|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Here's a question...
People always make the point that, if Dokdo is so obviously Korean, why doesn't Korea take it to the World Court? And I agree, that's a good question.
But we can turn that around as well, and ask why Japan doesn't take it to the World Court. After all, assuming their arguments are correct, they would seem to be subject to a major territorial violation here, what with Korea routinely sending people onto those rocks with no permission from Japan, and a couple of Korean nationals even living there, from what I understand.
So. If the rocks really are Japan's, why doesn't Japan take it to international arbitration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Here's a question...
People always make the point that, if Dokdo is so obviously Korean, why doesn't Korea take it to the World Court? And I agree, that's a good question.
But we can turn that around as well, and ask why Japan doesn't take it to the World Court. After all, assuming their arguments are correct, they would seem to be subject to a major territorial violation here, what with Korea routinely sending people onto those rocks with no permission from Japan, and a couple of Korean nationals even living there, from what I understand.
So. If the rocks really are Japan's, why doesn't Japan take it to international arbitration? |
Japan wants to, but cannot do so without Korea's agreement. Surely you knew that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Here's a question...
People always make the point that, if Dokdo is so obviously Korean, why doesn't Korea take it to the World Court? And I agree, that's a good question.
But we can turn that around as well, and ask why Japan doesn't take it to the World Court. After all, assuming their arguments are correct, they would seem to be subject to a major territorial violation here, what with Korea routinely sending people onto those rocks with no permission from Japan, and a couple of Korean nationals even living there, from what I understand.
So. If the rocks really are Japan's, why doesn't Japan take it to international arbitration? |
Japan wants to, but cannot do so without Korea's agreement. Surely you knew that? |
No, I did not. Thanks for the information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Here's a question...
People always make the point that, if Dokdo is so obviously Korean, why doesn't Korea take it to the World Court? And I agree, that's a good question.
But we can turn that around as well, and ask why Japan doesn't take it to the World Court. After all, assuming their arguments are correct, they would seem to be subject to a major territorial violation here, what with Korea routinely sending people onto those rocks with no permission from Japan, and a couple of Korean nationals even living there, from what I understand.
So. If the rocks really are Japan's, why doesn't Japan take it to international arbitration? |
Japan wants to, but cannot do so without Korea's agreement. Surely you knew that? |
No, I did not. Thanks for the information. |
The problem is that any decision reached at the international court is non-binding anyway, so both countries would have to formally agree to accept the decision beforehand. Korea is unwilling to even consider it (certainly because they know they're in the wrong). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| guriguys super extreme pro-Japanese crapola is well know. |
Ah, welcome Contrarian. Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion. Heavy on the BS, low on evidence or factual information.
Perchance, do you have any Korean maps depicting Dokdo before 1905?
PS. Nice Englishee  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Neither Korea nor I have to prove anything.
Dokdo is a Korea possession |
Illegally (and temporarily).
| Quote: |
Therefore the onus of the proof lies with the Japanese. Find one Japanese map that includes Dokdo in Japanese territory before 1905.
|
1) No, the onus is on Korea.
2) Guri Guy already went out of his way and helpfully provided just such a map, in this very thread, or was your head too far up your ass to notice at the time? Go back and check.
If Dokdo was Japanese territory, then why would Japan have to claim it in 1905? It would have already been Japanese territory and they wouldn't have to had to use terra nullius to lay claim to it. Besides which Japan was told to give up all its wartime possessions which include Dokdo. They were only able to illegally hold on to it because it wasn't included in the final draft.
| Quote: |
| No? Then you have nothing and since Dokdo is at present Korean territory, I will consider the argument settled and won until either Japan takes it back or you post up said map. |
I'm quite confident it will be a very satisfying combination of the two (the latter having already been checked off the list).
Again if that map is valid then why did Japan use the claim of terra nullius? If it was Japanese property they wouldn't have had to use it in the first place.
Once again, time to either provide a pre-1905 map with "Dokdo" on it, or take a hike. |
Once again, no valid proof has been given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why Korea will not take it to the World Court is spelled out below
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page10.html
The decision is not binding so even if the court ruled in Korea's favour, Japan does not have to follow it. And imperial aggression does not seem to be taken into consideration, so that's one strike already.
