Japan may ask international court to settle island dispute with S Korea

Politics Aug. 12, 2012 - 06:30AM JST ( 68 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

68 Comments

12

YuriOtaniAug. 12, 2012 - 06:52AM JST

It would be better if the ICJ settled this dispute. Then both sides will accept the decision.
12

mikihouseAug. 12, 2012 - 08:20AM JST

and as usual, Korea will snub the request. The International Court will not proceed if the other country will not present itself. Japan has proof that the island belongs to them and so they are willing to go to international tribunal. Korea also claim they have proof but will not go to the international court to settle the issue once and for all.

In the court and in arguments we have the so called shift of the burden of proof...if I claim there is a planet between Mars and Jupiter and you disagree, I will say prove it to me. Korea said the island is theirs and when asked for a proof they will say prove that it is not ours. So japan challenge the claim and said why don't we settlle this once and for all. Korea says no way.
11

OssanAmericaAug. 12, 2012 - 07:19AM JST

Of course a decision by a neutral governing body is the right way to resolve this dispute. But so far I have been called "right-wing" and "a racist" for even suggesting it. Can't wait to hear what excuse South Korea will use to refuse this time.
5

mikihouseAug. 12, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

Japan did not pursue the issue to avoid worsening of ties between the 2 nations but because the present president of Korea wants stay in position made the unthinkable, set foot on the island. Japan has been very patient even after the murder of Japanese fisherman residing on the area by the Koreans thinking that burying their head in the sand will change thing. Guess what? Bullying is Korea's national past time....
3

Bgood41Aug. 12, 2012 - 09:42AM JST

The territorial dispute should be decided by ICJ, and the outcome must be respect by both claimers. Why S.Korea avoids the ICJ? Just using the issue as a political pawn with bullying tactic will not legitimize the claim, thus showing a lack of good faith in promoting peace and stability for the region. Doing so, the world will not recognize Korea's position either. If nothing to hide or being afraid of, both nations should present their cases to the ICJ. Stop the nonsense.
3

OssanAmericaAug. 12, 2012 - 11:13AM JST

vg866Aug. 12, 2012 - 07:55AM JST "May ask" No they won't. They know that Japan has zero chancing of winning in court. The last time they made a request was in >1962. Over 50 years ago. If they were so confident about winning in court, then they would have put their money >where the mouth is and made a request annually. Instead they threaten Korea by "maybe" going to court. LOL

Why did South Korea refuse in 1954 and in 1962? Becase they wre so sure they were going to win? Yea that makes sense only to you.

lol "maybe". Just do it if you're so confident.

They already did - TWICE. And South Korea was too chicken, both times. I bet they'll refuse again.
3

basroilAug. 12, 2012 - 12:57PM JST

Many Koreans resent Japan’s brutal colonisation from 1910 to 1945. Historical disputes continue to mar relationship, despite close economic ties and shared concerns over North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs.

I'm not sure what that has to do with islands that were semi-managed since 1600s and fully incorporated before the Japanese war with Russia, which had no Korean inhabitants at the time.

Sadly, this argument will go on just like it did 50 years ago when Korea refused to go to court because it believed it's arguments were not solid enough to justify the taking of those islands.
3

SamuraiBlueAug. 12, 2012 - 07:07PM JST

vg866

Doesn't really matter since the treaty still stands placing Takeshima as Japanese territory.
3

SamuraiBlueAug. 12, 2012 - 09:52PM JST

">smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 09:24PM JST

Not at all. I'm saying that what others say has nothing to do with the reality of the situation on this issue. You'd probably bring the loss of the Samurai Blue to the South Korean team to international courts if it mattered, but you know it would mean nothing, as bringing it to the ICJ means nothing. If Japan lawfully owns the lands, why do they want to bring it to the ICJ to contest when they will not bring the Senkaku islands to the ICJ in that dispute? You're seriously not suggesting that such hypocrisy is justified.

