original Title to Territory:
Tomoko Fukamachi
To What and to What Extent Is the Concept of Title
to Territory Applied?*
Tomoko Fukamachi
1. IntroductionI

t is well known that international law was born as the law among modern sovereign states
based on territor y. “Law of territor y,” which handles various problems regarding state
territory, and in particular “title to territory,” which regulates the attribution of territory, is afield with a long history within international law. Now that there are many opportunities for
territorial problems to be addressed in school education and in the news, this is also a field thateasily attracts beginnersʼ interest. Yet, in fact, many people feel that it is a topic that is difficult tolearn and difficult to teach. One of the probable reasons for this is that law of territory has few
treaties that can serve as a reference concerning concepts and rules, let alone the codification
conventions which are now often seen in many fields of international law, while relevant arbitraland judicial cases have become numerous. Accordingly, the overall legal structure cannot easily
be grasped. In standard Japanese and foreign textbooks on international law, which should serveas the ultimate guide, there is a substantial lack of uniformity in how they handle and describe
law of, and title to, territory.1“Original title,” which this paper addresses, is a relatively “new” concept that has come to be
discussed in academia with several noteworthy published articles,2 following the 2008 ruling by
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Pedra Branca case. I have placed “new” in quotation
marks because the term “original title” itself has long been used in law of territory. If we are tocall the traditional concept of original title the first original title, and the concept of original title
employed in the Pedra Branca case the second original title, at the very least it is necessary tounderstand the differences between the two. However, the mere existence of differences is nota sufficient reason to hold discussions on the second original title separately and specifically. To
state the conclusion in advance, the importance of the second original title is that it may provide
an opportunity to reconsider the structure and scope of title to territory (territorial title).
As stated above, international law of territory was developed early in history. Why was that?
The reason was that modern European nations “discovered” non-European regions, and in
expanding their own control, rules were needed to govern the competition among European*

This article is translated from an article in Japanese, Tomoko Fukamachi, “領域に関する原始権原̶̶
領域権原論は何をどこまで扱うのか [Ryōiki ni kansuru genshi kengen: Ryōiki kengenron wa nani wo
doko made atsukau noka],” Hogaku Semin , No. 765 (2018), pp. 24–30. The Japanese Manuscript̶
“Ryōiki ni kansuru genshi kengen: Ryōiki kengenron wa nani wo doko made atsukau noka”̶has beenreprinted in the following book: Mori, Tadashi and Naoki Iwatsuki (eds.), Sabutekusuto kokusaih :ky kasho no ippo saki e [Advanced readings in international law] (Nipponhyōronsha: 2020), pp. 106–120.

1

Brownlieʼs textbook may be a clear example. The sections and description contents in “Par t III
Territorial Sovereignty” are greatly changed from the 7th edition, which was the last edition by
Brownlie himself, to the 8th edition, which was revised by Crawford. Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public
International Law, 7th ed., (Oxford University Press: 2008), pp. 103–170; Crawford, James, Brownlie’s
Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed., (Oxford University Press: 2012), pp. 201–252.

2

Kohen, Marcelo, “Original Title in the Light of the ICJ Judgment on Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/
Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge,” Journal of the History of International Law, Vol.
15 (2013), pp. 151–171; Fry, James D. and Melissa H. Loja, “The Roots of Historic Title: Non-Western
Pre-Colonial Normative Systems and Legal Resolution of Territorial Disputes,” Leiden Journal ofInternational Law, Vol. 27 (2014), pp. 727–754; Huh, Sookyeon, “Title to Territory in the Post-Colonial
Era: Original Title and Terra Nullius in the ICJ Judgments on Cases Concerning Ligitan/Sipadan (2002)
and Pedra Branca (2008),” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26 (2015), pp. 709–725.

21
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Original Title to Territory: To What and to What Extent Is the Concept of Title to Territory Applied?

nations.3 This history brought about certain basic characteristics in traditional law of territory
as well as the concept of territorial title. The present-day arguments regarding law of territory
may be said to be an accumulation of efforts to elucidate the structure of those characteristics
in reference to a number of international arbitral and judicial decisions regarding the attributionof territory, and to seek an appropriate theory of title to territory for the post-decolonization era.
From such a perspective, this paper follows the development of the concept of original title andaims to be of some assistance in understanding contemporary law of territory. The subsequent
sections begin with an overview of traditional theory on territorial title and its revisions to date as
preparation for clarifying what in traditional title theory the second original title concept leads us
to reconsider.

2. The traditional concept of title to territor y and first original title
Under international law, the attribution of territor y is discussed using the concept of title toterritory. Because territory is land where a state exercises territorial sovereignty, for land to berecognized as state territory, grounds to legally justify the establishment of territorial sovereignty
by the state must be presented. The facts that are viewed as grounds for justification of territorial
sovereignty under international law, in other words, the facts that are deemed the sources ofterritorial sovereignty, are called “title to territory.” In general, title is a fact that is the grounds fora right to be vested.
Territorial title has traditionally been considered equivalent to several fixed “ modes ofacquiring territorial sovereignty.” Because the requirements for each of these modes are defined
mutually exclusively, whether or not absolute title exists at a given point in time is staticallyjudged by their fulfillment. The modes of acquisition many scholars cite are occupation, accretion,
cession, prescription, and subjugation, and these are generally classified into original acquisitionand derivative acquisition. What is established by modes of original acquisition is original title in
the traditional sense, that is to say, the first original title.
However, it is necessary to note that several different opinions have been presented regarding
specifically what is classified as original acquisition.4 For example, according to the view thatoriginal acquisition is to establish territorial sovereignty over land which previously did notbelong to any state and that other acquisitions are all derivative acquisition, occupation andaccretion are categorized as original acquisition, while cession, prescription, and subjugation
are classified as derivative acquisition. Conversely, under the standpoint that instances wherethe validity of a title depends on the validity of a prior title are derivative acquisition and all otherinstances are original acquisition, occupation, prescription, accretion, and subjugation are originalacquisition, while derivative acquisition is limited to only cession.5
At any rate, it is now widely recognized that title to territory as that of above-mentioned “modes”
has played only a limited role in the settlement of territorial disputes through international

3

As research that clarified this point, Taijudō, Kanae “Kokusaihō jō no sensen ni tsuite: Sono rekishiteki
kenkyū” [Regarding occupation in international law: Its historical research], H gaku Rons , Vol. 61, No.
2 (1955), pp. 36–99 (in Taijudō, Kanae, Ry do Kizoku no Kokusaih [Title to territory in internationallaw] (Toshindō: 1998)) is essential reading.

4

See Fukamachi, Tomoko “Gendai kokusaihō ni okeru ryōiki kengen ni tsuiteno ichikōsatsu” [Somereflections on title to territory in international law], H sei Kenky , Vol. 61, No. 1 (1994), p. 71.

5

Prescription, subjugation, and cession all concern the acquisition of the territor y of another state.
However, in the cases of prescription and subjugation, the prior title is cut off, as it were, and a separate
title is established, while in the case of cession, the title of the state receiving territory is establishedonly within the effective scope of the prior title, that is, the title of the state ceding territory.

22
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Tomoko Fukamachi

adjudications.6 While the courts and tribunals to which territorial disputes are submitted have
tried to judge attribution based on agreement among the parties regarding the disputed territory
as much as possible, they have also adopted an approach of determining the existence of titleemphasizing the fact that the exercise of state authority, namely, acts which are deemed as
embodiment of territorial sovereignty, is continuously and peacefully conducted (“the continuousand peaceful display of territorial sovereignty [peaceful in relation to other states]”) (“the displayof sovereignty approach”).7 While there is no room for a detailed explanation in this paper, under
the display of sovereignty approach, title to territory̶which had a static and absolute nature
under the modes of acquisition scheme̶becomes dynamic, relative, and non-standardized.
This important point has been noted in a previous study.8 In this way, it may be said that theview which unconditionally equates title to territory with the modes of acquisition of territorial
sovereignty has been overcome.
However, the traditional concept of title to territory actually has one more limitation or selfdefinition. This is the concept to “acquire” territorial sovereignty. Because it was generated anddeveloped as rules to govern the colonization of non-European regions by modern European
states, the scope of the territorial title concept was limited to the new acquisition of territorial
sovereignty by existing states under international law, despite the seemingly universal definition
as “the facts deemed as grounds for the justification of territorial sovereignty.” For acquisition,
the prior existence of the acquiring body, i.e., the state, is essential. Consequently, as long as
the concept of title is deemed to be for acquisition, it becomes difficult to use this to logicallyexplain the grounds whereby “defined territor y,” which is a requirement necessar y for theestablishment of a new state, belongs to that state. A similar problem applies to the territories ofmodern European states, which were the assumptions upon which modern international law wasestablished.9
In this regard, what should be added quickly is that, while “a defined territory” constitutes
a qualifying element for a state, the complete delimitation of borders is not required. That is tosay, the possibility that the outer limit of such territory as inseparable from the very existence ofa new state may not be totally fixed is contained in the qualifying elements for a state. Modern
6Regarding approaches of resolving territorial disputes taken by international courts and tribunals, see
Yanagihara, Masaharu, Morikawa, Koichi, and Kanehara, Atsuko (eds.), Purakutisu kokusaih k gi
[Lectures on international law and practice] 3rd edition (Shinzansha: 2017), pp. 199–202.

7

In past judgments and awards, in line with the specific conditions of the disputed territory, the exercise
of legislative, administrative, and judicial authorities of states such as tax collection and administrationof justice has been recognized as displays of sovereignty that create title. For a simple commentaryon the display of sovereignty approach and the display of sovereignty concept, see Huh, Sookyeon,“Jikkōshihai to wa nanika?: Kokkashuken to jikkō shihai no kankei” [What is effective control?: The
relation between state sovereignty and effective control] in Morikawa, Koichi et al. (eds.), Kokusaih desekai ga wakaru: Ny su wo yomitoku 32 k [Understand the world with international law: 32 lectures tointerpret the news] (Iwanami Shoten: 2016), pp. 69–80.

8Huh, Sookyeon, Ry iki kengenron: Ry iki shihai no jikk sei to seit sei [The acquisition of territory ininternational law: The effectiveness and legitimacy of territorial control] (University of Tokyo Press:2012), pp. 148–165.

9

Yanagihara, Masaharu, “Ky iki, hanto, h do, soshite ry iki” [Chinese and Japanese notions of territory
and the European notion of territory], Kokusai Mondai, No. 624 (2013), p. 1; Fukamachi, Tomoko,“Nihon, Kankoku, Chūgoku ga tomoni shuchō suru ʻkoyū no ryōdoʼ to wa?: Ryōiki funsō no kaiketsu
kijun to shite no ryōiki kengen” [What is the ʻinherent territoryʼ claimed by Japan, South Korea, andChina?: Title to territory as a standard for resolving territorial disputes] in Morikawa, Koichi et al. (eds.),
Kokusaih de sekai ga wakaru: Ny su wo yomitoku 32 k [Understand the world with international
law: 32 lectures to interpret the news] (Iwanami Shoten: 2016), pp. 52–54; Starke, Joseph G., “TheAcquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by Newly Emerged States,” Australian Year Book of InternationalLaw, Vol. 2 (1966), p. 11.

23
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Original Title to Territory: To What and to What Extent Is the Concept of Title to Territory Applied?

European states themselves were not clearly divided by complete national boundaries rightfrom the start. In some cases there were areas, on the peripher y of core territor y of thosestates, whose attribution was not yet decided or being disputed. If the state argues for their
attribution that it acquired territorial sovereignty over them after it was established as a state, thestructure of the argument remains as one of acquisition of sovereignty by an existing state underinternational law. In contrast, when the claim is that the area in question has always been thestateʼs own territory from the time it was established as a state, it seems necessary to squarely
discuss the grounds for justifying territorial sovereignty over such territory as inseparable fromthe establishment of the state or its very existence. An unavoidable repercussion of this line ofargument is to bring into the theory of title to territory the difficult problem of how to assess“territorial control” implemented under the “international order,” which differs from internationallaw.

3. Forerunners of the second original title(1) The Minquiers and Ecrehos case
The ICJ handled such problematic situations as early as 1953 in the Minquiers and Ecrehoscase.10 In this case, the UK and France disputed the attribution of the Minquiers and Ecrehos
islands in the English Channel going back to the Middle Ages when modern international law
was not yet established. Both of the parties asserted that the disputed islands had become partof their respective territory at one time in the Middle Ages as part of the Channel Islands, andthat the ancient title or original title had been maintained without interruption during and after
the modern era. As an alternative claim in case this argument was not upheld by the Court, theUK also argued that it had acquired title based solely on long continued effective possession.
In response, the Court concluded that even though the ancient title asserted by the UK waspresumed to have existed, the attribution of sovereignty could not be decided by that alone, thatit must be founded on evidence directly related to the possession of the Minquiers and Ecrehos,and that both of the disputed islands belonged to the UK based primarily on the exercise of11“jurisdiction” by England in the Middle Ages and of state functions in the modern era.
The concept of original title asserted in this case is clearly different from the one traditionallyadopted in the classification of original acquisition and derivative acquisition. Moreover, it isdeemed to be used in the context of how to show the grounds to justify territorial sovereignty
over a territory that the parties claimed they already possessed at the time when they became
international legal subjects as modern states. Nevertheless, this case did not produce themomentum to consciously question the scope of title to territory as an “acquisition” scheme.
That is to say, while the reliance on the exercise of state functions that characterizes this casehas gathered frequent attention, amid the academic trend to reconsider the appropriatenessof the “mode” theory mentioned in the previous section, the issues of how the parties and the
Court grasped original title or ancient title and the significance thereof for the concept of title toterritory at large has not been examined in sufficient depth.12

10

Minquiers and Ecrehos case, judgment of 17 November 1953, ICJ Reports 1953, pp. 47–73.

11

However, between Minquiers and Ecrehos, the extent to which the exercise of state functions is used as
the basis for the attribution differs. In the case of Minquiers, the evidence that France recognized theisland as British territory was also emphasized. Ibid., pp. 70–72.

12

For an interpretation of the relationship between “ancient title” and “the display of sovereignty” in the
Minquiers and Ecrehos case presented by ICJ in its 1992 judgment in the El Salvador–Honduras Land,
Island, and Maritime Frontier case, see Huh, supra n. 8), pp. 244–246.

24
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Tomoko Fukamachi(2) The Qatar v. Bahrain case
The next case that should be noted is the Qatar v. Bahrain case in which a judgment on the
merits was rendered in 2001.13 In this case, regarding the Zubarah region in the northwesternpart of the Qatar Peninsula, the ICJ concluded that the authority of the Sheikh of Qatar basedin Doha on the eastern coast of the peninsula had gradually been consolidated to be definitively
established in 1937.14 On the other hand, regarding the Hawar Islands located between thepeninsula and the main island of Bahrain, the Court found that the decision by the British
government in 1939 which attributed the island to Bahrain was binding on both states, giving no
consideration to original title, effectivités,15 or any other arguments presented by the parties.16 It
concluded that the Hawar Islands belonged to Bahrain.
Five of the judges voted against 2(a) of the operative provisions of the judgment, which
presents the attribution of the Hawar Islands. One of them, Judge Torres Bernardez, criticized
the conclusions of the majority of the Court, stating that they failed to acknowledge the scopeof the original title of Qatar to the Qatar Peninsula and its adjoining islands and viewed the1939 British decision, which fundamentally lacks validity, as the source of Bahrainʼs derivative
title.17 According to Judge Bernardezʼs definition, original title is the title to the territory of a
new state while derivative title is the title to territory acquired by an existing state. In his view,international legal theory has distinguished between these two categories from long ago.18 As
we have seen, however, it was clear at least that the expressions of original title and derivative
title were generally used for a different classification. Therefore, although we should havecertain reservations about the appropriateness of Judge Bernardezʼs remark that the distinction
between the two categories has a long history, the significance of his opinion can be found in theconceptualization and presentation of original title as a title with “constitutive elements linked to
the very birth of the political entity or state.”19 As such, this opinion leads to the concept of second
original title.

13

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment of 16
March 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, pp. 40–118.

14

Ibid., pp.64–69. Regarding this judgment, from the viewpoint of the theoretical interest of this paper,
issues may be noted such as whether the authority consolidated regarding Zubarah can be explained
under the “acquisition” framework, the timing of when Qatar was established as a state, and what are
the territories that are inseparable from the establishment of Qatar as a state, but because of the space
limitations here these will have to be addressed on some other occasion.

15

When the concept of effectivités was initially employed in law of territory, under the uti possidetis juris
principle which requires that the boundaries between new states having achieved independence fromthe same colonizing power follow the administrative boundaries in the colonial period, the concept had
only the limited meaning of indicating the conduct of the colonial authorities during the colonial era.
Subsequently, however, cases emerged where this was used to paraphrase the display of sovereignty,
and it has now become rather ambiguous. Regarding the discussion concerning ef fectivités by theparties in this case, see Huh, supra n.8), pp. 262–266. For an overview of the ambiguity of the conceptof effectivités, Huh, Sookyeon, “Ryōdo kizoku hōri no kōzō: Kengen to effectivités wo meguru gokai
mo fukumete” [Structure of the legal doctrine of attribution of territory: Including misunderstandings
regarding title and effectivités], Kokusai Mondai, No. 624 (2013), pp. 20–34 is useful.

16 atar v. Bahrain case, supra n. 13), pp. 70–85. The judgment only mentions the fact that the parties
Q
made arguments regarding the claim of original title, and the parties themselves hardly touched upon it
in the written procedures, so it is necessary to refer to the record of the oral arguments.

17

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Torres Bernardez, the Qatar v. Bahrain case, supra n. 13), p 260.

18

Ibid., p. 281, para. 60.

19

Ibid.

25
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Original Title to Territory: To What and to What Extent Is the Concept of Title to Territory Applied?

