tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post858128678533923047..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1893 - "The Empire of Japan" from "The New World Atlas" by The Fuzanbo Publishing Co. shows Matsushima as Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks.Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-68006603766181231802012-06-03T15:06:08.894+09:002012-06-03T15:06:08.894+09:00Sloww,
I told you international law is not favora...Sloww,<br /><br /><i>I told you international law is not favorable to Japan's claim on Dokdo</i><br /><br />Please prove this silly logic with the evidence. Two kinds of evidence are required of the proof. <br /><br />1. Evidence for the historical fact<br />Data for proving the past fact. The evidence for the historical fact is the past document. <br /><br />2. Evidence for the logic<br />The interpretation rule of the past data. And the standard which judges whether the past data correspond to the acquisition of sovereignty. The evidence for the logic is the judicial precedent of international law and a scholar's work. <br /><br />You told international law. But you never prove your logic with evidence. I show always the evidence which prove your logic is against the international law.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-25830582814302935852012-06-03T14:46:08.587+09:002012-06-03T14:46:08.587+09:00Sloww
"No, it's Jukdo not Dokdo"
Ac...Sloww<br />"No, it's Jukdo not Dokdo"<br /><br />According your silly logic which based on only the "NAME", it becomes the Takeshima. Why did you change your silly logic? Show the reason which you judge that the "竹島" is Jukdo.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-66380435673269421562012-06-03T13:25:35.453+09:002012-06-03T13:25:35.453+09:00opp,
I gave you all possible answers to your ques...opp,<br /><br />I gave you all possible answers to your questions except your irrational and silly questions including international law you like. You can talk about the international law as much as you want, but don't force me to respond to it.<br /><br />I told you international law is not favorable to Japan's claim on Dokdo and proving Dokdo is Korean land doesn't need international law. Facing you with your nonsense questions is just waste of my time.<br /><br />I didn't change the subject. I just responded to what you are talking about which needs my opinion.<br /><br />You wrote "Is this "竹島" Takeshima? Don't run away". No, it's Jukdo not Dokdo. Is this the answer you want? My answer is correct, right?slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-2039577042767033442012-06-03T06:24:59.653+09:002012-06-03T06:24:59.653+09:00Slow: This map is using Japanese traditional names...<i>Slow: This map is using Japanese traditional names 竹島 and 松島 for Ullongdo and Dokdo respectively. They are in the Siebold's position.</i><br /><br />Siebold depicted islands in the potion of Argonaut and Dagelet. Then the geografial information of the Japanese map are the Argonaut and Dagelet.<br />Interanationa law prior to the geographical information then the name.<br /><br /> [PALMAS]<br />“in particular the British Admiralty Chart, show no other island but Palmas <br />(or Miangas) between the Talauer or Nanusa Islands and Mindanao.”<br />“an erroneous attribution of the name “Miangas”, even by Dutch <br />cartographers, is easily possible.”<br /><br />If you would like to continue the silly claim, show the judicial precedent which judged that prior to the name than geographical information. <br /><b>And answer my old question before your new question. Don't change subject. This case proves the irrationality of your silly logic very well. Is this "竹島" Takeshima? Don't run away</b><br /><br />http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka47/ullungdo-1917/03.jpgopphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-20135526194572711122012-06-02T21:35:48.588+09:002012-06-02T21:35:48.588+09:00opp wrote:
This is completely the same as the cas...opp wrote:<br /><br />This is completely the same as the case of Argonaut and Dagelet on Japanese maps in the 19th. example is here.<br /><br />The map you show as an example is a clear evidence Ullongdo and Dokdo are Korean land. This map is using Japanese traditional names Takeshima(竹島) and Matsushima(松島) for Ullongdo and Dokdo respectively. They are in the positions of Siebold's map.<br /><br />Don't you know Siebold mistakenly drew Ulleongdo in the Argonaut position of western maps and Dokdo in the position of real Ulleongdo and Japanese unknowingly referenced it ? If you don't know go <br /><a href="http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/2012/04/how-did-siebolds-mapping-error.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a><br /><br />Pro-Japanese people is trickly making ill use of the influence of western mapping error.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-26863955206536095852012-06-02T21:20:25.370+09:002012-06-02T21:20:25.370+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-79620749766883240652012-06-02T07:16:19.412+09:002012-06-02T07:16:19.412+09:00correction