PRC can take Japan to ICJ and Japan is obliged to accept since Japan's a compulsory state but you know that. Japan's position of Senkaku is that there are no dispute concerning Senkaku and if PRC disagree then they can take it up with ICJ in which Japan cannot ignore unlike SK. So please will you quit mixing one with the other in deflecting a losing argument. Takeshima was accepted as Japanese Territory by all the signatories of the San Fransico peace treaty as well as Senkaku and the Northern terretories. You can fuff and puff all you want but international treaty backs up Japan's claim and SK is unlawfully occupying Japanese territory."
2

paulinusaAug. 12, 2012 - 06:51AM JST

Would certainly be interesting if the court was allowed to decide. Would a decisive ruling settle the issue? Would the losing party abide by the decision? Ultra right wingers on both sides could create more friction than exists now.
2

oldsannoAug. 12, 2012 - 10:09AM JST

Japan should take this to ICJ. If you do not defend yourself people will walk all over you and even kill you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee_Line

According to the Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East made in 1954, the U.S. government maintained that the one-sided declaration of the Syngman Rhee Line was illegal under international law.

The fishing boats - which were mostly Japanese - that violated the boundary line were seized by South Korea. Japanese records claim that such ships were often fired upon. The Japanese government protested the seizures and unilateral declaration strongly, but the abolition of the line had to wait even for the approval of the Japan-Korea Fishery Agreement in 1965. By the time an agreement was reached, 3929 Japanese people were arrested, of whom 44 were killed, and 328 Japanese ships were seized.[1]

At the behest of the South Korean government, in exchange for the release of Japanese fisherman detained as a result of the line, the Japanese government released 472 Koreans in Japan who had been imprisoned as criminals. Those released gained the permission of residence (they became Zainichi).
2

WilliBAug. 12, 2012 - 04:05PM JST

As long as both sides firmly agree beforehand to accept the court´s decision, that would be the right way.

If only the beneficiary of the decision agrees, then what has been gained...
2

Sir_EdgarAug. 12, 2012 - 04:27PM JST

Japan wants to take this to the ICJ because they have nothing to lose. Korea has everything to lose.

Also, one of the judges at the ICJ is Hisashi Owada who served as president from 2009 to 2012. Having been re-elected in 2011, Owada will now serve until 2021. He is the father of Crown Princess Masako Owada.

Am I saying that he is biased and unfit to judge on this issue? No, because I don't know him personally. But I can say that he would NEVER qualify as a member of the jury for a case like this, let alone a judge.
2

OssanAmericaAug. 12, 2012 - 06:19PM JST

********>GigamaxAug. 12, 2012 - 01:09PM JST

OssanAmerica, you said: "Of course a decision by a neutral governing body is the right way to resolve this dispute. But so far I have been called "right-wing" and "a racist" for even suggesting it."

But later you said: "They already did - TWICE. And South Korea was too chicken, both times. I bet they'll refuse again."

I think it is safe to conclude that no one called you a right wing racist for suggesting a neutral decision. Its your >negative attitude toward South Korea that did it, along with your support of Japan's two-faced claim. Those positions >are just easily explained by calling you a right wing racist.

So having a "negative attitude" about South Korea makes me a right-winger and a racist? Is it impossible for you to consider that the "negative attitude" is because South Korea continues to refuse to settle this issue at the ICJ?

As SmithinJapan pointed out, Japan is not in a rush to go to a neutral court over the Senkakus.

No country is suggesting settling the Sebnkaku issue at the ICJ so that's utterly irrelevant.
2

SamuraiBlueAug. 12, 2012 - 06:22PM JST

vg866

Try the San Francisco peace treaty i which South Korea asked the US in including Takeshima as Korean territory in which they were denied.
2

tokyobakayaroAug. 12, 2012 - 08:41PM JST

Japan may ask international court

Japan may, Japan might, Japan maybe....but it will not. Daddy America will phone to ask the kid to stop playing with the other kids.
2

rogoteyeAug. 12, 2012 - 09:48PM JST

SamuraiBlue　　　　Finally someone who speaks the truth.
2

basroilAug. 13, 2012 - 12:52AM JST

vg866Aug. 13, 2012 - 12:15AM JST

Korea is merely complying with the treaty and controlling the island that the Japanese government themselves acknowledged was Korean lol.

