- Some Maryland Legislators Support Using ¡°East Sea¡± in School Textbooks (Jan 30, 09)

- Visitors to Dokdo Increase Rapidly (Oct 08, 08)

- Japanese Obsession with Dokdo (Sep 15, 08)

- Dokdo in the eyes of the foreign press (Sep 8, 08)

- An American Makes Dokdo his Hobby, and the Case for Korea (Sep 02, 08)

- Netizens Fund Dokdo Ad in Washington Post (Aug 26, 08)

- Projects Unveiled to Reinforce Sovereignty Over Dokdo (Aug 21, 08)

- Dokdo to be highlighted during National Liberation Day (Aug 13, 08)

- The real truth behind the 2008 Brochure on Dokdo, published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (Aug 1, 08)

- Massive Military Drills Planned Near Dokdo (Jul 29, 08)

- Professor from Japan Discovers Map Proving Dokdo Island is Korean Territory (Feb 22, 08)

- Japanese Government Document Acknowledges Dokdo is a Korean Territory (Nov 20, 06)

- Old Japanese Maps Support Dokdo as Korean Territory (Oct 25, 06)

- Seoul now pushing to include Dokdo in the EEZ boundary (Jun 06, 06)

- Seoul, Tokyo Find Diplomatic Solution to Tensions over Maritime Survey Near Dokdo (Apr 23, 06)

- Korea's Dokdo: Past and Present (Oct 14, 05)

- Dokdo A Symbol of Korean National Pride (Oct 10, 05)

- South Korea protests against Japan¡¯s new defense white paper on Dokdo (Aug 7, 05)

¢Ã Our Love for Dokdo The Embassy of the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the United States has produced a new map of Korea entitled ¡°Our Love for Dokdo¡± which is on display at the Korean Information Service. The map provides correct information about the exact location of the Dokdo islets in the East Sea and demonstrates that they are Korean territory. It also features a variety of wild flowers and birds native to Dokdo, a treasure chest of flora and fauna. The ROK Embassy to the United States expresses its deep thanks to those who have passed on the Korean map of Dokdo to their friends and neighbors.

Click map below to download Korean map of Love of Dokdo.

Korea's Dokdo: Past and Present

Dokdo Island, one of Korean territories, is a pair of rocky islets with an area of no more than 0.2 square kilometers

Historical References

Koreans have regarded Dokdo as part of Korean territo¬ry ever since the Silla period [57 B.C.-935 A.D,). In the renowned 12th century historical text, Samguksagi [History of the Three Kingdoms], compiled by Kim Bu-sik [1075-1151], the "Royal Annals of Silla" recorded the existence of an ancient maritime kingdom known as Usanguk, consisting of the islands of Ulleungdo and Dokdo, that was conquered in A.D. 512 by the Silla generallsabu, and incorporated into Silla.

The first reference that indicated Korea's geographical recognition of the islands of Ulleungdo and Dokdo can be found in Goryeosa [History of Goryeo], published in 1441 and 1451. This geographical recognition of Dokdo was again con¬firmed during the early Joseon period [1392-1910J. The AnnaLs of King Taejong [TaejongsiLLokl, compiled in 1416, stated that the Joseon Dynasty recognized the small island of Dokdo near Ulleungdo, and included a reference to a dis¬cussion about this island at the royal court that involved Vice Minister of Taxation Bak Seop.

Around this time, King Taejong issued an official decree under which all residents of Ulleungdo were ordered to return to the mainland. Moreover, official missions were regularly dispatched to inspect the islands and ensure that the relocation policy was being observed, which were known as "Official Missions to Ulleungdo and Surrounding Areas." These inspections also covered Dokdo, which was part of the administrative district of Ulleungdo.

On October 25, 1900, the Great Korean Empire [Daehanjeguk, the name of Joseon from 1897 until the annexation by Japan in 1910] issued Royal Edict No. 41, to reinforce the administration of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. This edict was recorded in the official gazette as "Renaming of Ulleungdo as Uldo and Promoting the Island Governor to a County Magistrate." The second paragraph of this edict stat¬ed: "The county office will be located in Daeha-dong, and its jurisdiction will include the entire island of Ulleungdo, Jukdo [Jukseodo, a small island located right alongside Ulleungdol, and Seokdo Island." In the Jeolla-do regional dialect, "Dokdo" meant "island of rock," and "Seokdo" was used to express Dokdo in Chinese characters.

