Why we refuse to seek legal recourse on Dokdo

By Shin Maeng-ho

Japan recently proposed the referral of the Dokdo issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to which the Korean government expressed its unequivocal refusal. Japan is insisting that, given Korea’s promotion of its “Global Korea” policy, it must not turn down Japan’s suggestions for a “peaceful” settlement of the Dokdo issue through the ICJ. As one of the government officials working on the Dokdo issue, I wish to express my views on why the Korean government is opposing Japan’s proposal to bring the issue to the ICJ.

First, Dokdo is indisputably an integral and inherent part of Korean territory ― historically, geographically, and under international law. Korea’s territorial sovereignty over Dokdo is firmly based on historical facts. Dokdo has been recorded as Korean territory in numerous Korean government documents since the 15th century, while the Japanese government, since the 17th century, repeatedly confirmed Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo.

In particular, the Dajokan, Japan’s highest decision-making body at the time, issued an order in 1877 acknowledging Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo. This recognition that Dokdo was Korean territory is also reflected in the fact that none of the documents or maps published by the Japanese government before 1905 marked Dokdo as Japanese territory. Nevertheless, in 1905, Japan incorporated Dokdo into its territory for the purpose of establishing a surveillance system over Russian warships during its war with Russia. Dokdo was thus the first part of Korean territory to fall victim to Japanese imperialistic aggression against Korea. Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo into its territory was illegal, and null and void under international law.

Japan’s unjust claim to sovereignty over Dokdo reveals its conviction that it still has a valid claim to land that was acquired through its illegal imperial invasion. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Korea does not recognize any dispute concerning the territorial sovereignty over Dokdo, and there is no reason whatsoever to bring the issue of our territory before the ICJ. Were Korea to accept Japan’s request to take the issue of Dokdo to the ICJ, it would just have the effect of absolving Japan of its past wrongdoing of invading the Korean Peninsula.

Japan asserts the legitimacy of both its incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 and of the Korea-Japan annexation treaty in 1910, which Korea was forced to sign. However, in denying any legal responsibility for its actions on the grounds of “legitimacy,” Japan fails to mention the fact that, in 1895, as a precursor to its occupation of Korea, Japan ruthlessly assassinated the Korean Empress (“Queen Min”), who was resistant to Japanese influence. Furthermore, during its 35-year occupation, Japan caused enormous pain to Koreans, depriving innumerable Koreans of their lives and human rights, including the exploitation of women as sex slaves for its military (so-called “comfort women”).

Regarding the issue of military sexual slavery, Japan refuses to even respond to Korea’s proposal for “bilateral consultation,” one of the dispute settlement methods stipulated in the 1965 Korea-Japan Agreement on the Settlement of Claims. This reflects a contradictory approach by Japan: on the one hand it is refusing to accept its legal obligations under the 1965 Agreement, while on the other it wants to refer the Dokdo issue to the ICJ despite having no legal grounds to do so.

Further inconsistency can be seen with respect to Japan’s handling of its territorial dispute with China over islands in the East China Sea. Despite both countries’ claims of sovereignty over these, Japan has not proposed to refer the issue to the ICJ. This reflects a double standard on the part of Japan. It appears that the Japanese government’s proposal to refer the Dokdo issue to the ICJ is an attempt to fabricate a “dispute” over Korean sovereign territory. Japan is cherry-picking when to apply the “rule of law” rather than applying it universally.

It is hard to grasp the underlying intention of the Japanese government, other than to utilize the ICJ as an international forum for propaganda, since Japan is now talking about unilaterally referring the Dokdo issue to the ICJ despite Korea’s explicit statement on Aug. 30 that there is no reason whatsoever to accept Japan’s proposal to settle the issue at the ICJ. Should Japan proceed with a unilateral submission of the issue to the ICJ, it will prove that it still harbors an imperialistic attitude towards its neighbors and is unrepentant over its past offenses.

In closing, I wish to recall that the Cairo Declaration of 1943, which enunciated the basic position of the Allies regarding Japanese territorial boundaries after World War II, stated that “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.”

The writer is the director general of the International Legal Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Korea.