2006 April 20 - "The Ambassador and VFM Yachi Discuss Liancourt Rocks Dispute"

If THIS DOCUMENT has already been posted, please let me know.

S E C R E T TOKYO 002154




E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/20/2026



REF: TOKYO 002098

Classified By: Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer. Reason: 1.4 (b) (d).

1. (S) At 11:00 a.m. on April 20, the Ambassador spoke with VFM Yachi, at Yachi's request, regarding simmering tensions between Japan and the ROK over a planned Japanese maritime survey near the disputed Liancourt Rocks (reftel). He explained, briefly, that the ROK intended to propose to an international commission in June that features on the bottom of the sea in the disputed area be given Korean names. Japan wants to survey the area in order to make a counter-proposal at the meeting. Korea, Yachi stated, may use force to block the survey ship. Yachi further noted that he might travel to Seoul the following day, April 21, to try to resolve the matter peacefully.

2. (S) The Ambassador stated the United States understands that Japan is within its rights under international law. The Koreans are behaving irrationally, and the United States is concerned that they may do something crazy, causing a major problem. Everyone needs to back off, he stressed, to enable the matter to be resolved peacefully. We do not want our two allies shooting at each other, he asserted. The Ambassador advised that he might get in touch with FM Aso later in the day.

3. (C) Yachi thanked the Ambassador for his concern and said he would do his best. He requested that the Ambassador send an Embassy representative to the Foreign Ministry to hear Japan's position on the issue. SCHIEFFER


1864 Japanese Map entitled 大日本海陸全圖, by Seiken Gengyo and Ebisuya Shoshichi

I am pretty sure we have discussed this map before, but I cannot find it on this site. What do we know about this map and the mapmaker? I have a renewed interest in it.

I notice that many of the Japanese place names on the map are in katakana, including Matsushima (マツシマ), but Ulleungdo is labeled in kanji (竹島 -Takeshima). Likewise, other larger islands. such as Tsushima (對馬), are labeled in kanji, but their smaller, neighboring islands are generally labeled in katakana. Is it possible the mapmaker used a system whereby he labeled larger, main islands in kanji and smaller, nearby islands in katakana to show they were close enough to be considered neighboring islands of the larger island?

If such a system was used, maybe the "Matsushima" (マツシマ) on this map was not referring to Liancourt Rocks, but rather to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島)? That would explain why the two islands are so close together on this map and similar maps and why Matsushima is drawn as one island instead of two.


Original text of the chinese documents about Takeshima

original text
Gerry posted an article about this news.

Mr. Matsu got the Korean researcher’s (Yoo Mi-rim) book and original texts of Chinese documents became identified. It also turned out that there ware fatal mistakes in Yoo Mi-rim’s interpretation of Chinese records. She didn’t verify a possibility that “竹島” described in those documents are Jukdo. She neglected important descriptions about geographic and local administration during annexation in Chinese records.
We must verify original records of Korean publications, because Korean scholar often uses gimmicks like this.

I Original text

1.MAP about SCAPIN

This map was made according to SCAPIN677.

1.本圖根據盟軍總部一九四六年一月二十九日曁三月二十二日致(This map based on the SCAPINs from Jan 29, 1946 till Mar 22, 11946) 日本政府而製
2.本図 係供日本領土疆界四周範圍之參考(This map was supplied for the consultation of the Japanese border) 至於劃界内之小島位置與數目 須以精確之詳細圖爲準

China recognized SCAPIN and this map as the  consultation.


Original text of 『日本領土處理辨法草案』 is as follows.
盟軍摠部於1946年1月29日會領發指令 詳細規定 以爲占領期間 日本之行政區域 盟摠指令 對和約自無任何拘束力 惟此爲最重要之参考文献 
"SCAP/GHQ ordered the Japanese administration area during  occupation at Jan 29, 1946. Though SCAPIN didn't have the vigor against peace treaty, it is the most important background material."
China recognized SCAPIN was not concerned with the peace treaty and the most important background material.

3.『日本領土處理辨法硏究 」

Original text of 『日本領土處理辨法草案』 is as follows.

元屬韓國 就法理道義言 我均應主張以之屬韓國 在韓國托治其間 此三島應由美國或中國托治 或者鬱陵 竹島由美托管 濟州由我托管
"It is originally belong to Korea. In legal and moral principles, we have to of course say that they belong to Korea. During the trusteeship, these three islands should be governed by the United States or China, During the trusteeship, the three islands should be governed by the United States or China and otherwise United States should have jurisdiction over Ulleongdo and 竹島 and China should have jurisdiction over Jeju Island."
China recognized that ”竹島” should return to Korea according to SCAPIN. It seems that China didn't research the history about Ulleongdo and "竹島" at this time, because there is no specific description about the history.


