竹島問題の歴史

14.5.12

Korean students only scream and yell "Dokdo is our land," but cannot explain why.

This Korean instructor is complaining that the Japanese are winning the international opinion war for their claim to "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks - Takeshima) because they can logically explain the reasons for their claim and are doing so in several different languages. He says that Korean students, on the other hand, only scream and yell "Dokdo is our land," but are unable to explain why. The instructor predicts the world will consider "Dokdo" to be Japanese territory within thirty years time.

39 comments:

  1. This video shows just very small portion of the whole lecture which lasts about 40minutes. Showing just a few clips looking advantageous for them of the whole video is pro- Japanese people's typical malicious way to make things related to Korea look negative.

    I assume what the lecturer was trying was to make his students to pay more attention to Dokdo and be logically prepared for the Japanese aggressive, bold and crafty attempts to take Dokdo away. He probably wanted to warn his students if they aren't ready to logically refute Japanese false claim over Dokdo, Japan would loot Dokdo as it did before.

    Japanese students can explain logically why Dokdo is Japanese land? Probably. It's said Japan's logic on sovereignty claim to Dokdo is well made even though it is full of distortion and false. To make the falsehood look like the truth and mislead the people to believe Dokdo is Japanese land, a strong logic is needed. While Koreans left Dokdo unattended, Japanese government propagandized Dokdo is Japanese land to the world.

    In some senses, Koreans don't necessarily need to explain logically why Dokdo is Korean land as some Americans don't need to explain logically why Hawaii is American territory. All people take their countries' territory for granted and can't explain logically the reason why their territory is theirs. To Koreans, Dokdo has been the land which doesn't require logical explanation until resent,frequent Japanese provocations on Dokdo.

    These days, more and more Korean
    people are changing their attitude on Dokdo. They feel Korea needs to build strong logic to defend Dokdo from Japanese ugly attempt to undermine Korean sovereignty over Dokdo. For example, I couldn't explain why Dokdo is Korean territory until I got to know this Dokdo-or-Takeshima blog. It was about 7 months ago that I started to study Dokdo when I was shocked after reading the biased posts in this blog claiming Japanese right to Dokdo. Now I can perfectly explain why Dokdo is Korean land.

    No matter how logical Japan is, Japan can never have Dokdo because its logic is based on the falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If people knew real international law, they aware that Korean claim is illusion-promoting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The international law in the mind of pro Japanese people is different from the real international law. It's because their logic is based on the falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. sloww
    You and Korean rule(ex. effective control,value of the maps, interpretation of a treaty) is contradictory to a judicial precedent. I already proved that.

    I always showed the judicial precedent which support my logic. But you couldn't show the judicial precedent which support your logic . You only repeat your selfish logic which is contradictory to the international law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. opp,

    opp, you proved nothing. The judicial precedent, probably Palmas case, you like is never favorable to Japan's logic. If you don't agree with me, explain why you don't in a concrete way.

    Japanese denying Korean effective control on Dokdo and claiming Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo which is Japanese intrinsic land are nonsense because Dokdo has never been the real territory of Japan. Japanese illegal fishing activities on Dokdo in 1600s and illegal incorporation of Dokdo into Japanese land have nothing to do with international law. Pro-Japanese people's concept of effective control is based on the distortion of the historical facts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sloww
    The judicial precedent, probably Palmas case, you like is never favorable to Japan's logic.

    I have already show you the judicial precedent which are Palmas, eastern greenland, MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS, Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, and PEDRA BRANCA etc. Since international law is an intertemporal law, the same logic(effective control) is applied.

    Japanese denying Korean effective control on Dokdo and claiming Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo which is Japanese intrinsic land are nonsense because Dokdo has never been the real territory of Japan.

    This your desire never support by the international law and you can't show the the judicial precedent which support your logic .

    Japanese illegal fishing activities on Dokdo in 1600s and illegal incorporation of Dokdo into Japanese land have nothing to do with international law.

    You confessed that your claim was selfish logic and illusion. You want to think that Japanese activities are illegal, but you can't prove that. You only only screamed because international law doesn't go just as you wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't be silly again. I told you if you are confident that judical precedent is favorable to Japan, show me in concrete way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. locgic about the effective control
    [PALMAS]
    “The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.”
    [Legal Status of Eastern Greenland]
    “It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”


    2.Standard and evidence about the effective control
    [THE MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE]
    “What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.”
    “Of the manifold facts invoked by the United Kingdom Government, the Court attaches, in particular, probative value to the acts which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation.”
    [Legal Status of Eastern Greenland]
    “Consequently, both the elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty - the intention and the exercise - were present, but the question arises as to how far the operation of these elements extended.”
    [CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN]
    The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivirés with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands.


