-
The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 13 | Issue 9 |
Number 3 | Mar 02, 2015
1
Japans 1905 Incorporation of Dokdo/Takeshima: A
HistoricalPerspective1905
Yong-ho Ch'oe
Introduction
On January 28, 1905, the Japanese Cabinetformally adopted a
resolution incorporating theisland of Dokdo/Takeshima as
Japaneseterritory. Justifying the incorporation based onthe claim
that Dokdo/Takeshima was "anuninhabited island with no evidence
that can berecognizable as having been occupied byanother country
(. . . .", the Japanesegovernment then renamed the is landTakeshima
() and placed its jurisdictionunder Shimane Prefecture, which in
turn put itunder the magistracy of Oki Island.1 This actionby the
Japanese government was stronglydisputed by the Republic of Korea,
igniting abitter controversy between the two Asianneighbors.
Following Japan's defeat in thePacific War in 1945, Korea, claiming
historicalrights, regained its control over the island.Japan
regards this as an illegal occupationbased on its 1905
incorporation. This articleoffers a historical perspective on
theDokdo/Takeshima controversy by examiningthe historical claims
made by both Japan andSouth Korea.
The Korean claim over Dokdo/Takeshima goesas far back as the
sixth century when theancient Kingdom of Silla dispatched troops
andsubdued it in 512 C.E. The succeedingdynasties-Goryeo and
Joseon-continued tocontrol the island until the turn of the
twentiethcentury when Japan arbitrarily and illegallyincorporated
into its domain in 1905, accordingto Korean scholars. These Koreans
citenumerous historical sources to support theirclaim. For Japan on
the other hand, the oldest
written reference to Dokdo/Takeshima datesback to the
seventeenth century and, as weshal l see, throughout the Edo
period(1600-1868), the Tokugawa governmentdisavowed any claim over
the island. The Meijigovernment likewise maintained the
positionthat Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea, until1905 when
Japan suddenly shifted its policyand laid claim over the island on
the ground ofterra nullius.2 What were the reasons for thisJapanese
action? What were the motives? Here,we can find a convergence of
two forces-onepolitical emanating from the "Conquer KoreaArgument"
and the other an urgent militaryconsideration in fighting the war
against Russiabeing waged at the time. We shall see how aninnocent
business proposition by a privateindividual was manipulated by a
few middle-ranking officials of the Meiji government toconvert it
into a national policy of territorialaggrandizement.
A Note on Names
Historically, both Japan and Korea useddifferent names for this
island and the largerneighboring island of Ulleungdo (),3
causing considerable confusion in identifyingand locating these
sites. Until the latenineteenth century, Japan used the
nameTakeshima to refer to what Korea now callsUlleungdo, and
Matsushima () to refer towhat Korea now calls Dokdo (). When in1905
Japan annexed the islet that it hadpreviously called Matsushima and
Korea calledDokdo, it renamed it as Takeshima. Korea, onthe other
hand, used several different namesfor these two islands besides
Ulleungdo andDokdo, including Usan (), Muleung (),
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
2
Uleung (), and Uleung (), amongothers. Korean scholars generally
believe thatMuleung is the present Ulleungdo and Usan thepresent
Dokdo, although many others arguethat these names were used
interchangeably orcollectively. Yet another name for Dodko
/Takeshima was added by European navigatorsexploring the East
Sea/Sea of Japan in thenineteenth century: Liancourt Rocks.4 The
useof these different names naturally causedconfusion, and
contributed in no small degreeto the rise of the controversy
between Japanand Korea.
Ulleungdo has fertile land for farming, alongwith rich resources
for fishing, hunting (sealions), and logging. Dokdo/Takeshima,
incontrast, is a rocky islet where humanhabitation is difficult,
but it also has richgrounds for fishing, collecting abalone,
andhunting sea lions. Located approximately 92kilometers southeast
of Korea's Ulleungdo and157 kilometers northwest of Japan's Oki
Island,the disputed island of Dokdo/Takeshima iscurrently under the
dominion of the Republic ofKorea, which Japan regards as an
illegaloccupation.
Historical References in Korea: Under Sillaand Goryeo
T h e f i r s t h i s t o r i c a l r e f e r e n c e t
oDokdo/Takeshima in Korea is found in Samguksagi ( History of the
Three Kingdoms),compiled in the year 1145. It reads:
In the summer 6th month of the12th year of King Jijeung's
reign[512], the Country of Usan ()accepted submission and began
tosend its local products as annualtribute [to Silla]. The Country
ofUsan is located in the sea due eastof Myeongju () and is
alsocalled Ulleungdo."5
Samguk sagi then details how General Isabu() of Silla used force
and guile to forceUsan-guk into submission. Usan was also
calledUlleungdo, but there is no explanation as towhether Ulleungdo
or Usan-guk also referredto Dokdo. Based on later historical
accounts,Korean scholars today believe that the Usan-guk mentioned
in Samguk sagi was comprisedof both Ulleungdo and Dokdo.6 Japan, on
theother hand, rejects this view, insisting thatUsan-guk referred
only to Ulleungdo and didnot include Dokdo/Takeshima.7
During the Goryeo Dynasty (918-1392) thatsucceeded the Silla
Kingdom, there are morenumerous references to Ulleungdo and
Usando.In 930, during the reign of the dynastic founderKing Taejo,
a report in Goryeo-sa (History of Goryeo), the official dynastic
historycompiled in 1451, notes that two individualsnamed Baekgil
and Todu from Uleungdo () submitted tribute of native products
andwere given titles as government officials by theking.8 Several
reports during the eleventhcentury describe invasions of Usan by
theNuzhen (), a tribe in Manchuria. In 1018,for example, there is
this entry: "As theNuzhen's invasion of Usanguk was sodevastating
that its agriculture was faced withcomplete ruin, the king
dispatched Yi Weon-guwith farming tools and implements."9
Similartwelfth and thirteenth century references toUlleungdo and
Usando in Goreyo-sa and otherhistorical works make it clear that
Koreacontrolled and administered Ulleungdo as wellas Usando
throughout the Goryeo Dynasty.10
One may, however, question whether thesereferences denote both
Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima or just one of the islands.S i n c e t
h e b a r r e n r o c k y i s l a n d o fDokdo/Takeshima did not
favor humansettlement, it may be that the referencesapplied only to
Ulleungdo. This question,however, is resolved in the geography
sectionof Goryeo-sa , in which there is a clearreference to two
islands. The entry on
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
3
Ulleungdo reads as follows:
It is located in the sea due east ofthe county [of Uljin]. It
was calledUsan-guk during the Silla period. Itis also called
Muleung or Uleung(). . . . According to one view,Usan and Muleung
consists of twoislands, whose distance is not toofar away so that
one can see theother island when weather is clearand bright.11
Here, the official history of Goryeo statesspecifically that
Ulleungdo consisted of bothUsan and Muleung and that the
distancebetween the two was such that each could beseen from the
other only when the weather wasclear and bright.
Koreans maintain that this passage isunmistakable evidence of
Korea's claim to thetwo islands dating back at least to the
Goryeoperiod, for the only island that is visible fromUlleungdo
solely under clear and brightweather conditions is
Dokdo/Takeshima.Although there are many smaller islands in
theimmediate vicinity of Ulleungdo, none evencomes remotely close
to what Goryeo-sadescribes.
Japanese scholars, however, dispute this.Kawakami Kenz, a
researcher at the JapaneseForeign Ministry, whose view may have
largelyshaped the Japanese posi t ion on theDokdo/Takeshima
controversy, expendsconsiderable effort to find faults in the
Koreanhistorical sources. Comparing this particularpassage from
Goryeo-sa to many similar Koreanhistorical references that followed
afterwardunder the Joseon dynasty, he concludes that allthe
references basically repeat an earlier textand that Koreans made a
mistake in readingthese passages as referring to two islands.
Heinsists that these writings refer only to oneisland of Ulleungdo
and that Dokdo/Takeshima
is not included.12 Most Korean scholars,however, reject
Kawakami's reading as abiased interpretation of the text, and
argueinstead the Dokdo/Takeshima is the only islandthat is visible
in the distance from Ulleungdounder "clear and bright" weather
conditions.
Korean Historical References: Under theJoseon Dynasty
The Joseon Dynasty succeeded Koryeo in 1392and ruled Korea until
1910. Deeply committedto a Neo-Confucian ideology, Joseon Korea
wasparticularly conscious of history and generatedmassive
historical records--both public andprivate. These records contain
numerousreferences to Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima,from which we
learn that the early JoseonDynasty was preoccupied with two issues
inreference to these islands: the fear of Japanesemarauders (), and
how to deal with peoplemoving there to escape governmental
control.
In the latter half of the fourteenth and the earlyfifteenth
centuries, Japanese raiders inflictedheavy damage along the Korean
coast. In fact,their harassment was an important factorcontributing
to the demise of Goryeo and therise of Joseon. Not until King
Sejong launched amilitary expedition to Tsushima in 1419 wasthe
menace of the marauders largelyeliminated. But Japanese harassment
stillimpacted Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima. In1417, for example, a
one-sentence report inKing Taejo's annals noted that "Japanese
raidedUsan and Muleung."13 In 1437, Yu Gye-mun, thegovernor of
Gangweon province, proposed acounty-level magistracy on Muleung
island toadminister the people who were attracted therefor its
fertile land and to deal with problemsarising from Japanese
marauders.14
The greater concern for the Joseongovernment, however, was how
to deal withthose who sought refuge on the remote islandsto avoid
governmental exactions, such as taxesand military and labor
services. In 1412, the
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
4
governor of Gangweon province reported thatmore than sixty men
and women had moved toMuleung island.15 In 1425, twenty-eight
menand women were reported to have escapedthere,16 and in 1438,
sixty-six men and womenwere forcibly removed from Muleungdo.17
Mostof these migrants were trying to avoidgovernmental control, as
Kim In-hu (),the Pacification Commissioner of Muleung,reported in
1416. The gist of his report reads:Because of its [Muleung] remote
location in thesea, people moved there to escape militaryduties,
and as the number of these peopleincreased, it would surely bring
Japanesemarauders to invade, which in turn wouldthreaten Gangweon
province as well.18 Becauseof these concerns, the Joseon government
inthe end adopted the gongdo policy ()prohibiting people from
visiting or residing onthe islands.