Original text of 『日本領土處理辨法草案』 is as follows.
鬱陵島 原屬新羅 慶長之役時 爲日軍所占據 德川幕府時 復歸還韓國 日本併合朝鮮後 仍屬朝鮮慶尙北道管轄、其本島 爲7255(原文ママ)平方公里 竹島卽爲屬島 人口據1928年調査 爲10466人 日本人 僅佔600名 則鬱陵島竹島 不應劃歸日本
"Ulleongdo originally belonged to Shilla. Japanese troops occupied during the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1596 and it was went back to Korea in the period of Tokugawa Bakufu. Since Japan annexed Korea, it remained under the jurisdiction of North Gyeongsang Province of Korea. The area of the main island is about 7,225 square meter and 竹島 is the attached island. According to the survey of 1928, the population is 10,466 and only 600 among these are Japanese. Then, Ulleongdo and 竹島 should not be returned to Japan."
Governor-General of Korea, 1918
This is first record which describes about the specific history. China researched the old history of the Ulleongdo. She made judgement according to old history of the Ulleongdo and administration area during the annexation.
Ulleongdo which was consisted of the main island and an attached island “竹島” was under the jurisdiction of North Gyeongsang Province during the annexation.
This map was made by the Governor-General of Korea at 1918. This map proves that “竹島” which was under the jurisdiction of North Gyeongsang Province is not Liancourt Rocks but Jukdo. Liancourt Rocks had been exercised jurisdiction by Shimane prefecture of Japan during the annexation. Then "竹島" of this record is Jukdo.

5. 『韓國疆域問題意見』

Original text of 『韓國疆域問題意見』 is as follows.
鬱陵島 卽古于山國 又名羽陵島 武陵島 鬱陵島位於日本海中 北緯37度27分至34分 東經130度47分至56分 面積73平方公里、海岸線延長45公里、離韓國江原道 竹辺66海里 釜山173海里 日本鳥取縣境港172海里 人口17664名 日本人僅642名(1943年)、農産有馬鈴薯玉蜀黍大豆麥等 爲島民常食 海産亦相當豊富 每年漁獲價額 在30萬日圓以上 該島所屬問題 在昔日韓兩國 一再攘奪 自1884年以後韓人移住該島者 浸假增加 勢力日大 爭論始平 初屬江原道 1907年(韓 隆熙 元年)編入慶尙南道 日韓合併後 1914年(大正3年)改屬慶尙北道 翌年頒布島制 設島司面長等官 以治理之 在日人統治時 尙不敢劃歸日本 公認該島爲韓國領土 毫無疑義 竹島在該島之東北部("竹島" is located at the northeast of Ulleungdo) 面積不大 爲鬱陵島之屬島
See above map. "竹島" which is located at the northeast of Ulleungdo is Jukdo(Chuk-to). Liancourt Rocks is located at the southeast of Ulleungdo. Then "竹島" of this record is Jukdo.


II Conclusion

  • First, China made judgement "竹島(Liancourt Rocks)" should be returned to Korea according to SCAPIN, though they knew that SCAPIN has no effect against peace treaty.
  • Next, China researched the historical materials and administration area during the annexation. And they made judgement that "竹島(Jukdo)" should be retuned to Korea.
It has possibility that China mixed up Liancourt Rocks and Jukdo. However Liancourt Rocks will become Japanese territory and Jukdo become Korean according to her latest criteria which are local administration during annexation and attached island. This Chinese criteria that border should according to the local administration during the annexation isn't strange.  A similar criteria often apply to the decision making about the border of colony at the ICJ.

III Korean gimmicks

1.PATCHWORK of the records

Korean ignore unfavorable descriptions for their claim and patch up various records. Then they make their story what they want.
In this case, they emphasize records which are according to SCAPIN, because "竹島" of SCAPIN is Liancourt Rocks. Next, they decide prematurely that "竹島" of all Chinese records is Liancourt Rocks, though descriptions of some records prove out that "竹島" is Jukdo.
"日本領土處理辨法硏究" was described according to SCAPIN. But this doesn't prove that “日本領土處理辨法草案”and "日本領土處理辨法草案" ware same. We often change an opinion in the process of examination according to the new information and situation. Korean can't understand this common sense. They pick up only the record which has the favorable description and they disguise like it is final decision. After that Korean apply this decision to other records looks like patchwork. Korean uses same gimmick in follow cases.