    3.Example of the effective control which was admitted by the judicial precedent
    [THE ERITREA - YEMEN ARBITRATION]
    Activities relating to the water: “licensing of activities in the waters off the Islands; fishing vessel arrests; other licensing activity; publication of notices to mariners or pilotage instructions relating to the waters of the Islands; search and rescue operations; the maintenance of naval and coast patrols in the waters around the Islands; environmental protection”
    Activities on the Islands: “landing Parities on the Islands; establishment of military posts on the Islands; construction and maintenance of facilities on the Islands; licensing of activities on the land of the Islands; exercise of criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of happenings on the Islands; construction or maintenance of lighthouses; granting of oil concessions; limited life on the Islands”




    There are evidences of the effective control by Japan, but there is no evidence of theeffective control by Korea. 朴基甲 who is a Korean scholar of the law also failed in the proof of effective control by Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, why are those judicial precedents favorable to Japanese claim on effective control of Dokdo?

    Japanese version of effective control on Dokdo is Japanese fishermen's fishing activities on foreign land in 1600s and illegal incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Japanese version of effective control on Dokdo is Japanese fishermen's fishing activities on foreign land in 1600s and illegal incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.

    Because any country without Japan didn't acquire the sovereignty with the territorial title(peaceful effective control) according to the international law, Takeshima was not foreign country. Takeshima was Japanese territory(the historical title or effective control) or terra nullius before 1905. If you want to say the Japanese activities ware illegal, you prove the Korean sovereignty before 1905 according to the international law. But you can't. You only shout that illegal without international law grounds. Then I should say that your knowledge about the international law is very poor.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The record of Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu in 1696 proves Japanese fishermen did fishing activities in the foreign land.

    To the inquiry of Bakufu about the ownership of Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo), Tottori Han clearly answered "It's told going to Matsushima(Dokdo) for a fishing activity is doing fishing activities by stopping by Matsushima because it's located on the way to Takeshima." Tottori Han also said "Matsushima doesn't belogn to any province (of Japan)."
    (松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いています。一 松島へ猟に行っているというのは、竹島へ渡海する時の道筋であるためで、立ち寄って猟をしています)

    And, next year, Edo Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to those two islands. Since then, no Japanese fishermen went to Takeshima and Matsushima.

    It's proved Japanese fishing activity on Dokdo has nothing to do with effective control and sovereignty over Dokdo.

    Japan’s 1695 Tottori Han & Bafuku Records

    Japan had never officially included Dokdo as Japanese land until the illegal incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.


    On the other hand, Korean government promulgated Korean Empire's Ordinance No 41. in 1900 which renamed Ulleongdo as Uldo and placed Dokdo(Seokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo County. This is one of the evidence Korean effective control over Dokdo.

    Pro-Japanese people absurdly insist Seokdo is not today's Dokdo, then what is Seokdo in Korean Ordinance No.41?

    Korean Empire's Ordinance No. 41 of 1900

    ReplyDelete
  12. sloww

    "The record of Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu in 1696 proves Japanese fishermen did fishing activities in the foreign land.

    Then, which territorial title does it prove? Conquest? Effective control? Cession?
    Have you read the text of international law? I can't think so.

    [PALMAS]
    Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effeclive apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Powers or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory. In the same way natural accretion can only be conceived of as an accretion to a portion of territory where there exists an actual sovereignty capable of extending to a spot which falls within its sphere of activity. It seems therefore natural that an element which is essential for the constitution of sovereignty should not be lacking in its continuation. So true is this, that practice, as well as doctrine, recognizes—though under different legal formulae and with certain differences as to the conditions required—that the continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other States) is as good as a title.

    And your interpretation about these Japanese records is also distorted.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pro-Japanese people absurdly insist Seokdo is not today's Dokdo, then what is Seokdo in Korean Ordinance No.41?

    Presumption can't becomes the evidence.

    [THE MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE]
    "What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.”
    [CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN]
    "The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivirés with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands.


