Dok-do or Takeshima? The Territorial Dispute Between South Korea and Japan.

Located at a nearly equidistant position between South Korea and Japan in the East Sea, the Dok-do/Takeshima islet consists of two major islands and 30 smaller rocks. In a geographical perspective, the islet in no means is significant in nature; the rocky terrain of the islands have historically been uninhabited and the land is less than 200,000 square meters in size. However, the islet has been the center of a centuries-long territorial dispute between Korea and Japan. Both of these nations have been actively arguing their control over the Dok-do/Takeshima islet, and they have used various historical documents and international laws to support their respective claims, ultimately complicating the issue at hand. The yet-to-be resolved conflict of the sovereignty of the islet leaves us to explore a legal question that has presented itself consistently over the span of human history: the question of territorial sovereignty and geopolitics. 

Before I delve into the legal arguments and analysis of this case, the question of why these two countries have a vested interest in this islet needs to be answered. Firstly, there is a historical and cultural context for both countries. The Dok-do/Takeshima debate is one of many topics which brings together all Koreans and kindles a nationalist attitude regardless of generational differences or social divisions. This is largely due to Korea’s past as a colony of Japan in the 20th century; to most Korean citizens, the loss of Dok-do/Takeshima invokes a sentiment of an implicit legitimization of Japan’s colonial rule over the peninsula. Secondly, the presence of gas hydrates – an energy resource that is denser than conventional natural gas – in the ocean floor of the East Sea fuels the nations’ desires to reinforce their control over the area. Since neither Korea nor Japan have been blessed with natural resources, the extraction potential of these gas hydrates could be a valuable asset to either country. These are just a few of the reasons that the two East Asian states have extended their argument for the past century. 

Then how does international law interpret this geopolitical dispute? Unfortunately, there is no decisive international agreement or legal document which grants the possession of a territory for a government. The traditional method of exercising sovereignty over a given territory has been conquest, whereby governments utilize military forces and violent measures to establish their authority. However, the UN Charter has henceforth banned the forceful acquisition of territory, and land gained in such manner is responded with non-recognition across the international community. In the modern world, territorial authority is usually determined by a complex analysis of historical and scholarly debates; factors such as contiguity, discovery, accretion, and cession all can be considered as criteria that satisfy legal acquisition of territory. In modern times, all of these factors are taken into account when determining the legal authority of a nation’s territorial occupation. 

A recent international legal case of territorial dispute would be the case of Island of Palmas, where both the United States and the Netherlands argued their sovereignty over the islands in the coasts of the Philippines. The case was handed to the Permanent Court of Arbitration and Judge Max Huber heard the arbitral tribunal between the two nations. Ultimately, Judge Huber ruled in favor of the Dutch, even though the US argued that American sovereignty over the islands should have been guaranteed with the cession of the Philippines by the Spanish. However, Judge Huber denoted that “the establishment of Dutch authority [in the islands] had already reached such a degree of development,”and the continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty from the mid-nineteenth century was enough to consider the Island of Palmas as a part of Netherlands territory. In light of this ruling, Korea’s historical and effective attempts of control over the Dok-do/Takeshima islets should grant the nation the legal title to the islands. Historical documents track Korea’s claim back to 512 AD, 200 years before any Japanese presence in the region, and Korean armed guards have been stationed on the island since the 1950s. In this perspective, Korea’s effective display of sovereignty and control over the islands seem to work as evidence to support their legitimacy.

A question that can be raised at this point is why the dispute has yet to be taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), since in recent years, numerous cases have been brought to the ICJ in attempts to define territorial sovereignty and to resolve international disputes. In fact, this has been the approach that Japan has attempted to take recurrently. Over the course of the contention, Japan has proposed a joint submission of the dispute to the ICJ on three different occasions, but Korea has defiantly rejected all three of these proposals. Korea’s stance on this matter is based on the claim that Japan holds no cultural, historical, or legal justification for its argument over the islets; with this logic, Korea has denied all past attempts of redirection to the ICJ.

The issue of territorial contention has been a recurrent, but complex issue that has coexisted with the development of modern international law. With the decolonization and the creation of numerous states following the Second World War, geopolitics and border tensions have carried an entirely new meaning, alongside the rise of nationalism and globalization in the modern era. Thus, most of the territorial disputes that the legal world observed are intertwined in complex historical debates are socio-political tensions. However, for the case of Dok-do/Takeshima, the next expected ‘move’ should most likely be the two nations’ cooperation in discussing the full sovereignty of the islands, whether that be through a submission to the ICJ or through other international alternatives. 

Min Namgung is a current sophomore who concentrates in International and Public Affairs (IAPA) and Economics. She is a Staff Writer of the Law Review's Blog and can be reached at min_namgung@brown.edu.