Example of the Japanese map which labe...correction<br /><br />Example of the Japanese map which labeled "竹島" to Jukdo is here.<br /><br />http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka47/ullungdo-1917/03.jpgopphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-64194609695248517702012-06-01T13:01:29.570+09:002012-06-01T13:01:29.570+09:00Sloww,
Sloww: Reading your responses, I feel I ma...Sloww,<br /><br /><i>Sloww: Reading your responses, I feel I made a really big stupid mistake leading you to believe I don't know the location of Dokdo.<br />What's big deal my confusion on Chinese letters of 竹嶼 and 竹嶋? It still looks like 竹嶋 to me in this cutout. ( In my previous comment, I used 竹島.)</i><br /><br />You mistake my indication. Off course, your conclusion was a mistake. But I pointed out that your thought processes which was rely only on the “superficial name” was wrong too. Do you think that the Takeshima is so close to the Ulleungdo? Why didn’t you entertain the geographical information of the map? International law does not do such a stupid thing. International law is judged from geographic information of maps.<br />[PALMAS]<br /><i>“in particular the British Admiralty Chart, show no other island but Palmas (or Miangas) between the Talauer or Nanusa Islands and Mindanao.”<br />“an erroneous attribution of the name “Miangas”, even by Dutch cartographers, is easily possible.”</i><br /><br />This is completely the same as the case of Argonaut and Dagelet on Japanese maps in the 19th. <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ln-let-OW_g/T4uYs-4ibmI/AAAAAAAAAMU/U2IGgcy0YD0/s1600/1893%2B%25E3%2580%258C%25E5%25A4%25A7%25E6%2597%25A5%25E6%259C%25AC%25E5%25B8%259D%25E5%259B%25BD%25E3%2580%258D%25E3%2580%258E%25E4%25B8%2587%25E5%259B%25BD%25E6%2596%25B0%25E5%259C%25B0%25E5%259B%25B3%25E3%2580%258F%25E8%25A8%2582%25E6%25AD%25A3%25E5%25A2%2597%25E8%25A3%259C%25EF%25BC%2596%25E7%2589%2588%25E3%2580%2580%25E5%25AF%258C%25E5%25B1%25B1%25E6%2588%25BF%25E7%25B7%25A8%2B%25EF%25BC%2588%25E6%2599%25AE%25E9%2580%259A%25E5%25AD%25A6%25E5%2585%25A8%25E6%259B%25B8%25E7%25AC%25AC16%25E7%25B7%25A8%25EF%25BC%2589.gif" rel="nofollow">example is here</a> These islands are Argonaut and Dagelet from the geographical information of the map according to the standard of the international law.<br /><br /><br />There are some Japanese maps and records which labeled “竹島” to Jukdo<br /><br /><a href="http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka47/ullungdo-1918/ullungdo.jpg" rel="nofollow"> Example</a> <br /><br /><br />Do you think the “竹島” on the map is Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) according to the “superficial name”?opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-18525496488184636912012-05-31T23:42:17.321+09:002012-05-31T23:42:17.321+09:00opp & 小嶋日向守,
Reading your responses, I feel ...opp & 小嶋日向守, <br /><br />Reading your responses, I feel I made a really big stupid mistake leading you to believe I don't know the location of Dokdo. <br /><br />What's big deal my confusion on Chinese letters of 竹嶼 and 竹嶋? It still looks like 竹嶋 to me in this cutout. ( In my previous comment, I used 竹島.)<br /><br />It's stupid of you to say I don't know the location of Dokdo. If you review my previous comments and follow my comments to come, you can know if I really know the location of Dokdo or not.<br /><br />The lesson I got today is "Don't make any mistake in this blog. Even a sincere apology is not accepted."slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-10212775667966116802012-05-31T23:04:53.686+09:002012-05-31T23:04:53.686+09:00Sloww,
Never mind.
I think the Chinese letter in...Sloww, <br />Never mind. <br />I think the Chinese letter in the cutout of the map is so clear to read. <br />However, you are not stupid because most of Korean don't know the true place of Takeshima.<br />They profess innocence usually.<br /><br />獨島守護天使金泰熙<br />http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/ANM/KimtaeheedokdopropagandaTshirt.gif<br />李明博韓国大統領<br />http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2008/08/another-picture-of-map-mural-at-blue.html<br /><br />Their islands are 鬱陵島 and 竹嶼 any time.小嶋日向守https://www.blogger.com/profile/07893820564918155381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-30904816886901570422012-05-31T20:42:13.148+09:002012-05-31T20:42:13.148+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.小嶋日向守https://www.blogger.com/profile/07893820564918155381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-44205810081102553882012-05-31T18:42:24.486+09:002012-05-31T18:42:24.486+09:00Sorry again for my very stupid mistake.