Korean old Maps about the Usando
Korean ignore the geographic information of maps. They concluded this Usando is Liancourt Rocks from the name of “Usando”. They say that Usando is Liancourt Rocks because it was proved by another record, though the geographic information of this map correspond to Jukdo.
Japanese Maps about the Matsushima at 19th
Korean ignore the geographic information of maps. They concluded this 松島 is Liancourt Rocks from the name of “松島”. They say that 松島 is Liancourt Rocks because it was proved by another record, though the geographic information of this map correspond to Ulleungdo.
Peace treaty under the process of examination after the WW2
Korean ignore latest drafter’s decision. And they say that early drafter's opinion which was changed is valuable.
 (under construction)

Related articles


"First discovery of Chinese documents marking Dokdo as Korean territory." Really?

According to a December 1 "Yonhap News" article HERE (a Korean article HERE), a researcher at the Korea Dokdo and Marine Territory Research Center, which is under the state-run Korea Maritime Institute, has published a book of Chinese diplomatic documents, which includes a 1947 document that says the following:
"Jukdo (竹島) is northeast of Ulleungdo; its area is small, but it is a neighboring island of Ulleungdo."  
죽도(竹島)는 울릉도의 동북부에 있는데 면적은 크지 않으나 울릉도의 속도가 된다.
Notice that the English article replaces "Jukdo" (竹島) with "Dokdo," a common, intentional mistranslation in Korea. The researcher is claiming that the "Jukdo" being talked about in the document is "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), even though the sentence clearly says the island is northeast of Ulleungdo, not southeast, and is named "Jukdo" (竹島), not "Dokdo" (獨島).

Anyone familiar with Ulleungdo knows that there is a small island two kilometers off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo named "Jukdo" (竹島), which just happens to use the same Chinese characters for its name as the Japanese island of "Takeshima" (Dokdo), which is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, not northeast.

Here are some questions to consider when regarding the Korean researcher's claim:
  1. If there was an island named "Jukdo" (竹島) 2 kilometers off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo and an island whose name used the same two Chinese characters (竹島) 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo, which one do you think the Chinese would have most likely referred to as "a neighboring island of Ulleungdo"?
  2. If the Korean name for the island 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore was "Jukdo" (竹島)" and the Korean name for the island 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo was "Dokdo" (獨島), why would the Chinese use the name "Jukdo" (竹島), instead of "Dokdo" (獨島), if it were referring to the island 90 kilometers away?
  3. If the Chinese document were claiming the island 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, why would the Chinese use the Japanese name "Takeshima" (竹島) to refer to the island instead of the Korean name "Dokdo" (獨島)? 
The 竹島 in the Chinese document was obviously referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of "Jukdo" (竹島), which is only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's northeast shore, not to Japan's "Takeshima (竹島), which is 90 kilometers to the southeast of Ulleungdo.

In his 1948 book entitled "General Knowledge of Joseon" (朝鮮常識)," famed Korean historian Choi Nam-seon (崔南善)  wrote that Korea's easternmost (極東) island was Ulleungdo's "Jukdo" (鬱陵島竹島) and gave its longitude as "130º 56 min 23 sec East" (東経130度56分23秒). Therefore, if one of Korea's most famous historians was saying that "Jukdo" (竹島), not "Dokdo" (獨島), was Korea's easternmost island in 1948, why would the Chinese have said anything differently in 1947?
This is a perfect example of how some Koreans are grasping for straws as they try to prove Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo). Unfortunately for Korea, instead of finding a document that supports Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks, the Korean researcher seems to have found yet another document that supports the Japanese claim since the document suggests that even the Chinese had never heard of Ulleungdo having a neighboring island named "Dokdo" (獨島).


Americans on Liancourt Rocks in 1945?

Today I chatted with an man who claimed his father was a US marine who spent "several months" on Liancourt Rocks in 1945 as part of an advance marine gunnery unit. He said they were given a large barrel of water and some cases of SPAM and essentially abandoned there for several months.

Has anyone ever heard about Americans being stationed on Liancourt Rocks?


Disposition of the Korean Scholar

A Korean made a rebuttal statement to my this post according to published studies by Korean scholar. We must validate Korean studies.

1. A study by Prof. Shin Yonha and Choi Chang-geun

A Korean newspaper article about a Japanese book published by the Mainichi newspaper
"A named endowed chair professor of the Hanyang University, Shin Yong-ha and chief researcher of the Seoul Graduate School of International Studies, Choi Chang-geun, showed[....]Moreover, on page 82 of the book, “The Treaty of Peace with Japan” that contains the “Japanese territorial map,” there is a detailed Dokdo map with the explanation that “Japanese administrative power was suspended by order number 677 of the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers.” However, there is no content that Dokdo is a Japanese territory in the book."
table of contents
This is the table of contents and page82  of the book.
Takeshima(page 82) mentioned in the part of Japanese territory. It seems that Prof. Shin disguised passed over the table of contents. The text body explains that Takeshima belongs to the Japanese local county at that time.
" Though Takeshima is in the Goka town of Ochi county NOW, Japanese government’s administrative right for it was ceased by SCAP’s directive in 1946."
It seems that Prof. Shin disguised passed over this sentence. Prof. Shin fabricates is often hallucinate too. He explained 48 countries agreed to "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories".

