The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 13 | Issue 9 | Number 3 | Mar 02, 2015

1

Japans 1905 Incorporation of Dokdo/Takeshima: A HistoricalPerspective1905

Yong-ho Ch'oe

Introduction

On January 28, 1905, the Japanese Cabinetformally adopted a resolution incorporating theisland of Dokdo/Takeshima as Japaneseterritory. Justifying the incorporation based onthe claim that Dokdo/Takeshima was "anuninhabited island with no evidence that can berecognizable as having been occupied byanother country (. . . .", the Japanesegovernment then renamed the is landTakeshima () and placed its jurisdictionunder Shimane Prefecture, which in turn put itunder the magistracy of Oki Island.1 This actionby the Japanese government was stronglydisputed by the Republic of Korea, igniting abitter controversy between the two Asianneighbors. Following Japan's defeat in thePacific War in 1945, Korea, claiming historicalrights, regained its control over the island.Japan regards this as an illegal occupationbased on its 1905 incorporation. This articleoffers a historical perspective on theDokdo/Takeshima controversy by examiningthe historical claims made by both Japan andSouth Korea.

The Korean claim over Dokdo/Takeshima goesas far back as the sixth century when theancient Kingdom of Silla dispatched troops andsubdued it in 512 C.E. The succeedingdynasties-Goryeo and Joseon-continued tocontrol the island until the turn of the twentiethcentury when Japan arbitrarily and illegallyincorporated into its domain in 1905, accordingto Korean scholars. These Koreans citenumerous historical sources to support theirclaim. For Japan on the other hand, the oldest

written reference to Dokdo/Takeshima datesback to the seventeenth century and, as weshal l see, throughout the Edo period(1600-1868), the Tokugawa governmentdisavowed any claim over the island. The Meijigovernment likewise maintained the positionthat Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea, until1905 when Japan suddenly shifted its policyand laid claim over the island on the ground ofterra nullius.2 What were the reasons for thisJapanese action? What were the motives? Here,we can find a convergence of two forces-onepolitical emanating from the "Conquer KoreaArgument" and the other an urgent militaryconsideration in fighting the war against Russiabeing waged at the time. We shall see how aninnocent business proposition by a privateindividual was manipulated by a few middle-ranking officials of the Meiji government toconvert it into a national policy of territorialaggrandizement.

A Note on Names

Historically, both Japan and Korea useddifferent names for this island and the largerneighboring island of Ulleungdo (),3

causing considerable confusion in identifyingand locating these sites. Until the latenineteenth century, Japan used the nameTakeshima to refer to what Korea now callsUlleungdo, and Matsushima () to refer towhat Korea now calls Dokdo (). When in1905 Japan annexed the islet that it hadpreviously called Matsushima and Korea calledDokdo, it renamed it as Takeshima. Korea, onthe other hand, used several different namesfor these two islands besides Ulleungdo andDokdo, including Usan (), Muleung (),

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

2

Uleung (), and Uleung (), amongothers. Korean scholars generally believe thatMuleung is the present Ulleungdo and Usan thepresent Dokdo, although many others arguethat these names were used interchangeably orcollectively. Yet another name for Dodko /Takeshima was added by European navigatorsexploring the East Sea/Sea of Japan in thenineteenth century: Liancourt Rocks.4 The useof these different names naturally causedconfusion, and contributed in no small degreeto the rise of the controversy between Japanand Korea.

Ulleungdo has fertile land for farming, alongwith rich resources for fishing, hunting (sealions), and logging. Dokdo/Takeshima, incontrast, is a rocky islet where humanhabitation is difficult, but it also has richgrounds for fishing, collecting abalone, andhunting sea lions. Located approximately 92kilometers southeast of Korea's Ulleungdo and157 kilometers northwest of Japan's Oki Island,the disputed island of Dokdo/Takeshima iscurrently under the dominion of the Republic ofKorea, which Japan regards as an illegaloccupation.

Historical References in Korea: Under Sillaand Goryeo

T h e f i r s t h i s t o r i c a l r e f e r e n c e t oDokdo/Takeshima in Korea is found in Samguksagi ( History of the Three Kingdoms),compiled in the year 1145. It reads:

In the summer 6th month of the12th year of King Jijeung's reign[512], the Country of Usan ()accepted submission and began tosend its local products as annualtribute [to Silla]. The Country ofUsan is located in the sea due eastof Myeongju () and is alsocalled Ulleungdo."5

Samguk sagi then details how General Isabu() of Silla used force and guile to forceUsan-guk into submission. Usan was also calledUlleungdo, but there is no explanation as towhether Ulleungdo or Usan-guk also referredto Dokdo. Based on later historical accounts,Korean scholars today believe that the Usan-guk mentioned in Samguk sagi was comprisedof both Ulleungdo and Dokdo.6 Japan, on theother hand, rejects this view, insisting thatUsan-guk referred only to Ulleungdo and didnot include Dokdo/Takeshima.7

During the Goryeo Dynasty (918-1392) thatsucceeded the Silla Kingdom, there are morenumerous references to Ulleungdo and Usando.In 930, during the reign of the dynastic founderKing Taejo, a report in Goryeo-sa (History of Goryeo), the official dynastic historycompiled in 1451, notes that two individualsnamed Baekgil and Todu from Uleungdo () submitted tribute of native products andwere given titles as government officials by theking.8 Several reports during the eleventhcentury describe invasions of Usan by theNuzhen (), a tribe in Manchuria. In 1018,for example, there is this entry: "As theNuzhen's invasion of Usanguk was sodevastating that its agriculture was faced withcomplete ruin, the king dispatched Yi Weon-guwith farming tools and implements."9 Similartwelfth and thirteenth century references toUlleungdo and Usando in Goreyo-sa and otherhistorical works make it clear that Koreacontrolled and administered Ulleungdo as wellas Usando throughout the Goryeo Dynasty.10

One may, however, question whether thesereferences denote both Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima or just one of the islands.S i n c e t h e b a r r e n r o c k y i s l a n d o fDokdo/Takeshima did not favor humansettlement, it may be that the referencesapplied only to Ulleungdo. This question,however, is resolved in the geography sectionof Goryeo-sa , in which there is a clearreference to two islands. The entry on

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

3

Ulleungdo reads as follows:

It is located in the sea due east ofthe county [of Uljin]. It was calledUsan-guk during the Silla period. Itis also called Muleung or Uleung(). . . . According to one view,Usan and Muleung consists of twoislands, whose distance is not toofar away so that one can see theother island when weather is clearand bright.11

Here, the official history of Goryeo statesspecifically that Ulleungdo consisted of bothUsan and Muleung and that the distancebetween the two was such that each could beseen from the other only when the weather wasclear and bright.

Koreans maintain that this passage isunmistakable evidence of Korea's claim to thetwo islands dating back at least to the Goryeoperiod, for the only island that is visible fromUlleungdo solely under clear and brightweather conditions is Dokdo/Takeshima.Although there are many smaller islands in theimmediate vicinity of Ulleungdo, none evencomes remotely close to what Goryeo-sadescribes.

Japanese scholars, however, dispute this.Kawakami Kenz, a researcher at the JapaneseForeign Ministry, whose view may have largelyshaped the Japanese posi t ion on theDokdo/Takeshima controversy, expendsconsiderable effort to find faults in the Koreanhistorical sources. Comparing this particularpassage from Goryeo-sa to many similar Koreanhistorical references that followed afterwardunder the Joseon dynasty, he concludes that allthe references basically repeat an earlier textand that Koreans made a mistake in readingthese passages as referring to two islands. Heinsists that these writings refer only to oneisland of Ulleungdo and that Dokdo/Takeshima

is not included.12 Most Korean scholars,however, reject Kawakami's reading as abiased interpretation of the text, and argueinstead the Dokdo/Takeshima is the only islandthat is visible in the distance from Ulleungdounder "clear and bright" weather conditions.

Korean Historical References: Under theJoseon Dynasty

The Joseon Dynasty succeeded Koryeo in 1392and ruled Korea until 1910. Deeply committedto a Neo-Confucian ideology, Joseon Korea wasparticularly conscious of history and generatedmassive historical records--both public andprivate. These records contain numerousreferences to Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima,from which we learn that the early JoseonDynasty was preoccupied with two issues inreference to these islands: the fear of Japanesemarauders (), and how to deal with peoplemoving there to escape governmental control.

In the latter half of the fourteenth and the earlyfifteenth centuries, Japanese raiders inflictedheavy damage along the Korean coast. In fact,their harassment was an important factorcontributing to the demise of Goryeo and therise of Joseon. Not until King Sejong launched amilitary expedition to Tsushima in 1419 wasthe menace of the marauders largelyeliminated. But Japanese harassment stillimpacted Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima. In1417, for example, a one-sentence report inKing Taejo's annals noted that "Japanese raidedUsan and Muleung."13 In 1437, Yu Gye-mun, thegovernor of Gangweon province, proposed acounty-level magistracy on Muleung island toadminister the people who were attracted therefor its fertile land and to deal with problemsarising from Japanese marauders.14

The greater concern for the Joseongovernment, however, was how to deal withthose who sought refuge on the remote islandsto avoid governmental exactions, such as taxesand military and labor services. In 1412, the

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

4

governor of Gangweon province reported thatmore than sixty men and women had moved toMuleung island.15 In 1425, twenty-eight menand women were reported to have escapedthere,16 and in 1438, sixty-six men and womenwere forcibly removed from Muleungdo.17 Mostof these migrants were trying to avoidgovernmental control, as Kim In-hu (),the Pacification Commissioner of Muleung,reported in 1416. The gist of his report reads:Because of its [Muleung] remote location in thesea, people moved there to escape militaryduties, and as the number of these peopleincreased, it would surely bring Japanesemarauders to invade, which in turn wouldthreaten Gangweon province as well.18 Becauseof these concerns, the Joseon government inthe end adopted the gongdo policy ()prohibiting people from visiting or residing onthe islands.