The name "Dokdo" only came into regular use in Korea in the late 19th century, but Korea's geographical recogni¬tion of Ulleungdo and Dokdo has clearly been consistent since the early Joseon Dynasty. Different names have been used for Dokdo since that time, such as Usando, Sambongdo, and Gajido. This use of a variety of names by Koreans does not mean that there is any contradiction or confusion in the geographical recognition of Dokdo. Rather, it is evidence of the frequent contact that the people of Korea have had with Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

An 1876 reproduction of the "Complete Map of the Eight Provinces," a map created in 1592 by the order of Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592. This is the earliest known mad of Japanese


Japan's Imperialism

Japan has referred to this island as Takeshima only recently. At a meeting on January 28, 1905, the Japanese cabinet decided that Dokdo would be incorporated into Japanese territory, and what had until then been known as Liancourt Island was suddenly and arbitrarily renamed Takeshima Island. Japan's geographical recognition of the Ulleungdo and Dokdo islands originated about the 16th or 17th century, and from that time Japan has referred to Ulleungdo as Takeshima Island and Dokdo as Matsushima Island. After 1840, however, it suddenly began to refer to Ulleungdo as Matsushima Island, and Dokdo as Liancourt Island.

The existence of this kind of inconsistency indicates that Japan did not have a specific geographical understand¬ing of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Furthermore, the decision of the Japanese cabinet [January 28, 19051 to suddenly and arbitrarily rename Dokdo as Takeshima Island, the name that had been used for Ulleungdo, when it sought to incor¬porate Dokdo into Japanese territory is unnatural and thus must be viewed as irrational. In reality, when Japan, which had been reborn as a modern nation under the Meiji Restoration, began to move forward with its ambitions for the Korean peninsula and adopted measures to advance its imperialist aggression, it established an advance base of operations on Ulleungdo. The decision by the cabinet in January 1905, to suddenly rename Dokdo as Takeshima Island, can be seen as a symbolic step under which Dokdo was designated an initial target of Japan's imperialist aggression.


Summary of Japan's Claims

The thrust of Japan's claims to Dokdo can be summa¬rized by the following four points: First, Japan claims that Dokdo is inherently Japanese territory. Second, it claims that the administrative measures adopted by the regional Shimane Prefecture council, under which Dokdo was incor¬porated as Japanese territory on February 22, 1905, consti¬tute an effective act of occupation according to international law. Third, Japan argues that it has continuously exercised sovereign national authority over the island through various administrative measures implemented after the incorpora¬tion procedure.

Fourth, it cites the fact that Article 2 (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (between the Allied Powers and Japan), which was signed on September 8, 1951 to bring World War II to an official end, did not specify that Japan must return Dokdo to Korea. That is, Japan contends that the Korean peninsula was not freed from Japanese rule with the signing of its unconditional surrender on September 2, 1945,


Unsubstantiated Claims

The historical support for its "inherent territory" con¬cept is not substantiated by facts. Dokdo has been Korean territory, along with Ulleungdo Island, since at least A.D. 512, and although the Joseon Dynasty did order the reloca¬tion of island residents to the mainland in the early 15th cen¬tury, this was an exercise of sovereign power, not an expres¬sion of any intent to relinquish ownership.
During the Joseon period, Dokdo, which was known as Usando Island, was administratively assigned to Uyin-hyeon, Gangwon-do province, along with Ulleungdo. As a result of the efforts of An Yong-bok, Japan sent official correspon¬dence in 1693 and 1696 that acknowledged Dokdo and Ulleungdo as being Joseon territory and pledged to prohibit Japanese fishermen from fishing off these islands.

In 1869 and 1877, in the aftermath of the overthrow of the T okugawa Bakufu by Japanese warlords and establishment of the Meiji Restoration government, the Japanese government con¬firmed that: "Dokdo is Joseon territory that is of no concern to Japan." On October 25, 1900, Emperor Gojong (r. 1863¬1907) proclaimed Royal Edict No. 41, under which Ulleungdo was renamed Uldo, the incumbent governor was promoted to county magistrate, and Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo were placed under his magisterial jurisdiction. In spite of the fact that Japanese did intrude upon Ulleungdo while it was devoid of Korean residents, this cannot be regarded as an effective occupation of Dokdo by Japan. In addition, ports of call and fishing activities of Japanese fishermen cannot be recognized as official acts by a governmental agency. And in par¬ticular, Japan's efforts to incorpo¬rate Dokdo into its territory, based on the Shimane Prefecture's Proclamation No. 40 in 1905, prove that Dokdo was not, in fact, Japan's inherent territory.


Invalid Occupation Claims

Until the Japanese cabinet adopted measures to rename Dokdo as Takeshima, incorporate the island into its territory, and occupy it on January 28, 1905, the Joseon Dynasty had continuously and peacefully exercised territor¬ial sovereignty over Dokdo, and thus maintained substantive title to the island. Accordingly, Japan's claim of occupation can¬not be accepted as a legal action based on international law.