2. A study by Prof. Hosaka

Prof. Hosaka managed “Truth of Dokdo” video series. He explained the Japanese book published by the Mainichi newspaper too.
Truth of Dokdo
The Japanese government pronounced the results of San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951(6th Sept, 1951) in the Mainichi Newspaper. The Mainichi Newspaper, in corporation with the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, produced a Map of Japan describing Dokdo to be Korean territory."
There is no evidence that Japanese government corporated with Mainichi newspaper. It seems that Prof. Hosaka was hallucinate too. This is a publication about the SF peace treaty super edited by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Sep 1951.
" Though Takeshima was excluded from Japanese administration area by SCAP’s directive in 1946, it follows that Takeshima is recognaized as Japanese territory. Because the treaty never mention about it"
Japanese Ministory of Foreign Affairs recognaized that Takeshima is Japanese territory.

Prof. Hosaka also negated the Rusk note in the video series according to the Dulles's statement.
John Foster Dulles served as the U.S. special envoy to the Peace Treaty with Japan, and latter became U.S. Secretary of State. He acknowledged in an address that the “Letter by Rusk” represented only the view of U.S.“ The US View re Takeshima is simply that one of many signatories to the treaty.”(from a document recorded by U.S. Secretary of John Foster Dulles) 
Although the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published the content of the “Letter by Rusk” in ten languages, the letter represented merely the views of the U.S. at that time, not the agreed upon consensus of the Allies Powers.
The original secret document about the Dulles's statemant is here. Dulles pointed another important thing. Prof. Hosaka disguised passed over it.
"US view regarding Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty. Article 22 was framed for purpose settling treaty disputes. "
USA and other signatories must go to International Court of Justice, when she has a problem in the interpretation of the treaty. There are no signatory countries who go to ICJ about the Takeshima. All signatory countries has been silent, though he Rusk note opened in 1968. International law view the silence as the connivance.
S.F peace treaty
Article 22
If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice.
Prof. Hosaka said follows too.
Truth of Dokdo
"A letter from U.S. Ambassador in Korea who unaware of the Letter by Rusk, indicated that he operated on the assumption that Dokdo was Korean territory. (Nov, 1952)
The original source of the letter is here. The letter didn’t say that U.S. Ambassador in Korea thought Dokdo was Korean territory. It seems that Prof. Hosaka must fabricate be hallucinate. Here is another letter by the U.S. Ambassador in Korea at Oct, 1952.
 “Although this Embassy is not in possession of complete information regarding the Department’s views on the ownership of Tokto Island (also called Dokdo, Takeshima, or the Liancourt Rocks), it appears that its status is unsettled."
U.S. Ambassador in Korea didn’t thought that Dokdo was Korean territory. It seems that Prof. Hosaka disguised passed over this letter. Prof. Hosaka also claimed as follows.
Munhwa News
“ USA had assumed the role of the drafter about the peace treaty. It was set rule that the draft made by USA discussed at the Far Eastern Commission and the article of the draft was decided according to the agreement by commission members (11 countries). However the Rusk note wasn’t discussed at the Far Eastern Commission and commission members didn’t agree. USA sent Rusk note to Korea government behind closed doors and didn’t open other countries. USA beguiled into believing that the commission members agreed the Rusk note and sent only to Korea. Because USA violated this draft decision rule, Rusk note was invalid”
 Prof. Hosaka doesn’t show the evidence about this draft decision rule. Though I researched documents about the Far Eastern Commission, but I can’t find any document about the rule. The probability that the rule which Prof. Hosaka asserts was fabricated does not exist is very high, because the Far Eastern didn’t have the function about the peace treaty. Commission members can't discuss about the territory at the commission, because the commission didn’t have the right about the territorial adjustments.
II. Functions
A. The functions of the Far Eastern Commission shall be:
1. To formulate the policies, principles, and standards in conformity with which the fulfillment by Japan of its obligations under the Terms of Surrender may be accomplished.
2. To review, on the request of any member, any directive issued by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or any action taken by the Supreme Commander involving policy decisions within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
3. To consider such other matters as may be assigned to it by agreement among the participating Governments reached in accordance with the voting procedure provided for in Article V-2 hereunder.
B. The Commission shall not make recommendations with regard to the conduct of military operations nor with regard to territorial adjustments.
C. The Commission in its activities will proceed from the fact that there has been formed an Allied Council for Japan and will respect existing control machinery in Japan, including the chain of command from the United States Government to the Supreme Commander and the Supreme Commander's command of occupation forces.
I think that Prof. Hosaka should change the title of his video to “Truth of childish Korean propaganda technique”.