What particularly draws our attention in thesereferences, however, is the use of Usan andMuleung as the names of the two islands. Adiscussion of whether to assist or evacuatepeople from the islands in 1417, for instance,uses the names Usan and Uleung throughout.19

In the same year, a report on Japanesemarauders notes that "Japanese raided Usanand Muleung."20 Also, in 1425, when Kim In-huwas dispatched twice to bring back those whofled to the islands, he was designated "thePacification Commissioner of Usan, Muleung,and the Other Area ()."21

In 1457, based on his experience as magistrateof Gangneung, Yu Su-gang () proposed anew county-level office to administer thecombined islands, declaring that "It is worthyto establish a county office for the two islandsof Usan and Muleung ()."Asked by King Sejo for advice, the Ministry ofMilitary Affairs opposed establishing the newoffice on the grounds that the islands were tooremote from the mainland, and that it was toodifficult to navigate there. In rejecting Yu'sproposal, the ministry referred to "The matter

of establishing a county office for the twoislands of Usan and Muleung ()."22 The king in the end agreed with theministry. What draws our special attention inthis discussion are, first, the specific referencesto "the two islands of Usan and Uleung," andsecond, that these islands were importantenough to be considered part of the regularprovincial government administration of JoseonKorea. These records clearly show that not onlywas early Joseon cognizant of the existence ofthe two islands, but that it actually exercisedadministrative control over them. Based onthese sources, Shin Yong-ha, arguably the bestinformed Korean scholar on this controversy,asserts that Korea recognized the two islandsas one entity, in which Ulleungdo was regardedas "the main island" and Dokdo as its"subordinate island." 2 3

The recognition of the two islands as part ofKorean territory is even clearer in the books ofgeography compiled in the early Joseon period.During the reign of King Sejong (1418-1450), acomprehensive survey of the country wasproduced. Recording geographical conditionsas well as human and natural resources, thissurvey is appended to the Annals of KingSejong, the Sejong sillok jiriji (). The entry on Uljin county () ofGangweon Province notes: "Two islands ofUsan and Muleung are located in the sea dueeast of [Uljin] county, and the distance betweenthe two islands is not too far, but one can seeeach other when the weather is clear andbright."24 Here, we find a clear reference to twoseparate islands located due east of Uljin, andvisible to each other only under clear andbright weather. Such descriptions fit well withthe present Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima,but match no other islands in the area.

In addition to the geography section of KingSejong's annals, the early Joseon Dynastyconducted a number of other surveys of itshuman and natural resources, in particularcompiling the Dongguk yeoji seunram (Survey

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

5

of the Geography of Korea) in 1481, which wasrevised and augmented in 1530 as Sinjeungdongguk yeoji seungram ().This remarkable study of Korea's geographyprovides detailed geographic, economic,historical, and cultural information on variousprovinces and counties. The section on Uljincounty includes this passage: "Usando andUlleungdo: One is also called Muleung and theother Uleung. The two islands are located inthe sea due east of the county [of Uljin]. Threepeaks soar in the sky, but one in the south is alittle lower. On a clear and bright day, one cansee clearly trees on the tops of the hills andsand in the shore below [of the other island].With favorable wind, one can reach there intwo days.."25 Here, we find a clear descriptionof Usando and Ulleungdo. We also learn thatthese two islands were placed under theadministration of Uljin county in Gangweonprovince.

It should be noted here that this geographicsurvey mentions an alternative theory that"Usan and Ulleung are one island." Based onthis report that some people believed that therewas only one island with two names, manyJapanese scholars contend that fifteenth andsixteenth century Koreans knew of only oneisland and were unaware of the existence ofDokdo/Takeshima.26 Similar references in otherhistorical sources also state that two nameswere used for the same island, certainlycontributing to the confusion in identifyingthese locations. However the reference to twonames for one place is included in the surveyonly as a subsidiary theory. In traditional EastAsian historical writings, compilers very oftenincluded divergent or minority views, markedby such phrases as "different theories" or "" or "" (according to another view). Inthis geographic survey, the phrase "Usan andUleung refer to one island" is included at theend of the paragraph, as "according to anothertheory," indicating that it was recorded only asa minority view, and not the acceptedconclusion. The book's compilers clearly favor

the theory that there were two islands of Usanand Uleung, which came under the jurisdictionof Korea's Gangweon Province.

This conclusion is further strengthened by twomaps depicting "Usando" and Ulleungdoappended to the Sinjeung dongguk yeojiseungram. Inserted at the beginning of thebook, the "Paldo chongdo ( GeneralMap of the Eight Provinces)" depicts the entireKorean Peninsula, with major rivers andmountains in addition to the eight provinces. Inthe sea east of the Korean Peninsula, the mapdepicts two islands, called Usando andUlleungdo.

Figure 1. Map of Korea in Dongguk Yeoji Seungrammade in 1530. Usando is incorrectly located to thewest of Ulleungdo in the sea east of Korea.

A second map, covering Gangweon Province,also shows the islands of Usando andUlleungdo, located east of Uljin. Illustrating theexistence of two islands in Korea's eastern sea,these maps also clearly show that both wereregarded as Korean territory, administeredunder the jurisdiction of Gangweon Province.

A controversy remains, however, surroundingthe locations of the two islands as depicted inthe maps. Usando is shown between the KoreanPeninsula and Ulleungdo-that is, west of

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

6

Ulleungdo. The present-day Dokdo, however,which many Koreans believe to be Usan, isl o c a t e d t o t h e e a s t o f U l l e u n g d o .Understandably, Japanese scholars use thisdiscrepancy to deny the Korean claim.Kawakami Kenz, for example, cites the mapsin his disparaging evaluation: "Even from themaps that offer the most concrete knowledge ofgeography, we can say clearly that the theoryof Usan-Ulleungdo being two islands [as heldby Koreans] is based wholly on an imaginaryperception (), and it typically shows thatsuch a [Korean] view is not derived from anyfactual knowledge at all."2 7 FollowingKawakami's contention, the Japanese ForeignMinistry and kuma Ryichi reach similarconclusions, rejecting the Korean assertion thatUsan and Ulleungdo were the present Dokdoand Ulleungdo.28

Japanese scholars contend, in short, that theinconsistency in the locations of Usan andUlleung as depicted in Sinjeung dongguk yeojiseungram negates the validity of the Koreanclaim. Because the maps incorrectly place Usanwest of Ulleungdo, the Japanese insist thatKoreans had no actual knowledge of theexistence of the present Dokdo/Takeshima, andbase their identification of Usando as presentDokdo/Takeshima not on fact, but only on "animaginary perception." Koreans, however,vehemently reject this contention. Shin Yong-haasserts that the inconsistent locations of Usanand Ulleung in the maps of Sinjeung donggukyeoji seungram should be regarded simply as amistake committed by the Korean scholar-officials who compiled the geography book-anunderstandable mistake, according to Shin,considering the limited cartographic knowledgeand map-making skills of the sixteenth century.Despite the directional inaccuracy, Shin Yong-ha contends that the book's two maps andnarrative show that Korea at the time treatedthese islands as an integral part of Koreanterritory. The placement of Usando andUlleungdo close to Korea's east coast,according to Shin and other Korean scholars,29

is "a manifestation of the strong territorialconsciousness" of the map-makers.30

Historically, as I have shown, Korea usedseveral different names for the two islands, andclose examination shows that these nameswere often used interchangeably. This mayhave occurred because of the lack of exactknowledge of the location of the two islands,due to their remoteness from the mainland andthe difficulty in reaching them, But this lack ofprecise knowledge does not mean that Koreanswere unaware of the existence of both islands.The maps instead demonstrate that they werefully cognizant of two separate islands--Usanand Uleung--as part of Korea.

Korean Policy of Vacating the Islands ()

A n o t h e r b o n e o f c o n t e n t i o n i n t h eDokdo/Takeshima controversy is the so-calledpolicy of vacating or evacuating the islands ofUlleung and Usan pursued by the Koreangovernment during the Joseon Dynasty.Officially, in 1417, the new Joseon governmentadopted the gongdo () policy wherebypeople were not permitted to live on theislands. There were at least two reasons for thispolicy. First, in the late Goryeo and earlyJoseon period, many from the east coast ofKorea had moved to Ulleung to seek economicgain and to avoid the burdensome dutiesimposed by the central government, includingtaxes and military and labor services. Thegovernment wanted to restore its control overthese people. Second, with the memories stillfresh of Japanese marauders pillaging Koreancoasts and its surrounding islands, the Joseongovernment did not want to attract Japaneseraiders to these undefended remote islands. In1417, on learning that as many as eighty-sixKoreans were living on Ulleungdo, thegovernment dispatched a special commissionerto persuade them to return to the mainland.When only three complied with the request, theking ordered the evacuation of the island.31

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

7

Some Japanese scholars interpret this policy asabandoning the island, thus allowing Japanesefishermen to move there. Kawakami Kenzwrites: "From the early period of the Yi [Joseon]Dynasty, the island [of Ulleungdo] wascompletely vacated, and as the island wascompletely abandoned by the KoreanGovernment, increasing numbers of Japanesevisited [Ulleungdo], and for 100 years after theBunroku war [the Hideyoshi Invasion of Koreain 1592-98], it [Ulleungdo] became wholly afishing ground of the Japanese."32 kumaRyichi holds a similar view: "The policy ofvacating islands started in the 15th century bythe Joseon Dynasty government, and for thelong ensuing period of more than 300 years,this island [Ulleungdo] was reduced literally toan uninhabited island ()."33

Did, as these Japanese scholars claim,Ulleungdo become an uninhabited islandfollowing the adoption of the "Vacating IslandsPolicy" in 1417? Did the Joseon Dynasty reallyabandon Ulleungdo? Historical evidenceindicates otherwise. Despite the official policy,Koreans continued to go to Ulleungdo,attracted by its fertile land, rich fishinggrounds, and abundant forests, as well as toevade taxes and governmental control. As ShinYong-ha has amply documented, numerousentries in the Joseon Dynasty annals (sillok)deal with the people who moved to Ulleungdo.Periodically the government was obliged todispatch officials to handle those who violatedthe evacuation policy.34 In 1480, for example,King Seongjong appointed Shim An-in ()as the Commissioner of Pacification (),and sent him along with more than 200 troopsto Ulleungdo to persuade, coax, and/or compelthose who were on the island to return to themainland.35 Contrary to Japanese contentions,the evacuation policy did not result in the totalvacating of Ulleungdo, and more importantly, itcertainly did not mean abandoning the island.In reality, the policy was never effectivelyenforced, as Koreans continued to go therethroughout the Joseon dynasty's rule.

