The Takeshima and Senkaku Islands Territorial DisputesA Historical and Contemporary Analysis

The Takeshima and Senkaku Islands Territorial Disputes: History and Current Status

This article provides a neutral analysis of the territorial disputes over Takeshima (Korean name: Dokdo) and the Senkaku Islands (Chinese name: Diaoyu Islands) between Japan, South Korea, and China, from ancient times to the present day.

Takeshima is located in the Sea of Japan, and both South Korea and North Korea claim sovereignty over it, making it an international dispute between Japan and South Korea. The Senkaku Islands are uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, currently under Japan's effective control, but China (and Taiwan) also claim sovereignty, creating diplomatic tensions.

Let us examine the historical background in chronological order.

Historical Background of Takeshima and Japan-South Korea Claims

Ancient to Medieval Period

South Korea claims that Takeshima (Dokdo) has been its territory since ancient times. For example, according to the "Samguk Sagi" compiled in 1145, it is recorded that Silla subjugated Usan-guk (present-day Ulleungdo area) in 512, and South Korea interprets the subordinate island "Usando" as present-day Dokdo.

Therefore, South Korea emphasizes that "Dokdo has been our territory for over 1,500 years." However, Japan counters that this Usando is a different island near Ulleungdo and cannot be definitively identified as Dokdo.

Japan points out that after the medieval period, the Joseon Dynasty treated Ulleungdo as an "empty island" with no permanent residents and did not exercise effective control, and there are no specific records of governance over Dokdo.

17th-19th Century

Meanwhile, Japan recognized and utilized present-day Takeshima by the Edo period. Records show that from the early 17th century, merchants from the Tottori domain, with the Shogunate's permission, traveled to Ulleungdo (then called Takeshima), stopping at present-day Takeshima (then called "Matsushima") as a navigational landmark and fishing ground.

In 1696, a dispute between Japan and Korea over Ulleungdo (the An Yong-bok incident) occurred, and the Edo Shogunate decided to prohibit travel to Ulleungdo (then Takeshima). At this time, South Korea interprets that the Shogunate also abandoned Matsushima (Dokdo), which was attached to Ulleungdo, but Japan argues that only Ulleungdo was mentioned for abandonment, and Matsushima (Takeshima) was not on the agenda.

In 1877, the Japanese government issued a Dajokan Directive confirming that "Takeshima and one other island" (Ulleungdo and the island then called Matsushima) were outside Japanese territory. South Korea claims this as evidence referring to Dokdo, while Japan refutes that it is unclear whether it refers to Dokdo.

Modern Era (Early 1900s)

South Korea asserts that during the Korean Empire period, a modern state, it formally placed Dokdo under its jurisdiction. In 1900, Imperial Edict No. 41 of the Korean Empire renamed Ulleungdo to Ulleung-gun and included "Seokdo" in its jurisdiction, which South Korea identifies as Dokdo.

South Korea further claims that Japan's incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, was an illegal invasion and annexation of Korean territory and is therefore invalid.

Japan's view differs. The Japanese government explains that in January 1905, Takeshima was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture as terra nullius (land belonging to no state) in accordance with international law, thereby declaring its intention to possess it. At that time, there was no protest from South Korea, and Japan continued its peaceful administration, including registering it as state land and issuing fishing permits, thus establishing it as Japanese territory under modern international law.

💡 Summary: South Korea claims "historically our territory, Japan's 1905 incorporation is invalid," while Japan asserts "historically utilized by Japan, legally established sovereignty in 1905, and South Korea had no effective control at the time of formal incorporation."

Post-World War II Settlement

After Japan's defeat in 1945, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) temporarily excluded Takeshima from Japan's administrative authority (SCAPIN No. 677 memorandum). However, the U.S. later explained that this was not a final territorial decision but merely provisional management until formally decided by a peace treaty.

In the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, "Jeju Island, Geomun Island, and Ulleungdo" were listed as Korean territories to be renounced by Japan, but Takeshima was not included. At that time, the South Korean government requested the U.S. to add Takeshima to the renounced territories, but the U.S. explicitly rejected, stating, "Takeshima has never been treated as part of Korea and is Japanese territory."