3. Disposition of the Korean Scholar about Takeshima.

  • They pass over the sentence of sources which are inconvenient for Korea.
  • They give priority to sources by private person and company than government. They
    give priority to sources under the discussion process than result. They give priority to internal document than official diplomatic document. (It thought that their criteria of the priority is whether  it is convenient for Korea or not.)
  • They  make their own rule for denial inconvenient truth without proof.
  • They often are hallucinate.
Then we should verify original sources which Korean scholar cited.


2013 Oct 31 - The Government of Japan released English version of Takeshima Video

Finally, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs renewed HP and uploaded English version of Takeshima video.
Korean government instantly protested.

The Issue of Takeshima

゛Takeshima - Seeking a Solution based on Law and Dialogue”

MOFA of Japan also released a leaflet on Takeshima. You can download from below.

Leaflet: Japan's Position on Takeshima
"Japan's position on Takeshima"


1768 - The first "Map of Japan" which plotted Takeshima was confirmed - ”The New Divisional Map of Whole Japan(改製日本扶桑分里図)"(1768)

The Shimane Prefectural Government has confirmed "The New Divisional Map of Whole Japan(改製日本扶桑分里図)"(1768), which is the original drawing of  "Newly-carved Highway Map of Japan(改正 日本輿地路程全図)"(1779) that serve as the basis of Japan’s claim to Takeshima islets in the Sea of Japan.

It shows "Matsushima", today's Takeshima, northwest of the Oki islands.  "The New Divisional Map of Whole Japan" is Nagakubo Sekisui's hand-written map and two islands, Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matushima(Takeshima) are re-rewritten from north-northwest to the right location with the phrase "“Viewing Koryo is just the same as viewing Inshu (=Oki island) from Unshu (=Izumo) (見高麗猶雲州望隠州)”" which are cited form "Inshu Shicho Gohki". The both islands were clearly depicted as Japanese territorial islands.

First and Second editions of Nagakubo's Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu left Takeshima and Matsushima uncoloured along with other several islands including Okinoshima, Kuchinoerabushima, Ezo and Hachijojima, likely because they are remote islands.

Nagakubo made the map based on SEKI, Sokoh's "Description on People and Couties ( 新人国記)" (1701) and Mori Kohan's "The Field Chart of Japan, The Atlas of Japan (日本輿地図 日本分野図)"(1754,) both of which showed Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japan's. He shifted the direction of two islands apparently based on the phrases from Inshu Shicho Ghoki.

As has already pointed out, Nagakubo had later published historical geography book on China "Map of Asia and Small Orient(亜細亜小東洋圖)"(1835)  and it clearly shows Takeshima/Dokdo as Japanese territory.  He had compiled the fruits of years of study on geography, astronomy and history  into the book. There is no doubt Nagakubo considered both islands as Japanese territory.

Shimane Prefecture also confirmed a rough drafts of "Map of Japan" from the 18th century. (right)

They are the first "whole Japanese map" which plotted Takeshima.

“According to the prefecture, the discoveries include a map draft titled “Kaisei Nihon Fuso Bunrizu” made in 1768 and a rougher draft titled “Nihonzu.”

The maps show islands called Matsushima, the name of Takeshima at the time, northwest of the Oki island chain in what is now part of Shimane Prefecture.

The maps were made by Nagakubo Sekisui, a geographer from Mito in today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. The maps preceded another map called “Kaisei Nihon Yochirotei Zenzu” that was made by Sekisui upon permission from the feudal government of the time that is cited by the current government as the grounds for Japan’s claim to Takeshima.

Nagakubo’s descendants gave the rough drafts to the Takahagi board of education in Ibaraki Prefecture. (Japan Times)”

Shimane Prefecture News Release (Japanese)

Korea’s Dokdo video uses unauthorized clips from Japanese public broadcast(NHK)

Though Korea has claimed the deletion of Japanese Takeshima video to Japan, Korea removed her video.
The Foreign Ministry came under fire Sunday for unauthorized use of clips from Japanese broadcaster NHK in its promotional video on the Dokdo islets.
The ministry removed the 12-minute video last Friday from its website and YouTube as the public broadcaster complained that the film uses without permission some 10-second scenes from its 2011 drama depicting the Russo-Japanese war.
Original article is here.