(3) The Ligitan and Sipadan caseIn the following year, 2002, the ICJ handed down its ruling in the Ligitan and Sipadan case.20 The
two parties, Indonesia and Malaysia, both used the concept of original title in their claims. Pulau
Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan are uninhabited islands in the Celebes Sea off the coast of northeastern
Borneo. In this case, Indonesia called the title to both islands held by the Sultan of Bulungan theoriginal title and Malaysia did the same regarding the title held by the Sultan of Sulu. Each party
claimed that these had been transferred to Western powers and then inherited by themselves.21
In the end, the Court did not adopt either argument. As for Indonesia, the Court did not examine
the original title at all because it found that the disputed islands were clearly not included in theareas that had passed to Indonesia as a successor to the Netherlands.22
On the other hand, regarding Malaysiaʼs claim, the Court did consider whether or not the
disputed islands had been part of the possessions of the Sultan of Sulu, and denied the existenceof original title to both islands based on the following four points. First, the parties recognizethat geographically both islands do not belong to the Sulu Archipelago. Second, the relevant
documents describe the territorial extent of the Sultanate of Sulu as comprising “the Archipelago
of Sulu and the dependencies thereof,” but these documents provide no specific reference todecide whether Ligitan and Sipadan, which are located at a considerable distance from the mainisland of Sulu, were part of the Sultanateʼs dependencies. Third, even if the Bajau Laut who may
have made use of the two islands were loyal to the Sultan of Sulu, such ties are not sufficient toprovide evidence that the Sultan of Sulu claimed territorial title to both islands. Fourth, there isno evidence that the Sultan of Sulu actually exercised authority over both islands.23
In this way, while the application to Ligitan and Sipadan was not recognized, the concept oforiginal title was used by the Court as the grounds for justifying the territorial control exercisedby Sulu, which was a non-European local “state.” In addition, the above-mentioned four points
which the Court considered when it denied that original title existed can be summarized, using
more common expressions, as three factors: focusing on the overall territorial extent of the state,negative evaluation on personal ties of loyalty to determine original title, and the requirement of
the actual exercise of authority. Keeping these in mind, the following section examines in detailthe contents of the judgment in the Pedra Branca case, which first presented outright recognitionof the second original title.

4. Recognition of the second original title—the Pedra Branca case(1) Outline of the case and the claims of the parties
Pedra Branca is a small island located at the eastern entrance to the Straits of Singapore. In Malaysia,
the island is called Pulau Batu Puteh. In 2003, Malaysia and Singapore signed a Special Agreement
requesting the ICJ to determine the attribution of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (hereinafter Pedra
Branca) and the nearby Middle Rocks and South Ledge. The Court issued its ruling in 2008.24 Thissection examines the dispute focusing on the judgment concerning Pedra Branca.
20

 overeignty over Pulau Ligitau and Pulau Sipadan, Judgment of 17 December 2002, ICJ Reports 2002,
S
pp. 625–686.

21

Indonesia primarily claimed that the attribution of the disputed islands was already decided by the1891 Convention concluded between Great Britain and the Netherlands, but this was not upheld by the
Court. Transfer and succession from the Sultan of Bulungan was Indonesiaʼs alternative claim.

22

Ligitan and Sipadan case, supra n. 20), p. 669, paras. 95–97.

23

Ibid., pp. 674–675, paras. 108–110.

24

 overeignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Judgment of 23 May
S
2008, ICJ Reports 2008, pp. 12–102.

26
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Tomoko Fukamachi

In this case, it was Malaysia that claimed original title. According to Malaysia, Pedra Branca
was and is part of the Malaysian State of Johor. The reason for this is that the Sultanate ofJohor, which is the predecessor of the State of Johor, controlled all of the islands in the Straits ofSingapore including Pedra Branca ever since it was established in 1511, and that there is nothing
to show that Johor ever lost its title. Malaysia called the title which it inherited from the Sultanateof Johor “an original title of long standing.”25
In response, Singapore claimed that prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was terra nullius. As such, it
was claimed that by taking possession of it through the construction of a lighthouse from 1847 to1851, the United Kingdom was able to acquire lawful title, and that the title had been maintained
until the present time by the British Crown and by its successor the Republic of Singapore.26
Consequently, the issue was whether Malaysia could prove the establishment of its original title
dating back to before the lighthouse construction activities, or conversely whether Singapore
could prove its claim that it established lawful possession at some time after the start of theconstruction of the lighthouse.27(2) Recognition of original title by the Court
The ICJ recognized the original title that the Sultanate of Johor possessed over Pedra Branca
based on the following considerations.28
The Court started by obser ving that it was not disputed that the Sultanate of Johor had
been established as a sovereign state with a certain territorial domain under its sovereignty
since its foundation in the early 16th century, and then examined proof showing the common
understanding of that time regarding the extent of that territorial domain to confirm that theStraits of Singapore and the islands therein were included in that domain. Next, the Court pointed
out that because Pedra Branca had been known as a navigational hazard, and had not been an
unknown island, the reasonable inference was that it was one of the islands within Johorʼs generalgeographical scope. Finally, the Court mentioned the requirement of “continuous and peacefuldisplay of territorial sovereignty [peaceful in relation to other states],” noted that no competingclaim had ever been advanced against Johor and that it is sufficient to display sovereignty inaccordance with the specific circumstances of each case, and concluded that Johor satisfied therequirement of display of sovereignty.
The Court then addressed the ties of loyalty that existed between the Sultan of Johor and theOrang Laut, who made the Straits of Singapore the area of their activities, and concluded that this
could also be used to confirm the existence of Johorʼs original title to Pedra Branca.29, 30

25

Ibid., p. 29, paras. 37–38; pp. 31–32, paras. 47–48.

26

Ibid., pp. 29–30, paras. 39–40; pp. 32–33, paras. 49–51.

27

Ibid., p. 30, para. 42.

28

Ibid., pp. 31–37, paras. 52–69.

29

Ibid., pp. 37–39, paras. 70–75.

30

In the dispositif, Pedra Branca is attributed to Singapore and the Middle Rocks to Malaysia, while theattribution of South Ledge, which is a low-tide elevation, is required to be decided by future maritime
delimitation. This is because the Court judged that the territorial sovereignty based on the original title
to Pedra Branca held by Johor had been transferred to Singapore some time after the middle of the 19th
century or at least by 1980, whereas it found that Malaysia, as the successor to Johor, continued to holdthe original title to the Middle Rocks, which did not fall under special circumstances having caused thattransfer.

27
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Original Title to Territory: To What and to What Extent Is the Concept of Title to Territory Applied?

(3) Appraisal
In that this case employed the concept of original title to discuss the issue of whether or not the“territorial control” by a non-European local “state” extended to the territory in dispute, it follows
the same track as the judgment in the Ligitan and Sipadan case. The original title in both cases,that is, the second original title, differs from the first original title, which concerns the acquisitionof new territory by an existing state under international law, and may be seen as a concept used
for the legal basis for the attribution of territory that cannot be separated from the establishmentof the state or its ver y existence under international law, namely, territor y that came to beestablished under an “international order” other than international law.
It was inevitable that the Court should feel the necessity of such a concept particularly
strongly in judgments on the attribution of territory in the post-decolonization era. This is easily
understood by recalling the Island of Palmas arbitral award, which was issued during the colonialera. To elaborate, that award, which is acknowledged as the pioneer in the display of sovereignty
approach, did not use the traditional mode, but still left no room to doubt that the concept of
title to territory consisted of rules to regulate territorial acquisition by Western countries. Morespecifically, the tribunal did not consider territory as belonging to a local “state” comparable
to Johor, and took the conventions between the native princes and the East India Company as
evidence of the display of sovereignty by the Netherlands, which was a state under international
law.31 However, as pointed out by Sookyeon Huh,32 even if the principle of inter-temporal law wereinvoked, to rely on this kind of logic could no longer be a realistic option for the ICJ today, since
it directly reflects colonialism which should be rejected. Hence, the introduction of the second
original title concept may be considered as one attempt to accommodate law of territor y tochanges in international society.
As for the method whereby the Court recognized original title, it cannot be denied that there
are points of doubt as well as points that require caution. Let us look at this in line with theprocedure of recognition as stated above. What the Court did first was to label the Sultanate ofJohor as a sovereign state with a certain territorial domain under its sovereignty. However, theonly evidence presented for this was a work written by Grotius that called Johor a sovereign
principality (supremi principatus).33 The established theory is that Grotius did not have a clear
concept of sovereignty in the modern sense,34 and at the time that Johor was established, even in
Europe, sovereign states were in the process of being formed both conceptually and in reality, so
one cannot help but call the attitude of the Court, which used the word sovereignty without any
qualification or explanation, ahistorical or at least incautious.
What the Court focused on next was, similar to the judgment in the Ligitan and Sipadan case,to identify a general scope of the “territory” of the local “state” and to draw a rational inference
that the territory in dispute lay within that scope. Regarding the former, the Court found two
grounds for identification: the Sultan of Johorʼs understanding of territory shown by the fact that
the Sultan had objected to the East India Companyʼs act of seizure in the Straits of Singapore, andthe understanding of territory seen in letters by the British government official in Singapore at31

Island of Palmas case, Arbitral Award of 4 April 1928, 2 RIAA 831, pp. 858–859.

32

Huh, supra n. 2), p. 724.

33

Pedra Branca case, supra n. 24), p. 33, para. 53. This quotation from the work by Grotius is believed
to have been taken from a quotation in the memorial of Malaysia. However, the concerned section in
the memorial of Malaysia does not contain any statement using this quotation to position Johor as asovereign state. Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 1, paras. 37–38 (available at http://www.icj-cij.org/files/
case-related/130/14139.pdf).

34

As a convenient reference concerning this point, see Yanagihara, Masaharu, Grotiusu [Grotius] (Shimizu
Shoin: 2000), pp. 180–183. The version now being sold as of 2018 is the new edition published in 2014.

28
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Tomoko Fukamachi

that time.35 Regarding the latter, the inference was drawn from the fact that the island was not an
unknown island. Accordingly, at none of those stages was the actual territorial control over the
disputed territory by the local “state” scrutinized.
Furthermore, if we ask whether the Court looked at the actual situation of territorial control
by checking the requirement of “continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty[peaceful in relation to other states],” which was deemed the final procedure in the judgment, that
did not occur either, at least in this case. This is because the judgment accepted the requirementfor display as being satisfied in accordance with the conditions of the disputed territory despite
mentioning no specific acts which may be regarded as display of sovereignty.
As we have already seen, under the display of sovereignty approach, the “continuous andpeaceful display of territorial sovereignty [peaceful in relation to other states]” has become anestablished expression indicating the exercise of state authority, which is the source of title aswell as its proof. The exercise of state authority is recognized to be the source of title because
it demonstrates that the sovereign of the territor y fulfilled the duty imposed on him, that is,to ensure minimum protection within the territor y as is required under international law.36
Consequently, even if the extent and form of the exercise of authority required to fulfill that duty
vary depending on the conditions within the territory, it is difficult to accept that no concrete
evidence of the exercise of authority directly related to the territor y in question could bepresented, or that no specific examinations could be made as to whether it existed. This means
that, in recognizing original title in this case, by making the “continuous and peaceful displayof territorial sovereignty [peaceful in relation to other states]” its “requirement,” the Court
succeeded in giving the impression that recognition of original title and conventional recognitionof acquisition of title are fundamentally the same. However, we cannot help but remark that thereality of the application in the former constituted “a variation that differs from the traditional
display of sovereignty approach.”37

5. Concluding remarks
The concept of the second original title employed in the Pedra Branca case is the point where
two junctures come together. The first is the juncture between the concept of title to territory
and the issue of the grounds of territorial sovereignty over territory that is inseparable from theexistence of the state itself, which used to be considered as outside the scope of title to territory.
The other is that between the issue of the evaluation of historical territorial control or attribution
in the traditional order which differs from international law, and the determination of territorial
attribution in contemporary international law.
Nevertheless, the Court did not tr y to evaluate the legitimacy of the historical territorial
control by non-European “states” using the framework of the traditional order to which they
belonged. This contrasts with the detailed examinations in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case of
territorial control by medieval England and France in light of the Grand Coutumier de Normandie,
which constituted the contemporary order.38
What the Court did instead in the Pedra Branca case was, while adopting the posture ofusing the same framework as the rules of territorial acquisition by existing states by mentioning
the requirement of “continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty [peaceful inrelation to other states],” to recognize the existence of grounds for the justification of territorial
sovereignty, namely original title, by incorporating a new method of emphasizing the general35

Pedra Branca case, supra n. 24), pp. 33–34, paras. 54–56.

36

Huh, supra n. 7), pp. 75–76; Huh, supra n. 8), pp. 145–146.

37

Huh, supra n. 8), p. 329.

38

Minquiers and Ecrehos case, supra n. 10). pp. 60–64, pp. 67–68.

29
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Original Title to Territory: To What and to What Extent Is the Concept of Title to Territory Applied?

extent of territory without looking into the local traditional order and even without any display ofsovereignty. As background to this recognition, which may be called an unusual feat of reasoning,it should be noted that the special geographical conditions in this case may have had some effect.
That is to say, because the land on both banks of the narrow Straits of Singapore belonged to
the Sultanate of Johor, it was not necessary to consider possible competing claims to the islands
within the Straits by nearby countries or countries on the opposite bank. In this sense, it would benecessary to carefully and separately consider whether original title could be identified using thesame method in the absence of such conditions.
From the above, it is difficult to support without qualification the positive evaluation that byrecognizing Johorʼs original title, the ICJ made a concrete contribution to the clarification of thedifference between original title and title of occupation of terra nullius and also of the territorialsituation in Eastern Asia during the 19th century.39 Rather, the concept of second original title
encourages us to make further efforts and contributions toward the clarification of the conceptof title to territor y itself while showing many issues that should be examined regarding theapplication of the second original title and its theoretical impact on title to territory.

39

Kohen, supra n. 2). pp. 170–171.

30
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Monika Chansoria

Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception:
The Influence of Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh’s 1655 Text
“Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Mingling of the Two Oceans]
Monika Chansoria*
Abstract
In his March 2023 visit to India, Japanʼs Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida could not help
but feel a sense of destiny when he put forth his vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific(FOIP) in New Delhi. PM Kishida reminded the Indian audience that FOIP, as a concept,
was proposed by his esteemed friend and former Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. It
was in India that former PM Abe delivered a speech in 2007 in which he linked the Pacificand the Indian Oceans for the first time. This research paper chronicles the conceptual
journey of Japanʼs FOIP strategy and of Indiaʼs centrality to it. In his historic 2007 speech
titled “Confluence of the Two Seas” Abe famously cited the title of the seminal 1655 book –Majmaʼ-ul-Bahrain [The Mingling of the Two Oceans] authored by the Mughal Prince, Dara
Shikoh, and said, “We are now at a point at which the Confluence of the Two Seas is coming
into being.” This 17th century book is said to have been the inspiration, foundation, and titleof Abeʼs vision to nurture an open and transparent Indo-Pacific maritime zone as part of a
“broader Asia.”In his March 2023 visit to India, Japanʼs Prime Minister Fumio Kishida could not help but
feel a sense of destiny when he put forth his vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific in New
Delhi. Kishida reminded the Indian audience that the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)
concept was proposed by his esteemed friend former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and stated:
Here in this country, former Prime Minister Abe delivered a speech that linked the Pacificand the Indian Oceans for the first time. India is the place where FOIP came into being.
I also traveled here in 2015 as Minister for Foreign Affairs and spoke at an event… about
how Japan and India should jointly lead the region and the world in the “Era of the IndoPacific.”1

Declaration of the “Confluence of the Two Seas” Notion [New Delhi, 2007]
Prime Minister Kishida highlighted the necessity of developing FOIP, arguing that theinternational community is at a historical turning point. The balance of power is shifting
dramatically, and the remarkable rise of India is one such example. With the “Global South”
rising and the world becoming more diverse, a good understanding of historical and cultural
backgrounds needs to be developed, which implies sharing responsibility for global governance.2*

Dr. Monika Chansoria is a Senior Fellow at The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) in Tokyo,
and a Senior Contributing Author on Asiaʼs geopolitics for the JAPAN Forward Association, Inc., Tokyo.

1“The Future of the Indo-Pacific – Japanʼs New Plan for a ʻFree and Open Indo-Pacificʼ – Together with
India, as an Indispensable Partner,” Policy Speech by Japanʼs Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the IndianCouncil of World Affairs (ICWA), New Delhi, March 20, 2023. Text released by the Prime Ministerʼs
Office of Japan, available at https://japan.kantei.go.jp/101_kishida/statement/202303/_00013.html

2

Ibid.

31
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception:
The Influence of Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh’s 1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Mingling of the Two Oceans]

Kishida pointed towards the changing paradigm in international relations, and termed FOIP avision that is gaining rapid relevance. In this sense, FOIP (based on the Confluence of the Two
Seas notion) was a visionary concept. In his description of Japanʼs plan to develop and achievea Free and Open Indo-Pacific, PM Kishida unequivocally identified India as an “indispensable
partner” when he stated:
I believe that Japan and India are in an extremely unique position in the current
international relations and, furthermore, in the history of the world. India is the largest
democracy in the world. I have always viewed with great respect at the way such a hugeand diverse country as India has developed democracy. Japan, for its part, was the first
countr y in Asia to achieve modernization and embrace democracy…[B]oth Japan andIndia have unique historical backgrounds. The people of the two countries humbly
acknowledge that there are diverse values, cultures, and histories on this planet, and thatfully understanding them is not an easy task. We are the kind of people who understandintuitively that the best way forward is to respect the other party and cooperate throughdialogue.3
The ambit of Japanʼs Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy launched and pushed during thesecond tenure of the Abe administration in December 2012 was initially conceived and formulated
during his first term as prime minister, when he addressed the Indian Parliament in August
2007. During that visit, an interesting historical connect was established in reference to the
Indo-Pacific by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He stood in the Central Hall of the highest chamberof Indian democracy, to speak directly to the one billion-plus Indian population via its peopleʼs
representatives. Speaking at the Parliament of India in August 2007, Abe considered it his “greathonor of addressing the highest organ of state power in the largest democracy in the world.”4 Abe
presented himself on “behalf of the citizens of another democracy that is equally representing
Asia” and put forth his views on the future of Japan and India. While discussing Indo-Japan
relations, Abe said, “It gives me tremendous pleasure to be able to begin my address todaywith the words of Swami Vivekananda, the great spiritual leader that India gave the world – thedifferent streams, having their sources in different places, all mingle their water in the sea.”5
It was in this historic speech that Abe questioned and identified where Japan and India standhistorically and geographically. He answered this by borrowing a term from, and famously
citing the title of, a seminal 1655 book – Majma’-ul-Bahrain [The Mingling of the Two Oceans]
authored by the Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh6 and said, “We are now at a point at which the
Confluence of the Two Seas is coming into being.” The Pacific and the Indian Oceans are bringing
about a dynamic coupling as seas of freedom and prosperity. This 17th century book is said tohave been the inspiration, foundation, and title of Abeʼs vision to nurture an open and transparent
Indo-Pacific maritime zone as part of a “broader Asia.”7 It needs to be recalled that, following his
3

Ibid.

