The Liancourt Rocks have been administered by South Korea since 1952 by the Korea Coast Guard.[7] This action was taken after the United States stated in the Rusk documents that the Japanese claim to the Liancourt Rocks would not be renounced in Japan's post-World-War-II peace treaty. In 1954, Japan proposed a reference to the International Court of Justice, which South Korea rejected, believing that the Liancourt Rocks are irrefutably South Korean territories, and thus should not be dealt through diplomatic negotiations or judicial settlement between South Korea and Japan.[8]
There are conflicting interpretations about the historical state of sovereignty over the islets. Korean claims are partly based on references to a Korean island called Usan-do in various historical records, maps and encyclopedias such as the Samguk Sagi, Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (동국여지승람; 東國輿地勝覧), and Dongguk munheon bigo (동국문헌비고; 東國文獻備考). According to the Korean view, these refer to today's Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese researchers of these documents have stated that the various references to Usan-do refer at different times to Jukdo, its neighboring island Ulleungdo, or a non-existent island between Ulleungdo and Korea.[9]
Researchers disagree on who first had administrative control over the islets due to ambiguities in early historical records and maps, partly due to changes in the names of the islands in the area over the years.
History
The Three Kingdoms period
Samguk Sagi (History of Three Kingdoms) recorded that in 512, the 13th reign year of King Jijeung of Silla, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, General Kim Isabu conquered Usan, whence it submitted yearly tributes to the Silla court. The Samguk Sagi mentions that Usan had been an independent kingdom based on Ulleungdo.[10] Based on the story of Usan, contemporary chroniclers believed Usando to be one and the same island as Ulleungdo.[11]
Joseon and Edo period
The Taejong-Sillok (태종실록, Annals of King Taejong) recorded that "60 people were living on Yusan-guk-do (우산국 流山國, Yusan-state-island). According to a 1417 government report, there were 86 yusando inhabitants as of 1412. Yusan-guk's diameter was 2 shik (24 km), and its circumference is 8 shik (96 km)."[12]
The 1417 report is as follows:
An expedition was launched under Inspector Kim Inu, and from Usando, the expedition brought back local products as tribute, including bamboo, seal skins, raw ramie cloth, silk wool, and ginger. Kim brought back three Usando natives. Kim reported that there were fifteen households living on the island, summing to the figure of eighty-six inhabitants. On their way back from the island, Kim Inu's expedition went through two typhoons, barely reaching the mainland alive.[13]
The Korean government says that Usando was the Liancourt Rocks. Although it is impossible for one to survive at Liancourt Rocks without outside assistance, a distinction to be noted is that Usanguk refers to a state based on Ulleng-do, whereas Usando refers to an island. Japanese scholars argue that Usando refers to either Ulleung-do or Jukdo while Korean scholars argue that it refers to Liancourt Rocks.[14]
The Sejong-Sillok (세종실록, "Chronicle of King Sejong", 1432) mentions Usando,[15][16] but interpretation of the context is disputed. The text is interpreted as follows: "Usando (우산도 于山島) and Mureungdo (무릉도 武陵島, a former name of Ulleungdo), in the sea due east of Uljin Prefecture, are close enough to each other to be mutually visible in clear weather at the top of the mountain". South Korea insists that this constitutes clear evidence that Usan-do refers to the Liancourt Rocks, the only island that is visible from Ulleungdo only in clear weather.[16] Japan, however, holds that the latter part as "come into view from mainland Korea," believing that it refers instead to Jukdo, located two kilometers east of Ulleungdo.[17] South Korea counters that Jukdo is only 2 kilometers apart from Ulleung-Do and therefore is visible regardless of altitude or weather, as well as that the passage is clearly written in the context of the two islands mutually, rather than in relation to the Korean mainland, as established in "相去不遠," "相" meaning "mutually."
South Korea also refers to Ulleung-Do Sajuk (울릉도 사적). This work was compiled by Korean government officer Jang Han-sang (장한상; 張漢相) in 1696 after the An Yong-bok incident under orders from the Joseon kingdom. In it, he states that, from Ulleung-do, "to the west can be seen the rugged mountains of Daegwallyeong; beholding the sea to the east, I noticed a faint island in the jin (辰) direction (east-south-east), not more than one-third of the size of Ulleung, and not possibly more than 300 li (approximately 100km) away."[18] Furthermore, Jang also states in a later part of the work that "I climbed to the peak of the island in order to see the boundaries of Japan, but no Japanese islands could be seen at all, and I cannot, therefore, fathom the distance to the border."[19] This evidence is used by South Korean experts to demonstrate that contemporary Koreans regarded this island to the south-east as under Korean control.
Paldo Chongdo
The Dong'guk yeoji seungnam (동국여지승람, "Augmented Geography Survey of the Eastern Nation (Korea)", 1481) defining Korea's territory, stated that "Usando and Ulleungdo are under the jurisdiction of Uljin-hyeon of Gangwon-do as an administrative unit. However, it also mentions that the tree and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day.[20] The 1531 revision of this book includes the Paldo Chongdo ("Map of the Eight Provinces"), showing two separate islands of Usan-do and Ulleung-do in the middle of the Sea of Japan. Usando is drawn to the west of Ulleungdo, which is clearly an error since there exists no island that to the west of Ulleungdo.
From the early fifteenth century to the aftermath of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), the Joseon court was unable and unwilling to maintain a civilian population on either Ulleungdo or Usando. According to the Taejong Sillok ("Annals of King Taejong"), the mainland government forcibly evacuated the islands during Taejong's reign, in accordance with the "vacant island policy".[21] Thus, the islets were only occasionally populated by permanent settlers up to the seventeenth century; a permanent population existed only on Ulleungdo. Following the war, the islands were completely vacated.
1677 report
Takeshima Tōkai Yuraiki Bassho Hikae, written by Ōya Kyuemon, records that in 1618 the Tokugawa shogunate granted fishing rights to the Ōya and Murakawa families of Yonago[citation needed], and that in 1661 bestowed the feudal tenure of "Takeshima"[citation needed], which was then referred to Ulleung-do. On the way to Ulleung-do, Japanese fishermen sometimes used islands called in Japanese "Matsushima" (松島) as an intermediate port of call. In 1677 a retainer by the name of Saito Hessen compiled the Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province"), a set of records based upon observations he had made under orders from the daimyō of Izumo (Unshū).
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel.
These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Unshū.
As this report was compiled from a Japanese geographical perspective, Japanese scholars argue that Matsushima (the closer island) refers to Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima (the farther island) refers to Ulleungdo. On the other hand, Korean scholars argue that a closer look reveals the grants were given to permit them to travel abroad, thus proving that fishing area was foreign territory. These grants led to a conflict with native settlers in Ulleungdo and were later revoked by Kanpaku of Japanese Tokugawa Shogunate in January 1696.[22]
1695 inquiry into Ulleungdo
In 1695 the Shogunate inquired of the Tottori clan (Tottori Prefecture today) if Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and "Matsushima" (Liancourt Rocks) were part of either Inaba or Hōki Province, where the Oya and Murakawa of Yonago resided.[23]
The Shogunate inquired:
Since when has Takeshima (Ulleungdo) become a part of either Inaba (因幡) or Hōki (伯耆) Province? Was it before or after the year when your ancestor was given the two provinces (in 1632)? Are there any islands other than Takeshima(Ulleungdo) that are within the jurisdiction of the two provinces?
The Tottori replied:
Takeshima (Ulleungdo) does not belong to Inaba (因幡) or Hōki (伯耆). "No other islands belong to the domain, including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo).[24]"
Korean historical sources state that the administrator of Tokugawa shogunate reaffirmed in January 1696 that Ulleungdo and Dokdo belonged to Korea, quoting An Yong-bok's testimony.[25][26][27] The dispute between Chosun Korea and Tokugawa Japan about the ownership of Ulleung-do ignited when Korean fishermen clashed with Japanese fishermen in Ulleungdo waters in 1692. The following year, An Yong-Bok and Park Eo-dun, representing Korean fishing communities, are variously said to have visited, drifted, or even been abducted by Japanese fishermen, arriving at Oki island in 1693. Taking this occasion, An discussed territorial title matters with a Japanese governmental official, reminding him that Ulleungdo and Jasando (자산도, 子山島 sic; a scribal corruption of Usan-do 于山島/亐山島) are Korean territory. As a result, the bakufu issued prohibitions banning Japanese fishermen from travelling to Ulleng-do. This is called the First An Yong-bok incident.
