S Korea rejects Japan's proposal to take isle dispute to int'l court

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

  • 31

    mikihouse

    as expected...shout all you want, protest all you want, riot all you want, grandstand all you want but unless you prove it is your own then you are just running away.

    No different from a thief. If you went to a store and bought an item and the store suspect that you did not pay for it and the store ask for the proof of purchase. But instead of showing proof of purchase you created a ruckus and startted to wreak havoc because you want to prove its yours. Does that solve anything?

    Get your act South Korea. You claim ownership but the other country claims it too so why not be bold enough to settle this dispute once and for all? Myabe Japan will not concede but then you will have the world and the international court behind you. But what if it not yours?

  • 15

    Schopenhauer

    We have to keep strong ties with America and other western nations. As it is seen in troubles with Korea and China our neighbors are not very much civilized.

  • 22

    nigelboy

    J: "There are absolutely no doubt that Senkaku islands are inherent territories of Japan based on historic and most of all, based upon international law."

    Q: "But what supports your validity of your statement?"

    J: "Our evidence and case are so convincing and strong, NO COUNTRY has ever challenged the legality of our claims. (i.e. ICJ). In fact, we are so sure that we are signatories to Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory" under ICJ whereby we are obligated to recognize and abide by the jurisdiction and judgement of the organ."


    K: "There are absolutely no doubt that Dokdo islands are inherent territories of Korea based on historic and most of all, based upon international law."

    Q: "But what supports your validity of your statement?"[

    K:" Again, there are absolutely no doubt that Dokdo islands are inherent territories of Korea based on historic and most of all, based upon international law"

    Q: "I ask again sir. But what supports your validity in your statement?"

    K: "................We will take unspecified stern measures! ..."

  • 22

    CrazyJoe

    Japan should take the case to the ICJ unilaterally. If South Korea refuses, they must explain in detail to the International Court of Justice why they don't consent to take the case.

  • 15

    mikihouse

    Korea just announced the reason why they won't attend. We are not to gain anything from the proceedings.

    Come again? If its proven that it is yours and maybe finally put this behind and concentrate on your country's economy and politics is not that good enough? But then again...

  • 6

    Yoshihiko Mizukoshi

    Troublesome nation...

  • -15

    herefornow

    South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak visited the Seoul-controlled islands

    As the oldsaying goes "possession is 9/10's of the law." SK has nothing to gain by takng this to the International Court, and Japan saying what SK is doing "does not fit with our policy and is extremely regrettable" is simply laughable. Wake up and smell the coffee Japan, you've got no real leverage here.

  • 12

    hatsoff

    Hardly a surprise, is it? South Korea likes to talk the talk but refuses to walk the walk.

    Someone on another thread here said something interesting: President Lee is under a lot of pressure at home. His brother, also a politician, was arrested recently on corruption charges, and during Lee's presidency North Korea has attacked and killed South Koreans - sinking the ship, artillery attacks - with little response from Lee. He has faced criticism for his weak, ineffective response to the North. He knows action against the North will have real repercussions, so he talks big against Japan instead.

    President Lee has let his people down again by not trying to settle this once and for all.

  • 11

    JoeBigs

    If the Korean's thought that they were right about the Islands that would have taken this to the ICJ years ago.

    But the Koreans know that they do not have a leg to stand on so they will not go.

  • 14

    2020hindsights

    Japan should take the case to the ICJ unilaterally. If South Korea refuses, they must explain in detail to the International Court of Justice why they don't consent to take the case.

    The ICJ won't take the case on unless both nations admit there is a dispute. South Korea doesn't admit there is a dispute.

    Lee Myung-Bak has falling ratings and an election looming. I wonder why he is making so much noise at the moment...?

  • 14

    nigelboy

    We are not to gain anything from the proceedings

    Puzzling. How about you can stop these "Dokdo is Ours" campaign throughout the world (except Hague, Netherlands where ICJ is located) with banners at every international sporting events, stickers, t-shirts, graffitti, newspaper ads, bumper stickers, promotional underwear, etc.)

    A casual third party observer would assume that "Dokdo is not yours", and that's why you're campaigning.

  • -10

    Tim_Fox

    In the case of difficult to resolve land disputes, the difficulty of going to the ICJ is that it may make a compromise ruling - i.e. splitting the territory (and surrounding access to oil, fisheries and mineral rights) 50/50. With any kind of ruling, Japan's history of aggressive land occupations in WWII will recede from public consciousness. (The Korean mindset may look further back in history with regards to Japanese land aggressions as well).

  • -21

    Utrack

    To To funny, the dillusion is so great it almost scary. ROK for the does not have to prove anything to anybody. As you can see they said J Govt is NOT worth consideration. So J Govt can go cry a river and they still will not get possession of the isles swimming distance from the ROK. J Govt can go ICJ, LMNOP it does not matter who Japan goes to the Dokdo isles will remain in the possession of ROK. So if J Govt wants to be the bully and starts violence I hope the US takes ROK side.

  • 10

    Schopenhauer

    We are living in the 21st century. Can't we put territorial disputes behind? The days countries fight for territorial issues are old fashioned.

  • 11

    KariHaruka

    Whats the matter Korea? What are you trying to hide? If you are so certain these islands belong to you then why not prove it at the international court?

  • 11

    tairitsuiken

    Japan comes out looking like the bigger man for this. Clever. Korea just looks like a bunch of kids.

    Anyway, outside of this part of the world, no on gives a s--t about this "dispute".

  • -3

    House Atreides

    To To funny, the dillusion is so great it almost scary. ROK for the does not have to prove anything to anybody. As you can see they said J Govt is NOT worth consideration. So J Govt can go cry a river and they still will not get possession of the isles swimming distance from the ROK.

    Actual physical possession of Takeshima is unimportant. The only thing that matters is which country is more advanced at deep sea drilling and methane hydrate extraction. Talk about a race to the bottom.

  • -1

    Daijoboots

    I've got the solution. Wait for it................

    Share the island!

    That's right, share the island and work together on making use of fisheries, minerals and other assets.

    This would be the best solution for relations (which in turn affects tourism, other consumer purchases, government-scale deals etc) and also applies to Japan's other territorial disputes.

    If any of the islands are handed to one particular country I can see there being serious money flow to compensate anyway.

    And that, is that. Anything else is negative and counter-productive. (Pats self on back and goes to make a coffee.)

  • 4

    sfjp330

    Japan has repeatedly proposed going to the ICJ not because it believes it will win its case. But, on the contrary, that once Japan loses it can use the decision to deal with the domestic groups. This is one of the value added aspects of a ICJ decision. There are other legal benefits to Japan that may come out of a Japanese loss. Japan can turn to the right wing nationalists and say “we fought the claim vigorously, but unfortunately the ICJ has spoken and we will abide by international law.”

    I’m not sure why the ROK won’t go to the ICJ and I’ve thought about it for some time. The South Korea is very well advised on the strength of its position at international law. Perhaps South Korea sees less value in resolving the dispute, even if the outcome is in its favor than in maintaining a “claim” against the Japanese, which of course is part of deeper unresolved historical issues.

    South Korea should proposed creating a package deal arbitration scenario where a host of unresolved issues would be joined together and resolved together, such as comfort women, Dokdo, etc... Is this the way to go? Is Korea ready to resolve its disputes with Japan? Does it even want to? Is there more value in keeping things unresolved and maintaining that “claim”? But if I were South Korea, for starters, I’d take Japan up on its ICJ proposal on Dokdo, win the case and worry about the rest later.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    Well SK shouldn't have turned them down. I personally have enough evidence to claim those islands as my own and will stand in the ICJ with my family history and dated photographs and old illustrations of maps from the many generations of Honestdictators posing and hanging out there during their vacations.

  • -5

    sfjp330

    Heck, it's a election year, Let’s see the shitty rocks could help booster the sagging popularities of Noda Yoshihiko (19%) and LMB (18%).

  • -7

    Utrack

    @ JoeBigs et al.

    The SK had Dokdo before Christ was walking around. Why do they need to prove anything to Japan?

    ROK Documents prove that old name Usando is current Dokdo

    The Silla Kingdom (57 BCE-935 CE) annexed Usanguk, comprising Ulleungdo and Dokdo, in year 512, since when the name Dokdo started appearing in official documents. Sejong sillok jiriji (1432), for example, referred to Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Mureungdo and Usando, respectively. Goryeosa (History of Goryeo, 1451), Sinjeung dongguk yeoji seungnam (Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea, 1530), Dongguk munheon bigo (Reference Compilation of Documents of Korea, 1770), Man-gi yoram (Book of Ten Thousand Techniques of Governance, 1808) and many others show that Usando was an old name for Dokdo. They also prove that Usando referred to Dokdo for at least several centuries until the early 20th century.

  • 3

    YuriOtani

    This is not at all surprising, next Korea will announce it is beefing up defenses against the Japanese foe, blah blah.

  • 4

    gogogo

    Sorry Korea you lose if you wont take it to court, you have shown your hand, you are all talk and no bite

  • 5

    Scrote

    If the Koreans are so certain that they are legally entitled to the islands, why won't they agree to take the case to the ICJ? The only reason I can think of is that they are scared of losing. This suggests that they themselves have some doubts over the validity of their claim, which explains why they resort to noise, name calling and empty rhetoric, instead of using civilised means to settle the dispute.

  • 1

    Farmboy

    But the Koreans know that they do not have a leg to stand on so they will not go.

    Actually, I think they do have a leg to stand on. There is some support for Korean possession of Dokdo, though there is also decent support for Japanese possession of Dokdo. It's a historical and legal nightmare to plow through, though, and nobody really knows how the court might read it. I think the deal is that perching on it is easier than taking a risk on losing it through court proceedings, so they figure why risk it.? They have someone on the island, they have a decent navy, they have people behind them who would love to see a conflict with Japan, they have someone gaining political capital from pushing the issue, they can get support from China for doing this since it brings back all their negative memories of Japanese occupation, etc. They're not going to move unless they are forced to move, and I don't know how interested Japan really is in paying the price to force it, though they'll come up with some things that will annoy the Koreans, with corresponding annoying things coming from Korea. My guess is that things will muddle along. Korea will stay at Dokdo, Japan will stay at the Senkakus, and things will just stay the same, except for an extra helping of antagonism.