    And the South Korean dialect theory is poor also as a pressumption.
    1. People from the Cholla was sailor and stayed in Ulreung some seasons and went back to Cholla. Most of the Ulleungdo residents were from kohgendo. This is proven by historical materials("江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成冊","通商彙纂","竹島及鬱陵島","朝鮮誌","暮らしのなかの技術と芸能"). Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents ware from Cholla.

    2.The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL". This is the evidence
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif
    Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".

    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.

    ReplyDelete
  14. opp,


    How did I distort Japanese records? I just showed the Japanese records. Tottori Han said Japanese fishermen did fishing activities in Dokdo, but it said Dokdo doesn't belong to Japan. To Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu, Japanese fishing activity didn't mean Japanese effective control over Dokdo.


    What presumption did I make? I fully understand you are forced not to believe Seokdo in Korean Ordinance No.41 is not Dokdo because Korean Ordinance No.41 is the decisive evidence Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal.


    Let me give you the answers you asked.

    1. Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents were from Cholla.

    ---> Lee Gyu-won in 1882 said after his inspection of Ullogndo that the majority of the residents of Ulleongdo was from Cholla Province.
    Go HERE. " 湖南人 " means the residents of Cholla Province.


    2. The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL".Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".

    ---> Your question is illogical to answer. The word "Dokdo" itself is the evidence. As Nakai Yozaburo described Dokdo as "Rocky Island(岩島)", "Rocky Island" is pronounced as Dolsum and Doksum or Dokdo to residents from Cholla Province . If you want an example that “石” is called as "Dok" go HERE.


    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.

    --> "石" means 'rock', right? "Rock" is called as "dol". Some inlanders called "dol" as "dok". "獨(独)“is pronounced as "Dok" in Korean language. Thus, "Dokdo(Rocky Island)" can be written as "獨(独)島“ in Chinese character because it's pronounced as "Dokdo".


    Korean Ordinance No.41 is written in mostly Chinese Characters which was the general practice for official document at that time. Like 鬱陵島 鬱島 and 竹島 , Dokdo might need official Chinese name. "石島" is just prefect name meaning "Dolsum or Doksum (Rocky Island)". Why not "獨島"? "獨島" doesn't mean "Rock Island" as you know even though it's pronounced as "Dokdo". You got it?


    What could Seokdo be other than Dokdo? If you are so convinced Seokdo is not Dokdo, give me the exact answer without making any presumption and interpreting it in a distorted way. If you can't answer my question, don't ask me more questions to here. Instead, follow my comments to come in this blog, then you'll find the truth about Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. opp,

    My comment yesterday wasn't uploaded, so I answer now.


    How did I distorted Japanese records? I just showed the Japanese records. Tottori Han said Japanese fishermen did fishing activities in Dokdo, but it said Dokdo doesn't belong to Japan. To Tottori Han and Edo government, Japanese fishing activites was not Japanese effective control over Dokdo.


    What presumption did I make? I fully understand you are forced to not to believe Seokdo in Korean Ordinance No.41 is not Dokdo because Korean Ordinance No.41 is the decisive evidence Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal.


    Let me give you the answer you asked.

    1. Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents ware from Cholla.

    --> Lee Gyu-won in 1882 said after his inspection of Ullogndo that the majority of the residents of Ulleongdo was from Cholla Province.
    Go HERE. " 湖南人 " means the residents of Cholla Province.


    2. The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL".Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".

    --> Your question is illogical to answer. The word "Dokdo" itself is the evidence. As Nakai Yozaburo described Dokdo as "Rocky Island(岩島)", "Rocky Island" is pronounced as Dolsum and to some inlanders Doksum or Dokdo. If you want an example that “石” is called as "Dok" go HERE.


    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.

    --> "石" means 'rock', right? "Rock" is called "dol". Some inlanders call "dol" as "dok". "獨(独)“is pronounced as "Dok" in Korean language.
    Thus, "Dokdo" can be written as "獨(独)島“ in Chinese character.


    Korean Ordinance No.41 is written in mostly Chinese Characters which was the general practice for official document at that time. Like 鬱陵島 鬱島 and 竹島 , Dokdo might need official Chinese name. "石島" is just prefect name for "Dolsum or Doksum (Rock Island)". Why not "獨島"? "獨島" doesn't mean "Rock Island" as you know.