You have ...<i>Sorry again for my very stupid mistake.</i><br /><br />You have repeated the same mistake. The geographical information (location, shape, size) of Takeshima and Matsushima of Japanese maps in the 19th century show a Dagelet island and the Argonaut island. International law gives priority to geographical information on maps than the name.<br /><br /><i>“The Chinese letter in the cutout of this map is not so clear to read that I just carelessly concluded 竹嶼 as 竹島”</i><br /><br />Did you verify the location of the “竹嶼” on the map? If you know the right location of Takleshima, you can understand that “竹嶼” is not Takeshima without the clear Chinese letter. This comment proves that you neglect the geographical information of the map.<br /><br /><br /><i>This time I show you another map of 1905 which proves Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal.</i><br /><br />Does it become illegal if Japan draws Takeshima on her map? Show the evidence (judicial precedent, textbook of international law) which support this strange theory.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-69086038027332573712012-05-31T17:59:27.211+09:002012-05-31T17:59:27.211+09:00I'm sorry it's my mistake, but I'm not...I'm sorry it's my mistake, but I'm not under an illusion that 竹嶼 is Takeshima. I'm not in this blog without being able to distinguish Dokdo from Jukdo. <br /><br />The Chinese letter in the cutout of this map is not so clear to read that I just carelessly concluded 竹嶼 as 竹島. I think it was because the Japanese map with 竹嶼 is rare, so that I simply assumed it was 竹島 without giving even a thought to the possibility it might be Jukdo. Besides, the owner of this map unknowingly misinformed me it was 竹島. He doesn't know even what 竹嶼 is. It's my fault that I didn't check it throughly. It may sound like I'm making excuses, but it's true.<br /><br />Anyway, the Asahi Newspaper must have clearly recognized Dokdo became Japanese land no matter how illegal it was. <br /><br />This time I show you another map of 1905 which proves Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal.<br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w2p3Vk_grmo/T6-Cv4au_LI/AAAAAAAAAWY/wU95ZQiAgqc/s1600/1905+%EC%9D%BC%EB%B3%B8%ED%95%B4%EB%8C%80%EC%A0%84%EB%8F%84+%ED%91%9C%EC%8B%9C.jpg" rel="nofollow">日本海大海戰圖1 </a><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bCEhLj4k8KI/T6-D1efv2YI/AAAAAAAAAWg/oNgLDb-d1Es/s1600/1905++%EC%9D%BC%EB%B3%B8%ED%95%B4%EB%8C%80%EC%A0%84%EB%8F%841+%ED%91%9C%EC%8B%9C.jpg" rel="nofollow">日本海大海戰圖2 </a><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GOw9S1HCYZU/T6-B0iygyTI/AAAAAAAAAWI/rgDWlUWNUjo/s640/1905+%EC%9D%BC%EB%B3%B8%ED%95%B4%EB%8C%80%EC%A0%84%EB%8F%84+1.jpg" rel="nofollow">日本海大海戰圖3 </a><br /><br />Sorry again for my very stupid mistake.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-17747804585616497042012-05-31T10:57:05.008+09:002012-05-31T10:57:05.008+09:00Sloww,
竹嶼 (죽서) was the Japanese name for Ulleungd...Sloww,<br /><br />竹嶼 (죽서) was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島). It is only 2km off the east shore of Ulleungdo. Can't you see that the island is labeled "Ulleungdo" (鬱陵嶋)?Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-27910319371611709212012-05-31T10:41:54.721+09:002012-05-31T10:41:54.721+09:00Sloww:I'm not interested in your theory of the...<i>Sloww:I'm not interested in your theory of the law because proving Dokdo is Korean land doesn't need your theory of the law.</i><br /><br />Do you know that “Sovereignty” is the term of the international law?<br />My theory is same as the international law. Then you said that you are not interested in the international law. If you want to discuss the sovereignty of the Takeshima, you must study the international law. Your theory and interruption always violated to the international law.<br /><br /><i> Sloww: I found very interesting map of Korea published by Asahi Newspaper in 1910.<br />http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7hRT6L_5aO8/T8YglPyYPcI/AAAAAAAAAH4/P6wAhmfXH_c/s1600/%EC%95%84%EC%82%AC%ED%9E%883.jpg</i><br /><br />Labels of islands are “竹嶼(Tikusyo), 鬱陵嶋(松嶋)(Uturyojima(Matsushima))”.<br /><br /><i>Sloww: In this map of Korea, Takeshima(Dokdo) is included as Korean land. </i><br /><br />Are you under an illusion that 竹嶼(Tikusyo) is Takeshima?<br /><br /><i>Sloww: If this map is not good enough, I can provide more evidence proving Japan incorporated Dokdo in spite of Korean effective control on Dokdo as shown in Korean Ordinance No.41.</i><br /><br />Off course maps is meaningless about the sovereignty according to the international law.<br />[CASE5:Palmas]<br /><i>“Any maps which do not precisely indicate the political distribution of territories, and in particular the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) clearly marked as such, must be rejected forthwith, unless they contribute—supposing that they are accurate—to the location of geographical names.<br />Anyhow, a map affords only an indication—and that a very indirect one—and, except when annexed to a legal instrument, has not the value of such an instrument, involving recognition or abandonment of rights.”</i><br /><br />Then show the evidence of the effective control by Korea according to the international law. <br />[CASE6:Eastern Greenland]<br /><i>“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.”<br />“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.”</i>opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-25136954385665551462012-05-31T08:52:05.803+09:002012-05-31T08:52:05.803+09:00opp,