Japanese Historical Sources

Although there are a number of references tothe presence of Japanese on Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima in Korean historical sources-characterizing them mostly as marauders-therei s n o k n o w n J a p a n e s e a c c o u n t o fDodko/Takeshima dating from before the lateseventeenth century, many centuries later thanthe earliest surviving Korean account. Theoldest known Japanese written reference datesback to 1667, according to Kawakami Kenz,when Sait Hsen (), a magistrate ofthe island of Onshu (present Oki), compiledOnsh shichgki (, Record ofwhat I observed and learned on Onsh) aboutOki's history, economy, etc.36 The followingpassage pertains to Takeshima (Dokdo): "When[navigating from Onsh] in the northwesterlydirection for two days and one night, one canr e a c h M a t s u s h i m a ( ) [ p r e s e n tDokdo/Takeshima]. One more day's journeyfrom there will take one to Takeshima [presentUlleungdo]. These two islands are uninhabitedby men. Looking toward Korea from there issimilar to looking toward Onsh from Unsh[present Sh imane] . There fore , thenorthwestern boundary of Japan lies in thisregion."37 This is the first reference in theJapanese literature giving the names ofTakeshima and Matsushima, according toseveral Japanese scholars.38

The last sentence of this passage, however, isopen to interpretation: "Therefore, thenorthwestern boundary of Japan lies in thisregion." What is at issue is how to read theterm "this region" (kono sh ) that marksthe boundary of Japan. Most Korean scholarsargue that "this region" refers to Onsh, orpresent Oki island, evidence that Sait Hsenbelieved the boundary demarcating Japan fromthe outside world was located in Oki, notDokdo/Takeshima. Shin Yong-ha writes: "Whatis stated in this source proves, contrary to theclaim made by the Japanese government, thatJapan's northern boundary ends with Oki island

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

8

and [therefore] that Ulleungdo (Takeshima) andDokdo (Matsushima) are parts of the Koreanterritory."39

Japanese scholars on the other hand offerconflicting interpretations of Sait'sobservation. kuma Ryichi, a strong advocateof the Japanese claim to Dokto/Takeshima,reads the term "this region" as referring toDokdo/Takeshima: "This Takeshima is thepresent Ulleungdo, and because Matsushima[present Dokdo/Takeshima] is [an island] whereno person lived, it is the furthest land point ofJapan's northwesterly direction. The compiler[Sait] writes that this is the boundary of ourcountry."40 Tagawa Kz likewise reads "thisregion" as the islands of Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima.41 Kawakami Kenz, however,skirts the boundary issue. Although he quotesthe entire passage, he uses it only to point toSait's work as the first Japanese reference toDokdo/Takeshima.4 2 Likewise, TamuraSeizabur offers no reading of the boundaryissue.43

Another Japanese scholar, nishi Toshiteru, onthe o ther hand , a f f i rms the Koreaninterpretation of the boundary passage asdefining Onsh (Oki), not Dokdo/Takeshima, asthe farthest point of Japan. A native of Oki,where he finished high school, nishitranslates the pertinent passage as follows:"Japan's boundary (the furthest point of thenorthwesterly land where the Japanese live) isin this region (Onsh, meaning Oki-kuni), andthis constitutes the boundary [whereinJapanese live]."44 Hosaka Yji, a Japanese-Korean scholar, has reached a similarconclusion.45 But the most authoritative readingof this particular passage is by Ikeuchi Satoshi,a professor at Nagoya University in Japan.Devoting an entire article to the term "thisregion ()," Ikeuchi studied the contexts inwhich other contemporary writers used it.Comparing as many as sixty-six examples, heconcluded that "this region" referred to Onsh,not the islands, as the boundary of Japan,46 and

that Sait Hsen defined the Japaneseboundary as located on Oki island, notDokdo/Takeshima. It should also be pointed outthat Sait used "this region )," and not"this island ()," to refer to the boundary.

During Tokugawa Rule (1600-1868), theJapanese government imposed a strict policy ofisolation (), banning its people from leavingthe country. But discovering abundantresources, an increasing number of Japanesewere attracted to Ulleungdo, which they calledTakeshima () or Isotakejima (). In1618, two enterprising families of ya ()and Murakawa () from Yonago () (nowpart of Tottori Prefecture) requested and weregiven permission by the Tokugawa Shogunateto engage in economic activities on Takeshima(Ulleungdo).47 It was while carrying out theirwork that the Japanese discovered the islet ofDokdo/Takeshima, which they cal ledMatsushima, lying between Oki (Onsh) andUlleungdo.48 This islet, with its rich fishinggrounds, became a convenient way station forgoing from Japan to Ulleungdo.49 The Japaneseclaims of Dokdo/Takeshima are based largelyon these activities carried out by fishermenduring the Genroku period (1688-1703). TheJapanese activities on these islands, however,did not last long, as in 1696 the Tokugawagovernment issued an order prohibiting itspeople from going to Takeshima (Ulleungdo).50

With memories of the destructive Japan-Koreawar of 1592-98 still vivid, the TokugawaShogunate maintained throughout its rule apolicy of peace and friendship with Korea. Aswe shall see below, the Tokugawa decision toprohibit Japanese from going to Takeshima(Ulleungdo) in 1696 was partly motivated bythe desire to maintain friendly and peacefulrelations with Korea.

As if to underscore the official position of theTokugawa government, some maps produced inlate eighteenth century Japan show clearly thatDokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea. A scholar

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

9

famous for drawing attention on Japan'smaritime defense, Hayashi Shihei (),compiled a book entitled Sankoku tsranzusetsu (

An illustrated survey of three countries) in1785, providing an account of the geography ofJapan and three neighboring countries-namely,Ryky, Ezo (Hokkaido), and Korea. Appendedto this book is a colored map showing Japan,Ezo, Siberia, Manchuria, and Korea. In the seabetween Japan and Korea are two islands-alarge one it called Matsushima and anothersmaller one next to it that is not named. Whilethe main island of Japan and its surroundingislands, such as Tsushima and Oki, are coloredin green, Matsushima and its neighboringisland have, in contrast, yellow color along withKorea. Moreover, next to Matushima is thispassage: "They belong to Korea ()."51

Figure 2. Map made by Hayashi Shihei in ca. 1785.Matsushima and Takeshima are colored in yellowsame as Korea. It notes: "They belong to Korea."

Figure 2.here

In 1791, cartographer, Nagakubo Sekisui () produced the famous map of Japan

called Nihon yochi rotei zenzu ( Complete map of Japanese lands and roads),using for the first time the meridians andparallels. In this map, Nagakubo gave variouscolors to different Japanese provinces andislands, such as Tsushima and Oki, but gave nocolor to Takeshima (Ul leungdo) andMatsushima (Dokdo) or to Korea.52 These twomaps clearly indicate that Tokugawa Japan hadno illusion of any territorial claim over theisland of Dokdo/Takeshima.