An, on being released from a two-year exile on charges of traveling to a foreign country without permission, made a second trip to Japan together with a group of Koreans from Dongnae and other maritime regions in 1696 with documents and a map to reconfirm his initial claim during the first confrontation, which had come under suspicion by the Korean government due to the Tsushima clan's delaying Edo's orders to notify the Korean government of Japan's prohibition to travel to Ulleungdo. Aware of the severe punishment which the Edo government would certainly pass on the Tsushima lord, Tsushima expedited Edo's decision to nullify "Permission to cross to Takeshima (Ulleund-do)" to the Korean government, which Edo had been withholding until An's visit. Although Japan did not mention Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) on the prohibition papers, no Japanese could legitimately travel to either Takeshima or Matsushima until the end of the bakufu period.[28] This document from An's second trip[29] relays An's words that Ulleungdo, geographically subordinate to Gangwon province, was administered by Dongnae-bu. The document records the distance between Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) as 50 ri, and also states, in a rough copy of An's map of Korea, that the two islets belonged to Korea's Gangwon province. In the Annals of King Sukjong, the official governmental chronicle, An is reported to have stated that Jasan-do 子山島(sic) was what the Japanese called Matsu-shima 松島 at that time.[30]
1697 Korean court's decision to disregard Tsushima's request of a formal letter for Edo
In Feb 1697, the Korean government decided to reject Tsushima clan's request to amend a previous letter that mentioned Korea's Ulleungdo, and that An Yong-Bok's visit to Japan to raise a legal case did not require a written response from Korea since the Royal Court had no foreknowledge. These facts were to be conveyed to the Tsushima envoy's house informally: "An was an unenlightened subject who got thrown about by a storm. If he executed something, it had not been known by the Joseon Royal Court."[31][32]
In March 1699, the Korean government made a formal communication in writing that An was punished for submitting a legal case against the governor of Hokishu to the Edo government without authorisation from the Korean government."[33]
Although the Border Defense Command demanded capital punishment, King Sukjong commuted An's sentence to exile in positive consideration of his successful negotiations with the Edo government that resulted in the "prohibition of all Japanese travelling to Korea for fishing, harvesting, and lumbering for eternity".[28][34][35]
1785 Map of Three Adjoining Countries
A Japanese scholar of practical science, Hayashi Shihei, published "Map of Three Adjoining Countries" (三國接壤地圖) in his work "Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu" in 1785, which showed each country in distinct colours; Joseon (old name of Korea) in yellow, Japan in green. In the map, Ulleungdo and an island to its northeast were marked "As Korean territories (朝鮮ノ持ニ)". The name of the larger island was given as "竹嶋", the current name of Ulleungdo then in Japan.[36] According to Korean scholars, the islands to the northeast of Ulleungdo represent the Liancourt Rocks, and thus proves Liancourt belonged to Korea at the time. According to Japanese scholars, neither of these conclusions are necessary or even probable, as the Liancourt Rocks are located southeast of Ulleungdo.[37]
1808 Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island
Dongguk yeojiji (1656) says "one theory has it that Usan-do and Ulleung-do are the same island" (一説于山 欝陵 本一島)
Man'gi yoram (만기요람, "Handbook of State Affairs") from 1808 quotes the earlier Yeojiji ("Gazette", 1656) that Ulleungdo and Usando all belonged to Usan'guk, and Usando was equivalent to what the Japanese then called Matsushima.[38] However, there is no such description in the original Yeojiji. Instead, Dongguk yeojiji says "...one theory has it that Usan-do and Ulleung-do are the same island..." as described in Donggug Yeoji Seunglam (1481).[39][40]
19th-century maps
Usando is displayed on the cartographs made by Chong Sang-gi (1678~1752); Haejwa Jeondo (1822), and Dongguk Jeondo (by Kim Tae-gon, 1821–1846). Japanese believe it to be Jukdo, noting the distance, shape, size, and direction.,[41] while Koreans believe it to be Liancourt and they said that Usando was a former name of Liancourt.
In 2011, Usando is found on the Kim Jeong-ho's Daedong Yeojido.[42]
A US-made map of 1897 produced by an encyclopedia publisher based in New York shows Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan.[43]
1877 Daijō-kan order to exclude Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island from Japanese National Land Registry
On March 20, 1877, the Japanese Supreme Council Daijō-kan issued an order stating that Ulleungdo (then called "Takeshima 竹島", now called Matsushima 松島 by Japan) and another island (外一島) are not under Japanese rule.[44][45]
Korea states that "another island" (外一島) besides Ulleungdo refers to Liancourt Rocks[46][47][48] and considers this order as an evidence that Liancourt Rocks was under the control of Korea. The Japanese government has not made any comment on this point whereas some Japanese consider that "another island" (外一島) does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.[49][50]
1900 Korean Imperial Decree No. 41 separates Uldo Archipelago from Uljin County
On October 25, 1900, Korea issued Imperial Decree No. 41, which included the following administrative actions.
Ulleungdo, which had been subordinate to Uljin Prefecture[51] since the reign of King Sejong, shall be renamed Uldo and elevated to county.
Uldo County office shall rule over all of Uldo proper and its dependencies including Jukdo and Seokdo.
The decree was published in Official Gazette No. 1716 (관보 제1716호) on Oct 27 and distributed to the international community, including Imperial Japan, with representations in Seoul.[52][53][54]
This decree states that Ulleungdo be renamed to Uldo (mod. Ulleungdo), and that the county hall shall govern Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo.[55][56] Japan says that there is no evidence to identify the island "Seokdo" as Liancourt Rocks,[57][58] and that there is no record that proves the effective occupation by Korea before Japanese Cabinet decision of January 28, 1905. Korea claims that the island "Seokdo" mentioned in this document is Liancourt Rocks, and thus Liancourt Rocks was still officially part of Korea as an ancient territory since 512. Korea presents evidence that Koreans living on Ulleungdo referred to Liancourt Rocks as Dokseom (or Dolseom; literally "rocky island") in speech and Dokdo 獨島 in writing as a phonetic transcription (음독 音讀, umdok; おんよみ 音読み on-yomi), while the name "Seokdo" 石島 ("rocky island") in the Ordinance was an instance of logographic translation (훈독, 訓讀, hundok; くんよみ 訓読み kun-yomi).[59][60][61]
Korea also states that Liancourt Rocks was effectively managed by seasonal fishermen and divers in recent times[62] as a result of King Gojong's Ulleungdo Reclamation Program (鬱陵島開拓令) issued in Dec 1881. A first-person account by one of the first settlers since the reclamation program has been presented as one evidence to the fact of the claim.[63] A South Korean scholar claims to have uncovered evidence that Korean fishermen effectively occupied engaged in "whaling" in Liancourt Rocks waters in the 1880s and that sea lions were hunted and sea-lion-derived products were exported to Japan in 1904 prior to the Japanese Cabinet decision of 1905 to incorporate a supposed terra nullius.[62]
1904 Japan–Korea treaty
The Japan–Korea Protocol of 1904 (Korean: 한일의정서; Hanja: 韓日議定書; RR: Han'il uijongso; Japanese: 日韓議定書, romanized: Nikkan Giteisho) signed between Japan and Korea on February 23, 1904, stipulates in article 3 that Japan shall guarantee the territorial integrity of Korea. It further stipulates in article 4 that, in case the territorial integrity of Korea is endangered by aggression of a third power, Korea shall give full facilities to promote the action of Japan, and that Japan may occupy, when the circumstances require, such places as may be necessary for strategic reasons.
Article 4 of the treaty has been quoted as giving Japan full authorisation in terms of international law in taking Liancourt Rocks as a strategic surveillance point during the Russo-Japanese War.[64][65][66]
Article 3, however, has been quoted as preventing Japan from appropriating Liancourt Rocks post bellum, and hence ruling the 1905 Shimane incorporation illegal after the end of the war.[67][68] Although the watch tower on Liancourt Rocks was demolished, suggesting the necessity on strategic reasons had disappeared, the Japanese Cabinet decision to incorporate Liancourt Rocks had not been revoked in violation of the treaty. This suggests foreign military threat from a third country in Article 4 was not the primary ground of incorporating Liancourt Rocks,[69] but South Korea claim that "its own violence and greed that Japan is expected to disprove with prima facie evidence in the manner of which the act of incorporation was committed."[70]
1905 Japanese incorporation of Liancourt Rocks
The imperial government of Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks as a result of a Cabinet decision in early 1905. Three motives are commonly cited for this decision:
civilian occupation of said islets by a Japanese citizen from Oki, Nakai Yozaburo (なかい よざぶろう 中井養三郎; 1864–1934),
practical necessities arising from the armed conflict with Russia,
and Japan's foreign policy regarding Korea as its western frontier to fend off encroaching foreign powers.
The incorporation was conducted incognito to foreign nations, including Korea, as the decision had never been announced by the central government to the international community. The Korean response to reports of the verbal notice by a local Japanese official were shock and disbelief, and orders were issued to investigate the truth of the report. While the result of the investigation is obscured in silence, apparently lending momentum to the Japanese claim, the Japanese Resident-General residing in Seoul, in 1906, makes an inquiry into which islands are administered by Ulleungdo (sic.), in the older designation prior to the 1900 Korean Imperial Decree No 40, to which the Internal Ministry relays facts consistent with the 1900 Imperial Decree No 41, to wit Uldo County administers Uldo proper, Jukdo, and Seokdo.
1903–1904 Nakai's fishing enterprise
On September 29, 1904, Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郎; 1864–1934) of Saigo, Shimane Prefecture, experimenting with sea lion hunting business in the summers of 1903 and 1904, and wanting to protect his investment, submitted a petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks and to issue exclusive license to hunt sea lions for ten years. The petition was submitted to the Home Ministry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce. Nakai, initially believing Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory, had planned to ask for a lease from the Korean government via the Ministry of Trade and Commerce.[71][72]
An officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs considered it unwise to incorporate Liancourt Rocks, as it was suspected to be Korean territory, but the Navy and the Foreign Ministry advised incorporation would be profitable, and that there would arise no diplomatic repercussions.[73][74][75][76][77]
1905 Japanese cabinet decision on Liancourt Rocks
The Japanese government's official view has evolved since 1905. On January 28, 1905, the Cabinet reached a decision (明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 lit.'Cabinet decision on January 28, Meiji 38') to incorporate Liancourt Rocks, on grounds that it had been terra nullius under international law:[78][79][80][81][82]"There is no recognizable trace that this uninhabited island was ever occupied by a foreign country... As evidenced through relevant records that a person by the name of Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) moved to said island in 1903 (Meiji 36) and practiced fishing there since, we recognise the fact that occupation has occurred in terms of international law."[83]
From 1947 to 1954, the Japanese government's claim shifted from prior occupation of a terra nullius to effective occupation by "executing state intention to acquire territory".
Not later than 1962, Japan again shifted its claim to "[the 1905] reconfirmation of title to an inherent/ancient territory", all based on Japan's changing interpretation of the same Cabinet decision document, all the while carefully avoiding its previous claim of incorporation on grounds of prior occupation of a terra nullius.[84]
Korea also claims that Japan's 1905 claim to terra nullius conflicts with its previous recognition (i.e., the 1877 Daijō-kan order) of the islets as Korean territory.[85][86][87]
1905 Shimane Notice 40
Japan claims to have enforced its Cabinet decision of January 28, 1905, to incorporate the islets as part of Shimane Prefecture (島根縣) in Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 of February 22, 1905 (島根縣告示第40號).[88][89][90] The decision was reported in a local newspaper, San-in Shimbun, on February 24, 1905.[91][92][93]
The incorporation came in the heat of the Russo-Japanese War and before the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 of November 17, 1905, when Korea became Japan's protectorate. A temporary watchtower was erected on the islets for anti-Russian surveillance purposes, which was demolished after Japan's victory in the war.