4

Confluence of the Two Seas – Speech delivered by Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, at the Parliamentof the Republic of India, August 22, 2007, available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/
pmv0708/speech-2.html

5

Ibid.

6

Prince Muhammad Dara Shikoh, Majma’-ul-Bahrain: The Mingling of the Two Oceans, [Persian toEnglish Translation] ed., M. Mahfuz-Ul-Haq, (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal Publications, 1929).

7

For further reading and details on the subject see, Monika Chansoria, “Japanʼs Relations with SouthAsia,” in Šumit Ganguly and Frank OʼDonnell, eds., Routledge Handbook of the International Relations ofSouth Asia, (London: Routledge, 2022).

32
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Monika Chansoria

2007 Confluence of the Two Seas speech delivered at the Indian Parliament, Prime Minister Abe
declared his vision the Free and Open Indo-Pacific.
Suggesting that a “broader Asia” breaking away from geographical boundaries had begun
taking on a distinct form, Abe further stated that Japan and India have the ability and the
responsibility to ensure that they further broaden, nurture, and enrich these seas to make themseas of the clearest transparence.8 Stressing the importance of Japan-India strategic cooperationin carrying out the pursuit of freedom and prosperity in broader Asia, Abe averred:
By Japan and India coming together in this way, this “broader Asia” will evolve into
an immense network spanning the entirety of the Pacific Ocean, incorporating the US
and Australia. Open and transparent, this network will allow people, goods, capital, andknowledge to flow freely.9
Originally a geographic concept comprising the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean thatshaped linkages between the United States and East Asia, a free and open Indo-Pacific maritimezone has evolved into a geostrategic concept and strategy. When stretched beyond the Indian
Ocean, it paved the way for what more commonly came to be known by the new frameworkof the “Indo-Pacific.” At its heart, a strategic system can be understood as a set of geopoliticalpower relationships among nations where major changes in one part of the system affect what
happens in the other parts.10 The US policy pronouncements of “pivot” and later “rebalance” inAsia were almost concurrently followed by PM Shinzo Abeʼs proposed Indo-Pacific concept andstrategic framework in 2012. When Abe penned his book Utsukushii kuni e (Towards a Beautiful
Country) in 2006, he publicly advocated the concept of a “broader Asia” consisting of nationsin the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Abe appeared to have anticipated Asiaʼs geostrategic future
exclusively through the prism of political realism, and rightly so.11 The concept of a “broader
Asia” appears to have transcended geographical boundaries, with the Pacific and Indian Oceansʼmergence becoming far more pronounced and evident than ever. To catch up with the reality ofbroader Asia, the Abe administration rehabilitated its focus on South Asia in general, and India inparticular, within the ambit of Japanʼs Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy.

Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Framework:
The Influence of the 1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain”[The Mingling of the Two Oceans]
The Majma’-ul-Bahrain (hereafter Majma) – a prose work written by Dara Shikoh in 1655 – dealt
with the cross-cultural doctrine, and remains of considerable importance to this day owing to its
deep-rooted historical connect.12 In the long history of cross-cultural exchange and discourse
between Islam and Hinduism, the comparative treatise Majma began to be regarded as a8

Confluence of the Two Seas Speech by Shinzo Abe, n. 4.

9

Ibid.

10

Rory Medcalf, “The Evolving Security Order in the Indo-Pacific,” in David Brewster, ed., Indo-Pacific
Maritime Security: Challenges and Cooperation, (National Security College, Crawford School of Public
Policy, Australian National University, July 2016); also see, Rory Medcalf, “The Indo-Pacific: Whatʼs in a
Name?” The American Interest, vol. 9, no. 2, Nov/Dec 2013, pp. 58–66.

11

As cited in, Monika Chansoria, “Modi-Abe Personality Impacts Foreign Policy,” The Sunday Guardian,
September 20, 2014.

12

R.P. Dewhurst, “Review: Majmaʼ-ul-Bahrain: or The Mingling of the Two Oceans,” The Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 2, (Cambridge University Press, April 1931), p. 460.

33
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception:
The Influence of Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh’s 1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Mingling of the Two Oceans]significant dialogue contributing to the Indic traditionʼs rich pluralism.13 Majma, a comparative
hermeneutical attempt, illustrated how translations and interpretations can be textually rooted
and how they profoundly impact cross-religious conceptual expansions across traditions as aresult of translations.14
Muhammad Dara Shikoh (‫( )دارا ِشکوہ‬1615–1659), also known as Dārā Shikoh [and not Shikūh,which represents only the modern Persian pronunciation of the word], was the eldest son andheir-apparent of the fifth Mughal Emperor, Shah Jahan. Dara was never able to become king as hewas barbarically executed by his younger brother Aurangzeb. Born in 1615 in Ajmer, Rajasthan(north-western India), Dara Shikoh was widely renowned for being an enlightened paragon of
the harmonious coexistence of the heterodox cultural traditions and interactions of the Indian
subcontinent. Known to be a patron of fine arts and music, he also indulged in art in the formof paintings and as a calligrapher of scripts and, given his avid interest in comparative religion
and philosophies. Dara was identified as among the great synthesizers symbolizing the larger
encounter between the Islamic and Hindu worlds.15
Dara Shikoh was a scholar in his own right, having been recognized in histor y for histranslations of dozens of Sanskrit texts into Persian. He studied Sufi and Vedic philosophies
extensively. His name has been inscribed in Mughal history more so for his scholarly works
than for his understanding of the art of statecraft. He was devoted to finding a common mysticallanguage between Islam and Hinduism. Towards this goal, he completed the translation of many
Upanishads from the original Sanskrit into Persian by 1657.
However, perhaps his most celebrated and famous work to this day remains the 1655 treatise
in Persian, Majma’-ul-Bahrain [The Mingling of the Two Oceans], devoted to the mystical andpluralistic affinities between Sufism and Vedāntic speculations. The works of the young prince
became a major milestone of one of the greatest and longest movements of translations in humanhistory (from Sanskrit and Hindi to Persian and Arabic).16
For that matter, the Majma and translation of the Upanishads became the culminating projectsof his literary journey.17 The Majma includes 22 chapters/discourses in which Dara asserts that
religions and languages share important features as they both are “semiotic systems” with theability to “capture, preserve, and reify basic cultural values, to structure experience according
to shared conceptual elements.”18 The initial lines of Majma’s text spelt out Daraʼs emphasis on
describing ultimate reality through opposites.19 Dara Shikoh pointed out in his composition:… having collected the views of the two parties and having brought together their points –a knowledge of which is essential and useful for the seekers of Truth – he (i.e., the author)
has compiled a tract and entitled it Majma’-ul-Bah.rain, or The Mingling of the Two Oceans,
13

Doha Tazi Hemida, A Hindu-Islamic Translation: Retrieving Dārā Shikūh’s Confluence of the Two Oceans,(Columbia University, 2005), p. 38.

14

Ibid.

15

For further details see, Munis D. Faruqui, “Dara Shukoh, Vedanta, and Imperial Succession,” inVasudha Dalmia and Munis D. Faruqui, eds., Religious Interactions in Mughal India (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2014), p. 32.

16

Carl W. Ernst, “Muslim Studies of Hinduism? A Reconsideration of Arabic and Persian Translations
from Indian Languages,” Iranian Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, 2003, p. 173, cited in Hemida, n. 13.

17

Faruqui, n. 15, p. 40, cited in Hemida, n. 13.

18

Tony K. Stewart, “In Search of Equivalence: Conceiving Muslim-Hindu Encounter through Translation
Theory,” History of Religions, vol. 40, no. 3, 2001, p. 268, as cited in Hemida, n. 13.

19

Ibid. p. 42.

34
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Monika Chansoria

20
as it is a collection of the truth and wisdom of two truth-knowing (H. ak. Shinās) groups.

Considered a strong threshold towards that search, Majma significantly talks about
expansion and of the two worlds overlapping. The book cites by example what water is to thewaves, and how existence or consciousness is the water while the supreme self is the totality ofwaves.21 The book has been identified as one of the most prominent and significant paradigmsof transcultural literature of early modern Indian histor y. The manuscript offers a discourse
having a distinct philosophical/metaphysical approach with the aim to establish commonalities
through observations of Hindu Vedānta philosophy and Sufism. In the framework of transculturalliterature, the text was considered an accomplishment since it managed to transcend different
boundaries, and eventually became identified as Majma’-ul-Bah.rain.22
The term “ transculture ” grossly encompasses a par ticular kind of paraphernalia that
expands beyond the boundaries. While discussing transcultural literature, the most significant
question that determines the transcultural character is what kind of boundar y/ies it crosses– topographical, social, religious, or linguistic.23 In the framework of transcultural literature,
Majmaʼs significance as a single text, and its voyage as well as purpose of transcending barriers
becomes far more pronounced in a contemporar y context when “The Mingling of the Two
Oceans” is interpreted and refurbished by Japan as the Confluence of the Two Seas.
The thrust of Majma indicates the path, which can broadly be divided into two categories:
the world around and the world beyond. Majma surpassed boundaries and became a pioneering
example of transcultural literature in the early modern age.24 It reflected the inner ethos of Indianspirituality with a distinct identity of divine harmony. Dara Shikoh acknowledged divine unity as
a boundless ocean, where the Truth is one for everybody. In fact, the title Majma’-ul-Bah.rain isperhaps a symbolical representation of this boundlessness, which transcends the limitations ofinstitutional religion, scriptural rules, lingual individuality, and doctrinal differences.25

The World and Politics Around, and the World and Politics Beyond:Contextualizing “Majma” in Contemporar y Asia

Majma was Dara Shikohʼs attempt to manifest the spiritual affinity between two distinct religious
traditions and cultures. The “Mingling of the Two Oceans” refers to the Hindu and Islamic
traditions, each of which was regarded by Dara as a repository of knowledge and wisdom. At a
maximalist level, Dara tried to create a syncretic Hindu and Islamic culture to promote greater
unity between the two. At a minimalist level, he brought home the point that Hindus and Muslims
have grossly misunderstood each otherʼs religion as well as their own.26
Following Shinzo Abeʼs 2007 reference to this seminal text, the current vice-president ofIndia, Jagdeep Dhankhar, unveiled an Arabic translation of the Majma’-ul-Bahrain in New Delhi
20

Haq, ed., n. 6, Majma’-ul-Bahrain: The Mingling of the Two Oceans, p. 38.

21

Dārā Shikūh and Asghar Ali Engineer, Majma’-ul-Bahrain, [Comingling of Two Oceans] Majma’-ulBahrain: A Discourse on Interreligious Understanding, (Gurgaon: Hope India Publications, 2006), p. 78;
also see, Daryush Shayegan, Les Relations de l’Hindouisme et du Soufisme d’après le Majma’ al-Bahrayn
de Dārā Shokūh (Paris: Editions de la Différence, 1979), p. 33, cited in Hemida, n. 13.

22

Gargi Bhattacharya, “Majma’-ul-Bah.rain: Transcending Cultural Boundaries in the Quest for ʻTruth of
Truths,ʼ” postScriptum: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Literary Studies [Special Issue on Transnational
and Transcultural Spaces] vol. 4, no. 2, July 2019, pp. 248–258.

23

Ibid., p. 249.

24

Ibid., p. 255.

25

Ibid., p. 257.

26

Haq, ed., n. 6, Majma’-ul-Bahrain: The Mingling of the Two Oceans.

35
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception:
The Influence of Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh’s 1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Mingling of the Two Oceans]in September 2022. Speaking on the occasion, Vice-President Dhankhar defined Dara Shikoh asa genius, a skilled poet, and a scholar of Sanskrit. The vice president suggested that Dara wasa torchbearer of social harmony and religious unity. In the book Majma, all the commonalities
between Hinduism (Vedānta) and Islam (Sufism) pointed to the conclusion that the difference
between Islam and Hinduism is only verbal. Mentioning that Dara Shikoh strove for improving
dialogue between different religions, the vice-president called for the revival of Daraʼs legacy andthe application of his spiritual thought to strengthen contemporary social cohesion, stating that
the Majma threw invaluable light on the similarities between religions. Dhankhar recalled thatIndia has a glorious heritage not only of “tolerance” for othersʼ views but also a unique cultureof “engagement” with all views – a culture of pluralism and syncretism. He further said that thisspirit of mutual respect was exemplified by many Indian kings – ranging from King Ashoka morethan two millennia ago to Prince Dara Shikoh a few hundred years ago.27
For a long time, the geopolitical paradigm most widely used to denote the massive expanse
stretching from Northeast Asia to South Asia and vast oceans and seas – namely, the Pacific
Ocean, the South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean―was termed the “Asia-Pacific.” Subsequently,
the idea of the “Indo-Pacific” evolved over time, recognizing the seemingly blurring lines between
geoeconomics and geopolitics. It also demonstrates a gradual convergence of opportunities
and challenges in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Sustained economic growth, relative
political stability, and social cohesion have enabled major powers in Asia to exert expanding
influence in shaping agendas and global rule-making.28 Asia has ascended as a pivot amid thesechanging global economic and strategic realities. The resurgence of the Indo-Pacific, describedas the “maritime underbelly of Asia,” has become the locus of maritime activity in Asia. A gradualevolution of the Indo-Pacific concept has resulted in varied ideas and perspectives.29
While in 1941 Japan did not see, or at least hesitated to consider, India as par t of its
imagination of Asia, by the first decade of the next centur y Tokyo was seen attempting tointegrate India into its strategic landscape by introducing the concept of an Indo-Pacific region
due to the rise of China and its potential challenges to Japanʼs strategic interests. The idea ofconnecting the two oceans as a single geopolitical sphere continued to be at the center of Japanʼscontemporary foreign policy thinking. To promote this idea, Tokyo introduced various initiatives,
such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) in 2007 (Australia, India, Japan, and theUnited States), the Democratic Security Diamond, and, most significantly, the Free and Open
Indo-Pacific framework and strategy.30
One of the most widely popular notions in geopolitical thinking is the postulate that geography
is destiny, leaving leaders with limited choices because of the landscape of their nations.31
However, even if the notion that geography is destiny is accepted, it is important to be aware that27

Indian Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankharʼs speech at the unveiling of the Arabic translation of the
Majma’-ul-Bahrain at the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi, press release by Vice
Presidentʼs Secretariat, September 9, 2022, Press Information Bureau, New Delhi.

28

Rajeev Ranjan Chatur vedy and Ankush Ajay Wagle, “ASEAN, India, and the Indo-Pacific: Evolving
Regional Maritime Environment,” in Ceren Ergenç, ed., ASEAN as a Method: Re-centering Processes
and Institutions in Contemporary Southeast Asian Regionalism, (London: Routledge, 2021), p. 74; alsosee, Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, “Indo-Pacific: One Region, Many Visions?” RSIS Commentary, no. 23,
February 2019.

29

Ibid., pp. 73–74.

30

Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad, “The confluence of the two seas: The rise of the Indo-Pacific region and
ASEAN Centrality,” in Ceren Ergenç, n. 28, p. 52.

31

For further reading and details on the subject see, Tim Marshall, Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That
Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics, (London: Elliott & Thompson, 2015), pp.
1–2, cited in Choiruzzad, n. 30.

36
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Monika Chansoria

regions are not. Regions are constructed socially and politically by various actors for numerous
purposes, including governments, the epistemic community, and the private sector. 32 In thiscontext, “East Asia” is not always “East Asia.” Even the word Asia itself was, in the beginning, anancient Greek conception, referring exclusively to a region known today as the Near or Middle
East.33 It was only with the arrival of European colonialism that “Asia” became the term that
includes the large area from Japan to the Middle East because the colonial powers juxtaposed thesecolonized areas with Europeʼs own identity.34 Later, this Asian identity started to be embraced by“Asians” themselves, creating a shared identity to fight against European colonialism. A sense ofsolidarity against Western colonial rule gave birth to the strong connection between nationalism
and Pan-Asianism. For an instance, the Japanese victory against the Russians in the Battle of
Tsushima in 1905 was understood by many Asian nationalist leaders not only as Japanʼs victory
but also as their own.35
It was in this context that the concept of “East Asia” as a regional identity was introduced.
Despite the internal debate within Japan on whether the modernizing country should consider
itself as part of Asia for its cultural affinity, or, should it consider itself as “escaping Asia”
because it had been successfully modernizing itself,36 Tokyo campaigned for the Greater East
Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The promise of common prosperity and the support for nationalist
independence movements convinced many nationalist leaders of Asia to ally themselves with
Imperial Japan. However, “East Asia” faded away from the imagination of the newly independent
Asian countries post-WWII.37

Confluence of the Two Seas and ASEAN Centrality
The emergence of competing strategic visions related to areas surrounding the Pacific and Indian
Oceans has been one of the primary challenges to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) Centrality. Both China and India see the Indian Ocean and East Asia as an integrated
stage for their strategic play. While China is not likely to concede to Indiaʼs primacy in South Asiaand the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the latter too, would not be willing to accept Southeast andEast Asia as Chinaʼs exclusive spheres of influence. If Chinaʼs navy is going south to the Indian
Ocean, the Indian navy is going east towards the Pacific Ocean.38
Contextualizing in the above reference, Japanʼs Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy matches
up with Indiaʼs Act East policy. Further, the strategic ties between Japan and India are pushingfor an Indo-Pacific vision that is “balanced, open, inclusive, stable, transparent, and rules-based
economic, political, and security driven.”39 In this joint strategic vision, Tokyo and New Delhi finda “confluence of the two seas.” Though ASEAN generally welcomes the initiatives of major powers
32

Choiruzzad, n. 30, p. 54.

33

David Camroux, “ʻAsia, Whose Asia?ʼ Evolving Conceptions of an Asian Community from the 1920s Till
Today,” in Heribert Dieter (ed.), The Evolution of Regionalism in Asia: Economic and Security Issues, (NewYork: Routledge, 2007), p. 12, cited in Choiruzzad, n. 30.

34

Camroux, ibid., pp. 12–13.

35

For further reading and details on the subject see, Pankaj Mishra, From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt
Against the West and the Remaking of Asia, (New York: Allen Lane, 2012).

36

As cited in, Kazuo Ogura, Japan’s Asian Diplomacy: A Legacy of Two Millennia, translated by David
Noble, (Tokyo: International House of Japan, 2015), pp. 41–44.