What particularly draws our attention in thesereferences,
however, is the use of Usan andMuleung as the names of the two
islands. Adiscussion of whether to assist or evacuatepeople from
the islands in 1417, for instance,uses the names Usan and Uleung
throughout.19
In the same year, a report on Japanesemarauders notes that
"Japanese raided Usanand Muleung."20 Also, in 1425, when Kim
In-huwas dispatched twice to bring back those whofled to the
islands, he was designated "thePacification Commissioner of Usan,
Muleung,and the Other Area ()."21
In 1457, based on his experience as magistrateof Gangneung, Yu
Su-gang () proposed anew county-level office to administer
thecombined islands, declaring that "It is worthyto establish a
county office for the two islandsof Usan and Muleung ()."Asked by
King Sejo for advice, the Ministry ofMilitary Affairs opposed
establishing the newoffice on the grounds that the islands were
tooremote from the mainland, and that it was toodifficult to
navigate there. In rejecting Yu'sproposal, the ministry referred to
"The matter
of establishing a county office for the twoislands of Usan and
Muleung ()."22 The king in the end agreed with theministry. What
draws our special attention inthis discussion are, first, the
specific referencesto "the two islands of Usan and Uleung,"
andsecond, that these islands were importantenough to be considered
part of the regularprovincial government administration of
JoseonKorea. These records clearly show that not onlywas early
Joseon cognizant of the existence ofthe two islands, but that it
actually exercisedadministrative control over them. Based onthese
sources, Shin Yong-ha, arguably the bestinformed Korean scholar on
this controversy,asserts that Korea recognized the two islandsas
one entity, in which Ulleungdo was regardedas "the main island" and
Dokdo as its"subordinate island." 2 3
The recognition of the two islands as part ofKorean territory is
even clearer in the books ofgeography compiled in the early Joseon
period.During the reign of King Sejong (1418-1450), acomprehensive
survey of the country wasproduced. Recording geographical
conditionsas well as human and natural resources, thissurvey is
appended to the Annals of KingSejong, the Sejong sillok jiriji ().
The entry on Uljin county () ofGangweon Province notes: "Two
islands ofUsan and Muleung are located in the sea dueeast of
[Uljin] county, and the distance betweenthe two islands is not too
far, but one can seeeach other when the weather is clear
andbright."24 Here, we find a clear reference to twoseparate
islands located due east of Uljin, andvisible to each other only
under clear andbright weather. Such descriptions fit well withthe
present Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima,but match no other islands in
the area.
In addition to the geography section of KingSejong's annals, the
early Joseon Dynastyconducted a number of other surveys of itshuman
and natural resources, in particularcompiling the Dongguk yeoji
seunram (Survey
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
5
of the Geography of Korea) in 1481, which wasrevised and
augmented in 1530 as Sinjeungdongguk yeoji seungram ().This
remarkable study of Korea's geographyprovides detailed geographic,
economic,historical, and cultural information on variousprovinces
and counties. The section on Uljincounty includes this passage:
"Usando andUlleungdo: One is also called Muleung and theother
Uleung. The two islands are located inthe sea due east of the
county [of Uljin]. Threepeaks soar in the sky, but one in the south
is alittle lower. On a clear and bright day, one cansee clearly
trees on the tops of the hills andsand in the shore below [of the
other island].With favorable wind, one can reach there intwo
days.."25 Here, we find a clear descriptionof Usando and Ulleungdo.
We also learn thatthese two islands were placed under
theadministration of Uljin county in Gangweonprovince.
It should be noted here that this geographicsurvey mentions an
alternative theory that"Usan and Ulleung are one island." Based
onthis report that some people believed that therewas only one
island with two names, manyJapanese scholars contend that fifteenth
andsixteenth century Koreans knew of only oneisland and were
unaware of the existence ofDokdo/Takeshima.26 Similar references in
otherhistorical sources also state that two nameswere used for the
same island, certainlycontributing to the confusion in
identifyingthese locations. However the reference to twonames for
one place is included in the surveyonly as a subsidiary theory. In
traditional EastAsian historical writings, compilers very
oftenincluded divergent or minority views, markedby such phrases as
"different theories" or "" or "" (according to another view).
Inthis geographic survey, the phrase "Usan andUleung refer to one
island" is included at theend of the paragraph, as "according to
anothertheory," indicating that it was recorded only asa minority
view, and not the acceptedconclusion. The book's compilers clearly
favor
the theory that there were two islands of Usanand Uleung, which
came under the jurisdictionof Korea's Gangweon Province.
This conclusion is further strengthened by twomaps depicting
"Usando" and Ulleungdoappended to the Sinjeung dongguk
yeojiseungram. Inserted at the beginning of thebook, the "Paldo
chongdo ( GeneralMap of the Eight Provinces)" depicts the
entireKorean Peninsula, with major rivers andmountains in addition
to the eight provinces. Inthe sea east of the Korean Peninsula, the
mapdepicts two islands, called Usando andUlleungdo.
Figure 1. Map of Korea in Dongguk Yeoji Seungrammade in 1530.
Usando is incorrectly located to thewest of Ulleungdo in the sea
east of Korea.
A second map, covering Gangweon Province,also shows the islands
of Usando andUlleungdo, located east of Uljin. Illustrating
theexistence of two islands in Korea's eastern sea,these maps also
clearly show that both wereregarded as Korean territory,
administeredunder the jurisdiction of Gangweon Province.
A controversy remains, however, surroundingthe locations of the
two islands as depicted inthe maps. Usando is shown between the
KoreanPeninsula and Ulleungdo-that is, west of
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
6
Ulleungdo. The present-day Dokdo, however,which many Koreans
believe to be Usan, isl o c a t e d t o t h e e a s t o f U l l e u
n g d o .Understandably, Japanese scholars use thisdiscrepancy to
deny the Korean claim.Kawakami Kenz, for example, cites the mapsin
his disparaging evaluation: "Even from themaps that offer the most
concrete knowledge ofgeography, we can say clearly that the
theoryof Usan-Ulleungdo being two islands [as heldby Koreans] is
based wholly on an imaginaryperception (), and it typically shows
thatsuch a [Korean] view is not derived from anyfactual knowledge
at all."2 7 FollowingKawakami's contention, the Japanese
ForeignMinistry and kuma Ryichi reach similarconclusions, rejecting
the Korean assertion thatUsan and Ulleungdo were the present
Dokdoand Ulleungdo.28
Japanese scholars contend, in short, that theinconsistency in
the locations of Usan andUlleung as depicted in Sinjeung dongguk
yeojiseungram negates the validity of the Koreanclaim. Because the
maps incorrectly place Usanwest of Ulleungdo, the Japanese insist
thatKoreans had no actual knowledge of theexistence of the present
Dokdo/Takeshima, andbase their identification of Usando as
presentDokdo/Takeshima not on fact, but only on "animaginary
perception." Koreans, however,vehemently reject this contention.
Shin Yong-haasserts that the inconsistent locations of Usanand
Ulleung in the maps of Sinjeung donggukyeoji seungram should be
regarded simply as amistake committed by the Korean
scholar-officials who compiled the geography book-anunderstandable
mistake, according to Shin,considering the limited cartographic
knowledgeand map-making skills of the sixteenth century.Despite the
directional inaccuracy, Shin Yong-ha contends that the book's two
maps andnarrative show that Korea at the time treatedthese islands
as an integral part of Koreanterritory. The placement of Usando
andUlleungdo close to Korea's east coast,according to Shin and
other Korean scholars,29
is "a manifestation of the strong territorialconsciousness" of
the map-makers.30
Historically, as I have shown, Korea usedseveral different names
for the two islands, andclose examination shows that these
nameswere often used interchangeably. This mayhave occurred because
of the lack of exactknowledge of the location of the two
islands,due to their remoteness from the mainland andthe difficulty
in reaching them, But this lack ofprecise knowledge does not mean
that Koreanswere unaware of the existence of both islands.The maps
instead demonstrate that they werefully cognizant of two separate
islands--Usanand Uleung--as part of Korea.
Korean Policy of Vacating the Islands ()
A n o t h e r b o n e o f c o n t e n t i o n i n t h
eDokdo/Takeshima controversy is the so-calledpolicy of vacating or
evacuating the islands ofUlleung and Usan pursued by the
Koreangovernment during the Joseon Dynasty.Officially, in 1417, the
new Joseon governmentadopted the gongdo () policy wherebypeople
were not permitted to live on theislands. There were at least two
reasons for thispolicy. First, in the late Goryeo and earlyJoseon
period, many from the east coast ofKorea had moved to Ulleung to
seek economicgain and to avoid the burdensome dutiesimposed by the
central government, includingtaxes and military and labor services.
Thegovernment wanted to restore its control overthese people.
