copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2018-11-14): "[Koreans] are very protective of their culture and their race—they want to protect whatever they have," French photographer Tim Franco, who travelled to the islands this summer, tells National Geographic. "Dokdo is a good example of that. This is one thing that they kept back from World War II and it's very important to them to keep it." And while Japan also claims to have sovereignty over the rocks, which they call Takeshima (meaning "Bamboo Island"), it is only Koreans who make the pilgrimage, says Franco. [See inside North Korea’s retro soviet planes.] [...] The dispute is well-worn. According to South Korea, Dokdo was recognized by Japan as Korean territory in 1696 following an altercation between Japanese and Korean fishermen. But, in 1905, despite allegedly being under formal jurisdiction of Korea’s Uldo county, the islands were annexed by Japan ahead of its occupation of the peninsula, which lasted for 35 years up until 1945. According to Korea, the islands were "rightly" restored to them at the end of World War II. Japan disagrees.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-04-29): Dok-do or Takeshima? The Territorial Dispute Between South Korea and Japan. Located at a nearly equidistant position between South Korea and Japan in the East Sea, the Dok-do/Takeshima islet consists of two major islands and 30 smaller rocks. In a geographical perspective, the islet in no means is significant in nature; the rocky terrain of the islands have historically been uninhabited and the land is less than 200,000 square meters in size. However, the islet has been the center of a centuries-long territorial dispute between Korea and Japan. Both of these nations have been actively arguing their control over the Dok-do/Takeshima islet, and they have used various historical documents and international laws to support their respective claims, ultimately complicating the issue at hand. The yet-to-be resolved conflict of the sovereignty of the islet leaves us to explore a legal question that has presented itself consistently over the span of human history: the question of territorial sovereignty and geopolitics.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2011-07-28): The Liancourt Rocks dispute, also called the Takeshima dispute or Dokdo dispute is a territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan[1][2][3][4] regarding sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks, a group of small islets in the Sea of Japan. The rocks also go by the names Dokdo (Korean: 독도; Hanja: 獨島) and Takeshima (Japanese: 竹島).[5] North Korea also claims sovereignty of the islands, but has not pursued its claim to the same extent as the other parties.[6]
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-10-05): Called Dokdo by South Korea and Takeshima by Japan, the island is claimed by both countries as their territory, and the dispute has strained relations more than ever over the past couple of months. South Korea controls the island. The BBC was among those given special access, on a government flight. [...] South Korea insists sovereignty of the island is not in question. Japan's request to take the issue to an international court has raise hackles here.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-07-21): Japan claims it acquired Dokdo/Takeshima as terra nullius in 1905. South Korea argues the feature had been incorporated into the Ullungdo County in 1900, and that Japan's occupation constituted an illegal usurpation. As South Korea was officially annexed by Japan in 1910, Japan's Dokdo/Takeshima claim has been viewed in South Korea as a forerunner to formal Japanese imperialism. [...] For South Koreans, Dokdo/Takeshima is a potent symbol of Japanese colonialism. South Koreans have written songs about Dokdo (see here, here and here) and conducted Dokdo K-Pop flashdances (here). As sources in the construction of national identity, museums and schools also promote Korean ownership of Dokdo. [...] Various Japanese defence white papers have declared Dokdo/Takeshima as 'inherent Japanese territory'. The administration of Prime Minster Shinzo Abe has come under fire in South Korea for sending high-ranking officials to the controversial Takeshima Day started in 2005 in the Shimane Prefecture, which claims the features.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-02-06): In 1954, South Korea gained control of Dokdo/Takeshima and has since exercised de facto control over the islands. Successive right-wing and leftist Japanese governments have claimed that the islands are Japanese territory and have argued that South Korea’s control of the islands constitutes an "illegal occupation". In 2005, the Japanese prefecture of Shimane declared an annual "Takeshima Day". In response, two Korean protestors sliced off their little fingers outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul, a site of weekly protests against the Japanese government. Other Koreans responded by publicly burning the Japanese flag – an unsurprising action given that anti-Japanese sentiment is widespread in South Korea. Similarly, in 2012, a Korean man rammed his truck against the gate of the embassy to protest Japan’s claim to the islands. On a 2019 visit, I witnessed an elderly Korean man protesting across the road from the Japanese embassy. The nonagenarian, who was undeterred by the chilly Seoul weather, wore a banner that read: "Dokdo is [the] beautiful territory of the Republic of Korea." The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute continues to strain South Korea and Japan’s government-to-government relations. In 2008, Japan’s Ministry of Education issued a manual to Japanese textbook publishers and teachers encouraging them to instruct their students that the islands constitute Japanese territory. In response, South Korea’s government recalled its ambassador to Tokyo. In 2012, when Lee Myung-bak became the first South Korean president to visit the islands, Japan responded by recalling its ambassador to Seoul.