Japan’s Claims and Problems

Japan’s Claim 1: Japan has long recognized the existence of “Dokdo”

Japan claims that it has recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory since ancient times, citing the 1846 edition of the Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads (改正日本輿地路程全圖).

The original edition of this map, first created in 1779 by Nagakubo Sekisui (長久保赤水), clearly shows Dokdo drawn outside of Japan’s longitude and latitude lines, along with Ulleungdo and the Busan area. Unlike the territory of Japan, which is colored on the map, Dokdo is not colored—indicating that Japan did not consider Dokdo part of its territory at the time.

Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads (1791 edition)
with a close-up of the Ulleungdo and Dokdo section.
Unlike the Japanese territories marked on the map,
Ulleungdo and Dokdo are located outside the lines of latitude and longitude and are not colored in.
At the time, Japan referred to Dokdo as Matsushima (松嶋) and Ulleungdo as Takeshima (竹嶋).
*source: Dokdo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea

Before the Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads was created, in the 1600s, the Oya family from Japan, which secretly fished near Ulleungdo without the knowledge of the Joseon government, recorded Dokdo as an island that belongs to Ulleungdo.

Saito Hosen (齋藤豊仙), an official from the Izumo region (出雲), left behind a record called Records on Observations in Oki Province (隱洲視聽合記) after seeing Dokdo and Ulleungdo while drifting in the East Sea. In it, he defined the northwestern boundary of Japan as the present-day Oki Islands.

After that, in 1875 and 1876, the Japanese Navy created a map of the eastern coast of Korea that included Dokdo (East Coast of Korea, 朝鮮東海岸圖). In 1877, the Japanese Army produced a map of Japan that excluded Dokdo (Complete Map of Japan, 大日本全圖).

Most decisively, in 1877, the Dajokan, which was the highest administrative body of Japan at the time, responded to an inquiry from the Ministry of Home Affairs about whether Ulleungdo and Dokdo should be included in Shimane Prefecture. The Dajokan issued a directive stating, “Regarding Ulleungdo and the other island (Dokdo), keep in mind that Japan has nothing to do with them,” clearly excluding Dokdo from Japanese territory.

As shown, numerous historical records—including official Japanese government documents, maps, and civilian writings—clearly demonstrate that Japan recognized Dokdo not as its own territory, but as an island that belongs to Ulleungdo and a part of Korean territory.

Japan’s Claim 2: There is no evidence indicating that the Republic of Korea has long recognized the existence of Dokdo

Japan claims the name “Usando” refers not to Dokdo but to Ulleungdo, or even to a non-existent island, arguing that Korea did not historically recognize Dokdo as part of its territory.

Korea has long recognized Dokdo as a part of its territory and an island that belongs to Ulluengdo, visible from Ulleungdo itself. Numerous historical records from both Korea and Japan comfirm that the island referred to as Usando is in fact-present day Dokdo. These include Korean sources such as Sejong Sillok Jiriji (Geographical Records in the Annals of King Sejong, 世宗實錄地理志), Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea, 新增東國輿地勝覽), Mangi Yoram (Manual of State Affairs for the Monarch, 萬機要覽), Jeungbo Munheon Bigo (Revised and Augmented Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea, 增補文獻備考), as well as Japanese sources like Inbanji 因幡誌 (1795) and History of Modernization of Joseon 朝鮮開化史 (1901).

And as just recorded in Sejong Sillok Jiriji, it is still possible to see Ulleungdo and Dokdo from each other on clear days today.

(left) Dokdo seen from Ulleungdo
*source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea YouTube ‘Dokdo sunset from Ulleungdo’
(shot by Kwon O-chul)
(right) Ulleungdo seen from Dokdo
*source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea YouTube

Just as recorded in Sejong Sillok Jiriji, it is possible to see Dokdo from Ulleungdo on a clear day. In the past, when there was no pollution or fine dust and the air was clearer, it was likely to be more visible than it is now.

The ​Dongguk Munheon Bigo (東國文獻備考), published in 1770, clearly records Usando as belonging to Usan-guk and includes the name Matsushima (松島, the name used by Japan for Dokdo at the time), clearly marking Dokdo as Joseon territory.