Second, with the memories stillfresh of Japanese marauders
pillaging Koreancoasts and its surrounding islands, the
Joseongovernment did not want to attract Japaneseraiders to these
undefended remote islands. In1417, on learning that as many as
eighty-sixKoreans were living on Ulleungdo, thegovernment
dispatched a special commissionerto persuade them to return to the
mainland.When only three complied with the request, theking ordered
the evacuation of the island.31
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
7
Some Japanese scholars interpret this policy asabandoning the
island, thus allowing Japanesefishermen to move there. Kawakami
Kenzwrites: "From the early period of the Yi [Joseon]Dynasty, the
island [of Ulleungdo] wascompletely vacated, and as the island
wascompletely abandoned by the KoreanGovernment, increasing numbers
of Japanesevisited [Ulleungdo], and for 100 years after theBunroku
war [the Hideyoshi Invasion of Koreain 1592-98], it [Ulleungdo]
became wholly afishing ground of the Japanese."32 kumaRyichi holds
a similar view: "The policy ofvacating islands started in the 15th
century bythe Joseon Dynasty government, and for thelong ensuing
period of more than 300 years,this island [Ulleungdo] was reduced
literally toan uninhabited island ()."33
Did, as these Japanese scholars claim,Ulleungdo become an
uninhabited islandfollowing the adoption of the "Vacating
IslandsPolicy" in 1417? Did the Joseon Dynasty reallyabandon
Ulleungdo? Historical evidenceindicates otherwise. Despite the
official policy,Koreans continued to go to Ulleungdo,attracted by
its fertile land, rich fishinggrounds, and abundant forests, as
well as toevade taxes and governmental control. As ShinYong-ha has
amply documented, numerousentries in the Joseon Dynasty annals
(sillok)deal with the people who moved to Ulleungdo.Periodically
the government was obliged todispatch officials to handle those who
violatedthe evacuation policy.34 In 1480, for example,King
Seongjong appointed Shim An-in ()as the Commissioner of
Pacification (),and sent him along with more than 200 troopsto
Ulleungdo to persuade, coax, and/or compelthose who were on the
island to return to themainland.35 Contrary to Japanese
contentions,the evacuation policy did not result in the
totalvacating of Ulleungdo, and more importantly, itcertainly did
not mean abandoning the island.In reality, the policy was never
effectivelyenforced, as Koreans continued to go therethroughout the
Joseon dynasty's rule.
Japanese Historical Sources
Although there are a number of references tothe presence of
Japanese on Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima in Korean historical
sources-characterizing them mostly as marauders-therei s n o k n o
w n J a p a n e s e a c c o u n t o fDodko/Takeshima dating from
before the lateseventeenth century, many centuries later thanthe
earliest surviving Korean account. Theoldest known Japanese written
reference datesback to 1667, according to Kawakami Kenz,when Sait
Hsen (), a magistrate ofthe island of Onshu (present Oki),
compiledOnsh shichgki (, Record ofwhat I observed and learned on
Onsh) aboutOki's history, economy, etc.36 The followingpassage
pertains to Takeshima (Dokdo): "When[navigating from Onsh] in the
northwesterlydirection for two days and one night, one canr e a c h
M a t s u s h i m a ( ) [ p r e s e n tDokdo/Takeshima]. One more
day's journeyfrom there will take one to Takeshima
[presentUlleungdo]. These two islands are uninhabitedby men.
Looking toward Korea from there issimilar to looking toward Onsh
from Unsh[present Sh imane] . There fore , thenorthwestern boundary
of Japan lies in thisregion."37 This is the first reference in
theJapanese literature giving the names ofTakeshima and Matsushima,
according toseveral Japanese scholars.38
The last sentence of this passage, however, isopen to
interpretation: "Therefore, thenorthwestern boundary of Japan lies
in thisregion." What is at issue is how to read theterm "this
region" (kono sh ) that marksthe boundary of Japan. Most Korean
scholarsargue that "this region" refers to Onsh, orpresent Oki
island, evidence that Sait Hsenbelieved the boundary demarcating
Japan fromthe outside world was located in Oki, notDokdo/Takeshima.
Shin Yong-ha writes: "Whatis stated in this source proves, contrary
to theclaim made by the Japanese government, thatJapan's northern
boundary ends with Oki island
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
8
and [therefore] that Ulleungdo (Takeshima) andDokdo (Matsushima)
are parts of the Koreanterritory."39
Japanese scholars on the other hand offerconflicting
interpretations of Sait'sobservation. kuma Ryichi, a strong
advocateof the Japanese claim to Dokto/Takeshima,reads the term
"this region" as referring toDokdo/Takeshima: "This Takeshima is
thepresent Ulleungdo, and because Matsushima[present
Dokdo/Takeshima] is [an island] whereno person lived, it is the
furthest land point ofJapan's northwesterly direction. The
compiler[Sait] writes that this is the boundary of ourcountry."40
Tagawa Kz likewise reads "thisregion" as the islands of Ulleungdo
andDokdo/Takeshima.41 Kawakami Kenz, however,skirts the boundary
issue. Although he quotesthe entire passage, he uses it only to
point toSait's work as the first Japanese reference
toDokdo/Takeshima.4 2 Likewise, TamuraSeizabur offers no reading of
the boundaryissue.43
Another Japanese scholar, nishi Toshiteru, onthe o ther hand , a
f f i rms the Koreaninterpretation of the boundary passage
asdefining Onsh (Oki), not Dokdo/Takeshima, asthe farthest point of
Japan. A native of Oki,where he finished high school,
nishitranslates the pertinent passage as follows:"Japan's boundary
(the furthest point of thenorthwesterly land where the Japanese
live) isin this region (Onsh, meaning Oki-kuni), andthis
constitutes the boundary [whereinJapanese live]."44 Hosaka Yji, a
Japanese-Korean scholar, has reached a similarconclusion.45 But the
most authoritative readingof this particular passage is by Ikeuchi
Satoshi,a professor at Nagoya University in Japan.Devoting an
entire article to the term "thisregion ()," Ikeuchi studied the
contexts inwhich other contemporary writers used it.Comparing as
many as sixty-six examples, heconcluded that "this region" referred
to Onsh,not the islands, as the boundary of Japan,46 and
that Sait Hsen defined the Japaneseboundary as located on Oki
island, notDokdo/Takeshima. It should also be pointed outthat Sait
used "this region )," and not"this island ()," to refer to the
boundary.
During Tokugawa Rule (1600-1868), theJapanese government imposed
a strict policy ofisolation (), banning its people from leavingthe
country. But discovering abundantresources, an increasing number of
Japanesewere attracted to Ulleungdo, which they calledTakeshima ()
or Isotakejima (). In1618, two enterprising families of ya ()and
Murakawa () from Yonago () (nowpart of Tottori Prefecture)
requested and weregiven permission by the Tokugawa Shogunateto
engage in economic activities on Takeshima(Ulleungdo).47 It was
while carrying out theirwork that the Japanese discovered the islet
ofDokdo/Takeshima, which they cal ledMatsushima, lying between Oki
(Onsh) andUlleungdo.48 This islet, with its rich fishinggrounds,
became a convenient way station forgoing from Japan to Ulleungdo.49
The Japaneseclaims of Dokdo/Takeshima are based largelyon these
activities carried out by fishermenduring the Genroku period
(1688-1703). TheJapanese activities on these islands, however,did
not last long, as in 1696 the Tokugawagovernment issued an order
prohibiting itspeople from going to Takeshima (Ulleungdo).50
With memories of the destructive Japan-Koreawar of 1592-98 still
vivid, the TokugawaShogunate maintained throughout its rule apolicy
of peace and friendship with Korea. Aswe shall see below, the
Tokugawa decision toprohibit Japanese from going to
Takeshima(Ulleungdo) in 1696 was partly motivated bythe desire to
maintain friendly and peacefulrelations with Korea.
As if to underscore the official position of theTokugawa
government, some maps produced inlate eighteenth century Japan show
clearly thatDokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea. A scholar
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
9
famous for drawing attention on Japan'smaritime defense, Hayashi
Shihei (),compiled a book entitled Sankoku tsranzusetsu (
An illustrated survey of three countries) in1785, providing an
account of the geography ofJapan and three neighboring
countries-namely,Ryky, Ezo (Hokkaido), and Korea. Appendedto this
book is a colored map showing Japan,Ezo, Siberia, Manchuria, and
Korea. In the seabetween Japan and Korea are two islands-alarge one
it called Matsushima and anothersmaller one next to it that is not
named. Whilethe main island of Japan and its surroundingislands,
such as Tsushima and Oki, are coloredin green, Matsushima and its
neighboringisland have, in contrast, yellow color along withKorea.
Moreover, next to Matushima is thispassage: "They belong to Korea
()."51
Figure 2. Map made by Hayashi Shihei in ca. 1785.Matsushima and
Takeshima are colored in yellowsame as Korea. It notes: "They
belong to Korea."
Figure 2.here
In 1791, cartographer, Nagakubo Sekisui () produced the famous
map of Japan
called Nihon yochi rotei zenzu ( Complete map of Japanese lands
and roads),using for the first time the meridians andparallels. In
this map, Nagakubo gave variouscolors to different Japanese
provinces andislands, such as Tsushima and Oki, but gave nocolor to
Takeshima (Ul leungdo) andMatsushima (Dokdo) or to Korea.52 These
twomaps clearly indicate that Tokugawa Japan hadno illusion of any
territorial claim over theisland of Dokdo/Takeshima.