Consequently, under the peace treaty, Takeshima was not included in the territories renounced by Japan and was confirmed as Japanese territory. South Korea opposed this, and just before the treaty came into effect in January 1952, President Syngman Rhee unilaterally declared the Syngman Rhee Line, incorporating Takeshima into South Korean waters.

Since then, South Korea has begun effective control by landing the Dokdo Volunteer Guard and coast guard, which has continued even after the signing of the 1965 Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty. The Japanese government protests this occupation as "illegal occupation without grounds in international law" and has proposed resolving it through referral to the International Court of Justice three times since 1954, but South Korea has rejected all proposals.

The South Korean government maintains that "no territorial dispute exists" and refuses Japan's proposals, continuing to claim Dokdo as its inherent territory.

Summary of Japan-South Korea Claims

In summary, Japan claims that it "recognized and utilized Takeshima since the Edo period, legally established sovereignty in 1905, and it was confirmed as Japanese territory under the post-war treaty." South Korea, on the other hand, claims that it "has been part of its territory since 512, Japan's incorporation was illegal, and it merely restored its rightful territory after the war."

The positions of both countries are diametrically opposed, and the dispute over the sovereignty of Takeshima continues unresolved to this day. Japan continues to protest South Korea's effective control, while South Korea rejects Japan's protests themselves.

Historical Background of the Senkaku Islands and Japan-China Claims

Ancient to 19th Century

The Senkaku Islands (Chinese name: Diaoyu Islands) are uninhabited islands located between Okinawa Island and Taiwan. They appeared in ancient Chinese texts as navigational landmarks, and there are descriptions that they were within the scope of maritime defense during the Ming Dynasty. China asserts its historical claim that "the Diaoyu Islands have been subordinate islands of China (Taiwan) since ancient times and are not part of Ryukyu (Okinawa)."

On the other hand, Japan also has records of recognizing islands resembling the Senkakus in old maps and documents, but no clear control was exercised before the modern era. Both countries knew of the islands' existence from ancient times, but until the 19th century, they were uninhabited and beyond governance.

Sino-Japanese War and Japan's Incorporation (1895)

A turning point came around the time of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). After careful investigation, considering China's sentiments, the Japanese government formally incorporated the Senkaku Islands, which were terra nullius, into Japanese territory by a cabinet decision in January 1895, just before the end of the war.

Japan declared its sovereignty by erecting markers on Uotsurijima and other islands and incorporated them into Okinawa Prefecture. Japan claims that "this incorporation was a domestic measure unrelated to the cession under the Treaty of Shimonoseki (signed in April 1895), and the Senkakus were not spoils of war from the outset."

In contrast, China views that "Japan stole the Diaoyu Islands amidst the chaos of the Sino-Japanese War and seized them along with Taiwan through an unequal treaty." Indeed, the Treaty of Shimonoseki stipulated that China would cede "Taiwan and its affiliated islands" to Japan, and China's historical view is that the Senkaku Islands were also taken by Japan as affiliated islands of Taiwan.

It is clear that the perceptions of both sides already diverged at this point.

Post-World War II Settlement

After Japan's surrender, the Senkaku Islands, along with other Ryukyu Islands, came under U.S. administration. In the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, there was no specific mention of the Senkakus, and they were placed under U.S. administration comprehensively as "Southwestern Islands (including the Okinawa region)" under Article 3 of the treaty.

During this period, the Chinese government (then the Republic of China government) did not officially object to the Senkaku Islands coming under U.S. administration. However, the situation changed in 1968 when a survey by the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) reported the possibility of rich oil and natural gas reserves on the continental shelf around the Senkakus.

The following year, in 1969, as soon as this report was published, China (then the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution) and the Taiwanese authorities suddenly began to claim sovereignty over the Senkakus. In contrast to the lack of official claims for about 20 years, after the potential for resources gained attention, China and Taiwan abruptly began to assert historical territorial rights loudly. In December 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially declared that "the Diaoyu Islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times" and "Japan unjustly seized them during the Sino-Japanese War and stole them as part of Taiwan, so they should naturally be returned to China after the war."

