earticle

영어

This paper analyzes the latter five points of the ten points claimed by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs web-site over Dokdo ownership, especially focused on the time period from the Russo-Japanese war to the U.S.-Japanese peace treaty. Japan has been using the example of including Dokdo into Shimane prefecture at the end of the Russo-Japanese War based on the indigenous territory theory and unowned land prior occupation theory, to justify territorial claims after the World War II. This paper analyzes the differences between Japan's claim and the reality. Actually, during the Russo-Japanese war, Dokdo was an important strategic place for Japan's victory over Russia. Therefore, we can see that Japan's incorporation of Dokdo into Shimane prefecture was an action focused on national security. Moreover, Japan claimed at the peace treaty with the U.S. at the end of World War II, that Dokdo is territory of Japan, because it had been since the Russo-Japanese war. Meanwhile, Japan used former minister of U.S. embassy in Japan Mr. William J. Sebald to lobby the U.S. State Department, based on the fact that Dokdo is an important strategic place to ensure security of East Asia. So up until the fifth draft at the peace treaty, the U.S. judged Dokdo as a territory that Japan should give up, but just as the statement from ‘consideration of the national security due to the issue regarding U.S. interests’ implies, the U.S. regarded Dokdo as a radar base for its Far East strategies, and so Dokdo was included into the Japanese territory since the sixth draft. However, as the British joined a common draft between the U.S. and the U.K since the seventh draft, Dokdo was not categorized into either Korea or Japan. Overall, this paper analyzes the difference between the claims over Dokdo of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs web-site, and the actual Japanese territory policies.