The An Yong-bok () Incident

In spite of the policy of "vacating the islands,"many Koreans went to Ulleungdo seasonally toengage in farming, fishing, and logging. Intime, these Koreans encountered Japanesefishermen--encounters that eventually led toconflict. In 1692, according to one Japanesereport, approximately thirty Koreans were onUlleungdo, apparently with no friction.53 Butthe following year, more than forty Koreans,including An Yong-bok and Bak Eo-dong,arrived at Ulleungdo to join other Koreansworking there, and this time a conflict arose.After an argument, the numerically superiorJapanese fishermen held An Yong-bok and BakEo-dong hostage, taking them to Oki and thento Yonago , J apan . A f te r a se r i e s o finterrogations, the two Koreans wereeventually escorted safely back to Korea.54

Three years later, in 1696, An Yong-bok,accompanied by several Buddhist monks, wentto Ulleungdo once again, where he tried topersuade the Japanese fishermen to leave theisland on the grounds that Ulleungdo belongedto Korea. As he pursued the Japanese toDokdo/Takeshima, he met unfavorable weatherand was forced to drift all the way to Japan.Following interrogation, he was once againsent back to Korea.55

An Yong-bok's first trip in 1693 prompted adiplomatic dispute between Japan and Koreaover the ownership of Ulleungdo. Usually, theMinistry of Rites of the Korean government

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

10

took charge of negotiating with Japan, whilethe lord of Tsushima represented Japan indealing with Korea. Claiming historical right,Korea demanded that Japan not violate Koreanterritory or exploit the Korean resources ofUlleungdo. Rejecting this claim, Japan insistedthat "Isotakejima [Takeshima, Ulleungdo] ispart of Japanese territory."56 But in 1696, aftera flurry of diplomatic exchanges, ShogunTsunayoshi ordered the lord of Tsushima toprohibit Japanese from going to Ulleungdo, forthe following reason:

Although it is said that the land ofTakeshima [Ulleungdo] belongedto Hsh [Tottori], our peoplenever lived there. During the timeof Lord Daitoku, merchants ofYonago requested and weregranted permission to fish there.As we consider its location, thedistance from Hsh is about 160ri while the distance from Korea isabout 40 ri. Moreover, it [Korea]appears to claim that this islandforms its boundary. If [our] countryshould resort to military power, wemay probably gain something. Butit is not a good policy for us to losethe friendship of a neighboringcountry for the sake of this uselesssmall island () .57f

With this decision, Japanese were prohibitedfrom going to Ulleungdo until the end ofTokugawa rule. This prohibition also in effectconceded control of the islands to Korea. WhileKawakami Kenz contends that this order didnot apply to Matsushima (Dokdo/Takeshima),which Japan held to be part of its domain,58

Koreans reject Kawakami's argument.

It is important to take special note of thereason Shogun Tsunayoshi, who presided overthe famous "Genroku Culture" in Japan, gavefor his decision: Keeping friendship with Korea

is more important than fighting over "thisuseless small island." Following Tsunayoshi'sorder, the Tokugawa government pursued ingeneral a policy of peace and friendship towardKorea throughout its rule, which wasreciprocated by Joseon Korea.

At the same time, An Yong-bok's trips to Japanalso provoked serious debates within theKorean government. When, in 1694, the lord ofTsushima, the chief Japanese negotiator withKorea, protested that the presence of Koreanson Ulleungdo (Takeshima) infringed uponJapan's territorial rights and demanded that noKoreans should be allowed there,59 the initialresponse of the Korean government was toavoid trouble. Headed by Mok Nae-seon andMin Ham, the State Council (), thehighest office in the central government,hesitated to offend Japan. They advised theking that although Ulleungdo belonged toKorea, it had been vacated for three hundredyears, and hence should not be allowed tobecome a cause for conflict.6 0 Shortlythereafter, however, a political change in theKorean court removed these officials andinstalled Nam Gu-man () as the chiefstate councillor (). One of his first actionswas to reverse the policy toward Japan. Citinghistorical claims going back to the Silla period,as well as the Dongguk yeoji seungram, NamGu-man insisted that Ulleungdo was Koreanland and that Japan should not be allowed toviolate Korean rights and interests there. If theJapanese were allowed to do so, he warned,they would cause incalculable damage.61 Duringthe discussion, there was even a proposal toestablish a military garrison () on Ulleungdoto protect against any future intrusions byJapan. The king ordered that appropriatemeasures be taken, but apparently no actionfollowed.62

In spite of his imprisonment, An Yong-bok,upon his release, went to Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima again in 1696 to repel theJapanese. He was forced off-course by

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

11

unfavorable weather and reached Japaneseshores, where he continued to advocate for theKorean position. On his return, he claimed thatthe Japanese authorities recognized the Koreanclaim and promised not to allow Japanese toviolate Korean territory. He also claimed thatthe Tokugawa Shogunate wrote a letteracknowledging that both Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea, but thisdocument was taken away by the lord ofTsushima.63

Some Japanese scholars contest his story.Kawakami Kenz argues that An Yong-bok'sclaim about the Tokugawa Shogun's letteracknowledging the Korean ownership of theislands is not supported by the existingdocuments. Kawakami also denies An's claimthat he had interviewed the lord of Hki ().Citing these and other inconsistencies in AnYong-bok's description of his actions,Kawakami concludes that An's account is basedon "falsehood ()."64 Others challenge thisview, however. Both Nait Seich, an emeritusprofessor of Shimane University, and HosakaYji, a Japanese-Korean scholar, examinedrecently discovered documents related to AnYong-bok's visit to Japan. They believe that hemost likely had the opportunity to interview thelord of Hki while in Japan, and that An'sdescription of his conduct is consistent withother evidence, and hence his accounts arecredible.65

In 2005, a batch of documents belonging to theMurakami () family of Shimane wasdiscovered, which shed new light on the AnYong-bok affair. Among these documents is onetitled "A memorandum of Koreans arriving byboat in the 9th year of Genroku [1696]." Thedate and the contents of this document make itquite clear that it once belonged to An Yong-bok. Included is a sheet of paper entitled "EightProvinces of Korea ()," listing thenames of all the provinces of Korea. UnderGangweon Province is this line in small letters:"This province includes Takeshima and

Matsushima ()."

Figure 3. An Yong-bok Document of 1696 (found inJapan) listing Korea's 8 Provinces. It says:"Matsushima and Takeshima are under GangweonProvince."

In another document, An Yong-bok explainsthat "The island called Bamboo Island isTakeshima [Takeshima () means bambooisland], which is Ulleungdo and belongs toDongraebu () of Gangweondo [sic] inKorea. This is called Bamboo Island and is sorecorded in the map of the Eight Provinces [ofKorea], which I am carrying with me now. Asfor Matsushima, there is an island called Jasan(), which is under [the administration of]the province mentioned above [GangweonProvince], and this is called Matsushima. Thistoo is recorded in the Eight Provinces Map."66

Here, we have written documents going back tothe last decade of the seventeenth century thatshow An Yong-bok declaring in clear languagethat both Ulleungdo and Matsushima(Dokdo/Takeshima) belonged to Korea. Thesedocuments, in the possession of the Murakamifamily of Oki County, Shimane Prefecture, andpublished in Japanese newspapers in 2005, ineffect invalidate Kawakami Kenz's claim thatAn Yong-bok's accounts are "false."

Early Meiji Attitude to Dodko / Takeshima

Continuing Tokugawa policy, the Meijigovernment of Japan initially maintained thatUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

12

Korea and that Japan had no claim over theseislands prior to the turn of the 20th century.This changed with the 1905 Japaneseincorporation of Dodko / Takeshima.

Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868, thecentral government in Tokyo took over theauthority of negotiating with Korea from thelord of Tsushima. For several years, thetradition-bound Joseon government, under therule of the Daeweon'gun (), refused torecognize the newly organized Meij igovernment, who now followed Westerndiplomatic protocols under the new emperor.Totally unfamiliar with these new protocols,Korea refused to deal with Japan, causingtension between the two countries. In 1869 theJapanese Foreign Ministry dispatched a specialtask force of three officials to investigate thesituation within and without Korea. Thefollowing year, this team, headed by SadaHakumo, wrote a confidential report on Korea'sdomestic and external conditions, "Chsenkokuksai shimatsu naitansho ()." At the end of this document, the task forcereports on the territorial status of Ulleungdoand Dokdo/Takeshima, as follows: "ReportConcluding that Takeshima and MatsushimaBelong to Korea (): Matsushima is a neighboring island ofTakeshima, and there is no [Japanese] recordrelated to these islands. As for Takeshima, forsome times after the Genroku period, Koreanswent and stayed there, but no people lived onthe island. . . ."67 This is the first reference toDokdo/Takeshima by Meiji Japan, and thisdocument is readily available in the officialdiplomatic documents published by theMinistry of Foreign Affairs as Nihon GaikBunsho. At this time, Japan still referred toDodko/Takeshima as Matsushima, andUlleungdo as Takeshima. This documenttherefore clearly reveals that both Takeshima( U l l e u n g d o ) a n d M a t s u s h i m a(Dokdo/Takeshima) belonged to Korea (), and that they had since the Genroku periodin the late seventeenth century.

The domestic transformations undertaken bythe Meij i government also generateddocuments which referred to the position ofDodko/Takeshima. For instance, the 1869abolition of feudal domains necessitated a newcadastral survey for all of Japan. In 1876, thegovernor of Shimane Prefecture submitted aninquiry to kubo Toshimichi, the ActingMinister of Home Affairs in Tokyo, on whetherShimane prefecture should include "Takeshimaand one other island ()" in the newland registry Shimane was preparing. TheMinistry of Home Affairs, having examined theold records, found that Koreans used theseislands during the Genroku period, andconcluded: "These [islands] are not related toour country ()." But,realizing the serious nature of dealing with aterritorial matter, kubo Toshimichirecommended further consideration by theGrand Council of State (), the highestdecision-making office in Japan.68 Uponstudying the records of negotiations betweenJapan and Korea from the Genroku period, theGrand Council of State also concluded thatthese islands had nothing to do with Japan. Itsfinal decision, issued in March 1877 as anofficial edict, reads: "The matter related toTakeshima and another island is not related toour country, and therefore all should take noteof this ()."69

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

13

Figure 4. Japanese Grand Council of State Decree of1877 stating "Takeshima and another island are notrelated to" Japan.

"Takejima and another island" here of courserefers to Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima. Anappendix to this edict explains: "Isotakejima: Itis also called Takeshima . . . and there isanother island, which is called Matsushima."70

Isotakejima is a Japanese name for Ulleungdo,and Matshushima a Japanese name forDokdo/Takeshima. Thus the highest Japaneseoffice declared that Japan had nothing to dowith these two islands--in effect, admitting thatthey belonged to Korea. This was the officialposition of the Meiji government, based oncareful examination of Japan's historicalrecords by the Home Affairs Ministry and theGrand Council of State.71 This position, as wehave seen, is a continuation of the policy theTokugawa government adopted during theGenroku period by prohibiting Japanese fromgoing to Ulleungdo in the hope of avoidingconflict with the Koreans there.