37

Choiruzzad, n. 30, p. 54.

38

For further reading and details on the subject see, Mohan Malik, “China and India Today: Diplomats
Jostle, Militaries Prepare,” World Affairs, vol. 175, no. 2, 2012, pp. 76–78.

39

For further reading and details on the subject see, Vinay Kaura, “India-Japan Relations and AsiaʼsEmerging Geopolitics,” Indian Journal of Asian Affairs, vol. 29, no. 1/2, 2016, pp. 17–18.

37
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Japan’s Confluence of the Two Seas Conception:
The Influence of Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh’s 1655 Text “Majma’-ul-Bahrain” [The Mingling of the Two Oceans]in the economic sense, ASEAN member states have been found warily navigating to manage
their relationships with all the major powers amidst these developments. While China and Japanare the main trading partners of the ASEAN countries, Indiaʼs rapidly growing economy is also
becoming increasingly important for them.40
Fur ther, ASEAN has welcomed Japan ʼ s “ Expanded Par tnership for High-Quality
Infrastructure, ”41 an initiative often seen as Japan ʼs answer to China ʼs Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB) and Belt & Road Initiative.42 In terms of security, many ASEAN countries
remain worried about Chinaʼs growing assertiveness in the region creating a division within
ASEAN. For the first time in its 45-year history, for instance, ASEANʼs leaders failed in 2012
to agree on a Joint Communique due to diverging views on Chinaʼs actions in the South China
Sea. The move was described a “harbinger of future trends.”43 Just when the major powers andregional stakeholders are beginning to reimagine the map with an identified Indo-Pacific region,
ASEAN cohesion is increasingly coming under doubt.
This leads to the question “Will the emergence of an Indo-Pacific region as a consequenceof the inclusion of the Indian Ocean Region in the regional imagination of major Asian countries
degrade ASEAN Centrality?”. This puts the future of ASEAN Centrality in a major spot amidst
the rise of the Indo-Pacific region. ASEAN could well view the Indo-Pacific region in a balancedmanner wherein its “Centrality” will likely dwindle, as few member states will deal with players
such as China, the US, Japan, and India in a flexible and à la carte manner.44 Another scenario
could be that of an Indo-Pacific region with ASEAN at its center, eventually finding a way to bringback its cohesiveness and being united to face the challenge of great power rivalries.45 The third
scenario could be that of two separated but connected regions, wherein the Indo-Pacificʼs regional
imagination will struggle to be fully realized.
The fundamental concept of FOIP remains that stakeholders will enhance the connectivityof the Indo-Pacific region, foster the region into a place that values liberty, the rule of law, andfreedom from force or coercion. A significant region that FOIP seeks to cover was outlinedin Kishidaʼs speech, namely, Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP)
and FOIP are visions that resonate with each other. Japan announced that it will make a newcontribution of $100 million to the Japan-ASEAN Integration Fund, being mindful of the ASEANJapan Commemorative Summit to be held in Tokyo in December 2023. Later this year, Japan will
also renew the comprehensive Japan-ASEAN Connectivity Initiative, which seeks to promote
efforts to strengthen hard and soft connectivity.

Conclusion
Analyzing the past decades of Asian politics and policies brings to the fore certain momentous
developments that have redefined Asian geopolitics, expectedly impacting South Asia and the40

Choiruzzad, n. 30, p. 64.

41“ASEAN, Japan renew commitment to strengthen cooperation,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore,
August 29, 2016, available at https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Overseas-Mission/Ministry-of-Foreign-Affairs--Permanent-Mission-of-the-Republic-of-Singapore/Past-Highlights/2016/08/ASEAN-Japan-renewCommitment-to-Strengthen-Cooperation42

As cited in, Masaaki Kameda, “Abe Announces $110 Billion in Aid for High Quality Infrastructure in
Asia,” The Japan Times, May 22, 2015, available at www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/22/business/abe-announces-110-billion-in-aid-for-high-quality-infrastructure-in-asia/#.WaEUfVFLfIU

43

For further reading and details on the subject see, Barry Desker, “ASEAN Integration Remains an
Illusion,” PacNet #17, March 16, 2015.

44

Choiruzzad, n. 30, pp. 65–66.

45

Ibid.

38
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Monika Chansoria

Indian Ocean Region. By 2030, Asia will contribute most to global growth,46 thus underscoring
its importance and that of the Indo-Pacific. These realities have driven Japanʼs policies andapproaches for operating in the IOR as they underwent a major phase of transformation. The firstsignal of this was the lifting of the ban on overseas deployments to enable Japanʼs Self-Defense
Forces to dispatch armed troops to Iraq in 1992.47 The subsequent transition and evolution hasreached a point when today, notably, nearly 40 percent of all Japanʼs Self-Defense Forcesʼ missions
have occurred in the IOR, and nearly half of Japanese Official Development Assistance (ODA)
goes to IOR countries.48
While cross-oceans initiatives will continue to be pushed by major and regional powers, what
remains to be seen is whether they will be able to truly transform the Indo-Pacific into a single,
integrated region.49 The evolution of ASEAN cohesion, the trajector y of great power rivalr y,and the progress of the various Indo-Pacific initiatives by stakeholders will be the primar y
determinants that decide the future of the Confluence of the Two Seas vision.
In his 2009 Foreign Affairsʼ essay, Robert Kaplan argued that the “center stage of the 21st
century” will be the Indian Ocean.50 The rise of China and India as well as their increasing needto secure energy sources and routes, together with the rising involvement of other important
players from East Asia, most significantly Japan, will ensure that this region has a tremendous
impact on global politics.51 However, Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad submits a modification to
Kaplanʼs argument that the Indian Ocean must increasingly be seen as a geopolitical complex,
an integrated region with East Asia and/or the Pacific Ocean.52 At least, that is what Japan,
Indonesia, Vietnam, and India seem to foresee in their strategic visions. While the future of the
Indo-Pacific region remains uncertain, the ability of ASEAN member-states to consolidate theirindividual and collective positions, the willingness of major powers to manage competition with
their rivals, and the ability of those major powers to materialize their grand initiatives53 regionallywill define the future of this 21st century center stage.

46

For further reading and details on the subject see, Praneeth Yendamuri and Zara Ingilizian, “In 2020
Asia Will Have the Worldʼs Largest GDP; Hereʼs What That Means,” World Economic Forum, December
20, 2019, available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/asia-economic-growth/

47

John Hartle, “The Normalization of Japanese Policy in the Indian Ocean Region,” Policy Report, Analysis
and Policy Obser vator y, Australiaʼs Global Interests, June 21, 2018; also see, Chansoria, “Japanʼs
Relations with South Asia,” in Ganguly et al., n. 7.

48

Peter Wyckoff, “Making Waves: Japan and the Indian Ocean Region,” Commentary, The Stimson Center,May 1, 2017.

49

Choiruzzad, n. 30, pp. 65–66; for related reference and reading also see, Evan Laksmana, “An IndoPacific Construct with ‘Indonesian Characteristics,ʼ” [The Strategist], Australian Strategic Policy
Institute, February 6, 2018, available at www.aspistrategist.org.au/indo-pacific-construct-indonesiancharacteristics/

50

For further reading and details on the subject see, Robert D. Kaplan, “Center Stage for the Twenty-first
Century: Power Plays in the Indian Ocean,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 88, no. 2, 2009, pp. 16–32.

51

Ibid.

52

Choiruzzad, n. 30, pp. 66–67.

53

Ibid.

39
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons for Japan?

Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons for Japan?
Valérie Niquet

Abstract
Territorial conflicts in Europe are complex and determined by geopolitical, strategic,
historical, and ideological factors. The European Union, consisting of member states, hasagreed to submit to certain principles and rules to limit escalation risks. These disputes aremanaged through diplomatic means and rules of law and arbitration, rather than force. Japan
faces conflicts in Asia, such as China and the Senkaku question, which are manifestations ofdeeper tensions. Comparing these conflicts is difficult but may be enlightening due to theirfundamental differences.

T

erritorial issues are complex issues that are determined by geopolitical and strategic
factors as well as historical and ideological factors. In Europe, even within theEuropean Union, there are or have been numerous territorial conflicts between nationstates constituted according to the Westphalian system. Some of these conflicts havebeen resolved, others remain unresolved, and the degree of tension, including military tension,varies. However, territorial disputes involving one or more members of the European Union arevery different from those facing Japan in its own geographical area.
One of the fundamental reasons for this is that the European Union, whatever its borders, iscomposed of member states that, in order to join, have agreed to submit to a certain number ofprinciples and rules that help to limit or control the risks of escalation. Territorial disputes are notsystematically resolved, but they are managed through diplomacy and the application of rules,
laws and arbitration rather than through the use or threat of force.
In this context, the question arises whether a comparison is possible. According to Diez,
Stetter, and Albert, four types of conflicts can be defined that involve or have involved EU states―conflict episodes, issue conflicts, identity conflicts, and subordination conflicts―with thelast two types having an existential dimension for the political regime or the population. 1 While
the first two types (conflict episodes and issue conflicts) are more common in Europe than thelast two, it is the last two (identity and subordination conflicts), sometimes combined with thesecond, that Japan faces in Asia. One of the fundamental differences is the general willingness ofEuropean member States―despite exceptions often related to the recent nature of the Europeansocialization process or to the involvement of a non-EU member State―to reach a settlement or atleast to avoid escalation. In Asia, on the other hand, conflicts express a fundamental disagreement
and allow the use of force (military or non-military) or tension as a means of managing bilateralrelations. In other words, the conflicts Japan faces in Asia are manifestations of deeper tensions
that have little to do with the object of the conflict itself. In the case of China and the Senkaku
issue, behind the territorial issue are threats of escalation, i.e., the intensification of military or
quasi-military activities on the part of the PRC (Peopleʼs Republic of China) aimed at establishing
1

Thomas Diez, Stephan Stetter, Mathias Albert, “The European Union and Border Conflicts: The
Transformative Power of Integration,” International organization, vol. 60, n°3 (Cambridge University
Press, Summer 2006).

40
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Valérie Niqueta balance of power with Japan in the region and beyond.
The comparison is therefore difficult, but perhaps instructive, because of these fundamental
differences.
Contrary to popular belief, there are more than twenty active conflicts involving EU states,
either among themselves, with entities not recognized as states (autonomist or independence
movements), or with non-EU states. Despite common elements, each conflict is dif ferent,
including in the number and characteristics of the actors involved, and we will not deal with all theconflicts facing the European Union. Because they are too different from the issues facing Japan,
we will also not deal with internal conflicts that historically have often been the most violent, witha dimension of cultural tension as well as terrorism or civil war, such as the Basque question,
Northern Ireland, or Catalonia. We have chosen to focus on conflicts within the European Union
using four examples: France and the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom, Slovenia andCroatia, and one conflict involving an EU state (Greece) and a non-EU state (Turkey). These fourconflicts offer a gradation of tension, from the least tense (France–Netherlands) to the tensest(Greece–Turkey). In addition, we will focus not on the legal conditions, as views on legitimacy are
generally divided among possible interpretations, but on the resolution or non-resolution of theseconflicts and the determining factors in this resolution―or non-resolution―of the conflicts.

France and the Netherlands: a resolved conflict in the Caribbean
The conflict
Once again, contrary to popular belief, not all conflicts involving EU member States take place
on European territory; some arise in far-off lands. One conflict emblematic of this type involves
France and the Netherlands and is a legacy of the 17th century. On March 23, 1648, the Treaty ofConcordia (Traité du Mont des Accords in French), consisting of nine articles originally written
in Latin, defined the terms of coexistence between the two parts of Saint Martin, an island divided
between the Kingdom of France and the United Provinces (Netherlands).2 According to the textof the agreement, which was imprecise in its wording, France received 56 km2 of the territory of
the island, located in the Caribbean Sea 250 km from Guadeloupe, and the Netherlands 34 km2.
The nine articles of the treaty provide for the peaceful coexistence of the two populations, thesharing of resources, a form of judicial cooperation and the free settlement of each in its preferredzone. The Treaty of Concordia was confirmed and clarified by the Franco–Dutch Convention ofNovember 28, 1839, particularly with regard to the sharing of resources, judicial extradition andfree settlement. In 2015, a report submitted to the French National Assembly highlighted theneed to strengthen police cooperation between the two parts of the island, whose Dutch parthas been an autonomous state of the Netherlands since 2010 following referendums and whose
French part has become an overseas collectivity.3
While relations have long been functional, tensions rose in the 2010s, particularly over theissues of crime control and immigration, more important on the Dutch side. Due to the special
status of the Dutch part, which unlike the French part is not subject to the rules of the European
Union, the issue of money laundering linked to tax conditions in Sint Maarten has been raised, as
well as that of the difference in social rights, which encourages companies to set up in the Dutch
part.4 Although there are three border crossings, the border is open because of the constantly
invoked rule of free movement. The disputed territory is that of Oyster Pond, which is poorly
defined. In 2017, French police conducted a check on a Dutch reconstruction site after it was2

https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rapports/r2649.asp

3

Ibid.

4

https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/ile-de-saint-martin-le-business-cote-neerlandais-la-deglinguecote-francais-1233910

41
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons for Japan?

destroyed by a cyclone. The Dutch, who claim the entire bay, which is important for its tourist
resources, denounced this as a violation of its territory. France, which demanded that the dividing
line pass through the middle of the bay, took the issue to the UN while negotiations continued.
The current situation
After complex negotiations lasting more than six years, and despite the small size of the territory
concerned, an agreement was signed on May 26, 2023 between French Minister of the Interior
Gérald Darmanin and Prime Minister of the Autonomous Territor y of Sint Maarten Silveria
Jacobs. The French position of a median water sharing was accepted and the new agreement
renews the principle of cooperation established in the Treaty of Concordia.5
By fixing the border, the agreement, described as historic, has allowed the resumption ofwork and the development of tourism―the islandʼs main resource―in the Oyster Pond area,
which was severely affected by Hurricane Irma in 2017. It is intended to confirm the goodunderstanding between France and the Netherlands, two states of the European Union, statingthat “it illustrates the excellence of the friendly relations between France and the Netherlands.”6
The agreement also provides for the maintenance of freedom of movement and the creation ofa cross-border commission to manage issues related to tourism, fishing, education, health andsecurity.
The border conflict between France and the Netherlands, which lasted for several years, isthe lowest on the tension scale and can be defined as a conflict episode with elements of a conflictof interests.7

Spain and the United Kingdom: the insoluble question of Gibraltar
The question of Gibraltar between Spain and the United Kingdom, like the previous one, is partly
inherited from history, but it is more complex, oscillating between a conflict of identity in thetensest periods and a conflict of interests. An additional dimension is that of the will of the local
population concerned. This is a factor that the British never took into account when they handed
over their colony of Hong Kong to the PRC, as Beijing rejected the very principle of consulting
the population.
The conflict
Gibraltar is a British overseas territory that was ceded to the British Crown by the Treaty of
Utrecht on July 13, 1713, after having been captured in 1704. The Treaty of Utrecht ended thethe Spanish Succession War (1701–1713), in which Spain, France, Great Britain, Austria, and theNetherlands were involved. Under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, the King of Spain ceded
Gibraltar, the fortress and its port “forever” to the British Crown. In addition to Spainʼs regularlystated desire to see an end to “British colonization” and the return of Gibraltar to Spain, the most
specific points of contention today concern the portion of the territory extending from the citywalls as they existed in 1704 to the current border marked by the British in 1804 and materialized
in 1908.8 Spain also disputes the United Kingdomʼs right to territorial waters around Gibraltar

5

https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/actualites/communiques-de-presse/signature-dun-accord-entre-france-etpays-bas-relatif-a-frontiere

6

Ibid.

7

Thomas Diez et. al. Op.cit.

8

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36604.htm

42Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Valérie Niquet

and its port.9 Today, 27% of the worldʼs maritime trade passes through the Strait of Gibraltar.
During World War II, Gibraltar played an important role for the Allies, while Francoʼs Spain was
officially neutral. Since 1945, however, Spain has reasserted its claim to Gibraltar. Under Francoʼs
dictatorship, Spain demanded the return of Gibraltar in gratitude for its neutrality during WorldWar II, and sought the support of the UN, which in fact favored “decolonization” before 1969.
The Spaniards demanded the return of Gibraltar to Spain, the annulment of the Treaty of Utrecht
while nonetheless allowing the British to maintain a military base in Gibraltar―at a time when,
especially during the Cold War, control of the Strait was vital for NATO, of which Spain was nota member10―and the guarantee of a special status for the inhabitants of Gibraltar under UN
guarantee. However, the will of the people of Gibraltar to remain British has been reaffirmed timeand again. The first referendum was held in 1967, and in 1969 Gibraltar was granted a form of
self-government by the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969. The gist of the constitution was that “thesovereign status shall not be altered without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.”11 To protest
this rejection, the government in Madrid gradually closed the border and all points of land contact
with Gibraltar in 1967. Other referendums have been held, most notably in 2002, when the peopleof Gibraltar also rejected the principle of joint Spanish–UK sovereignty proposed by Spain.
In the name of the right of peoples to self-determination, the British authorities refuse to
discuss the sovereignty of Gibraltar and a bilateral agreement with Spain without the consent of
the inhabitants.
After Francoʼs death and the adoption of a democratic constitution in Spain in 1978, thesituation eased considerably, accentuated by Spain ʼ s gradual accession to the European
Community and NATO. In 1980, the Spanish and British foreign ministers signed the “Lisbon
Declaration,” in which both countries declared their willingness “to resolve the question of
Gibraltar in a spirit of friendship, to overcome differences, to re-establish communication and todevelop cooperation, while reaffirming their position on questions of sovereignty.”12 The border
was reopened in 1985, on the eve of Spainʼs entry into the European Community in 1986.
New plans for joint sovereignty were proposed by Spain in 1985, but were again rejected by
the people of Gibraltar. In 2006, Britain, Spain and Gibraltar signed a cooperation agreement, theCordoba Agreement, to improve communication, and in 2009 the Spanish foreign minister visited
Gibraltar for the first time.13
However, tensions have not gone away. In 2009, Britain denounced incursions by the Spanish
coastguard into what London considers its territorial waters, and the Spanish press criticized therestructuring of the Spanish military presence in the Strait to the benefit of the British.14 New
tensions over fishing rights emerged in 2013.