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-01-16): Japan, however, continues to maintain its claim and protests South Korea’s occupation of Takeshima as illegal.[16] In 2005, in response to South Korea issuing Dokdo stamps the previous year, Shimane Prefecture—the local government in Japan that would have jurisdiction over Takeshima—designated February 22 as "Takeshima day." Both countries include assertions of their sovereignty over the islands in middle and high school curriculum, along with defense documents that proclaim the islands as an integral part of their territory. On several occasions, Japan has indicated that it would take the matter to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. However, this is a moot point because both sides must agree to have the court consider the case, which South Korea would never do. Its position is that there is no dispute to settle—Dokdo is Korean. Moreover, the current circumstances of the islands are in South Korea’s favor, and thus it has little to gain by agreeing to adjudication.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2018-04-17): 1) These small islands have prompted geopolitical frictions. A memorable moment at the PyeongChang Winter Olympics came when North and South Korean athletes marched in together, waving the unified Korean flag. Japan quickly denounced the flag as unacceptable. The big fuss was over a tiny speck next to a blue unified Korean Peninsula — the flag design included the contested Dokdo/Takeshima islands, as shown here. [...] The Liancourt Rocks, known as Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese, are a group of two small main islets and 35 smaller rocks, with a total surface area of 46.3 acres, located 135 miles from Korea and 131 miles from Japan. While South Korea controls the territory, its sovereignty is contested by Japan. Interestingly, the unified Korean map does not show an indisputably Korean island, Ulleung-do, bigger than Dokdo/Takeshima and closer to Korea. [...] And conflicts over small territories may help maintain a certain geopolitical order. The Diaoyu/Senkaku and the Dokdo/Takeshima disputes have deep historical roots that go back to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-03-18): The Asia-Pacific region is home to numerous island and maritime disputes but the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute is unique in that it involves two U.S. allies placing Washington in a uncomfortable position. U.S. policy has long been that it takes no position on sovereignty and will abide by any negotiated resolution of the dispute. Yet when tensions have flared between South Korea and Japan over the issue, there have often been calls for the United States to intervene and help solve the problem. However, any U.S. attempt to exert its leverage to reach a solution would be dangerous. Instead, Washington’s best course of action is to quietly remind both sides of their common economic and security interests while helping Seoul and Tokyo to manage the dispute in a careful and judicious manner.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2015-07-08): Furthermore, even in the Korean media there are such statements as given in the article headlined "Argument That 'Dokdo [Takeshima] Is Korean Territory on Old Maps' Ineffective in International Adjudication" in the August 17, 2012, edition of the Hankyoreh newspaper, shortly after President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Takeshima. Based on precedents from International Court of Justice rulings in disputes between Thailand and Cambodia and between Malaysia and Indonesia, the article states: [...] In other words, even if Takeshima is included in the "Korea" section, we can confirm that the interpretation by Lee Sang-tae, chairman of the Korean Research Association of Old Maps, that "The fact that the Japanese government officially published a map which included Dokdo as part of Korea can be seen to indicate that Japan officially saw Dokdo as an inherent part of Korean territory" is completely groundless. [...] - 2012. "Argument That 'Dokdo [Takeshima] Is Korean Territory on Old Maps' Ineffective in International Adjudication: Historical Entitlement May Not Be Considered Important . . . Despite 50 Years Effective Korean Control . . . Japan Has Raised Steady Objections," Hankyoreh, August 17. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/diplomacy/547540.html (Korean only; accessed on February 27, 2015). [↩]
