S Korean document rejects proposal to have court settle isle dispute

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

  • 3

    mikihouse

    expected, thats basically what you can get from somebody without any proof or strong evidence to prove ownership. Cut the charades SK, no matter what you do you just simply embarrassed yourselves in the international community. After all the ads you printed all over the world claiming the islands to be your own, when asked by the world to show your proof you simply cower and claim that you need not to prove anything becuase you own it in the first place. Then why go to the world, announce it at the top of your lungs, pay advertisements, make banners even in olympics when there is no need because you own it and already occupied the islands decades ago? Is not a sign of insecurity knowing that the truth is not what you believe it to be?

  • 1

    Marion Wm Steele

    I suggest you read Gavan McCormack's book "Resistant Islands" before any hasty movement be set in motion

  • 2

    Frungy

    If the issue was resolved then they'd have to find something else to whine about and focus the SK people's hatred on to keep them from realising what a mess SK is really in.

    Seriously SK, if you spent the same amount of effort actually DEALING with your problems that you did trying to deny them and distract the people then your problems would be solved. Ironically this effort to blame Japan for everything in the last 100 years is just going to land them in deeper economic hot water.

  • 4

    AlternateUniverse

    Japan could really try setting the tone here, and first go to the ICJ with China over the Senkaku islands, promising to do whatever the ICJ demands even if means handing them over to China. When that is all said and done, then ask South Korea again about Dokdo.

    But we know that Japan will never go to the ICJ if it has anything to lose. And neither will South Korea.

    And Frungy is right too. The South Korea government will whip this dead horse for all the political points its worth, and are probably secretly very thankful to the Japanese government for handing them this little distraction on a silver platter over and over again.

  • -7

    SunnysideUp

    Japan's teenage tantrums are so amusing - as amusing as the toilet seat motorcycles.

    Why is it that it wants to send this fabricated dispute to the ICJ so badly? Could the ICJ having three Japanese judges with decision-making power have anything to do with it? Tilted to one side before the case even arrives? lol...

  • 3

    ohayo206

    Both Japanese and Korean representatives are entrenched in their positions and have political capital at risk. None of these issues will be rationally discussed until after the elections. Right now everyone is in the "vote for me" mode.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Weak Korea, if there is no dispute as you say then there is no problem to go to court and prove that.

  • 0

    TigersTokyoDome

    The international court should declare the area surrounding the islands, including the area containing natural resources, as international waters. This would involve Japanese territory to the south, Korean territory to the north, and the buffer zone. I mean, the Koreans have plenty of previous in falling out with their neighbours and putting up buffer zones.....

    Weak Korea, if there is no dispute as you say then there is no problem to go to court and prove that.

    Exactly.

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    mikihouse: "thats basically what you can get from somebody without any proof or strong evidence to prove ownership"

    You've got it backwards; if Japan has such strong evidence of ownership, why the need to take it to an international court to protest? SK, on the other hand, knows its theirs, so they don't feel the need, same as Gemba saying "there is no territorial dispute" in regards to the Senkakus.

    TigersTokyoDome: "I mean, the Koreans have plenty of previous in falling out with their neighbours and putting up buffer zones....."

    How many disputes does SK have vs. how many disputes Japan has? :) Nice try, though. Not shocked by the hypocrisy.

    gogogo: "Weak Korea, if there is no dispute as you say then there is no problem to go to court and prove that."

    Wrong, if there is no dispute why the need to prove it at all? I'm not going to go to court if a neighbour of mine likes my bicycle and says he had one like it once, so it must be his -- it's mine, plain and simple. If he wants to cry away the hours suggesting it should be his and we should get some third party with no power to say so, tough luck for him.

    If SK doesn't feel the need to go, they shouldn't have to just because a bunch of Japanese and apologists cry about it not being fair. Maybe Japan should invite China and Taiwan to the ICJ to prove once and for all the Senkakus are theirs? Nah! There are no double standards when it comes to this nation's politics!

  • -6

    smithinjapan

    AlternateUniverse: "Japan could really try setting the tone here, and first go to the ICJ with China over the Senkaku islands, promising to do whatever the ICJ demands even if means handing them over to China."

    Exactly! But they won't. Why? the same reason SK won't go -- they believe the islands theirs and that there is no dispute. Isn't the hypocrisy astounding?

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    Frungy: "Seriously SK, if you spent the same amount of effort actually DEALING with your problems that you did trying to deny them and distract the people then your problems would be solved."

    That exact same thing goes for Japan, but even more so given there are still so many problems with evacuees from last year and the Fukushima problem, the fact that Japan may run out of money by the end of October, the pension is screwed, underpopulation, etc. But hey, there's an election coming up, right?

  • 2

    efisher

    It's funny, Japanese accused Korea denying any disputes existing on the Dokdo while Japanese government is also denying any disputes existing on the Diaoyu Islands with China. Is that really a clear double standard and well demonstrates the Japanese style - self-centered.