The An Yong-bok () Incident
In spite of the policy of "vacating the islands,"many Koreans
went to Ulleungdo seasonally toengage in farming, fishing, and
logging. Intime, these Koreans encountered
Japanesefishermen--encounters that eventually led toconflict. In
1692, according to one Japanesereport, approximately thirty Koreans
were onUlleungdo, apparently with no friction.53 Butthe following
year, more than forty Koreans,including An Yong-bok and Bak
Eo-dong,arrived at Ulleungdo to join other Koreansworking there,
and this time a conflict arose.After an argument, the numerically
superiorJapanese fishermen held An Yong-bok and BakEo-dong hostage,
taking them to Oki and thento Yonago , J apan . A f te r a se r i e
s o finterrogations, the two Koreans wereeventually escorted safely
back to Korea.54
Three years later, in 1696, An Yong-bok,accompanied by several
Buddhist monks, wentto Ulleungdo once again, where he tried
topersuade the Japanese fishermen to leave theisland on the grounds
that Ulleungdo belongedto Korea. As he pursued the Japanese
toDokdo/Takeshima, he met unfavorable weatherand was forced to
drift all the way to Japan.Following interrogation, he was once
againsent back to Korea.55
An Yong-bok's first trip in 1693 prompted adiplomatic dispute
between Japan and Koreaover the ownership of Ulleungdo. Usually,
theMinistry of Rites of the Korean government
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
10
took charge of negotiating with Japan, whilethe lord of Tsushima
represented Japan indealing with Korea. Claiming historical
right,Korea demanded that Japan not violate Koreanterritory or
exploit the Korean resources ofUlleungdo. Rejecting this claim,
Japan insistedthat "Isotakejima [Takeshima, Ulleungdo] ispart of
Japanese territory."56 But in 1696, aftera flurry of diplomatic
exchanges, ShogunTsunayoshi ordered the lord of Tsushima toprohibit
Japanese from going to Ulleungdo, forthe following reason:
Although it is said that the land ofTakeshima [Ulleungdo]
belongedto Hsh [Tottori], our peoplenever lived there. During the
timeof Lord Daitoku, merchants ofYonago requested and weregranted
permission to fish there.As we consider its location, thedistance
from Hsh is about 160ri while the distance from Korea isabout 40
ri. Moreover, it [Korea]appears to claim that this islandforms its
boundary. If [our] countryshould resort to military power, wemay
probably gain something. Butit is not a good policy for us to
losethe friendship of a neighboringcountry for the sake of this
uselesssmall island () .57f
With this decision, Japanese were prohibitedfrom going to
Ulleungdo until the end ofTokugawa rule. This prohibition also in
effectconceded control of the islands to Korea. WhileKawakami Kenz
contends that this order didnot apply to Matsushima
(Dokdo/Takeshima),which Japan held to be part of its domain,58
Koreans reject Kawakami's argument.
It is important to take special note of thereason Shogun
Tsunayoshi, who presided overthe famous "Genroku Culture" in Japan,
gavefor his decision: Keeping friendship with Korea
is more important than fighting over "thisuseless small island."
Following Tsunayoshi'sorder, the Tokugawa government pursued
ingeneral a policy of peace and friendship towardKorea throughout
its rule, which wasreciprocated by Joseon Korea.
At the same time, An Yong-bok's trips to Japanalso provoked
serious debates within theKorean government. When, in 1694, the
lord ofTsushima, the chief Japanese negotiator withKorea, protested
that the presence of Koreanson Ulleungdo (Takeshima) infringed
uponJapan's territorial rights and demanded that noKoreans should
be allowed there,59 the initialresponse of the Korean government
was toavoid trouble. Headed by Mok Nae-seon andMin Ham, the State
Council (), thehighest office in the central government,hesitated
to offend Japan. They advised theking that although Ulleungdo
belonged toKorea, it had been vacated for three hundredyears, and
hence should not be allowed tobecome a cause for conflict.6 0
Shortlythereafter, however, a political change in theKorean court
removed these officials andinstalled Nam Gu-man () as the
chiefstate councillor (). One of his first actionswas to reverse
the policy toward Japan. Citinghistorical claims going back to the
Silla period,as well as the Dongguk yeoji seungram, NamGu-man
insisted that Ulleungdo was Koreanland and that Japan should not be
allowed toviolate Korean rights and interests there. If theJapanese
were allowed to do so, he warned,they would cause incalculable
damage.61 Duringthe discussion, there was even a proposal
toestablish a military garrison () on Ulleungdoto protect against
any future intrusions byJapan. The king ordered that
appropriatemeasures be taken, but apparently no
actionfollowed.62
In spite of his imprisonment, An Yong-bok,upon his release, went
to Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima again in 1696 to repel theJapanese.
He was forced off-course by
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
11
unfavorable weather and reached Japaneseshores, where he
continued to advocate for theKorean position. On his return, he
claimed thatthe Japanese authorities recognized the Koreanclaim and
promised not to allow Japanese toviolate Korean territory. He also
claimed thatthe Tokugawa Shogunate wrote a letteracknowledging that
both Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea, but
thisdocument was taken away by the lord ofTsushima.63
Some Japanese scholars contest his story.Kawakami Kenz argues
that An Yong-bok'sclaim about the Tokugawa Shogun's
letteracknowledging the Korean ownership of theislands is not
supported by the existingdocuments. Kawakami also denies An's
claimthat he had interviewed the lord of Hki ().Citing these and
other inconsistencies in AnYong-bok's description of his
actions,Kawakami concludes that An's account is basedon "falsehood
()."64 Others challenge thisview, however. Both Nait Seich, an
emeritusprofessor of Shimane University, and HosakaYji, a
Japanese-Korean scholar, examinedrecently discovered documents
related to AnYong-bok's visit to Japan. They believe that hemost
likely had the opportunity to interview thelord of Hki while in
Japan, and that An'sdescription of his conduct is consistent
withother evidence, and hence his accounts arecredible.65
In 2005, a batch of documents belonging to theMurakami () family
of Shimane wasdiscovered, which shed new light on the AnYong-bok
affair. Among these documents is onetitled "A memorandum of Koreans
arriving byboat in the 9th year of Genroku [1696]." Thedate and the
contents of this document make itquite clear that it once belonged
to An Yong-bok. Included is a sheet of paper entitled
"EightProvinces of Korea ()," listing thenames of all the provinces
of Korea. UnderGangweon Province is this line in small
letters:"This province includes Takeshima and
Matsushima ()."
Figure 3. An Yong-bok Document of 1696 (found inJapan) listing
Korea's 8 Provinces. It says:"Matsushima and Takeshima are under
GangweonProvince."
In another document, An Yong-bok explainsthat "The island called
Bamboo Island isTakeshima [Takeshima () means bambooisland], which
is Ulleungdo and belongs toDongraebu () of Gangweondo [sic]
inKorea. This is called Bamboo Island and is sorecorded in the map
of the Eight Provinces [ofKorea], which I am carrying with me now.
Asfor Matsushima, there is an island called Jasan(), which is under
[the administration of]the province mentioned above
[GangweonProvince], and this is called Matsushima. Thistoo is
recorded in the Eight Provinces Map."66
Here, we have written documents going back tothe last decade of
the seventeenth century thatshow An Yong-bok declaring in clear
languagethat both Ulleungdo and Matsushima(Dokdo/Takeshima)
belonged to Korea. Thesedocuments, in the possession of the
Murakamifamily of Oki County, Shimane Prefecture, andpublished in
Japanese newspapers in 2005, ineffect invalidate Kawakami Kenz's
claim thatAn Yong-bok's accounts are "false."
Early Meiji Attitude to Dodko / Takeshima
Continuing Tokugawa policy, the Meijigovernment of Japan
initially maintained thatUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima belonged
to
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
12
Korea and that Japan had no claim over theseislands prior to the
turn of the 20th century.This changed with the 1905
Japaneseincorporation of Dodko / Takeshima.
Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868, thecentral government
in Tokyo took over theauthority of negotiating with Korea from
thelord of Tsushima. For several years, thetradition-bound Joseon
government, under therule of the Daeweon'gun (), refused
torecognize the newly organized Meij igovernment, who now followed
Westerndiplomatic protocols under the new emperor.Totally
unfamiliar with these new protocols,Korea refused to deal with
Japan, causingtension between the two countries. In 1869
theJapanese Foreign Ministry dispatched a specialtask force of
three officials to investigate thesituation within and without
Korea. Thefollowing year, this team, headed by SadaHakumo, wrote a
confidential report on Korea'sdomestic and external conditions,
"Chsenkokuksai shimatsu naitansho ()." At the end of this document,
the task forcereports on the territorial status of Ulleungdoand
Dokdo/Takeshima, as follows: "ReportConcluding that Takeshima and
MatsushimaBelong to Korea (): Matsushima is a neighboring island
ofTakeshima, and there is no [Japanese] recordrelated to these
islands. As for Takeshima, forsome times after the Genroku period,
Koreanswent and stayed there, but no people lived onthe island. . .
."67 This is the first reference toDokdo/Takeshima by Meiji Japan,
and thisdocument is readily available in the officialdiplomatic
documents published by theMinistry of Foreign Affairs as Nihon
GaikBunsho. At this time, Japan still referred toDodko/Takeshima as
Matsushima, andUlleungdo as Takeshima. This documenttherefore
clearly reveals that both Takeshima( U l l e u n g d o ) a n d M a
t s u s h i m a(Dokdo/Takeshima) belonged to Korea (), and that
they had since the Genroku periodin the late seventeenth
century.
The domestic transformations undertaken bythe Meij i government
also generateddocuments which referred to the position
ofDodko/Takeshima. For instance, the 1869abolition of feudal
domains necessitated a newcadastral survey for all of Japan. In
1876, thegovernor of Shimane Prefecture submitted aninquiry to kubo
Toshimichi, the ActingMinister of Home Affairs in Tokyo, on
whetherShimane prefecture should include "Takeshimaand one other
island ()" in the newland registry Shimane was preparing.
TheMinistry of Home Affairs, having examined theold records, found
that Koreans used theseislands during the Genroku period,
andconcluded: "These [islands] are not related toour country ()."
But,realizing the serious nature of dealing with aterritorial
matter, kubo Toshimichirecommended further consideration by
theGrand Council of State (), the highestdecision-making office in
Japan.68 Uponstudying the records of negotiations betweenJapan and
Korea from the Genroku period, theGrand Council of State also
concluded thatthese islands had nothing to do with Japan. Itsfinal
decision, issued in March 1877 as anofficial edict, reads: "The
matter related toTakeshima and another island is not related toour
country, and therefore all should take noteof this ()."69
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
13
Figure 4. Japanese Grand Council of State Decree of1877 stating
"Takeshima and another island are notrelated to" Japan.
"Takejima and another island" here of courserefers to Ulleungdo
and Dokdo/Takeshima. Anappendix to this edict explains:
"Isotakejima: Itis also called Takeshima . . . and there isanother
island, which is called Matsushima."70
Isotakejima is a Japanese name for Ulleungdo,and Matshushima a
Japanese name forDokdo/Takeshima. Thus the highest Japaneseoffice
declared that Japan had nothing to dowith these two islands--in
effect, admitting thatthey belonged to Korea. This was the
officialposition of the Meiji government, based oncareful
examination of Japan's historicalrecords by the Home Affairs
Ministry and theGrand Council of State.71 This position, as wehave
seen, is a continuation of the policy theTokugawa government
adopted during theGenroku period by prohibiting Japanese fromgoing
to Ulleungdo in the hope of avoidingconflict with the Koreans
there.