Some Japanese scholars, however, dispute the

conclusion of the Grand Council of State andinterpret its edict differently. The TakeshimaResearch Center (), an officialarm of Shimane Prefecture, has been at theforefront in contending that Dokdo/Takeshimais a Japanese island. It claims that what iscalled "another island ()" in the decisionof the Grand Council of State did not refer toMatsushima (Dokdo/Takeshima). Because someJapanese peop le ca l l ed U l l eungdo'Matsushima', "another island" in the GrandCouncil's decision thus refers to Ulleungdo, notDokdo/Takeshima. The Takeshima ResearchCenter then tries to read Grand Council's edict:"The island (Ulleungdo) which sometimes iscalled Takeshima and sometimes calledMatsushima is not Japan's territory."72 In otherwords, "Takeshima and another island" refer toUlleungdo by two different names, not toTakeshima and Dokdo/Takeshima. Thisinterpretation can only be seen as a torturedreading of the text that defies common sense.Why would the Grand Council of Statespecifically state "another island" simply torepeat Takeshima (Ulleungdo)?

Another Japanese scholar, Shimoj Masao, onother hand, argues that the Grand Council ofState made a mistake in determining the statusof Takeshima (Dokdo/Takeshima): "The GrandCouncil of State concluded that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and another island are notJapanese territory. But this decision of theGrand Council of State is based on inadequateexamination [of evidence]. That is because it isnot clear whether 'another island' of the phrase'Takeshima and another island' refers to [thepresent] Takeshima [Dokdo]. If 'another island'referred to the present Takeshima [Dokdo],there is no good reason to say 'it is not relatedto our country.'" He then denies the GrandCouncil's edict disavowing Takeshima (Dokdo)as part of Japan.73

Despite this argument, to date no advocate forthe Japanese claim over the island has madeany satisfactory explanation of the Grand

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

14

Council of State's 1877 edict. Both KawakamiKenz and kuma Ryichi, the most influentialadvocates o f the Japanese c la im toDokdo/Takeshima, failed to address thesignificance of this edict. The Japanese ForeignMinistry is also totally silent on this decisionrendered by the Grand Council of State. Thisstrange silence on the part of the ForeignMinistry can only lead to the conclusion thatthe Japanese government is willfully andintentionally ignoring the edict of its highestoffice since the documentations of theproceedings leading to the final decision areeasily and readily available to the public.

Whatever doubt one may have about what theGrand Council really meant by "Takeshima andAnother Island" can be resolved by consideringthe map that is attached to the edict. TheReverend Urushizaki Hideyuki (of the JapaneseProtestant Church) has provided a photo-reproduction of the relevant original document,including "A Map of Isotakejima" that namesthe islands specifically as "Isotakejima andMatsushima [Dokdo/Takeshima]."74 In addition,in a document Shimane Prefectural Officepublished recently to support the Japaneseclaim on Dokdo/Takeshima, there is a copy ofthe official letter submitted on March 17, 1877by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the GrandCouncil of State, in which it recommended that"Takeshima and another island" should betreated as unrelated to Japan. Under the title ofthis letter, there is this sentence in parenthesis:"Another island refers to Matsushima."75

Matsushima here of course is the presentD o k d o / T a k e s h i m a . A c t i n g o n t h i srecommendation from the Home Affairs Office,the Grand Council of State made the finaldecision declaring that both Takeshima( U l l e u n g d o ) a n d M a t s h u s h i m a(Dokdo/Takeshima) did not belong to Japan.There can be no doubt that "another island"(besides Takeshima) referred to by the GrandCounci l o f State meant Matsushima(Dokdo/Takeshima), and no other island.

In addition to the Grand Council of State,Japan's Imperial Navy also believed thatUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima were withinthe domain of Korea, beyond Japanesejurisdiction. After 1880, the Japanese Navycompiled books of navigational charts for thesea around Japan and its neighboringcountries. "Japanese Navigational Routes ()", compiled in 1897, does not includeDokdo/Takeshima, although it does includesTaiwan, which Japan had recently acquiredthrough the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. AsHori Kazuo points out, these NavigationalRoutes marked and defined Japanese territoryand territorial waters, but conspicuouslyexclude Dokdo/Takeshima.76 On the other hand,a book on "Korean Navigational Routes ()," compiled by the Japanese Navy in 1894and revised in 1899, includes Dokdo/Takeshimaas Liancourt Rocks,77 so named by Europeannavigators in the nineteenth century. TheJapanese Imperial Navy's own navigationalbooks, in short, exclude Dokdo/Takeshima fromJapanese waters but include it in Koreanwaters, showing that at least up until the end ofthe nineteenth century, the Japanese Navybelieved Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea.

With the opening of Japan to the outside worldfollowing the Meiji Restoration, Japaneseentrepreneurs became increasingly interestedin exploiting the economic resources ofUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima. During theTokugawa Rule, whatever interest Japan hadthere was largely confined to the fishermenfrom Oki Island and the Shimane-Tottori coast.But as an increasing number of Japanesecitizens ventured to the outside world after theRestoration, many of them discovered theeconomic potential of these isolated islands. In1876, Muto Heigaku was the first Japanese topropose developing the natural resources ofMatsushima (Ullengdo) (),followed by similar proposals several otherindividuals.78 Although they went nowhere,these proposals nevertheless had an importanteffect, arousing the interest of officials in Tokyo

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

15

in Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima. Thedebates that followed show that the Japanesewere also confused about the status of theseislands and did not know the exact geographyof the region, including whether there wasanother island besides Ulleungdo.

Watanabe Hiroki (), of the ForeignAffairs Ministry, favored developingMatsushima (Ulleungdo). He first, however,wanted to determine the status of the region,and questioned whether the names Takeshimaand Matsushima referred to two separateislands or to one island with two names (just asKoreans had debated previously). He thenruefully admitted that a complacent Tokugawapolicy had ceded Ulleungdo to Korea. "If the so-called Matsushima is Takeshima, it belongs tohim [Korea] ," he argued. "But i f thisMatsushima is another island besidesTakeshima, we [Japan] can claim it and no oncan argue against i t ." Because of theimportance of the islands, Watanabe proposedconsulting with Shimane Prefecture anddispatching a naval vessel to determine thegeographic situation.79 Others opposed thisidea, however, pointing out, according toTanabe Taichi, that "Matsushima is the nameJapanese gave, but it is in reality Usan (),belonging to Ulleungdo of Korea." "Therefore,"he concluded, "if we send our people there tosurvey without good reason, it is like countingthe treasures of someone else [as if they wereours]." Tanabe opposed Japan's "transgressing"upon a neighbor's land and emphasized theimportance of maintaining amicable relationswith Korea, arguing that "Matsushima shouldnever be permitted or ought never to bedeveloped."80

Most participants in the debate were alsobothered by the lack of concrete geographicknowledge about the islands. They were notsure whether Takeshima and Matsushimareferred to two separate places or one islandwith two names, a confusion compounded byadditional Western names used by Europeans,

such as Dagelet, Agomaut, and Liancourt. Todetermine the correct geography of the region,the Japanese navy dispatched the vessel"Amagi ()" in 1882. Based on Amagi'sreport, it was decided that what Japan calledMatsushima was Korea's Ulleungdo, and theGrand Council of State ordered that thereafterthe name Matshushima would be used to referto Ulleungdo. This decision, however, wentagainst the long-held practice of the people inthe Oki and Shimane areas, who calledTakeshima Ulleungdo and MatsushimaDokdo/Takeshima. When informed of thisdecision about the new name, AzumaFumisuke, the magistrate of Oki Island,cautioned that the people of Oki hadhistorically called Ulleungdo Takeshima, andhoped that the new name would not causeconfusion.81 As we shall see, this decisionforeshadows the use of Takeshima as theJapanese name for Korea's Dokdo. What isapparent here is that both Japan and Koreawere still confused about the geographicsituation of Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima aslate as the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Korean Claims in the 19th and early 20th

Centuries

Officially, the Joseon Dynasty maintained thepol icy o f evacuat ing Ul leungdo andDokdo/Takeshima. In reality, however, this wasdifficult to enforce. People went thereseasonally for farming, fishing, and logging,and in time, many settled there. Toward theend of the nineteenth century, more than 1,700men and women lived there, according to onecount, and more than 2,500, according toanother.82

Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868,increasing numbers of Japanese fishermen andloggers, mostly from the Oki and Shimaneregion, were attracted to Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima. Through superiortechnology and greater capital, these Japaneseheavily exploited the fishery and logging

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

16

resources of the islands, creating seriousproblems for the Koreans living there. In 1869,one Japanese even planted a wooden pole onUlleungdo with the sign "Matsushima of theGreat Japanese Empire ()."83

The Korean residents appealed for help fromthe Korean government, which in turnprotested to Japan. The Japanese governmenttried to curtail the activities of its citizens inUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima, but its effortswere ineffective.84

Troubled by Japanese intrusions, King Kojong(1863-1907) appointed Yi Gyu-weon as SpecialInspector of Ulleungdo and dispatched him tothe island in 1882. The Korean king told Yi:"Lately, people from another country come toUlleungdo ceaselessly, causing a great deal oftrouble. [The islands of] Songjukdo ()and Usando ( ) are located nearUlleungdo. Do you know the distances of theseislands from Ulleungdo? We also do not knowwhat sorts of things are there. As specialinspector, you should look into all thesematters and recommend whether we should setup a formal administrative unit at the countylevel for these islands. . . ."85 Aware of theexistence of the islands near Ulleungdo, Kojongwanted to learn more about them, and evencontemplated establishing a county office forUlleungdo and its neighboring islands. With102 men, Yi Gyu-weon spent seven dayssurveying conditions on Ulleungdo, payingspecial attention to the harmful effects ofJapanese activities on the islands. On returningto Seoul, he made a detailed report of hisinspection.86 But, unfortunately for unknownreasons, he had been unable to v is i tDokdo/Takeshima, and thus failed to offer anyinformation on the status of these islands.