  • 6

    nigelboy

    Actually, I think they do have a leg to stand on. There is some support for Korean possession of Dokdo, though there is also decent support for Japanese possession of Dokdo. It's a historical and legal nightmare to plow through, though, and nobody really knows how the court might read it

    I disagree respectfully.

    The precedents set forth by ICJ as wells Court of arbitration in regards to territorial disputes overwhelmingly favors Japan for the simple reason that Japan can establish critical date, peaceful display of soverignty, adminstration, and control. I'm kind of guilty in debating some of the pre incorporated historical documents and maps where interpretations can be quite vague or can be construed in both ways, which of course as you said, can be a "nightmare to plow through" but those information are rarely used to determine the actual decision. The only question that has no precedent to date is if a country takes the islands by force and control/administer it for a period of over 60 years, would it favor the original owners or the current occupiers? For the record, even though Japan's attempt to reclaim this islands has been somewhat half a$$ed which may go against them, they were diligent enough to send note verbale to Korea every year in regards to their claim that Korea was illegally occupying the islands.

  • 4

    globalwatcher

    Everything what S. Korea has been doing is a public record in the eyes of International Court that may weaken S.K's position and will eventually backfire.

    Japan, keep doing what you have been doing and stay in the course. SK cannot cause any more noise against Japan as long as they are not willing to be heard. SK knows they do not have a solid proof to win the case.

  • -11

    hoserfella

    J: "There are absolutely no doubt that Senkaku islands are inherent territories of Japan based on historic and most of all, based upon international law."

    Q: "But what supports your validity of your statement?"

    J: "Our evidence and case are so convincing and strong, NO COUNTRY has ever challenged the legality of our claims. (i.e. ICJ). In fact, we are so sure that we are signatories to Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory" under ICJ whereby we are obligated to recognize and abide by the jurisdiction and judgement of the organ."

    K: "There are absolutely no doubt that Dokdo islands are inherent territories of Korea based on historic and most of all, based upon international law."

    Q: "But what supports your validity of your statement?"[

    K:" Again, there are absolutely no doubt that Dokdo islands are inherent territories of Korea based on historic and most of all, based upon international law"

    Q: "I ask again sir. But what supports your validity in your statement?"

    K: "................We will take unspecified stern measures! ..."

    nigelboy don't you think you could have made your point in a one sentence statement instead of a silly fabricated conversation?

  • -4

    tokyokawasaki

    This all about playing politics. The islands are actually not that important. Each side is just using the issue for political reasons...

    If the courts rule one way or the other, how will it affect the lives of the Korean and Japanese public?? Exactly, it won't...

    This is all just BS and the average person does not care about the rocks...

  • 3

    peanut666

    S. Korea won't take it to international court because they know they will lose. Historically, it has been internationally recognized as belonging to Japan and the S. Korean government knows it, since they signed the agreement and treaties as well.

  • 2

    Amidalism

    “Dokdo is Korea’s territory historically, geographically and under international law a territorial dispute does not exist”

    I love how this canned phrase comes out EVERY single time they need to make a statement on it.

  • 2

    jonobugs

    I think it's a great idea to have this resolved in an international court. In fact, I think all the island disputes should be resolved this way.

  • 0

    Farmboy

  • 4

    nigelboy

    nigelboy don't you think you could have made your point in a one sentence statement instead of a silly fabricated conversation?

    hoserfella.

    I believe the reasons I put that is here.

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-to-ask-international-court-to-settle-s-korea-isle-dispute#comment_1378847

    "SK is not going to go to the ICJ for the same reason Japan will not go for the Senkakus -- they don't recognize any dispute. "

    "Why isn't Japan taking the issue of Senkaku to the ICJ as it threatens (but won't) take the issue of Dokdo? "

    "So why doesn't Japan want to go there on said issue(Senkaku) like they want to go there with Dokdo? Again, you fail to answer the obvious hypocrisy."

    Simply, a bilateral territory dispute or any dispute for that matter can be dismissed if the accused simply states "there is no dispute). But what happened here is that Japan is bringing this to a U.N. body where Korea has to respond to the world of the reason(s) behind their rejection. A simple "there is no territory dispute" simply doesn't fly within the international audience.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    Ok, now I'm curious. Putting aside sovereignty, how are they administering or controlling if they aren't on the island?

  • 0

    Farmboy

    Nigelboy, Sorry, that was supposed to be referencing your post:

    Japan can establish critical date, peaceful display of soverignty, adminstration, and control.

  • 5

    nigelboy

    Ok, now I'm curious. Putting aside sovereignty, how are they administering or controlling if they aren't on the island?

    Between 1905~and after Korea took over by force, the land was administered in a form of issuing commercial licenses, setting regulation , government survey which all starts with a documented incorporation.

  • -5

    Alphaape

    I don't blame SK for not wanting to go to a court. Who gave that court the right over a soverign government to determine who gets the islands? When did a nation cede it's authority to give it to some court in a far land that will make determinations as to who gets what. To me that is worse than the old "colonialism" that ruled the world years ago.

    SK and Japan have girenvances over the islands. They should just buckle down, and work out the negotiation among themselves, and not rely on some foreign court to determine the outcome.

  • 1

    Virtuoso

    The islands themselves are essentially worthless, the real issue is where to draw the international boundary. If Japan had been concerned about this, it would have taken measures decades ago to establish and reinforce its claim. Instead it did nothing, except indicating the rocks were part of Shimane prefecture on maps. Give Japan zero points for proactive thinking.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    Thanks, that's interesting.

  • -4

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    @Schopenhauer: Your view is quite interesting, Koreans and Chinese are not civilised? So we need to maintain relations with the West, so you think they are more civilised? Pls touch up on history, as you obviously think your very civilised.

  • -4

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    I wonder why the group of activist from Japan did not land on the island disputed by Korea and Russia, they should, thats if they have the balls!

  • 3

    nigelboy

    They should just buckle down, and work out the negotiation among themselves, and not rely on some foreign court to determine the outcome.

    Alphaape. If you look at the response on this article, it is and was virtually impossible to have a dialog regarding this issue. Japan believes they've exhaused all of this, and hence the lawsuit.

    FM Gemba stated the following on August 11th.

    \Actually, the ROK side did not respond to the lawsuit twice before. We believe that our assertion is sufficiently reasonable. However, we have not filed the third lawsuit. That is not only because the ROK side has not responded to the lawsuit but the Government of Japan as a whole gave certain consideration **to the influence of such a lawsuit upon overall Japan-ROK relations. I think the visit to the island by the President of the ROK made such **consideration unnecessary, and therefore we need to make the international society sufficiently understand Japan’s position. For that purpose, we will consider such a lawsuit.//

    One analyst I read in a magazine stated that there is a so-called "playbook" within the Foreign Ministry where whatever party (DPJ/LDP) holds power, it is recommonded that the ministers follow this. After being rejected twice to go to ICJ, the bureaucrats told the Korean counterparts that "we(Japan) want ask to make this a huge international issue only if you agree not to station or have a military official set foot their on an official capacity". If you didn't know, the guards that are stationed there is actually a police force and not the military. But when the President, under the constitution of Korea which designates him as commander in chief of the military set foot, that's when the Korean side broke the agreement.

    Does this article that I read few years ago have any credibility? Considering that DPJ has long been a sympathizer of Korea (as opposed to the typical LDP) and the fact that Gemba used the word "consideration" in that statement as well as the subsequent stoppage order by Noda of a dialog between the high officials between each nations, I'm thinking there is more to it than simply trying to garner votes for the next election which IMHO, has very little influence for the majority of population cares about consumption taxes.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    I wonder why the group of activist from Japan did not land on the island disputed by Korea and Russia, they should, thats if they have the balls!

    So in your hermitage, you encourage people to go to war to prove their manhood?

  • -1

    sveinnyves

    Shame to the south korean nation, they just made themselves look pathetic in the eyes of other world nations. Even if they succeed in getting the island using trickery and cunning ways, ppl will still look at them as a looser and will think twice to do business with them.

  • 0

    DoLittleBeLate

    On top of the entertainment value of the "island news", it is an unanticipated bonus how the hotheads here keep mixing Senkaku/Diayou/Tiaoyutai and Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima/Dokdo together. Shall we think of a joint name for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Russia as well? Let's call them "The Great Western Satans", shall we?

  • 2

    lucabrasi

    @Alphaape

    When did a nation cede it's authority to give it to some court in a far land that will make determinations as to who gets what. To me that is worse than the old "colonialism" that ruled the world years ago.

    Seriously? It was better when the rich countries with powerful armies marched into less powerful nations and took over, massacring the locals? Better than a peaceful court resolution?

  • 0

    Farmboy

    the hotheads here keep mixing Senkaku/Diayou/Tiaoyutai and Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima/Dokdo together

    Which hotheads did that? I don't see it.

  • 0

    thywillbedone

    sfjp330 - Brilliant comment -

    It's entirely possible Japan would love to have a world court decide against her regarding these meaningless rocks, and have a great face-saving way to bow out based on a semblance of civility and rule of law.

  • 1

    Francois5

    I can see the Korean right wingers (aka K-government) starting a war against Japan because they "feel" they are being offended by old colonial country against the rocks. Korea is so much prepared for war, with weapons and mindset of its population.

    Scary time indeed.

  • 2

    lucabrasi

    @Francois

    Korea is so much prepared for war, with weapons and mindset of its population.

    Very unlikely I reckon. For three reasons.

    1) They wouldn't win easily and would possibly lose. Too much possible humiliation at stake.

    2) They'd lose American economic and military support. The Americans might even help Japan.

    3) The North would leap at the opportunity to attack while Seoul was otherwise engaged.

  • 1

    Utrack

    That European court only holds weight with Europeans and Japanese. ICJ doesn't mean anything to the rest of Asia

  • -2

    Alphaape

    Seriously? It was better when the rich countries with powerful armies marched into less powerful nations and took over, massacring the locals? Better than a peaceful court resolution?

    @ lucabrasi: I didn't say that they needed to go to war, but that SK and Japan need to work on this for themselves. Remember, a rich country doesn't need to go to war with an army, not when they can pay off judges at shame organizations like the World Court or the UN to get what they want. After all, that is the main argument you hear from people the world over about the justice system, you can afford a good lawyer, then you can get away with it.

    Negotiating among themselves can be a peaceful solution, they don't have to fight about it, but need to generally agree to go in and accept what finally comes out and behave like responsible parties on both sides.