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-07-01): Lying almost equidistant between the Korean Peninsula and Japan, the tiny islets called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan, are claimed by both countries and are a source of a dispute going back more than 300 years. Most recently, there was a public outcry in South Korea after the islands were marked on a map of Japan on the Tokyo Olympics website, with South Korea demanding an immediate correction and Japan refusing. To many outside Korea and Japan, these islets might seem inconsequential and hardly worth risking damage to the relations between two of the world’s most powerful economies. Yet the islets inspire fierce reactions on both sides and a solution to this long-running territorial dispute has been elusive. What is the history of this dispute? Which country has the more compelling historical claim? How do the islets figure in both Korean and Japanese politics, media and culture? Might the U.S. play a role in helping resolve this dispute between its two most important allies in East Asia? Can international law provide a framework for a resolution? The Center for Korean Legal Studies at Columbia Law School welcomes Paul Huth (University of Maryland), Sunwoong Kim (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), and Terence Roehrig (US Naval War College), editors of The Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute: South Korea, Japan and the Search for a Peaceful Solution for a discussion of these issues. They will be joined by contributors to the book including Yoshinori Kaseda, Hee Eun Lee, and Hyon Joo Yoo for a Q&A moderated by Center Director Jeong-Ho Roh.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2014-08-29): In the late seventeenth century, Japanese and Korean fishermen clashed over abalone fishing grounds around the island of Ulleungdo (then called Takeshima in Japan). This prompted the Japanese and Korean governments to enter into negotiations over fishing rights on the island; in the end, the Tokugawa shogunate banned Japanese fishermen from visiting Ulleungdo. The South Korean government today points to this resolution as confirming that Takeshima/Dokdo, too, is Korean territory. But this assertion needs close examination. Complicating this issue are records--preserved both in Japan and Korea--showing that a fisherman named An Yong-bok, who was captured and brought to Japan in the clash, returned to Japan three years later and stated that Matsushima (an old Japanese name for Takeshima/Dokdo) was the Korean "Jasando." What implications An's statement has for the present-day Takeshima dispute will also be examined. [...] One other basis for the claim in the South Korean government pamphlet that "Korea's territorial sovereignty over Ulleungdo and its ancillary island, Dokdo, was confirmed through the diplomatic negotiations between the Korean and Japanese governments" is the notion that Takeshima/Dokdo forms part of Ulleungdo. If Ulleungdo belongs to Korea, the argument goes, then so must Takeshima/Dokdo. The South Korean government once insisted that Takeshima/Dokdo was recognized as Korean territory by Article 2(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951), in which Japan "renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including Dagelet (Ulleungdo), etc." because Takeshima/Dokdo was an dependent island of Ulleungdo.22 An examination of this ancillary island claim follows.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-08-14): Kim Jang-hoon is among dozens of amateur athletes who left the eastern port of Uljin Monday, bound for Dokdo, a largely uninhabited set of volcanic islands claimed by both South Korea and Japan, known by Tokyo as Takeshima. [...] "Dokdo is indeed our territory and a place worth staking our lives to defend. Let’s make sure to safeguard (the islets) with pride," he was reported to have told police officers stationed on the islands. [...] Dokdo/Takeshima is one of several of disputed island chains in the region and fears are emerging that competing territorial claims in the South China Sea could create a new Cold War in Asia.
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-12-09): The territorial dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima (or Liancourt Rocks) has frequently strained South Korean-Japanese relations in the post World War II era. Japan claims that it acquired Dokdo/Takeshima as a terra nullius in 1905, whereas Korea rejects Japan's claim on the ground that Dokdo was a Korean island, not a terra nullius, which Japan usurped llegally in 1905.The dispute was exacerbated further due to the inconsistent U.S. policy in the disposition of the disputed island during the Allied occupation of Japan (1945-1952). Initially, the U.S. decided to return Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea in accordance with the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945). Furthermore, all of the U.S. drafts of the peace treaty with Japan from 1947 to November 1949 explicitly stipulated the return of Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea. (The rest omitted)
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-08-20): Of these various disputes, the Korea-Japan battle over Dokdo/Takeshima seems the best candidate for resolution by international arbitration. Japan, in fact, has formally asked Korea to submit the dispute to the ICJ for binding arbitration and has even threatened some mild economic penalties if the Koreans don’t agree. And Korea has flatly turned down Japan, which is somewhat surprising given that Korea is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of international organizations and international dispute resolution in general. The President of the ICC is a Korean national, and Korea has a judge sitting on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. (Oh yeah, that UN Secretary General is from Korea too!). According to news reports, Korean diplomats have said that the ICJ is inappropriate because the Dokdo/Takeshima islands plainly belong to Korea under international law. "Dokdo is clearly part of Korean territory historically, geographically and under international law, and no territorial dispute exists," said Cho Tai-young, spokesman at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. "The Japanese government’s proposal to take the Dokdo issue before the ICJ is not worth attention."