1906 verbal notification of incorporation and Korean response
Japanese claims the incorporation was legitimate in that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published.[94] Korea claims the incorporation was invalid in that the Feb 24 San-in Shimbun report lacked official status as its circulation was limited to the Shimane prefectural region. Korea claims neither the decision of the Japanese Cabinet, the order of Ministry of Home Affairs, nor the Shimane Notice had been announced to the Korean government until March 28, 1906. Many Japanese, including petitioner Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞), and certain governmental officials believed the title of Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea.
On that date, a party of 44 officials from Shimane Prefecture visited Ulleungdo. The Japanese officials, including Kanda Yoshitaro, travelled to Ulleungdo by way of Dokdo, and informed Sim Heung-taek, then Magistrate of Ulleungdo, that the rocks had been incorporated into Japan.
According to Korean historians, Sim immediately contacted Yi Myeong-nae, then Governor of Gangwon Province. Yi then forwarded the report to the State Council Minister of the Korean Empire. State Council Minister Bak Je-sun, in Directive No. 3 issued on May 20, 1906, stated, "It is totally groundless that Dokdo has become Japanese territory," and went on to order "an investigation and report on the situation and on what the Japanese have done."[95] The Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 had stripped Korea of all its diplomatic rights on November 17, 1905.[96][97] Five years later, Korea was fully annexed by Japan.
1906 communication between Japanese Resident-General and the Korean government
In 1906, a curious inquiry and reply are exchanged between Japanese and Korean officials, the result of which is reported in the edition of July 13 of Hwangseong Shinmun. In the letter, says the report, the Japanese Resident-General asks which islands are administered by Ulleung Island. The Korean Home Ministry simply lists the same islands as in the 1900 Decree specifying Seokdo, which Korea claims to be Liancourt Rocks. It also adds a physical measurement of what is believed to be Ulleung Island.[98][99][100][101]
The Japanese inquiry is not current with the 1900 Korean Decree in its inaccurate designation of place names and offices, while the Korean reply remains silent on the issue of incorporation of Liancourt Rocks. The details of the reasons for the Resident-General's inquiry and the Korean government's judgement regarding the inquiry are not known.[99][101]
Prior to the Resident-General's inquiry and the Korean government's response reported on July 13, daily newspapers Hwangseong Shinmun (May 9, 1906) and The Korea Daily News (May 1, 1906) had denied the rumoured Japanese local official's claim of incorporating Liancourt Rocks. "Their claim to Dokdo as Japanese territory is totally groundless; the story is really shocking."[102] Although Hwangseong Shinmun had clearly declared that rumours of the Japanese incorporation of Liancourt Rocks were baseless two months before the July communication,[103] and although the July communication reminded the Resident-General, Itou Hirobumi, of the 1900 Imperial Decree reaffirming Korea's state authority over Liancourt Rocks, there is no evidence that the then Resident-General or any other representation of Imperial Japan raised a formal objection to it.[citation needed]
The recent dispute stems largely from conflicting interpretations of whether Japan's renunciation of sovereignty over its occupied territories after World War II included the Liancourt Rocks.
Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP) Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946, listed the Liancourt Rocks, along with many other islands, as part of those territories over which Japanese administration was to be suspended.[105] In the first to fifth drafts of the Treaty of San Francisco between Japan and the Allied powers, Liancourt Rocks was described as part of Korea.
The sixth and seventh drafts, made on December 29, 1949, and August 7, 1950, respectively, ruled that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan.
The U.K. draft and the attached map[106] reflecting the view of Commonwealth nations[107] submitted April 7, 1951, excluded Liancourt Rocks from Japanese territorial definition and placed Liancourt Rocks within Korean territory:
Japanese sovereignty shall continue over all the islands and adjacent islets and rocks lying within an area bounded by a line... bearing north-easterly between... the islands of Oki-Retto to the south-east and Take Shima to the north-west.
Finally, the U.K. agreed to the US version of the treaty excluding the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet from Japan.
[108]
The September 1951 version left the territorial title of Liancourt Rocks undefined between Japan and signatory states.
Article 1
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
The SCAPIN-677/1, final version of drafts in December 1951, it mentioned the Liancourt Rock with Instruction #677 "a. Memorandum for the Japanese Government, AG 091(29 Jan 46)GS(SCAPIN 677), 29 January 1946, subject, "Governmental and Administraive Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan"." was(and is) active.
Korea claims that its territorial title to Liancourt Rocks was returned to Korea with the surrender of Japan which was enforced by SCAP's prohibitions suspending Japanese access to within 12 miles (19 km) from said island[109] which needs to be explicitly revoked in order to effect a change.[110] Such a change modifying the status of Liancourt Rocks has never occurred before "SCAP transferred its jurisdiction... to the United States Army Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946." The U.S. Military Government in Korea, in turn, reverted all jurisdiction over Liancourt Rocks to the Government of South Korea when it launched on August 15, 1948.[111] South Korea's President Rhee Syngman's announcement of the Peace Line enforced Korea's territorial title to Liancourt Rocks.
US recognition of this format of treaty was Japan recovered full sovereignty under article 1 except islands which were excluded from Japan by name.
[112]
Early Japanese efforts to claim Liancourt Rocks and Ulleung Island
Both countries submitted petitions and documents to persuade the Allied Powers to rule the Liancourt Rocks dispute in their favour. The Japanese government's Foreign Office submitted a series of documents, issued from November 1946 to June 1947, entitled Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper; Parts I-IV, of which Part IV, Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan described Utsuryo-shima (Ulleungdo) and Take-shima (Dokdo, Liancourt Rocks) as Japanese territory.[113][114][115][116][117] This document largely based on material prepared by Kawakami Kenzo 川上健三, the then treaties expert for Japanese Foreign Office, argued for the Japanese title to Dagelet Is and Liancourt Rocks in the following words:[118]
"Liancourt Rocks and Dagelet Is lie off the Tsushima Strait [are] some 50 miles (80 km) apart."
"The existence of these islands was known to Japan in early times."
The Japanese names for these two islands were reversed due to the cartographic error of a German Dutch physician Philipp Franz von Siebold.[120]
I. Liancourt Rocks (Take-shima)
1. Geography
Liancourt Rocks are 86 miles (138 km) from Oki Islands of Shimane Prefecture.
2. History
"[T]he Japanese knew the existence of the Liancourt Rocks from the ancient times."
"The earliest documentary evidence is Inshu Shicho Goki" of 1667.
"While there is a Korean name for Dagelet, none exists for the Liancourt Rocks."
"They are not shown in the maps made in Korea."
3. Industry
"It is presumed no one has ever settled on the islets."
"In 1904, the inhabitants of Oki islands began to hunt sea-lions on these islets."
"[E]ach summer, the islanders, using Dagelet as their base, went regularly to the Rocks and built sheds as temporary quarters for the season."
II. Dagelet Island (Matsu-shima, Utsuryo or Ul-lung Island)
1. Geography
"Dagelet Island is equidistant from the port of Fushan (Busan) and the port of Sakai of Tottori Prefecture of Japan."
"The flora of this island... is recognized to have many common features with Japan Proper."
"The cultivation in Japan of the Take-shima lily (Lilium hansonii), an indemic plant of the island, is mentioned in a book published in 1710, a fact which points to an early intercourse between the island and Japan."
2. History
In Japanese documents... reference was made as early as 1004 to Uruma Island, an old Japanese equivalent for Ul-lung Island."
"The Korean Government from 1400 and onward adhered for a long time to a policy of keeping it uninhabited... the island was thus virtually abandoned by the Korean Government."
Many of these claims, regardless of their historical verity, and without critical historical review,[121] were emphasised by William J. Sebald, the then political advisor for SCAP in Tokyo, which eventually had a strong formative influence on the position maintained by the Diplomatic Section of SCAP and the US State Department regarding the territorial aspect of the Peace Treaty.[122][123]
Educated neither as an historian nor a geographer, Kenzō Kawakami (川上健三, Kawakami Kenzō) went on to build on this early investigation supporting the Japanese claim in a work called An Historical and Geographical Study of Takeshima (竹島の歴史地理学的研究, Takeshima no Rekishi Chirigakuteki Kenkyū)[124] for the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published in 1966, in which he said:
Koreans on Ulleungdo could not see the Liancourt Rocks, due to the heavy forestation on Ulleungdo
Koreans were not aware of the Liancourt Rocks before the 20th century, as seen in the lack of documents pertaining to the Liancourt Rocks
Koreans did not have adequate naval navigation to reach the Liancourt Rocks.
Adherents including Masao Shimojo (下條 正男, Shimojo Masao), Kunitaka Tanaka (田中 邦貴, Tanaka Kunitaka), and Gerry Bevers have presented arguments building on Kawakami's arguments. Recent studies by numerous Korean and Japanese scholars such as Baek In-ki (백인기), Shim Mun-bo (심문보), Yu Mirim (유미림), Lee Han-key (이한기), Wada Haruki 和田春樹, and Jeong Taeman (정태만) have disproved many of the claims.
Koreans already possessed the skills to reach Ulleung-do from mainland Korea since not later than the 6th century.[135]
Koreans transmitted advanced shipbuilding/navigational technology to the Japanese from early historical times.[136][137][138]
Early Korean efforts to claim Liancourt Rocks as an appendage or dependency to Ulleung Island
A corresponding Korean effort came on August 5, 1948, ten days before the inauguration of the South Korean government. It was led by a private organization self-styled "Patriotic Old Men's Association", which was led by a former military leader of the KPG Cho Seong-hwan [ko].[139][140][141]
They petitioned for the sovereignty of Docksum (Liancourt Rocks), Ullung Do, Tsushima and Parang islands[142][143] The Headquarters of the Patriotic Men's Association made the following statements to back up Korea's claim to sovereignty over Ulleung Is and Liancourt Rocks:
Request for Arrangement of Lands between Korea and Japan
I. Returning... the island "Docksum."
"'Ulneungdo' and its attached... belong... to Korea historically."