Except that the USA has said a few times that the islands were Japanese and that's why they went as far as using it for target practice. That is of course until a few Korean squatters wound up getting themselves killed because they chose to "settle" in a Japanese bombing range (Senkaku is actually also a bombing range)
1

basroilAug. 12, 2012 - 01:31PM JST

GigamaxAug. 12, 2012 - 01:09PM JST

As SmithinJapan pointed out, Japan is not in a rush to go to a neutral court over the Senkakus.

Neither is China though, so the situation is far more different. Lets also not forget that these islands have been in constant dispute since 1947, while Senkaku was only in dispute since 1971 with twenty years of absolutely no talk of it.
1

basroilAug. 12, 2012 - 01:33PM JST

edhanAug. 12, 2012 - 01:13PM JST

With the beginning of the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the Japanese government began compiling land registers and bthe Meiji government made it clear in 1877 that Ulleung Island and Dokdo were Korean territory, saying they had nothing to do with Japan.

They refer to the islands as not belonging to any clan. That does not translate to saying they were Korean.
1

fivegogo2003@yahoo.comAug. 12, 2012 - 02:58PM JST

What's there to decide, it's already written in international maritime law?
1

edojinAug. 12, 2012 - 04:22PM JST

I live right behind the South Korean Embassy here in Tokyo ... and it has been a noisy place this weekend. Rightists in vehicles with loud sound systems have been bombarding the Embassy with all kinds of words, chants etc. over the Takeshima / Dokdo issue. I walked up to the Embassy early this afternoon and found that lines of Japanese police had barred the rightists from getting their vehicles near the Embassy. So the rightists upped the sounds from their vechicles. It was like ... the noise was going straight through the body. And those policemen must face that noise head-on.

Otherwise, that's it. Just noise. No real confrontation or anything like that. And behind the police blockade on Shinjuku-dori in front of the Embassy, was a long traffic jam.
1

papasmurfinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 04:43PM JST

Just give it to China... they'll take it eventually anyway..
1

SamuraiBlueAug. 12, 2012 - 08:58PM JST

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 08:51PM JST

The US had no right to grant something to Japan which was not theirs to begin with, and even now the US is dodgy on the issue, recognizing that SK has control of the islands. Go a bit further back and you'll see there are maps that do not include Dokdo as Japanese land, and THOSE are what you should rely on, not some third party's attempts to mollify the masses.

Sorry Smithy but as long as territorial lines where defined within the San Fransico peace treaty and as long as signatory states accept the treaty Takeshima is the territory of Japan.
1

HikozaemonAug. 12, 2012 - 10:30PM JST

Smith, the Americans didn't think so after WWII - and indeed, if Japan wasn't still under occupation and the US too uninterested, the ROK would never have pulled the invasion stunt.

Why would any country propose arbitration over territory it controls? You are being ridiculous.

But let's consider for a minute - has PRC or Taiwan ever attempted arbitration over the Senkakus? NO. Why? Because their claim is based on historical injustice, not international law. They claim (factually incorrectly) that the islands were included in the ceding of Formosa to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which they weren't - they were annexed years prior to that terra nullius, and held and inhabited without protest until gas was found there.

I'd be interested myself to see if Japan would reject arbitration over the Senkakus if it were proposed. I think Japan believes its legal case is solid. I can't imagine how the Koreans see their claim over Dokdo is secure, especially given all the nationalistic whooping they do over it - if they really felt it was an ordinary part of Korea, why all the international advertising campaigns and nationalist tourism? And pointless large coastguard facility there. It is basically them doing what Ishihara wants to do (maybe he wants to imitate Korea) - demonstrating the extent of their own insecurities through over-compensation.

The Senkakus and Takeshima are totally different cases - people comparing them as equals aren't thinking. But since that is what you are doing, again, I don't see anything that shows hypocrisy by Japan. My guess is that Japan would welcome the opportunity to squash a court claim by China.
1

SamuraiBlueAug. 12, 2012 - 10:37PM JST

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 10:14PM JST

Again, the hypocrisy. Put as much lipstick on it as you like, though.

