.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
| Kwak Jin-o, fellow researcher at NAHF |
It is a pity to see Japan's claim over Dokdo doing a lot of harm to Korean-Japanese relations. Dokdo is undoubtedly an indigenous territory of Korea.
This is supported by diverse historic facts and official documents of both countries. Japan also had a precedent of recognizing Dokdo as Korea's territory.
Thus, Japan is ignoring established facts and is unreasonably claiming sovereignty over Dokdo. As for Koreans, this attitude of Japan brings back painful memoriesof the past Japanese Imperialism.
Also, this attitude raises a question as to whether an amicable relationship with Japan is possible.
In January 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan annexed Dokdo to Shimane Prefecture under the rationale of acquisition of new territory over the masterless. However, such an excuse was modified as "a reaffirmation of Japan's intention to claim sovereignty over Dokdo" since Japan realized that its own rationale of "Dokdo has always been Japanese territory" and "occupation of nobody's territory" conflicted with each other.
Its claim, "occupation of nobody's territory," contradicted Japan's previous argument that Dokdo had no relationship with Japan, which is also shown in the State Council (Dajokan) Directive of 1877.
The Russo-Japanese War began in 1904 when the Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack against the Russian Pacific Fleet at Port Arthur and at Jemulpo, now Incheon. The Japanese Navy built watch towers at Jeju Island, Geomun Island, and Ulsan in order to monitor the movement of the Russian Fleet.
In August 1904, two watch towers were installed in Ulleundo, too, actions which stressed the strategic value of Dokdo. Nakai Yozaburo was aware that Dokdo belonged to Joseon (The Korean Empire). He intended to submit a request for the lease of the island to the Joseon government through the Japanese government.
However, Nakai submitted a petition to incorporate Dokdo, instead of a lease request, to the Japanese government in September 1904, having been influenced by officials of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Japanese Navy Department.
The Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs attempted to reject his petition based upon the opinion that "the gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet (Dokdo) suspected of being Korean territory would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan had an ambition to annex Korea."
However, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs proceeded to incorporate the island with the rationale that hostile warships would be better monitored if watch towers were constructed, and wireless or submarine cables were installed there.
Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 is void by international law. Japan argues that it incorporated the island based on the rationale of "occupation of nobody's territory."
However, Korea had established its sovereignty over Dokdo in ancient times, and reaffirmed this under the modern law by issuing Imperial Ordinance No. 41 on Oct. 25, 1900.
Japan discussed and notified its incorporation of territory to Western countries, including the United States.
However, Korea did not receive any query or notification regarding the unilateral incorporation.
In March of 1906, the Governor of Uldo (Ulleungdo) learned of the incorporation from Japanese officials of Shimane Prefecture visiting Ulleungdo.
The next day, the Governor of Ulleungdo reported this to the central government in Seoul and to the governor of Gangwon Province.
On receiving this report, the Minister of Interior and the State Council Minister stated that it is groundless for Japan to claim sovereignty over Dokdo, and ordered an investigation of the facts relating to what Japan had done.
The Korean government, having been deprived of its diplomatic rights following the protectorate treaty in November 1905, was not able to take any diplomatic action against such a situation.
However, Korean newspapers, including the Daehan Daily Newspaper (Daehanmaeilsinbo, May 1, 1906) and The Hwangseong Newspaper (Hwangseongsinmun, May 9, 1906) published articles protesting against the Japanese act.
Meanwhile, Japan's claim over Dokdo is based on the ‘nobody's territory theory.' However, claiming occupation of Dokdo without any kind of notification, is an action of stealage.
Unlike Japan's attitude in the case of Dokdo, in the integration of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands 1876, the Japanese government notified the U.S., French, and German diplomatic offices in advance. Based on these facts, Japan's claim over Dokdo is groundless.
Therefore, Japan's argument based on the "nobody's territory theory" is unreasonable, and this should notcreate conflicts with its neighboring country. As for Korea, it is important to make preparations against Japan's illogical arguments.
The writer is a fellow researcher at Northeast Asian History Foundation.
![[INTERVIEW] Production company AStory expects great success with 'Extraordinary Attorney Woo' franchise](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/06bfe09b25694aafbd347202cbad4257.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