Korean Deception about the treaty interpretation

I The principle of the interpretation of a geographical term

1) The geographical term must be interpreted as the natural geographical meaning

Eastern Greenland CASE (P.C.I.J. 1933) 
The natural meaning of the term is its geographical meaning as shown in the maps. If it is argued on behalf of Norway that these treaties use the term "Greenland" in some special sense, it is for her to establish it, and it is not decisive in this respect that the northern part of Greenland was still unknown. She has not succeeded in showing that in these treaties the word "Greenland" means only the colonized area.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 
Article 31. General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2) The renunciation area by Japan on the peace treaty

"Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."
 This is the text about the renunciation area by Japan on the peace treaty on September 8, 1951(SF treaty) and the draft of the treaty on July 3, 1951. (After June,1951, this text was not revised)

A. The natural geographical meaning by USA geographer (original source)
 Prof. Boggs recognized that the text doesn’t contain Liancourt Rocks.

If it is decided to give them to Korea, it would be necessary only to add "and Liancourt Rocks" the end of Art. 2, par. (a).

B. The natural geographical meaning by Korea (Korean first interpretation)

 Korean government required addition of "Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks)" in the text to USA on July 19, 1951.(original source)
My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."
 Korea recognized that Dagelet (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) as another island and the text doesn’t contain Liancourt Rocks.

C. The strained geographical meaning by Korea (Korean Second interpretation)

 After the SF treaty was issued, Korea government changed her interpretation about the text. She sent a verbal note to Japan on 10 February 1954 and said follows.
Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) was approved as a Korean territory as an islet belonging to the Ulleungdo(Dagelet) by Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the treaty.
 This second interpretation is contradictory to her first interpretation.  Because USA denied Korean first interpretation and request (see rusk note, No184 document), Korea had to change her interpretation for keeping her political greed.  USA didn’t open these diplomatic negotiations with Korea till 1969. Then Korea could tell a lie and keep her second strained interpretation. But now, USA had opened the diplomatic negotiations and the Korean deceit had became clear.

II Unity theory of the international law

 The Korean second interpretation is based on the unity theory. To be sure, the international law may accept the attached island as same legally unit of maim island.
PALMAS CASE, Hague, 1928
As regards groups of islands, it is possible that a group may under certain circumstances be regarded as in law a unit, and that the fate of the principal part may involve the rest.

1) Application of unity theory in precedents

  For the application of the unity theory to the uninhabited island, the important criterion of the court is whether distance is less than 12 nautical mile. Because present the area of the territorial water is 12 nautical mile from coast, the court can't be disregarded.
The Mohabbakah Islands are four rocky islets which amount to little more than navigational hazards. They are Sayal Islet, which is no more than 6 nautical miles from the nearest point on the Eritrean mainland coast, Harbi Islet and Flat Islet; all three of these are within twelve nautical miles of the mainland coast. Finally, there is High Islet, which is less than one nautical mile outside the twelve-mile limit from the mainland coast, and about five nautical miles from the nearest Haycock island, namely South West Haycock. 

2) Application to Liancourt Rocks

 The distance from Dagelet (Ulleungdo) to Liancourt Rocks is about 50 nautical mile. Then it will not apply the unity theory to Liancourt Rocks.
The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.
Dokdo(独島) is Korean name of the Liancourt Rocks. The meaning of Dokdo is isolated island. Korean name is contradictory to Korean unity theory.

III Conclusion

1) The natural meaning of the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the SF treaty

 The Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) which defined the renounced area by Japan doesn't contain the Liancourt Rocks. This is also proved by the first Korean interpretation.

2) Korean deceptive interpretation

 The drafter of the treaty (USA) have notified the truth meaning of the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the SF treaty. But Korea have disregarded the truth meaning and fabricated the second interpretation intentionally for her political greed. This Korean fraudulent practice breaks ”estoppel” and "good faith" for the interruption.

3) Unity theory

 Liancourt Rocks is not an attached island of the Dagelet (Ulleungdo).


2013年9月30日(月) 26:35~27:30 「届かぬ声~60年の歳月がもたらしたもの」~山陰中央テレビ (FNSドキュメンタリー大賞)

山陰中央テレビ制作「届かぬ声」(FNSドキュメンタリー大賞)が下記の通り、9月30日(月) 深夜に首都圏で放映されます。是非ご覧になって下さい。また、他の掲示板等でも宣伝して下さい。よろしくお願いいたします。

2013年9月30日(月) 山陰中央テレビジョン放送【TSK】
26:35~27:30 届かぬ声~60年の歳月がもたらしたもの~


第22回FNSドキュメンタリー大賞ノミネート作品『届かぬ声 ~60年の歳月がもたらしたもの~』(制作:山陰中央テレビ)




 『届かぬ声 ~60年の歳月がもたらしたもの~』

統括 小原千明
プロデューサー 山根収
ディレクター 平井謙太
ナレーション 槇大輔
取材・撮影 山陰中央テレビ報道部
編集 野田貴
音効 金子寛史
MA 小嶋雄介


Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories Part II

I.Documents concerned with “Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories”

1) U.S. Draft dated November 2, 1949(original source is here)

The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs of US Dos assumed that Japan cedes a part of her territory to China and Soviet directly.
Article 4
1. Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the island of Taiwan (Fomasa) and ……….
Article 5
1. Japan hereby cedes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in full sovereignty the portion of the island of Sakhalin (Karafuto) …….
Article 6
1. Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory……..

