Dokdo/Debate Guide

The debate guide will attempt to examine most of the arguments that have been put forth by the academics, and it will echo the academic consensus that favors the Korean position in the dispute.

The territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan over Dokdo is an issue that can be easily misunderstood without an extensive survey of the arguments presented in academic setting. For someone who is new to the dispute, understanding the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute is made trickier by the fact that his or her primary source of information and dialogue on the dispute would be the internet. Because the news outlets outside of Korea and Japan are primarily interested in the new developments in the dispute, they avoid addressing the issue of historical correctness while providing only the general facts. Without editorializing by the official sources, the layman can only speculate that both parties involved have equal footing, or, even worse, that the side with weaker claims has aggressively escalated and prolonged the dispute (i.e. by taking control of the disputed territory).

With limited knowledge, evaluating the dispute then largely rests on the imagery of the two countries and the opinions of other netizens, who are usually biased towards Japan and may have corresponding anti-Korean sentiments. This is mainly due to the fact that Japan is a technological and cultural powerhouse, with a large fan base around the world that is very active in online communities. Some pro-Japanese netizens tend to engage in what is loosely termed as "Korea-bashing," while defending Japan from antagonistic relations with Korea that is well rooted in Japan's militaristic past. In the discourse of -bashing, the images of North Korea are conjured up to depict (South) Koreans as unreasonable, aggressive, yet immature and weak, and the Japanese, as reasonable, passive, and culturally superior, which is reminiscent of the western construct of the totalitarian portrait of the Orient during the colonial era. The territorial dispute becomes another instance in which the pro-Japanese must defend Japan's claims while assuming the identity of the Japanese nation in person. The smaller opposing camp that claims the side of historical justice plays well into the role of the irrational, isolated, and overly emotional Koreans, while enabling the pro-Japanese trolls to attack in a legalistic and cool-headed manner.

A very relevant example of such clash involving the Dokdo-Takeshima controversy would be the naming disputes at Wikipedia from 2004 to 2008. A combination of favoritism by admins and well-played out sock-puppetry (or the attempt to manipulate discussions by assuming multiple personalities) led to a situation in which the article on "Liancourt Rocks" is permanently locked from editing, and its contents as well as the title have been declared as the "consensus." But the "consensus" was arbitrarily defined based on the results of a poll that was only cleared of pro-Korean sock puppets in a last-minute search. And, more importantly, the consensus cannot be tested nor a shift in consensus be observed if "naming lameness" and "blatant POV" are "strictly forbidden."

With regard to Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View, "Liancourt Rocks" as a title is unacceptable because it deliberately denies the de facto sovereignty of a country over the territory by its neutral naming. The article instead imposes a description of its own choice (neither South Koreans nor Japanese call the islets "Liancourt Rocks"), thereby prescribing a position that the status quo is genuinely disputable. This is a problem of the policy in general because not all issues are disputable, and the very act of disputing does not somehow make equal all sides of a dispute. The neutral naming perpetuates passive aggression on part of the Japanese side by suggesting that South Korea would be "illegally" occupying the islets, since its territorial rights are under question, but not Japan's act of disputing. It should be noted that Wikipedia's NPOV and the media's neutrality are distinctly different, since the latter usually does not designate a neutral third alternative to the "Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese." In that sense, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View is ironically a point of view, unlike neutrality of the media, but the layman is unable to distinguish between them. Upon exposure, the layman believes Wikipedia's neutral designation and its underlying implications to be the conventional understanding of the dispute.

Unlike the layman or a journalist, an academic involved in the dispute is able to determine which side has a valid case by rigorously examining the intricacies of the arguments and their supporting evidence. Thus, there is a huge perception gap regarding the dispute between the concerned scholarly experts and the journalists as well as their layman readership. Within the academic realm, the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute is mostly considered a concluded matter that will have absolutely zero impact on the Korean sovereignty over Dokdo for an indefinite period of time. The academic consensus is that South Korea has much stronger claims both historically and under the international law, and Japan will not risk war to challenge the occupation in the status quo. The real priorities of South Korea and Japan may currently lie in forging a new military and economic alliance to counterbalance the rise of China, and various movements seen on both sides of the aisle marking the 100th anniversary of the Japanese annexation of Korea were indicative of such intentions. Despite these circumstances, Japan will most likely continue to protest South Korea's control of Dokdo because disowning the islets carry a serious risk of political backlash from the Japanese Hard Right.