In 1972, with the reversion of Okinawa, the administrative rights over the Senkaku Islands were returned from the U.S. to Japan. Immediately after the reversion, the Japanese government adopted the official stance that "the Senkaku Islands are inherently Japanese territory both historically and under international law, and no territorial dispute exists." In response, China and Taiwan oppose, stating that "our territory was only temporarily administered by the U.S., and the reversion to Japan is invalid."

During the Japan-China normalization negotiations in the 1970s, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping indicated a stance of "leaving the Senkaku issue to future generations (shelving it)," and Japan proceeded with normalization without delving deeply into the issue at the time. However, the Japanese government later denied the existence of a "shelving agreement," and China's memory of a "shelving promise" remains a point of contention due to differing perceptions.

Recent Developments

In 2010, a collision occurred between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol vessel near the Senkakus, escalating into a diplomatic issue when China strongly reacted to the arrest of the Japanese captain. In 2012, when the Japanese government purchased and nationalized the Senkaku Islands from their private owner, violent anti-Japanese demonstrations erupted across China, leading to acts of destruction and looting against Japanese companies.

Since then, Chinese government vessels (China Coast Guard patrol ships) and military aircraft have frequently entered the contiguous zone, territorial waters, and airspace around the Senkakus, and Japan has responded to these actions, making the state of tension a new normal. Japan maintains its policy of firmly upholding its territory regarding the Senkaku Islands, stating that "it exercises effective control and no territorial dispute exists," without any compromise. China also continues to emphasize in official statements that it will "resolutely defend its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands," indicating a situation where neither side is willing to yield.

Views of the United States, United Nations, and Other Countries

United States

The U.S. officially maintains neutrality in both disputes but has different stances. Regarding Takeshima, during the drafting of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the U.S. clearly judged "Takeshima is Japanese territory" and rejected South Korea's demands. However, since South Korea began effective control, the U.S. government has adopted a neutral view, stating that "if there is a territorial dispute, it should be resolved peacefully between the parties," and refrains from making a final judgment on sovereignty. U.S. State Department officials have repeatedly stated that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty does not apply to Takeshima (as it is not under Japanese administration), meaning the U.S. military will not act for Takeshima.

On the other hand, regarding the Senkaku Islands, the U.S. recognizes them as "territory under Japan's administration" and explicitly states that Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies. This means that if China were to militarily attack the Senkakus, the U.S. would be obligated to defend them jointly with Japan. However, the U.S. itself does not express an official view on the sovereignty of the Senkakus, stating that "the dispute is a matter to be resolved by the parties concerned." Thus, while the U.S. is outwardly neutral, it differs from Takeshima in that it actually prioritizes Japan's administration and is committed to the defense of the Senkakus.

United Nations, Europe, and Others

The United Nations has not made specific judgments on territorial sovereignty. However, based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as maritime interests such as territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are involved, it advocates for peaceful resolution. The European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom also officially remain neutral, with their respective governments issuing statements merely encouraging "dialogue between the disputing parties for resolution." However, European media sometimes discuss the dangers of territorial nationalism, drawing parallels to the Falklands War (between the UK and Argentina). Overall, third countries and international organizations urge restraint and diplomatic resolution from the disputing parties, avoiding taking a stance on the merits of sovereignty.

Military, Economic, and Geopolitical Value of the Islands

The reason Takeshima and the Senkaku Islands are so fiercely contested lies in their strategic and economic value. First, regarding fishery resources, the waters around Takeshima have long been used as fishing grounds for abalone, turban shells, and various fish. After South Korea's effective control, Japanese fishing boats have been restricted from fishing near Takeshima, resulting in losses for Japanese fishermen (although the 1999 Japan-South Korea Fisheries Agreement includes provisions for joint use of the provisional waters around Takeshima, South Korea effectively dominates). The waters around the Senkaku Islands are also rich fishing grounds, and Taiwanese fishermen, in particular, have historically operated in these waters, with Japan and Taiwan having certain agreements through fisheries treaties.