Also Japan has a Japanese judge sitting on the ICJ whereas Korea has none.
Japan on the other hand is eager to take it to the world court because they have nothing to lose...even if the ruling goes against them, they don't have to honor it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'Jap' is a racial slur. I suggest you review the user agreement of this site.
| contrarian wrote: |
why guri, you noticed. How sweet!!!!
You position is, and always has been Pro Jap! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
why guri, you noticed. How sweet!!!!
You position is, and always has been Pro Jap! |
Pro-Jap to some might like be using the word guk for Korean. It's not considered enlightened parlance. It is commonly used to lambast Japanese people in a hateful manner.
Only you can stop forest fires....
Your Mod Team.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did somebody say, ''furnish maps claiming Korean sovereignty of Dodkdo/Takeshima?" I'm clutching a whole bunch o' scrolls against my chest. Clear the table and let's roll them out!
(All maps and info courtesy of Wikipedia)
Map 1:Paldo chongdo (literally map of 8 provinces in total) was included in Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram.
In accordance with King Jungjong's order in 1530, Yi Haeng, Yun Eunbo, and Shin Gongje made this woodcut print map. Original stored at Kyujanggak library (former royal library of Joseon dynasty), Seoul, South Korea.
Ya gotta love the two little nubblies on the right off the Gangwando coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hachidou2.jpg
Declaration:This is an image of the Japanese 1695 documents recording Ahn Yong-bok's statement. In this chart of Korea's eight provinces (highlighted in blue) he declared Takeshima (竹島 Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (松島 Dokdo) as part of Korea's Gangwon Province.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anyongbok-doc15.jpg
Map 2: 1894 Korean Map 淸國新地圖 made by Smidani (炭谷博次郞).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Img_s02_item52.gif
Btw, I take no side in this debate. Just providing stuff to think about.
Of course, depending solely on historical claim maps could mean as much as me having drawn an imaginative map of the Lower United States of America showing Baja California, Chihuahua and Sinaloa as U.S. states with crayons as a 4th grader and donating it to a museum for the curator's office wall. Generations later, it just might serve as the item to claim sovereignty over territory. Bwahaha!
Some people might call these maps authentic. Others might call them propagandistic fabrications. In any case, y'all decide. I cannot read a wide variety of Chinese characters, so I personally cannot say anything. Enjoy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
Did somebody say, ''furnish maps claiming Korean sovereignty of Dodkdo/Takeshima?" I'm clutching a whole bunch o' scrolls against my chest. Clear the table and let's roll them out!
(All maps and info courtesy of Wikipedia)
Map 1:Paldo chongdo (literally map of 8 provinces in total) was included in Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram.
In accordance with King Jungjong's order in 1530, Yi Haeng, Yun Eunbo, and Shin Gongje made this woodcut print map. Original stored at Kyujanggak library (former royal library of Joseon dynasty), Seoul, South Korea.
Ya gotta love the two little nubblies on the right off the Gangwando coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hachidou2.jpg
Declaration:This is an image of the Japanese 1695 documents recording Ahn Yong-bok's statement. In this chart of Korea's eight provinces (highlighted in blue) he declared Takeshima (竹島 Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (松島 Dokdo) as part of Korea's Gangwon Province.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anyongbok-doc15.jpg
Map 2: 1894 Korean Map 淸國新地圖 made by Smidani (炭谷博次郞).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Img_s02_item52.gif
Btw, I take no side in this debate. Just providing stuff to think about.
Of course, depending solely on historical claim maps could mean as much as me having drawn an imaginative map of the Lower United States of America showing Baja California, Chihuahua and Sinaloa as U.S. states with crayons as a 4th grader and donating it to a museum for the curator's office wall. Generations later, it just might serve as the item to claim sovereignty over territory. Bwahaha!