  • -1

    TigersTokyoDome

    Fiction:-

    How many disputes does SK have vs. how many disputes Japan has? :) Nice try, though. Not shocked by the hypocrisy.

    Fact:-

    South Korea: Socotra Rock territorial dispute with China (sound familiar anyone?)/ still has a military buffer zone between itself and North Korea/ Korean War 1950 to 1953 with 2.5 million killed or wounded/ Van Fleet Mission report in 1954 reporting Korea's territorial issues with the Phillipines, Taiwan and Japan/ only in 1992 reimposed diplomatic relations and trade embargo with China.

    Japan: No military buffer zones nor walls/ no armed conflict since the end of WWII in 1945 due to it's pacifist constitution.

  • -2

    Guru29

    Japan should comply with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the primary WWII peace treaty it agreed with US, UK, China and Russia 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."

    Since Japan pledged to comply with the Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

  • 0

    TigersTokyoDome

    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

    Ah,ha,ha! That was the terms of surrender in 1945! It's now 2012 mate! Do you also still believe that the Germans are waving white flags and there's a wall between West and East Berlin..?

    Since Japan pledged to comply with the Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

    You are clearly way out of touch with world history. Japan never "colonised" Takeshima. And the dispute arose before WWII - it dates back to at least 1617!

  • 0

    TigersTokyoDome

    Since Japan pledged to comply with the Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

    Have you also demanded that the Russians hand back Sakhalin or is this just a one-way street?

  • 1

    saitamaliving

    @SunnysdeUp: What are you gibbering about? Three Japanese judges at the ICJ? Source please!

    The ICJ consists of 15 judges elected by the UN. Only one judge per country allowed. 5 new judges will be elected every 3 years, making a judge term 9 years. Japan has currently one judge there, SK none. But in case there's a case vs SK, SK can send another judge to rule along. If Japan didn't have a judge at the ICJ, they also would be allowed to send one. Correct me where I'm wrong!

    @smithinjapan All you expresss in your long comment is that if one side says: "I don't have a dispute", you call it settled. How naive can you be? I will rob you and claim my new possesings, you object and want this be settled in court but I just say, there's no argument. Hmmm... Even better if the court can just be called if both agree on settling a dispute there.

    South Korea knows quite well it is occupying the islands illegitimately. It tries to make the world believe so by TV ads, Wiki entries, Open Street Map, etc. Latter ones are quite annoying. Wikipedia had for years very false distance data fomr the islands to each country's coastline, even today, funnily after the kilometers were corrected, another map originated from SK input in the Wiki articles that claims, SK is 5km closer to the Liancort Rocks than Honshu, fact is the opposite - after all, distance doesn't matter at all, but that is a main factor, SK is arguing with and now even that goes down the drain. In OSM the Liancourt Rocks have been altered to SK, even using Korean names in the international and English section. Really annoying since upon correction soon it will be reverted. Same with the "Sea of Japan" and "Eastern Sea" crap. Come on SK, finally get up and let's this dispute be settled. Japan already acknowledged it will honor the ICJ decission. Imagine, finally no fight about this any more and if you are right, you will be ruled in favor. This dispute becomes really annoying. Go on and finally settle.

  • -5

    just-a-bigguy

    I want to praise President Lee Myung-Bak his defiances is a heroic manner against Japan's ridiculous demands! Well done

  • 4

    TigersTokyoDome

    Macpaul and saitama, finally some mature and intelligent (and independent) reasoning.

    According to some of these other posters (and South Korea) we should do away with the rule of law and using the courts to determine disputes and acts of crime. Instead it will be the powerful and the violent who can grab whatever they so wish and call it theirs. And if you dare to ask to have the dispute settled diplomatically, then anything that your relatives did in the past (70 years plus) will be used against you.

  • 5

    TigersTokyoDome

    I want to praise President Lee Myung-Bak his defiances is a heroic manner against Japan's ridiculous demands! Well done

    But surely if the Liancourt Rocks were beyond legal doubt, Korean territory, then why would his actions be "defiant"?? I think you have put your foot in it with that guilty expression.

  • -9

    just-a-bigguy

    Of course is a defiance act by President Lee Myung-Bak. Here he has spoken : No way! Sure he is under pressure from Hillary Clinton demanding him to behave and face saving for the 'Alliances of democracies in north east asia'! But still there is no sight he is going to back down a little bit! Lee is not just under the pressure from Tokyo but Washington as well and he still reject the proposal to settle the dispute in ICJ! He really impressed me and his gallant was definately admirable!

  • 0

    Guru29

    That was the terms of surrender in 1945! It's now 2012 mate

    So you mean the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Potsdam Agreement, San Francisco Peace Treaty and all other treaties signed between Japan and other nations in the world are just jokes and need not be taken seriously?