9

Gerry OʼReilly, “Gibraltar: Sovereignty Disputes and Territorial Waters”, IBRU Boundary and Security
Bulletin, Spring 1999 on https://www.durham.ac.uk/media/durham-university/research-/researchcentres/ibru-centre-for-borders-research/maps-and-databases/publications-database/boundary-ampsecurity-bulletins/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf.

10Spain joined NATO in 1982.

11https://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/legislations/gibraltar-constitution-order-1969-1835

12

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36604.htm

13

https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2006/09/19/34333-accords-historiques-sur-gibraltar.html

14“Espana cede el control del estrecho”, ABC, 09-03-2009 on https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-espanacede-control-estrecho-200903090300-913640194561_noticia.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.
com%2F

43
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons for Japan?

The current situation
The Gibraltar issue, which also involves two EU member States, although Spain only joined in1986 and the United Kingdom left the EU in 2020 after Brexit, is therefore unresolved, but has
not escalated dramatically and is still being managed by diplomatic means, especially since Spain
became a democratic power after the end of Francoism. At the time of Brexit, Spain used its status
as a member state of the European Union by threatening to use its veto until the President of theCommission, the President of the Council and all the member states signed a document statingthat “no agreement on Gibraltar can take place without the agreement of Spain.” The sovereignty
issue has not been resolved and the UK position remains that no agreement can be reachedwithout the consent of the people of Gibraltar. One of the reasons for Spainʼs opposition to thesetalks is also the question of separatism that the Madrid government is facing in other parts of thecountry.

Slovenia and Croatia: a legacy of the dissolution of Yugoslavia
Like other conflicts in the region, the conflict between Slovenia and Croatia over several border
points is a legacy of the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, but also of older tensions dating back to
the Austro–Hungarian Empire. Although Slovenia and Croatia have become two independent
states, there is no precise demarcation of the border, especially the maritime border in the Bay of
Piran.
The conflict
Croatia, citing the first part of Article 15 of UNCLOS, requests that the boundary in the Bay of
Piran be established at an equal distance from both shores. Slovenia, citing the second part ofArticle 15, which mentions exceptions based on historical rights or special circumstances, claims
the right of free access to the international waters it enjoyed when it was part of Yugoslavia.15
Discussions continued in 2000 and 2010. In 2001, the prime ministers of Slovenia andCroatia, Janez Drnovšek and Ivica Račan, signed an agreement (Drnovšek/Račan Agreement)
defining the border, including the maritime border, between the two countries in the name ofpeaceful cooperation and in the interest of both states and their citizens.16 The agreement was
ratified by the Slovenian parliament, but the Croatian parliament, influenced by nationalist andpopulist currents, refused to ratify the agreement. In 2005, the two countries signed the Brijuni
Declaration, which mentions the desire of both parties to avoid incidents at the border. In 2007,
two new prime ministers, meeting in Bled, agreed in principle to resolve the border issue bysubmitting it to the arbitration tribunal in The Hague.
Between 2008 and 2009, Slovenia blocked Croatiaʼs accession to the European Union until the
Croatian parliament passed a resolution accepting the principle of arbitration by the International
Court of Justice in The Hague. It did, and Croatia joined the European Union in 2013.
The current situation
On June 29, 2017, the Hague Court of Arbitration issued its ruling, awarding 80% of Piran Bay
to Slovenia and a high seas access corridor to Croatia.17 Slovenia has accepted the decision,
but Croatia has said it will not implement it.18 The situation between the two EU states remains
15

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

16

https://www.assidmer.net/doc/Drnovsek-Racan_Agreement.pdf

17https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2172

18

Luigi Lonardo, “Republic of Slovenia versus Republic of Croatia: Am I My Brotherʼs Keeper?
International Agreement by Member States and the Limits of the European Cour t of Justiceʼs
Jurisdiction,” European Law Review, 105 (2021)

44
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Valérie Niquet

unresolved but, as in previous cases, does not cause major tensions between the two countries,
although nationalist sentiments are being expressed, particularly in the Croatian parliament.

Turkey and Greece: an almost existential conflict in the Aegean Sea
The fourth conflict we are considering, between a member state of the European Union and a
non-member state that has been a candidate for membership since 1999, is the one that remains
the tensest and includes a dimension of military tension, albeit limited. The conflict is neither arelatively simple conflict of interests nor an episodic one; it has a long history, going back to thehistorically conflictual relations between Christianity and Islam, between the Ottoman Empire
and Greece with the Greek War of Independence between 1821 and 1829, and continuing afterWorld War I and the partition and subsequent demise of the Ottoman Empire (1918–1922). Even
today, the relationship between Greece and Turkey is one of the tensest involving a European
Union state.
The conflict
The extremely complex conflict concerns the definition of the continental shelf, the status of theislets―former possessions of the Ottoman Empire―ceded to Greece by Italy after World War
II, and the unlawful occupation (according to Greece) by Turkey of some islets ceded directly to
Greece by the Ottoman Empire after World War I.
The conflict mobilizes divergent interpretations of the law of the sea but, as in the case ofJapan and China (Senkaku archipelago) or Japan and Korea (Takeshima), the rise of militarytensions and nationalist rhetoric is the consequence rather than the primary cause of tensions
between the two countries.
In the Aegean case, Turkey refused to sign the first continental shelf convention in 1964 and is
not a member of UNCLOS (1982) because of this territorial dispute with Greece.
Between 1987 and 1996, tensions between the two countries were particularly high, almost
reaching the level of militar y conflict, with numerous incidents around the island of Imia
(Kardak in Turkish). Between 1998 and 2010, as Turkey sought to begin the process of joining
the European Union, things calmed down. However, since 2010 and a move towards a moreauthoritarian and populist regime with the election of Recep Erdogan as president of the Republic
in 2014, tensions have flared up again.
According to Article 12 of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), one of the treaties imposed on the
Ottoman Empire as a defeated power at the end of World War I, virtually all the islands, rocks
and islets in the Aegean Sea were allocated to Greece.19 Turkey was allowed to keep only those
islets that were within 2.6 nautical miles of its coastline. The most important of these are Imbros(Gökçeada) and Tenedos (Bozcaada) at the entrance to the Dardanelles. Greece now accuses
Turkey of occupying 17 islets outside this 2.6 nautical mile zone, including the island of Imia/
Kardak.
In 1947, following the end of World War II, the Treaty of Ankara also ceded to Greece theDodecanese islands, which the Italians had seized from the Ottoman Empire in 1913. Turkey
believes that these islands should have been returned to Turkey at the end of World War II.
The current situation
Despite the fact that both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, the tensions between
Greece and Turkey, far from easing, are being raised by Turkey to an almost existential conflict.
The Turkish presidentʼs nationalism plays a major role in the rising tensions. Turkey denounces
the renewal of the mutual defense treaty to contribute to stability in the region signed between
19

There are approximately 1416 features.

45
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Territorial Conflicts in Europe: Possible Lessons for Japan?

Greece and the United States in 2021, as well as Greeceʼs “militarization of the islands” anddebates concerning the possibility of maintaining a militar y contingent on a Greek island in
the Aegean Sea, the Turkish argument being that these islands should remain demilitarized. In
October 2022, a political ally of President Erdogan declared: “The islands you occupy do not bindus...”20

Factors leading to tensions and failure to resolve crises
One of the main factors of tension remains the nationalism or national-populism of one or both ofthe parties, regardless of their common strategic interests.
For instance, in the case of South Korea with the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands, relations withJapan remain highly dependent on the political evolutions in Seoul, as demonstrated by the verysignificant improvement in relations since the election of President Yoon Suk Yeol in 2022. In
Turkey also, Devlet Bahçeli, a supporter of Erdoganʼs coalition, took a particularly aggressive
stance on the issue of sovereignty over the Aegean islands on the eve of the 2023 elections. 21
In the conflict between Slovenia and Croatia, Zmago Jelinčičʼs role as leader of the nationalist
Slovenian National Party was instrumental in blocking for a time Croatiaʼs accession to theEuropean Union. In the case of Gibraltar, a nationalist dimension remains extant in Spain, albeit
less pronounced than under the dictatorship of General Franco, but it is also present in the fierce
opposition of the Gibraltarian population to being tied to Spain and their fervent desire to maintaintheir specific status as British subjects. On the other hand, this dimension was much less present
historically on the island of Saint Martin between France and the Netherlands, although this did
not prevent the conflict from requiring six years of negotiations to resolve.
In the case of Greece and Turkey, where tensions are at their highest, the membership ofboth states in NATO has not helped to resolve tensions, especially since Turkeyʼs position within
NATO and its relations with Russia have been the subject of debate, especially but not only since
the war in Ukraine began. Under these conditions, Washingtonʼs position is to express its wish
that the two parties avoid tensions.22

A peacemaking role for the European Union?
Despite its limitations, the European Union, in its various historical forms, was and is seen as animportant factor for peace on the European continent. The European framework encourages thepeaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue and negotiation and respect for international law.
Member states are expected to resolve their disputes in a peaceful manner, favoring a peaceful,non-confrontational approach. After World War II, the Constitution of the European Union in its
initial form was first and foremost an instrument for bringing the Western camp closer together
and consolidating it, and it could be argued that the main factor bringing reconciliation between
France and Germany was their membership in the same “camp.”23 The resolution or preventionof conflicts on its eastern borders was also one of the main motivations for the enlargement of
the European Union after 1991. The question is whether this factor can play a role in resolving
all conflicts. Actually, the European Union has not played a significant role in resolving conflicts,
especially internal sovereignty conflicts, and it lacks the instruments to intervene in a binding
manner.
20

Ryan Gingeras, “Why Erdogan Might Choose War with Greece,” War on the Rocks, 05-10-2022.

21

Ibid.

22

Ibid.

23

Valérie Niquet, “The Franco-German reconciliation model does not correspond to the challenges of
the Japan-PRC relationship,” Japan Review, vol 5, 2022 on https://www.jiia-jic.jp/en/japanreview/pdf/
JapanReview_Vol5_04_Niquet.pdf

46
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Valérie Niquet

In matters of sovereignty internal to member states, it cannot itself mediate between member
states on issues of sovereignty, let alone impose a decision.24 Each member state determines
the boundaries of its own territory in accordance with international law.25 This does not mean,
however, that the European Union has no role to play, especially when both parties to a conflictask the European Union to mediate.
However, the European Union can act as a normative and reassuring example, not only for its
member states but perhaps even more so for those aspiring to join. For example, while Turkey
was hoping to join the European Union, tensions with Greece were lower. Similarly, Croatia
initially accepted arbitration by the Hague Tribunal to have Slovenia withdraw its veto on Croatiaʼs
accession to the European Union. However, these motivations were not strong enough to lead toreal solutions to the problems once the veto was lifted or Turkeyʼs hopes for rapid integration into
the European Union were dashed.
However, member states are also obliged to cooperate with each other and to resolve any
disputes promptly and in accordance with international law.26
Conclusion
Conflicts within the European Union involving member states are therefore by no means rare.
However, when such conflicts do occur, their level of tension―especially militar y tension―is essentially based on factors related to the political or ideological positioning of the parties
involved. Whatever legal arguments may be used or argued, including in international arbitration
at the UN or The Hague, it is the political will to defuse or even resolve the conflict that plays adecisive role. In Europe, the nationalist or populist dimension plays a role, as may be the casebetween Japan and South Korea. In conflicts involving the PRC, on the other hand, it is thedimension of power rivalr y and the Chinese regime ʼs determination to gradually change theregional status quo and the international order by force or the threat of force that is the primaryfactor in the rise or fall of tensions. In that case, the resolution and dealing with conflicts in
Europe, and particularly between European Union member States offers a very limited model.

24

Nikos Skoutaris, “Problematising the Role of the EU in Territorial Sovereignty Conflicts,” Revistas Idees,
15-02-2021 on https://revistaidees.cat/en/problematising-the-role-of-the-eu-in-territorial-sovereigntyconflicts/

25

Josef Weinzierl, “Territoriality Beyond the State: The EUʼs Territorial Claims and the Search for Their
Legitimacy,” German Law Journal, (2021)

26

Ibid.

47
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of StateA Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of StateThe Takeshima Documents Study Group

Abstract
In October 2018, the Takeshima Documents Study Group was founded by volunteers
as a part of a research project of the Japan Institute of International Affairs to scrutinize
the Instruction of the Japanese Council of State on March 29, 1877 ( 明 治 10 年 太 政 官 指
令 , hereinafter referred to as “the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State”), in which theCouncil stated that, with respect to the Shimane Prefectureʼs / Ministry of Home Affairsʼ
inquiry on “Takeshima and the other island ( 竹島外一島 )” in the Sea of Japan, “there is no
relation to Japan.” As a result of surveys and discussions over three years, the Study Grouppublished a report and concluded that present-day Takeshima was not included among theisland(s) declared “there is no relation to Japan” in the Instruction. After its publication,
historical materials corroborating the findings of the Study Group were found. In light of
the impact that one of the major grounds of the South Korean claim over the Takeshima
is clearly refuted, the JIIA has decided to update the introductory chapter of the report,
thereby introducing the newly found materials which were made in the same period as the1877 Instruction of the Council of State. This paper is an English translation of the updated
introductory chapter.

I

Backgroundn October 2018, the Takeshima Documents Study Group was founded by volunteers as
a part of a research project of the Japan Institute of International Affairs to scrutinize
the March 29, 1877 Instruction of the Japanese Council of State (明治10年太政官指令,
hereinafter referred to as “the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State”), in which theCouncil stated that, with respect to the Shimane Prefectureʼs / Ministry of Home Affairsʼ inquiry
on “Takeshima and the other island ( 竹 島 外 一 島 )” in the Sea of Japan, “there is no relation
to Japan.” After conducting sur veys and discussions over a period of three years, the Study
Group published a report on March 31, 2022 and concluded that present-day Takeshima was notincluded among the islands determined to have “no relation to Japan” in the 1877 Instruction.
This paper is an English translation of the introductory chapter.
Historical materials corroborating the findings of the Study Group were confirmed after
its publication. This paper is updated to include these newly-confirmed materials, which wereprepared in the same period as the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State.
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and the Takeshima
Documents Study Group and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the Japan
Institute of International Affairs.

1. Introduction―Why it is necessar y to reexamine the 1877 Instruction of theCouncil of State
Takeshima, also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English and Dokdo in Korean, is an uninhabitedisland located in the Sea of Japan approximately 211 km nor th of the Japanese mainland
48
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Groupand 217km east of the Korean Peninsula at 37°14' north latitude and 131°52' east longitude.
Takeshima is comprised of two main islands, Higashijima (Mejima) Island and Nishijima (Ojima)Island, and numerous small islands. The total land area of Takeshima is approximately 0.2 square
kilometers. The two main islands are precipitous volcanic islands, and cliffs abut the coastline on
all sides. They have scarce vegetation and drinking water resources. Approximately 88km westnorthwest of Takeshima lies the Korean island of Ulleungdo, and approximately 158km southsoutheast of Takeshima are found the Japanese Oki Islands (see the map below).

Source: O f fice of Policy Planning and Coordination on Territor y and Sovereignty,
Cabinet Secretariat, website
The territorial dispute over Takeshima is one of the biggest concerns in Japan–South Korea
relations. After WWII, South Korea requested the Allied nations (including the United States)
to explicitly stipulate that Japan renounces Takeshima as a part of “Korea” in the peace treaty
with Japan. The United States denied the South Korean request in a letter from Dean Rusk, theUnited States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, that stated “...[a]s regards theisland of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabitedrock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about
1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefectureof Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.” In the San
Francisco Peace Treaty, Takeshima was affirmed as a territory of Japan. In January 1952, South
Korea issued the Presidential Proclamation of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas and establishedthe “Syngman Rhee Line” in the Sea of Japan, encompassing Takeshima within the Line. Then, in
1954, the South Korean government deployed a Coast Guard unit on Takeshima, and thus ensued
the illegal occupation of Takeshima by South Korea.

49
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

Chronological Histor y of Ulleungdo and Takeshima
Year

Events1417

The Joseon Dynasty adopted the “Empty Island” policy on Ulleungdo and the Japanesestarted fishing activities on and around the island.

17th century

Merchants in Yonago conducted abalone fishing and sea lion hunting on Ulleungdo(known as “Takeshima” at the time) with permission from the Edo Shogunate. Later,
the merchants star ted a similar business on present-day Takeshima (known as“Matsushima” at the time), located on the route from Oki to Ulleungdo. Later, passage
to Takeshima was also permitted by the Edo Shogunate.

1696

The Edo Shogunate prohibited the passage of merchants in Yonago to Ulleungdo,
also known as “Takeshima” at the time. However, passage to present-day Takeshima(known as “Matsushima” at the time) was not prohibited.

As a result of some inaccuracies in latitudinal and longitudinal charting by a European
Late 18th century ship, a non-existent island known as Argonaut started being depicted between the
Korean Peninsula and Ulleungdo, also known as Dagelet, in European maps.
A German doctor named Philipp Franz von Siebold, who had stayed in Japan,
published a “Map of Japan” (1840) in Europe. Siebold designated Argonaut asMid-19th century “Takasima” and Ulleungdo (Dagelet) as “Matsusima” on his map. As a result,
Ulleungdo started being called “Matsushima” in European maps, and such maps were
imported to Japan.
1877

The Japanese Council of State stated in the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State
that, with respect to the inquiry on “Takeshima and the other island” (the other island
being “Matsushima”), “there is no relation to Japan” (the main topic of this paper).

1905

The Japanese government incorporated Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture at therequest of Nakai Yōzaburō, who had conducted sea lion hunting on present-day
Takeshima. The name “Takeshima” was given to present-day Takeshima because
Ulleungdo was called “Matsushima” at the time (hereinafter “Takeshima” refers topresent-day Takeshima when touching upon history after 1905).

1951

The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed. It was decided that Japan would retain
Takeshima.

1952

South Korea issued a declaration concerning maritime sovereignty and establishedthe “Syngman Rhee Line” in the Sea of Japan, asserting fishery jurisdiction within theLine. The Line encompassed Takeshima so a territorial dispute over Takeshima arose.
In 1954, the South Korean government started its illegal occupation of Takeshima.