Some Japanese scholars, however, dispute the
conclusion of the Grand Council of State andinterpret its edict
differently. The TakeshimaResearch Center (), an officialarm of
Shimane Prefecture, has been at theforefront in contending that
Dokdo/Takeshimais a Japanese island. It claims that what iscalled
"another island ()" in the decisionof the Grand Council of State
did not refer toMatsushima (Dokdo/Takeshima). Because someJapanese
peop le ca l l ed U l l eungdo'Matsushima', "another island" in the
GrandCouncil's decision thus refers to Ulleungdo,
notDokdo/Takeshima. The Takeshima ResearchCenter then tries to read
Grand Council's edict:"The island (Ulleungdo) which sometimes
iscalled Takeshima and sometimes calledMatsushima is not Japan's
territory."72 In otherwords, "Takeshima and another island" refer
toUlleungdo by two different names, not toTakeshima and
Dokdo/Takeshima. Thisinterpretation can only be seen as a
torturedreading of the text that defies common sense.Why would the
Grand Council of Statespecifically state "another island" simply
torepeat Takeshima (Ulleungdo)?
Another Japanese scholar, Shimoj Masao, onother hand, argues
that the Grand Council ofState made a mistake in determining the
statusof Takeshima (Dokdo/Takeshima): "The GrandCouncil of State
concluded that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and another island are
notJapanese territory. But this decision of theGrand Council of
State is based on inadequateexamination [of evidence]. That is
because it isnot clear whether 'another island' of the
phrase'Takeshima and another island' refers to [thepresent]
Takeshima [Dokdo]. If 'another island'referred to the present
Takeshima [Dokdo],there is no good reason to say 'it is not
relatedto our country.'" He then denies the GrandCouncil's edict
disavowing Takeshima (Dokdo)as part of Japan.73
Despite this argument, to date no advocate forthe Japanese claim
over the island has madeany satisfactory explanation of the
Grand
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
14
Council of State's 1877 edict. Both KawakamiKenz and kuma
Ryichi, the most influentialadvocates o f the Japanese c la im
toDokdo/Takeshima, failed to address thesignificance of this edict.
The Japanese ForeignMinistry is also totally silent on this
decisionrendered by the Grand Council of State. Thisstrange silence
on the part of the ForeignMinistry can only lead to the conclusion
thatthe Japanese government is willfully andintentionally ignoring
the edict of its highestoffice since the documentations of
theproceedings leading to the final decision areeasily and readily
available to the public.
Whatever doubt one may have about what theGrand Council really
meant by "Takeshima andAnother Island" can be resolved by
consideringthe map that is attached to the edict. TheReverend
Urushizaki Hideyuki (of the JapaneseProtestant Church) has provided
a photo-reproduction of the relevant original document,including "A
Map of Isotakejima" that namesthe islands specifically as
"Isotakejima andMatsushima [Dokdo/Takeshima]."74 In addition,in a
document Shimane Prefectural Officepublished recently to support
the Japaneseclaim on Dokdo/Takeshima, there is a copy ofthe
official letter submitted on March 17, 1877by the Ministry of Home
Affairs to the GrandCouncil of State, in which it recommended
that"Takeshima and another island" should betreated as unrelated to
Japan. Under the title ofthis letter, there is this sentence in
parenthesis:"Another island refers to Matsushima."75
Matsushima here of course is the presentD o k d o / T a k e s h
i m a . A c t i n g o n t h i srecommendation from the Home Affairs
Office,the Grand Council of State made the finaldecision declaring
that both Takeshima( U l l e u n g d o ) a n d M a t s h u s h i m
a(Dokdo/Takeshima) did not belong to Japan.There can be no doubt
that "another island"(besides Takeshima) referred to by the
GrandCounci l o f State meant Matsushima(Dokdo/Takeshima), and no
other island.
In addition to the Grand Council of State,Japan's Imperial Navy
also believed thatUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima were withinthe
domain of Korea, beyond Japanesejurisdiction. After 1880, the
Japanese Navycompiled books of navigational charts for thesea
around Japan and its neighboringcountries. "Japanese Navigational
Routes ()", compiled in 1897, does not includeDokdo/Takeshima,
although it does includesTaiwan, which Japan had recently
acquiredthrough the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. AsHori Kazuo points
out, these NavigationalRoutes marked and defined Japanese
territoryand territorial waters, but conspicuouslyexclude
Dokdo/Takeshima.76 On the other hand,a book on "Korean Navigational
Routes ()," compiled by the Japanese Navy in 1894and revised in
1899, includes Dokdo/Takeshimaas Liancourt Rocks,77 so named by
Europeannavigators in the nineteenth century. TheJapanese Imperial
Navy's own navigationalbooks, in short, exclude Dokdo/Takeshima
fromJapanese waters but include it in Koreanwaters, showing that at
least up until the end ofthe nineteenth century, the Japanese
Navybelieved Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea.
With the opening of Japan to the outside worldfollowing the
Meiji Restoration, Japaneseentrepreneurs became increasingly
interestedin exploiting the economic resources ofUlleungdo and
Dokdo/Takeshima. During theTokugawa Rule, whatever interest Japan
hadthere was largely confined to the fishermenfrom Oki Island and
the Shimane-Tottori coast.But as an increasing number of
Japanesecitizens ventured to the outside world after
theRestoration, many of them discovered theeconomic potential of
these isolated islands. In1876, Muto Heigaku was the first Japanese
topropose developing the natural resources ofMatsushima (Ullengdo)
(),followed by similar proposals several otherindividuals.78
Although they went nowhere,these proposals nevertheless had an
importanteffect, arousing the interest of officials in Tokyo
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
15
in Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima. Thedebates that followed show
that the Japanesewere also confused about the status of
theseislands and did not know the exact geographyof the region,
including whether there wasanother island besides Ulleungdo.
Watanabe Hiroki (), of the ForeignAffairs Ministry, favored
developingMatsushima (Ulleungdo). He first, however,wanted to
determine the status of the region,and questioned whether the names
Takeshimaand Matsushima referred to two separateislands or to one
island with two names (just asKoreans had debated previously). He
thenruefully admitted that a complacent Tokugawapolicy had ceded
Ulleungdo to Korea. "If the so-called Matsushima is Takeshima, it
belongs tohim [Korea] ," he argued. "But i f thisMatsushima is
another island besidesTakeshima, we [Japan] can claim it and no
oncan argue against i t ." Because of theimportance of the islands,
Watanabe proposedconsulting with Shimane Prefecture anddispatching
a naval vessel to determine thegeographic situation.79 Others
opposed thisidea, however, pointing out, according toTanabe Taichi,
that "Matsushima is the nameJapanese gave, but it is in reality
Usan (),belonging to Ulleungdo of Korea." "Therefore,"he concluded,
"if we send our people there tosurvey without good reason, it is
like countingthe treasures of someone else [as if they wereours]."
Tanabe opposed Japan's "transgressing"upon a neighbor's land and
emphasized theimportance of maintaining amicable relationswith
Korea, arguing that "Matsushima shouldnever be permitted or ought
never to bedeveloped."80
Most participants in the debate were alsobothered by the lack of
concrete geographicknowledge about the islands. They were notsure
whether Takeshima and Matsushimareferred to two separate places or
one islandwith two names, a confusion compounded byadditional
Western names used by Europeans,
such as Dagelet, Agomaut, and Liancourt. Todetermine the correct
geography of the region,the Japanese navy dispatched the
vessel"Amagi ()" in 1882. Based on Amagi'sreport, it was decided
that what Japan calledMatsushima was Korea's Ulleungdo, and
theGrand Council of State ordered that thereafterthe name
Matshushima would be used to referto Ulleungdo. This decision,
however, wentagainst the long-held practice of the people inthe Oki
and Shimane areas, who calledTakeshima Ulleungdo and
MatsushimaDokdo/Takeshima. When informed of thisdecision about the
new name, AzumaFumisuke, the magistrate of Oki Island,cautioned
that the people of Oki hadhistorically called Ulleungdo Takeshima,
andhoped that the new name would not causeconfusion.81 As we shall
see, this decisionforeshadows the use of Takeshima as theJapanese
name for Korea's Dokdo. What isapparent here is that both Japan and
Koreawere still confused about the geographicsituation of Ulleungdo
and Dokdo/Takeshima aslate as the latter half of the nineteenth
century.
Korean Claims in the 19th and early 20th
Centuries
Officially, the Joseon Dynasty maintained thepol icy o f evacuat
ing Ul leungdo andDokdo/Takeshima. In reality, however, this
wasdifficult to enforce. People went thereseasonally for farming,
fishing, and logging,and in time, many settled there. Toward theend
of the nineteenth century, more than 1,700men and women lived
there, according to onecount, and more than 2,500, according
toanother.82
Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868,increasing numbers of
Japanese fishermen andloggers, mostly from the Oki and
Shimaneregion, were attracted to Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima.
Through superiortechnology and greater capital, these
Japaneseheavily exploited the fishery and logging
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
16
resources of the islands, creating seriousproblems for the
Koreans living there. In 1869,one Japanese even planted a wooden
pole onUlleungdo with the sign "Matsushima of theGreat Japanese
Empire ()."83
The Korean residents appealed for help fromthe Korean
government, which in turnprotested to Japan. The Japanese
governmenttried to curtail the activities of its citizens
inUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima, but its effortswere
ineffective.84
Troubled by Japanese intrusions, King Kojong(1863-1907)
appointed Yi Gyu-weon as SpecialInspector of Ulleungdo and
dispatched him tothe island in 1882. The Korean king told
Yi:"Lately, people from another country come toUlleungdo
ceaselessly, causing a great deal oftrouble. [The islands of]
Songjukdo ()and Usando ( ) are located nearUlleungdo. Do you know
the distances of theseislands from Ulleungdo? We also do not
knowwhat sorts of things are there. As specialinspector, you should
look into all thesematters and recommend whether we should setup a
formal administrative unit at the countylevel for these islands. .
