Dokdo or Takeshima?

The territorial dispute over Dokdo, also known as Takeshima, is one of the most contentious issues between Japan and South Korea. This small group of islets, located in the Sea of Japan, has been at the center of diplomatic tensions for decades. Both countries claim sovereignty over the islands, which are rich in resources and hold strategic importance. The dispute not only involves the islands themselves but also touches on national pride, historical memory, and international law. In this article, we will explore the origins of the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute, the claims made by both Japan and South Korea, and the broader implications of this ongoing territorial conflict. We will also attempt to answer the question: Takeshima/Dokdo, who is right?

The History of the Dispute: A Complex Legacy

The origins of the dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima can be traced back to the complex history between Japan and Korea. For centuries, the islands remained largely uninhabited and were of little strategic importance. However, in the early 20th century, as the Japanese Empire expanded, the islands began to attract more attention.

In 1905, Japan formally incorporated Takeshima into its territory, calling it Takeshima (竹島). This was done during the period of Japanese imperial expansion when Korea was under Japanese rule. South Korea, however, argues that the islands were never part of Japan’s territory, even though Japan claimed sovereignty at the time. After the end of World War II, Japan’s defeat led to the Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951), also known as the Treaty of San Francisco. While the treaty outlined the territorial boundaries of Japan, the fate of the islands was left unclear. This ambiguity has fueled the ongoing dispute.

Following the treaty, South Korea took control of the islands in 1954, renaming them Dokdo (독도), meaning “Islands of the East.” Since then, South Korea has maintained a small police detachment on the islands, while Japan continues to assert its claim over Takeshima. Both nations have continued to debate the legal, historical, and territorial aspects of their claims, with each side presenting arguments grounded in different historical and legal perspectives.

The Claims: What Do Japan and South Korea Say?

Japan’s claim to Takeshima is based on the argument that the islands were historically part of Japan’s territory. Japan points to the 1905 incorporation of Takeshima as evidence that the islands were officially annexed, and that Japan maintained administrative control over them until the end of World War II. Japan also references various historical records, including maps from the 17th and 18th centuries, which show that Takeshima was identified as part of Japanese territory. Japan’s position is supported by international legal frameworks, such as the Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951), which it claims did not specifically address the sovereignty of Takeshima.

On the other hand, South Korea asserts that Dokdo has been part of Korean territory for centuries. South Korea’s historical evidence includes records from the Shilla Dynasty (57 BC – 935 AD), where the islands were reportedly referred to as part of the territory under Korean control. South Korea also argues that Takeshima/Dokdo was never effectively controlled by Japan prior to the 20th century and that Japan’s claim in 1905 was invalid under international law. South Korea maintains that it has a historical and legal right to the islands, as evidenced by the continuous control of the islands by Korea from the 1950s onward, including the establishment of a police station on the islands in 1954.

The discrepancy between the two nations arises from differing interpretations of historical records, international law, and post-war agreements. South Korea argues that the islands are an integral part of its territory, while Japan contends that it has historical and legal claims to Takeshima.

The Strategic Importance of Dokdo/Takeshima

The territorial dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima is not just about national pride; it also has significant economic and strategic implications. The islands are located in a region rich in marine resources such as fish and undersea natural gas. Given the increasing demand for resources in the modern world, the islands hold potential value for both countries. In addition to natural resources, the islands are located in a strategically important area in the Sea of Japan, which has implications for national security, especially in the context of military and maritime control.

For South Korea, maintaining control over Dokdo is crucial not only for economic reasons but also for asserting its territorial integrity. Losing control of the islands could have a broader geopolitical impact, signaling a loss of sovereignty over disputed territories. For Japan, Takeshima holds similar strategic significance, particularly in the context of its relationships with neighboring countries like China and North Korea. The dispute is also linked to broader issues of maritime control and regional security.

International Law and the Role of the United Nations

International law plays a significant role in the dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima, particularly regarding sovereignty claims and the interpretation of international treaties. Both Japan and South Korea have used various legal arguments to justify their claims, but the international community has not provided a definitive resolution.

Some argue that the Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951) should be interpreted as effectively leaving the sovereignty of Takeshima/Dokdo unresolved, while others contend that the treaty’s ambiguity only adds to the complexity of the issue. Despite the involvement of international law, neither Japan nor South Korea has agreed to an international court ruling or arbitration, preferring to rely on their own interpretations and historical evidence.

The United Nations has been largely silent on the issue, leaving the two countries to handle the dispute bilaterally. The lack of international intervention or a clear ruling has contributed to the continued tension, as both sides firmly stand by their positions.

Who is Right?

Takeshima/Dokdo, who is right? This question remains unresolved despite years of diplomatic negotiations, historical research, and legal arguments. Both Japan and South Korea have presented compelling evidence to support their claims, and the islands’ strategic significance only makes the dispute more intense. Ultimately, the question of who is right may not have a simple answer. The dispute is deeply rooted in national identity, history, and pride, and without significant diplomatic progress or an international resolution, it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

The dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima is not just a territorial issue; it is a complex and multi-layered conflict that involves history, international law, national identity, and geopolitical concerns. Both Japan and South Korea have valid historical claims, and the strategic importance of the islands only adds to the stakes. As long as both countries maintain their firm positions, it seems unlikely that the dispute will be resolved anytime soon. For now, the question of who is right remains a matter of ongoing debate, with no clear resolution in sight.