2. South Korea has invoked the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State tojustify its territorial claim over Takeshima
After the outbreak of the dispute over Takeshima, Japan and South Korea exchanged views via
attachments to their notes verbales, but this ended in South Koreaʼs complete defeat as it wasnever able to produce any valid grounds for its possession during the exchange of views, andwas unable to refute “The Japanese Governmentʼs views on the Korean Governmentʼs views ofJanuary 7, 1959, concerning Takeshima” (July 13, 1962, the so-called Fourth Japanese View).
With regard to the display of state authority1 over present-day Takeshima, Japan has a clear upper
1

International trials on territorial disputes have sought rational solutions based on indications of“peaceful and continuous display of State authority.” This means a state wins the case if it has exercisedsovereignty and that exercise has not been contested by other countries. If both parties have conducted
such activities, it comes down to which party presents the stronger evidence or grounds.

50
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Group

hand: ① the Japanese government was involved in the economic activities of Japanese nationals
on the island in the 17th century and ② Japan implemented a variety of administrative measures
after its incorporation into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. The South Korean government could
not have been able to show any proof that it has exercised sovereignty over the island but South
Korea has, nonetheless, refused to even admit the existence of a dispute over Takeshima andrejected Japanʼs proposals to refer the case to the International Court of Justice in 1954, 1962, and2012.
This inability to legitimize the South Korean claim based on Korean sources was what
motivated them to turn to the use of Japanese sources. The 1877 Instruction of the Council ofState was a suitable target for the Korean side in adopting this approach.
The 1877 Instruction of the Council of State was an instruction issued by the Council ofState2 to the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1877. In March 1877, the Council of State instructed
the Ministry of Home Affairs to “understand that, with respect to the inquiry on Takeshima andthe other island, there is no relation to Japan” in response to an inquiry from said Ministry titled“Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea of Japan into theLand Register.” The instruction was conveyed to Shimane Prefecture, which originally issued theinquiry, via the Ministry of Home Affairs. At the time, the Ministry of Home Affairs was taking
initiative to compile a land registry. Shimane Prefectureʼs original inquiry was sent to the Ministryof Home Affairs after two land register incorporation supervisors of the Ministry had sent a letter(Otsu No.28) to the prefecture to propose to do so (see the figure below).

Examination Process of Inquir y on “Takeshima and the Other Island”
October 5, 1876

October 16, 1876

2

Two land register incorporation super visors of the Ministr y of Home
Affairs sent a letter (Otsu No.28) to Shimane Prefecture to propose that theprefecture conduct an investigation on Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and send
the Ministry an inquiry over whether the prefecture should incorporate theisland into its land register.
Sakai Jirō, Vice-Governor of Shimane Prefecture, sent an inquir y on
“Takeshima and the other island” to Ōkubo Toshimichi, Minister for Home
Affairs (“Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in

Dajoˉkan or the Council of State was a Japanese state organ in the late 19th centur y under whose
command ministries operated. It was set up in 1868 and re-formed as the Cabinet in 1885.

51
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

March 17, 1877

March 20, 1877
March 29, 1877
April 9, 1877

the Sea of Japan into the Land Register”).
Maejima Hisoka, Vice-Minister for Home Affairs, sent an inquiry (Shimachi
No. 664) to the Council of State to get its approval for the Ministr y ʼ s
judgment that “there is no relation to Japan.”A Council of State of ficial drafted an approval document for the 1877
Instruction of the Council of State (Draft No. 20).
The 1877 Instruction of the Council of State was sent from Iwakura Tomomi,
Minister of the Right, to Maejima Hisoka, Vice-Minister for Home Affairs.
Maejima Hisoka, Vice-Minister for Home Affairs, instructed Sakai Jirō, ViceGovernor of Shimane Prefecture, to “understand that, with respect to theinquiry on Takeshima and the other island, there is no relation to Japan.”

The first time the 1877 Instruction was referenced in Japanese or Korean academia was ina paper by Hori Kazuo (later a professor at Kyoto University). 3 Based on an interpretation of
the 1877 Instruction that “Takeshima” refers to present-day Ulleungdo and “the other island”
to present-day Takeshima, he argued that “the Dajōkan (the Council of State), the highest
government organ in Japan at that time, formally declared, on the basis of the reports of both
Shimane Prefecture and the Ministry of Home Affairs and treating Takeshima/Ulleungdo andMatsushima/Tokdo as an integral whole, that these two islands were not Japanʼs territory.”In the Edo era (1603–1867), present-day Takeshima was called “Matsushima” in Japan,
whereas Ulleungdo was called “Takeshima” or “Isotakeshima.” In the 19th century, inaccuracies
in the latitudinal and longitudinal charting of Ulleungdo resulted in the island being depicted asconsisting of two separate islands on maps subsequently produced in Europe: Dagelet Island,
whose location was thought to be the same as present-day Ulleungdo, and non-existent Argonaut
Island, which was thought closer to the coast of the Korean Peninsula. A doctor named Philipp
Franz von Siebold created a “Map of Japan” (1840) based on the knowledge he had acquired
during his stay in Japan. Siebold believed that Argonaut and Dagelet Islands were “Takeshima”
and “Matsushima,” respectively, and drew up a map based on this understanding. Western maps
thereafter followed suit. In the latter half of the 19th century, Japan imported Western maps andstarted calling Ulleungdo “Matsushima.” Experts in Japan and Korea share the view that “theother island” was an island called “Matsushima.” Thus, the controversy comes down to which“Matsushima” the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State refers: the “Matsushima” of the Edo era(present-day Takeshima) or that of the late 19th century (Ulleungdo)? The arguments of both the
Korean government and Professor Hori are premised on the hypothesis that the Council of State
maintained its Edo-era recognition of “Matsushima.”3

堀和生「一九〇五年日本の竹島領土編入」『朝鮮史研究会論文集』24 (1987.3) pp. 97–125. Hori Kazuo,“Japanʼs Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905,” Korea Observer, Vol.28 No.3 (September1997), p.477–525. The latter is an English translation of the former. The citation is taken from the latter.

52
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Takeshima

ROK

Oki Islands

The Takeshima Documents Study Group
ShimanePref.

Chart 1: Early Names

Takeshima /Isotakeshima
UtsuryoIslandROK

ImaginaryIslandMatsushima

Matsusima (Siebold)
Utsuryo Island

Takasima (Siebold)Takeshima
ROK*The island now known as
Takeshima came to be called“Lyanko Islands,” so named
after the French ship,
Liancourt, that discovered
the island.

Oki Islands

Chart 1: Early Names

ShimanePref.

Takeshima
Lyanko Islands(common name)Oki Islands

Chart 2: Names in the late 19th century

ShimanePref.

Source:O f fice of Policy Planning and Coordination on Ter ritor y andImaginary(Siebold)
MatsusimaIslandSovereignty,
CabinetSecretariat, website
Utsuryo Island
Takasima (Siebold)Takeshima

The 1877 Instruction of the Council of State had a remarkable impact on Korean academia as
Lyanko Islands
ROK(commona plain indication of the “falsehood
the Japanese governmentʼs view that Japanese possession” of name)*The island now known as
Takeshima cameTakeshima
to be calledover present-day
wasestablishedin the 17th centur y (Edo period). The ROK
Oki Islands“Lyanko Islands,” so named
government
adoptedthe 1877 Instruction as a part of its official views, in particular in “Dokdo,
after theFrench ship,
Liancourt, that discovered
BeautifultheIslandof
Korea,” a pamphlet issued by the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
island.
It is also
used as an indispensable partof South Korean “Dokdo education.” For instance, theShimaneChart 2: Names in the late 19th century
Pref.Years 5–6: Social Studies (6–2)” , the governmentMinistr y of Educationʼs “Primar y School
designated elementar y school textbook first published on August 15, 2019, introduces the1877 Instruction to “inform of the truth those who believe the false claim that Dokdo has been
Japanese territory since ancient times.” The 1877 Instruction plays an important role in Korean
public diplomacy on Takeshima as well.
As the 1877 Instruction exclusively concerns the Japanese sideʼs perception, it is necessary
for South Koreans to present separate evidence to the effect that present-day Takeshima has been
Korean territory since the premodern period. Nonetheless, the 1877 Instruction has come tohave the power to make not only Koreans but also some Japanese experts believe Korean claimthat Takeshima is Korean territory. This likely has a lot to do with the visual impact of a map
titled Simplified Map of Isotakeshima ( 磯竹島略図 ) (see the map below). This is stored among
the Koˉbunroku ( 公文録 ) (Compilation of Official Documents [exchanged between the Council ofState and ministries]) at the National Archives of Japan as one of the documents attached to theinquiry that Shimane Prefecture submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Some researchers inJapan and South Korea argue that it is obvious that “the other island” mentioned in “Takeshima
and the other island” by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Council of State refers to presentday Takeshima since this map depicts “Isotakeshima” (Ulleungdo) and “Matsushima” (present-day
Takeshima), leaving no room for further argument. They maintain that the Japanese government
adhered to the Edo-era recognition of “Matsushima.”

53
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

Simplified Map of Isotakeshima
Source: National Archives of Japan Digital Archive

3. Examination and Conclusions of the Takeshima Document Study Group

Did “the other island” of “Takeshima and the other island” in the 1877 Instruction of the Councilof State refer to present-day Takeshima? Over the past three years, the Study Group has
scrutinized the texts of all the documents stored together with the 1877 Instruction in Koˉbunroku,
sur veyed other relevant documents and maps at the time, and examined historical facts thatshould be considered. After the Study Group issued a report in March 2022, new documents wereconfirmed. Consequently, the Study Group has concluded that the 1877 Instruction has nothing
to do with present-day Takeshima. To put it differently, the Japanese government at the time did
not maintain the Edo-era recognition that “Matsushima” referred to present-day Takeshima when
it issued the 1877 Instruction, as opposed to the arguments put forth by Professor Hori and South
Korea. The grounds for the Study Groupʼs judgment are summarized as follows.
① The main text of the inquir y from the Ministr y of Home Affairs to the Council of State
started with “with respect to the inquiry on the jurisdiction over Takeshima...,” examined only
Takeshima, and did not refer to “the other island” or “Matsushima” at all (“the other island”
appeared only in the title of the inquiry).
② The Simplified Map of Isotakeshima and other documents submitted by Shimane Prefecture
to the Ministry of Home Affairs were attached to the inquiry from the Ministry to the Councilof State simply to explain Shimane Prefectureʼs inquiry. They were not used in the inquiry as abasis for the Ministryʼs judgment that “there is no relation to Japan.” In addition, documents on
the exchanges between the Japanese and Korean governments in the 17th century on Ulleungdo(there is not even a single reference to “Matsushima” in the documents) were attached to theinquiry from the Ministry as grounds to conclude that “there is no relation to Japan” and theCouncil of State approved the Ministryʼs judgment.
③ “Matsushima” in the official maps made by the Japanese government at the time referred toDagelet Island, i.e., Ulleungdo.
④ After the issuance of a repor t by the Study Group, one of its members confirmed an
official document that clearly shows that the Ministry of Home Affairs at the time considered“Matsushima” to be Ulleungdo: a reply letter sent from Ōkubo Toshimichi, Minister for Home
Affairs, to the governor of Nagasaki Prefecture, who had proposed to develop “Matsushima”
as the island was rich in forestry and fishery resources. It has become clearer than ever that
the South Korean argument does not hold water. Ōkubo dismissed the governorʼs proposal,
explicitly stating that the Ministry had “found that there is no relation to Japan” with respect
to “Matsushima” as a result of careful examination of the documents related to the exchanges
between the Japanese and Korean governments in the 17th century when Shimane Prefecture
sent an inquiry on “the island.” As mentioned above, it was “Takeshima” that the main text of the54
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Groupinquiry from the Ministry of Home Affairs referred to in the case of Shimane Prefectureʼs inquiry.
Consequently, it has become crystal clear that the Ministry and the Council of State consideredboth “Takeshima” and “the other island (Matsushima)” to be Ulleungdo when the Council issued
the 1877 Instruction.
⑤ Moreover, the members of the Study Group confirmed several other documents that show
Japanese government officials around 1876 and 1877 recognized Ulleungdo as “Matsushima.”
Each point is explained in detail below.

4. Analysis of original documents (Chapter 2)

Chapter 2 (“The ʻInstruction of the Council of Stateʼ and the Genroku Japan–Korea Negotiations”
by Tsukamoto Takashi, former professor at Tokai University) analyzes documents concerning
the “Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea of Japan into theLand Register” in Koˉbunroku, focusing mainly on its texts. The author points out that the approval
document of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State stated that the Council should endorse
the proposal by the Ministry of Home Affairs in its inquiry. Therefore, the author asserts that the
texts of the Ministryʼs inquiry need to be scrutinized to consider whether the 1877 Instruction of
the Council of State decided “there is no relation to Japan” vis-à-vis present-day Takeshima.
Analyzing the structure of the inquiry by the Ministry of Home Affairs, he revisits documentson the Japan–Korea negotiations over Takeshima at the time (Ulleungdo) in the Genroku period(excerpts from the Takeshima Kiji ( 竹島紀事 ), a record from Tsushima Domain), highlighted by
the Ministry as Reference Materials No. 1 to No. 4 and used as a basis for its judgment. He thenpoints out that there is no mention of present-day Takeshima in the reference materials selectedby the Ministry. In the Genroku Japan–Korea negotiations, present-day Takeshima was not partof the negotiations. The negotiations came about when Japanese merchants ran into Korean
fishermen on Takeshima at the time (Ulleungdo). As the Japanese side was concerned withpossible interactions between Japanese and Koreans on the island, the Edo Shogunate requested
that the Joseon Dynasty prohibit Korean fishermen from traveling to Ulleungdo. The sameproblem did not apply to present-day Takeshima, where no Korean fishermen had shown up.
Moreover, seeing how the inquiry from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Council of State
starts with “[a]s we have investigated the attached documents submitted by Shimane Prefectureon the subject of jurisdiction over TAKESHIMA (Ulleungdo), THIS ISLAND [...] (emphasis
added by the author),” we should note that the judgment by the Ministry that “there is no relation
to Japan” solely concerns “Takeshima.” Subsequently, the Council of State endorsed the judgmentof the Ministry of Home Affairs, which only considered “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo), so the 1877
Instruction of the Council of State did not decide “there is no relation to Japan” with respect topresent-day Takeshima.
On the other hand, the Summary of Background Information ( 原由の大略 ) and the Simplified
Map of Isotakeshima were documents attached to Shimane Prefectureʼs inquiry. The documents
submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Council of State include these documents, but
the author points out that these were attached simply as part of Shimane Prefectureʼs original
inquir y and were not referenced during the examination by the Ministr y of Home Affairs to
render a judgment. They were attached just to show why the Ministry had submitted the inquiry
and what the inquiry was about.
Shimane Prefecture submitted the Summary of Background Information and the Simplified
Map of Isotakeshima to show that, in exchange for Korean recognition that Takeshima at the time
(Ulleungdo) belonged to Japan, the Edo Shogunate prohibited passage to the island by Japanesemerchants and granted fishing and hunting rights to Korea. This understanding was the basis of
Shimane Prefectureʼs request to incorporate into the prefecture “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) and“Matsushima,” “the other island” on route to “Takeshima.” However, the Ministry of Home Affairs
55
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

did not share the prefectureʼs understanding and thus did not approve its request. While the
Ministry continued to use the title of the inquiry, “Takeshima and the Other Island,” it examined
only “Takeshima” and concluded that “it appears that there is no relation to Japan.” This was
because the Ministr y believed that both “Takeshima” and “the other island (Matsushima)”
referred to Ulleungdo and it was sufficient to examine only that one island.

5. Perceptions of Shimane Prefecture (Chapter 3 and 4)
Chapter 3 onward examines the background and surrounding circumstances of the 1877
Instruction of the Council of State. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on the perceptions of Shimane
Prefecture. Chapter 3 essentially highlights Sakai Jirō, the top decision-maker in Shimane
Prefecture on the “Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea ofJapan into the Land Register,” while Chapter 4 mainly discusses the Shimane Prefecture file “1876Land Register.”
Chapter 3 (“ʻThe Instruction of the Council of Stateʼ in Light of the Histor y of the SanʼinRegion” by Sugihara Takashi, special advisor to the Shimane Prefecture Takeshima Archive),
focuses on Sakai Jirō, who served as Vice-Governor of Shimane Prefecture at the time, while
examining the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State based on sources related to the historyof the Sanʼin region to be found in Shimane Prefecture. It shows that ① a request to develop“Takeshima” (1871) submitted by Fuji Shigechika (born in Fukuoka Prefecture), who served
as Vice-Governor of Oki and Hamada Prefectures in 1869–1870, indicates his perceptionthat “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” refer to the same island. Sakai Jirō then asked Fukuoka
Prefecture about Fuji around the same time that the “Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima
and the Other Island in the Sea of Japan into the Land Register” was submitted to the Ministry ofHome Affairs in 1876, and the author points out the possibility that he may have wanted to know
about Fujiʼs perception of equating “Takeshima” with “Matsushima.” Moreover, ② (a) when Sakai
Jirō (then Governor) received a request to develop “Matsushima” (actually Ulleungdo) fromŌya Kensuke and another person in 1880, he asked the Ministry of Home Affairs if the policy
regarding the island had changed since the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State to “establish
it within the countryʼs territory” and (b) Sakai Jirōʼs subordinate Shimizu Seitarōʼs Oki no Kuni
Chishi Ryaku (Simplified Geographical Records of Oki Province) only mentions “Takeshima”
when introducing the geography of Oki Province. This leads the author to argue that “Takeshima”
and “Matsushima” may have been used interchangeably (meaning that they were the sameisland). Based on this, he writes that Sakai used the phrase “Takeshima and the other island”
in the “Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea of Japan into
the Land Register” to make sure that the inquiry would concern an island whose existence wascertain. Although he knew that he had been asked to inquire with the Ministry of Home Affairs
about the “Takeshima” land register, the existence of Argonaut Island as “Takeshima” was unclear
and often drawn with dotted lines at the time, while “Matsushima” in the same position as Dagelet
Island was drawn with solid lines. By adding “the other island” in his inquiry, Sakai avoided thesituation where Shimane Prefecture inquired only about a non-existent island.
Chapter 4 (“Incorporation into the Shimane Prefecture Land Register and the ʻInquiry on
the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea of Japan into the Land Registerʼ”by Uchida Teruko, temporar y staff member at the Shimane Prefecture Takeshima Archive),
analyzes the “1876 Land Register,” a document file prepared in Shimane Prefecture as the
Ministr y of Home Affairs conducted the land register incorporation project, and examines
historical facts related to Shimane Prefectureʼs inquiry to the Ministry of Home Affairs dated
October 16, 1876, which served as the prelude to the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State.
In particular, the author focuses on a visit to the prefecture made by land register incorporation
supervisors (Sugiyama Eizō and Tajiri Kenshin) from the Land Register Division, Geography
56
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Group