  • 1

    Bgood41

    Words are cheap without legal ground. History is full of mess, there were no clear boundary in the ancient time; especially islands that were not connected to peninsular. Claimer(s) must show the evidences to back up including: history, geography, legal agreements, cultural entity......Otherwise, in case of dispute arise, the ICJ must decide. (e.g. before the European set feet on the America(s), there were no border; and the natives, the buffalo roam all over. Later, there were wars, settlements, border, agreements... established; and we all abide to the terms.) Give ICJ a chance.

  • 0

    Bgood41

    Just wonder, if these rocks disappear for some unknown reason; would pride and prejudice gone too? Just kidding.

  • 4

    Ewan Huzarmy

    Hoorah for Japan ! I bet this story is getting more airtime on T.V than the fish caught off of Fukushima. Japanese media is akin to Orwell's 1984

  • -1

    titaniumdioxide

    S.korea is all words,rant and protest.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    This is just too good - quote from joongang.co.kr

    In an effort to emphasize Korea’s ownership of the easternmost islets, the Ulleung County Office yesterday decided to name all of the unnamed rocks or peaks in Dokdo, located nearby Ulleung Island. The office will also rename those with military names, such as “Tank Rock.” Choe Su-il, head of the county office, said, “It will become an opportunity to proclaim that Dokdo is our territory through renaming all geographic places in Dokdo.”

    My suggestions: missile stone, drone beach, (wait, wait, I'm thinking) grenade pebble...

  • -2

    ubikwit

    To be expected from the current administration in SK, but probably doesn't bode well for future relations.

    It seems that we are in a period seeing a hardening of divisions, with little to show in terms of cooperation.

    @Alphaape

    The Korean government shows no signs of intention to engage in negotiations of any sort, which is a similar stance to that of Japan with respect to the Senkakus.

    Korea has some points in its favor with regard to claiming the rocks, but so does Japan. Here, Japan has expressed the willingness to resolve the issue through the mediatory offices of the international organization that has been mutually established by the several nations for that purpose.

    I think it is somewhat cynical to see the IJC is not a court that good lawyers can win you case in as opposed to something closer to a forum of binding arbitration of a sort. Korea's government has rejected that system to a certain extent by this refusal. Your statements seem to discount the system of international institutions altogether.

    China hasn't requested Japan take their dispute to the IJC probably because they have a number of other disputes, not all of which are likely to be decided in their favor. They may at some point decide to do that, though. In the meantime, it looks as if the acts of Korea are going to bring about a sort of circling of the wagons mentality throughout the region, which increases tensions.

    Though many in Korea still have historical grievances with Japan over colonization and the war, I think that Japan has at least demonstrated a greater degree of maturity at the international level in these recent developments.

    Some Japanese administrations have shown intransigence on the Kurils, other a more open minded approach. It remains to be seen what course the disputes on the Senkakus and Kurils take, but this result doesn't bode well for cooperation. And maintaining harmony in sensitive border regions is something that should probably be afforded a little higher priority by the parties concerned.

  • 0

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    @Farmboy I do't mean war, just my point through on hot headed right wing actions like the landing on disputed island with China.

  • -1

    genjuro

    No surprise here. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. They yell and scream all they want that it's theirs but won't take it to the ICJ for arbitration? Shows you how much confidence Korea really has about their claims to the rocks.

  • 0

    Rose Kina Kina

    Let the King Solomon's wisdom be applied to both.That is the International court to resolve the issue.

  • -1

    Joselito Asi

    It reminds me of China claiming an island owned by the Philippines. Hopefully, this long-standing conflict will be resolved in time before denouement happens.

  • 0

    Neo_Rio

    These outlying islands, regardless of who really controls them, are just political tools to boost nationalism in China and Korea.

    I seriously doubt Chinese and Korean leaders want these issues resolved. The elite would then lose a tool to distract the population from how badly their own government is screwing them over.

  • 1

    Nessie

    Shall we think of a joint name for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Russia as well?

    Too many for an Axis of Evil.

    How about, "the Cartesian Coordinates of Calumny"?

  • 0

    SunnysideUp

    lol, rejected because there simply is no case... japan's propensity to distort history and facts continues...

  • -3

    Iso Poika

    From a Japanese government website:

    "The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in September 1951, stipulates that Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. Upon learning of the content of this part of the Treaty drafted by the United States and the United Kingdom, the ROK requested the United States to add Takeshima as one of the regions for which Japan would renounce all right, title and claim. The United States rejected the request by responding that Takeshima had never been treated as part of Korea and does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Such correspondence clearly shows that Takeshima was affirmed as part of the territory of Japan."

    http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

  • -1

    Francois5

    Iso Poika, I think you get the point!

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    “Dokdo is Korea’s territory historically, geographically and under international law a territorial dispute does not exist,”

    Wow... and just the other day Japan was saying a dispute with the Senkakus 'does not exist' when Gemba was bringing up the idea of taking SK to the ICJ. Mmmmm... hypocrisy? anyone?

  • -1

    kominka

    Janken poi?

  • 1

    sandiegoluv

    Even though I understand the reasons for many posters thinking that South Korea is chicken for not going to the ICJ, I can also understand the reason for them not wanting to do so. They poses it. Why go to court over something you poses already.

    But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would Japan be willing to do the same thing with Senkaku? I doubt it. It is not cowardly at all to not go to the ICJ for something that you already own. It is wise.

    If Japan wants to go to the ICJ on these islands then they should go on the other islands issues as well. Are you brave or stupid enough? You can't win all the arguments. Personally, I would love to see that happen so we get rid of this issue once and for all. I am sure China would never, ever partake in such a matter either.

  • 2

    sandiegoluv

    It is funny though. No matter what the outcome there is nothing that can be done. SK will not just hand over the islands to Japan, just as much as Japan will not hand over the islands to China, and Russia to Japan as well over any of these courts decisions. I wonder why Japan wants to do this? Who are they really trying to appease?

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    sandiegoluv: "But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would Japan be willing to do the same thing with Senkaku? I doubt it. It is not cowardly at all to not go to the ICJ for something that you already own. It is wise."

    Not only is it wise, it's completely unnecessary. For once I am in complete agreement with you. Oh, and by the way, Japan has stated flat out 'there is no dispute over the Senkaku islands', just like South Korea is here. SK is no more chicken than Japan is when it comes to the Senkakus in such respect.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    sandiegoluv: "I wonder why Japan wants to do this? Who are they really trying to appease?"

    They want to have their cake and eat it, too. And they simply can't see the hypocrisy, that's why. They want to be seen as the victims.

  • 4

    hoserfella

    hoserfella.

    I believe the reasons I put that is here.

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-to-ask-international-court-to-settle-s-korea-isle-dispute#comment_1378847

    I see, so it isn't a fabricated conversation, but a fabricated conversation between random actual quotes from a previous thread and with your own personal interpretation. I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

    • Moderator

      Please do not make snide remarks to other posters.

  • -2

    ubikwit

    @Farmboy

    thanks for the heads up on those naming conventions.

    militant nationalism?

  • 2

    yasukuni

    My wife just has a blank expression when I ask this, but "Why does Japan want Takeshima so much anyway?"

    With all the problems they have why not just forget about it. Fix up Fukushima, stop kids from bullying and old people from committing suicide etc. We need elevators in train stations more than less Koreans on Takeshima. Koreans would be happier, and the govt. would have one less problem.

  • 1

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    I wonder who picks the judges for the ICJ?

  • -2

    oberst

    send the J self defense force to the rock. Since J Gov. believes the rock is Japanese, it's not against the constitution. If the Koreans shoot back, then J Gov. can always ask US for help. Wait..............US has military alliance with Koreans too !! ummmmmmm, never mind.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    oberst: "send the J self defense force to the rock"

    They would never do it. Too scared, for starters. The US would never support them as they were taken or shredded within minutes, for second. Third... oh no wait, the reasons why they are not Japanese islands never figure into their logic. Dokdo is Korean, they do not have to dispute it. Russia also need not dispute the Kuriles, as they are not... and lest we forget, Japan's EXACT SAME REASON, even according to Gemba, is that there is no dispute. Bottom line. Sooner Japan drops it the sooner they can try and deal with more pressing, domestic issues. Ah, but wait... that would also be extremely harmful to the DPJ!

  • -1

    Barbara Reder

    the islands belong to japan. period. why should japan drop the suits against Korea or Russia? smithinjapan?

    It is sad that japan is not recieving any support regarding these islands. South Korea is scared of loosing in the court that is why they dont go for it.

    Japan can not send military because of the agreement they signed. anyway South Korea should just hand over the islands over to Japan.

    日本がんばれ!!hope it will be taken into icj

  • -3

    Patric Spohn

    Clearly, SK is not confident enough to accept this dispute to be brought to the IC. Damn, I just hope they will continue exporting Samsung phones. I truly love them.

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    sandiegoluvAug. 22, 2012 - 04:58PM JST "..Japan will not hand over the islands to China, and Russia to Japan as well over any of these courts decisions. I wonder why Japan wants to do this? Who are they really trying to appease?"

    How do you know this? Why are you making such a statement when no country has even tried to resolve an issue with Japan at the ICJ? You are simply stating your opinion about an issue that to date does not exist, whereas South Korea being unwilling to go to he ICJ is a fact as this article proves.

  • -2

    chucky3176

    LOL, Japan can whine all they like, but the only way for Japan to get any hope of getting island back is to attack it militarily and take it. There's only a squad of coast guards stationed there, Japan can just walk right in and start a war. Then the two countries will be forced to stand in front of the ICJ. So what's the problem? Japan should do what it did in 1905 when it took the island, then it took the island of Ullungdo which by the way Japan also claims as Japanese. lol.. By 1910, all of Korea was declared as Japan proper. Let's see if Japan has the guts to do it, otherwise, Korea will just stand by, watch the nationalistic nonsense going on in Japan rallying around their God emperor, and laugh.

  • -3

    OssanAmerica

    smithinjapanAug. 22, 2012 - 03:29PM JST “Dokdo is Korea’s territory historically, geographically and under international law a territorial dispute does not exist,” Wow... and just the other day Japan was saying a dispute with the Senkakus 'does not exist' when Gemba was bringing >up the idea of taking SK to the ICJ. Mmmmm... hypocrisy? anyone?