"if PRC disagree then they can take it up with ICJ in which Japan cannot ignore unlike SK."

Ummm.... yes, Japan would ignore it, because they think they have the rightful claim and there's no question. I happen to believe that the Senkaku islands are Japanese territory more than Chinese, but the hypocrisy remains. SK has no doubts about whose territory Dokdo is, unlike Japan -- they have doubt so they ask others to verify on their behalf.

No Smithy obviously you are deflecting an argument, Japan is a compulsory state of the ICJ. Japan is obliged to accept the challenge as I wrote before but you choose to ignore.

As i said before stop mixing one with the other since one has nothing with the other and I also stated that both were ruled as Japanese territory within the San Fransico peace treaty. Which you also choose to ignore.
1

SamuraiBlueAug. 13, 2012 - 12:22AM JST

@vg866

If it was not included within the treaty it most certainly is not included within the boundaries. You took the saying give an inch a they will take a mile to a whole new level.
1

SeiharinokazeAug. 13, 2012 - 11:20AM JST

vg866,

San Francisco Peace Treaty and the process to give that decision may have had military considerations but basically the judgement was based on historical considerations. "Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks is old and appears valid. Security considerations might conceivably envisage weather and radar stations thereon." (United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Far East and Australasia (in two parts). Volume VII, Part 2. pp.900.)

Territorial rights issues won't go away by denying that disputes don't exist. Tokyo as a sovereign government cannot let it go. If South Korea is so sure and confident, they better justify their stand and get it approved internationally. Then Japan will accept it and can end this annoying game. And South Korea can rule the islands with full freedom without appealing to the world anymore. Besides the normalization treaty of 1965 stipulates in its supplementary provision that what cannot be decided diplomatically should be left to mediation.
0

GigamaxAug. 12, 2012 - 01:09PM JST

OssanAmerica, you said:

Of course a decision by a neutral governing body is the right way to resolve this dispute. But so far I have been called "right-wing" and "a racist" for even suggesting it.

But later you said:

They already did - TWICE. And South Korea was too chicken, both times. I bet they'll refuse again.

I think it is safe to conclude that no one called you a right wing racist for suggesting a neutral decision. Its your negative attitude toward South Korea that did it, along with your support of Japan's two-faced claim. Those positions are just easily explained by calling you a right wing racist.

As SmithinJapan pointed out, Japan is not in a rush to go to a neutral court over the Senkakus.
0

frank07Aug. 12, 2012 - 01:44PM JST

that sounds reasonable. No point in internet flame wars, just each prove their own case and get on with their lives
0

Geoff GillespieAug. 12, 2012 - 08:34PM JST

Just give it to China... they'll take it eventually anyway..

Spot on!
0

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 09:04PM JST

SamuraiBlue: "Sorry Smithy but as long as territorial lines where defined within the San Fransico peace treaty and as long as signatory states accept the treaty Takeshima is the territory of Japan."

Hate to break your bubble, but if you want to play it that way as long as SK lives on and controls Dokdo it is South Korean territory. Ouch! You seem to want to back the facts that suit you, and deny the ones that don't. So, sorry, but who is on those islands as we speak? Japanese? nope! Who's on the Kuriles? Japanese? nope! Whine all you like, they are not and never will be Japanese territory.
0

SamuraiBlueAug. 12, 2012 - 09:16PM JST

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 09:04PM JST

Hate to break your bubble, but if you want to play it that way as long as SK lives on and controls Dokdo it is South Korean territory. Ouch! You seem to want to back the facts that suit you, and deny the ones that don't. So, sorry, but who is on those islands as we speak? Japanese? nope! Who's on the Kuriles? Japanese? nope! Whine all you like, they are not and never will be Japanese territory.

Smithy I am glad to hear that you agree that under international law Takeshima is Japanese territory and at the moment SK is unlawfully occuping it.
0

HikozaemonAug. 12, 2012 - 09:43PM JST

Korea knows that their invasion and occupation of the Liancourts in 1954 would be ruled invalid if it went to international arbitration - that is why they consistently blocked arbitration in the past, and already indicated that they would do so again this time.