The Mangi Yoram (萬機要覽) in 1808, the Jeungbo Munheon Bigo (增補文獻備考) in 1908, along with other later official Joseon documents, contain the same information. Like this, in the past, Korea referred to Dokdo as Usando and recorded it as an island that belongs to Ulleungdo, visible from Ulleungdo itself. This is also confirmed in Japanese literature.

The Inbanji (因幡誌), published in 1795, is a geographical book about the Tottori region compiled by Abe Kyoan (安部恭庵), a physician from Tottori-han, Japan. This book explains the meaning of “Joseon’s Two Islands, Ulleung and Usan (朝鬱兩島)”, which was written on the flag used by Ahn Yong-bok during his second landing in Japan in 1696. It clarifies that Usando (子山嶋) of Joseon was referred to Matsushima (松嶋), which was the name Japan used for Dokdo at the time.

During his second landing in Japan in 1696, Ahn Yong-bok reportedly sailed with a flag on his boat that read 朝鬱兩島監稅將臣安同知騎, meaning he was an official in charge of collecting taxes and managing the two islands for Joseon. 

In addition, records from later Japanese publications—such as The History of Modernization of Joseon (朝鮮開化史) published in 1901—continue to show Usando as a part of Ulleungdo and Joseon territory.

The History of Modernization of Joseon (朝鮮開化史) was written by a Japanese person named Tsuneya Seifuku (恒屋盛服), who stayed in Korea and served as an advisor to the Government Gazette Bureau, established under the Uijeongbu (State Council), in June 1894 during the Gabo Reform. In this book, he refers to Usando as an island that belongs to Ulleungdo and introduces it as Matsushima (松島), the name Japan used for Dokdo at the time.

As shown, both Korean and Japanese sources confirm that Usando is present-day Dokdo.
These records also show that even in Japan, Dokdo was consistently recognized as Korean territory and as an island that belongs to Ulleungdo.

Japan’s Claim 3: Japan had established sovereignty over Dokdo by the mid-17th century at the latest

Japan claims that in 1618, the Edo Shogunate granted sea passage permits (渡海免許) to Oya Jinkichi (大谷 甚吉) and Murakawa Ichibe (村川 市兵衛) from Tottori-han (鳥取藩), Japan, and that the Oya (大谷) and Murakawa (村川) families used Dokdo as a stopover and fishing ground on their way to Ulleungdo. Based on this, Japan argues that it established sovereignty over Dokdo in the mid-17th century.

Regardless of the fact that some Japanese people fished around Dokdo at the time, the actions by the central and local governments of Japan, along with later historical records, clearly show that Japan did not recognize Dokdo as its territory.

As explained in the rebuttal for the first claim, the Oya (大谷) family—who fished around Ulleungdo in the 1600s—recognized Dokdo as an island that belongs to Ulleungdo. In 1667, a Japanese local official named Saito Hosen (齋藤豊仙) defined the northwestern boundary of Japan as present-day Oki Islands.

Later, in 1693, the Ahn Yong-bok incident sparked a territorial dispute between Joseon and Japan over Ulleungdo. In 1695, the Edo Shogunate asked Tottori-han, to which the Japanese fishermen involved belonged, whether Ulleungdo belonged to Tottori-han and if any other islands besides Ulleungdo were under its jurisdiction. Tottori-han replied that neither Ulleungdo nor Dokdo belonged to it.

After receiving this response, the Edo Shogunate issued a ban on sea passage to the Ulleungdo area on January 28, 1696. As a result, Japanese access to Ulleungdo and Dokdo for fishing or any other activity came to a stop.

Later, between 1833 and 1836, a Japanese person named Aizuya Hachiemon (會津屋八右衛門) was caught by Japanese inspectors for engaging in illegal trade around Ulleungdo and Dokdo without permission from the Edo Shogunate. He was executed in 1836 for going overseas without authorization. During the investigation, Hachiemon submitted a hand-drawn map called Jukdo Banggakdo (竹島方角圖), in which the territory of Japan such as Oki Island was marked in yellow, while Ulleungdo (竹嶋) and Dokdo (松嶋) were marked in red—just like mainland Joseon.

In 1870, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan conducted a detailed investigation of Joseon’s diplomatic, military, trade, and port affairs and compiled a report entitled Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Relations with Joseon (朝鮮國交際始末內探書). Under the title “The background to how Ulleungdo and Dokdo became annexed to Joseon”, the report clearly records Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Joseon territory, further demonstrating that Japan continued to recognize Dokdo as part of Joseon territory.