Furthermore, the presence of underground resources cannot be overlooked. The East China Sea continental shelf near the Senkakus was identified in a 1969 UN report as having "the potential for world-class oil and gas reserves." The fact that the territorial dispute intensified after this report makes it clear that the expectation of underground resources is a flashpoint. If the Senkaku Islands were to fall to China, Japan would risk losing its rights to vast undersea oil and gas fields. Similarly, Takeshima is also believed to have methane hydrate and other undersea resources in its vicinity, and its sovereignty is directly linked to the expansion of economic zones and resource security.

Military and Geopolitical Value

While the islands themselves are small and unsuitable for military bases, their location is strategically important. Takeshima is a key point in the Sea of Japan, located midway between mainland Japan and the Korean Peninsula, making it impossible to ignore for security purposes. For example, during the Cold War, the U.S. military even designated Takeshima as a bombing range. If Japan were to lose Takeshima, a gap would open in its defense line in the Sea of Japan, and South Korea's front line of national defense would recede. The Senkaku Islands are located between Okinawa and Taiwan, affecting the Chinese military's advance into the Western Pacific and the security of sea lanes. For Japan, the Senkakus are the frontline of the Southwest Islands defense line, and for China, they could be key to breaking through the first island chain. Therefore, the struggle over sovereignty is not merely a dispute over barren rocks but is deeply intertwined with geopolitical interests such as control over surrounding sea and air space and securing maritime transportation routes.

Reasons Why Media and Governments Repeatedly Stir Up Issues: National Sentiment and Diplomatic Strategy

The Takeshima and Senkaku issues are not merely disputes over resources or legal matters but are closely related to each country's historical perceptions and national sentiment. Therefore, governments and media repeatedly report on them extensively, making them prone to becoming political issues.

Japan and South Korea (Takeshima)

For South Korea, Dokdo is a symbolic existence of resistance to Japanese colonial rule and independence. In South Korean school education and public opinion, Dokdo is positioned as "the pride of regaining territory taken by Japan" and is a matter of national concern. Whenever Japan asserts its sovereignty over Takeshima in textbooks or diplomatic documents, South Korean public opinion perceives it as "beautification of aggression" and "lack of remorse," reacting fiercely. For example, in response to "Takeshima Day" (established by Shimane Prefecture) every February and statements by high-ranking Japanese government officials, South Korean media report extensively daily and protest, and the South Korean government routinely summons the Japanese ambassador to protest. This is rooted in anger over past colonial rule and a national determination "never to concede again."

On the other hand, for Japan, the Takeshima issue is positioned as a "post-war unresolved territorial issue" alongside the Northern Territories issue. For the Japanese government, continuing to assert its claim over Takeshima carries the meaning of legitimately reclaiming (or defending) territory lost in the post-war settlement, and it is also a matter of national honor. Some conservative factions and public opinion in Japan view South Korea's effective control as "illegal occupation" and call for a strong response from the government. The government also finds it difficult to compromise as not continuing to assert sovereignty would provoke public backlash. Amidst such mutual distrust, both governments and media react sensitively to each other's moves, and nationalistic reporting tends to be repeated.

Japan and China (Senkaku)

The Senkaku Islands issue also involves national pride. In China, the Diaoyu Islands issue is easily linked to anti-Japanese sentiment, and its explosive power is significant, as seen in the large-scale anti-Japanese demonstrations and attacks on Japanese companies that occurred during the nationalization of the Senkakus in 2012. While the Chinese government suppresses domestic public opinion, it also uses patriotism to legitimize its rule, and its hardline stance on the Diaoyu Islands serves as an appeal to the domestic audience. Furthermore, for China, conceding the Senkakus to Japan would mean acknowledging the humiliation of the late Qing Dynasty (cession due to unequal treaties), linking it to historical issues. In Japan, there is strong vigilance regarding the Senkakus as a symbol of China's maritime expansion, and the media reports daily on the number of intrusions by Chinese government vessels into territorial waters and military movements. Especially after the incidents in 2010 and 2012, public opinion in Japan also shifted towards defending the Senkakus, and politicians were seen competing to make strong statements. The Japanese government also tries to respond to public anxiety and dissatisfaction by demonstrating a "resolute attitude," and domestic appeals are also made, such as the Ishigaki City Council in Okinawa Prefecture deciding to change the administrative name of the Senkaku Islands. The background to the media's overheated reporting is partly high viewer interest, but that interest itself can be said to be a result of nationalism fostered through government and education. Both governments assert sovereignty with strong words to avoid appearing weak to the other side, and the media also reports with patriotic tones, making escalation of the conflict likely.