They get to prove control once again, and Japan once again gets to make them demonstrate how afraid they are of having the legitimacy of their occupation of Takeshima tested by an objective arbitrator.
0

nigelboyAug. 13, 2012 - 11:39PM JST

San Francisco treaty outline manual map developed by the Japanese government(1952) It seems the Japanese government themselves did not believe Dokdo belonged to them. Truth hurts huh?

The map you linked is from a compilation of Japan/U.S. negotiations published by Mainichi Shinbun. Hence, the said map is merely a MacAruthor Line in which it expired after the U.S. ratification of the treaty in April of 1952.

US embassy to Japans letter to the US state department(dated Oct 3, 1952) rea

Looks like an uninformed ambassador if you ask me.

Official - Informal

Confidential Security Information

11/14/52

Dear Al:

I have read both Tokyo's despatch No. 659 of October 3, 1952, entitled, "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" as well as Pusan's Memorandum of October 15, 1952, entitled, "Use of Disputed Territory (Tokto Island) as Live Bombing Area" enclosed in your letter of October 16, 1952 to Ambassador Murphy.

It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington. During the course of drafting the Japanese Peace Treaty the** Republic of Korea's views were solicited**, in consequence of which, the Korean Ambassador requested the Secretary of State in a letter of July 19, 1951 to amend Article 2(a) of the draft treaty so as to include the islands of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo as well as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet among those islands over which Japan would renounce right, title and claim by virtue of recognizing Korea's independence. In his reply to the Korean Ambassador the Secretary stated in a letter dated August 10, 1951 that the** United States could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had ever before been claimed by Korea.** As a result Article 2(a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks:

"Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."

/ The

E. Allan Lightner, Esquire

Charge d'affaires, a.i.,

American Embassy,

Pusan, Korea.

FE:NA:RMHerndon:eb November 5, 1952

cc-Amembassy, TokyoOfficial - Informal

Confidential Security Information

The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.

Sincerely yours

Kenneth T. Young, Jr.,

Director

Office of Northeast Asian Affairs
0

SeiharinokazeAug. 14, 2012 - 12:29AM JST

vg866,

nigelboy replied. No need for me to post. About the letterof October 3, 1952 which a secretary of US embassy to Japan sent to the State Department, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs sent a reply to American Embassies in Pusan and Tokyo on November 14, which reiterated the US position on this matter. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ConfidentialSecurityInformationaboutLiancourt_Rocks

To say the reason why the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not include the Liancourt Rocks in the areas Japan should renounce all rights and claim to was for solely military purposes does not seems so convincing. If really extensive research was conducted by the US State Department and any conclusion was reached, they should have regarded the result, particularly so in such important matters as territorial sovereignty. It is something to be prioritized over some military considerations. They should not have sown the seeds of future trouble. Besides many uninhabited islets were dotted elsewhere.

But my point is territorial rights issues won't go away even if you rule the islands. Your actual administration of the islands or shunning talks doesn't change anything as long as the other claimant continues to claim it. The only method to end this is to conclude some agreement either by diplomatic negotiations or by mediation.
-1

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 08:49PM JST

issa1: "the Japanese government to evict and deport the 500,000 zainichi Koreans living in Japan, as a retaliation to this infamy"

Wow, racism alert! Many of those people were born and have lived here all their lives, and help you and your parents by paying for your health care with their taxes. You want them to go, then kiss your pension and health care goodbye -- that is, more than the government spending has screwed it up already.

And why won't anyone answer my question? How many PMs has Japan had since Lee took power? 6? 7? and people want to talk about instability and radicalism in SK?
-1

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 08:51PM JST

SamuraiBlue: "Try the San Francisco peace treaty i which South Korea asked the US in including Takeshima as Korean territory in which they were denied."

The US had no right to grant something to Japan which was not theirs to begin with, and even now the US is dodgy on the issue, recognizing that SK has control of the islands. Go a bit further back and you'll see there are maps that do not include Dokdo as Japanese land, and THOSE are what you should rely on, not some third party's attempts to mollify the masses.
-1

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 09:24PM JST

SamuraiBlue: "Smithy I am glad to hear that you agree that under international law Takeshima is Japanese territory and at the moment SK is unlawfully occuping it."