"Japan planned to profit by fishing and foresting under the evacuation policy."
"Resolute negotiation... Japan acknowledged their fault and made a word to prohibit to fish there in 1693."
"Since 1881, Japan began to reinvade... Under the negotiations in Tokyo... by plenipotentiary Suh Sang Woo and... advisor G. von Mollendorf, Japan surrendered to Korea."
Japan, never dismiss[ing] the fishing profit around Ulneungdo,... planned to occupy a corner of it... and became to find out a small island called 'Docksum'... near the Ulneungdo, where whales gathered."
"In 1904, a Japanese fisher of Tottoriken named Nakai Yosaburo made a cruel program to seize the Docksum and... submit[ed] petitions or requests to the Hydrographic Department of Navy, Dep't of Home Affairs, Dep't of Foreign Affairs and Dep't of Agriculture and Commerce... to register the island into Japanese territory."
"The so-called Takeshima is the very Dockusum (sic) in Korean name."
"This is namely Liancourt Rocks on the world's chart."
"This name "Liancourt-Rocks" was established due to the name of the French whaler which found... the island. Thereafter, by the Russian warship 'Paleada' in 1854, and by the English warship "Hornet" in 1855, the said island was re-found and the ship's name was given to it."
"But it was never suspected that these variously named island was the very island "Ulneungdo."
"It is... said that a Japanese district office carried out such a plan imposing upon the world."
"Such an island occupied illegally by Japan should be returned to Korea."
The document's clear identification of Liancourt Rocks with "Docksum" in the Korean vernacular language is curiously ignored by William Sebald, whose office relayed a facsimile copy to the US State Department. The document is unique in its logical treatment of Liancourt Rocks as an appendage or dependency to Ulleung Is as can be seen in the statement: "these variously named island was the very island 'Ulneungdo'" although some scholars believe the prerequisite to unity theory needs a qualification before it can be applied to the case of Liancourt Rocks.[144]
First US bombing incident over Liancourt Rocks
SCAP designated Liancourt Rocks as a bombing range (SCAPIN #1778), and notified the Japanese government on September 16, 1947. On June 8, 1948, twenty-nine US B-29 bombers from Kadena, Okinawa, flew over Liancourt Rocks in a bombing exercise dropping seventy-six bombs causing civilian casualties.[145][unreliable source?]
The South Korean government announced 16 civilians were killed by the US military drill, higher estimates run up to twenty times that figure, i.e. 320.[citation needed]
One researcher estimates damages somewhere between 30 and 80 fishing boats and civilian deaths between 30 and 100.[146][147][unreliable source?]
Classified US communication to South Korean government
Rusk Documents
On August 10, 1951, a secret correspondence currently known as the Rusk documents was sent to South Korea communicating the then U.S. position on issues of territorial sovereignty in the Peace Treaty explaining why the US believed Liancourt Rocks were Japanese territory: "[T]his normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."
South Korea announces state intention to resume administration
On January 18, 1952, South Korea, a non-signatory state to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, announced the Presidential Declaration of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas (Peace Line, Rhee Line) including Liancourt Rocks within Korean territory along the expiring MacArthur Line (SCAPIN#1033; June 22, 1946 – April 1952) before the Peace Treaty came into force on April 28.
On July 18, 1952, South Korea issued a presidential order to seize all illegal foreign vessels engaging in fishing in breach of the Peace Line.
Japanese MOFA acknowledges intention behind bombing range designation
On May 23, 1952, in a Foreign Affairs committee meeting held in the House of Representatives, Ishihara, Vice-minister of Foreigner Affairs acknowledged MOFA's intention regarding the designation of Liancourt Rocks as bombing range for Occupation Forces in response to a question raised by Yamamoto, a Diet member from the Shimane constituency: "[To] help Japan get confirmation of its territorial sovereignty over the island."[148]
Second US bombing incident over Liancourt Rocks raises doubts
On September 15, 1952, a South Korean scientific expedition aboard Chinnam-ho and a fishing crew of 23 aboard Kwangyong-ho were attacked on Liancourt Rocks waters by a mono-propellered aircraft bearing the US insignia that disappeared in the direction of Japan after dropping four bombs. The Republic of Korea Navy had initially submitted an itinerary to the United Nations Naval Commander in Busan (CTG 95.7) on Sep 7 of the expedition to visit Ulleungdo Island and Liancourt Rocks September 14 and 15. Granted approval to travel to said areas by CTG 95.7, the expedition departed Busan on Sep 12 unaware of the United States-Japan Joint Committee's bombing plan over Liancourt Rocks for Sept 15.[149]
In response to the bombing incident, the US Embassy to Japan in Tokyo transmitted a message including the following on October 3, 1952, to the US State Department:[149]
The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State... There exists a fair chance that... American bombs may cause loss of life... which will bring the Korean efforts to recapture these islands into more prominent play, and may involve the United States unhappily in the implications of that effort.
It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington.... it did not appear that they had ever before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article 2(a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks.
The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that 'Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks)... is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.' The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10, 1951.
US role in Japan's sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks
On December 9, 1953, the US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles cabled the American Embassy in Tokyo:[150][151]
US view re Takeshima is simply that of one of many signatories to the treaty. The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot... be considered as a legitimate claim for US action under the U.S.-Japan security treaty.
In 1954, James Van Fleet, a US special mission ambassador, submitted a secret report to U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower after a round of visits to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East summarised:
[T]he United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty... Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute.
Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory. This is very serious and permanent irritant in Japan-ROK relations and there can be no over-all ROK-Japan settlement until this Japanese island is returned to Japan. Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan.
While we should press strongly for return of Takeshima to Japan, if by any chance new regime were unwilling to do so we should, as very minimum, insist that they agree to submit matter to International Court of Justice for arbitration.
Proposal to settle before ICJ rejected
In September 1954 and March 1962, Japan proposed to South Korea that the dispute be referred to the International Court of Justice, but South Korea rejected the proposals. Japan again proposed bringing the dispute to the International Court of Justice in August 2012, which was also officially rejected by South Korea on August 30, 2012.[153][154]
Sebald predicts negative outcome in Japan's bid for UNSC action, but advises legal counsel
On November 17, 1954, Japanese Embassy Minister Shigenobu Shima asked William Sebald, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Far Eastern Affairs, and R. B. Finn, Officer in Charge of Japanese Affairs at the State Department, Washington D.C., whether the U.S. would support Japan in the Security Council if it submitted the dispute with the ROK over Liancourt Rocks.
William Sebald responded, "I have personally followed this controversy over a long period of time... although Japan is free to do as it thought best in presenting its case, the Security Council would probably want to see that all bilateral efforts have been exhausted before hearing the case."
He added, "It seems that the ROK will not submit to ICJ arbitration regardless of Security Council action." Sebald added, "It is important for Japan to keep its claim alive and not to permit its rights to be prejudiced by default... A note to the ROK or other periodic formal statements would serve this purpose."[150][unreliable source?]
When Embassy Minister Shigenobu Shima asked whether this constituted US recognition of the validity of Japan's claim, Sebald responded, "US relations with the ROK had recently improved," noting, "The US-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty is being brought into force on November 17... The general understanding had been agreed to in Seoul."[citation needed]
South Korea's crackdown on Japanese fishermen and fishing vessels
According to a report by the Japan Coast Guard, from 1947 to the end of 1965, South Korea's crackdown on Japanese fishing vessels resulted in the capture of 327 vessels and 3,911 fishermen. Since then, 142 vessels and 3,903 fishermen were returned, but 182 vessels were not returned and eight fishermen were confirmed dead.[156]
Both countries will recognize that the other claims the islets as their own territory, and neither side would object when the other made a counterargument. They agreed to regard it as a problem that would have to be resolved in the future.
If any fishing territories are demarcated in the future, both countries can use the Liancourt Rocks as their own territory to mark the boundaries. Those places where the two lines overlapped would be considered joint territory.
The status quo in which South Korea occupies the islets will be maintained, but the Koreans would not increase their police presence or build new facilities.
On April 25, 2006, President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea announced a special dialog on Korea–Japan relations, demanding Japanese government action following the apology of Japan about previous colonization of Korea.[159]
In the dialog, he said 'Dokdo is Korean territory, not an ordinary Korean territory, but Korean territory which had been carved with bitter grief. Dokdo is the first Korean territory which was deprived of when Japan colonized Korea. Japan occupied the land for the battles during Russo-Japanese war'. And he expressed that Japanese claim for Dokdo means a pursuit of the right for the occupied land by imperial invasion, hence the claim for a previous colony. He stated that Dokdo was a symbol of the recovery of Korean sovereignty.[160] This address related to a Japanese plan, announced the day before, for a maritime survey around the Liancourt Rocks.