    What could Seokdo be other than Dokdo? If you are so convinced Seokdo is not Dokdo, give me the exact answer without making any presumption and interpreting it in a distorted way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. opp,

    How did I distorted Japanese records? I just showed the Japanese records. Tottori Han said Japanese fishermen did fishing activities in Dokdo, but it said Dokdo doesn't belong to Japan. To Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu, Japanese fishing activites didn't mean Japanese effective control over Dokdo.


    What presumption did I make? I fully understand you are forced to not to believe Seokdo in Korean Ordinance No.41 is not Dokdo because Korean Ordinance No.41 is the decisive evidence Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal.


    Let me give you the answer you asked.


    1. Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents ware from Cholla.
    --> Lee Gyu-won in 1882 said after his inspection of Ullogndo that the majority of the residents of Ulleongdo was from Cholla Province.
    Go HERE. "湖南人" means the poeple of Cholla Province.


    2. The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL".Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".
    --> Your question is illogical to answer. The word "Dokdo" itself is the evidence. As Nakai Yozaburo described Dokdo as "Rocky Island(岩島)", "Rocky Island" is pronounced as Dolsum and to some inlanders Doksum or Dokdo. If you want an example that “石” is called as "Dok" go HERE.


    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.
    --> "石"means 'rock',right? "Rock" is called "dol". Some inlanders called "dol" as "dok". "獨(独)“is pronounced as "Dok" in Korean language. Thus, "Dokdo" can be written as "獨(独)島“ in Chinese character.


    Korean Ordinance No.41 is written in mostly Chinese Characters which was the general practice for official document at that time. Like 鬱陵島 鬱島 and 竹島 , Dokdo might need official Chinese name. "石島" is just prefect name for "Dolsum or Doksum (Rock Islets)". Why not "獨島"? "獨島" doesn't mean "Rock Island" as you know.


    What could Seokdo be other than Dokdo? If you are so convinced Seokdo is not Dokdo, give me the exact answer without making any presumption and interpreting it in a distorted way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. Please show me the evidence that prove the most of the Ulleungdo residents ware from Cholla.
    --> Lee Gyu-won in 1882 said after his inspection of Ullogndo that the majority of the residents of Ulleongdo was from Cholla Province. Go HERE. "湖南人" means the poeple of Cholla Province.


    My demands are the residents in the early 20th century. The people of Cholla Province came in spring, made the ship and returned to peninsulla. They did not make a house on the Ulleung Do.
    ex. 鬱陵島検察日記 金載徳 率格卒二十三名 造船採●云云 下陸止宿於船幕
    And most of the first real migrant in 1883 was from Kangwondo. Read "江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成冊". The pronunciation of Kangwon-do person is "DOL".


    2. The residents of Ulleung had called 石 "DOL".Show the evidence which prove Ulleungdo residents had called "DOK".
    <--> Your question is illogical to answer. The word "Dokdo" itself is the evidence. As Nakai Yozaburo described Dokdo as "Rocky Island(岩島)", "Rocky Island" is pronounced as Dolsum and to some inlanders Doksum or Dokdo. If you want an example that “石” is called as "Dok" go HERE.


    Is the table the pronunciation of the Ulreungdo residents in the early 20th century? Please show the information sauce of the table. Nakai does not prove Ulleungdo residents' pronunciation.

    3. There is no example which changed the "石" to "独" by pronunciation. Please show me evidence which proves that such change could be happened.
    --> "石"means 'rock',right? "Rock" is called "dol". Some inlanders called "dol" as "dok". "獨(独)“is pronounced as "Dok" in Korean language. Thus, "Dokdo" can be written as "獨(独)島“ in Chinese character.


    What do you want to say? My demand is the example which shows the character changed(石->独) by pronunciation.


    And international law denies such presumption as evidence of sovereignty. You cannot be refuting this by specific evidence, either.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Isn't it rude to expect my answers without your answering to my questions?

    What could Seokdo be other than Dokdo? Please give me the exact answer without making any presumption and interpreting it in a distorted way.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi, I studyed this case for a long time.(a project for ma law school graduation)
    My mother is Japanese and my father korean but lived in France since I was 3. So i have both views.
    That said I can see that this blog was clearly made by pro-japanese partys and the information(this video for exemple) is falsified (here the subtitles and the context are not explained).
    I could give you all my work here but i would not do that since it will not be properly used.
    The international law doesnt really matter it is about culture and history I have never seen japanese people living in Dokdo/Takeshima and on the other hand Koreans had peoples living there and still a live to tell the truth.
    I might be wrong but I would like anyone else visiting this blog to be aware that you cannot bielieve information from this place !