Not at all. I'm saying that what others say has nothing to do with the reality of the situation on this issue. You'd probably bring the loss of the Samurai Blue to the South Korean team to international courts if it mattered, but you know it would mean nothing, as bringing it to the ICJ means nothing. If Japan lawfully owns the lands, why do they want to bring it to the ICJ to contest when they will not bring the Senkaku islands to the ICJ in that dispute? You're seriously not suggesting that such hypocrisy is justified.
-1

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 09:30PM JST

And again no one can answer my question about how many PMs Japan has had since Lee took power. It's quite relevant, for while Gemba spouts on about this and that and makes suggestions about what should be done, by the time all the panels were formed to debate on it he'll be gone along with Noda and the next PM will be in power. Japan would be better suited to deal with its utter inability to deal with anything, and THEN think of addressing the island issues.

As it is, they are just out to score points for a party that has already drowned.

But come on, really, how many PMs for Japan since Lee, whom everyone was crying about scoring points by visiting the Korean islands, took power? Don't make me look it up and embarrass the right-wingers on here.
-1
gaibenAug. 13, 2012 - 02:29PM JST
Asking the ICJ to resolve the dispute is a no-lose situation for Japan, for the following reasons:
1. If South Korea refuses to agree to allow the ICJ to exercise jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, it makes SK look as though it knows its claim is not valid.
2. If SK agrees to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and it rules in favor of Japan, then Japan would have the islands.
3. If SK agrees to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and it rules in favor of SK, even though Japan would not have these minor islands it would set a precedent for having the ICJ resolve disputed claims to island territories. That would provide Japan with a powerful argument that Russia also should agree to the jurisdiction of the ICJ to resolve the issues arising from Russia's refusal to return some of the northern islands it took control over at the end of WW II.
-2

CrazyJoeAug. 12, 2012 - 01:09PM JST

@smithinjapan

"South Korea refuses for the same reason Japan refuses to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus -- they believe the land is theirs, so why should they dispute".

That's correct!
-2

SeiharinokazeAug. 12, 2012 - 01:17PM JST

South Korea may find it difficult to continue to rule free from care and without reserve the island and exploit the seabed resources around if any as long as a neighboring country claims the island too. Japan will not give it up either. Sovereignty issues so to speak. Bring it to the ICJ and have it settled for good by proving that Dokdo and Seokdo and Usando were one and the same island from old times.
-2

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 04:08PM JST

Again, why would South Korea agree to visit the ICJ to dispute its own land when Japan will not do the same with the Senkakus? They are South Korean land, so why the need to dispute it? I'm not going to go to the police with a friend to ask if my bicycle is mine or his -- I own it, I take care of it, and I ride it. There's no questions of ownership. He just sits back and watches enviously.
-2

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 08:46PM JST

Ossan: "Is it impossible for you to consider that the "negative attitude" is because South Korea continues to refuse to settle this issue at the ICJ?"

Once again the hypocrisy is astounding. You say Japan has never defaced a flag, I point out that they have and you say it's irrelevant. The ICJ comes up and you and others scream that SK is wrong to not want to go there and when it's pointed out Japan contradicts itself on the matter with other island disputes you call it irrelevant. Truth is, you can't handle the fact that the Japanese government and its apologists on island issues are downright hypocrites, and even lousy ones at that. Pointing out hypocrisy is not 'irrelevant' by any means, Ossan.

If Japan is honest about settling issues in the ICJ, let them raise the idea of going there for the Senkaku islands as well. Heck, they can ask Russia to do as well with the Kuriles. Thing is, they might with the latter, but never would with the former because, as stated, they are hypocrites.

South Korea owns, maintains, and lives on Dokdo -- Japan has no right, and no claim to them, hence they want to go to the ICJ because they even doubt it themselves.
-2

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 09:42PM JST

Fine, you made me look it up. Guess it's only been five PMs in Japan since Lee assumed office in SK, not six or seven, but of course Noda IS on his way out (and only 16 PMs for Japan in 20 years! compared to approximately seven for SK).