Japan argued that as it would be undertaking the survey in its own claimed EEZ, there was no need to obtain South Korea's consent and that announcing its intentions was a simple courtesy. South Korea said it would arrest Japanese Coast Guard survey boats if they began to survey in South Korea's claimed zone. To back up its threat, it dispatched 20 gunboats to the area to conduct high seas seizure drills.[161] In these circumstances, U.S. ambassador in Tokyo, Tom Schieffer stated "The Ambassador stated the United States understands that Japan is within its rights under international law. The Koreans are behaving irrationally, and the United States is concerned that they may do something crazy, causing a major problem. Everyone needs to back off, he stressed, to enable the matter to be resolved peacefully."[162][163] In July 2006, the South Korean government sent a research ship to collect data on currents around the Liancourt Rocks and stated "research is just an act based on sovereignty". On July 5, the research vessel, followed by a South Korean escort ship, entered the area.[164]
On July 14, 2008, South Korea temporarily recalled its ambassador to Japan,[165] after the Japanese government decided to mention the dispute over the islands in the "Commentary to the Curriculum Guideline" (学習指導要領解説, Gakushū shidō yōryō kaisetsu) for social study classes in junior high school.[166] The Korean Coast Guard strengthened its early warning system as a preventative measure against any possible attempt by Japanese right-wing groups to land on the islets.[167] On July 18, 2008, there was a protest in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul.[168][169] The South Korean government considered sending marines to replace a police contingent on Dokdo to thwart Japan's territorial claim to the islets.[170]
Prime MinisterHan Seung-soo expressed strong dissatisfaction for Japan's Education Ministry.[171] The South Korean government is also considering building infrastructure to provide tap water, establishing an oceanic scientific base, dispatching public officials to the area, allowing free public access to the islets, and turning Dokdo into a resort area with hotels.[171]
South Korea rejected a Japanese offer for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the annual ASEAN regional security summit in Singapore.[172]North Korea also rejected Japan's sovereignty over the islands and expressed support for South Korean control of the islands.[173] Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary expressed concern that military tensions would escalate.[172]
In July 2008, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) changed the name of the country to which Liancourt Rocks belong from South Korea to Undesignated Sovereignty and also changed the name from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks". Responding to this change, Gonzalo R. Gallegos, Acting Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. State Department, said on July 28, 2008 that the United States has long maintained a policy stance of neutrality on the islets, and that the latest change does not represent any policy change within the U.S. government.[174][175]
The classification of the Liancourt Rocks as Undesignated Sovereignty in the BGN database was reversed on July 30 under the order of U.S. President George W. Bush, once again marking the status of Liancourt Rocks under South Korean control.[176][177][178][179][180]
President Lee's 2012 visit to the Liancourt Rocks
Demonstration in Seoul asserting Korean claim to Dokdo
On August 10, 2012, the President of South Korea, Lee Myung-Bak, visited the Liancourt Rocks, which made him the first South Korean president to do so.[181][182] Japan temporarily withdrew its ambassador to South Korea, Masatoshi Muto, and Minister for Foreign AffairsKōichirō Gemba summoned the South Korean ambassador to file a complaint[183] and threatened to lodge a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was rejected by South Korea. It could do so because both countries party to a dispute must agree to such ICJ cases. It was the first time for Japan to make such a move in 47 years, since Japan and South Korea officially re-established relations in 1965.[184]
2012 Japanese proposal to settle before ICJ
On August 21, 2012 Japan officially proposed to South Korea that the two countries refer the dispute to the ICJ,[185] which was officially rejected by South Korea on August 30, 2012.[153]
North Korea's attitude toward the Liancourt Rocks dispute
North Korea's legal standpoint on the dispute is largely identical with that of the South Korean government. On October 13, 1998, the Korean Central News Agency summarized the state's views as follows: "The islet is part of the Korean territory in view of the principles of discovery, possession, and use, which are internationally recognized irrefutable evidence of legal possession of no-man's island and in view of a legislative step of a state to possess it." The historical sources cited by North Korean authors were usually the same as the ones which South Korean scholars relied on, and KCNA repeatedly mentioned the discoveries made by ROK researchers.[186]
Laying the main stress on historical arguments, the North Korean authorities were less keen on emphasizing the principle of effective possession (a keystone of the South Korean standpoint), for this would have recognized the Republic of Korea as a legitimate state entity. Since both the ROK and the DPRK have been prone to consider themselves as the sole legitimate government on the Korean Peninsula, the North Korean authorities, though they never consented to Japan's territorial claims, often found it inconvenient to side with Seoul against Tokyo in the dispute. In those periods when North Korea was on better terms with Japan than with the ROK (like 1955–1964, 1970–1977, and 1997–1998), North Korean propaganda essentially ignored the problem of the Liancourt Rocks. However, if Pyongyang felt threatened by Japanese-South Korean rapprochement (as in 1965–1968) or sought to cooperate with Seoul against Tokyo (as in 2000–2001), the North Korean media promptly raised the issue, with the aim of causing friction in Japanese-ROK relations.[187]
In August 2018, following the Japanese decision of describing the Liancourt Rocks as "pertaining to Japan" and "illegally occupied" by Korea in high school textbooks effective 2019, KCNA published a news piece condemning the Japanese claim to the islands, once again using historical arguments to back the Korean standpoint.[188]
^Dokdo in the East Sea Detailed consideration, old maps and other resources on Dokdo Historical Issues by Northeast Asian History Foundation, in 4 languages
^"10 Issues of Takeshima, MOFA, Feb 2008"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on September 13, 2008. p. 4; Article 2, para. 2: "Such description... rather reminds us of Utsuryo Island."
para. 3: "A study... criticizes... that Usan Island and Utsuryo Island are two names for one island."
para. 4: "that island does not exist at all in reality."
^(in Korean) "十三年夏六月,于山國帰服,歳以士宜為貢于山國,在溟州正東海島,或名欝陵島,地方一百里,恃嶮不服,伊異斯夫,為何瑟羅州軍主,謂于山人愚悍難以威来,可以計服,乃多造木偶師子,分載戦船,抵其国海岸誑告白,汝若不服,則放此猛獣,踏殺之,國人恐懼則降." The character "do" (島) refers to island, whereas "guk" (國) refers to state/nation. See 三国史記「干山国帰服す」画像Archived December 23, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. 三国史記-卷四·新羅本紀·智証麻立干 智証王13年(512年)夏6月条
^Kazuo Hori. "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905". Korea Observer. Autumn 1997. p. 480
^(in Japanese) "命議政府議處流山國島人江原道觀察使報云流山國島人白加勿等十二名來泊高城於羅津言曰予等生長武陵其島内人戸十一男女共六十餘今移居本島是島自東至西自南至北皆二息周回八息無牛馬水田唯種豆一斗出二十石或三十石麥一石出五十餘石竹如大椽海錯果木皆在焉竊慮此人等逃還姑分置于通州高城扞城" See 架空の「流山国島」が記された太宗実録12年4月巳巳条の原文画像Archived December 23, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
^法学研究論集(studies in law) 第6号 濱田太郎(Ph.D. Hamada) p297 "「于山島」には人が居住し、竹などが産出されることなどが記されているが、竹島には人の居住に適さないし、樹木は生えない(It is recorded that persons live in Usan-do, and the bamboo etc. are yielded. But Liancourt Rocks is not suitable for the person's residence and the tree can't grow in the island)"
^世宗實錄地理志江原道三陟都護府蔚珍縣 "于山、武陵二島在縣正東海中。二島相去不遠, 風日淸明, 則可望見。", National Institute of Korean History
^(in Japanese) "朝鮮時代の地誌では、島嶼を記録する場合は、その海島を所管する群県の所在地からの方向と、陸地からの距離が明記される決まりになっていた。 (When the Korean topography records in the Joseon dynasty described islands, it was regulated to write the direction from the local government and the distance from the land.) See "朝鮮時代の地誌での、島の位置の記述方法". Archived from the original on December 23, 2007. Retrieved March 10, 2009.. 竹島は日韓どちらのものか by Prof. Shimojyo.
^"Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on January 27, 2016. Retrieved August 19, 2012.((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) 西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中 有一島 杳在辰方 而其大未滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里
^登島山峰 審望彼國之域 則杳茫無眼杓之島 其遠近未知幾許 "Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on January 27, 2016. Retrieved August 19, 2012.((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^肅宗27巻,20年8月14日己酉 "本島峰巒樹木, 自陸地歴歴望見, 而凡其山川紆曲, 地形闊狭, 民居遺址, 土物所産, 倶載於我国《輿地勝覧》書, 歴代相伝, 事跡昭然", National Institute of Korean History.
^Shin, Yong-Ha, in "Disputes over Ullungdo and Tokdo at the End of the 17th Century"., says, "An Yong-bok's activity proved highly successful, because the lord of Tsushima sent Judge Tairano Naritsune to Korea in January 1697 to notify the Korean government of the Kanpaku's decision. By 1699, the diplomatic notes had been exchanged and all the formalities had been cleared to recognize Korea's title to Ullungdo and Dokdo.
After the An Yong-bok incident and the Kanpaku's reconfirmation of Korea's title to Ullungdo and Tokdo around the end of the 17th century, no documentary records of the period showed Japan's claim to these two islands."
^"1696 Ahn Yong-bok's second visit to Japan: Part I". August 23, 2019. Naito Seichu (ないとう せいちゅう 內藤正中) raises doubts as to the accuracy of An's testimony regarding the Kanpaku document. He denies the existence of the Kanpaku document claimed by An. 'When An Yong-bok was transferred to Tottori, the feudal lord could not have met An because he had gone to Edo. There was initially no such document as given An stating Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory. On the contrary, An Yong-bok and Park Eo-Dun were forcefully taken because they had trespassed at Takeshima, considered Japanese territory. It is impossible that the Tottori hanshu could have issued papers stating territorial title to Koreans who had been arrested.' (Dokdo and Takeshima, pp. 101, 147)
^"[숙종실록] 비변사에서 안용복 등을 추문하다". The primary source of the An Yong-bok statement is The Annals of King Sukjong, 22nd reign year (1696), 9th moon, 25th. "以鬱陵子山等島 定以朝鮮地界 至有關白書契"
^"신증동국여지승람 소재 팔도총도(八道總圖)" [Sinjeung donggugyeoji Seunglam Paldochongdo]. Dokdo Museum. Archived from the original on February 15, 2016. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
^下条正男(Prof. Shimojyo) 諸君！2007年9月号 p98"その結果、東国輿地志には「一説に言う、于山鬱稜島本一島」とあったことがわかった。(As a result, it turned out that Yeojiji stated as "Usan-do and Ulleung-do are spoken of as the same island, too.")"[2]
^"image of document appended to Daijō-kan Directive of Mar 20, 1877 明治十年三月二十日 太政官指令文 附屬文書". Shin, Yong Ha, "磯竹島一ニ竹島ト稱ス. 隱岐國ノ乾位一百二拾里許ニ在ス. 周回凡九 [sic]十里許山峻嶮ニシテ平地少シ. 川三條アリ. 又瀑布アリ. 然レトモ深谷幽邃樹竹稠密其源ヲ知ル能ハス... 動物ニハ 海鹿 ...就中海鹿鮑ヲ物産ノ最トス....又海鹿一頭能ク數斗ノ油ヲ得ヘシ.