. ."85 Aware of theexistence of the islands near Ulleungdo,
Kojongwanted to learn more about them, and evencontemplated
establishing a county office forUlleungdo and its neighboring
islands. With102 men, Yi Gyu-weon spent seven dayssurveying
conditions on Ulleungdo, payingspecial attention to the harmful
effects ofJapanese activities on the islands. On returningto Seoul,
he made a detailed report of hisinspection.86 But, unfortunately
for unknownreasons, he had been unable to v is i tDokdo/Takeshima,
and thus failed to offer anyinformation on the status of these
islands.
Figure 5. Map of Korea made by Jeong Sang-gi in ca.1800.
Ulleungdo and Usando are located in thecorrect direction.
Alarmed by Japanese settlement, King Kojongabandoned the former
policy of vacating theislands and adopted a more proactive stance
toforestall the Japanese presence. Under hisleadership, Korea
repeatedly protested what hecalled illegal Japanese intrusions and
theirextreme abuses of the economic resources ofthe islands. Facing
growing Japanese territorialambitions over Korea, Emperor Kojong87
inOctober 1900 issued Imperial Edict () No.41, establishing a new
administrative unit forUlleung County (). Article 2 of this
edict
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
17
specified the area under its jurisdiction: "Theareas this County
shall administer are theentire island of Ulleungdo as well as Jukdo
() and Seokdo () ()."88 Unfortunately for Korea,this edict did not
specifically name Dokdo butinstead called the island Seokdo,
causing someconfusion to outsiders. Seokdo (meaning RockIsland),
according to Korean scholars, wascalled by local people Dolseom
(Rock Island),which was transliterated into the Chinesecharacters
of Seokdo. Thus, these Koreanscholars assert that Seokdo is another
name forDokdo and that this Imperial Edict of 1900,officially
placing this island under theadministration of Ulleung County, is a
clearproof of Korea 's legi t imate c la im toDokdo/Takeshima
before Japan's 1905incorporation.89
Japan, however, rejects this argument.Disputing the Korean
reading of "Seokdo" for"Dokdo," the Japanese Foreign Ministry
insiststhat the Korean Edict failed to includeDokdo/Takeshima as
part of the newly createdcounty of Ulleung. "Therefore," according
tothe Japanese Foreign Ministry website, "it isconsidered that
Korea had not establishedsovereignty over Takeshima."90 Japan
insiststhat Korea had never specifically named"Dokdo" as being
under its domain.
Once again, confusion over the name of theisland became the
basis of contention. Evenaside from the etymological argument
thatSeokdo refers to Dokdo, Korea insists thatKoreans did in fact
use the name of "Dokdo" atthe time, contrary to Japanese
insistencedenying it. In March 1906, for example, SimHeung-taek,
the magistrate of Ulleung County,used the name Dokdo in his report
to thecentral government. He was the first Koreanofficial to report
that Japan had unilaterallyseized Dokdo/Takeshima. Sim wrote:
"Dokdo,which belongs to our county, extends itsdomain beyond more
than one hundred ri in theocean. . . ."91 Upon receiving Sim's
report in
1906, Korea's Home Affairs Ministry rejectedthe Japanese claim
to incorporation: "The claimthat Dokdo belongs to Japan is
absolutelyunreasonable, and such a report is
utterlypreposterous."92 The Deputy Prime Ministerinstructed his
officials: "The report of [theJapanese incorporation] of Dokdo is
utterlygroundless. You should investigate and reportback on the
situation on this island andJapanese activities there."93 Here, we
see clearexamples of Korean use of the name Dokdo. Inaddition, as
Shin Yong-ha documents, Koreannewspapers such as Hwangseong sinmun
andDaehan maeil sinmun, as well as individualwriters such as Hwang
Hyeon, used the nameDokdo.94 Moreover, the Japanese Navy
itselfrecognized that Koreans were using the name.The Japanese
warship Niitaka inspectedLiancourt Island in 1904, and its journal
entryfor September 25 states: "Liancourt Rock iscalled Dokdo by
Koreans."95 This evidenceregarding the use of the name Dokdo
clearlysupports the Imper ia l Edict o f 1900establishing Ulleung
County, with Dokdoincluded in its domain.
Far from accepting Korean claims toDokdo/Takeshima, Japan failed
even to informthe Korean government of its action. SimHeung-taek
learned of the Japanese seizure inMarch 1906, when the first
official Japaneseteam from Shimane visited the island to takeover
its jurisdiction, the Korean government inSeou l was unaware o f
the Japaneseincorporation until Sim Heung-taek reportedit.96
Preoccupied with undermining Koreansovereignty, Japan did not even
inform Korea ofits seizure of Dokdo/Takeshima.
J a p a n e s e I n c o r p o r a t i o n o fDokdo/Takeshima
In September 1904, Nakai Yzabur (), an enterprising fishing
company owner inShimane, submitted an application forincorporating
Liancourt Island as Japaneseterritory and leasing it. In "Petition
for
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
18
Territorial Incorporation and Lease ofLiancourt Island (),"
Nakai called Dokdo/Takeshima LiancourtIsland and described it as
"an uninhabitedisland ()" whose "territorial status is notyet
determined ()." Giventhat uncertainty, it would be difficult for
him toinvest a large sum of capital to take advantageof the rich
economic resources of the isolatedisland. He asked Japan to annex
the island,arguing that "In order to secure permanentlyits safety
and resources, and to allow managingthe island completely to the
end, it is necessaryto incorporate this island into the
Japaneseterritory." He then asked to lease the island forten
years.97 Submitted jointly to the Ministriesof Home Affairs,
Foreign Affairs, andAgriculture and Commerce, this petition set
inmotion the eventual Japanese incorporation ofDokdo/Takeshima.
Upon receiving the petition, the Ministry ofHome Affairs asked
Shimane Prefecture andOki Island for their views on Nakai's
request.Receiving their endorsement, the Home AffairsMinistry
recommended that the full Cabinet ofthe Japanese government render
a finaldecision, and on January 28, 1905, under thepremiership of
Katsura Tar (), theCabinet adopted a resolution
entitled"Territorial Incorporation of Liancourt Island,"enabling
Japan to annex Dokdo/Takeshima aspart of Japan. In justifying this
act, theJapanese Cabinet claimed: "There is norecognizable evidence
of this uninhabitedisland having been occupied by anothercountry."
With Nakai Yzabur's request forterritorial incorporation and lease
of the island,it became necessary for the Japanesegovernment "to
determine securely theownership and the name of the island."
Withthe annexation, Japan also gave the new nameof "Takeshima" to
Liancourt Island.98 Tworeasons are given for incorporation; first,
thatthe island was uninhabited, and second, thatthere was no
evidence of any country as havingclaimed jurisdiction over the
island previously.
Declaring Liancourt Island to be unclaimedterra nullius the
Cabinet decided that Japanwas justified in incorporating it under
itsdominion. This declaration, however, implicitlynullifies the
assertion by the current JapaneseMinistry of Foreign Affairs that
"Japanestablished sovereignty over Takeshima by themid-17th century
in the early Edo period at thelatest."99
This act of incorporation by the Japanesegovernment touched off
a bitter controversythat is still smoldering in the diplomatic
arenabetween Japan and Korea. At issue is whetheror not the
Japanese action can be justifiable onthe ground that no country had
claimed thisisland prior to Japanese incorporation in 1905.
The Japanese claim of terra nullius in 1905contradicts directly
the official position itsgovernment repeatedly took previously,
thatboth Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima belongedto Korea. The 1905
cabinet decision clearlyviolates and overturns the official
position theJapanese government--both Tokugawa andMeiji--had
maintained publicly since theseventeenth century.
The Japanese assertion that no country hadclaimed ownership of
the island was alsocontradicted by Nakai Yzabur himself. A
keyfigure in the incorporation drama, Nakaiinitiated the process
that eventually led toJapan's annexation of Dokdo/Takeshima.Having
visited and explored Vladivostok andthe Korean coast in the 1890s,
he was probablymore aware of the status and conditions ofUlleungdo
and Dokdo/Takeshima than anyoneelse.100 His own writings and the
interviews hegave after annexation make it clear that beforehe
filed his petition in 1904, Nakai was awarethat Dokdo/Takeshima
belonged to Korea. Infact, not only was he aware of
Koreanownership, he also had at first intended tosubmit his lease
application to the Koreangovernment and contemplated
seekingJapanese government help in persuading
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
19
Korean officials. After approaching theJapanese government,
however, he waspersuaded by several officials to transform
hisoriginal application into a petition for
territorialannexation.
In 1906, Nakai gave an interview to OkuharaHekiun (also known as
OkuharaFukuichi), who visited "Takeshima" as amember of the first
official group ShimanePrefecture dispatched to inspect the island
in1905. Based on his interview and research, in1906 Okuhara
published an article on theisland in the journal Rekishi chiri
(),in which he writes: "Mr. Nakai believed thatLiancourt Island
[Dokdo/Takeshima] was partof Korean territory and he was determined
tosubmit a request for leasing [the island] to its[the Korean]
government, and for this purpose,he went to Tokyo in 1904."1 0 1 A
similarstatement is also found in the personal historyNakai filed
with the Shimane Prefecture Office.In the resume of his work on
Takeshima, Nakairecords: "As I believed that this
island[Takeshima/Dokdo] was attached to Ulleungdoand was within the
Korean territorial domain, Iwas going to deal with the
Resident-General [ofKorea] [sic] when I went to Tokyo."102
Similarly,an official history of Shimane Prefecturecompiled by its
Education Office ()in 1923 notes that "In 1904 . . . Nakai
thoughtthat this island [Dokdo/Takeshima] was part ofthe Korean
territory, and therefore, he went toTokyo to persuade the Ministry
of Agricultureand Commerce [of Japan] to grant his petitionfor
leasing the island from its [the Korean]government."103 Contrary to
the Japanesegovernment's 1905 position, Nakai Yzaburoriginally
believed that the island was underthe domain of Korea, and thus he
had intendedto petition the Korean government for leaserights.