The Dokdo-Takeshima dispute can be divided into two main sets of arguments, which concern the issue of historical ownership and the international law. The international law provides the framework for evaluating the competing claims of sovereignty over Dokdo by Korea and Japan since 1905, when Japan issued Shimane Prefecture Notice No. 40 that incorporated Dokdo as a Japanese territory under the premise of terra nullius. Historical evidence dating back hundreds of years may provide moral weight to the case, but it does not insure against a greater manifestation of sovereignty by another state in an international trial.

Historical ownership
The question of which country Dokdo was historically a part of concerns the issue of popular awareness and economic ownership of the islets, as well as the official position on the islets' territorial status. The relevant evidence may include maps and written records that either assert or concede state sovereignty over the islets, as well as photographs and mathematical proofs that determine visibility and accessibility of the islets to a nearby populace.

Historical ownership can be a complicated matter because the islets were neither easily inhabitable nor within convenient reach of the mainlands in the pre-modern period. The earliest mentions of the islets come from Korean sources, but they require a bit of creativity to appreciate due to their ambiguous and conflicting nature. Much of the ambiguity arises due to the fact that Dokdo and the adjacent island of Ulleungdo were called by different names throughout history, and their names were sometimes used interchangeably, as there was a considerable degree of confusion in the mainland as to whether Dokdo lied east or west of Ulleungdo. Because of this, some Korean sources speculated that the equivalent names of Dokdo and Ulleungdo in fact refer to the same island (i.e. Ulleungdo), which gave rise to the one island theory that is mainly advocated by the pro-Japanese scholars.

Korean sources
Samguk Sagi, which was compiled in 1145 CE and detailed the conquest of "Usan-guk" by Silla in 512 CE, is generally cited as the first historical record to mention Dokdo. Although Samguk Sagi notes that "Usan-guk... is also called Ulleungdo," and a direct reference to Dokdo is absent, some later literature suggest that "Usan-guk" in fact refers to the state entity consisting of two island bodies, and "Ulleungdo" to the bigger island. The Sejoing Sillok Jiriji, which was published in 1454 CE, confirm the two island theory, stating that the islands of Usan and Mulleung that are within a visible radius of each other on a clear day "were called 'Usan-guk' [during the Silla dynasty] . Another name is 'Ulleungdo'."

According to Goryeosa, which was compiled between 1392 and 1451 CE, Usan-guk shifted its allegiance to Goryeo in 930 CE, thereby staying within the orbit of the Korean mainland when Goryeo defeated Silla in 935 CE. But during the 11th and 12th centuries, Usan-guk became completely desolate as it was hit by repeated pirate attacks from Manchuria. This period of abandonment has been brought up as a main explanation for the subsequent confusion regarding Dokdo's naming and location. As the local geographic knowledge dried up, "Usan," which would appear to refer to Ulleungdo as a shorter form of "Usan-guk," acquired dual meanings that are counter intuitive. On the one hand, "Usan" or "Usan-do" meant the general area of Dokdo and Ulleungdo, but it could also be an individual reference to Dokdo, and "Mulleung," to Ulleungdo, when stated together. For example, in the Taejo Sillok, which was compiled from 1392 to 1398 CE, the "Constable for Mulleung and nearby places" was described to have come from "Usando," and the position was later renamed to include "Usan" in its jurisdiction. While the pro-Japanese position speculates that "Usan" could refer to the island of Jukdo adjacent to Ulleungdo, that is unlikely because the Koreans were prone to suspect Dokdo to be a habitable island that is similarly sized to Ulleungdo, whereas Jukdo was identified in the same text as "a small island nearby [ Ulleungdo ] ."

The remote and ambiguous nature of the islets to the mainland Koreans during the period was attested by the fact that the Koreans attributed a different name to Dokdo when a rumor spread that people were hiding in an island with three peaks, or "Sambongdo."

Japanese sources
On the other hand, several sources cited by the Japanese position to support their case were in fact found to in line with the Korean claims upon further examination.