In addition, as explained in the first claim, the East Coast of Korea (朝鮮東海岸圖) in 1875 and 1876 (included Dokdo in the map of Korea), Complete Map of Japan (大日本全圖) in 1877 (excluded Dokdo from the map of Japan), the Dajokan Order (太政官指令) of 1877 (“bear in mind that Dokdo has nothing to do with Japan”) all show that even during the 17th century—when Japan claimed to have established sovereignty over Dokdo—and afterward, Japan actually recognized that Dokdo was not part of its territory.

Japan’s Claim 4: While Japan prohibited the passage to Utsuryo Island towards the end of the 17th century, the lack of a prohibition on passage to Dokdo continued

Japan claims that although the Edo Shogunate in 1696 banned sea passage to Ulleungdo after recognizing it as Joseon territory, it still considered Dokdo to be Japanese territory and thus did not ban sea passage to Dokdo.

Records from around the time of the 1696 sea passage ban clearly show that the ban included sea passage to Dokdo. This is because the Oya and Murakawa families from Japan had been fishing around Ulleungdo and its nearby island Dokdo based on a sea passage permit issued by the Edo Shogunate in 1625. After the 1696 ban on sea passage to Ulleungdo, fishing was also stopped not only at Ulleungdo but also at its nearby island, Dokdo.

In fact, the Edo Shogunate had never issued a separate sea passage permit for Dokdo apart from Ulleungdo. And when the sea passage ban was issued in 1696, no new permit was issued specifically for Dokdo either.

As explained in Japan’s claims 1 and 3, the Oya family from Tottori-han, who fished in the Ulleungdo area, recognized Dokdo as a part of Ulleungdo.

Also, after the 1696 ban made fishing impossible, descendants of the Oya and Murakawa families who faced financial hardship submitted a petition to the Shogunate asking for permission to fish again around Ulleungdo. In that petition, they explicitly mentioned that “sea passage to Ulleungdo and Dokdo was banned”, which confirms that the sea passage ban to Ulleungdo obviously included Dokdo as well.

As explained in Japan’s claims 1 through 3, the continued recognition that Japanese sea passage was banned not only to Ulleungdo but also to Dokdo can be confirmed through various official Japanese documents and maps that either excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory or included it as part of Joseon territory. This includes the Jukdo Banggakdo drawn by the Japanese person Aizuya Hachiemon during an investigation. He was executed in 1836 for engaging in illegal trade around Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

Japan’s Claim 5: The Republic of Korea currently refers to the false statement made by Ahn Yong-bok as one of the foundations for its claim to sovereignty over Dokdo

Japan claims that the testimony of Ahn Yong-bok, which Korea cites as evidence for its sovereignty over Dokdo, lacks credibility because many of his statements do not align with Japanese records or contain content not found in them.

It is possible to confirm through Korean and Japanese historical sources that Ahn Yong-bok traveled to Japan and clearly asserted that not only Ulleungdo but also Dokdo belonged to Joseon.

Although there are differences between Korean and Japanese records regarding his testimony and actions, his landings in Japan in 1693 and 1696 prompted the Japanese government in 1696 to ban Japanese sea passage to the Ulleungdo region. Numerous Japanese official documents and maps afterward show that Japan did not treat Dokdo as its own territory.

In particular, during Ahn Yong-bok’s second landing in Japan in 1696, Japanese officials Nakase Tanuemon (中瀨彈右衛門) and Yamamoto Seiemon (山本淸右衛門), under orders from the Edo Shogunate, investigated Ahn on Oki Island from May 20 to 22, 1696. The report they compiled on May 23, 1696, titled Memorandum on the Arrival of a Vessel from Joseon in 1696 (元祿九丙子年 朝鮮舟着岸 一卷之覺書), recorded the map Ahn presented, a document he received from Japan in 1693, and his testimony. Based on this evidence, the report confirmed that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were part of Gangwon Province in Joseon, supporting the claims found in Sukjong Sillok (Annals of King Sukjong).

Therefore, Japan’s claim that Ahn Yong-bok’s testimony is false simply because of some discrepancies in historical records is not valid.
On the contrary, as described in Sukjong Sillok (Annals of King Sukjong), Ahn’s actions served as a key turning point that led Japan to recognize Dokdo and Ulleungdo as territory that belong to Joseon.

