Enrichment: There are four additional arguments from Japan. Investigate the problems within each argument.
⑴ Information regarding An Yong-bok’s statements is unreliable.
An Yong-bok’s statements and activities are detailed in The Annals of King Sukjong, Seungjeongwon Ilgi
(Daily Records of the Royal Secretariat), Compilation of Reference Documents on the Eastern Country
, and other Korean historical sources. They are also detailed in Takeshima Chronicle, Records of Crossing the Sea to Takeshima, Chronology of In-bu, Notes on Takeshima
, and other Japanese historical sources. Needless to say, the contents of each text may vary, and information in Korean documents may not be found in Japanese documents and vice versa. However, Japanese arguments have claimed that these differences are the reasons why An Yong-bok’s statements are not credible. Ultimately, information about An Yong-bok is recorded in both Korean and Japanese historical sources, and this reflects the validity of the incidents in question.
⑵ The designation of Dokdo as a military training zone by the United States Forces Japan was a recognition of Dokdo’s Japanese sovereignty.
In 1952, Japan designated the Dokdo area, which then was a home to Korean fishing activities, as a United States Forces Japan military training zone for bombing training. This fact has been verified by a statement by the Japanese government. If the area was territory in which Japanese fishermen conducted fishing activities, why would it have been designated as a military training zone? Upon discovery, the Korean government protested to the United States Air Force, and the area was immediately excluded from military training activities.
⑶ Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo.
Japan has stated, “Korea has no basis in international law for the illegal occupation of Dokdo, and the activities conducted on Dokdo have no legal justification.” Japan has insisted that it “will continue to protest to Korea.” Although Korea briefly lost sovereignty, Dokdo had always been Korean territory.
⑷ Dokdo’s sovereignty dispute should be resolved in the International Court of Justice.
Japan’s ulterior motive is to increase the visibility of the dispute and ultimately take the issue to the International Court of Justice. Japan believes that if the case is referred to the International Court of Justice, it will be able to gain a favorable ruling based on its advanced economic and diplomatic position compared to Korea. Korea must respond rationally and not be affected by Japan’s ruse.Korea’s Preparations
Each of Japan’s 10 arguments has been thoroughly investigated. Upon investigation, all of Japan’s claims have been proven false. Koreans must be prepared to logically and rationally refute anyone at any time or place that makes these claims. In addition, Koreans must be fully committed to maintaining sovereignty over Dokdo.