2) Sebald’s proposal about the method of the disposition, November 19, 1949(original source is here)

Sebald recommended a subsidiary document which define disposition than the direct cession by the treaty.
Article 4 through 12. We suggest that in the treaty Article 4 through 12 of the November 2 draft be omitted, and that in a document subsidiary to the treaty among the signatories other than Japan the disposition of the treaties formerly under Japanese jurisdiction be agreed upon. The necessity of direct cession would thereby be removed from the treaty proper and Japan would not rest under the necessity of being a party to it.

3) Boggs's proposal about the territorial clauses on Dec 8 , 1949 (original source is here)

Boggs drafted territorial clauses according to the Sebald's suggestion and sent to the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs.
Article 4
Japan hereby [cedes and] renounces all territory <, all territorial claims ???????> and all mandate, and concession rights, titles and claims outside the territorial area described in Article 3, and accepts the disposition of these territories that has been made or that may be made by the parties concerned, or by the United Nations in accordance with the trusteeship provisions of Articles 77, 79, and 85 of the Charter of the United Nations.

4) Territorial Clauses & Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories, Dec 15, 1949(original source is here)

The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs modified the Boggs's territorial clauses and drafted the "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories". The draft of the agreement was incomplete with many mistakes. "Territorial Clauses" and "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" contradicts in the point of Takeshima. The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs sent those documents to the Legal Adviser of Dos on Dec 15, 1949.

Territorial Clauses of Peace Treaty
1. Japan hereby renounces on behalf of itself and its nationals all territorial and mandate rights, titles and claims outside the territorial area described in Article 3.
2. The Allied and Associated Powers retain their rights in respect to disposition of the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph which were under Japanese sovereignty, pending conclusion of an agreement or agreements among them providing for disposition of such territories.
Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories
The Allied and Associated Powers agree that there shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean Mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan how group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms port Hamilton (Tonaikai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima),.... 

5) The Legal Adviser responded to the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs on Dec 19, 1949(original source is here)

 The Legal Adviser was negative for making a two ducument plan. This is last record about the draft of the agreement. Dos did not correct even mistakes of the draft.
Since territorial dispositions are generally matters of considerable importance to the various nations concerned, most nations would doubtless desire that the disposing document be of the same dignity, namely, a treaty. Hence, two documents would need to be ratified. Where the intended recipient is agreed upon, and no important matters call for outside action, it would be a matter of some difficulty to explain to other nations the necessity for the departure from practice, unless a substantial reason appeared. It is our understanding that the reason advanced for separate documents in the case of cession of Japanese territory is that the absence of “cession to” clauses in the Treaty of Peace will be of psychological benefit to Japan.

6) U.S. Draft dated December 29, 1949(original source is here)

The Bureau of EA gave up two documents plan and rolled back to the direct cession plan.
Article 5
2. Japan hereby cedes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in full sovereignty the portion of the Kurile islands.
Article 6
1. Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory……..

7) S.F. treaty on September 8, 1951

Finally, Allies gave up direct cession and Japan simply renounced her territory by the treaty.
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.

However Allies did not determine the disposition of the renounced territory. Then the disposition became indefinite.

Sovereignty may also be indeterminate so far as the process of secession may not be seen to be complete at any precise point in time. [...] For example, in a peace treaty Japan renounced all right to Fomasa. However, Fomasa has not been the subject of any act of disposition; it has not been transferred to any state.

II. Analysys of “Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories”


  • This draft of the agreement is the primitive draft which has many mistakes and blanks.  US Dos swiftly abandoned this draft after receiving the Legal adviser's suggestion.
  • This draft of the agreement is internal document of the US Dos. Allies didn't know this draft of the agreement, because US Dos didn't distribute to Allies. Allies neither  signed or ratify at this document, too.
  • This draft of the agreement is contradictory to the San Francisco treaty about Takeshima. The Allies don't have authority to dispose a territory without an agreement of Japan. Because Japan didn't renounce Takeshima at the SF treaty, Allies don't have the power of disposition about Takeshima. 