Japan’s Claim 6: In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its sovereignty over Dokdo through a Cabinet decision

Japan claims that in September 1904, Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郎), a resident of Oki Island in Shimane Prefecture, petitioned for the incorporation of Dokdo and its lease for ten years, and in response, the Japanese government reaffirmed its claim by placing Dokdo under the jurisdiction of the Oki Island governor (島司) in January 1905. Japan also argues that Seokdo (石島), listed in the Korean Empire (Daehan Jeguk) Imperial Decree of 1900 under the jurisdiction of Ulleung County (now Ulleung-gun), does not refer to Dokdo and that Korea’s sovereignty over the island was not established.

As explained in Japan’s claims 2, 3 and 5, Dokdo had already been Korean territory since the year 512, a fact supported by numerous historical records from both Korea and Japan.

In particular, on October 25, 1900, the Korean Empire (Daehan Jeguk) issued an imperial decree to strengthen administrative control over Ulleungdo and its surrounding areas. This decree renamed Ulleungdo—then part of Uljin-hyeon in Gangwon Province—as Ulleung County (Uldo-gun) and explicitly placed Dokdo, which was considered an island that is a part of Ulleungdo, under the jurisdiction of Ulleung County. The decree was officially promulgated on October 27, 1900.

The fact that Seokdo (石島), designated in Imperial Decree No. 41 of the Korean Empire as being under the jurisdiction of Ulleung County, refers to present-day Dokdo can be confirmed through the names used by local residents at the time, as well as dictionaries, Japanese survey records, and media.

In the Imperial Decree No. 41, Seokdo (石島) was the written form in Chinese characters of what local residents around Ulleungdo used to call Dol-seom (Stone Island)—which referred to Dokdo. Similarly, Jukdo (竹島, now an island on the northeast of Ulleungdo), another island placed under the jurisdiction of the Ulleung County governor along with Dokdo, was what residents called Daenamu-seom or Daet-seom (both meaning Bamboo Island), and was written in Chinese characters as 竹島.

Even in Joseon Jiji Jaryo (朝鮮地誌資料), published in 1911 by Japan’s Provisional Land Survey Bureau under the Japanese Government-General of Korea, there are examples where the Chinese character 石 was read as Dok in Korean, further supporting this interpretation.

Examples of place names where the Chinese character ‘石’ (meaning “stone”) is
written as ‘독’ in Korean, such as 石山 (Doksan), 石谷 (Dokgol), and 石島 (Dokdo).
Quoted from Joseon Jiji Jaryo, Jeollanam-do Volume 3-1 (Volume 6), Mokpojugun (木浦廚郡)
*source: National Library of Korea

In the Korean Language Dictionary (朝鮮語辭典) written by Moon Se-young (文世榮), who served as a Standard Language Review Committee member in 1935 and a Revision Committee member in 1936 for the Korean Language Association, and published by the Korean Dictionary Publication Committee on July 10, 1938, the Korean word dok is defined as a dialect form of dol (stone); 石. This confirms the linguistic basis that the Korean name Dokdo corresponds to the Chinese characters Seokdo (石島). 

An article published on June 13, 1948, criticizing Japan’s illegal fishing and other provocations around Dokdo, titled Dokdo is Our Island – Its Original Name is Dolseom (石島), also confirms that the current name Dokdo originates from Dolseom (Stone Island), written in Chinese characters as 石島.

Hanseong Ilbo “Dokdo is our island, original name is Dolseom”
*source: Korea Newspaper Archive, National Library of Korea

Thus, through Imperial Decree No. 41 issued by the Korean Empire in 1900, Dokdo was being administered as part of Ulleung County. However, on March 28, 1906, when a Japanese survey team from Shimane Prefecture visited Ulleungdo and made the unilateral claim that Japan had incorporated Dokdo into its territory. Sim Heung-taek, the county magistrate of Ulleung County, submitted a report the very next day—March 29—to the official of Gangwon Province, explicitly referring to Dokdo under the jurisdiction of Ulleung County and reporting Japan’s illegal seizure of the land. After receiving Sim’s report, Yi Myeong-rae, the acting governor of Gangwon Province and then the county magistrate of Chuncheon, forwarded the matter on April 29, 1906 to the Uijeongbu (State Council), the highest administrative body of the Korean Empire (Daehan Jeguk) at the time.