And yet Japanese extremists on here will talk about SK's Lee being on his way out and that's why he visited the islands... for points.
-3

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 12:37PM JST

Ossan: "Why did South Korea refuse in 1954 and in 1962? Becase they wre so sure they were going to win? Yea that makes sense only to you."

South Korea refuses for the same reason Japan refuses to go to the ICJ over the Senkakus -- they believe the land is theirs, so why should they dispute it? If Japan is willing to go to the ICJ over Dokdo, it shows they do not fully believe in their claim and need outside forces to support them. South Korea does not, because it is South Korean land. If the Philippines suddenly demanded Japan go to the ICJ over an island in Okinawa, what would Japan do? They would scoff at the idea, and rightly so.

Gemba is a moron, and that's all there is to it. I guess the DPJ must be close to an election or something and this is a way to seek political points (nudge nudge).

Yuri: For the ICJ to make any decision on the matter, BOTH nations in the dispute must willingly put forward their plight, and even then the decision is non-binding. Imagine IF both nations went forward to the ICJ and the ICJ then said, "These islands are here and forever South Korean land". You think Japan would roll over and just give them up? No way, nor would SK if the ICJ said they were Japanese. The dispute would just continue as is. The ICJ is pointless when it comes to such disputes because no side will accept the non-binding ruling.
-3

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 05:40PM JST

edojin: "Otherwise, that's it. Just noise. No real confrontation or anything like that. And behind the police blockade on Shinjuku-dori in front of the Embassy, was a long traffic jam."

The saddest part is if you got into one of those vans you'd find a little old man, with DT shakes so bad he can barely find the ashtray with his cigarette, who doesn't know anything about his own nation, let alone others.
-3

issa1Aug. 12, 2012 - 08:14PM JST

the Japanese government to evict and deport the 500,000 zainichi Koreans living in Japan, as a retaliation to this infamy
-3

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 10:17PM JST

Hikozaemon: "Korea knows that their invasion and occupation of the Liancourts in 1954 would be ruled invalid if it went to international arbitration - that is why they consistently blocked arbitration in the past, and already indicated that they would do so again this time."

Actually, what they know is that the land belongs to them, so they don't need to contest it. Contrast that with Japan, who is unsure and wants others to verify. For the same reasons, Japan won't bring up the idea of going to the ICJ for the Senkaku islands -- why bother when you believe so strongly they are yours? It's proof they know Korea has the better claim. But again, I own a bicycle my friend suddenly wants. Why would I go to the police to verify it's my bicycle? I bought it, own it, take care of it, make repairs when needed... my friend only watches with envy.
-3

smithinjapanAug. 13, 2012 - 02:40PM JST

SamuraiBlue: "No Smithy obviously you are deflecting an argument, Japan is a compulsory state of the ICJ. Japan is obliged to accept the challenge as I wrote before but you choose to ignore."

You really don't seem to get it, do you? The islands belong to South Korea, so why should they contest them? If Russia suddenly claimed that Hokkaido was theirs and they bring it to the ICJ, would Japan go? Why not?

"As i said before stop mixing one with the other since one has nothing with the other and I also stated that both were ruled as Japanese territory within the San Fransico peace treaty. Which you also choose to ignore."

The San Fransico (sic) peace treaty has no relevance, while Japan's hypocrisy on other island issues DOES, and as vg866 pointed out even the Japanese thought the islands were not theirs during the peace treaty signings.

vg866: "It seems the Japanese government themselves did not believe Dokdo belonged to them. Truth hurts huh?"

Thanks for that link. Truth hurts indeed. Don't tell the wingers, though.
-4

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 10:14PM JST

SamuraiBlue: "Japan's position of Senkaku is that there are no dispute concerning Senkaku"

Again, the hypocrisy. Put as much lipstick on it as you like, though.

"if PRC disagree then they can take it up with ICJ in which Japan cannot ignore unlike SK."