    If Japan have no intention to honor those treaties it signed with other nations, shouldn't it announce the treaties\ agreements null and void to the world in the first place?

  • -2

    Guru29

    Have you also demanded that the Russians hand back Sakhalin or is this just a one-way street?

    Well, the last treaty/ agreement agreed between Japan and Russia says:

    "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."

    Is Sakhalin mentioned in that treaty? I don't think so.

  • 3

    CrazyJoe

    There is no need for a country that has actual (effective) control of an island to take the case to ICJ first. It's the other party that has to take the case to ICJ first. It's also up to the accused party to accept or reject the case. In case of Takeshima, Korea rejects taking the case to ICJ with Japan since they know they'll lose. China will not take the (Senkaku) case to ICJ with Japan since China knows they will lose. There is no need for Japan to take the case to ICJ first.

  • 1

    TigersTokyoDome

    So you mean the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Potsdam Agreement, San Francisco Peace Treaty and all other treaties signed between Japan and other nations in the world are just jokes and need not be taken seriously?

    If Japan have no intention to honor those treaties it signed with other nations, shouldn't it announce the treaties\ agreements null and void to the world in the first place?

    Irrelevant of the Instrument of surrender, Potsdam, San Francisco treaties, what you need to understand is that the Liancourt Rocks and this current dispute are not bound by/ party to the instrument of surrender, Potsdam, SanFrancisco etc, etc....

  • 1

    TigersTokyoDome

    Well, the last treaty/ agreement agreed between Japan and Russia says:

    "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."

    Is Sakhalin mentioned in that treaty? I don't think so.

    You really need to pay attention to the history of that region and the treaties that you quote. The U.S maintained when drafting the Treaty of San Francisco (your example not mine) that the phrase "minor islands" mean a return of the Northern Territories back to Japan. The Japanese never agreed to the Northern Territories being included in the Cairo Declaration of 1943 which only states a return of territories taken by violence or greed (the Northern Territories were owned by Japan without use of violence or greed). I believe that you are getting confused and not really reading these treaties that you are quoting.

  • 1

    HonestDictator

    If you can't resolve a situation using DIPLOMATIC means and a MEDIATOR and just say "Its mine, I have no proof of ownership but it's mine because I think it is..." then you're not being diplomatic.

  • -5

    chucky3176

    Japan should be more worried about their sinking economy and their nuclearlized island nation. Yet here they are, against Korea, China, Russia, and anybody else you can put here, and flying their rising sun imperial flags vowing to fight to the death. Japan should just accept the fact it can't do anything about Korea which has gotten a lot stronger in the last 10 years, that you can push around anymore. Your frustrations are showing badly.

  • -3

    nigelboy

    If you can't resolve a situation using DIPLOMATIC means and a MEDIATOR and just say "Its mine, I have no proof of ownership but it's mine because I think it is..." then you're not being diplomatic.

    Those are kind words HonestDictator. They're being childish.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k3_H5YFm5lU

  • 2

    Yosuke Murase

    I answer to some avobe suggestions.

    1) Japan controls Senkaku island chain. That's why Japan don't need to file a lawsuit about Senkaku at ICJ. China has never filed a lawsuit at ICJ because China knows Japan first occupy Senkaku and China will lose there based on the international law.

    2) Japan has the document that shows Japan had controled Takeshima since Edo period (before 1900). Japan declared Takeshima belonged to Japan duly in 1905 and no country claim the dominium of Takeshima. The island has never been colonized by Japan. Japan first occupied there. During WWII Korea colonized there. After WWII San Francisco peace treaty never say Japan shall abandon Takeshima.

  • 1

    TigersTokyoDome

    Those are kind words HonestDictator. They're being childish.

    Judge to accused Korean: The Japanese prosecution claim that you stole that item without permission. Accused Korean: I shall refer this to my counsel. Judge to counsel for the accused Korean: The Japanese prosecution are claiming that your client stole that item without permission. Counsel for the accused: They're being childish.

    I think we can all work out what the judges verdict will be here. i also think that we would all sack our counsel with that legal gem for the defense.

  • 1

    Betraythetrust!

    So much energy being used on this, so much hatred spouted on both sides, and even those from lands far away joining in a siding with the country they prefer. To be honest it is pathetic, and shows the worst of humanity.

    Patriotism and nationalism are two of the worst traits to have and this type of thing is the end result.

  • -1

    TigersTokyoDome

    Betraythetrust, you are certainly correct in your statement. But do you just walk away saying it's pathetic when there are claims of landgrabbing and illegal occupation? If the world walked away from such crimes then most of Europe would be German, the Japanese would still occupy Korea and Manchuria, and Yugoslavia would be intact and governed by the Serbs (or the Germans...) For your info, the Koreans used their occupation to advertise for political votes and to make electoral visits. The Japanese merely request independent litigation. This is not for patriotism. This is for a large sum of natural gas resources.