    No hypocrisy at all. The difference is that no country is demanding that Japan settle the issue at the ICJ. Only if they were, and refused, making up one lame excuse after the other and just barking "it's mine" they would be in the same category as South Korea.

  • -3

    OssanAmerica

    Patrick SmashAug. 22, 2012 - 04:05PM JST Iso Poika, yes, does seem to. Then again there are two sides to every story. If you read the Korean claims, they are very >strong too. Both sides of the argument are given here. http://dokdo-research.com/page4.html In the end, the ICJ would almost certainly not be able to go over this case and rule in Japan's favour, even though Japan >does have a good claim to these islands. Current possession and Japan's militaristic past would pretty-much rule that out.

    So then you are saying that the only reason South Korea refuses to settle at the ICJ, where they would clearly win according to you, is because of cowardice?

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    I don't really care who the island belongs to, but I really think South Korea should show some mettle and agree to settle the dispute at the Hague. What are they afraid of? If they have a cast-iron case then present it and if it's deemed legal and true then no-one can dispute it.

    Unfortunately South Korea are run by xenophobic right wingers who talk about “stern measures” , which is actually pretty worrying.

  • 0

    kazetsukai

    The time has come apparently for everyone in Asia and the world to recognize that the so called "peace" and prosperity we appear to experience is only the facade on the part of most nations and that hidden in the hearts and minds of many are the deep hatred, resentment, jealousy and greed fueled by self-righteousness justified by nationalism, racism, religion and "need to dominate to survive" rationale. It was apparent when extreme nationalism was re-awakened by the Olympic games. And "winning" and "dominating" and "POWER" became the theme and for some the purpose in life.

    It is difficult for the Japanese people who have become "short sighted", "complacent" and downright "idealistically dreamy" living on the "high" to realize that WWII and and all other major international wars happened within the last century. They cannot grasp that the wars between religions from Africa, Europe and the Middle East have been going on for over Two Thousand Years and still continue today, this hour, this minute, this second.

    And the Japanese people go traveling all over spreading their so called good will, when most of the other countries really want their money. Then they come back to Japan again "dreaming" how much "better" and "wonderful" other countries are or how much they "contributed" to helping other less developed nations. The common people may really appreciate those efforts, but we have yet to see if any of the governments and the people in power actually feel. It takes incidents such as this to realize where the Japanese people really stand in the hearts and eyes of other people.

    Just because Japan decided in the constitution forced upon the people by the country that won the war, declares no wars and no military forces for Japan, does not mean other nations follow the same laws and rules or even the ideals. Japanese people has to "WAKE UP" and "STAND UP" and "DEFEND" as necessary. Japan has paid more than any other nation in the world after WWI in helping nations throughout the world and have now been "soccer punched". The very 2 countries S. Korea and China where Japan has not only given economic and technological assistance but allowed to be stolen money and technology, have now openly shown their "true colors". Wake up and TAKE Action. In this environment, words mean nothing and gets nothing done. It takes "positive" action.

    First create laws to stop all future Japanese company hardware and software investments in both countries. They have taken enough. Open up other countries favorable to Japan to work with.

  • -7

    just-a-bigguy

    This is known as the 'HIT and RUN' tactic in political struggling! Well done SK, your efforts of undermine the US lead alliances is definately constructive!

  • -5

    just-a-bigguy

    I can understand why Japan insisted to bring her island dispute with South Korea has to be settled in ICJ, there was nothing but a favourable advantages for her own. In the 15 members of the court's composition, there is a member known as Mr Hisashi Owada小和田恆 . A Japanese law professor who his daughter is Masako Owada or better known as Crown princess Masako. This person has a connection with the Royal family of Japan, sure Japan might have a stronger vocal voices than SK in the ICJ in contrast none of the members were from from SK. Thats why there was nothing justice in Japan's proposal to settle their island dispute but a political blaming game for their political purposes!

  • 2

    sandiegoluv

    @smithinjapan - If I am not wrong you and I usually agree with each other on whaling and Japan and its foreign policy denial syndrome. I don't what it is that we disagreed on.

    I just don't understand what Japan has to gain by taking this to any court that will not have any power to do anything at all to see that their judgements are upheld. Is this done to appease the right wingers? I am thinking this is just a bluff because the NODA gov knows it has nothing to gain from taking SK to the IJC at all. I have a lot of Japanese people telling me that SK is cowardly for not going forth with them into the IJC and that it knows it will lose if it does. Well, that is nonsense, I keep telling them that there is nothing that will be done if they win or lose. I keep getting an "aso" answer and then, "But it will at least show the international community that the islands belong to Japan". To which, I have responded with, "I don't think anyone will really care or notice".

    I am starting to think that the average "Ken" is not fully aware that the ruling will mean nothing at all, win or lose. Is this Japanese political posturing by Noda to show the average Ken and Kiyoko that this PM is being tough on the neighbors and is a strong leader? It kind of appears that is the goal, because there is no other win to the situation for the country as a whole as far as I can see.

  • 3

    chucky3176

    LOL, look at this.

    Taiwan asks Japan to go to the ICJ over Diayou dispute.

    http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aIPL&ID=201208210036

    See you in court, Japan.

    And oh by the way, they should replace the Japanese judges from the case. In fact, replace the entire panel of the judges because they could already been influenced. I would favor the jury trial made up of non-historians, over the judges, to eliminate any chance of corruption.

  • 4

    sandiegoluv

    @smithinjapan - Ah, yes the "victim" syndrome. I remember that. It happens every August and it is in every history textbook in the schools. It gets so tiring. You would think that the Chinese and the Koreans were the ones who had attacked Japan. Or that the US just suddenly decided to start attacking it. Japan teach history and all the other nonsense will go away.

    But because you decided to go travel and conquer foreign lands, anything that you claim is going to be contested by your neighbors, which is totally understandable, especially if you don't have absolute proof and you refuse to teach correct history.

  • -3

    TigersTokyoDome

    I am starting to think that the average "Ken" is not fully aware that the ruling will mean nothing at all, win or lose. Is this Japanese political posturing by Noda to show the average Ken and Kiyoko

    It seriously concerns me to read, yes I know these are just internet trolls, all the real anti-Japanese hatred on this site. In fact, as we see from an example above, this swiftly turns into racism.

    So let's look at the more recent history of territorial invasion in the region. Despite all this anti-Japanese hatred, it turns out that it is actually the Japanese who have been the victims of more recent illegal invasions. Anyone know anything about the Russian army and the Kurile Islands? When the Russians marched in when WWII had ended. And also this episode over the Liancourt Rocks, when the South Koreans thought they would just send their navy into the area in 1952 and declare it as South Korean territory.

    And yet all we hear in 2012 is the Koreans and the Chinese bleating and blabbing on about apologies from the Japanese for things that happened way before what I have mentioned above. So it just boils down to (and as typified by the likes of sandiegoluv and smithinjapan) anti-Japanese racism and not the actual facts of modern history.

    Maybe we should call for Korean and Russian apologies for their blatant and illegal invasions.

  • 6

    lucabrasi

    @Tigers

    I have a lot of sympathy for Jan's position before and during the war. Japan wanted an empire, just like Britain, France, Belgium etc, but was opposed by racist Europeans and Americans (white empire, good, yellow empire, bad).

    However, once Japan decided to play by the dirty rules of empire-building, she was exposed to the whole of it. The USSR did the only logical thing at the time. Japan can have no complaints sixty years later. She gambled, she lost.

  • 0

    Daijoboots

    Reiterating Taiwan's sovereignty over the Diaoyutai (Senkaku) island chain, President Ma suggested that all claimants put aside their differences, resolve their disputes through peaceful means and try to cooperate on exploring and developing resources in the region.

    Hey this is similar to what I said this morning. At this point I would like to announce that I am going to run for President somewhere.

  • 0

    Utrack

    chucky3176

    Taiwan asks Japan to go to the ICJ over Diayou dispute

    Awesome, I wonder if Okinawa will be included? Since Japan thinks the Diayou isles are included with Okinawa.

  • -3

    TigersTokyoDome

    I have a lot of sympathy for Jan's position before and during the war. Japan wanted an empire, just like Britain, France, Belgium etc, but was opposed by racist Europeans and Americans (white empire, good, yellow empire, bad).

    However, once Japan decided to play by the dirty rules of empire-building, she was exposed to the whole of it. The USSR did the only logical thing at the time. Japan can have no complaints sixty years later. She gambled, she lost.

    luca, I totally agree. What I am saying though is that when the Koreans blab about WWII apologies from Japan, I remind them of their illegal grab of these islands. And when the Chinese bleat about Japan and WWII, I remind them of Tibet and the murder of it's own people. All of these nations demanding Japanese apologies have much more recent crimes to answer to (and the Japan WWII thing is just a smokescreen for them). It doesn't justify what the Japanese did during the War, but the Japanese themselves have suffered international crimes far more recently.

  • 2

    chucky3176

    Now that Taiwan has asked Japan to ICJ, Japan will oblige, right?

  • 0

    TigersTokyoDome

    Ossan, Korea does not have to move on, but perhaps you and Japan should. Korea does not have to prove its claim in any court because it already owns Dokdo. Japan will never own Dokdo unless Japan decides to invade and start WWIII. It ain't going to happen. Japan lost the war and Japan lost Dokdo, if it ever even had it. The rest of the world doesn't care and has mainly never heard of this place, but will benefit from any little trade spats. Ishihara and his nationalist friends will gain at the ballot box by ignoring real issues and appealing to nationalists. So will Lee in Korea. I don't really care about Dokdo or about how many Koreans you reckon you've beaten up. Both sides have a claim to Dokdo, but Korea has possession. It does not have to waste any time or any money proving anything to anyone, either in a court or anywhere else.

    So we shouldn't have said anything to the Germans about invading Poland? Or to the Serbians in Kosovo? And the Chinese invasion of Tibet was allright with you was it? By invading a territory without international agreement you 'own' that territory do you? Your complete lack of knowledge of the history of Liancourt is reflected in the fact that you think the Koreans invaded around 1945.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    To those who claim that ICJ decision on contentious cases, the ICJ website states as follows.

    "By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment."

    As to the absurd "hypocricy" argument, such comparisons can only be made when two things happen.

    1. China requesting Japan to settle this matter via ICJ.
    2. Japan rejecting the request.

    Since NONE of those happened, it's pointless to discuss this on this thread.

    Let's take boxing as an example.

    Championship belt=physical posession of the islands.