2)The difference from the Rusk note

  • Rusk note was made based on the treaty draft dated June 14. The sentence of the Article2 of this draft is same as the S.F. treaty. Then Rusk note is adjusted with S.F. treaty. But this draft of the agreement contradicts the S.F. treaty
  • While Rusk note was a formal bilateral diplomatic document issued by drafter of the Treaty and sent to ROK government, this draft in concern was just an internal primitive document which has no trace of distribution to any other countries outside.

Which is more important between the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan, and this draft of the agreement without signatures?  Of course, priority is given to the S.F. treaty. Supplementary means of interpretation of the treaty can't use in order to deny the treaty.

3) Korean interpretation

Dokdo Research and Preservation Association & Dokdo Institute
"Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories"(1950) drafted in preparation for the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 stated Dokdo as a"Korean territory' in substantive enactment. Therefor although Dokdo was not mentioned in San Francisco Peace Treaty, Dokdo was recognized as a Korean territory in "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" and "SCAPIN No. 677".
 "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is internal primitive draft. Because Japan and Allies didn't agree, this draft of the agreement is legally invalid. Moreover the their interpretation about SF treaty violates the "Principle of Completeness of Boundary Treaties" of the international law.

Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court on the Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (1925)
It is . . . natural that any article designed to fix a frontier should, if possible, be so interpreted that the result of the application of its provisions in their entirety should be the establishment of a precise, complete and definitive frontier.

Special thanks to Matsu and Kaneganese


Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories(連合国の旧日本領土処理に関する合意書)



  • 台湾等:中国に割譲する。(Cedes to China)
  • 南樺太・クリル諸島等:ソ連に割譲する。(Cedes to the Union of soviet Socialist Republics)
  • 朝鮮半島等、小笠原諸島、琉球諸島:全ての権利と権原を放棄する。(renounces all right and title)
1949年11月19日 11月9日の条約草案に関する詳細な意見


 合意書草案を発見したシン・ヨンハは1950年以降に作成されたものとしていたが、chaamieyさんのサイトによると李碩祐の研究では19491219日の作成とし、「韓国の独島領有権が再び認められたもの」と解釈しているようである(李碩祐の論文を見ていないので日付を特定した根拠は不明)。前述のとおり合意書草案は条約の放棄領土に対する処分を決定するものであり、条約における放棄領土と整合してなくてはならない。合意書草案にある「豆満江の河口から約三海里にある国境の終点・・・( the seaward terminus of the boundary approximately three nautical miles from the mouth of the Tumen River)」との表現は、1947年11月2日と1949年12月29日の条約草案にしかなく、この何れかの条約草案をベースに補足文書として合意書草案が作成された。また、合意書草案にある「連合国が竹島の主権を韓国に移転する」ためには、日本が平和条約で竹島の処分権を連合国に移転済みでなければならない。条約草案の変化を時系列に整理すると以下のとおりとなる。
  • 194911 2日条約草案:竹島が放棄領土に含まれる
  • 19491229日条約草案:竹島が放棄領土から除外


Done at the city of ------------in the English language,this -------day of------,1950.
Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima), and all other islands and islets to which Japan had acquired title lying outside and to the east of the meridian 124゜15´E. longitude,



 竹島を日本領とした1949年12月29日条約草案であるが、領土処分方法については台湾や南樺太等は従来どおりの中国等への割譲による処分方法となっている。しかしながら、1950年9月11日に作成された条約草案において「日本は、英国、ソビエト、中国、米国によってなされる将来的(to the future)な合意を承認する」と割譲方式がなくなると共に合意将来に先送りた。11月24日の 対日講話7原則では、「条約発効後1年以内に決定されない場合には,国際連合総会が決定」と、連合国内で合意ができなかった時の対処が追加された更に、条文が「全ての権利・権限を放棄する」と修正され、連合国の合意の存在自体が削除され条約成案となった。例えば「朝鮮の主権を韓国に移転する」とする処分に東側諸国が同意するわけもなく、現実問題として日本が放棄した後の領土処分については何ら決定することはできなかったのである結果的にサンフランシスコ条約では、シーボルド意見書における1ステップ目(日本による領土放棄)のみが実行され、連合国による放棄領土の処分は行われかった。




  恐らくラスク書簡を否定するためであろうが、事実に依拠しない拡大解釈を行っている。この合意書草案に連合国が合意したとするのであれば、署名等によって連合国が合意した事実を証明することが必要である。しかし、そのような事実を存在しない。また、最終的に連合国および日本が合意したサンフランシスコ条約成案では、放棄領土から竹島は除外されている。ラスク書簡が重要なのは、サンフランシスコ条約成案と同じ文面(韓国に配布された1951年3月草案以降、朝鮮の放棄領土に関する文案は修正されていない) に対する条約起草者の意見だからである。時間を遡及し条約成案を否定する合意書草案と異なり、ラスク書簡は条約成案と整合しているのである。