Figure 5. Map of Korea made by Jeong Sang-gi in ca.1800. Ulleungdo and Usando are located in thecorrect direction.

Alarmed by Japanese settlement, King Kojongabandoned the former policy of vacating theislands and adopted a more proactive stance toforestall the Japanese presence. Under hisleadership, Korea repeatedly protested what hecalled illegal Japanese intrusions and theirextreme abuses of the economic resources ofthe islands. Facing growing Japanese territorialambitions over Korea, Emperor Kojong87 inOctober 1900 issued Imperial Edict () No.41, establishing a new administrative unit forUlleung County (). Article 2 of this edict

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

17

specified the area under its jurisdiction: "Theareas this County shall administer are theentire island of Ulleungdo as well as Jukdo () and Seokdo () ()."88 Unfortunately for Korea,this edict did not specifically name Dokdo butinstead called the island Seokdo, causing someconfusion to outsiders. Seokdo (meaning RockIsland), according to Korean scholars, wascalled by local people Dolseom (Rock Island),which was transliterated into the Chinesecharacters of Seokdo. Thus, these Koreanscholars assert that Seokdo is another name forDokdo and that this Imperial Edict of 1900,officially placing this island under theadministration of Ulleung County, is a clearproof of Korea 's legi t imate c la im toDokdo/Takeshima before Japan's 1905incorporation.89

Japan, however, rejects this argument.Disputing the Korean reading of "Seokdo" for"Dokdo," the Japanese Foreign Ministry insiststhat the Korean Edict failed to includeDokdo/Takeshima as part of the newly createdcounty of Ulleung. "Therefore," according tothe Japanese Foreign Ministry website, "it isconsidered that Korea had not establishedsovereignty over Takeshima."90 Japan insiststhat Korea had never specifically named"Dokdo" as being under its domain.

Once again, confusion over the name of theisland became the basis of contention. Evenaside from the etymological argument thatSeokdo refers to Dokdo, Korea insists thatKoreans did in fact use the name of "Dokdo" atthe time, contrary to Japanese insistencedenying it. In March 1906, for example, SimHeung-taek, the magistrate of Ulleung County,used the name Dokdo in his report to thecentral government. He was the first Koreanofficial to report that Japan had unilaterallyseized Dokdo/Takeshima. Sim wrote: "Dokdo,which belongs to our county, extends itsdomain beyond more than one hundred ri in theocean. . . ."91 Upon receiving Sim's report in

1906, Korea's Home Affairs Ministry rejectedthe Japanese claim to incorporation: "The claimthat Dokdo belongs to Japan is absolutelyunreasonable, and such a report is utterlypreposterous."92 The Deputy Prime Ministerinstructed his officials: "The report of [theJapanese incorporation] of Dokdo is utterlygroundless. You should investigate and reportback on the situation on this island andJapanese activities there."93 Here, we see clearexamples of Korean use of the name Dokdo. Inaddition, as Shin Yong-ha documents, Koreannewspapers such as Hwangseong sinmun andDaehan maeil sinmun, as well as individualwriters such as Hwang Hyeon, used the nameDokdo.94 Moreover, the Japanese Navy itselfrecognized that Koreans were using the name.The Japanese warship Niitaka inspectedLiancourt Island in 1904, and its journal entryfor September 25 states: "Liancourt Rock iscalled Dokdo by Koreans."95 This evidenceregarding the use of the name Dokdo clearlysupports the Imper ia l Edict o f 1900establishing Ulleung County, with Dokdoincluded in its domain.

Far from accepting Korean claims toDokdo/Takeshima, Japan failed even to informthe Korean government of its action. SimHeung-taek learned of the Japanese seizure inMarch 1906, when the first official Japaneseteam from Shimane visited the island to takeover its jurisdiction, the Korean government inSeou l was unaware o f the Japaneseincorporation until Sim Heung-taek reportedit.96 Preoccupied with undermining Koreansovereignty, Japan did not even inform Korea ofits seizure of Dokdo/Takeshima.

J a p a n e s e I n c o r p o r a t i o n o fDokdo/Takeshima

In September 1904, Nakai Yzabur (), an enterprising fishing company owner inShimane, submitted an application forincorporating Liancourt Island as Japaneseterritory and leasing it. In "Petition for

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

18

Territorial Incorporation and Lease ofLiancourt Island ()," Nakai called Dokdo/Takeshima LiancourtIsland and described it as "an uninhabitedisland ()" whose "territorial status is notyet determined ()." Giventhat uncertainty, it would be difficult for him toinvest a large sum of capital to take advantageof the rich economic resources of the isolatedisland. He asked Japan to annex the island,arguing that "In order to secure permanentlyits safety and resources, and to allow managingthe island completely to the end, it is necessaryto incorporate this island into the Japaneseterritory." He then asked to lease the island forten years.97 Submitted jointly to the Ministriesof Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, andAgriculture and Commerce, this petition set inmotion the eventual Japanese incorporation ofDokdo/Takeshima.

Upon receiving the petition, the Ministry ofHome Affairs asked Shimane Prefecture andOki Island for their views on Nakai's request.Receiving their endorsement, the Home AffairsMinistry recommended that the full Cabinet ofthe Japanese government render a finaldecision, and on January 28, 1905, under thepremiership of Katsura Tar (), theCabinet adopted a resolution entitled"Territorial Incorporation of Liancourt Island,"enabling Japan to annex Dokdo/Takeshima aspart of Japan. In justifying this act, theJapanese Cabinet claimed: "There is norecognizable evidence of this uninhabitedisland having been occupied by anothercountry." With Nakai Yzabur's request forterritorial incorporation and lease of the island,it became necessary for the Japanesegovernment "to determine securely theownership and the name of the island." Withthe annexation, Japan also gave the new nameof "Takeshima" to Liancourt Island.98 Tworeasons are given for incorporation; first, thatthe island was uninhabited, and second, thatthere was no evidence of any country as havingclaimed jurisdiction over the island previously.

Declaring Liancourt Island to be unclaimedterra nullius the Cabinet decided that Japanwas justified in incorporating it under itsdominion. This declaration, however, implicitlynullifies the assertion by the current JapaneseMinistry of Foreign Affairs that "Japanestablished sovereignty over Takeshima by themid-17th century in the early Edo period at thelatest."99

This act of incorporation by the Japanesegovernment touched off a bitter controversythat is still smoldering in the diplomatic arenabetween Japan and Korea. At issue is whetheror not the Japanese action can be justifiable onthe ground that no country had claimed thisisland prior to Japanese incorporation in 1905.

The Japanese claim of terra nullius in 1905contradicts directly the official position itsgovernment repeatedly took previously, thatboth Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima belongedto Korea. The 1905 cabinet decision clearlyviolates and overturns the official position theJapanese government--both Tokugawa andMeiji--had maintained publicly since theseventeenth century.

The Japanese assertion that no country hadclaimed ownership of the island was alsocontradicted by Nakai Yzabur himself. A keyfigure in the incorporation drama, Nakaiinitiated the process that eventually led toJapan's annexation of Dokdo/Takeshima.Having visited and explored Vladivostok andthe Korean coast in the 1890s, he was probablymore aware of the status and conditions ofUlleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima than anyoneelse.100 His own writings and the interviews hegave after annexation make it clear that beforehe filed his petition in 1904, Nakai was awarethat Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Korea. Infact, not only was he aware of Koreanownership, he also had at first intended tosubmit his lease application to the Koreangovernment and contemplated seekingJapanese government help in persuading

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

19

Korean officials. After approaching theJapanese government, however, he waspersuaded by several officials to transform hisoriginal application into a petition for territorialannexation.

In 1906, Nakai gave an interview to OkuharaHekiun (also known as OkuharaFukuichi), who visited "Takeshima" as amember of the first official group ShimanePrefecture dispatched to inspect the island in1905. Based on his interview and research, in1906 Okuhara published an article on theisland in the journal Rekishi chiri (),in which he writes: "Mr. Nakai believed thatLiancourt Island [Dokdo/Takeshima] was partof Korean territory and he was determined tosubmit a request for leasing [the island] to its[the Korean] government, and for this purpose,he went to Tokyo in 1904."1 0 1 A similarstatement is also found in the personal historyNakai filed with the Shimane Prefecture Office.In the resume of his work on Takeshima, Nakairecords: "As I believed that this island[Takeshima/Dokdo] was attached to Ulleungdoand was within the Korean territorial domain, Iwas going to deal with the Resident-General [ofKorea] [sic] when I went to Tokyo."102 Similarly,an official history of Shimane Prefecturecompiled by its Education Office ()in 1923 notes that "In 1904 . . . Nakai thoughtthat this island [Dokdo/Takeshima] was part ofthe Korean territory, and therefore, he went toTokyo to persuade the Ministry of Agricultureand Commerce [of Japan] to grant his petitionfor leasing the island from its [the Korean]government."103 Contrary to the Japanesegovernment's 1905 position, Nakai Yzaburoriginally believed that the island was underthe domain of Korea, and thus he had intendedto petition the Korean government for leaserights.