    Boxing ring=International Court of Justice.

    Boxer Kim is currently the WBA Super lightweight Champion. Boxer Suzuki is currently the WBA Lightweight Champion. Boxer Suzuki has trained to where he is now a Super light weight. Boxer Suzuki is challenging Boxer Kim for the title of Super lightweight belt. Boxer Kim's response is refusing the challenge because he's stating to Boxer Suzuki that he is the undisputed champion so there is no need. Meanwhile, Boxer Suzuki is telling the media all over the world that Boxer Kim isn't agreeing to a match because he knows he'll lose.

    Meanwhile, there's Mr. Chen. He's not a boxer but a punk who continually harass Boxer Suzuki saying stuff like "I'm going to beat you." For some unknown reason, Boxer Kim is telling Boxer Suzuki, "why not challenge Mr. Chen?" Boxer Suzuki is puzzled because he can't very well fight Mr. Chen in the boxing match because he's not a professional boxer.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    "LOL, look at this.

    Taiwan asks Japan to go to the ICJ over Diayou dispute."

    LOL indeed.

    Original article here.

    http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/aug/22/today-p3.htm

    The problem facing Taiwan that it has to clear many hurdles.

    Article 93 of the United Nations Charter.

    1. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on to be determined in each case by the General Assembly** upon the recommendation of the Security Council. **
  • -1

    sandiegoluv

    @nigelboy - Very good post. I know what you are talking about, but good look getting any member to cede their current boundaries. China is a great example of that and we have talked about that before. China ignores the very laws that it signed. So, it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

    Answer this. If Japan is correct, why not take both issues to the ICJ? Why not? This is what I don't get. Oh, I'm sorry, I get it. It is as the lady below posted.

    > tokyokawasakiAUG. 22, 2012 - 09:57AM JST This all about playing politics. The islands are actually not that important. Each side is just using the issue for political reasons...

    If the courts rule one way or the other, how will it affect the lives of the Korean and Japanese public?? Exactly, it won't...

    This is all just BS and the average person does not care about the rocks...

    This is more for personal political gain than anything.

  • -1

    sandiegoluv

    As tokyokawasaki said:

    This all about playing politics. The islands are actually not that important. Each side is just using the issue for political reasons...

    If the courts rule one way or the other, how will it affect the lives of the Korean and Japanese public?? Exactly, it won't...

    This is all just BS and the average person does not care about the rocks...

    I believe that sums it up best. It is just for self-politcal gain than anything else.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    Now, I can predict another hypocricy angle from Korean supporters in

    "Why don't Japan settle the comfort women issue, compensation, forced labor, blha blah blah".

    Japan is a member of "Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory" under ICJ which means

    "Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States. "

    To put it simply, the signed members can sue each other whereby all parties to the signatory has to recognize not only the jurisdiction but the decision of the ICJ no matter what.

    Notice who's missing. Korea, China, Russia,...

  • 0

    TigersTokyoDome

    If the courts rule one way or the other, how will it affect the lives of the Korean and Japanese public?? Exactly, it won't...

    Goodness me, such miseducation. A new reserve of natural gas and oil (don't tell me you were unaware of the very reason why the Korean Gas company has been drilling in the area) boosts the economy of the nation who owns the territory and helps to reduce consumer prices, specifically petrol and gas energy. It would have a very large effect on the public.

  • 2

    sandiegoluv

    How do you know this? Why are you making such a statement when no country has even tried to resolve an issue with Japan at the ICJ? You are simply stating your opinion about an issue that to date does not exist, whereas South Korea being unwilling to go to he ICJ is a fact as this article proves.

    Because that is my opinion. I have the right to my opinion. But only that. See, if I did like you did and called someone's reason's LAME so many times, the moderator would YANK whatever I wrote. I will not debate with you, because you can be rude and your comments stay put. And like i said before, it doesn't matter who rules what. It wont be implemented anyway. It will simply be ignored by the losing party. So, many things have been ignored that have come down from UNSC, that there is one simple truth. It is a sham. Vote buying is rampant among all members who have the cash or the influence and the powerful can simply ignore whatever it is that they don't like. Take it to any court that you want to. Nothing will change. The leaders of the parties involved are very much aware of that and are just using this for their own political gain.

    Furthermore, nobody is really paying attention to this outside of the countries involved. And at this junction SK is not required to defend itself in any court and will only if it is forced to. I wouldn't unless I had to. Why go to court for something that you posses already? You don't. It would be a waste of time. That is my opinion. IF you want to have a different one, so be it. Enjoy it.

  • 2

    sandiegoluv

    @TokyoTigerDome - I accidentally copied that whole thing. I actually wanted to just put the two parts in. Let me repaste that.

    1. This all about playing politics.

    2. Each side is just using the issue for political reasons...

    But the rocks are very important and hold a lot of resources. Yes, no doubt. But that has been known for a long time now. I can't help but think it is just for personal political gain more than anything else. Personally, I don't care who gets what and think all of the islands should become off limits to all parties unless they can use them in a way that benefits all. But that is just my opinion.

  • -3

    SamuraiBlue

    Unfortunate for SK they have to explain to the court why they are not going to attend in which case "Because we pose it already" simply would not be accepted by the international community as a reason.

    This has further implication like international bank loans and/or international treaties in which many banks and/or nation would probably place a premium in loaning money or strict articles against SK because they may fear SK will not respect international agreements if and when they do not suit SK's convenience.

  • 0

    sandiegoluv

    @Tigers - Explain this, please.

    but the Japanese themselves have suffered international crimes far more recently.

    Personally, I think it would be best if all countries stopped making excuses for their pasts. You can point to the Chinese and Tibet all you want to. But it wont change anything. The problem is still happening. But if you do point at them and what they are doing, you are simply deflecting criticism of your own country. You are defending it. When a Chinese talks about what your country did, why do you have to even go into the Tibet issue? It has nothing to do with Japan and its past at all. Talk about what Japan and did and that is all, because that is what the subject is about. What? Does it make you feel better to bring them down to your level? If you go and tell me about the atrocities that we committed on the African Americans, I am not going to go and deflect criticism by talking about what you did to the Chinese, Koreans or AInus. They are different subjects. Don'T deflect the topic. It doesn't work and is seen as running away from the topic. Sorry.

  • 0

    sandiegoluv

    @Samurai Blue - Good point. That is true. But I doubt it will go that far.

  • 0

    gelendestrasse

    Japan tries to be reasonable and Korea baulks. Predictable. Just like China wouldn't recognize any international negotiation of the "nine dashed line." There is no reason behind it, it is just a territory grab.

  • 1

    Chamkun

    ** Korean Gov, and Korean people have been so willing to claim "Dokto is ours" everywhere and using every possible means.From road signs, text books, Internet, Olympic games, but the one place that they have been so unwilling to claim is ICJ. Why? That is the best place to do so to establish Korean justice if you are right. I am so disappointed by Korean decision to run away from this golden opportunity to end the issue. So that we do not have to give this hot potato to the next generation. Korean must bare this in their mind that if leaving is easy, coming back is harder for the Japaneses suggestion of diplomatic overture to solve the issue this civilized manner. Japan is a lawful society with high spirit of compliance. Japan will respect whatever the out come is. **

  • 0

    sandiegoluv

    I have a question for Chamkun. Would the South Korean Gov abide by such? I am sorry to say, but I have my doubts and that is not a slight at South Korea at all. I think that South Korea also does not want to do so because it might get stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they did go and lose, would the South Koreans people not go nuts over it if the South Koreans gave up possession of the islands? But it does warm my heart to see what I am supposing is a South Korean making such a good comment. Forgive me if I have labeled you the wrong way and you are not South Korean.

    Moderators? Where are you?

  • -1

    chucky3176

    LOL, nigelboy, is that the best defense you can do for Japan? "Because Taiwan is not a real country so there's no point for Japan to go to ICJ"??

    lol.

    What's Japan really afraid of?

  • 1

    nigelboy

    LOL, nigelboy, is that the best defense you can do for Japan? "Because Taiwan is not a real country so there's no point for Japan to go to ICJ"??

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem chucky? Japan can't go even if they want to unless Taiwan's request is approved by Security Council. I'll make it easier for you.

    Article 93 of the United Nations Charter.

    1."Taiwan" may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on to be determined in each case by the General Assembly** upon the recommendation of the Security Council. **

    Please refer to my post stamped Aug. 22, 2012 - 11:58PM JST where I make a comparison in terms of Boxing.

    Mr. Chen (Taiwan) is not a certfied professional boxer. The above is the certification process where he can become a professional boxer. Boxer Suzuki cannot get in the ring with him until Mr. Chen gets this certification.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Unfortunate for SK they have to explain to the court why they are not going to attend in which case "Because we pose it already" simply would not be accepted by the international community as a reason.

    If Japan decides to pursue this case alone to the ICJ, there are remedies where ICJ may rule jurisdiction over Korea. (Article 36 para 6). This is where Korea has to respond to ICJ of the reason for their rejection.

    Therefore, their simple "Dokdo is Korea’s territory historically, geographically and under international law a territorial dispute does not exist" argument would not work because the judges response would be

    "We'll be the judge of that".

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    sandiegoluvAug. 23, 2012 - 12:45AM JST

    "How do you know this? Why are you making such a statement when no country has even tried to resolve an issue with Japan at the ICJ? You are simply stating your opinion about an issue that to date does not exist, whereas South Korea being unwilling to go to he ICJ is a fact as this article proves."

    Because that is my opinion. I have the right to my opinion. But only that.

    There are opinions which can be substantiated, such as past precedence or government statements to the effect. And then there are opinions like the one at hand which make no sense whatsoever.

    See, if I did like you did and called someone's reason's LAME so many times, the moderator would YANK whatever I >wrote. I will not debate with you, because you can be rude and your comments stay put. And like i said before, it doesn't >matter who rules what. It wont be implemented anyway. It will simply be ignored by the losing party

    The reasons ARE lame, because South Korea , as well as all korea supporeters, constantly repeat that South Korrea has all the evidence needed to win. And, your satement that it doesn't matter what the ruling maybe because it will be ignored is completely erroneous because Japan has signed an agreement holding itself top adhere to an ICJ judgement. In other words, Japan is suggeting settling at the ICK knowing full well that if it loses it has to accept that ruling. Of course Soth Korea is anothrer matter. South Korea would findf it very difficult to accept a ruling against it, and doing so it would damage it's image and reputation on an international scale. Perhaps that is why always they refuse to go before thge ICJ. Which means again, they are afraid of doing so.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    Patrick SmashAug. 22, 2012 - 11:31PM JST Ossan, Korea does not have to move on, but perhaps you and Japan should.

