Northeast Asian History Network

Of the various issues that exist between Korea and Japan over Dokdo’s sovereignty, three primary claims are the focus of continued debate.
First, Japan has claimed that no historical evidence exists of Korea’s awareness of Dokdo. Japan’s sovereignty claim stems from the assertion that Dokdo was discovered during the process of conducting business on Ulleungdo in the seventeenth century, and that by the mid-seventeenth century, the Oya and Murakawa families of Matsue domain obtained a Takeshima (Ulleungdo) border crossing permit to effectively manage the island. In addition, Dokdo is claimed to have been excluded when the Edo shogunate recognized Ulleungdo as Joseon territory in 1696.
However, Dokdo has been a part of the State of Usan since the Three Kingdoms Period, and evidence from The Annals of King Sejong Geographical Records, New and Expanded Complete Conspectus of the Territory of the Eastern Country, Compilation of Reference Documents on the Eastern Country, Essentials of Governance, Comprehensive Study of Civilization, Revised and Expanded, and other historical sources attest to the fact that Dokdo has been referred to as “Usando.” The fact that Dokdo is visible by the naked eye from Ulleungdo suggests that the island’s affiliation with Ulleungdo has historically been recognized.
Japan’s claim of “effective management of Ulleungdo” originated from the misinterpretation of the Joseon government’s retrieval policy as an act of abandonment and termination of effective control. However, the retrieval policy is a testament to the Joseon government’s dedication to the area and its effective control. Thus, the Joseon government regularly dispatched officials to the islands under the retrieval policy and exercised sovereignty throughout history. Due to the disputes that arose as a result of fishing and logging activities by Japanese in the late seventeenth century, the Edo shogunate issued the Takeshima (Ulleungdo) border crossing prohibition. The Ulleungdo inspection policy was subsequently instituted, and inspection officials were regularly dispatched to the island to monitor Japanese intrusion until the late nineteenth century.
Notably, the Takeshima (Ulleungdo) border crossing permit would have been unnecessary to enter one’s own territory, so the issuance of this permit clearly suggests that Japan considered Ulleungdo and Dokdo to be foreign territory. A Japanese historical source from 1667, “Records on Observations on Oki,” described the Oki Islands as Japan’s northwestern boundary. When a territorial dispute arose between Joseon and Japan as a direct result of An Yong-bok’s activities, the Edo shogunate inquired of Matsue domain, “Other than Jukdo (Ulleungdo), are any other islands excluded from the Tottori jurisdiction?” In the response it was stated, “Including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo), there are no other islands included in the jurisdiction.” This reply clearly states that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Matsue domain’s jurisdiction. This reply was the basis for the issuance of the Takeshima (Ulleungdo) border crossing prohibition by the Edo shogunate on the twenty-eighth day of the first month of 1696. All of the evidence for Japan’s recognition of Joseon’s sovereignty over Ulleungdo and Dokdo’s in the late seventeenth century contradicts Japan’s current claims.
In 1869, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a survey committee to Joseon. The survey objectives and the report are in the “Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Korea’s Relations with Japan” (1870). An excerpt from the report stated, “Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are part of Joseon domain.” The “Complete Map of Joseon” was issued by Japan’s Department of the Army in 1876. In this map, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are labeled as Joseon territory. While Japan’s Ministry of Home Affairs was compiling maps from all regions of Japan in 1876, a request was made to Shimane Prefecture for maps and geographical records regarding Takeshima (Ulleungdo). In response, the Daijōkan (Great Council of State), the highest decision-making office in the Meiji government at that time, issued an Order in 1877 which stated, “The case of Takeshima [Ulleungdo] and the other island [Dokdo] have no relation with Japan, and you must bear that in mind.” Although some scholars in Japan have claimed that “the other island” mentioned in the Daijōkan Order is not Dokdo, the “Kijukdo Map” presented by Shimane Prefecture labeled an island next to Isotakeshima as Matsushima. Therefore, “the other island” is Matsushima, which is, in fact, Dokdo. The evidence clearly indicates that Japan did not consider Dokdo to be Japanese territory prior to the illegal annexation of the island in 1905. Historically, Japan had always recognized Dokdo’s Korean sovereignty.
Second, Japan has stated that the Japanese government cabinet agreed to the incorporation of Dokdo in January of 1905 as a result of the request for territorial incorporation from Nakai Yōzaburō, of the Oki Islands in Shimane Prefecture. In February of that year, the governor of Shimane Prefecture stated that Dokdo had become a part of the Oki Islands’ jurisdiction.
At the time, Japan illegally annexed Dokdo under the claim of “terra nullius preemption.” During the 1950s, however, Japan applied the phrase “Reaffirmation of Dokdo’s Japanese sovereignty” to describe the annexation. This is because Japan had realized that claiming a pre-emptive annexation of its own territory is contradictory. The “reaffirmation of sovereignty” belies the Takeshima (Ulleungdo) border crossing prohibition (1696), the Daijōkan Order of 1877, and other official positions taken by the Japanese government.
Recognizing Ulleungdo and Dokdo’s strategic value during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, Japan illegally annexed Dokdo as Japanese territory in 1905. Under the influence of Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Navy officials, Nakai, who had sought to monopolize seal-hunting near Dokdo, submitted the “Request for Territorial Incorporation of Liancodo” to the Japanese government in September, 1904. Despite opposition from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs promoted the annexation citing strategic advantages. Although Japan justified the annexation of Dokdo through the claims of “terra nullius preemption” and “reaffirmation of sovereignty,” Korea had effectively controlled the island since the Three Kingdoms Period, and sovereignty over Ulleungdo and Dokdo was claimed in accordance with modern law via “Imperial Ordinance No. 41 of the Great Han Empire” (October 25, 1900).
Japan’s third claim is that the United States recognized Dokdo to be Japanese territory during the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and as such, the island was not explicitly named as one of the territories to be restored. Although Korea had requested Dokdo’s inclusion in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the United States, through the Rusk Note of 1951, rejected this plea. Thus, Dokdo’s omission from the San Francisco Peace Treaty continues to be a point of argument from the Japanese.
From the end of World War II until the formalization of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) regarded Dokdo as Korean territory. During the occupation of Japan, the SCAP issued SCAPIN Order No. 677 (January 29, 1946) and applied its provisions that expressly excluded Ulleungdo, Dokdo, and Jejudo from Japanese domain. As specified in the Cairo Declaration (1943) and Potsdam Declaration (1945), the SCAP revoked Japan’s sovereignty from territories “she [had] taken by violence and greed.” This applied to Dokdo as it was a Korean territory that Japan had taken by “violence and greed” during the Russo-Japanese War.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in September 1951, was a continuation of such provisions. Therefore, although the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not expressly exclude Dokdo, this territory must be assumed to be a part of the territories from which Japan’s sovereignty was expelled. As countless other large Korean islands were also not listed explicitly, the claim that Dokdo is Japanese territory because of this oversight is not logical. Furthermore, the Rusk note of 1951, used by Japan as a basis for Dokdo sovereignty claims, was an opinion by the United States and not the Allied Powers, and therefore does not have any effect in determining Dokdo’s sovereignty.
Dokdo’s Korean sovereignty was restored following the victory of the Allies in August 1945 and the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea according to a United Nations resolution, and the San Francisco Peace Treaty confirmed this fact.
“Dokdo for us is not merely a matter pertaining to territorial rights over tiny islets but is emblematic of bringing closure to an unjust history in our relationship with Japan and of the full consolidation of Korea’s sovereignty.” (President Roh Moo-hyun, April 25, 2006) These issues can be naturally resolved only when Japan itself reflects upon the past history of invasion with the proper perception.