Japan's claims of occupa¬tion are deemed invalid under international law for the fol¬lowing reasons. Under international law, occupation is a title to territorial acquisition that is established when a nation discovers a new terra nullius or exercises effective and continuous rule before any other nation over a region that had been abandoned by its former ruler. The polar areas, including Antarctica, are an exception to this principle. The subjective condi¬tion of occupation is expression of intent to take possession of a territo¬ry, while the objective condition calls for exercising effective and continu¬ous rule under national authority. This objective condition is considered especially relevant as a means of confirming the existence of the subjective condition of intent to take possession.

Unlike individual nations, there is no centralized authority that oversees the international community. It is thus necessary for exclusive territorial sovereignty to be constantly maintained through effective occupation [evi¬dence of stable and continuous national activity]. The subject of occupation is the nation. The subjective condition of occu¬pation, the intent to take possession, is demonstrated through a declaration of possession, legislative and admin¬istrative measures, and notification to other interested nations. However, a majority opinion contends that official notification is not a requisite condition of occupation, while a minority opinion upholds its applicability.

Based on the legal principles of occupation under international law, Japan's 1905 claim of occupation reveals the following contradictions.
First, there was no notification of Korea, as an interest¬ed nation. When Japan proceeded with its incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, it issued no notification whatsoever to Korea. In light of the results of such cases as Clipperton Island [1931 J and Palmas Island [1928J, it can be concluded that, in terms of international law, since Korea had a clear interest in the uninhabited island of Dokdo, notification was neces¬sary. Of course, Japan claims that notification has not been recognized as a requisite condition for establishing occupa¬tion under international law.
Second, it is necessary for intent to occupy to be made known abroad by a "nation." Japan's 1905 expression of intent to occupy was made simply through a proclamation issued by an autonomous local Japanese governing body.

Moreover, this proclamation was secretively and hurriedly adopted as part of a military strategy. In addition, it is not even certain whether this proclamation was ever officially issued. The subject of occupation is a nation, not an autonomous local governing body such as Shimane Prefecture.
Third, Japan claims that after the incorporation and occupation measures were adopted by Shimane Prefecture in the related proclamation on February 22, 1905, there was no objection raised by Korea. Yet this does not take into account the fact that since Korea had been deprived of its diplomatic authority by Japan under the 1905 Protectorate Treaty, Korea did not have the ability to officially protest the incorporation of Dokdo into Japanese territory.

Fourth, the object of occupation is required to be own¬erless land. But in 1905, Dokdo was historically not owner¬less land and was already effectively ruled by Korea, so the island was not a legal object of occupation. Ownerless land refers to an area that is not part of the territory of another nation or land that has been abandoned and thus is no longer ruled as part of a nation's territory.

Abandonment of territory requires the subjective condition of intent to aban¬don territory and the objective condition of its actual aban¬donment. In the case that a nation temporarily evacuates residents from a territory in accordance with national policy, if it can be proven that there was no definitive and external expression of intent to abandon the territory, then this would not be considered abandonment. Joseon's policy of relocat¬ing the residents of Dokdo and Ulleungdo to the mainland in order to protect them from frequent raids by Japanese marauders, in the aftermath of the Japanese Invasion of 1592, was not an abandonment of territory. Even during the enforcement of this policy, the Joseon government adminis¬ trated Ulleungdo and Dokdo by dispatching regular inspec¬tions of the islands.

Japan's occupation procedures were contrary to international law, while the administrative measures under¬taken by the Japanese government did not constitute effec¬tive occupation to prove possession. Thus Japan's occupa¬tion of Dokdo, through the conclusion of World War II, was solely the result of its aggression.


Solution Proves Elusive

However, if the principles of international law are applied to the relevant provisions of the subject peace treaty, it is clear that Dokdo was not specifically designated as Japanese territory. Despite the fact that Dokdo's return was not specified in the final draft of the peace treaty, this omis¬sion cannot be construed as meaning that Dokdo is thus Japanese territory. Accordingly, contrary to what the Japanese claim, the Treaty of Peace with Japan does not specify that Dokdo is Japanese territory under the name of Takeshima Island.

In the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, concluded in June 1965, it was Japan's intention to desig¬nate Dokdo as a disputed territory between the two countries, but this provision was ultimately deleted due to objections by Korea. In fact, Korea was in full possession of Dokdo at the time, which served to establish the superiority of its claims. In subsequent negotiations, Korea and Japan sought to avoid the controversial issue of Dokdo, with each side maintaining its own position on the matter. In this way, from 1965 to 1996, Korea and Japan tacitly agreed not to raise the issue of Dokdo.

