| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sojusucks
Joined: 31 May 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: 'Dokdo!'- there, i said it |
 |
|
| le-paul wrote: |
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... |
Both Korea and Japan have some territorial claims from old maps & documents. I think this argument is more political than anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, thanks for the replies everyone but it looks like we're no closer to knowing the truth...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
Well, thanks for the replies everyone but it looks like we're no closer to knowing the truth...
|
Yes we are: The truth is it's an uninhabitable rock that no one gave two shits about until fairly recently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CrikeyKorea wrote: |
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and specifically mentioned dokdo, however, in the later drafts due to on US diplomat (he was a japanophile) lobbying it was retracted- Korea had no say because they werent a signee to the treaty, blah blah blah...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. |
You are right that it is closer to the outlying Korean island of Ulleungdo than it is to the outlying Japanese island of Oki. But anyone who can look at a modern map can realize Dokdo is infact closer to mainland Japan.
Dokdo is around 195km to Japan mainland (Honshu) and 215 to Korean peninsula mainland. It's not a fact Koreans like to talk about, so I understand your confusion.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/why-japan-cant-have-dokdo-i.html
The above biased website even admits the geographical truth.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/
According to the above biased website Japan Proper is 250km away, however I have no Idea what the difference is between Honshu and Japan proper. It seems an invented number to prove a point.
Even Mr. Wikipedia agrees it is closer to Japanese mainland. The numbers are a little more even I think around 5km distance, but even then it proves a point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks
I also disagree with your 'undisputed' logic. Just because something hasn't been undisputed in ICC doesn't mean it's undisputed.
This being said I agree with your main point that Dokdo belongs to Korea. It is more important to the Korean people than to Japan who just wants to reclaim their colonial glory.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whenever I think of this Dokdo issue, I can't help but think of the TV show 'Deadwood'. Dokdo, right now, is basically an illegal settlement with no defined status, and the legal and international treaty language is murky. However potential resources mean that people want it. By moving onto it and improving it, Korea has acted much like the illegal settlers that make up Deadwood. There is a basis for annexing territory based upon physically living on it and improving it. However some outside agency could rule that claim and those improvements invalid and cause upheaval.
As I said, donate the whole thing to the UN for science. Get a public relations boost and take the high road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sister Ray
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Location: Fukuoka
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it, |
That's a pretty anthropocentric view. A police outpost improves an environment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sister Ray wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it, |
That's a pretty anthropocentric view. A police outpost improves an environment? |
Yes it is to the first. And "improving" something is a legal term relating to property and development.
http://thelawdictionary.org/improvement/
We're talking law here, not environmental metaphysics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The distance argument is silly.
The Faroe Islands are much closer to the UK and Denmark, but they are still Danish territory.
The Channel Islands are also much closer to France and although they are Crown dependencies and are not the UK technically...they are in reality.
In any case the Japanese should just drop the claim now and forever in return for a piece of any future economic opprtunities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahhhh..Dokdo.
Well, my students, eagerly asked me what how I felt about Dokdo, with big smiles on their faces....
I guess I ruined their anticipation by saying..."I really do not care."
That ended the conversation, rather quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Dokdo, right now, is basically an illegal settlement with no defined status, |
Its very clear that Japan has the stronger legal claim.
| Quote: |
| international treaty language is murky |
No its not, its crystal clear. The treaty recognizes Japans historic ownership of the island. Korea has no historic claims, and any suggestion to the contrary is a result of deliberate mistranslations of historic texts by Korean government propagandists.
| Quote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it |
You mean throwing concrete and litter down all over it?
There is a vast difference between korea and Japan when it comes to the taste and sensitivity of their architecture and how they treat their environment.
look, I get that by occupying the rocks korea keeps a toehold on their fragile national psyche, and I don't really care if they get to keep it...-but in reality they would not stand a chance in the international court of law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basically whenever I talk to Koreans about Dokdo, I mention it is in fact closer to mainland Japan. They think distance is somehow relevant.
I also mention that Syngman Rhee was brilliant for challenging the whole thing in the few months that Korea's had sovereignty from US forces but Japan did not.