    ReplyDelete
  22. What could Seokdo be other than Dokdo? Please give me the exact answer without making any presumption and interpreting it in a distorted way.

    Seokdo is "UNCERTAIN", because the details of the geography about Seokdo ware not recorded. I think that Seokdo is a general term of some rocks which ware around of the Ulleungdo.
    http://cfile230.uf.daum.net/image/15245B10496FF8CF40614C
    http://unigeo.kr/files/attach/images/103/217/021/b6f8010274c7fa418f362165a644a937.jpg

    Korea knew these rocks, this is proved by Korean maps at that time(Neither Korean search record nor Korean maps exists about Takeshima).

    http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/img10.gif

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jean Kwon

    “The international law doesnt really matter it is about culture and history I have never seen japanese people living in Dokdo/Takeshima and on the other hand Koreans had peoples living there and still a live to tell the truth.”

    Do you know about "CRITICAL DATE" ,"EFFECTIVE CONTROL" and "TITLE"? You cannot write such a text if you know international law. Let's read Eastern Greenland case and Pedra Branca case etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. sloww
    I replied to your question. However, you have not replied to my three questions correctly. You performed a different reply from the main purport of my questions.

    1. The evidence which proves the most residents (doesn’t mean transient laborer) of Ulleungdo in the early 20th century ware from Cholla.

    2. Direct evidence which proves that residents of Ulleungdo call “石” “DOK”.

    3.Example about change of a character (石->独) by the local pronunciation

    Let’s answer to my question correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. opp,

    Your answer is based on your own presumption which is very illogical.

    It's common sense a general term can't be used in the official documents such as an ordinance of a nation. It's not allowed in international law, right?

    Am I obliged to answer to your absurd questions? Absolutely not. I gave you possible perfect answers but you don't want to accept them, which is ok with me.

    Read the explanations I gave you throughly, then you can get the facts about the term "Dokdo". If you can't, it's your problem.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "It's common sense a general term can't be used in the official documents such as an ordinance of a nation.

    Korea government knew rocks around the Ulleungdo, but She didn't know Takeshima. The island which does not know existence cannot be added to her territory. Therefor 石島 are general term of rokcs or one of the rocks. Think logically.

    "It's not allowed in international law, right? "

    ??? International law requires a specific evidence of the side which asserts sovereignty. It is Korea that claims sovereignty by 石島's record. For this reason, Korea must show the specific evidence. However there ware no specific evidence.

    Then answer my questions.

    1. The evidence which proves the most residents (doesn’t mean transient laborer) of Ulleungdo in the early 20th century ware from Cholla.

    2. Direct evidence which proves that residents of Ulleungdo call “石” “DOK”.

    3.Example about change of a character (石->独) by the local pronunciation

    ReplyDelete
  27. sloww

    It's common sense a general term can't be used in the official documents such as an ordinance of a nation.

    Your this logic is applied also to the Korean presumption. If Korea had managed the official document strictly such, she could not be twice mistaken the character in the official document (石->独->石).

    Your answer is based on your own presumption which is very illogical.

    If my answer is very illogical, Korean presumption is also very illogical from the point of the document management. Then I asked the example of character change by the pronunciation(石->独). But you couldn't answer.

    ReplyDelete
  28. opp,
    Don't be silly. I already gave you answers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sloww
    Don't be silly. I already gave you answers.

    There is no answer.
    Since you could not answer, my following opinions became firmer.

    1.Residents of the Ulleundgo in the early 20th century were calling the "石" DOL. (There is direct evidence about their pronunciation. )

    2.There is no example of the notation character was changed by the similarity of local pronunciation.

    These are proved that probability of the Korean presumption is very low. International law denies such presumption.

    Thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Leaving sloww and opp aside, it is rather reasonable that Japanese amateurs will be better than Korean amateurs. Because in Japan, you have to have a special interest in Takeshima to even look at it. In Korea, you are just spoon-fed. So fewer Japanese amateurs are interested, but those that do must do their own homework and naturally come better prepared.