After receiving this report, Park Je-sun, Vice Minister of the Uijeongbu (State Council), did not acknowledge or accept Japan’s claim. On May 10, 2906, he issued an order stating that the claim that Dokdo belongs to Japan is groundless, and instructed officials to investigate the matter again and report back.

At the time, although the Korean Empire (Daehan Jeguk) had been forcibly stripped of its diplomatic rights and other national powers by Japan through the Japan-Korea Treaty on November 17, 1905, and Japan’s Resident-General had taken control of Korea’s foreign and domestic affairs by February 1, 1906, Korea did not tolerate Japan’s illegal actions regarding its territory.

In other words, even before and after Japan’s claimed incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, Dokdo continued to be Korean territory.

Japan’s actions in 1905 were nothing more than a baseless claim, secretly announcing Dokdo as part of Shimane Prefecture during the Russo-Japanese War for military purposes, under the premise that it was ownerless land (Terra Nullius).

As in the third claim, the current Japanese government argues that it established sovereignty over Dokdo in the mid-17th century. If Japan’s claim was true, it means that Japan incorporated into its territory in 1905 an island it had already supposedly held sovereignty over since the 17th century. If this were the case, Japan should have also taken similar incorporation or reaffirmation steps for its other territories.

However, there are no such cases—not in Japan, not even internationally—where a country has “reaffirmed sovereignty” over its own territory. The Japanese government first claimed in 1905 that Dokdo was “ownerless land”, but now it claims it had established sovereignty back in the 17th century. These are contradictory arguments, and to resolve this contradiction, Japan now puts forward yet another strange logic—that it “reaffirmed its sovereignty” in 1905.​

We would like to ask Japan.

– Japan claims to have established sovereignty over Dokdo in the mid-17th century. If so, why did it attempt to secretly and unlawfully incorporate Dokdo in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, by declaring it “ownerless land”, rather than acknowledging it as territory it had already claimed?

– Are there any examples where Japan has reaffirmed its sovereignty over other islands or territories that it considers inherently Japanese? If not, does it have any such plans?

– Have you ever seen another country reaffirm its sovereignty over its own territory in a similar way, in international practice?

Japan’s Claim 7: In the process of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Republic of Korea requested that the United States add Dokdo to the territories to be renounced by Japan. However, the United States rejected that request.

Japan claims that during the drafting of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Korea requested that Dokdo be included among the territories Japan should renounce, but the United States rejected this request through a document by Dean Rusk, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. Based on this, Japan argues that Dokdo was recognized as Japanese territory in the treaty signed on September 8, 1951.

The Republic of Korea was established on August 15, 1948, and by the time the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951, Dokdo was already part of the livelihood for Ulleungdo residents and under Korean sovereignty.

The treaty itself contains no clause excluding Dokdo from Korean territory, and there has been no treaty or international decision since then that denies Korean sovereignty over Dokdo.

If we look at the post-World War II settlement process, it clearly shows that Japan’s claim is unjustified.

On July 26, 1945, the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom and China gathered in Potsdam, Germany, and issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding Japan’s surrender. In this declaration, it was stated that Japan’s sovereignty would be limited to the islands of Honshu (本州), Hokkaido (北海道), Kyushu (九州) and Shikoku (四國), along with certain minor islands to be determined by the Allied Powers. Dokdo has never been included among the islands designated for Japan by the Allied Powers under this declaration—not even once to this day. 

And on September 2, 1945, Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender, pledging to faithfully carry out the Potsdam Declaration, which stated that Japanese sovereignty would be limited to Honshu (本州), Hokkaido (北海道), Kyushu (九州) and Shikoku (四國), along with other minor islands as determined by the Allied Powers. 

From September 2, 1945, to April 28, 1952, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which governed and occupied Japan, excluded Dokdo from Japan’s territory on January 29, 1946.

The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which had excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory, subsequently issued another order on June 22, 1946, prohibiting Japanese vessels and nationals from approaching Dokdo or entering within 12 nautical miles of the island.

The Treaty of Peace with Japan, signed on September 2, 1951, in San Francisco between Japan and the Allied Powers to address the settlement of issues following Japan’s initiation of the Pacific War, clearly states that Japan would recognize Korea’s independence and renounce all rights, titles, and claims to Korea. It also affirms the validity of all actions taken by the occupying authority (the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers). Japan also signed the treaty. Nowhere in the treaty is Dokdo—Korean territory—designated as part of Japanese territory.