Before submitting his petition to the Koreangovernment, Nakai first showed it to FujitaKantar, an official in the Fishery Departmentof Japan's Ministry of Agriculture and

Commerce. Fujita in turn introduced Nakai toMaki Naomasa (), the Director of Fisheryin the same ministry. According to Nakai's ownresume, it was at this meeting that he firstbegan to harbor the suspicion that the islandmight not necessarily belong to Korea. Nakaisubsequently met with Admiral KimotsukiKaneyuki (), the Director of theHydrographic Office in the Ministry of theNavy, who eventually convinced Nakai of theuncertainty of the island's nationality: "I cameto an assurance relying on the decisive decision() made by Admiral Kimotsuki that thisisland [Dokdo/Takeshima] was completelyunattached ()."104 Persuaded bythese officials that the island had no ownership,Nakai abandoned his initial idea of petitioningthe Korean government, and instead submittedhis petition jointly to three Japanese ministries--Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Agricultureand Commerce--requesting not lease rights, butthat Japan annex the island.

Even at this late stage, however, his petitionwas opposed by one of the three ministries.According to Nakai, the Ministry of HomeAffairs was against the idea of the Japanesegovernment seizing the island. The Russo-Japanese War was being waged at the time, andthe Home Affairs Ministry feared that theincorporation of this small islet might leadforeign countries to suspect that Japanharbored ambitions of annexing Korea. Notwanting to raise the suspicion that Japancoveted territorial expansion over Korea, theHome Ministry rejected Nakai's petition.105

Learning of the Home Affairs Ministry'srejection, Maki, the Director of the FisheryDepartment, accepted the decision withresignation: "Nothing one can do about it if thedecision was made for diplomatic reason,however disappointing and discouraging it maybe." Frustrated, Nakai was about to give up onhis proposal when he was introduced toanother official, this time in the Ministry ofForeign Affairs. Yamaza Enjir (),

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

20

the Director of Political Affairs, offeredenthusiastic support for the incorporation. Incontrast to Home Affairs Ministry, Yamazabelieved that the war against Russia providedall the more reasons for Japan to seize theisland. "Diplomatic issues are beyond theconcern of other departments," Yamaza toldNakai: "An incorporation of a tiny rocky islet isan extremely minor issue. But, seen from thevantage of topography, history, and the currentsituation, the incorporation of the island nowwill give us a great advantage."106 Throughannexation, Yamaza noted, Japan could buildwatchtowers and set up wireless andunderwater cables on and around the island.He then told Nakai: "Seen from a diplomaticperspective, you should disregard the positionheld by the Ministry of Home Affairs andsubmit your application to the Ministry ofForeign Affairs as soon as possible."Subsequently, according to Nakai, the Japanesegovernment enthusiastically annexedDokdo/Takeshima.107 It is important to notehere Yamaza's background. Strongly influencedby Genysha, an ultra-nationalist society thatwas in the forefront of Japan's expansion to theAsiatic continent, Yamaza aggressivelypromoted within the Foreign Ministryterritorial expansion over the entire KoreanPeninsula.108

The Japanese scholar Hori Kazuo of KyotoUniversity has pointed to three issuesdeserving of special attention here.109 First, theMinistry of Home Affairs clearly opposedannexing the island, fearing repercussions fromforeign countries that believed Japan mighthave territorial ambitions over the KoreanPeninsula. Second, it is important to recognizethe role played by the three officials Maki,Kimotsuki, and Yamaza. When Nakai firstapproached the Japanese government intendingto petition the Korean government to leaseDokdo/Takeshima, these three officialspersuaded him that the island had noownership, and then guided him to petition forits incorporation under Japanese domination. In

short, these officials transformed Nakai'ssimple business proposition into a scheme thateventually led to the outright annexation of theisland. The Japanese claim of terra nullius wasinitiated and manufactured by these officials inresponse to Nakai's business petition. Third,the final decision for incorporation was basedlargely on military considerations. Followingthe outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War inFebruary 1904, Japan undertook a series ofserious actions that subverted Korea'ssovereignty and rights. Japan incorporatedDokdo/Takeshima in January 1905 inanticipation of the great sea battles theJapanese Navy was preparing against the BalticFleet of Imperial Russia. In the huge sea battlessoon to take place, both Ulleungdo andDokdo/Takeshima played a crucial role as basesfor the Japanese Navy. In May 1905, theCombined Fleet of Japan, under the commandof Admiral Tg Heihachir, routed the Russianfleet in what is now known as the Battle ofTsushima-which, according to Togo's ownreport, actually took place around LiancourtIsland.110 There can be no denying that militaryconsiderations contributed significantly to theJapanese decision to seize Dokdo/Takeshima.As Hori Kazuo points out, this action was only"a small prelude" to Japan's wholesaleannexation of Korea, which soon followed.111

The claim of terra nullius for Dokdo/Takeshimawas thus a mere pretext Japan contrived to"justify" its territorial and military expansionover Korea.

It should also be pointed out that there wasanother factor that contributed significantly tot h e J a p a n e s e d e c i s i o n t o a n n e xDokdo/Takeshima. From the eve of the MeijiRestoration in 1868, a sentiment to conquerKorea began to brew within Japan, whosemomentum was reaching a climactic point atthe turn of the century. Although space doesnot permit extensive coverage here, this is abrief summary. Yoshida Shin was one of themost, if not the most, influential ideologicalmentors of the Meiji leadership. On the eve of

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

21

the Meiji Restoration, Yoshida called for theseizure of Korea as the first step towardJapanese expansion to the Asiatic continent.112

A disciple of Yoshida and one of the mostpowerful leaders of the early Meiji government,Kido Takayoshi (also Kido Kin) harbored asimilar ambition, and suggested colonizingUlleungdo, which he claimed to have belongedto Japan in the first place.113 In addition, "theConquer Korea Argument ()" sweptJapan in the 1870s and the early 1880s.114 Afterwinning the First Sino-Japanese War of1894-95, Japan actively pursued the policy ofgaining dominance over the Korean Peninsula.Following the outbreak of the Russo-JapaneseWar in February 1904, in June the JapaneseCabinet, with Imperial approval, adopted theofficial position that "Imperial Japan shouldtake over the real power of protection overKorea politically and militarily."115 The Japanesei n c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e t i n y i s l e t o fDokdo/Takeshima in 1905 thus did not occur ina vacuum. The seizure of Dokdo/Takeshimashould be understood within the larger contextof the policy of territorial expansionism Japanaggressively pursued under the Meijigovernment.

Apparently, there was no carefully preplannedscheme on the part of the Japanese governmentto seize control of Dokdo/Takeshima before1904. The decision to annex the island wasmade extemporaneously to meet an urgentsituation created by the confluence of political,military, and economic forces in Japan to dealwith Korea and the war against Russia. Theisland was too small and had no significantvalue as far as the Tokyo government wasconcerned. Only a small number of fishermenfrom the Shimane-Tottori coast were interestedin the island. Preoccupied with winning themuch bigger prize of the entirety of Korea, theJapanese government paid no attention toDokdo/Takeshima until the outbreak of theRusso-Japanese War in February 1904. Withthe war, Japan openly sought to gain fullcontrol of the entire Korean Peninsular

"politically, militarily, and economically" (as itsgovernment repeatedly avowed to the WesternPowers.116) Against such a backdrop, Nakai'ssimple business proposal for leasing the islandfrom the Korean government acted as acatalyst for Japan to seize control ofDokdo/Takeshima in 1905. The claim of terranullius status for Dokdo/Takeshima was aconvenient pretext that Japan contrived to"justify" its action, one that is undermined bythe long documentary record of Korean controland utilization of the island.

Conclusion

Both Japan and Korea have argued that theyhave a h istor ica l c la im to control o fDokdo/Takeshima. Korea's claim goes as farback as the sixth century under the ancientKingdom of Silla. The succeeding dynasties ofGoryeo and Joseon also produced numerouswritten documents testifying Korea'sdomination of the island, well into thebeginning of the twentieth century. Historicaldocumentation for the Japanese claim, on theother hand, is meager in comparison with thatfor Korea. The earliest documentary evidenceJapan can present dates back only to theseventeenth century, and in 1696 theTokugawa government forbade its citizens fromtravelling there. Throughout the Tokugawaperiod, Japan prioritized peace and friendshipwith Korea. The Meiji government at firstfollowed this Tokugawa approach, until militaryconsiderations and imperialistic sentimentprompted a change in policy and Japanannexed Dokdo/Takeshima in January 1905.

In annexing Dokdo/Takeshima, the Japanesegovernment totally disregarded Korean claimsto the island. As the Japanese Cabinetconsidered its decision, Japan never consultedwith Korea. And then, once it had decided onannexation, Japan never even notified Korea ofits action. Japan knew full well that Korea hadlong claimed the island, yet Japan did not evenbother to consult Korea before annexing it. The

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

22

Japanese incorporation of Dokdo/Taekeshimawas made unilaterally and arbitrarily, with totaldisregard for its immediate neighbor. This isillustrative of Japan's arrogance and contemptfor Korea. This disrespect for Koreansovereignty was further in evidence in thetreaty Japan forced upon Korea with guns andswordslater in 1905, which deprived Korea ofdiplomatic sovereignty, in effect making Koreaa Japanese protectorate. This contemptreached its zenith in 1910 with Japan'sannexation of Korea.

The year 2015 marks the 70th year of endingJapanese colonial rule over Korea. For manyyears there was a strong movement towardreconciliation between Japan and Korea basedon mutual friendship, respect and trust. It isheartbreaking, however, to see the momentumof this current receding in recent years. Onecontributing factor in this unfortunate trend isthe dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima.