    You see the same thing with the Nanking Massacre stuff. Any of the relatively few Japanese who bothers to post an opposing opinion MUST have done at least some independent research, as opposed to the Chinese who mostly go from what they remember in school or that government made war movie broadcast last week.

    The fact they conduct independent research also means their arguments are pitched at a level suitable for laymen.

    Thus, regardless of truth or the progress of the debate war at the professional level, you pit an volunteer amateur Japanese vs a volunteer amateur Chinese or Korean on this kind of debate, the Japanese will probably win.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is ridiculous.
    Opp is obsessed with international law, and his/her insistence on Dokdo as being Japanese territory makes me sick as I'm Korean.
    I think this rebate doesn't really have a point and I agree with 'arkhangelsk'(he/she has the point).

    I think Opp, whom I believe is a Japanese, sticks with questioning about evidences based on "international law" because he/she doesn't have any cultural basis to support his/her insistence (on Dokdo as a Japanese territory). Sloww, whom I believe is a Korean, has more to say about cultural and history basis that would support that Dokdo belongs Korea. So, as the two, the ones that hosted the debate, don't have one point over which they are arguing, there is no point of debating.

    And Opp, if you read the rebate that you have done here, you haven't said anything about why Dokdo should be Japanese territory, but only showed the judicial precedents, whereas sloww has thoroughly shown why Dokdo should belong to Korea. You just criticized every point that sloww has made.

    Also, as JeanKwon has mentioned, Koreans had peoples living in Dokdo and still a live to tell the truth, which, I think, makes the debate a little bit toward sloww's side.

    I just want to tell you that international law is not everything that can classify a territory and the people in it. People have spirits and cultures. International law might classify Dokdo as Japanese territory because of Japanese's well prepared, thorough explanation of why, but the spirit of the people and the land would never change.

    I expect my comment will enrage you and make you do the capture-and-question thing just like you have done for other comments, but I would recommend you not to do so as this will be my first and last visit to this blog. I don't want to waste my effort and time to come back to this blog even if you distortedly interprete my comment or list tens of question to this comment.

    I just hope that people visiting this blog would not fully believe informations from this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mary,
    Historically and culturally, there is no point of contact in Korea and Dokdo.
    You take Jukdo for Dokdo/Takeshima.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Reading through this blog, I was kind of surprised that the owner of this blog didn't really uploaded much of the Korean articles. I hope I am not the only one whom have noticed that most of the articles starts with "Japanese government said..."

    opp

    I am quite surprised that you brought up the PEDRA BRANCA case to support that Dokdo/Takeshima is not Korea's. If I don't remember wrongly, this island was the one that caused dispute between Malaysia and Singapore isn't it? I learnt about that island case during my class... I am quite sure that that island belong to Singapore now (even though that Malaysia claimed that Pedra Branca belong to them) as Singapore was the one who was taking effective control over. So it was something like Effective Control win over Cultural, Historical and so on?
    However, wasn't Korea the one who is taking effective control over Dokdo/Takeshima now? I have seen photoes of Korean navy and army in Dokdo but not Japanese... In fact, I haven't heard of case where any Japanese related thing in Dokdo.

    小嶋日向守

    Um... I think historically and culturally no contact sounds quite wrong? inappropriate may be? It's just that if there was no contact, there shouldn't be any fight over Dokdo/Takeshima right?

    ReplyDelete
  35. smiles,

    Your comment above shows that you have not been able to understand about the PEDRA BRANCA case.

    You have to learn about the meaning of "effective control" more precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  36. smiles,

    In actual fact, You have seen photos of Korean policemen in Dokdo but not navy and army.
    Why there are policemen? You have to learn about the reason and true history more precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Japan has never controled Dokdo effectively. Japan could have not only Dokdo but also the whole Korea for about 40 years based on the imperial Japanese territorial agression, which is,of course,not effective control.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Korea could have not only Ulleungdo but also Jukdo for about 13 years based on the imperial Korean territory.
    However, Korea had never reached Dokdo before 20th century.

    ReplyDelete

  39. 小嶋日向守,

    Japanese touched Dokdo, but the Japanese government didn't consider Dokdo as Japanese land as the documents such as Tottori Han Record of 1696( Matsushima doesn't belong to any province (of Japan)), "朝鮮國交際始末內探書" of 1870 (How Takeshima and Matsushima became Chosun's land) and Dajokan Order of 1877(Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and another island(Dokdo) prove.

    ReplyDelete