Basically if their president didn't seize the opportunity, they would not have Dokdo right now.
Love him or hate him, that was a brilliant move for any Dokdo fan.
If he didn't do that Koreans would be in Japan's shoes now with an even weaker claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Dokdo, right now, is basically an illegal settlement with no defined status, |
Its very clear that Japan has the stronger legal claim.
| Quote: |
| international treaty language is murky |
No its not, its crystal clear. The treaty recognizes Japans historic ownership of the island. Korea has no historic claims, and any suggestion to the contrary is a result of deliberate mistranslations of historic texts by Korean government propagandists.
| Quote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it |
You mean throwing concrete and litter down all over it?
There is a vast difference between korea and Japan when it comes to the taste and sensitivity of their architecture and how they treat their environment.
look, I get that by occupying the rocks korea keeps a toehold on their fragile national psyche, and I don't really care if they get to keep it...-but in reality they would not stand a chance in the international court of law. |
Any point you may have had was lost as you became the latest poster to not understand the meaning of the word "improve" in regards to territorial claims and real estate and the like.
These kinds of cases can have twists and turns and various interpretations, turpitudes, and miasms and the like. I'm pretty sure that any document Korea or Japan comes up with could be twisted within 5 minutes by a skillful prey of lawyers. Ultimately, Korea exerts defacto control of the place which barring a storming of Dokdo by the JSDF is how its going to remain for the foreseeable future as it continues to be used as a prop and ploy for various nationalistic and defense politicking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Dokdo, right now, is basically an illegal settlement with no defined status, |
Its very clear that Japan has the stronger legal claim.
| Quote: |
| international treaty language is murky |
No its not, its crystal clear. The treaty recognizes Japans historic ownership of the island. Korea has no historic claims, and any suggestion to the contrary is a result of deliberate mistranslations of historic texts by Korean government propagandists.
| Quote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it |
You mean throwing concrete and litter down all over it?
There is a vast difference between korea and Japan when it comes to the taste and sensitivity of their architecture and how they treat their environment.
look, I get that by occupying the rocks korea keeps a toehold on their fragile national psyche, and I don't really care if they get to keep it...-but in reality they would not stand a chance in the international court of law. |
If you're correct on the points you have made, Id genuinely be very interested to read the sources you got your information from (this post was brought to you without sarcasm). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Dokdo, right now, is basically an illegal settlement with no defined status, |
Its very clear that Japan has the stronger legal claim.
| Quote: |
| international treaty language is murky |
No its not, its crystal clear. The treaty recognizes Japans historic ownership of the island. Korea has no historic claims, and any suggestion to the contrary is a result of deliberate mistranslations of historic texts by Korean government propagandists.
| Quote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it |
You mean throwing concrete and litter down all over it?
There is a vast difference between korea and Japan when it comes to the taste and sensitivity of their architecture and how they treat their environment.
look, I get that by occupying the rocks korea keeps a toehold on their fragile national psyche, and I don't really care if they get to keep it...-but in reality they would not stand a chance in the international court of law. |
If you're correct on the points you have made, Id genuinely be very interested to read the sources you got your information from (this post was brought to you without sarcasm). |
Mostly from reading stuff on here:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Dokdo, right now, is basically an illegal settlement with no defined status, |
Its very clear that Japan has the stronger legal claim.
| Quote: |
| international treaty language is murky |
No its not, its crystal clear. The treaty recognizes Japans historic ownership of the island. Korea has no historic claims, and any suggestion to the contrary is a result of deliberate mistranslations of historic texts by Korean government propagandists.
| Quote: |
| By moving onto it and improving it |
You mean throwing concrete and litter down all over it?
There is a vast difference between korea and Japan when it comes to the taste and sensitivity of their architecture and how they treat their environment.
look, I get that by occupying the rocks korea keeps a toehold on their fragile national psyche, and I don't really care if they get to keep it...-but in reality they would not stand a chance in the international court of law. |
If you're correct on the points you have made, Id genuinely be very interested to read the sources you got your information from (this post was brought to you without sarcasm). |
Mostly from reading stuff on here:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/ |
bookmarked, thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