Some people might call these maps authentic. Others might call them propagandistic fabrications. In any case, y'all decide. I cannot read a wide variety of Chinese characters, so I personally cannot say anything. Enjoy. |
The first map doesn't have Dokdo/Takeshima on it at all (only Ulleungdo and Jukdo). Not sure what the second link you posted is even referring to (where's the actual map?). The third map's resolution is too small to make out (can't read a single thing on it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Why Korea will not take it to the World Court is spelled out below
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page10.html
The decision is not binding so even if the court ruled in Korea's favour, Japan does not have to follow it. And imperial aggression does not seem to be taken into consideration, so that's one strike already.
Also Japan has a Japanese judge sitting on the ICJ whereas Korea has none.
Japan on the other hand is eager to take it to the world court because they have nothing to lose...even if the ruling goes against them, they don't have to honor it. |
What bull. Everything you post is a sham.
-Takeshima was never an imperialist possession, it was formally claimed before the Eulsa Treaty.
-Japan is the one asking to take the case to the world court, so of course they would follow the decision.
-If the court rules against Japan, they lose all claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Neither Korea nor I have to prove anything.
Dokdo is a Korea possession |
Illegally (and temporarily).
| Quote: |
Therefore the onus of the proof lies with the Japanese. Find one Japanese map that includes Dokdo in Japanese territory before 1905.
|
1) No, the onus is on Korea.
2) Guri Guy already went out of his way and helpfully provided just such a map, in this very thread, or was your head too far up your ass to notice at the time? Go back and check.
If Dokdo was Japanese territory, then why would Japan have to claim it in 1905? It would have already been Japanese territory and they wouldn't have to had to use terra nullius to lay claim to it. Besides which Japan was told to give up all its wartime possessions which include Dokdo. They were only able to illegally hold on to it because it wasn't included in the final draft.
| Quote: |
| No? Then you have nothing and since Dokdo is at present Korean territory, I will consider the argument settled and won until either Japan takes it back or you post up said map. |
I'm quite confident it will be a very satisfying combination of the two (the latter having already been checked off the list).
Again if that map is valid then why did Japan use the claim of terra nullius? If it was Japanese property they wouldn't have had to use it in the first place.
Once again, time to either provide a pre-1905 map with "Dokdo" on it, or take a hike. |
Once again, no valid proof has been given. |
Your style of posting replies in bold in the middle of the other person's quotes is quite annoying. Just make new quote boxes - it's then easier for the other person to keep your quotes in context...
Anyway:
| Quote: |
| If Dokdo was Japanese territory, then why would Japan have to claim it in 1905? It would have already been Japanese territory and they wouldn't have to had to use terra nullius to lay claim to it. |
This is totally irrelevant. The way you employ this faulty logic as if it were 'obvious' is disingenuous. Japan had been using the island for centuries, and has maps to prove it. But that is only background information, and actually irrelevant to Japan's case. Japan had never formally claimed the islands as a nation state. In feudal era Japan, the territory looked different, and Japan actually had a civil war earlier which led to the Meiji Reformation and the modern Japanese state. The 1905 claim was therefore just a formality, yet still remains the only legally binding claim made of the islets to date.
Korea has no such claim, nor any evidence to pre-date Japan's claim.
| Quote: |
| Besides which Japan was told to give up all its wartime possessions which include Dokdo. They were only able to illegally hold on to it because it wasn't included in the final draft. |
Do you not understand what the word 'draft' means? Look it up in the dictionary please. Takeshima was never a wartime possession, it was an integral part of Japan before Japan made a single move on annexing Korea. This is why Japan did not have to give it up in the final version of the treaty, and why Takeshima is still legally Japan's.
| Quote: |
| Again if that map is valid then why did Japan use the claim of terra nullius? If it was Japanese property they wouldn't have had to use it in the first place. |
Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Even if I grant you that the map is fake (which it probably isn't), it doesn't change the fact that Korea has no map of its own, which makes it open territory up till the time Japan claimed it formally in 1905.
You've really got nothing man.
| Quote: |
| Once again, no valid proof has been given. |
You're right about this, except the onus is 100% on Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ultimately the legality or rightness of one claim does not matter, as history has shown in any number of disputes.
its all about who is prepared to do the most to enforce their claim.
The sioux have a moral right to the US. But they're not in the white house.
At the moment it is Korea residing on Dokdo, be it right or wrong. I don't see how that will change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