The Allied Powers’ Supreme Commander, which was the occupying authority over Japan, excluded Dokdo from Japan’s territory (SCAPIN-677, January 29, 1946), and Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty on September 2, 1951, agreeing to recognize the validity of the occupying authority’s actions. Therefore, far from recognizing Dokdo as Japanese territory, the San Francisco Peace Treaty confirmed the exclusion of Dokdo from Japan’s territory by the Allied Powers. Japan’s claim is therefore incorrect.

The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which had excluded Dokdo from Japan’s territory through Memorandum No. 677 on January 29, 1946, adjusted the scope of Japan’s territory through Memorandum No. 677/1 on December 5, 1951, after the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed on September 2, 1951. There were no changes regarding Dokdo, which had been excluded from Japan’s territory.

As we can see from the post-World War II settlement process, the decisions made by the Allied Powers—including the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers—excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory. Furthermore, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly stated that Japan must recognize Korea’s independence and renounce all rights, claims, and titles over Korea, and also acknowledge the validity of all actions taken by the Allied occupation authorities. Japan agreed to this by signing the treaty.

Therefore, interpreting the United States’ temporary stance as the official position of all the Allied Powers, or claiming that Dokdo—an inherent part of Korea’s territory over which Korea had continuously exercised territorial sovereignty even before the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty—was suddenly recognized as Japanese territory, is incorrect.

Japan’s Claim 8: Dokdo was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces in Japan

Japan claims that Dokdo was recognized as its territory based on the fact that, in July 1952, it designated Dokdo as a bombing range for U.S. forces stationed in Japan through an administrative agreement with the United States, and that this designation was made in consultation with the U.S. government.

The U.S. Forces in Japan conducted bombing drills on Dokdo twice, and both times they were halted due to protests from the Korean government.

The first bombing occurred on June 8, 1948, during the U.S. military administration of Korea, prior to the establishment of the Republic of Korea. At the time, 59 Korean fishermen from Gangwon-do and Gyeongsangbuk-do, unaware of the drill, were fishing near Dokdo. The incident resulted in a tragic disaster: 14 people lost their lives, at least 6 others were seriously injured, and 14 boats were either sunk or damaged.

Immediately after the incident, the U.S. 24th Army Corps Command in Korea dispatched a special investigation team to conduct rescue operations and examine the case. Compensation was provided to the victims and their families. The U.S. military government in Seoul requested the Far East Command in Tokyo to halt all bombing exercises on Dokdo, which subsequently led to the suspension of the drills.

However, during the Korean War in 1952, Japan maneuvered to have Dokdo designated once again as a bombing range for U.S. Forces in Japan. Despite knowing that Korean fishermen operating in the area would likely suffer significant harm, Japan deliberately pushed for this designation as a means to assert its territorial claim over Dokdo. As a result, additional bombing exercises took place on September 15 and 22, causing further damage.

This series of events highlights Japan’s intentional efforts to reinforce its claim over Dokdo, even at the cost of Korean civilian lives and livelihoods.

In this context, when U.S. Forces stationed in Japan (USFJ) once again conducted bombing drills on Dokdo on September 15 and 22, 1952, it was witnessed by many Korean citizens — including fishermen and female divers (haenyeo) on Ulleungdo and Dokdo, as well as the Ulleungdo-Dokdo Academic Research Team of the Chosun Alpine Association. These witnesses immediately reported the situation to the Korean Navy and other government authorities.

In response to this, the Korean government lodged a formal protest, leading to the removal of Dokdo from the bombing training zones by USFJ in December 1952. The U.S. Embassy in Korea also officially notified the Korean government that Dokdo would no longer be used as a bombing range. In February 1953, the Korean Ministry of National Defense, after consultations with United Nations Command authorities, announced that there would be no further bombing on Dokdo. At the same time, the Commander of the U.S. Far East Air Forces also sent a letter to the Korean Minister of National Defense, reaffirming this commitment.

Importantly, the United States conveyed this decision only to the Korean government, not to the Japanese government. Japan only learned of these developments later through media reports.
This clearly contradicts Japan’s claim that the United States consulted with Japan and recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory. In reality, the United States, in response to Korea’s protest, excluded Dokdo from its bombing training grounds without involving Japan, thereby handling the issue in alignment with Korea’s position and excluding Japan from the decision-making process.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim Dokdo as Japanese territory based on the fact that it was designated as a bombing training site for the U.S. Forces Japan due to Japan’s malicious intent.
The bombing training was stopped and Dokdo was excluded from the training area at Korea’s request, and the fact that the U.S. only notified the Korean government of this indicates that the U.S. did not recognize Dokdo as Japanese territory.