    Wrong,. South Korea DOES have to move on if it ever seriously expects to gain real global respect.

    Korea does not have to prove its claim in any court because it already owns Dokdo.

    Again repeating the canned lame excuse. Think for a momernt - if South Korea already owns the rocks then it is no skin of it's back to let the ICJ make that official and binding.

    Japan will never own Dokdo unless Japan decides to invade and start WWIII. It ain't going to happen.

    You;re right it's not gong to happen. And the world's view of South Korea as cowardly and conniving is NEVER going to change. If Koreans are happy with that, hey should just keep citing lame excuses.

    Japan lost the war and Japan lost Dokdo, if it ever even had it.

    And the Liancourt Rocks were not included in the islands that it lost. And South Korea has illegally occupied them, claims it's theirs, and when challenged to settle the issue in a legal forum, does what a coward does.

    The rest of the world doesn't care and has mainly never heard of this place, but will benefit from any little trade spats. >Ishihara and his nationalist friends will gain at the ballot box by ignoring real issues and appealing to nationalists. So will >Lee in Korea.

    The games politicians play do not justfy South Korea's cowardice.

    I don't really care about Dokdo or about how many Koreans you reckon you've beaten up.

    You were talking about calling a Korea a "coward" And now you're accusing me of "beating them up"? What's next, are you goiing to accuse me of killing Korean people? Are you out of your mind?

    Both sides have a claim to Dokdo, but Korea has possession. It does not have to waste any time or any money proving >anything to anyone, either in a court or anywhere else.

    Yes both side have a claim. One side is unilaterally and illegally occupying it. Any rational and reasonable party woyuld settle ythe issue in a court of law. South Korea is so poor that it does not have the money or time to go to the ICJ? I doubt that very vey much.

  • 2

    chucky3176

    Korea even refused to open the Japanese letter, and sent it back. So now so many Japanese are so angry they're writing all kinds of anti-Korean messages... because they say Korea insulted Japan... lol... insulted Japan because Korea refused to open the letter which we all know is an attempt at blackmailing... hmm.... All Japan has to do now is take it over to ICJ. lol.. why all the hand wringing and foaming at the mouths? What happened to ending the currency swap? Why they're not saying they're ending that? Now that Korea insulted Japan, the Japanese are angrily crying to end diplomatic relations with Korea. That's a good ideal to me, why not do that too? So far, what Japan has done is a big fat zero. All they've done is talk talk and shout and scream. Do something meaningful, then maybe Koreans may take you seriously.

  • 1

    chucky3176

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem chucky? Japan can't go even if they want to unless Taiwan's request is approved by Security Council

    Well that's a convenient excuse isn't it?

  • 2

    Utrack

    I think there are things that folks are not seeing here. Yesterday Taiwan was not going to Dispute Japan over the Diayou isles but the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking after meeting China's top diplomat, said Moscow and Beijing were committed to "the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law ... and not to allow their violation.

    Today Taiwan asks Japan to go to the ICJ over Diayou dispute. Russia FM and China's top Diplomat also forbade the US from invading Syria and yes the US is standing down. So Taiwan most likely has China's backing if not Russia's too.

  • 3

    chucky3176

    Japan's whole case is based on the hope that the European and Japanese judges will honor the "terra nullius", which was a colonial era international law that is still honored today by the former colonial powers. The law allowed colonial powers (Europe and Japan) to claim and steal lands from their colonial subjects by pretending that the land was owned by no-one. Both of Japan's territory claims against the Chinese and Koreans are based on this law. Japanese are pretty confident that the former colonial powers will honor this law. For Korea who don't subscribe to the colonial era power politics of land grabs, it's a dicey case if this case goes to ICJ. There is no 100% assurance that the European and Japanese judges will not hold onto their colonial old boy's club biased mindset that's very well been displayed during the last global economic crisis. It could be very well that they are fair judges, and that Korea will get a fair trial after Korea lays out the case for herself that Dokdo was not an island owned by nobody until Japan came along. But it's a big risk that Korea doesn't need to take when Korea holds onto the island and Japan can't do anything about it other then take one sided actions.

  • 1

    Utrack

    If all goes as Russia and China plans for the disputed isles I just wonder what the end result will be. Why they have South Korea ask Japan to go to the ICJ over the Dokdo isles. Will Russia go afterwards for the Kuriles? Was this meeting between them about cutting Japan's territory down to size as well as putting a leash on the US plans to invade Syria. hmm

  • 1

    Utrack

    chucky 3176

    I think Taiwan's dispute with Japan is maybe to test the rulings of the ICJ. If Taiwan gets Diayou.. Maybe other disputes will follow

  • 3

    chucky3176

    Picture of Dokdo from Ullungdo on a clear sunny day, taken in 2007.

    http://www.gasengi.com/data/cheditor4/1208/SzMsxeD4htHYQO.jpg

    This destroys Japanese lies that people in Ullungdo didn't even know there was an island right beside it. The typical Japanese mind forces their belief that Koreans were too stupid that there was an island near them, how could they have owned the island?

    But oh wait, Japan also claimed Ullungdo Island as Japan's as well.

  • 2

    glidingneedles

    As this is JapanToday.com and not KoreaToday.com, I understand how most people will side with the Japanese on this issue, regardless of their level of understanding. As a Korean, I would like to balance the discussion a bit by contributing a couple of thoughts and would also welcome corrections/mature feedback.

    1. Liancourt Rocks were Korean territory prior to the 1910 colonization and Japan did not make any claim to the islands before the colonization. However, these are such small islands way off the coasts of both S. Korea and Japan that it is difficult to imagine these islands playing a big enough role to be mentioned/documented heavily in ancient times. My understanding is that both countries have documents/maps that support their claims. Back in the days people had a "if you can reach it and beat the natives, it's yours" mentality so it's not too surprising that both sides can find claims of ownership over LR. However, LR is 87km from the nearest Korean islands Ulleungdo (inhabited from ancient times and became Korean territory in the 8th century) and 157km from Japan's Oki islands so it was probably was much easier for settlers in Ulleungdo to notice LR than their Japanese counterparts. Yet, let's assume that there is no clear winner when looking at historical claims.

    2. When Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, it promised to return all Korean territory to Korea. It went further to outline the specific pieces of land but unfortunately, the list did not include Liancourt Rocks. Also, there are different versions of the document with different claims. So this is where the problem starts, Korea uses the version advantageous to them while Japan chooses to adopt the split that puts Liancourt Rocks under its territory. So legally, both S Korea and Japan can claim that LR is theirs.

    3. S. Korea already de facto controls LRs and thus South Korea will not go to ICJ not because it fears losing but rather because there would be no benefit for doing so. It already de facto controls the islands, which are already inhabited by a South Korean family. Obviously a government act but then again, where was the Japanese government when the Koreans were sending people and raising their flag on the islands? During the past 60 years, Japan was in much better condition, both economically and politically, compared to S. Korea to make a move. Their lack of action seems to me an indication of lack of interest... until they found some potential large natural gas reserves under the island.

    So here we are again, fighting over resources.

    Oh, and to all those people saying things like "S. Korea need to solve this at the ICJ"... If somebody wanted to go to court with your for something that you already control and feel that it is lawfully yours, would you bother spending time and money at court trying to prove it or would you rather ignore the guy? In fact, it would be stupid for S Korea to go to ICJ now when Japan's economic and political strength in the international stage is declining. Why fight now when you know your opponent will be weaker tomorrow? For those who think this is cowardly, you certainly don't know how politics work. It's not about right or wrong, it's about what benefits who. (as per chucky3176's comment)

    To those who scream "then why do S. Koreans claim that LR is theirs if they truly believe so?" Remember about a decade ago when Japan started claiming that Kimchi was their unique cultural heritage and branded it as "Kimuchi"... obviously failed but this somewhat ridiculous attempt strengthened South Korea's belief that it must actively protect its culture and territory... especially against Japan

  • 1

    Utrack

    @ gildingneedles and chucky3176

    Excellent Posts. Cool Photo to Chucky

  • 3

    sandiegoluv

    @Ossan read carefully what I said instead of trying to pick a fight.

    > Would the South Korean Gov abide by such? I am sorry to say, but I have my doubts and that is not a slight at South Korea at all. I think that South Korea also does not want to do so because it might get stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they did go and lose, would the South Koreans people not go nuts over it if the South Koreans gave up possession of the islands?

    Now, who did I say would not give up the Islands? Who did I question? Hmmm. Stop trying to just pick a fight.

    I don't care if is is substantiated or not on this point, because It is how I feel. It is what i think will happen and does not have to be grounded in fact. If we want to talk about who owns what, I have already done so, I have already had the fact vs fact conversation on this issue on other posts and don't feel the need to repeat myself again.

    What astonishes me is that you get to call people's opinions LAME without being publicly warned. I won't do battle with you, because we are not on the same footing because my comments will surely be deleted. I am trying to play nice, but you are calling people's reason's lame and others cowards.

  • 0

    sandiegoluv

    @chucky and glidingneddles. GREAT POSTS. So very true.

  • 0

    sandiegoluv

    During the past 60 years, Japan was in much better condition, both economically and politically, compared to S. Korea to make a move. Their lack of action seems to me an indication of lack of interest... until they found some potential large natural gas reserves under the island.

    Wait a minute. Isn't that the same thing that the Japanese say about China and Senkaku. Funny how that works out.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Japan's whole case is based on the hope that the European and Japanese judges will honor the "terra nullius", which was a colonial era international law that is still honored today by the former colonial powers

    Now that's what I call a "convenient" excuse.

    You ought to really look at the members of the judge which includes judge from Slovakia, Mexico, New Zealand, Morroco, Brazil, Somalia, Uganda, India.

    As for the masters, you have China and Russia. (Korean buddies as perceived by chucky)

  • -2

    OssanAmerica

    sandiegoluvAug. 23, 2012 - 11:34AM JST @Ossan read carefully what I said instead of trying to pick a fight.

    Now, who did I say would not give up the Islands? Who did I question? Hmmm. Stop trying to just pick a fight.