  • 2

    ikkoikki

    @ just-a-bigguy

    "I want to praise President Lee Myung-Bak his defiances is a heroic manner against Japan's ridiculous demands! Well done"

    I live in Korea, and while they are defiant against Japan re: Dokdo, sex slaves, apologies, etc, Lee is generally considered a bungling fool rejected even by his own party for his mismanagement and scandal-ridden family.

  • -2

    nigelboy

    It appears that the Foreign Ministry and the Embassy's in Japan was working behind the scenes from the 21st when they submitted the request to Korean officials. Various FM officials have met with different countrys' embassys in Tokyo while the overseas embassy's have been meeting with the officials from their government to explain the reasons for Japan's request to submit this to ICJ.

    And today, from an official in FM, the government intends to submit this alone in which he stated. 「反論を許さない内容にする] (There will be no room for counter arguments) in which he is referring to the evidence that they are prepared to submit.

    A couple days ago, FM announced that they will be making a video in regards to this issue in which they intend not only to post on FM's website, they intend to release other venues (going viral).

    IMHO, the amateur ones like the ones I posted above was pretty good.

  • 1

    bimyou

    @smithinjapan

    Any links or prove that China asked Japan to settle the senkakus dispute?

    If not would you please stop posting the same BS over and over again.

  • 1

    bimyou

    @Betraythetrust!

    Recommending settling a displute in ICJ is not in any way patriotic or nationalist. It's the cold headed and adult way of resolving problems.

    What you're talking about is exactly what the Koreans are doing.

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    SK rejecting again? Remember, this is a public record under the eyes of International audience.

    Keep all these records handy just in case, this isssue is escalating to UN SK has no excuses. Show the world audience that Japan has been trying to resolve this dispute.

  • -3

    Guru29

    TigersTokyoDome says: "Liancourt Rocks and this current dispute are not bound by/ party to the instrument of surrender, Potsdam, SanFrancisco etc, etc...."

    Japan is indeed bound by the Potsdam Agreement 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."

    This practically covers all the territorial disputes of Japan including the South Kurile islands dispute between Japan and Russia, Ryukyu and Diaoyu islands dispute between Japan and China and Dokdo islands dispute between Japan and S Korea.

  • -2

    Guru29

    TigersTokyoDome says: "Irrelevant of the Instrument of surrender, Potsdam, San Francisco treaties"

    As I said, these treaties/ agreements cover all of Japan's territorial disputes and can never be considered irrelevant.

    As a matter of fact, Japan did pledge to comply with the Potsdam Agreement 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."

    Japan also pledged to comply with the Potsdam Agreement in the Imperial Rescript of Surrender delivered by Emperor Hirohito which states that:

    "To Our Good and loyal subjects:

    After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

    We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

  • -1

    Guru29

    TigersTokyoDome says: "The U.S maintained when drafting the Treaty of San Francisco (your example not mine) that the phrase "minor islands" mean a return of the Northern Territories back to Japan."

    This shows you are really confused. What is stated in the San Francisco Peace Treaty is this:

    "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905."

    TigersTokyoDome says: "I believe that you are getting confused and not really reading these treaties that you are quoting."

    Your posts show that you are the one who is confused and never bothered to read the treaties.

  • -1

    Guru29

    China knows Japan first occupy Senkaku and China will lose there based on the international law.

    What you said shows that you don't really know much about the Ryukyu and Diaoyu dispute. If you would like to know more, I will recommend you to read the following article written by Koji Taira:

    The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Koji-Taira/2119

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    AlternateUniverseAug. 30, 2012 - 03:03PM JST Japan could really try setting the tone here, and first go to the ICJ with China over the Senkaku islands,

    How many times doe it have to be repeated? You can't make a claim against yourself at the ICJ. Other counries that do not occupy or administer it would have to so do so.

    But we know that Japan will never go to the ICJ if it has anything to lose. And neither will South Korea.

    Total nonsense. Japan's position on the Senkakus is so solid that China does not dare bring up the ICJ. Not to mention that it will expose itseld to claims from evryone else in Asia, since China has over 17 territorial disputes.

  • -2

    chucky3176

    Japan is making such a big deal over anything that deals with Korea now.

    Fifteen out of eighteen top topics at Yahoo Japan has to do something with Korea, and how evil Korea is screwing Japan.

    This is one just topic.

    The funny thing is, it's all calm in Korea, Koreans are just watching all this as if it's a car wreck.

  • -2

    YuriOtani

    chucky, funny thing is I am normally for Japan droping claim to the Liancourt rocks. Problem is that they are using the issue to bash Japan. After President Lee insulted the Emperor think now is not the time. Since no apology will be sincere the claim needs to stay.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Politics

View all

View all