Claim: Dokdo/Takeshima is a territory of South Korea (Dokdo/Takeshima, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2018-02-06): The territorial dispute over Takeshima began in 1952, when South Korean President Syngman Rhee asserted sovereignty over a sea area including the islands. Takeshima is Japanese territory historically and legally, and Japan has urged Korea to agree to International Court of Justice proceedings to resolve the issue, to no avail. Legal specialist Miyoshi Masahiro explores the case, defining 1952 as the "critical date" after which acts should not be taken into consideration in determining the legal status of Takeshima. South Korea must promptly recognize the need for a law-based resolution. [...] In January 1905, the Japanese cabinet decided to incorporate Takeshima into its territory, referring to the "title by occupation." Effective control of an island is a key to occupation. In this paper, legal specialist Tsukamoto Takashi shows various examples of effective control, conducted peacefully and continuously by Japan, and examines Korea’s claims to the island (Korean name Dokdo) based on historical records up to around the turn of the twentieth century. [...] The territorial dispute between Japan and South Korea over Takeshima is complex, involving numerous issues that have unfolded over hundreds of years. Japanese and Korean fishermen clashed in the late seventeenth century over abalone fishing grounds around Ulleungdo. Korea points to the shogunal order banning Japanese fishers from this island—then called Takeshima in Japan—as evidence that Japan negated her claim to today’s Takeshima (Dokdo). This study, by legal specialist Tsukamoto Takashi, examines documentation of the incident to ascertain whether this is the case.
Claim: Heglig is a territory of Sudan (Heglig, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-07-29): Heglig, or Panthou (also spelled Heglieg or Pandthow), is a small town at the border between the South Kordofan state of Sudan and the Unity State in South Sudan. The entirety of Heglig is claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan, but administered by Sudan. The area was contested during the Sudanese Civil War. In mid-April 2012, South Sudan's Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) captured the Heglig oil field from Sudan.[1] Sudan took it back at the Second Battle of Heglig ten days later.[2] [...] In July 2009, the international organization, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) redefined the boundaries of Abyei, a county that lies between South Sudan and Sudan. The decision placed the Heglig and Bamboo oilfields out of Abyei boundary but did not specify to be belong to the Sudan province of South Kordofan, nor to Upper Nile region, South Sudan and also the decision did not specify oil sharing. The government of Sudan claimed that area is belong to its country since it was ruled to be out of Abyei boundary by PCA and announced they would not share any oil revenue with the Government of South Sudan, emphasizing that the PCA established that Heglig was part of the north. The document of the PCA only indicated that the Heglig or Panthou area is not part of Abyei.
Claim: Heglig is a territory of Sudan (Heglig, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-03-12): "I call on South Sudan to immediately withdraw its forces from Heglig. This is an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan and a clearly illegal act. I also call on the Government of Sudan to immediately stop shelling and bombing South Sudanese territory and withdraw its forces from disputed territories, in particular Abyei. Both must stop supporting proxy forces against each other." [...] FILE – UNMISS - 13 APRIL 2012, JUBA, SOUTH SUDAN 13. Various shots, demonstrators carrying banners and flags gathered outside the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) compound in support of the seizure and occupation of the town of Heglig [...] Ban called on South Sudan to immediately withdraw its forces from the oil-producing region of Heglig in Sudan’s South Kordofan state, describing this as "an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan and a clearly illegal act."
Claim: Heglig is a territory of Sudan (Heglig, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-04-18): Most recent fighting has centred on Heglig - and the spread of fighting further along the border is of great concern, says the BBC's James Copnall in Khartoum. [...] The UN and the African Union have demanded South Sudan's unconditional withdrawal from Heglig, calling its occupation "illegal and unacceptable", but they have also condemned Sudan for carrying out aerial bombardments of the South. [...] Heglig, which used to provide more than half of Sudan's oil, is internationally accepted to be part of Sudanese territory - although the precise border is yet to be demarcated.
Claim: Heglig is a territory of Sudan (Heglig, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2012-04-11): South Sudan has seized the town of Heglig, which is internationally recognised as Sudanese territory, though South Sudan disputes this. [...] The US condemned South Sudan's seizure of Heglig, saying it was "an act which goes beyond self-defence and has increased tensions between Sudan and South Sudan to dangerous levels". Sudan relies on the Heglig oilfields for a sizeable part of its budget, and has vowed to use "all legitimate means" to retake them, warning of "destruction" in South Sudan.
Claim: Heglig is a territory of Sudan (Heglig, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-02-10): The First Battle of Heglig was a military campaign of South Sudan that gave rise to the 2012 South Sudan–Sudan border conflict. Conflict [edit]On March 26, the Republic of Sudan claimed that South Sudan attacked the Heglig oilfield, located in the Sudanese state of South Kordofan, while South Sudan claimed that it was acting in self-defence after an attack on its territory.[1] [...] South Sudanese troops were ordered by their government to disengage and withdraw from the disputed area on 28 March. Dead bodies and destroyed vehicles lay strewn in Heglig, the oilfield where the bloody battles took place.[2] Three bodies were identified as South Sudanese soldiers, while a tank as well as 4 pickup trucks were destroyed.[3]