Korean Job Discussion Forums

[le-paul]

So, like a lot of people here I get sick and tired of hearing about this but usually, out of respect dont get drawn into the conversation.

However, after having done an amount of searching on the internet (including checking some of the sources), I haven't found anything that seems credible on either side of the argument.

So my question; does anyone know what is the truth with this? both sides cant be right? Or at least, does anyone have any recommended reading on the subject something that is preferably unbiased?

Thanks...

[Captain Corea]

I have a feeling both sides CAN be right.

They are rocks. Uninhabitable rocks. Sailors and fishermen used them for ages as a quick rest stop. I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that they were used by both Japan and Korea over various centuries.

[Chaparrastique]

Well recommended:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/

[optik404]

I propose they split the rock down the middle and give both sides to America.

USA #1

[bossface]

I think the rocks are Korea's, but only because of the whole possession being 9/10s of the law thing.

One of my students has a bunch of T-shirts that say something like "It is undisputed that Dokdo is an integral part of Korean territory geographically, historically, and by international law." Of course, not a word of that is true.

1 - undisputed - uh, no.
2 - integral - it is a couple of uninhabitable rocks with one crackpot couple living on them who would be unable to survive without mainland support.
3 - geographically - slightly closer to mainland Korea than mainland Japan means nothing. Falklands, anyone?
4 - historically - yeah, what Captain said. Pretty sure there is no history of permanent residency for either side until the 1990s.
5 - by international law - c'mon.

Then again, the T-shirt in question also calls the body of water surrounding Liancourt "The East Sea of Korea," so there's that.

I'd like to know when it became such a big issue as well. I'm guessing it was about 3 seconds after they discovered potential natural gas reserves on the seabed.

[le-paul]

i read (and this is where the grey area comes in) that the rocks belonged to Japan and after the second world war, the USA distributed land amongst the nations in an attempt to keep the peace. They were then given to korea. Apparently though they were uninhabited and the USA used them for bombing runs to practice targeting so no-one cared until recently .

[nicwr2002]

I thought it wasn't really about the rocks, but about the fishing around the rocks being very good. If Korea is right that would expand their fishing area. I suggested that it be a show of good will and progression to ease tensions by just sharing it. Allow both Japan and Korea to share and fish in the area freely. Instead of thinking about it I was show a two years "mine" attitude instead.

I can understand that they think it is theirs, so why should we share, but then again I can't understand why you can't just share it.

[coralreefer_1]

[Steelrails]

They should just donate it to the UN and have it be a scientific facility and nature preserve.

[happiness]

Doesnt matter. They wont take it to the intl court because itll risk too much. Can you imagine if they lost? Oh the wailing and crying! If the Japanese lost, itd be in the news, and then noone would care exept the guys in the black vans.

I do want most people reading this to know, most Japanese have no idea about those rocks, but may now because of the uproar Korean politicians make. That said, they dont care. Different cultures really.

[Sister Ray]

[Who's Your Daddy?]

For all the bluster of the Korean side the fact that they won't take it to the International Court makes me question their claim.

[cabeza]

The Korean reasoning for not going to the ICJ is that they believe Japan's claim is so absurd and outlandish, by going to court Korea would be accepting that the absolutely ridiculous claim of Japan has some merit.

I think both sides are happy with where it is right now. Nice little distraction and nationalism builder.

[CrikeyKorea]

Dokdo is both far closer to Korean mainland as well as the nearest island being korean (Ulleungdo).

Korea never asked for it back after WWII, the san francisco peace treaty initially called for all colonised land to be returned, and specifically mentioned dokdo, however, in the later drafts due to on US diplomat (he was a japanophile) lobbying it was retracted- Korea had no say because they werent a signee to the treaty, blah blah blah...

and now we have what we have.

It is undisputed territory because for it to be disputed territory both countries would need to agree and take it to the ICJ, because korea (good on them) refuses to accept taking it to that level is is technically undisputed regardless of Japan "claiming" it as their own.

[CrikeyKorea]

Dokdo is both far closer to Korean mainland as well as the nearest island being korean (Ulleungdo).

Korea never asked for it back after WWII, the san francisco peace treaty initially called for all colonised land to be returned, and specifically mentioned dokdo, however, in the later drafts due to on US diplomat (he was a japanophile) lobbying it was retracted- Korea had no say because they werent a signee to the treaty, blah blah blah...

and now we have what we have.

It is undisputed territory because for it to be disputed territory both countries would need to agree and take it to the ICJ, because korea (good on them) refuses to accept taking it to that level is is technically undisputed regardless of Japan "claiming" it as their own.