Bureau, Ministr y of Home Affairs. She then points out that Sugiyama Eizō was from Tottori
Prefecture and had served as an official of Tottori Prefecture until 1873 (Oki belonged to Tottori
Prefecture at the time). Moreover, when Tottori Prefecture was asked to check the “Compendiumof Japanese Geography, First Draft” (out of “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” it only mentions
the former in the part about Oki) drafted by the Geographical Record Division of the Central
State Council in 1873, the Prefecture advised after much deliberation that both “Takeshima” and“Matsushima” ought to be mentioned, which was accepted by the Geographical Record Division
as they added a reference to “Matsushima” in the revised “Compendium of Japanese Geography.”
The author points out that Ōtsuka Shōzō from the former Tottori Prefecture, who was involvedin this, still belonged to Shimane Prefectureʼs Tottori Branch Office (Tottori Prefecture wasincorporated into Shimane Prefecture in August 1876) when Sugiyama visited the prefecture.
Moreover, she writes that documents referenced in Shimane Prefectureʼs inquiry, including “theold documents of the Ōya and Murakawa families,” merchants in Yonago who conducted abalone
fishing and sea lion hunting on Ulleungdo in the 17th century, and old maps were produced in
the area of Tottori Prefecture and that the Tottori Branch Office must have been involved in thedrafting of the Summary of Background Information and the Simplified Map of Isotakeshima.
Moreover, Sugiyama was in Toyooka Prefecture right before arriving in Shimane Prefecture,and the Governor of Toyooka at the time was Miyoshi Kanesuke. Miyoshi had previously served
as Vice-Governor of Tottori Prefecture, being in charge also when the aforementioned revisions
to the “Compendium of Japanese Geography” were discussed. After returning to Tokyo from
Shimane Prefecture, Sugiyama and Tajiri sent a document dated October 5, 1876 and basedon verbal discussions during their visit, requesting that Shimane Prefecture investigate oldsources about “Takeshima” and make an inquir y to the Ministr y of Home Affairs (Otsu No.
28). This document was shared by Shimane Prefecture with Hyogo Prefecture (which had justbeen reorganized from Toyooka Prefecture) on the following day, October 6. Considering thesefacts, she points out that Miyoshi and others in former Toyooka Prefecture were interested in“Takeshima” and likely brought it up also when Sugiyama was in Toyooka Prefecture.
While Otsu No. 28 makes mention of only “Takeshima,” the title of Shimane Prefectureʼsinquiry to the Ministry of Home Affairs mentions “Takeshima and the other island.” The authordraws attention to the fact that “the other island” only appears in the title, and the main text only
talks about “Takeshima.” The appendices thought to be based on documents held by the former
Tottori Prefecture and drafted by prefectural officials―Summary of Background Information and
Simplified Map of Isotakeshima―clearly mention both “Takeshima” and “Matsushima.” In thisregard, she points out that the authors of the main text and the appendices were likely not thesame, as well as that “Takeshima and the other island” may have been inserted into the title inconsideration of the appendices. She then goes on to argue that, since there is no indication that
Shimane Prefecture asked the central government about the interpretation of the 1877 Instructionof the Council of State after its issuance and the prefecture asked the Ministr y of Home
Affairs about any changes to the “last Instruction” after receiving Ōya Kensukeʼs “Matsushima
Development Request” (“Matsushima” here meaning Ulleungdo) in 1881, it seems that people in
Shimane Prefecture also thought that both “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” referred to Ulleungdo.
Meanwhile, Watanabe Kōki, the director of the Records Department at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, wrote that “[a]lthough it is said that Matsushima and Takeshima refer to the same island,
namely what the Koreans call Ulleungdo, the governor of the former Tottori Prefecture argued
that they are definitely two islands.” He pointed out that this means a certain governor of theformer Tottori Prefecture thought “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” referred to different islands.
As we consider that the main text of the inquiry, the Summary of Background Information, andother appendices were drafted by different people, it is likely that not all the officials in Shimane
Prefecture (especially those from the former Tottori Prefecture) shared the understanding that
57
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State“Takeshima” and “Matsushima” were the same island.
Considering Chapters 3 and 4 as a whole, it is suggested that not all Shimane Prefecture
officials involved in the drafting of its inquiry, including those from the former Tottori Prefecture,shared the same understanding on what island(s) the prefecture had inquired about in the“Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea of Japan into theLand Register.” We also cannot deny the possibility that Shimane Prefectureʼs inquiry itself could
be the product of a compromise of the two views that “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” were
the same island (main text of the inquiry) and that they are separate (appendices). As pointed
out in Chapter 3, maps printed in the West and by Japanese government organizations such as
the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy treated “Takeshima” as “E.D.” (existence doubtful). On
the other hand, mentions of “Takeshima” were overwhelmingly more numerous than those of“Matsushima” in old documents in Japan. One way to think about this is that “Takeshima” and“Matsushima” did refer to the same island, but the old documents clearly said that they wereseparate and, as the existence of “Matsushima” had been visually confirmed on the sea route
between Nagasaki and Vladivostok, some continued to insist that “Matsushima,” a large andresource-rich island different from Ulleungdo, must exist.

6. The nature of “1877 Instruction” as a government document (Chapter 4,
cont.)
Chapter 4 also examines the relevant regulations of the Council of State on inquiries fromvarious ministries as well as regulations on the selection of documents in the Koˉbunroku and the
Dajoˉruiten ( 太政類典 , Precedents and Rules of the Council of State).
The Council of State was asked by other ministries to make decisions on various matters
ranging from important to trivial ones. For instance, listed in the Koˉbunroku right before thedocuments on the “Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in the Sea
of Japan into the Land Register” are those concerning the “Inquiry on the Transfer of Land from
Nagasaki Hospital to the Pharmaceutical Inspection Office ” and the “Inquir y on Relocation
Payments to Purchase Foreign National Residences in Yamate, Yokohama.”
Recognizing that they were making decisions about various matters of differing importance,
the Coordination Bureau (Secretariat) of the Council of State proposed to categorize official
documents based on their importance, saying “[w]e believe that governmental affairs range fromthe important to the trivial and this holds true in documents. We currently have so many pending
documents that we fear troubles and complications might occur unless they are categorizedaccording to importance.” [A rule on documents approved by the Council of State on February
14, 1877, titled “Official Documents Shall be Divided into the Four Categories of Laws ( 法律 ), Regulations ( 行 政 規 則 ), Bylaws ( 訓 條 ) and Replies ( 批 文 ).”] According to the rule,
instructions ( 指令 ) of the Council of State are distinguished from laws and regulations such as“ordinances ( 布告 ), directions ( 達 ) and ministerial ordinances ( 布達 ),” and are described ingeneral as “[i]n addition to instructing ministries that have asked about unregulated matters,
instructions of the Council of State ordinarily include instructions in response to legal queries andother minor matters, with dozens of documents being transacted on a daily basis, thereby shifting
the responsibilities of the ministries.” [ibid.] A red stamp that says “Hibun (Replies)” can be foundoutside the top row of the inquiry of the Ministry of Home Affairs discussed in this report. Thisis defined as “providing directions to those who ask questions about laws, regulations, and bylaws
or about unregulated matters.”
As such, the assertion of a Korean researcher that the “1877 Instruction is an extremely
legally binding document as it is an official document issued by the Council of State (the prime

58
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Group

minister today) as the highest political decision-making organ in Japan at the time”4 is erroneous.
As suggested by the fact that the document was categorized as “Replies,” the 1877 Instruction wasa response to an inquiry from the Ministry of Home Affairs/Shimane Prefecture (an interaction
between government agencies) and neither a law nor a regulation. Of course, this does not denythat the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State is indicative of the judgment and perception of
the Council of State and the Ministry of Home Affairs, but it is necessary to discuss what theirperception was in light of their decision to respond to the inquiry with a reply ( 批文 ).

7. Perceptions of the Ministr y of Home Af fairs and the Council of State (1)(Chapter 5) : Analysis of maps published by central government agencies

Chapter 5 (“ʻTakeshima and the Other Islandʼ from the Perspective of the Parties Concerned―Ministry of Home Affairs and Council of State” by the Takeshima Documents Study Group)
examines the perceptions of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Council of State by looking
into maps issued by central government agencies. It points out that the discussions about the“Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island into the Land Register” were
held around the same time that perceptions about “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” were changing
in Japan. Against this background, it is noted that determining the scope of “Takeshima and theother island” in the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State requires considering maps publishedby central government agencies at the time.
Checking maps published by government agencies such as the Army, the Navy, and theGeographical Record Section of the Department of the Council of State in the five years between
1872 and 1877, “Matsushima” on all the maps showing “Matsushima” in the figure below refers
to Dagelet Island (Ulleungdo). Examining the maps made by the Geographical Record Section of
the Council of State, the Section perceived Argonaut Island to be “Takeshima” and Dagelet Island
to be “Matsushima” around 1873–1874. Then, as shown in the figure below, it became common for
Argonaut Island to not be drawn or to be drawn with dotted lines, and its non-existence became
widely accepted. “Matsushima” consistently refers to Ulleungdo on all the maps published by
Japanese government agencies.
Considering the above, it is clear that “the other island” in the 1877 Instruction of the Councilof State, or “Matsushima,” refers to Ulleungdo. In addition, while the Japanese government
perceived “Takeshima” to be Argonaut Island in 1873–1874, by the time that the 1877 Instruction
was issued, the non-existence of Argonaut Island had become widely accepted. In this regard, it
is likely that government agencies such as the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Council of State
considered both “Takeshima” and “the other island (Matsushima)” in the 1877 Instruction to refer
to Ulleungdo, as indicated by a passage in Kitazawa Masanariʼs report Takeshima Ko
ˉshoˉ (A Studyof Takeshima) showing that the majority of officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs believed“Takeshima” and “Matsushima” were the same island around 1876.

4

송휘영「17 세기 일본의독도 인식과 ‛ 고유영토론’」『일본의 독도 영유권 주장의 허상』( 동북아역사재단 , 2018) [ 宋彙榮「17 世紀 日本の独島認識と ʻ 固有領土論 ʼ」『日本の独島領有権主張の虚像』（東
北アジア歴史財団 , 2018 年）Song Hwi-Yeong, “Japanese Perception of Dokdo in the 17th century andassertion of inherent territory,” Myth of Japan’s territorial claim over Dokdo (Northeast Asian History
Foundation, 2018)] p.106.

59
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

Perceptions about “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” on Maps Made by Japanese
Government Agencies in the Early Meiji Period
Present-day
Takeshima

Argonaut Island

Dagelet Island

Take I.

Matsou I.

Not depicted on
the map

The Complete Map of Korea ( 朝鮮全図 )Takeshima

Matsushima

Outside of thearea covered by
the map

Map of East Coast of Korea ( 朝鮮東海岸図 )Argonaut Island

1875 Ver.:
Dagelet Island
1876 Ver.:
Matsushima

Olivutsa andMenelai

Map of East Asia ( 亜細亜東部輿地図 )Takeshima

Matsushima

Not depicted on
the map

The Complete Map of the Land and Sea
Not depicted onof Japan and Adjacent Areas of Korea andthe map
Sakhalin ( 大日本海陸全図聯接朝鮮全国並樺太 )Matsushima

Olivutsa andMenelai

The Complete Map of Japan ( 大日本国全図 )Not depicted on

Not depicted on Not depicted on
the map
the map

The Complete Map of Japan ( 大日本国全図 )Takeshima

Matsushima

The Complete Map of Japan ( 大日本全図 )Not depicted on

Not depicted on Not depicted on
the map
the map

The Complete Map of Japan ( 日本全図 )Takeshima
Matsushima(with dotted lines)

Carte du L’Empire du Japon(made by a cartographer of the Geographical Record
Division of the Council of State and possibly exhibitedat the International Exposition in Vienna in 1873)(made by General Staff Office, Imperial Japanese Army, (with dottedin 1875)
lines)(made by Hydrographic Bureau, Ministry of the Navy,in 1875 and revised in 1876)(made by General Staff Office, Japanese Imperial Army, (with dotted lines)
in 1875)(made by Hydrographic Bureau, Ministry of the Navy,in 1875)(made by Geographical Record Section, Historiography the map
Bureau, Council of State, in 1876 as an exhibit for theInternational Exposition in Philadelphia) (the exhibition
was canceled because the map was not completed intime)(made by the Geographical Record Section,
Historiography Bureau, Council of State, probably
around 1876 to show the locations of lighthouses)(made by General Staff Office, Japanese Imperial Army, the map
in 1877)(made by Ministry of Education, in 1877)

Not depicted on
the map

Not depicted on
the map

8. Perceptions of the Ministr y of Home Af fairs and the Council of State (2) :Exchanges between the central government and the governor of Nagasaki
Prefecture
The report of the Takeshima Documents Study Group concluded that present-day Takeshima
was beyond the scope of “Takeshima and the other island” in the 1877 Instruction of the Councilof State. After the publication of the report, two new documents were confirmed as a result ofinvestigation and research by Shimane Prefecture, and Fujii Kenji wrote an article about them.
These documents not only support the conclusion of the report but also prove that the Ministryof Home Affairs and the Council of State perceived both “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” to be
60
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Group

Ulleungdo in the process of examining the inquiry on “Takeshima and the other Island.”One of these documents is a reply letter dated August 18, 1877 from Ōkubo Toshimichi,
Minister for Home Affairs, to Kitajima Hidetomo, Governor of Nagasaki Prefecture.5 In theletter, Ōkubo denied Kitajimaʼs request expressed in his letter dated July 13, 1877 to develop“ Matsushima ” under the jurisdiction of Nagasaki Prefecture. This “ Matsushima ” must be
Ulleungdo because Kitajima ʼs letter stated that “the island is covered by dense forest, andbig trees can be found around the island.” Present-day Takeshima is a group of small rocky
islands with poor vegetation. In his reply letter, Ōkubo stated that, with respect to “the island inquestion,” the Ministry had decided “there is no relation to Japan” as a result of an examinationof the exchanges between Japan and Korea pertaining to the Genroku Takeshima Incident in the
17th century, and the Ministryʼs judgment had received approval from the Council of State. In
other words, Ōkubo specified that, with respect to the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State,“Matsushima” had been the subject of discussion in both the inquiry from the Ministry of Home
Affairs and the reply from the Council of State. On the other hand, as mentioned above, theMinistry of Home Affairs only identified Takeshima as the subject of discussion in its inquiry
pertaining to the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State. Therefore, it has become crystal clearthat both the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Council of State considered both “Takeshima” and“Matsushima” to refer to the island that was discussed in the Genroku Takeshima Incident, i.e.,
Ulleungdo.
Another such document was the “ Petition on the Development of Matsushima” 6 dated
December 9, 1876 that Kitajima submitted to Ōkubo Toshimichi, Minister for Home Affairs,
and Terashima Munenori, Minister for Foreign Affairs. In this petition, Kitajima stated that it
would be profitable if Japan were to export lumber from “Matsushima” to Vladivostok. This
“Matsushima” must be Ulleungdo because it is the only island on which forestry could develop in
the Sea of Japan. It is important that this petition was sent to both the Ministry of Home Affairs
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In December 1876, the Ministry of Home Affairs was still
conducting the investigation it had begun in response to the inquiry on “Takeshima and the otherisland” from Shimane Prefecture. It is not plausible that the Ministry of Home Affairs, which
had the latest geographical information, depended upon only the old Edo-era information in theSummary of Background Information and the Simplified Map of Isotakeshima, the appendices of
the inquiry from Shimane Prefecture. It is quite natural that the Ministry of Home Affairs drafted
its inquiry to the Council of State while taking into account the latest geographical perception that
“Matsushima” referred to Ulleungdo.
The two above-mentioned documents, one of which was prepared right after the issuanceof the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State and the other when the Ministry of Home Affairs
was examining the inquiry from Shimane Prefecture, make clear the perception of the Ministryof Home Affairs on “Matsushima.” They support the conclusion of the report by the Takeshima
Documents Study Group. Moreover, they prove that the Ministr y of Home Affairs and theCouncil of State perceived “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” to be Ulleungdo. The chart below
shows the relevant documents in chronological order. “The other island,” namely “Matsushima,”
referred to present-day Takeshima in the appendices of the inquiry from Shimane Prefecture.
5

The document is filed in “Hanabusa Yoshimoto related documents” owned by Tokyo Metropolitan
University Library ( 東京都立大学附属図書館蔵『花房義質関係文書』「書類の部」「A 朝鮮国関係 4 公務類・公信類」「2) 対朝鮮交渉のための書類一綴り明治９年６月 10 日〜明治 10 年 11 月 23 日」).

6

The document was confirmed in a file in Nagasaki Museum of History and Culture. The title of the fileis『明治九年 外務課事務簿 拾遺書類 雑之部 第二 .』For more detail, please see Fujii Kenji, “Researchon the Dajōkan Instruction has come to a new phase,” Mid-term Report of the 5th term of the Takeshima
Issue Research Group (Shimane Prefecture, 2023)[ 藤井賢二「新局面を迎えた「太政官指令」問題研究」
第５期竹島問題研究会編『第５期「竹島問題に関する調査研究」中間報告書』(2023 年 )].

61
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

The Ministry of Home Affairs considered “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” to be Ulleungdo anddrafted its inquiry based on such understanding, and the Council of State endorsed the Ministryʼs
judgment. The 1877 Instruction in which the Council of State “understand(s) that, with respect tothe inquiry on Takeshima and the other island, there is no relation to Japan” concerns Ulleungdo,
which was called “Matsushima” and “Takeshima” at the time, and it had nothing to do withpresent-day Takeshima.