Before submitting his petition to the Koreangovernment, Nakai
first showed it to FujitaKantar, an official in the Fishery
Departmentof Japan's Ministry of Agriculture and
Commerce. Fujita in turn introduced Nakai toMaki Naomasa (), the
Director of Fisheryin the same ministry. According to Nakai's
ownresume, it was at this meeting that he firstbegan to harbor the
suspicion that the islandmight not necessarily belong to Korea.
Nakaisubsequently met with Admiral KimotsukiKaneyuki (), the
Director of theHydrographic Office in the Ministry of theNavy, who
eventually convinced Nakai of theuncertainty of the island's
nationality: "I cameto an assurance relying on the decisive
decision() made by Admiral Kimotsuki that thisisland
[Dokdo/Takeshima] was completelyunattached ()."104 Persuaded
bythese officials that the island had no ownership,Nakai abandoned
his initial idea of petitioningthe Korean government, and instead
submittedhis petition jointly to three Japanese ministries--Home
Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Agricultureand Commerce--requesting
not lease rights, butthat Japan annex the island.
Even at this late stage, however, his petitionwas opposed by one
of the three ministries.According to Nakai, the Ministry of
HomeAffairs was against the idea of the Japanesegovernment seizing
the island. The Russo-Japanese War was being waged at the time,
andthe Home Affairs Ministry feared that theincorporation of this
small islet might leadforeign countries to suspect that
Japanharbored ambitions of annexing Korea. Notwanting to raise the
suspicion that Japancoveted territorial expansion over Korea,
theHome Ministry rejected Nakai's petition.105
Learning of the Home Affairs Ministry'srejection, Maki, the
Director of the FisheryDepartment, accepted the decision
withresignation: "Nothing one can do about it if thedecision was
made for diplomatic reason,however disappointing and discouraging
it maybe." Frustrated, Nakai was about to give up onhis proposal
when he was introduced toanother official, this time in the
Ministry ofForeign Affairs. Yamaza Enjir (),
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
20
the Director of Political Affairs, offeredenthusiastic support
for the incorporation. Incontrast to Home Affairs Ministry,
Yamazabelieved that the war against Russia providedall the more
reasons for Japan to seize theisland. "Diplomatic issues are beyond
theconcern of other departments," Yamaza toldNakai: "An
incorporation of a tiny rocky islet isan extremely minor issue.
But, seen from thevantage of topography, history, and the
currentsituation, the incorporation of the island nowwill give us a
great advantage."106 Throughannexation, Yamaza noted, Japan could
buildwatchtowers and set up wireless andunderwater cables on and
around the island.He then told Nakai: "Seen from a
diplomaticperspective, you should disregard the positionheld by the
Ministry of Home Affairs andsubmit your application to the Ministry
ofForeign Affairs as soon as possible."Subsequently, according to
Nakai, the Japanesegovernment enthusiastically
annexedDokdo/Takeshima.107 It is important to notehere Yamaza's
background. Strongly influencedby Genysha, an ultra-nationalist
society thatwas in the forefront of Japan's expansion to theAsiatic
continent, Yamaza aggressivelypromoted within the Foreign
Ministryterritorial expansion over the entire
KoreanPeninsula.108
The Japanese scholar Hori Kazuo of KyotoUniversity has pointed
to three issuesdeserving of special attention here.109 First,
theMinistry of Home Affairs clearly opposedannexing the island,
fearing repercussions fromforeign countries that believed Japan
mighthave territorial ambitions over the KoreanPeninsula. Second,
it is important to recognizethe role played by the three officials
Maki,Kimotsuki, and Yamaza. When Nakai firstapproached the Japanese
government intendingto petition the Korean government to
leaseDokdo/Takeshima, these three officialspersuaded him that the
island had noownership, and then guided him to petition forits
incorporation under Japanese domination. In
short, these officials transformed Nakai'ssimple business
proposition into a scheme thateventually led to the outright
annexation of theisland. The Japanese claim of terra nullius
wasinitiated and manufactured by these officials inresponse to
Nakai's business petition. Third,the final decision for
incorporation was basedlargely on military considerations.
Followingthe outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War inFebruary 1904,
Japan undertook a series ofserious actions that subverted
Korea'ssovereignty and rights. Japan incorporatedDokdo/Takeshima in
January 1905 inanticipation of the great sea battles theJapanese
Navy was preparing against the BalticFleet of Imperial Russia. In
the huge sea battlessoon to take place, both Ulleungdo
andDokdo/Takeshima played a crucial role as basesfor the Japanese
Navy. In May 1905, theCombined Fleet of Japan, under the commandof
Admiral Tg Heihachir, routed the Russianfleet in what is now known
as the Battle ofTsushima-which, according to Togo's ownreport,
actually took place around LiancourtIsland.110 There can be no
denying that militaryconsiderations contributed significantly to
theJapanese decision to seize Dokdo/Takeshima.As Hori Kazuo points
out, this action was only"a small prelude" to Japan's
wholesaleannexation of Korea, which soon followed.111
The claim of terra nullius for Dokdo/Takeshimawas thus a mere
pretext Japan contrived to"justify" its territorial and military
expansionover Korea.
It should also be pointed out that there wasanother factor that
contributed significantly tot h e J a p a n e s e d e c i s i o n t
o a n n e xDokdo/Takeshima. From the eve of the MeijiRestoration in
1868, a sentiment to conquerKorea began to brew within Japan,
whosemomentum was reaching a climactic point atthe turn of the
century. Although space doesnot permit extensive coverage here,
this is abrief summary. Yoshida Shin was one of themost, if not the
most, influential ideologicalmentors of the Meiji leadership. On
the eve of
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
21
the Meiji Restoration, Yoshida called for theseizure of Korea as
the first step towardJapanese expansion to the Asiatic
continent.112
A disciple of Yoshida and one of the mostpowerful leaders of the
early Meiji government,Kido Takayoshi (also Kido Kin) harbored
asimilar ambition, and suggested colonizingUlleungdo, which he
claimed to have belongedto Japan in the first place.113 In
addition, "theConquer Korea Argument ()" sweptJapan in the 1870s
and the early 1880s.114 Afterwinning the First Sino-Japanese War
of1894-95, Japan actively pursued the policy ofgaining dominance
over the Korean Peninsula.Following the outbreak of the
Russo-JapaneseWar in February 1904, in June the JapaneseCabinet,
with Imperial approval, adopted theofficial position that "Imperial
Japan shouldtake over the real power of protection overKorea
politically and militarily."115 The Japanesei n c o r p o r a t i o
n o f t h e t i n y i s l e t o fDokdo/Takeshima in 1905 thus did
not occur ina vacuum. The seizure of Dokdo/Takeshimashould be
understood within the larger contextof the policy of territorial
expansionism Japanaggressively pursued under the
Meijigovernment.
Apparently, there was no carefully preplannedscheme on the part
of the Japanese governmentto seize control of Dokdo/Takeshima
before1904. The decision to annex the island wasmade
extemporaneously to meet an urgentsituation created by the
confluence of political,military, and economic forces in Japan to
dealwith Korea and the war against Russia. Theisland was too small
and had no significantvalue as far as the Tokyo government
wasconcerned. Only a small number of fishermenfrom the
Shimane-Tottori coast were interestedin the island. Preoccupied
with winning themuch bigger prize of the entirety of Korea,
theJapanese government paid no attention toDokdo/Takeshima until
the outbreak of theRusso-Japanese War in February 1904. Withthe
war, Japan openly sought to gain fullcontrol of the entire Korean
Peninsular
"politically, militarily, and economically" (as itsgovernment
repeatedly avowed to the WesternPowers.116) Against such a
backdrop, Nakai'ssimple business proposal for leasing the
islandfrom the Korean government acted as acatalyst for Japan to
seize control ofDokdo/Takeshima in 1905. The claim of terranullius
status for Dokdo/Takeshima was aconvenient pretext that Japan
contrived to"justify" its action, one that is undermined bythe long
documentary record of Korean controland utilization of the
island.
Conclusion
Both Japan and Korea have argued that theyhave a h istor ica l c
la im to control o fDokdo/Takeshima. Korea's claim goes as farback
as the sixth century under the ancientKingdom of Silla. The
succeeding dynasties ofGoryeo and Joseon also produced
numerouswritten documents testifying Korea'sdomination of the
island, well into thebeginning of the twentieth century.
Historicaldocumentation for the Japanese claim, on theother hand,
is meager in comparison with thatfor Korea. The earliest
documentary evidenceJapan can present dates back only to
theseventeenth century, and in 1696 theTokugawa government forbade
its citizens fromtravelling there. Throughout the Tokugawaperiod,
Japan prioritized peace and friendshipwith Korea. The Meiji
government at firstfollowed this Tokugawa approach, until
militaryconsiderations and imperialistic sentimentprompted a change
in policy and Japanannexed Dokdo/Takeshima in January 1905.
In annexing Dokdo/Takeshima, the Japanesegovernment totally
disregarded Korean claimsto the island. As the Japanese
Cabinetconsidered its decision, Japan never consultedwith Korea.
And then, once it had decided onannexation, Japan never even
notified Korea ofits action. Japan knew full well that Korea
hadlong claimed the island, yet Japan did not evenbother to consult
Korea before annexing it. The
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
22
Japanese incorporation of Dokdo/Taekeshimawas made unilaterally
and arbitrarily, with totaldisregard for its immediate neighbor.
This isillustrative of Japan's arrogance and contemptfor Korea.