    You said Japan would not answer a claim put before the ICJ.

    ">sandiegoluvAug. 22, 2012 - 04:45PM JST

    But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would Japan be willing to do the same thing with Senkaku? I doubt it. It is not >cowardly at all to not go to the ICJ for something that you already own. It is wise. If Japan wants to go to the ICJ on these islands then they should go on the other islands issues as well."

    I don't care if is is substantiated or not on this point, because It is how I feel. It is what i think will happen and does not >have to be grounded in fact. If we want to talk about who owns what, I have already done so, I have already had the fact vs >fact conversation on this issue on other posts and don't feel the need to repeat myself again.

    What astonishes me is that you get to call people's opinions LAME without being publicly warned. I won't do battle with >you, because we are not on the same footing because my comments will surely be deleted. I am trying to play nice, but >you are calling people's reason's lame and others cowards.

    Reasons can very much be lame. The reasons cited by South Koera supporters are especially so because it contradicts their continuously repeated statement that they would win at the ICJ. And I have never called a poster a "coward" I have called the South Korean government "cowards".

    sandiegoluvAug. 22, 2012 - 04:45PM JST But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would Japan be willing to do the same thing with Senkaku? I doubt it. It is not >cowardly at all to not go to the ICJ for something that you already own. It is wise. If Japan wants to go to the ICJ on these islands then they should go on the other islands issues as well.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    What happened to ending the currency swap? Why they're not saying they're ending that? Now that Korea insulted Japan, the Japanese are angrily crying to end diplomatic relations with Korea. That's a good ideal to me, why not do that too? So far, what Japan has done is a big fat zero. All they've done is talk talk and shout and scream. Do something meaningful, then maybe Koreans may take you seriously.

    The currency swap expires October. I told you this before. The Japanese government will honor the current agreement unlike......

    You seem to be under the assumption that majority of the population is "outraged" like the Korean counterparts. Don't expect the majority of Japanese population and the Japanese government to act in the same irrational manner that your country is use to.

  • -1

    Guru29

    Japan's claim over the Dokdo, Diaoyu, Ryukyu and Kuril Islands is clearly a violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan which clearly states that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

    In 2010, China and Russia (both having territorial dispute with Japan and both contracting parties of Potsdam Agreement) joined forces and vowed to defend the outcome of WWII, i.e. the Potsdam Agreement. S Korea can consider joining forces with them and bring up Japan's violation of the Potsdam Agreement and Japanese Instrument of Surrender to the UN which was founded based on WWII conferences such as those in Potsdam, and settle the dispute once and for all.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    UN which was founded based on WWII conferences such as those in Potsdam, and settle the dispute once and for all.

    Yes. WE FINALLY AGREE. Settle the dispute once and for all under U.N.

    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.

  • 0

    Reason808

    > To those who scream "then why do S. Koreans claim that LR is theirs if they truly believe so?" Remember about a decade ago when Japan started claiming that Kimchi was their unique cultural heritage and branded it as "Kimuchi"... obviously failed but this somewhat ridiculous attempt strengthened South Korea's belief that it must actively protect its culture and territory... especially against Japan >

    http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-japanese-stealing-kimchi.html

  • 1

    Reason808

    Woops let me try this again

    To those who scream "then why do S. Koreans claim that LR is theirs if they truly believe so?" Remember about a decade ago when Japan started claiming that Kimchi was their unique cultural heritage and branded it as "Kimuchi"... obviously failed but this somewhat ridiculous attempt strengthened South Korea's belief that it must actively protect its culture and territory... especially against Japan

    http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-japanese-stealing-kimchi.html

  • 1

    Guru29

    nigelboy says: "Yes. WE FINALLY AGREE. Settle the dispute once and for all under U.N. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE"

    Point 1. ICJ is not equivalent to the UN. A much better representative of the UN is the UN General Assembly followed by the UNSC.

    Point 2. ICJ is for settlement of disputes. Whereas in the case of Japan's violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Potsdam Agreement, it is not about dispute but about a nation failing to honor an agreed upon treaty. So it can be regarded as a violation of a peace treaty Japan entered with the whole world. Therefore, the most appropriate place for the settlement of this issue would be the UN General Assembly, not ICJ.

  • -1

    sfjp330

    Guru29 Aug. 24, 2012 - 06:56AM JST. Point 2. ICJ is for settlement of disputes

    We already know this many times over. What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan, South Korea, or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what does it matter? What is important the most for Japan, South Korea, or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of Dokdo or Senkaku. So your back to square one.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Point 1. ICJ is not equivalent to the UN. A much better representative of the UN is the UN General Assembly followed by the UNSC.

    Nobody said it was. It's a principal JUDICIAL ORGAN of the U.N.

    Point 2. ICJ is for settlement of disputes. Whereas in the case of Japan's violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Potsdam Agreement, it is not about dispute but about a nation failing to honor an agreed upon treaty. So it can be regarded as a violation of a peace treaty Japan entered with the whole world. Therefore, the most appropriate place for the settlement of this issue would be the UN General Assembly, not ICJ.

    In what part did Japan violate? It's not Japan's concerns that the Soviets caused a hissy fit after the war. It's not Japan's concern that KMT and Communist were going at it.

    Let's review the Potsdam DECARATION. It mentions three parties which are U.S., Britain, and ROC. Even though Soviets signed later, they are not the "we" equation in determining the fate of the "minor" islands. Their signature afterwards only supports the fact that she agreed that "we" would be limited to those three nations. This is confirmed in the Instrument of Surrender which states the Soviets "adhered" which the Soviets signed.

    Secondly, the reference to Cairo declaration which is referred in Potsdam is a farce from a legal standpoint in that it's merely a procomalation stated and signed by U.S. only.

    Thirdly, the Treaty in of itself, carries more weight than those unilateral declarations under current international law because they are ratified by nations that signed.

    Finally, since we got Soviets out of the picture from the Potsdam, we're left with U.S., Britain, and ROC. Of course, U.S. and Britain signed and ratified the Treaty of Peace in 1951. ROC signed a separate Peacy Treaty with Japan thereafter. Signed sealed and delivered.

    End of discussion.

  • -1

    sfjp330

    nigelboy Aug. 24, 2012 - 07:23AM JST Secondly, the reference to Cairo declaration which is referred in Potsdam is a farce from a legal standpoint in that it's merely a procomalation stated and signed by U.S. only.

    Under the Cairo Declaration, details such as “Who surrendered to whom,” or “Who defeated whom,” are not particularly significant. The key point is: “Who is the occupying power?” It is a matter of historical record that all military attacks against targets in Japan during the WWII period were conducted by U.S. military forces. Hence, the U.S. is “the conqueror.” Under the customary laws of warfare of the post-period, the U.S. will be “the principal occupying power. From this perspective, Japan is exercising delegated administrative authority of Senkaku. They have effective territorial control over Senkaku, but there has been no transfer of sovereignty.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Under the Cairo Declaration

    When I stated that there is no signature other than the U.S., why are you quibling over the details which based on currently international law, has no bearing. I already mentioned soverighnty in the other thread. The transfer included not only the administrative, but "exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands" which sure sounds like soverignty to me.

  • 0

    sfjp330

    nigelboy Aug. 24, 2012 - 08:22AM JST but "exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands" which sure sounds like soverignty to me.

    This is not what U.S. saids. U.S. is neutral on this issue. It doesn't matter what Japan saids as long as U.S. does not back Japan's claim of soverignty. So your back to square one.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    This is not what U.S. saids. U.S. is neutral on this issue. It doesn't matter what Japan saids as long as U.S. does not back Japan's claim of soverignty. So your back to square one.

    That's my point. Take it to ICJ!!! If Taiwan and China wants to embarass themselves in an international stage, be my guest. As YOU eloquently pointed out, at no time did ROC nor PRC complained about the soverignty status of Senkaku until 1971 which basically AFFIRMS that fact that Japan had in fact, incorporated the Senkaku's based on "terra nullius". Heck. Both China and ROC went as far as print that those islands are under Japanese territory in their OWN maps during the 1960's.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    This is not what U.S. saids.

    I'm sorry I missed your first past of the sentence. Actually, the but "exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands" is what U.S. signed.

  • -1

    Chamkun

    **This is how many Japaneses people`s point of view. I am not saying I am right here. Because Korea has their point of view. 1) According to 六道総図 composed in Korea in the 16th century, there was Usan Island(A.K.A. Dokto) which was located the West of Ulleungdo.The latitude, longitude were not described, then sometime in 20century, the same island Dokto? was removed to the East side of Ulleungdo on their map.

    2) According to the record of South Korea in 1900,the Ulleungdo island became a county, the range of about 40 km is determined as the county administration area centering on the Ulleungdo island.

    3) Since it is separated from Ulleungdo 92 km to Takeshima, the island is not the range that Korea described.

    4) Japan amalgamated the island A.K.A.Takeshima that nobody owned till 1905 with Shimane Prefecture.

    5) It reigns over many islands which contained Takeshima in the Allied Forces' subordinate in 1945.

    6) In the San Francisco treaty in 1951, possession territory abandonment of Japan was indicated but Takeshima was not part of these islands.

    7) Korea requested Takeshima may also include in the object of this abandonment.However,Takeshima was not treated as an object of a South Korean territory, and Takeshima dismisses it with the letter by David Dean Rusk who was a former Secretary of State.

    8) The text which urged that an American ambassador McCnaughy South Korea return Takeshima to Japan and release the JPN fisherman's. That was from MacArthur in April, 1960.

    These are only few of the bases what the people in Japan think. I am sure there are much more but I believe that Korean people were told Dokto is Korean`s by your teachers and government, so in order not to leave a grudge to the future, I said my earlier comment that I was disappointed at the South Korean government has refused our solution at ICJ this time. 1954,1962, Korea rejected twice. Now Korea did it again. No matter how Korea actively does lobbying everywhere,it will not make Dokto as Korean territory. The best place Korea can manifest your justice is ICJ. Please step forward to be a problem solver in the Far East with Japan not a problem producer. At least, Japan stood up to finish this issue with civilized manner lawfully.**

  • 0

    Chamkun

    PS. I made an error. That was not 六道総図 but 八道総図(Hachidousouzu) please accept my apology. Somehow the characters did not come out as it is above. I tried again. Sorry.