Comparison of Takeshima and Senkaku Islands: Similarities and Differences

Finally, let's organize the similarities and differences between the Takeshima and Senkaku Islands issues.

Similarities

Both disputes became apparent due to the ambiguity of post-World War II territorial settlements and the discovery of new resource values. In both cases, the perceptions of the parties involved clash over historical claims (interpretation of ancient documents and maps, and past treaty processes), making them symbolic issues involving national prestige. The fact that vast EEZs and resource rights are at stake, along with the influence of nationalism on domestic politics, are also commonalities. Indeed, South Korea positions Dokdo and China positions Diaoyu Islands as "core interests" and takes an unyielding stance, and Japan also does not back down from its position of defending its territory and sovereignty, creating a structure where mutual compromise is difficult. Furthermore, in neither case has the issue been brought before international judicial bodies (such as the ICJ) for peaceful resolution, and diplomatic negotiations remain stalled. In essence, both Takeshima and Senkaku are similar in that they are complex territorial disputes intertwined with "historical issues" and "modern national interest issues."

Differences

On the other hand, there are clear differences between the two. First, the current control situation is reversed. Takeshima is under South Korean effective control, with Japan demanding its return, while the Senkaku Islands are under Japanese effective control, with China demanding their return (or recapture). Therefore, the Japanese government's stance also differs: for Takeshima, it requests "resolution at the ICJ because a dispute exists," while for the Senkakus with China, it rejects the very notion of a territorial dispute, stating "no territorial dispute exists," adopting opposite strategies.

Second, there are differences in historical background. Takeshima originates from the relationship between Japan and the Korean Peninsula (Edo period exchanges and Japan's annexation of Korea), and Dokdo is regarded in South Korea as a symbolic legacy of Japanese colonial rule. In contrast, the Senkakus are a legacy of Japan's imperialist era with China, such as the Sino-Japanese War and the cession of Taiwan, and are strongly influenced by international politics, including U.S. administration during the Cold War.

Third, regarding the actors involved, the Senkaku issue involves two Chinese authorities, China and Taiwan (Republic of China), making the same claim. While Taiwanese authorities also engage in practical negotiations with Japan, such as fishing rights, they align with mainland China in their "territorial claims." In the Takeshima issue, North Korea also issues statements supporting South Korea, but the actual parties involved are only Japan and South Korea.

Fourth, regarding international involvement, a major difference is that the Senkakus are subject to the U.S. security treaty, whereas Takeshima is outside the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Therefore, from a deterrence perspective, China faces the risk of U.S. military intervention if it uses force, while the Takeshima dispute between South Korea and Japan is considered a bilateral issue between the two countries.

In summary, while the disputes over Takeshima and the Senkaku Islands appear to be similar "island territorial disputes," there are differences in their historical context and current situations as described above. Nevertheless, both remain significant issues that cast a deep shadow over the regional order of East Asia and the relations between neighboring countries.

Conclusion

Above, we have explained the historical background, claims of each country, and international views on the territorial disputes over Takeshima and the Senkaku Islands in chronological order. As you can see, this issue is not merely a legal dispute but is intricately intertwined with past memories, national pride, resources, and security interests. Japan, South Korea, and China each assert their legitimacy based on historical documents and treaty interpretations, and since none are willing to yield, a resolution is not easy. The international community hopes for a peaceful resolution through dialogue, but the domestic circumstances of the countries involved also make it difficult.

The more emotionally the points of contention are discussed, the harder compromise becomes, and media reports and political appeals further harden public opinion, creating a vicious cycle. Nevertheless, for future generations, rational discussion and wisdom such as "shelving" the issue or joint utilization may be necessary. Trust-building between nations is key to territorial issues. We hope that today's lecture will help you understand the background of this issue and provide an opportunity to view history without bias.