Northeast Asian History Network

Japan’s Dokdo Argument 3： Japan established sovereignty over Dokdo in the mid-seventeenth century.[Teacher Notes]

The border crossing permit allowed the fishermen to go to another country’s territory for fishing and logging.

Japan’s Dokdo Argument 4：Although Japan prohibited crossing of the border to sail to Ulleungdo in the late seventeenth century, sailing to Dokdo was still permitted.[Teacher Notes]

Look at the following images and determine whether Japan prohibited fishing near Dokdo or not.
“Takeshima” from these two documents refers to Ulleungdo, not Dokdo. At the time, Japan referred to Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Jukdo and Songdo, respectively. Oya family documents from 1659 and 1660 state that “Matsushima is located near Takeshima” and that “Matsushima is located within Takeshima.” Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the “Takeshima (Ulleungdo) border crossing prohibition” from 1696 includes Matsushima (Dokdo), as well.
Japanese have stated, ‘When traveling to Ulleungdo, Dokdo is used as a marina or an ^{[note 120]}” Therefore, a Dokdo border crossing permit did not exist. A separate Dokdo border crossing prohibition would be unnecessary.
When the Japanese shogunate prohibited traveling to Ulleungdo in the late seventeenth century, an inquiry was made to the Matsue domain. “Other than Takeshima (Ulleungdo), are any other islands excluded from Matsue domain jurisdiction?” In its reply, Matsue domain 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.
An “eochaeji” is a preparation area for fishing and harvesting abalone.

Japan’s Dokdo Argument 5： The annexation of Dokdo by Shimane Prefecture in 1905 reaffirmed Japanese sovereignty.[Teacher Notes]

Japan has stated, “The decision to annex Dokdo into Shimane Prefecture in 1905 was a reaffirmation of ‘Dokdo’s sovereignty.’” This implies that Japan had always considered Dokdo to be Japanese territory. If that was the case, an annexation of Dokdo in 1905 would be illogical. No other country in the world has ever annexed land that was already considered to be its territory.
Despite this fact, Japan changed its position from “annexation of an uninhabited island” to “reaffirmation of sovereignty.” Japan’s evidence for the annexation of Dokdo is ambiguous at best.
In contrast, the Imperial Ordinance No. 41 of the Great Han Empire (1900) was a clear claim of sovereignty and a reorganization of the administrative district to which Dokdo belonged. Therefore, Japan’s claim of an “annexation of an uninhabited island” is false.

Japan’s Dokdo Argument 6： The United States considered Dokdo to be Japanese territory during the negotiation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951.[Teacher Notes]

Issued in January 1946, this document defined the scope of the Japanese domain and expressly excluded Ulleungdo, Dokdo, and Jejudo from Japanese territory. The United States recognized Dokdo as Korean territory in the initial draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was completed around November 1949. However, by December 1949, through the lobbying efforts of the American political adviser William J. Sebald, Dokdo was not explicitly named in the territories that Japan had to forfeit. However, countless other major Korean islands were not explicitly listed, either. Thus, the claim that Dokdo is Japanese territory because of this oversight is not logical.
Officially signed in 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty succeeded to the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945), which had declared that Japan must renounce its territorial rights. Therefore, the claim to sovereignty over Dokdo was rightfully returned to Korea. In addition, Japan presented a territorial map entitled “The Map of Japanese Territory” in October 1951 to the House of Representatives?? to the Diet??. Dokdo was not labeled as Japanese territory in that document.