次ニ一島アリ松島ト呼フ. 周回三十町許竹島ト同一線路ニ在リ. 隱岐ヲ距ル八拾里許 樹竹稀ナリ. 亦魚獸ヲ産ス." "Isotakeshima is also called 'Takeshima' (modern Matsushima, Ulleung Island). It is located 120 ri (里 here is kairi 浬/海里 or nautical mile of 1.852km; 120 x 1.852km = 222.24 km) to the north of Okikuni. Its circumference is around 10 ri (里 here is unit of distance 3.927km; 10 x 3.927 = 39.27 km); its slopes are steep, and flatlands few. There are three streams and even a waterfall. The bamboos and trees are dense in the deep ravines, and where they begin is unknowable... [Among the catch,] the most abundant are sea lions and abalones... Furthermore, several tomasu (斗 refers to a volume roughly equivalent to 5 gallons) of oil is to be got from one head of sea lion.
Next is an island called 'Matsushima 松島' (modern Takeshima, Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks). Its circumference is roughly 30 chou (町 109 m; 30 chou is ca 3.27 km), which is on the same sea route as 'Takeshima 竹島' (modern Matsushima or Ulleung Island). It is roughly 80 ri (80 x 1.852km = 148.16 km) from Oki. Trees and bamboos are rare, but it also produces fish and (other) sea animals." p. 167, Tokto ui minjok yongtosa yongu, Chisik Sanopsa; 1st edition (1996)
ISBN89-423-1036-2; passage a faithful translation from Shin Yong Ha's transliteration (except for 凡九十里 which is corrected to 凡十里 after collation with two images reproduced by Shin) and translation from Japanese original text to Korean, re-translated to English; in notes not part of original text or Shin's but provided by contributor for readers' convenience
^"'Takeshima' and Another Island in Japan's Daijō-kan Directive 일본 태정관 지령문의 죽도외 1도". July 6, 2009.date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes )) Transcribes and translates two letters exchanged between Shimane Prefecture and the Internal Ministry in 1876 that lead to the 1877 decision in the Daijō-kan Directive; In summary, it says, "In the year 1876 when Japan was conducting a nationwide land registry and mapping project, the Internal Ministry requested Shimane Prefecture of information regarding Ulleung-do (then 'Takeshima 竹島') on Oct 5 (明治九年十月五日). On Oct 16, same year (明治九年十月十六日), Shimane Prefecture submitted relevant documents including a map inquiring after guidelines on dealing with two islets instead (竹島外一島). The map called A Rough Map of Isotakeshima 磯竹島略圖 (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1877-docmap-1.jpg), which came from the Otani (大谷) clan of Shimane, shows Isotakeshima (磯竹島; today's Ulleung Island) and Matsushima (まつしま 松島; today's Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks) exclusively in addition to the northern tip of Okishima. This map shared by Shimane Prefecture, the Internal Ministry, and the Supreme Council (Daijō-kan) can mean only that they were in an unambiguous agreement on which island they meant by 'another island 外一島': 'Matsushima 松島', which has since been renamed Takeshima 竹島 also known as Liancourt Rocks and Dokdo."
^"Myung Chul Hyun, Korean Observer, Spring Edition 1998". Archived from the original on October 28, 2009.((cite web)): CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) Translation of the annexed text:
"Isonotakeshima (Ulleungdo) is also called Takeshima. It is 120 ri (222km) northwest of Oki. The island is about 10 ri (40km) around... Next there is another island which is called Matsushima (Dokdo). The area of this island is approximately 30 chongbo (73 acres) and is on the same straight latitude as Ulleungdo. It is 80 ri (148km) from Oki. Trees and bamboo are scarce, sea lions live there."
The distance given here is in ri (리,り,里) There were two forms of ri used at this time in Japan. One was a standard ri of 4km (Used for land measurements). It was used in the circumference of Ulleungdo in this document (10 里 = 40km). The other was a nautical ri or nautical mile which equalled 1.852 meters. Nautical 里 or miles are/were used in international law and treaties especially regarding the limit of territorial waters. There can be no doubt given the location, name, and description the island referred to in this document was today's Dokdo.
The ratio of the real distances in kilometers and the distances in 里 on the 1877 document are about the same.
120里:80里 (distance on 1877 document ratio=.66)
240km:157km (actual distance ratio in km =.65)
^"Shimane Prefecture document sent to the Meiji government regarding "Takeshima and another island."". August 21, 2022. Prof. Shimojo Masao's reference to the 1881 survey is out of context as the designation of the two islands are quite different: "As a matter of fact, Matsushima as 'another island' in Dajoukan order turned out to be today's Ulleundo three years later (1880), and 'Takeshima' in the order was identified as today's Jukdo which locates 2km east of Ulleundo until 1881." The 1876–1877 documents of Dajoukan and the Ministry of Home Affairs clearly demonstrate that, at the time of the investigation of the islands based on historical documents, "Takeshima" refers to modern Ulleung-do and "Matsushima", modern Liancourt Rocks.
^Shin Yong-Ha (July 8, 2008). "1900년 대한제국칙령41호 독도영유권 국제적 재선언".
"대한제국이 1900년 칙령 제41호로 독도(石島:석도, 獨島)의 울도군수 행정관리를 통한 영유를 중앙정부의 관보에 게재한 것은 '국제적 고시'의 성격을 갖는다. 왜냐하면 중앙정부 관보는 의무적으로 대한제국의 체약국 공사관에 발송되고, 각국 공사관도 이 중앙정부의 관보를 반드시 보기 때문이다. 따라서 대한제국의 1900년 칙령 제41호의 관보 고시는 대한제국이 울릉도와 독도의 영유를 재선언한 것이었다. '재선언'이라고 한 것은 이미 15세기에 '동국여지승람'에서 우산도(독도)의 조선 영유가 당시 조선의 교역국가에 선언됐기 때문이다."
^These islands are being transferred from Uljin County to Uldo County (mod. Ulleung County). According to Geographical Treatise, Annals of King Sejong, Gangwon Province, Uljin Prefecture, the islands of Usan and Mulung are in the Eastern Sea; they are close enough to be visible from each other on a clear day. During the Shilla period, they were called Usan'gug or Ulleungdo.
^"Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County". July 13, 1906, edition of the daily, Hwang Seong Shinmun, reported: "The [Japanese] Resident-General sent an official letter to the [Korean] Ministry of the Interior asking for a clarification as to which islands belonged to Ulleung (sic.) Island, which was (sic.) under the administration of Samcheok County (sic) in Gangwon Province, and which year and month the County Office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Directorate was established on May 20, 1898, and that the County Magistrate was stationed on October 25, 1900, as a result of the government's decision. The County seat is at Taehadong (태하동 台霞洞), with islands of Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島). [The Island of Uldo] measures sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south with a circumference of 200 ri in total."
^"MOFA: Incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture".See 2. Background (5) and (6). Note the misrepresentation of Sokdo (석도 石島) as "Ishi-jima"; as a credible governmental document offered to English speakers, the island should have been referred to as "Seokdo" in the current standard of romanisation of a Korean place name. This error, however, is corrected, on page 9 in the Feb 2008 MOFA document, "10 Issues of Takeshima". ("Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on September 13, 2008. Retrieved July 25, 2008.((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link))
^Shin Yong-Ha (July 8, 2008). "1900년 대한제국칙령41호 독도영유권 국제적 재선언".
"대한제국 정부는 칙령 제41호에서 울릉도 주민들의 호칭인 '독섬'을 의역하여 '石島'라 한 것이다. '독섬'을 뜻을 취해 한자 표기하면 '石島'가 되고, 발음을 취해 한자 표기하면 '獨島'가 되는 것이다."
"대한제국 정부가 칙령 제41조를 발표할 때 각 섬의 명칭을 약간씩 수정했는데, 울릉도를 울도라 개칭하고, 죽서도를 죽도라고 했으며, 우산도에 대한 어민들의 명칭인 '독섬' '독도'를 의역해 한자로 '石島'로 번역 표기했다."
^Song Byung-ki. "Korean Title to Dokdo as Evidenced in Korean Sources (국내 자료(資料)를 통해 본 한국(韓國)의 독도영유권獨島領有權)". "" (석도(石島)는 어느 섬을 가리키는 것일까. 우선 울릉전도(鬱陵全島), 즉 울릉본도(鬱陵本島)와 이에 부속된 작은 섬·바위들과 죽도를 제외하고 나면, 울릉도 주변에 잇는 도서로서는 오직 오늘의 독도(獨島)가 남을 뿐이다. 또 석도를 훈독(訓讀)하면 '독섬' 혹은 '돌섬'이 되는데, 지금도 울릉도 주민들은 독도를 '독섬' 혹은 '돌섬'이라 부르고 있다. 이렇게 볼 때 이 제2조 후단의 석도는 바로 독도를 가리키는 것이다. 1906년 (광무 10)에 울도군수(鬱島郡守) 심흥택(沈興澤)이 강원도관찰사 서리 이명래(李明來)에게 보낸 보고서에서 '독도운운(獨島云云)'한 독도16) 는 이 석도, 즉 '독섬'에서 차음(借音)한 것이라 하겠다.)
^Kazuo Hori, "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905", Korea Observer Vol XXVII, No 3, Autumn 1997, p. 509, quotes Hong Chae-hyon (홍재현; born 1862) who moved to this island in 1883, who recalled [in 1947], "at the time of the development [in the 1880s], the people on Ulleungdo discovered Tokdo immediately, and went to Tokdo many times to harvest kelp (konbu) and abalone and to catch sea lions. I myself went there several dozens of times." Taehan Gongnonsa (Korean Public Information Service), ed., Tokdo (Seoul: 1965), p. 30
^Kazuo Hori, "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905", Korea Observer Vol XXVII, No 3, Autumn 1997, p. 511: "The Japanese government... made the Korean government acknowledge in the Korea-Japan protocol that Japan would temporarily expropriate the places needed for military purposes."
^Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law"(PDF). p. 19, "Korea was forced to sign a treaty of protocol which provided, among other things: "Japan shall temporarily expropriate places considered necessary for military purposes." This clause applied to the lease of fishing grounds to Nakai, a fisherman from Shimane prefecture. Tokdo, thus leased, was finally incorporated into Okinoshima in Shimane prefecture on February 22, 1905, when Japan's victory became decisive after the sea battle of Port Arthur on February 8."
^Asia Today, August 13, 2008 (August 13, 2008). "한일의정서에 대한제국 영토 보증".((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) "한일의정서는 대한제국의 독립을 박탈하려는 데는 이르지 못했다. 실제로 한일의정서 제 3조에도 "대일본제국정부는 대한제국의 독립과 영토보전을 확실히 보증할 것"이라고 명확히 명기했다. 하지만 일본은 다음해인 1905년 2월 22일 독도를 일본령으로 편입 결정하는 조치를 단행함으로써 스스로 명기한 대한제국의 영토보전 약속을 어겼다. 대다수 전문가들은 여기에 일본의 독도 영유권 주장의 가장 큰 허점이 있다고 주장한다. 고려대 한국사학과 정태헌 교수는 "독립국 대한제국 영토를 일본이 자국령으로 편입시켰다면 이는 독립국의 영토를 조약도 없이 강제로 약탈한 것으로 당연히 국제법 위반"이라고 지적했다."
^Article 4 of the Japan-Korea Protocol was to continue in force even after the signing of the Eulsa Treaty of November 17, 1905, which states in Article 4: "The stipulations of all treaties existing between Japan and Korea not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement shall continue in force." The text of the Eulsa Treaty can be found below in full."The 1905 Agreement (Korean-Japanese Agreement, Nov 17, 1905)".
^Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law"(PDF). p. 27, "[Japan's] Foreign Ministry states: " Article 4 of the Korean-Japanese Protocol originally provided for temporary expropriation of places strategically deemed necessary for the preservation of Korea's territorial integrity during the Russo-Japanese War and had nothing to do with the incorporation of Tokdo." end note 95: Japan Foreign Ministry, Kaigai chosa geppo (Overseas Research Monthly), Nov. 1954.
^Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law"(PDF). p. 37, "So far as the "incorporation" or "prior occupation" of Tokdo by Japan is presumed to have been an act of seizure or aggression against Korea's title, Japan should prove this prima facie evidence that the act was not committed by "violence and greed." Unless this burden of proof is removed, Japan should find itself bound by the "restrictive character" under international agreements (Cairo Declatation-Postam Declaration-Surrender instruments) as shown in the Frontier case. Here, the relative strength of evidence, seen in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, to contradistinguish evidence does not apply."
^"Who was Nakai Yozaburo?". Archived from the original on October 28, 2009.((cite web)): CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
Compiled by Mark Lovmo; see bibliography for sources.
^"Nakai Yozaburo and The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion". Archived from the original on August 15, 2012. The text has been identified as that of Kazuo Hori's from "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905", Korea Observer Vol XXVII, No 3, Autumn 1997, conveyed by Steve Barber.
^"Aug 28, 2005, Sanin Chuo article 發信竹島-眞の日韓親善に向けて 第２部 勅令ＶＳ閣議決定 – 明治時代 – (6) 無主先占". Archived from the original on December 6, 2008. 下條正男・拓殖大教授「ポイントは二つある。まず、竹島を他国が占領したと認められる形跡がないことを確認した。さらに、中井の漁業会社が小屋を構えていることを、国際法上の占領の事実とした。これらのことから、竹島を『無主先占』の地であると判断した」
Prof. Shimojo Masao of Takushoku University said, "There are only two points. First, it has been confirmed there is no evidence to recognise the occupation of Takeshima by any other country. Second, Nakai's fishing company has constructed a shed there; this is a fact of occupation under international law . From these facts, [the Japanese government] determined Takeshima is to have been subject to prior occupation of a terra nullius (無主先占)."
^"search key Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, pp. 365–366". Archived from the original on July 22, 2011.
Professor Kim Myung-Ki summarises: "The Japanese government stated on Feb 10, 1954, that Japan['s] announcing [of] prior occupation of territory... has satisfied the requisite conditions under international law,"
MOFA of Korea, Tokdo kwan'gye charyojip (Collection of Data on Tokdo) (I) Wangbok oegyio munso (Diplomatic Correspondence Exchanged); Chipmu charyo (Reference Material for Staff), (Seoul: MFA, 1997), p. 55
^MOFA of Korea, Tokdo kwan'gye charyojip (Collection of Data on Tokdo) (I) Wangbok oegyio munso (Diplomatic Correspondence Exchanged); Chipmu charyo (Reference Material for Staff), (Seoul: MFA, 1997), pp. 234, 236, 250 via Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, p. 361, MOFA of Japan stated in a memorandum of July 3, 1962, "The Japanese government has made clear the position of its claim that Takeshima is Japan's inherent territory from olden times and is now reconfirming repeatedly that position."
^Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905, by Kazuo Hori "It is certain that many Korean people learned through this newspaper coverage of the Japanese move to incorporate Takeshima/Tokdo into its territory and must have read it as an aggression into Korean territory. For example, Hwang Hyon who lived in Kurye, Chollado, at that time writes in a note that "the Japanese are making a false statement that Tokdo belongs to Japan while it is our own territory."
^Hara Kimie. "New Light on the Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on August 28, 2006., p. 9: "The Canberra Conference was held among the Commonwealth countries in August 1947 to discuss a peace treaty with Japan. Before signing a peace treaty which would determine the final position of territories as a result of the war, Japan had to appeal to the nations concerned."
UK National Archives Memorandum. "Canberra Conference, 1947". "At the suggestion of the United Kingdom and Australian Governments, a meeting of British Commonwealth countries was held at Canberra at the end of August 1947 in order to exchange views as a preliminary to an international conference about the peace settlement with Japan. The meeting was attended by delegations from Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Burma."
^"Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State on June 1, 1951".
During the discussions in Washington, the British agreed to drop this proposal when the U.S. pointed to the psychological disadvantages of seeming to fence Japan in by a continuous line around Japan. The Japanese had objected to the British proposal when it was discussed with them in Tokyo. U.S. willingness to specify in the treaty that Korean territory included Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet also helped to persuade the British.
^Shin Yong-Ha. "SCAPIN NO.677 and Reversion of Tokdo". Archived from the original on January 25, 2013. "On June 22, 1946 SCAPIN No. 1033 was issued in which Clause 5 set up the fishing and whaling areas permitted for Japanese fishermen and prohibited Japanese ships and crews from entering the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) seas off the Liancourt Rocks at 37°15" N. latitude and 131°53"E. longitude and approaching the island."
^Shin Yong-Ha. "SCAPIN NO.677 and Reversion of Tokdo". Archived from the original on January 25, 2013.. "Clause 5 of the instruction provides that 'the definition of the Japan contained in the directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from the Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.' Therefore, without another specific instruction by SCAP this definition could not be changed and would continue to be binding."
^Shin Yong-Ha. "SCAPIN NO.677 and Reversion of Tokdo". Archived from the original on January 25, 2013.. "In accordance with this instruction, SCAP transferred the jurisdiction over Tokdo to the U.S. Army Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946. When the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on August 15, 1948, all the territories of Korea, including Tokdo, automatically reverted to the Korean government."
^"U.S. – U.K. Meeting".The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary to avoid confusion.
^"William J Sebald and the Dokdo Territorial Dispute (html)". Archived from the original on December 10, 2008. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
Jung Byung-Joon, Korea Focus, 13:4 July–August 2005, pp 55–81, gives a detailed account of the comprehensive efforts of the Japanese Foreign Office Treaty Department and the Executive Committee for Research on the Peace Treaty and William Sebald's role in the exchange of national needs of Japan and the US in the negotiating process. Originally published in Yukbi, Critical Review of History, Vol 71, Summer 2005. (Minor textual corruption exists; see the pdf version below for accurate text.)
^Jung Byung-Joon, Korea Focus, 13:4 July–August 2005, p. 68
^Lee Seok-Woo, The San Francisco Peace Treaty, North-east Asian History Foundation, Seoul 2006, ISBN89-91448-68-2, OCLC328595053. pp.56–60
^long passage of three paragraphs summarised from Lee Seok-Woo, in "The Resolution of the Dispute over the Liancourt Rocks", p. 58
^Lee Seok-Woo, in "The Resolution of the Dispute over the Liancourt Rocks", p. 12, quotes an excerpt from a USNARA document without a classification number, USDOS 1954b, "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (Otherwised (sic) Known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)", 1954/8/26, "[I]f one were to assess the merits of these claims, without reference to the peace treaty, a more thorough study, with the guidance of experts in Oriental history, would have to be made."
^Jung Byung-Joon, Korea Focus, 13:4 July–August 2005, p. 73
^In contrast, the corresponding Korean claims made on August 5, 1948, had a relatively low impact, according to which, many of the Japanese claims are proven selective, manipulative or inaccurate.
^"Historical Perception of Dokdo 1 (우리 역사속의 독도 인식 1)". Archived from the original on December 5, 2008. "1451년(문종 원년)에 편찬된 『고려사지리지』에는 "울릉도가 (울진)현 정동쪽 바다 가운데에 있다. 신라 때에는 우산국이라 칭했고, 무릉, 우릉이라고도 한다.... 일설에는 우산 무릉은 원래 두개의 섬으로 거리가 서로 멀지 않아 날씨가 맑으면 바라보는 것이 가능하다.(有鬱陵島 在縣正東海中 新羅時稱于山國 一云武陵 一云羽陵... 一云于山武陵本二島 相距不遠 風日淸明 則可望見(「高麗史」 권58 地理3, 東界 蔚珍縣條)"
^BAEK In-ki, SHIM Mun-bo, Korea Maritime Institute. "A study of Distance between Ulleungdo and Dokdo and Ocean Currents (울릉도와 독도의 거리와 해류에 관한 연구) Dec 2006"(PDF).((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[permanent dead link] pp. 101–102 "Jang, Han-Sang wrote that both an island (Dokdo) and Daegwan Pass (on the mainland) are visible from Mt Seong'in, to the southeast at 300 ri and to the west respectively... Facts and Evidence of Ulleungdo by Jang, Han-Sang, records a visual description of Liancourt Rocks from Seong'in Mt.: 'To the southeast of Ulleungdo at a distance of some 300 ri lies an island not quite one third the dimensions of Ulleungdo.' The distance he gives overestimates the actual distance by about 28 km. (장한상은 울릉도 성인봉에서 동남쪽 300여리에 섬(독도)이 보이고 서쪽에 대관령이 보인다 하였다... 장한상張漢相의『울릉도사적蔚陵島事蹟』에는 울릉도 성인봉에서 독도를 묘사한 기록이 담겨있다. 울릉도의 진방(辰方, 동남방) 300여리에 울릉도 1/3이 안되는 섬이 있다고 기록하였는데, 이 거리는 실제거리인 약 92km 보다 28km 정도 더 멀게 표현하였다."