  • 0

    sandiegoluv

    `Ossan - I have no idea what you are debating about. My point is simply that i don't believe that any party will agree to any decision passed down by the ICj. That's all. I also don't understand why Japan wants to go there on its dispute with SK, but doesn't ry to with China. If it has, please inform me of such. I will say what I have already said though:

    This is an issue just to turn people's attention away from the real problems that are facing Japan, with which the present leadership has no idea on how to solve.

    Real intelligent diplomacy would be keeping your mouth shut about naval intentions. But that was done just for his own political future, I BELIEVE.

    Whoever you are calling coward is not my concern. Such comments by me would have been removed.

    If I called someone's reasons "lame" I would also have my comments removed with a letter telling me to not be so confrontational.

  • -1

    sandiegoluv

    One more thing. Yes, please take all disputes to the UNSC. By all means. But i still don't think much will be done about it. China ignores policies that it signed in the 70's when it comes to UNCLOS all the time. Therefore, pointless. Use them together. All sides have proof and lack of proof. It depends on where you live and which side you believe. So, instead of arguing over it, just use them together or don't let anyone at all.

    Remember when you were kids and you couldn't share? A parent came and took it away and told you that you wouldn't get it back until you learned to share.I like that idea best. It would be much more valuable to everyone if it was shared in the name of economics and peace.

  • 1

    Guru29

    nigelboy says: "In what part did Japan violate? "

    Claiming of sovereignty over lands that have not been determined to be yours is clearly a violation of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the 5 party Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty or instrument of peace that enabled the ending of WWII which states that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

  • 0

    Guru29

    nigelboy says: "Cairo declaration which is referred in Potsdam is a farce"

    Cairo Declaration constitutes an important part of the Potsdam Agreement which Japan vowed to comply in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which states that:

    "We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

    We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

    • Moderator

      All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on what is in the story will be removed.

  • 1

    Guru29

    nigelboy says: ""exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands" which sure sounds like soverignty to me."

    This is described as a trusteeship which must be approved by the UN in the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

    "Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude ..."

    Since USSR openly opposed the SF treaty, so the trusteeship was probably not even approved by the UNSC in the first place.

  • -2

    OssanAmerica

    sandiegoluvAug. 24, 2012 - 05:16PM JST

    `Ossan - I have no idea what you are debating about. My point is simply that i don't believe that any party will agree to any >decision passed down by the ICj.

    Well you should be aware then, that Japan is already signed on as a signatory with the ICJ whereby it will accept a judgement rendered by the ICJ. In other words, it has already committed itself to agreeeing with an ICJ ruling. South Korea on the other hasbd has not, and is very likely to ignore a ruiling by the ICJ if it is found not in it;s favor. Yet, it is the South Korea supports who constantly argue that an "ICJ ruling" will not be adhered to by any party and therefore South Korea should not go to the ICJ.

    I also don't understand why Japan wants to go there on its dispute with SK, but doesn't ry to with China. If it has, please >inform me of such. I will say what I have already said though:

    South Korea currently administers and occupies the Liancourt Rocks. Japan disputes South Korea's claim to ownbership and considers the occupation illegal. It is up the party who has a claim to "take it to court". Hence Japan is attemnpting to resolce this at the ICJ for the third time, and South Korea is eva\ding doing so for the third time. Japan currently administers the Senkakus, although it does not occupy it. It is up the countries that have a claim and are challening Japan's ownership top take the casevto the ICJ. Japan can not take itself to he ICJ.

    This is an issue just to turn people's attention away from the real problems that are facing Japan, with which the present >leadership has no idea on how to solve.

    You seem to forget that in both the Liancourt Rocks and the Senkakus, it was the other countries that made all this an issue. first, necessitating a response from Japan.

    Real intelligent diplomacy would be keeping your mouth shut about naval intentions. But that was done just for his own >political future, I BELIEVE.

    And what do you consider illegally occupying an island while evading going before a court to resolve the issue? I don't consider that "diplomacy" at all.

    Whoever you are calling coward is not my concern. Such comments by me would have been removed.

    If so kindly refrain from bringing it up.Thank you.

    If I called someone's reasons "lame" I would also have my comments removed with a letter telling me to not be so >confrontational.

    Posters call each other's "cited reasons" lame and bogus all the time. It is neither confrontational nor impolite to the other poster.

  • -2

    OssanAmerica

    sandiegoluvAug. 24, 2012 - 05:22PM JST One more thing. Yes, please take all disputes to the UNSC. By all means. But i still don't think much will be done about it. >China ignores policies that it signed in the 70's when it comes to UNCLOS all the time. Therefore, pointless. Use them >together. All sides have proof and lack of proof. It depends on where you live and which side you believe. So, instead of >arguing over it, just use them together or don't let anyone at all.

    The UNSC does not exist to adjudicate or arbitrate territorial disputes. The ICJ is the UN arm for that purpose.

    Remember when you were kids and you couldn't share? A parent came and took it away and told you that you wouldn't >get it back until you learned to share.I like that idea best. It would be much more valuable to everyone if it was shared in >the name of economics and peace.

    Do you think for a moment that the idea of "sharing" would fly in South Korea? Or in China?

  • -1

    sandiegoluv

    The comment about the UNSC was in response to something that someone else said. I didn't say it was something that could be done. I was stressing how unimportant any ruling would be no matter what body of government it came from. Jeeez. Please read more carefully.

    I believe that Japan is playing the game unfairly. I believe that they have just as many excuses for not doing this or that as South Korea and China and that has been proven by you as well with your last post. Am I going to change your mind? NO WAY! Were you going to change mine? Might have because I have an open mind. But, I don't feel like debating someone whose mind is obviously 100% made up and believes that they are 100% right. Also, I don't like fighting with one hand behind my back. You can go off topic and use the word lame with impunity. I can't. Once again, pointless.

    If sharing the islands would or wouldn't fly in China and South Korea has nothing to do with what I said. I just said it should be shared since nobody can play nice with each other. Now, end of debate.

  • 2

    latienda

    Japan should read history first before threatening South Korea in bringing the Dokdo issue to ICJ.to settled the issue's of Dokdo..

  • -1

    It"S ME

    Iatienda.

    WHOSE History Books are the correct ones? The Books are written by humans to show their version of History, what really happened often is not reflected accurately(counts for all countries).

    Japan is right to take it to the ICJ and let a 3rd party arbitrate.

  • 1

    latienda

    Japan was well known to the world in revising history. They Japan even changed the Korean island Dokdo name's into Take-shima after occupying the whole Korea penisula's. The Dokdo issue must be judged by original history. Not by I.C.J. nor revised history written by the Japanese historians under the directives of the Japanese gov't.

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    sandiegoluvAug. 25, 2012 - 10:25AM JST The comment about the UNSC was in response to something that someone else said. I didn't say it was something that >could be done. I was stressing how unimportant any ruling would be no matter what body of government it came from. >Jeeez. Please read more carefully.

    No, the ruling is quite important. Even if Soth Korea disregards a ruling againstit, it still is very signioficant and reinforces Japan's claim. If the ruling is in South Korea's favor, Japan loses, and they havealreay comitted themselves to abiding by the ICJ ruling. So in either case, it is quite "important".

    II believe that Japan is playing the game unfairly. I believe that they have just as many excuses for not doing this or that as >South Korea and China and that has been proven by you as well with your last post.

    Please explain just exactly what is Japan doing that is "playing the game unfairly".Japan has asked South Korea to settle at the ICJ, knowing full well that if the ICJ rules againt it, they are bound by it and have lost their claim. South Korea refuses to settle at he ICJ, and has occupied the Liancourt Rocks well after Japan's claim uin 1954.It appears to me that Japan is most certainly "playing fairly". As for the Senkaskus, Japan incorporatd the deserted unclaimed islamnd in early 1885. Itr was NOT taken from China or anyone else. Chinese maps as late as the 1960s show them to be Japanese territory. But China made a claim in 1970 because oil and gas depositrs were found. If China has aclaim they can take it to the ICJ. Again, I don;t see Japan acting "unfairly".

    Am I going to change your mind? NO >WAY! Were you going to change mine? Might have because I have an open mind.

    If so, please answer my question above.

    But, I don't feel like debating someone >whose mind is obviously 100% made up and believes that they are 100% right. >Also, I don't like fighting with one hand >behind my back. You can go off topic and use the word lame with impunity. I can't. >Once again, pointless.

    I think you do not know what "debate" means. Furthermore, the term "lame" means "unsubstabntial". And again I think you don;'t know what he word means. And I most certainly don't go off topic.

    If sharing the islands would or wouldn't fly in China and South Korea has nothing to do with what I said. I just said it should >be shared since nobody can play nice with each other. Now, end of debate.

    You suggest "sharing the islands" but you say "China and South Korea" have nothing to do with it? May I ask just exactly whom do you expect will share these islands as you suggest?

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    latiendaAug. 25, 2012 - 02:31PM JST Japan was well known to the world in revising history.

    South Korea has revise it's history even moreso than Japan.

  • 0

    yasukuni

    America could have solved all this by just staying here and making this the 51st state.

  • -1

    chucky3176

    Here's further proof from Korea that Dokto is Korean. This time the proof comes from the Japanese themselves. University of Osaka professor, Kuboi Norio revealed a Japanese maps in 1840 and 1895 that revealed the island was Korean. A Japanese map in 1901 had the drawing of Japan, but the islands of Ullungdo was unmarked as not Japanese, and the island of Takeshima was totally omitted. The Takeshima island was incorporated as Japanese territory in 1905, right after the Russo-Japanese war which determined who was going to control Korea. This day, Kuboi Norio also revealed two other maps, one a Japanese map from 1895 and an Italian map of 1840 which drew the Dokto island as a Korean island. The Japanese professor stated that the two countries (Korea and Japan) should be cooperating closely with each other, but because of this territorial issue that Japan was hiding, he couldn't just stand by and do nothing so he decided to speak up.

    http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news/shellview.htm?articleid=2012082901484256447&linkid=20&newssetid=455&from=rank

    It's reported that the Japanese professor started getting death threats from Japanese nationalists who were none too happy about this traitorous act.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Import and Export Trading Assistant

    Import and Export Trading Assistant
    ECO Resource、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M ~ ¥3.5M / Year 経験・前給与を考慮の上、要相談
  • 海外営業事務

    海外営業事務
    株式会社セドナエンタープライズ、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥220,000 ~ ¥400,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable

More in Politics

View all

View all