Considering the long history of interactionsbetween Korea and Japan going back toantiquity, the two countries have had a ratherremarkably good friendly and mutuallybeneficial relationship, in which such historicalincidences as the Hideyoshi invasion in the1590s and Japanese colonial rule in thetwentieth century should be considered moreas painful aberrations than as normal practice.For genuine reconciliation, it is imperative forboth Korea and Japan to face their history withhonesty and humility.

It behooves us all to remember what theJapanese Shogun Tsunayoshi said in the lateseventeenth century: Keeping friendship withKorea is more important than fighting over asmall useless island.

Yng-ho Ch'oe, Professor Emeritus atUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa, has writtenextensively on pre-modern and modern Koreanhistory, including "Private Academies (swn)and Neo-Confucianism in Late Chosn Korea,"Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, 21 (December

2008) and "The Mystery of Emperor Kojong'sSudden Death in 1919: Were the HighestJapanese Officials Responsible?" KoreanStudies, 35 (2011). He is a co-editor of Sourcesof Korean Tradition (Columbia UniversityPress) and Sourcebook of Korean Civilization(Columbia University Press).

Recommended citation: Yng-ho Ch'oe, "Japan's1905 Incorporation of Dokdo/Takeshima: AHistorical Perspective", The Asia-PacificJournal, Vol. 13, Issue 8, No. 1, March 2, 2015.

Related articles

Lin Man-houng, Taiwan and the Ryukyus(Okinawa) in Asia-Pacific MultilateralRelations a Long-term HistoricalPerspective on Territorial Claims andC o n f l i c t s(https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121)

Yabuki Susumi with Mark Selden, TheOrigins of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Disputebetween China, Taiwan and Japan(https://apjjf .org/-Mark-Selden/4061)

Gavan McCormack, Much Ado over SmallIslands: The Sino-Japanese Confrontationo v e r S e n k a k u / D i a o y u(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947)

Yabuki Susumu, China-Japan TerritorialConflicts and the US-Japan-ChinaRelations in Historical and ContemporaryP e r s p e c t i v e(https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906)

Gavan McCormack, Troubled Seas: Japan'sP a c i f i c a n d E a s t C h i n a S e a(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821)D o m a i n s ( a n d C l a i m s )(https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821)

Ivy Lee and Fang Ming, DeconstructingJapan's Claim of Sovereignty over theD i a o y u / S e n k a k u I s l a n d s(https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877)

https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Lin-Man_houng/4121https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/4061https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3947https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Yabuki-Susumu/3906https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Gavan-McCormack/3821https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877https://apjjf.org/-Fang-Ming/3877

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

23

Wani Yukio, Barren Senkaku Nationalisma n d C h i n a - J a p a n C o n f l i c t(https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792)

Wada Haruki, Resolving the China-JapanConflict Over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands(https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433)

Peter Lee, High Stakes Gamble as Japan,China and the U.S. Spar in the East andS o u t h C h i n a S e a(https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431)

Tanaka Sakai, Rekindling China-JapanConflict: The Senkaku/Diaoyutai IslandsC l a s h(https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418)

Koji Taira, The China-Japan Clash Over theD i a o y u / S e n k a k u I s l a n d s(https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119)

An earlier version of this paper was presentedat a conference of the Korean-AmericanUniversity Professors Association at Universityof Wisconsin at Milwaukee in December 2012.

Notes

1 The full text of the Japanese Cabinet decisioni s c i t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s :www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima;Kawakami Kenz, Takeshima no rekishichirigaku-teki kenky (Tokyo, 1966), 212; andNait Seich and Pak Byeong-seop, Takeshima-Dokdo rons (Tokyo, 2007), 192-93.

2 Terra Nullius is defined in Black's LawDictionary (10th edition, 2014) as: "A territorynot belonging to any particular country" and in"USlegal.com." as: "In international law, aterritory which has never been subjected to thesovereignty of any state, or over which anyprior sovereign has expressly or implicitlyrelinquished sovereignty."

3 Romanization of Korean names follows thesystem devised by the Ministry of Education,

the Republic of Korea.

4 Shin Yong-ha, Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosayeon'gu (Seoul, 1996), 62.

5 Samguk sagi, 4: 2b-3a, (Silla Bongi, JijeungMaripkan 13th Year) (Tokyo: GakushinUniversity Reprint, 1974). Because Samguksagi was based largely on historical records ofKorea's Three Kingdoms, dating of this entryshould be considered to be in the 6th century.

6 Shin Yong-ha, 58-63.

7 Kawakami Kenz, Takeshima no rekishichirigaku-teki kenky (Tokyo, 1966), 98-100;and kuma Ryichi, Takeshima shiko (Tokyo,1968), 59-67.

8 Goryeo-sa, 1: 27b. (Yonsei University Reprint,1955); Shin Yong-ha, Dokdo yeongyugweonjaryo ui tamgu (Seoul, 1998), 1: 20-21(Hereafter, cited as Jaryo).

9 Goryeo-sa, 4: 28b; and Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1:21-22.

1 0 Koreans often used "Usan-guk (Usancountry)" and "Usan-do (Usan island)"interchangeably.

11 Goryeo-sa, 59: 24b-25a.

12 Kawakami Kenz, Takeshima no rekishichirigaku-teki kenky (Tokyo, 1966), 94-114.

13 Taejong sillok, 34: 9a; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 49-50.

14 Sejong sillok, 76: 11b-12a; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 60-63.

15 Taejong sillok, 23: 25b; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1:41-43.

16 Sejong sillok, 29: 19a; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 52-54.

17 Sejong sillok, 82: 7a-b; and Shin Yong-ha,

https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792https://apjjf.org/-Wani-Yukio/3792https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433https://apjjf.org/-Wada-Haruki/3433https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Peter-Lee/3431https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119https://apjjf.org/-Koji-TAIRA/2119

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

24

Jaryo, 1: 64-65.

18 Taejong sillok, 32: 15a-b; and Shing Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 43-45.

19 Taejong sillok, 33: 9a-b; and Shin Yong-ha.Jaryo, 1: 46-49.

20 Taejong sillok, 34: 9a; and Shing Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 49-50.

21 Sejong sillok, 29: 19a, and 30: 5b-6a; andShin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1: 52-54 and 54-56.

22 Sejo sillok, 7: 28a-29b; and Shin Yong-ha,Jaryo, 1: 68-71.

23 Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1: 48-49, 53-54.

24 Sejong sillok, 153: 10b-11a.

25 Sinjeung dongguk yeoji seungram (Seoul:Dongguk Munhwasa Reprint, 1964), 45:26a-27a,

26 Kawakami, 101-14; and kuma, 62-67.

27 Kawakami, 114. (Kawakami's attempt todiscredit Korean historical sources impugns theintegrity of Korea's traditional scholarship.

28 kuma Ryichi, 59-67. See also "Takeshiman o n i n c h i "(http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima)on the website of the Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Japan.

29 Shin Yong-ho, jaryo, (Seoul, 1998), 1:148-50;Kim Hak-jun, Dokdo yeon'gu (Seoul, 2010),37-68; and Song Byeong-gi, Ulleungdo waDokdo (Seoul, 2007), 23-47.

30 Shin Yong-ho, Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosayeon'gu, 86-96.

31 Taejong sillok, 33: 8a-9b. Shin Yong-ha,Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosa yeon'gu, 143-44;Kawakami, 66-67; kuma, 140-41.

32 Kawakami, 68-69.

33 kuma, 83.

34 See Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 1: 50-157.

35 Seongjong sillok, 115: 3b-4a.

36 Kawakami, 50. See also nishi Toshiteru,Zoku Nihonkai to Takeshima (Tokyo, 2007), 6;and kuma, 15-16.

37 nishi, 33-34; Kawakami, 50; and kuma,15-18.

38 Ibid.

39 Shin Yong-ha, Jaryo, 2: 232.

40 kuma, 16.

41 Tagawa Kz, "Takeshima ryy ni kansururekishiteki ksatsu," Ty bunko shoh, 20(1988).

42 Kawakami, 50-51.

43 Tamura Seizabur, Shimaneken Takeshimano kenky (Shimane, 1996), 7.

44 nishi Toshiteru, Nihonkai to Takeshima(Tokyo, 2003), 178-79. See also his ZokuNihonkai to Takeshima (Tokyo, 2007), 33-39;and Bak Byeong-seop, "Takeshima-Dokdo waNihon no 'koy rydo' ka?" in Nait Seich andBak Byeong-seop, Takeshima-Dokdo rons:rekishi shirykara kanggaeru (Tokyo, 2007),30-32.

45 Hosaka Yji, Uri yeoksa Dokdo (Seoul, 2009),164-73.

46 Ikeuchi Satoshi, "Zen kindai Takeshima norekishigakuteki kenky josetsu," Seikygakukenky josetsu, 20 (April 2001). See also BakByeong-seop, "Takeshima=Dokdo wa Nihon no'koy rydo' ka?,' in Nait Seich and BakByeong-seop, ed., Takeshima=Dokdo rons:rekishi shiry kara kangaeru (Tokyo, 2007),

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshimahttp://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshimahttp://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima

APJ | JF 13 | 9 | 3

25

30-31.

47 Kawakami, 51-83; kuma, 77-86.

48 Kawakami, 73-83.

49 Kawakami, 83-93; kuma, 77-98.

50 Kawakami, 168.

51 Shin Yong-ha, Dokdo ui minjok yeongtosayeon'gu, 36-37; Li Jin-mieung, Dokdo, A KoreanIsland Rediscovered (Seoul, 2011),