1877 年７月 13 日 長崎県令から内務省に対する「松島開島之儀ニ付伺」

1876 年 12 月９日 長崎県令から内務省と外務省に対する「松島御開拓之儀ニ付上申書」

1877 年８月 18 日 大久保利通
内務卿から長崎県令への回答書

Examination Process of Inquir y on “Takeshima and the Other Island”

October 5, 1876

October 16, 1876

December 9, 1876

March 17, 1877

March 20, 1877
March 29, 1877
April 9, 1877

Two land register incorporation super visors of the Ministr y of Home
Affairs sent a letter (Otsu No.28) to Shimane Prefecture proposing that theprefecture conduct an investigation on Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and send
the Ministry an inquiry over whether the prefecture should incorporate theisland into its land register.
Sakai Jirō, Vice-Governor of Shimane Prefecture, sent an inquir y on
“Takeshima and the other island” to Ōkubo Toshimichi, Minister for Home
Affairs (“Inquiry on the Incorporation of Takeshima and the Other Island in
the Sea of Japan into the Land Register”).
Kitajima Hidetomo, Governor of Nagasaki Prefecture, submitted a petitionon the development of Matsushima to Ōkubo Toshimichi, Minister for Home
Affairs, and Terashima Munenori, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Maejima Hisoka, Vice-Minister for Home Affairs, sent an inquiry (Shimachi
No. 664) to the Council of State to get its approval for the Ministr y ʼ s
judgment that “there is no relation to Japan.”A Council of State of ficial drafted an approval document for the 1877
Instruction of the Council of State (Draft No. 20).
The 1877 Instruction of the Council of State was sent from Iwakura Tomomi,
Minister of the Right, to Maejima Hisoka, Vice-Minister for Home Affairs.
Maejima Hisoka, Vice-Minister for Home Affairs, instructed Sakai Jirō, Vice62
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Group

July 13, 1877
August 18, 1877

Governor of Shimane Prefecture, to “understand that, with respect to theinquiry on Takeshima and the other island, there is no relation to Japan.”
Kitajima Hidetomo, Governor of Nagasaki Prefecture, submitted “the inquiry
on the development of Matsushima” to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Ōkubo Toshimichi, Minister for Home Affairs, replied to the inquir y by
Kitajima.

9. The political situation at the time (Chapter 6)

Chapter 6 (“The Political Situation at the Time of the 1877 Instruction of Council of State: Neither
the Emperor nor the Chancellor of the Realm Were Involved with the Issuance of the Instruction”
by Kanji Matsuzawa, former Program Director of NHK World Radio Japan) highlights the factthat Ōkubo Toshimichi and other key persons in the Meiji government were in western Japan
dealing with the Satsuma Rebellion when considering who was involved in the decision-making
for the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State.
He points out that the approval document of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State
only has the approval seals of four officials (State Councilor or higher): Minister of the Right
Iwakura Tomomi, Councilor Ōkuma Shigenobu, Councilor Ōki Takatō, and Councilor Terashima
Munenori. Just as the draft of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State was being preparedon March 20, 1877, government forces were successfully concluding a major attack that took
Tabaruzaka during the Satsuma Rebellion. He then introduces the fact that Emperor Meiji
appointed Iwakura Tomomi as regent to handle matters in Tokyo while the emperor visited
Kyoto in January 1877. Iwakura was specifically instructed that “[i]mportant matters should bereported to the traveling court for approval, while matters that cannot wait may be decided andsubsequently reported,” meaning that Iwakura Tomomi as regent was entrusted with politicalmatters, but that important matters needed to be reported to and approved by the emperor(although urgent matters could be decided and then reported to the emperor). He then draws
attention to the fact that there are no traces of discussions with or reports to the emperor about
the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State. As an example of east-west communications, hepresents the fact that Iwakura Tomomi in Tokyo presented his views about the Satsuma Rebellion
to Sanjō Sanetomi and Kido Takayoshi in Kyoto. Considering the above, it is unlikely that the 1877
Instruction of the Council of State decided such an important matter as changing the borders ofJapan. He concluded that “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) had been determined to be Korean territory
in the Edo-period Genroku Takeshima Incident, and the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State
merely confirmed that decision from the Edo period. Regarding the Instruction, Iwakura thoughtthat there was no need to report it to or discuss it with the emperor.
Moreover, he points out that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not involved in the decisionmaking behind the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State, considering the following facts: 1)
in the Koˉbunroku the March-April 1877 “Inquiry about Incorporating Takeshima and the Other
Island into the Land Register” has a “regional” seal rather than a “diplomatic” seal (as categorized
in the Precedents and Rules of the Council of State), 2) there were no inquiries about “Takeshima”
from the Ministr y of Foreign Af fairs to the Council of State around that time, and 3) theTakeshima Koˉshoˉ, an 1881 compilation of documents about the discussions on “Takeshima” and“Matsushima” in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, makes no reference to the 1877 Instruction of
the Council of State. The author concludes that, if the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State had
determined a new national border, then the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would naturally have been
consulted, so this again shows that the decision in the Genroku Takeshima Incident was simply
confirmed.
As an addendum, he points out that his conclusion that the 1877 Instruction of the Council ofState followed the decision in the Genroku Takeshima Incident strangely matches what the South63
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

Korean side is saying. In this regard, he tries to reconsider what was decided in the Genroku
Takeshima Incident. He reaffirms that what was discussed between Japan and Korea at the time
was “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) only, as confirmed by the primary sources from South Korea andTsushima Domain in the Genroku period. Moreover, when it comes to an exchange between
the Edo Shogunate and Tottori Domain (Tottori Domain replied to a Shogunate inquest that
“Takeshima” and “Matsushima” did not belong to the provinces of Inaba and Hōki, over which
Tottori Domain was reigning) that the South Koreans consider evidence for their argument, hepoints out that there is no mention of “Matsushima” in any diplomatic exchanges between Japanand Korea at the time, so the reply from Tottori Domain is not meaningful as a historical source toverify what was discussed between the two countries. He also criticizes the Korean interpretationof all instances of the name “Ulleungdo” to mean “Ulleungdo and Dokdo,” since this automaticinterpretation prohibits any meaningful dialogue when it is doubtful there is any truth to the
Korean claim that Dokdo is a dependency of Ulleungdo.

10. The 1883 Order of the Council of State (Chapter 7)

Chapter 7 (“Examining the 1883 Order of the Council of State” by Yamasaki Yoshiko) points outthat the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State should not be isolated as a single moment to be
discussed but should be considered as a part of the Meiji Governmentʼs efforts to get an accurate
grasp of the islands in the Sea of Japan from a comprehensive perspective on the Japanese
governmentʼs geographical perception of “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” from the Genroku to
the Meiji period. She points out that, in the diplomatic exchanges between Japan and Korea fromthe 17th through the late 19th century, the Korean side never raised the issue of the ownershipof present-day Takeshima. She looks in particular at legislation enacted in 1883 in which theJapanese government conveyed the perception that both “Takeshima” and “Matsushima” refer to
Ulleungdo to the Japanese public and prohibited Japanese from traveling to the island (the 1883
Order of the Council of State). The Order was originally prompted by the Korean governmentʼscomplaint to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Japanese nationals were engaged in lumberingon Ulleungdo. She points out that the Order provides a stark contrast with the 1877 Instructionof the Council of State, which was nothing more than a confidential instruction to Shimane
Prefecture. In the case of the 1883 Order, for instance, ships were dispatched to Ulleungdo
to repatriate Japanese after the Order was issued. In addition, documents dispatched acrossJapan to promulgate the Order are still extant in various prefectures (the author sur veyed
many prefectural archives and presents some in her paper). In her analysis, she especially
focuses on the first volume of the Retrieval and Punishment of Japanese Illegally Crossing over to
Ulleungdo, Korea, a document file about a proposal made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
the Council of State that resulted in the issuance of the 1883 Order. The Ministry proposed that
all Japanese leave the island and that the Japanese government inform the Korean governmentof the fact it had prohibited Japanese from going to the island based on the Korean complaint.
The file includes the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State, the original inquiry from Shimane
Prefecture, and Kitazawa Masanariʼs text on “Takeshima” (the Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koˉ,an abridged version of the Takeshima Koˉshoˉ). The author points out that the Ministry reached
the final judgment, after considering all the relevant facts including the 1877 Instruction of theCouncil of State, that it was only Ulleungdo that fell outside Japanese territory. What is especially
important are the exchanges between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs when a request to develop “Matsushima” was submitted by Ōya Kensuke and anotherperson (see Chapter 3). “Shimachi No. 1114,” which is an inquiry from the Ministry of Home
Affairs concerning the request, articulated that “the other island” in the 1877 Instruction of
the Council of State was “Matsushima.” Based on such understanding, the government clearly
expressed once again its view that “Matsushima” and “Takeshima” referred to Ulleungdo in the
64
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Group1883 Order of the Council of State. As the Order, which only concerns Ulleungdo, states that“[t]he two governments have previously agreed on this,” the author emphasizes that the Meiji
governmentʼs view was that Ulleungdo was the only subject of Japan–Korea negotiations during
the Genroku Takeshima Incident. She also points out that this fact has been ignored by past
Korean studies.
Next, she argues that, even if present-day Takeshima were somehow included in the scopeof the 1877 Instruction, the 1883 Order of the Council of State would prevail because of theprinciple “lex posterior derogat priori ”; the 1877 Instruction was no more than an instruction to
Shimane Prefecture, whereas the 1883 Order was legislation binding people in general. We ought
to prioritize the 1883 Order, which clearly did not include present-day Takeshima in its scope,
as the governmentʼs decision. She also writes that, unlike the 1877 Instruction of the Councilof State, which was drafted in the context of compiling a domestic land register, the 1883 Orderof the Council of State was issued following communications between the Japanese and Korean
governments (meaning it was a diplomatic measure) prompted by a Korean complaint about
Japanese activities on Ulleungdo.
Moreover, the author states that, due to the focus on identifying “the other island” in the 1877
Instruction of the Council of State, which was no more than an internal administrative documentof a temporal nature, the discussion on Takeshima has deviated from the essence of the issue.
The 1883 Order of the Council of State, which was conveyed to the Korean government as theresult of diplomatic negotiations, should instead be prioritized when considering the intentsof the parties concerned. Finally, she concludes that the Takeshima issue as a territorial issue
should not be discussed only using a historical approach as it requires a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that involves international law, domestic law, international relations theory
and so on, meaning that it is inappropriate to persistently seek to identify “the other island” in the1877 Instruction of the Council of State from a historical point of view bereft of other perspectives.

11. T he Instruction of the Council of State in South Korean research andeducation (Chapters 8–9)

Chapter 8 (“South Koreaʼs Territorial Claim to Takeshima and the Instruction of the Council ofState” by Fujii Kenji, Advisor on the Takeshima Island Issue, Shimane Prefecture) examines theimpacts that the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State has had on South Korean research on
Takeshima. The author points out that, although the first scholar to introduce the 1877 Instructionof the Council of State in an academic paper was Japanese (Hori Kazuo, later a professor at Kyoto
University), South Korean papers have built on Professor Horiʼs research, including his clear
misreadings and mistakes, in particular those parts advantageous to the Korean cause such as
the use of the Summary of Background Information and the theory that present-day Takeshima is
a dependency of Ulleungdo, citing research by Shin Yong-Ha and Song Byeong-Gi. He then points
out that these papers have even engaged in the “development” of South Korean narratives using
the 1877 Instruction in ways that could be considered a distortion of facts and a manipulation ofimpressions: this includes but is not limited to the following allegations: 1) the 1877 Instructionof the Council of State is proof that the Japanese side admitted that “Takeshima and the otherisland” were Korean territory (in reality, it only says that “there is no relation to Japan”) and 2) the
Summary of Background Information and the Simplified Map of Isotakeshima have the same value
as Reference Materials No. 1 to No. 4 that formed the basis of the judgment by the Ministry ofHome Affairs (looking at the inquiry of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Summary of Background
Information and the Simplified Map of Isotakeshima were treated as part of the “appendices” of
the inquiry submitted by Shimane Prefecture and were not included in the attached documentsthat formed the grounds for the decision that “there is no relation to Japan”). By so doing, theSouth Korean side has tried to make the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State into something
65
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

A Reexamination of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State

more advantageous to South Korea than Professor Hori himself thought. The author is concerned
about the current situation where the false image of the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State,including the misrepresentation that the Simplified Map of Isotakeshima came attached to theInstruction, is being reproduced in South Korea, with even some Japanese starting to doubt thetrustworthiness of the Japanese governmentʼs view.
Based on notes verbales exchanged between Japan and South Korea in the 1950s and 1960s,
the author points out that the South Koreans were utterly defeated in the exchanges about
Takeshima as they were unable to produce any grounds for their possession of Takeshima. He
introduces one example: although the South Korean government “asked prominent historians
and international law experts in South Korea” to produce any objection to the Fourth Japanese
View on several occasions in connection with the normalization of relations between Japan andSouth Korea in 1965, they were unable to do so. He points out that Shin Yong-Ha and other
Korean scholars tried to prove Korean possession of Takeshima based on Korean evidence
but were unable to produce good results. 7 He concludes that the failure to establish Korean
possession based on Korean evidence led to their efforts to deny Japanese possession andestablish Korean possession based on Japanese sources, most notably the 1877 Instruction of
the Council of State. Then, a few years ago, an examination by the Ministry of Education of a
“Japanese History B” textbook for Japanese high schools revealed a footnote in the textbook draft
stating that “The Japanese government decided in 1877 that the island corresponding to presentday Takeshima had no relation to Japan.” While the footnote was not adopted, this episodesuggests that Japanese, too, are now being influenced by the South Korean arguments about the1877 Instruction of the Council of State. Lastly, he emphasizes that South Korea ought to show
grounds for their possession rather than try to find fault with the Japanese positions by using
Japanese documents such as the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State.
Chapter 9 ( “ The Takeshima Issue in South Korean Social Studies Education and theInstruction of the Council of State” by Fujii Kenji, Advisor on the Takeshima Island Issue,
Shimane Prefecture) introduces in detail how the Takeshima issue, including the 1877 Instructionof the Council of State, is treated in South Korean elementary, middle, and high school textbooks
as part of social studies education. He concludes that the typical, per verted approach to the1877 Instruction of the Council of State that seeks “grounds” for South Korean possession of
Takeshima in Japanese documents can also be seen in South Korean social studies education. He
also writes that in South Korean “Dokdo” education there is a growing tendency to perceive theTakeshima issue as an issue of historical perception by presenting the 1905 Shimane Prefecture
incorporation as “aggression.” In this regard, he emphasizes that Japan must reject this assertionand convey that the Japanese side only seeks a peaceful resolution to the Takeshima issue.
Moreover, he suggests the importance of communicating accessible information in languages
other than Japanese and telling the truth to the young South Koreans who will build the future by,for example, explaining that denial of Japanese possession of Takeshima as such will not establish
South Korean possession or that Korean textbooks are wrong to say that the Simplified Map of
Isotakeshima came attached to the 1877 Instruction of the Council of State.

12. Lee Kyu-Won and the Ulleungdo Sur vey Diar y (Supplementar y Chapter)

The Supplementar y Chapter (“Lee Kyu-Won and the Ulleungdo Survey Diary” by Professor
Nagashima Hiroki, Kyushu University) is not directly concerned with the 1877 Instruction of
the Council of State but reinforces the theme of the report by presenting historical sourcesthat show the Korean perception of “Takeshima” in the same period. The chapter examines
7

E.g. 신용하『독도의민족영토사연구』( 지식산업사 , 1996) [ 愼鏞廈『独島の民族領土史研究』（知識産業社 ,1996 年）Shin Yong-Ha, Dokdo from the perspective of Korean National Territorial History (JISIKSANUP PUBLICATIONS CO., LTD, 1996)].

66
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

The Takeshima Documents Study Groupthe Ulleungdo Survey Diary authored by Lee Kyu-Won. Lee Kyu-Won was a military official in
the late 19th-century Joseon Kingdom and was ordered by King Kojong to survey Ulleungdo
in 1881. The Ulleungdo Survey Diary is thought to have been a draft of the report he wrote onthat occasion. The document is cited by Japanese and South Koreans alike as a source about theperception of Ulleungdo (and non-perception of present-day Takeshima) in late 19th-centur y
Korea. The original text donated by Lee Hye-Eun (then professor of geography education at theCollege of Education, Dongguk University), a great-grandchild of Lee Kyu-Won, can be found at
Jeju National Museum. Having seen it with his own eyes, the author has photographed it and iscomparing it with existing transcriptions by South Korean researchers (including Lee Seon-Geunand Shin Yong-Ha).
He points out that the Ulleungdo Survey Diary consists of “a rough draft hidden on the back”(first draft), a secondary text with corrections to the first (second draft), and a draft of the reportsubmitted to the king (royal report draft). Next, he comments on two South Korean claims ( ①“Usando” on premodern maps is present-day Takeshima and ② “Seokdo” in Imperial Edict No.
41 from 1900 is present-day Takeshima) by writing that the Ulleungdo Survey Diary “may not be
decisive for the latter but has the potential to shoot down the former [...] South Korean claim.”
The end of the royal report draft states “when I climbed the height of (Ulleungdo) on a clear day
and looked out over the sea, I could not see a single rock or lump of earth” and “Usan is Ulleung
likely in the same way that Tamna is Jeju.” Meanwhile, the Sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi (Journal of the Royal
Secretariat), which is an official record of the Joseon court, states that Lee Kyu-Won, prior to his
departure for the survey, answered a question from King Kojong by saying that Usan is the oldname for a province, just like Tamna is the old name for Jejudo, showing that he was correctly
informed that Usando and Ulleungdo are the same island. In other words, just as the Journal of
the Royal Secretariat says, Lee Kyu-Won possessed very accurate geographic information about
the surroundings of Ulleungdo even before his departure, and the accuracy of his argument waslater proven after his on-site survey, as indicated in the royal report draft of the Ulleungdo Survey
Diary. The author then concludes that this matches the depiction of “Chikdo” and “Tohang” on
the Ulleungdo oedo (Map of Ulleungdoʼs Surroundings), which is thought to have been attachedto the royal report.
Moreover, there is a part in the second draft that shows Lee Kyu-Wonʼs title to be t’ongjŏngtaebu ( 通政大夫 ) so at least this part was very likely written in July and August 1882 since thatwas when he held the title of t’ongjŏng taebu. This is also supported by other parts, so Professor
Nagashima points out that, if the Ulleungdo Survey Diary was drafted in the summer of 1882, thenit is a precious and highly contemporaneous Korean historical record.

67
Japan Review Vol.6 No.1 2023

Published by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
3rd Floor Toranomon Mitsui Building, 3-8-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo Japan 100-0013
Te l: +81-3-3503-7261 (International)
Fax: +81-3-3503-7292 (International)More information about the Instituteʼs activities and publications available at: https://www.jiia.or.jp/en/

TH E JA P A N
I N S TI TU TE O F
I N TE R N A TI O N A L
A FFA I R S