Upon the proclamation of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea in 1994, Korea and Japan des¬ignated exclusive economic zones that extended 200 nautical miles from their respective coastlines. Related to this, Japan abandoned its passive stance that had relied on written claims of ownership, and instead adopted an aggressive territorial policy under which it publicly and explicitly claimed that Dokdo was Japanese territory. The Korean government remained silent and pretended to ignore Japan's belligerent claims.

It seems that Korea believes its current occupation of Dokdo has effectively secured its right of possession, and if this occupation is maintained over time, then the ownership controversy will naturally disappear. However, such an atti¬tude represents a precarious approach, which is somewhat difficult to comprehend from the perspective of international law. As such, the current stance of the Korean government can be assessed as being rather tenuous under internation¬al law.
Furthermore, according to the fisheries agreement concluded between Korea and Japan in 1999, Dokdo is located within a provisional zone designated in the East Sea that calls for joint efforts for the maintenance and regulation of related fishery resources. Nevertheless, during the past six years of the agreement's effectiveness, Korea has unilat¬erally refused to promote the joint regulatory measures that had been agreed upon.



Dokdo A Symbol of Korean National Pride

For the Korean people, Dokdo Island is much more than just the easternmost point of their national territory. Indeed, Dokdo's special significance is reflected in the notable efforts of the people who have ardently protected and cared for this island.

To the Korean people, Dokdo is a symbol of national pride that can never be given up for any reason. The number of islands that are part of Korean territory is practically countless. But it is Dokdo that is at the heart of a raging controversy due to Japan's repeated claims of sovereignty of the island. Indeed, Koreans think of Dokdo as much more than a national boundary that is now the target of political wrangling. Despite the fact that Dokdo is a remote island in the East Sea that the vast majority of Koreans have never even seen up close, this easternmost point of their national territory is dear to people's hearts.

When Koreans heard the news that the local council of Shimane Prefecture in Japan had proclaimed February 22, 2005 as "Takeshima Day," the entire country again became aggravated over the issue of Dokdo. Incensed by Japan's belligerence, Koreans staged protests amid the emergence of various reactions, including advice to demonstrate rational and cool-headed behavior, rather than emotional outbursts of outrage. As in the past, the territorial dispute over Dokdo, which the Japanese call Takeshima, remains a political volcano, capable of erupting at any moment.

Korea has for long exercised sovereignty over Dokdo

Korea has for long exercised sovereignty over Dokdo 1696 (22nd year of the reign of King SukjongJ during the Joseon Dynasty, An Yong-bok, a fisherman who was abducted by Japan, declared to Japanese authorities that Dokdo belonged to Korea. Carrying on An's legacy, a volunteer group led by Hong Sun-chil (1929-1986) stood guard at the island in 1953, after learning about a possible intrusion by Japan.

Any discussion on Dokdo must make mention of Lee Jong-hak (1927-2002). a bibliographer who devoted his life to bringing attention to Japan's distortion of historical facts about Dokdo. The late Lee was the first director of the Dokdo Museum [www.dokdomuseum.go.kr]. the nation's first territorial museum that opened in 1997, and a high-profile protector of the island. The Dokdo Museum is located on a 1 ,597-square-meter site in Yaksu Park on Ulleungdo. Lee, who donated 555 maps, documents, and other materials to the museum, was known for his deep attachment to Dokdo. Lee visited Japan numerous times to search out documents that proved Korea's ownership of Dokdo. In this regard, it is said that the staff of university libraries and government archives would whisper to each other, "Here comes Takeshima," when they caught sight of Lee.

Online Promotion of Dokdo

Recently, interest in Dokdo has flourished via the Internet. Sites such as the Righteous Troops of Dokdo (www.o-dokdo.com) and Dokdo Suhodae (www.tokdo.com), as well as clubs like Dokdo 199 (user.chollian.net/-zstokdo), are just a few examples of how the Internet has helped to bolster public support for Dokdo, especially among the young generation.

In contrast to some sites that exist mainly in name alone, www.cybertokdo.com is particularly active thanks to the assistance of its many volunteers. Kim Hyun-jung, an ordinary wage earner, operates this site, which has been commended by the National Assembly Dokdo Club and is highly recommended for Korean youth by the Information Communication Ethics Committee. Kim developed an interest in Dokdo when he came to realize that the international community commonly referred to the East Sea as the "Sea of Japan." This situation prompted Kim to stay up until the wee hours night after night, searching for available information on Dokdo, and then later launching and operating the subject web site.

As a reflection of the Internet's value in rallying public support for Dokdo, the Hangeullnternet address service provider, Netpia, has donated Dokdo's Korean language Internet address to the government of Gyeongsangbuk-do province. That is, the company has made available the Korean domain names "Dokdo" and "Dokdo I Sarang," which can be used instead of the English domain (www.dokdo.go.kr) as of March 2005, thereby enabling Koreans to more easily visit Dokdo, if only online.