Ummm.... yes, Japan would ignore it, because they think they have the rightful claim and there's no question. I happen to believe that the Senkaku islands are Japanese territory more than Chinese, but the hypocrisy remains. SK has no doubts about whose territory Dokdo is, unlike Japan -- they have doubt so they ask others to verify on their behalf.

"You can fuff and puff all you want but international treaty backs up Japan's claim and SK is unlawfully occupying Japanese territory."

Sorry, but they own and administer them, to which the US has admitted (the latter at least, which infuriated the Japanese a few years back). Get it through your head, the territory is Korean, not Japanese.

"So please will you quit mixing one with the other in deflecting a losing argument."

They are quite related, my friend, and it's not deflection at all, unlike you -- who hasn't answered any of my questions.
-6

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 01:38PM JST

basroil: "They refer to the islands as not belonging to any clan. That does not translate to saying they were Korean."

But just as clearly translates as them NOT being Japanese. :)
-6

just-a-bigguyAug. 12, 2012 - 03:18PM JST

Lee's visit to Dokdo is the biggest 'black eye' for the DPJ since the trawler incident, and Mr Noda is heading to the end of his days in the office, nobody in this world will take that ICJ seriously!
-7

edhanAug. 12, 2012 - 01:13PM JST

Dokdo is a Korean territory. The following are some excerpts from various researches from elite universities includding Standford.

With the beginning of the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the Japanese government began compiling land registers and bthe Meiji government made it clear in 1877 that Ulleung Island and Dokdo were Korean territory, saying they had nothing to do with Japan.

Hosaka, a Japanese-born academic, says he bought the book from a dealer who specializes in old Japanese maps. He has also found other complete maps of Japan that do not include Dokdo.

Japan’s claims of sovereignty on Dokdo are closely related to its attempt to justify its early imperialist expansion in 1905. Thus, Japan’s claiming of Dokdo was a part of its imperial-colonial expansionism design which made Korea the first victim of Japan. In the furtherance of this attitude, the Japanese extreme rightists glamorize the past imperialist appetite and colonial occupation, invasion, and bringing aggressive war and various war crimes.

Along with the Yasukuni Shrine issue and the controversy over Japan’s distortion of historical facts in middle and high school student textbooks, this sovereignty controversy about Dokdo, backed by national sentiment, has been functioning as one of the most serious barriers to better relations between Korea and Japan.

There are historical evidences that Korean title to Dokdo dates back to the Sixth century.

Yuji Hosaka, Japanese professor, states that another couple of historic Japanese maps have been discovered that do not include Korea’s Dokdo islets as part of Japanese territory.

Measuring 115 cm by 123 cm, one map was produced by the Japanese Army in 1877 and depicts the country’s sovereign territory in detail, but does not contain Dokdo. In 1889, Japanese surveyors created the country’s first-ever map on a 200,000:1 scale compiled from all of the maps that had been produced until that time, but even that makes no reference to Dokdo, Hosaka said.

Japan should stop making distorted and false claims on many historical events and data.

How would you feel if Korea started to claim that Honshu is a Korean island and start publishing textbooks and make stories as it is true.
-8

smithinjapanAug. 12, 2012 - 12:38PM JST

mikihouse: "Japan has been very patient even after the murder of Japanese fisherman residing on the area by the Koreans thinking that burying their head in the sand will change thing."

Links, please.

"Guess what? Bullying is Korea's national past time...."

You're joking, right?
-9

Von RothbartAug. 12, 2012 - 08:20PM JST

issa1, why doesn't the Japanese government just give up a few rock islands as a sincere apology for calling women forced into prostitution "comfort women"? It seems like the least they could do. History would remember the apology, and we could, perhaps, stop reading dull nationalistic banter.
-10

Von RothbartAug. 12, 2012 - 08:52PM JST

*

So the rightists upped the sounds from their vechicles. It was like ... the noise was going straight through the body. And those policemen must face that noise head-on. * Having lived on Meji Dori right behind the Meji shrine I have a lot of sympathy for this comment. The Black Vans always have something to announce.

If anything we should donate decent speakers to these rightists in black vans. The sound quality is horrible and grating. I'd rather hear clear messages of semi-literate racism than feedback and muffled babble.