Japan’s Claim 9: The Republic of Korea delineated the so-called “Syngman Rhee Line” on the high seas in contravention of international law, and illegally occupied Dokdo as a unilateral act

Japan claims that Korea’s “Proclamation of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas” on January 18, 1952 (commonly known as the Syngman Rhee Line) violates international law and that by including Dokdo within this line, Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo in a unilateral manner.

As early as June 22, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which was administering Japan after World War II, issued SCAPIN-1033, known as the MacArthur Line. It prohibited Japanese vessels and nationals from approaching within 12 nautical miles of Dokdo. Despite these restrictions, more than 40 cases of violations were detected in 1951 alone, and a Korean patrol ship was nearly sunk by attacks from Japanese fishing boats. These illegal incursions were causing significant damage to Korea.

Therefore, the “Proclamation of Sovereignty Over Adjacent Seas” was a reasonable and lawful action by a sovereign state to protect its maritime zone and its fishermen during a time of heightened tension and frequent violations.

On September 25, 1952, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea issued a statement titled “한국 인접해안에 대한 보호수역 선포의 근거”(韓國 隣接海岸에 対한 保護水域 宣布의 根據), formally explaining the grounds and necessity of the January 18, 1952 proclamation.

On April 13, 1956, during a session of the Judicial Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of Japan, then Minister of State Mamoru Shigemitsu (重光葵) responded to a question regarding Korea’s actions, including the Syngman Rhee Line.  In his reply, Shigemitsu effectively acknowledged the validity of the Peace Line, recognizing its practical effect at the time.

Separate from the Syngman Rhee Line, which was a measure for the protection of Korea’s waters and fishermen, Dokdo has been an integral part of Korean territory since ancient times, as it is an adjunct island of Ulleungdo, historically part of the residential and economic zone of the Ulleungdo residents.

On August 20, 1947, during the U.S. military occupation and transitional government period, the Ulleungdo Scientific Research Team visited Dokdo. They investigated the geology, ocean currents, and fishing conditions of the island, while also collecting plant and animal specimens. As mentioned in claim 8, on June 8, 1948, a tragic accident occurred when 14 Korean fishermen were killed during a bombing training by the U.S. military. This further confirmed Dokdo was still within the active zone for Korean people at the time.

In particular, after the establishment of the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948,
the Korean government officially designated the address of the island as “1 Do-dong, Nam-myeon, Ulleung-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do”, exercising sovereignty over it. Notably, the Japanese government raised no objections to this action.

Therefore, the declaration of the Syngman Rhee Line by the Korean government on January 18, 1952, was a legitimate action to protect Korea’s waters and fishermen, and Dokdo was not an island illegally occupied by Korea but an area of Korean sovereignty, historically utilized by the Ulleungdo residents and other Korean people for their livelihoods.

Japan’s Claim 10: Japan has been repeatedly proposing to the Republic of Korea that the dispute over the sovereignty of Dokdo should be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the Republic of Korea is refusing these proposals.

Japan claims that it proposed to refer to the Dokdo matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for peaceful settlement under international law in September 1954, March 1962, and August 2012, but that Korea refused each time.

Dokdo is clearly Korean territory based on history, geography, and international law, and the Republic of Korea is currently exercising full territorial sovereignty over it. Therefore, Dokdo is not subject to diplomatic negotiation or judicial resolution, and this is the official stance of the Korean government.

In response to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan note dated September 25, 1954, which included the proposal to refer to the matter of Dokdo’s sovereignty to the ICJ, the Korean government delivered its official position through a diplomatic note on October 28, 1954, stating the following:

Dokdo is not a disputed territory that requires judicial or diplomatic resolution—it is clearly Korean territory. The real issue that needs to be addressed is Japan’s one-sided, false claims.

We urge Japan to acknowledge the historical truth, reflect on this imperialistic past, and stop making unjust claims and taking actions that hurt Korea, including those related to Dokdo and other historical and territorial matters. As a neighboring country, we hope Japan will become a more trustworthy nation.