This disrespect for Koreansovereignty was further in evidence in
thetreaty Japan forced upon Korea with guns andswordslater in 1905,
which deprived Korea ofdiplomatic sovereignty, in effect making
Koreaa Japanese protectorate. This contemptreached its zenith in
1910 with Japan'sannexation of Korea.
The year 2015 marks the 70th year of endingJapanese colonial
rule over Korea. For manyyears there was a strong movement
towardreconciliation between Japan and Korea basedon mutual
friendship, respect and trust. It isheartbreaking, however, to see
the momentumof this current receding in recent years.
Onecontributing factor in this unfortunate trend isthe dispute over
Dokdo/Takeshima.
Considering the long history of interactionsbetween Korea and
Japan going back toantiquity, the two countries have had a
ratherremarkably good friendly and mutuallybeneficial relationship,
in which such historicalincidences as the Hideyoshi invasion in
the1590s and Japanese colonial rule in thetwentieth century should
be considered moreas painful aberrations than as normal
practice.For genuine reconciliation, it is imperative forboth Korea
and Japan to face their history withhonesty and humility.
It behooves us all to remember what theJapanese Shogun
Tsunayoshi said in the lateseventeenth century: Keeping friendship
withKorea is more important than fighting over asmall useless
island.
Yng-ho Ch'oe, Professor Emeritus atUniversity of Hawaii at
Manoa, has writtenextensively on pre-modern and modern
Koreanhistory, including "Private Academies (swn)and
Neo-Confucianism in Late Chosn Korea,"Seoul Journal of Korean
Studies, 21 (December
2008) and "The Mystery of Emperor Kojong'sSudden Death in 1919:
Were the HighestJapanese Officials Responsible?" KoreanStudies, 35
(2011). He is a co-editor of Sourcesof Korean Tradition (Columbia
UniversityPress) and Sourcebook of Korean Civilization(Columbia
University Press).
Recommended citation: Yng-ho Ch'oe, "Japan's1905 Incorporation
of Dokdo/Takeshima: AHistorical Perspective", The
Asia-PacificJournal, Vol. 13, Issue 8, No. 1, March 2, 2015.
Related articles
Lin Man-houng, Taiwan and the Ryukyus(Okinawa) in Asia-Pacific
MultilateralRelations a Long-term HistoricalPerspective on
Territorial Claims andC o n f l i c t
s(https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121)
Yabuki Susumi with Mark Selden, TheOrigins of the Senkaku/Diaoyu
Disputebetween China, Taiwan and Japan(https://apjjf
.org/-Mark-Selden/4061)
Gavan McCormack, Much Ado over SmallIslands: The Sino-Japanese
Confrontationo v e r S e n k a k u / D i a o y
u(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947)
Yabuki Susumu, China-Japan TerritorialConflicts and the
US-Japan-ChinaRelations in Historical and ContemporaryP e r s p e c
t i v e(https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906)
Gavan McCormack, Troubled Seas: Japan'sP a c i f i c a n d E a s
t C h i n a S e a(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821)D o m a i
n s ( a n d C l a i m s
)(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821)
Ivy Lee and Fang Ming, DeconstructingJapan's Claim of
Sovereignty over theD i a o y u / S e n k a k u I s l a n d
s(https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877)
https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
23
Wani Yukio, Barren Senkaku Nationalisma n d C h i n a - J a p a
n C o n f l i c t(https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792)
Wada Haruki, Resolving the China-JapanConflict Over the
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands(https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433)
Peter Lee, High Stakes Gamble as Japan,China and the U.S. Spar
in the East andS o u t h C h i n a S e
a(https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431)
Tanaka Sakai, Rekindling China-JapanConflict: The
Senkaku/Diaoyutai IslandsC l a s
h(https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418)
Koji Taira, The China-Japan Clash Over theD i a o y u / S e n k
a k u I s l a n d s(https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119)
An earlier version of this paper was presentedat a conference of
the Korean-AmericanUniversity Professors Association at
Universityof Wisconsin at Milwaukee in December 2012.
Notes
1 The full text of the Japanese Cabinet decisioni s c i t e d i
n t h e f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s
:www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima;Kawakami Kenz, Takeshima
no rekishichirigaku-teki kenky (Tokyo, 1966), 212; andNait Seich
and Pak Byeong-seop, Takeshima-Dokdo rons (Tokyo, 2007),
192-93.
2 Terra Nullius is defined in Black's LawDictionary (10th
edition, 2014) as: "A territorynot belonging to any particular
country" and in"USlegal.com." as: "In international law, aterritory
which has never been subjected to thesovereignty of any state, or
over which anyprior sovereign has expressly or
implicitlyrelinquished sovereignty."
3 Romanization of Korean names follows thesystem devised by the
Ministry of Education,
the Republic of Korea.
4 Shin Yong-ha, Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosayeon'gu (Seoul, 1996),
62.
5 Samguk sagi, 4: 2b-3a, (Silla Bongi, JijeungMaripkan 13th
Year) (Tokyo: GakushinUniversity Reprint, 1974). Because Samguksagi
was based largely on historical records ofKorea's Three Kingdoms,
dating of this entryshould be considered to be in the 6th
century.
6 Shin Yong-ha, 58-63.
7 Kawakami Kenz, Takeshima no rekishichirigaku-teki kenky
(Tokyo, 1966), 98-100;and kuma Ryichi, Takeshima shiko
(Tokyo,1968), 59-67.
8 Goryeo-sa, 1: 27b. (Yonsei University Reprint,1955); Shin
Yong-ha, Dokdo yeongyugweonjaryo ui tamgu (Seoul, 1998), 1:
20-21(Hereafter, cited as Jaryo).
9 Goryeo-sa, 4: 28b; and Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1:21-22.
1 0 Koreans often used "Usan-guk (Usancountry)" and "Usan-do
(Usan island)"interchangeably.
11 Goryeo-sa, 59: 24b-25a.
12 Kawakami Kenz, Takeshima no rekishichirigaku-teki kenky
(Tokyo, 1966), 94-114.
13 Taejong sillok, 34: 9a; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 49-50.
14 Sejong sillok, 76: 11b-12a; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1:
60-63.
15 Taejong sillok, 23: 25b; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1:41-43.
16 Sejong sillok, 29: 19a; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 52-54.
17 Sejong sillok, 82: 7a-b; and Shin Yong-ha,
https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
24
Jaryo, 1: 64-65.
18 Taejong sillok, 32: 15a-b; and Shing Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1:
43-45.
19 Taejong sillok, 33: 9a-b; and Shin Yong-ha.Jaryo, 1:
46-49.
20 Taejong sillok, 34: 9a; and Shing Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1:
49-50.
21 Sejong sillok, 29: 19a, and 30: 5b-6a; andShin Yong-ha,
Jaryo, 1: 52-54 and 54-56.
22 Sejo sillok, 7: 28a-29b; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1:
68-71.
23 Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1: 48-49, 53-54.
24 Sejong sillok, 153: 10b-11a.
25 Sinjeung dongguk yeoji seungram (Seoul:Dongguk Munhwasa
Reprint, 1964), 45:26a-27a,
26 Kawakami, 101-14; and kuma, 62-67.
27 Kawakami, 114. (Kawakami's attempt todiscredit Korean
historical sources impugns theintegrity of Korea's traditional
scholarship.
28 kuma Ryichi, 59-67. See also "Takeshiman o n i n c h i
"(http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima)on the website of the
Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Japan.
29 Shin Yong-ho, jaryo, (Seoul, 1998), 1:148-50;Kim Hak-jun,
Dokdo yeon'gu (Seoul, 2010),37-68; and Song Byeong-gi, Ulleungdo
waDokdo (Seoul, 2007), 23-47.
30 Shin Yong-ho, Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosayeon'gu, 86-96.
31 Taejong sillok, 33: 8a-9b. Shin Yong-ha,Dokdo ui minjok
yeongtosa yeon'gu, 143-44;Kawakami, 66-67; kuma, 140-41.
32 Kawakami, 68-69.
33 kuma, 83.
34 See Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1: 50-157.
35 Seongjong sillok, 115: 3b-4a.
36 Kawakami, 50. See also nishi Toshiteru,Zoku Nihonkai to
Takeshima (Tokyo, 2007), 6;and kuma, 15-16.
37 nishi, 33-34; Kawakami, 50; and kuma,15-18.
38 Ibid.
39 Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 2: 232.
40 kuma, 16.
41 Tagawa Kz, "Takeshima ryy ni kansururekishiteki ksatsu," Ty
bunko shoh, 20(1988).
42 Kawakami, 50-51.
43 Tamura Seizabur, Shimaneken Takeshimano kenky (Shimane,
1996), 7.
44 nishi Toshiteru, Nihonkai to Takeshima(Tokyo, 2003), 178-79.
See also his ZokuNihonkai to Takeshima (Tokyo, 2007), 33-39;and Bak
Byeong-seop, "Takeshima-Dokdo waNihon no 'koy rydo' ka?" in Nait
Seich andBak Byeong-seop, Takeshima-Dokdo rons:rekishi shirykara
kanggaeru (Tokyo, 2007),30-32.
45 Hosaka Yji, Uri yeoksa Dokdo (Seoul, 2009),164-73.
46 Ikeuchi Satoshi, "Zen kindai Takeshima norekishigakuteki
kenky josetsu," Seikygakukenky josetsu, 20 (April 2001). See also
BakByeong-seop, "Takeshima=Dokdo wa Nihon no'koy rydo' ka?,' in
Nait Seich and BakByeong-seop, ed., Takeshima=Dokdo rons:rekishi
shiry kara kangaeru (Tokyo, 2007),
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshimahttp://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshimahttp://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima
-
APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3
25
30-31.
47 Kawakami, 51-83; kuma, 77-86.
48 Kawakami, 73-83.
49 Kawakami, 83-93; kuma, 77-98.
50 Kawakami, 168.
51 Shin Yong-ha, Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosayeon'gu, 36-37; Li
Jin-mieung, Dokdo, A KoreanIsland Rediscovered (Seoul, 2011),