Takeshima Is the Front Line of Japan’s Border: It Is Time to Settle the Issue in an International Court
Published on February 23, 2020.
This article introduces remarks by Tokai University Professor Yoshihiko Yamada from Sankei Shimbun’s interview feature on “Takeshima Day.”
It argues that Takeshima occupies an extremely important position in the Sea of Japan as the front line of Japan’s border, and that it is a grave problem that an island Japan should rightfully defend has been taken by South Korea.
It further discusses South Korea’s illegal occupation, the Syngman Rhee Line, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the possibility of bringing the issue before the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, concluding that the time has come to settle the Takeshima issue in an international legal forum.
February 23, 2020
Takeshima’s position in the Sea of Japan is extremely important; it is the front line of the border.
An island that Japan should originally be defending has been taken by South Korea.
This is a major problem.
The following is from a Sankei Shimbun interview feature published under the title “Takeshima Day: What Is the Path to a Breakthrough?”
Time to Settle the Issue in an International Court
Tokai University Professor Yoshihiko Yamada
Takeshima’s position in the Sea of Japan is extremely important; it is the front line of the border.
An island that Japan should originally be defending has been taken by South Korea.
This is a major problem.
What can be evaluated in the Takeshima policy of the Shinzo Abe administration is that it incorporated the nature of Japan’s territorial sovereignty into the curriculum guidelines.
Teaching children and students about the Northern Territories, Takeshima, and other such issues can be said to mean that Japan has finally reached the starting line for asserting its rights concerning “Japan’s form” in the international community.
On the other hand, South Korea, which continues its illegal occupation, has no new Takeshima policy under the Moon Jae-in administration.
As for actions, they amount only to occasional landings on Takeshima by National Assembly members.
There is no need to show consideration for the Moon administration, which has worsened Japan-South Korea relations over issues such as the so-called wartime laborer problem.
Now is the best chance to settle the issue of sovereignty over Takeshima.
If Japan is to overturn the South Korean side’s claims, there is no choice but to bring the matter before an international court.
The International Court of Justice, or ICJ, basically requires the agreement of both countries, but if Japan files a case and South Korea does not respond, South Korea must state its reasons.
There is also the Permanent Court of Arbitration, where even one country alone can put an issue on the table without the agreement of the countries concerned.
However, there is also a possibility that Japan could lose, and while understanding that, Japan should proceed with preparations to be able to debate the issue in the international legal forum of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The most important point is the history of effective control.
In 1905, Meiji 38, Japan officially named the island “Takeshima,” incorporated it into Shimane Prefecture, and began effective control.
In January 1952, Showa 27, South Korean President Syngman Rhee unilaterally drew a boundary line, the Syngman Rhee Line, and began claiming the island as his country’s territory, but does that have rationality?
The General Headquarters of the Allied Powers, GHQ, which occupied Japan, limited Japan’s sovereignty as a provisional measure in 1945, Showa 20, only to the large islands, but the final agreement was the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 1952.
Japan should focus on clearly conveying this sequence of events to the South Korean side.
The standard for how Japan should assert territorial issues lies in Takeshima.
And unless Takeshima is settled, there can be no reconciliation between Japan and South Korea.
There has been no movement at all on the Takeshima issue for more than the past ten years.
Is it not about time to settle the matter clearly?
(Interviewer: Yusuke Oshima)
