Why does Japan insist on taking the Dokdo issue to the International Court of Justice?
Ignoring their past aggression over Dokdo, Japan is now proposing that the Dokdo dispute is taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Japanese Police on Ulleungdo (1905): Japan unjustifiably established a police substation on Ulleungdo in 1902
In making judgments regarding the right of dominion, the International Court of Justice considers the “effective control” standard to be one of the most significant factors. Japan bases its case that Dokdo has been under its effective control on the following:
Firstly, Japan claims to have begun using Dokdo as an anchorage upon discovering the island in the 17th century, a time when Japan exercised control over Ulleungdo. Japan goes on to say that, in the mid-17th century, its government granted the Ōya and Murakawa families fishing rights for the waters off Dokdo by issuing an official license called tokai menkyo. Further, Japan claims that, in 1696, when the Tokugawa shogunate confirmed Joseon’s title to Ulleungdo, no mention of Dokdo was made.
Japan’s reasoning here is irresponsible and unfounded. From a legal perspective, Japan’s claim that it had effective control over Ulleungdo can be compared to robbing a house when its owner isn’t home. In 1869, Joseon had implemented its Island Vacating Policy, a repatriation policy under which the Korean government officially prohibited people from living on Ulleungdo due to security concerns and was in the midst of relocating the existing residents to areas where they would be safe from waegu, or Japanese marauders. Despite the facts, Japan has attempted to portray Joseon’s Island Vacating Policy as evidence that it was renouncing its dominion and giving up effective control of Ulleungdo. Further, the tokai menkyo, a license that had been issued to grant fishing rights for the waters off Dokdo, which Japan often cites as evidence of its effective control over Dokdo, in fact, proves the counterargument, since this license was specifically issued for granting permission to fish in waters beyond Japan’s borders. Would such permission have been sought to fish the waters off an island in Japan’s own territory? Clearly, the act of issuing the license in this case provides clear evidence that Japan did not consider the two islands to be part of Japan at that time. Further, no license existed specifically for Dokdo and the license for Ulleungdo was merely a one-time functional permission, which cannot provide sufficient support for territorial claims.
Taejongsillok (Annals of King Taejong) documents Joseon's Island Vacating Policy(1417)
Secondly, the current Japanese government invokes measures Japan took following the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 to bolster its case for effective control of Dokdo. Measures taken during the Japanese occupation include: issuing Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40, which announced that Japan was incorporating Dokdo into its Oki Island, and registering Dokdo as state-owned land; Japanese officials, including the governor of Shimane Prefecture, visiting Dokdo; granting permission to Nakai Yosaburo to catch sea lions and collecting related fees every year; and revising fishing regulations to prohibit catching sea lions in the waters around Dokdo.
Given the stance Japan has taken on other controversial issues, it is difficult to see Japan’s persistence in bringing the Dokdo issue before the International Court of Justice as driven by anything other than strategic motives. Japan has refused to refer similar territorial disputes to the International Court of Justice, including the conflict over the Southern Kuriles (the Northern Territories, or Hoppō Ryōdo), which Japan would likely lose, and the case of the Diaoyu Islands (the Senkaku Islands), which would not be of much benefit to Japan even if it were to win the case.
Sukjongsillok (Annals of King Sukjong) documents the Government Patrol System(1697)
Japan’s rhetoric seems to be intended to conceal its past aggression with regard to Dokdo in order to further its claims. And the fact that Japan seeks to bring only the Dokdo dispute to the International Court of Justice suggests that Japan believes it has nothing to lose even if the International Court of Justice were to rule in Korea’s favor, since Korea already has effective control of Dokdo.
Ignoring their past aggression over Dokdo, Japan is now proposing that the Dokdo dispute is taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Japanese Police on Ulleungdo (1905): Japan unjustifiably established a police substation on Ulleungdo in 1902
In making judgments regarding the right of dominion, the International Court of Justice considers the “effective control” standard to be one of the most significant factors. Japan bases its case that Dokdo has been under its effective control on the following:
Firstly, Japan claims to have begun using Dokdo as an anchorage upon discovering the island in the 17th century, a time when Japan exercised control over Ulleungdo. Japan goes on to say that, in the mid-17th century, its government granted the Ōya and Murakawa families fishing rights for the waters off Dokdo by issuing an official license called tokai menkyo. Further, Japan claims that, in 1696, when the Tokugawa shogunate confirmed Joseon’s title to Ulleungdo, no mention of Dokdo was made.
Japan’s reasoning here is irresponsible and unfounded. From a legal perspective, Japan’s claim that it had effective control over Ulleungdo can be compared to robbing a house when its owner isn’t home. In 1869, Joseon had implemented its Island Vacating Policy, a repatriation policy under which the Korean government officially prohibited people from living on Ulleungdo due to security concerns and was in the midst of relocating the existing residents to areas where they would be safe from waegu, or Japanese marauders. Despite the facts, Japan has attempted to portray Joseon’s Island Vacating Policy as evidence that it was renouncing its dominion and giving up effective control of Ulleungdo. Further, the tokai menkyo, a license that had been issued to grant fishing rights for the waters off Dokdo, which Japan often cites as evidence of its effective control over Dokdo, in fact, proves the counterargument, since this license was specifically issued for granting permission to fish in waters beyond Japan’s borders. Would such permission have been sought to fish the waters off an island in Japan’s own territory? Clearly, the act of issuing the license in this case provides clear evidence that Japan did not consider the two islands to be part of Japan at that time. Further, no license existed specifically for Dokdo and the license for Ulleungdo was merely a one-time functional permission, which cannot provide sufficient support for territorial claims.
Taejongsillok (Annals of King Taejong) documents Joseon's Island Vacating Policy(1417)
Secondly, the current Japanese government invokes measures Japan took following the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 to bolster its case for effective control of Dokdo. Measures taken during the Japanese occupation include: issuing Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40, which announced that Japan was incorporating Dokdo into its Oki Island, and registering Dokdo as state-owned land; Japanese officials, including the governor of Shimane Prefecture, visiting Dokdo; granting permission to Nakai Yosaburo to catch sea lions and collecting related fees every year; and revising fishing regulations to prohibit catching sea lions in the waters around Dokdo.
Given the stance Japan has taken on other controversial issues, it is difficult to see Japan’s persistence in bringing the Dokdo issue before the International Court of Justice as driven by anything other than strategic motives. Japan has refused to refer similar territorial disputes to the International Court of Justice, including the conflict over the Southern Kuriles (the Northern Territories, or Hoppō Ryōdo), which Japan would likely lose, and the case of the Diaoyu Islands (the Senkaku Islands), which would not be of much benefit to Japan even if it were to win the case.
Sukjongsillok (Annals of King Sukjong) documents the Government Patrol System(1697)
Japan’s rhetoric seems to be intended to conceal its past aggression with regard to Dokdo in order to further its claims. And the fact that Japan seeks to bring only the Dokdo dispute to the International Court of Justice suggests that Japan believes it has nothing to lose even if the International Court of Justice were to rule in Korea’s favor, since Korea already has effective control of Dokdo.