^"Usando Turns Out to be Liancourt Rocks ('우산도'는 역시 독도였다)". Archived from the original on June 12, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2009. "한국해양수산개발원 독도연구센터 책임연구원인 유미림(柳美林) 박사는 최근 이 개발원이 발간하는 '해양수산동향' 1250호에서 "조선 후기 박세당(朴世堂·1629~1703)이 쓴 '울릉도'를 분석한 결과, 우산도는 울릉도가 아닌 독도를 지칭하는 것으로 밝혀졌다"고 말했다... 조선 후기 주요 학자 중의 한 사람인 서계(西溪) 박세당의 기록 '울릉도'를 분석한 결과는 달랐다. 이 글은 박세당의 11대 후손이 2001년 한국학중앙연구원에 기탁한 '서계 종택 고문서' 중 '서계잡록'에 실려 있는 필사본으로, 지금까지 사료의 존재가 일반에게 알려지지 않았었다. 박세당은 이 글에서 배를 타고 울릉도에 갔다가 돌아온 승려로부터 전해들은 얘기를 기록하면서 이렇게 언급했다."대개 두 섬(울릉도와 우산도)이 그다지 멀지 않아 한번 큰 바람이 불면 닿을 수 있는 정도다. 우산도는 지세가 낮아, 날씨가 매우 맑지 않거나 최고 정상에 오르지 않으면 (울릉도에서) 보이지 않는다(不因海氣極淸朗, 不登最高頂, 則不可見."
^Gyungbuk Daily (경북일보) (July 21, 2008). "Dokdo Visible to the Unaided Eye (경북도 파견 김철환씨 사진 공개 울릉도서 독도 모습 뚜렷이 보여)". "울릉군청에 근무하다가 현재 경상북도 환경해양산림국에 파견근무중인 김철환(43)씨... 는 지난 2004년과 2007년에 울릉도에서 촬영된 독도사진 2 점과 지난 2006년 독도에서 촬영한 울릉도 사진을 공개했다... 김 씨는 1968년 일본의 국토지리원이 "울릉도에서 독도는 보이지않는다"는 주장을 반박하기 위해 지난1999년에도 수개월간의 시도 끝에 북면 천부리 석포마을(해발360m)에서 사진촬영에 성공, 일본국토지리원의 허구성을 알렸다. 김씨는 맑은 날이면 울릉도에서 87.4km 떨어진 독도를 육안으로 볼 수 있는 날은 1년 중 30~40 일 정도이며 해발 100 m 이상 동쪽고지에서 어디서나 육안 조망이 가능하다고 설명했다."
^"MBC Pohang 29th anniversary special documentary Usan-guk "우산국 보기" (movie file)". Archived from the original on March 15, 2005. "Petroglyphs depicting whaling expeditions discovered in Uljin, South Gyungsang Province, Korea, attest to the antiquity of Korean navigation skills in the Sea of Japan not later than early bronze age Korea. Lee, Won-Sik, Director of Ennin Ancient Naval Technology Research Institute (원인고대선박연구소), says, 'Prehistoric Koreans built ships strong enough to withstand whaling expeditions and long-range navigation... Due to the diffusion of naval technology, ships in east coast Silla and west coast Japan shared an essentially identical design.'"
Bangudae Petroglyphs: "Other depictions of whales show it carrying calves... This type of stone-working technique suggests that the engravings were made towards the end of the Neolithic or the start of the Bronze Age."
^"What Whale species are represented in Ban'gudae Petroglyphs? (반구대 바위그림에는 어떤 고래가 있을까?)". February 27, 2008. "A variety of petroglyphs depicting cetacean species occur in Ban'gudae; distinguishing features of the Korean gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), the killer whale (Orcinus orca), and the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) are depicted with vivid realism. Furthermore, scenes of whale hunting using harpoons and throw nets reveal the details of a typical hunting expedition; anatomical cross sections of whale game is also noteworthy. (반구대에는 고래와 관련된 다양한 바위그림이 등장한다. 귀신고래, 혹등고래, 범고래, 긴 수염고래 등 종류별 고래의 특징이 사실적으로 새겨져 있다. 뿐만 아니라 투창이나 투망을 이용해 고래를 잡았던 당시의 생활상이 확인되고 고래의 해체 단면도까지 확인된다.)"
^The absence of the identification as the Korean Government in Exile or the Interim Korean Government is because the United States Army Military Government in Korea had declared itself the only legitimate government on the Korean peninsula, rendering illegal any other existing government claiming sovereignty over Korea.
^Ham Sok Hon Ham Seok-heon[3]. "1.3. A Corrupt Christian Regime and Inefficient Government". Archived from the original on January 24, 2013. ((cite web)): External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) "In south Korea numerous political parties sprang up. As early as August 16, 1945, some Koreans formed a Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, and Yo Unhyong (Lyuh Woonhyung: 1885–1947) organized the left-wing Korean People's Republic (KPR). But on entering south Korea, the American commander Lt. Gen. Hodge declined to acknowledge any sort of political organization, stressing that USAMGIK was the 'only' government. USAMGIK suppressed any kind of political movement from above, disbanded the People's Committees, ordered the KPR dissolved, and annulled the Provisional Government, headed by the nationalist leader Kim Ku."
^
Bryan Robert Gibby. "Fighting in a Korean War: The American Advisory Missions from 1946–1953". Archived from the original on December 8, 2008. Retrieved February 15, 2009. pp. 23–24: "To be fair to the Americans, Hodge's task to maintain order was vague: 'suppress activities of individuals and organizations which may be inimical to the operations of the occupation force.' Hodge also had the military task to receive the surrender of Japanese forces, disarm them, and repatriate them as soon as possible. Beyond that, his mandate for political, social, or economic reconstruction was ambiguous.17 As a result, circumstances forced Hodge to play for time, which had nearly catastrophic results. Immediately upon Japan's capitulation, fearful colonial officials in Korea had attempted strike a deal with prominent Koreans. They convinced a moderate Korean, Yo Un-hyong, to accept responsibility for maintaining order while awaiting the tardy Americans. Yo agreed, but only under conditions that would exclude any Japanese or pro-Japanese Korean from exercising influence or power.18 From Liberation Day (August 15) to September 8, Yo and his left-leaning organization, the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, effectively governed Korea and managed to control violence while planting the seeds of national feeling. On September 6, Yo's partisans even declared the birth of the Korean People's Republic.19 This act unsettled Hodge's sense of good order, particularly as military, quasi-military, youth group organizations that answered to no central authority proliferated. In any event, the United States Army Forces in Korea (USAFIK), which included both the XXIV Corps and the military government, was supposed to be the central authority, and Hodge wanted to make sure there was little doubt of that.
To erase any doubts, Hodge unceremoniously dumped Yo, explaining 'There is only one government in South Korea – the United States Army Military Government.'20"
^Lee Seok-Woo, in "The Resolution of the Dispute over the Liancourt Rocks", p. 13, quotes the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration: "[T]he unity theory might find a modest and suitable place, for the Mohabbakahs have always been considered as one group, sharing the same legal destiny."
^"The June 8, 1948 Bombing of Dokdo Island". Archived from the original on October 28, 2009. also published in
Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society – Korea Branch, Vol. 78 (2003), pp. 21–33.
International Journal of Korean History, Vol. 4, (August 2003), pp. 261–278.
^""1948년 6월 독도폭격사건" (The Bombing Incident of June, 1948)".
Ju Ganghyeon, Director of Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute and visiting scholar with Jeju University, quotes a survey conducted by international jurist Hong, Sung-geun.
^Hong Sung-Geun 홍성근. "독도폭격사건의 진상규명과 주요쟁점". 2001 study reported before the National Assembly, Republic of Korea
^"8. Concerning the designation of Dokdo as a bombing range for the US Forces in Japan". When Yamamoto asked, "As for the designation of the military practice area for the Occupation Forces, I think that if the vicinity of Takeshima is designated as a practice area, it would help Japan get confirmation of its territorial sovereignty over the island. Please tell me if that is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs intends," Ishihara replied, "It seems that things are sought after in various ways, largely from such an idea."
^Telegram 3470 to the Department of State, April 27, 1960, file: 350 Korea, 1959–1961 Classified General Correspondence, Embassy Japan, RG 84, National Archives. The original text is available at Telegram 3470 to the Department of State in Wikisource.
^Balázs Szalontai, "Instrumental Nationalism? The Dokdo Problem Through the Lens of North Korean Propaganda and Diplomacy," Journal of Northeast Asian History 10, Issue 2 (Winter 2013), pp. 105–162.
^Balázs Szalontai, "Instrumental Nationalism? The Dokdo Problem Through the Lens of North Korean Propaganda and Diplomacy," Journal of Northeast Asian History 10, Issue 2 (Winter 2013), pp. 115–157.
Koo, Min Gyo (2010). Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia: Between a Rock and a Hard Place. New York: Springer. ISBN9780387896694.
Van Dyke, Jon M. (2007). Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary. Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 38, Issue 1–2: 157–224.
Choi, Sung-jae (2005). The Politics of the Dokdo Issue. Journal of East Asian Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 3: 465–494.