I'm not interested in your theory of th...opp,<br /><br /><br />I'm not interested in your theory of the law because proving Dokdo is Korean land doesn't need your theory of the law.<br /><br /><br />I found very interesting map of Korea published by Asahi Newspaper in 1910.<br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JzsST_zfON8/T8Yf8XxZ0ZI/AAAAAAAAAHo/V3a6_Gi91Kg/s1600/%25EC%2595%2584%25EC%2582%25AC%25ED%259E%25881.jpg" rel="nofollow">Map of Korea 1</a><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UDC0TblusKk/T8aphfpweQI/AAAAAAAAAX8/OSqHyIsIdbw/s1600/%EC%95%84%EC%82%AC%ED%9E%882.jpg" rel="nofollow">Map of Korea 2</a><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7hRT6L_5aO8/T8YglPyYPcI/AAAAAAAAAH4/P6wAhmfXH_c/s1600/%EC%95%84%EC%82%AC%ED%9E%883.jpg" rel="nofollow">Map of Korea 3</a><br /><br /><br />In this map of Korea, Takeshima(Dokdo) is included as Korean land. Japanese Cabinet incorporated Dokdo because there is no traces of occupation, but<br />this map clearly shows Dokdo was Korean land before and even after Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.<br /><br /><br />According to international law which is your favorite subject, can this map be something proving Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal or not? Does the international law regard the incorporation of land which had owner as the evidence of effective control? <br /><br /><br />If this map is not good enough, I can provide more evidence proving Japan incorporated Dokdo in spite of Korean effective control on Dokdo as shown in Korean Ordinance No.41.<br /><br /><br />You don't need to answer my question if you don't want to.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-87585900745578269222012-05-29T12:07:04.674+09:002012-05-29T12:07:04.674+09:00Addition
[CASE2’ :Pedra Branca]
Three months later...Addition<br />[CASE2’ :Pedra Branca]<br />Three months later, in a letter dated 21 September 1953, the Acting State Secretary of Johor replied as follows:<br />“I have the honour to refer to your letter . . . dated 12th June 1953, addressed to the British Adviser, Johore, on the question of the status of Pedra Branca Rock some 40 miles from Singapore and to inform you that <b>the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.”</b><br /><br />The court did not apply this letter to the Middle Rock. This judicial precedent show that the international law demand specific mention for the voluntarily abandonment too.<br />I always have shown the historical evidence and judicial precedent which proved my theory of the law. And I have also shown the judicial precedent which proved that Sloww's selfish theory contradicted to the international law. However, Sloww was not able to present the evidence of his theory of the law at all.<br />These prove how he is biased. He creates the delusional theory for Korea.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-91386426153222811722012-05-29T06:57:42.774+09:002012-05-29T06:57:42.774+09:00Sloww
One of the most silly questions pro-Japanese...Sloww<br /><i>One of the most silly questions pro-Japanese people ask is "Why doesn't Korea go to the ICJ?" Why should Korea go?</i><br /><br />Korea can stop waste of a tax looks like the armed police on Takeshima. Korea can get the binding legal effectiveness as to the world. If she will win the trial.<br /><br />However Korea must lost the trial, because she don't have the evidence and the principle of the law according to the international law. You are same. Your claim is always breaking international law. See just above my topic. You cannot refute according to the international law, and you change the subject like this meaningless comment.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-63082120438983362342012-05-28T20:06:14.035+09:002012-05-28T20:06:14.035+09:00One of the most silly questions pro-Japanese peopl...One of the most silly questions pro-Japanese people ask is "Why doesn't Korea go to the ICJ?" Why should Korea go?slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-86794678040794380602012-05-28T16:42:35.160+09:002012-05-28T16:42:35.160+09:001. International law about voluntarily abandonment...1. International law about voluntarily abandonment<br />[CASE1: Eastern Greenland ]<br />As regards voluntary abandonment, <b>there is nothing to show any definite renunciation on the part of the kings of Norway or Denmark</b>.<br />During the first two centuries or so after the settlements perished, there seems to have been no intercourse with Greenland, and knowledge of it diminished; but the tradition of the King's rights lived on, and in the early part of the XVIIth century a revival of interest in Greenland on the part both of the King and of his people took place.<br /><br />[CASE2: Pedra Branca]<br />Singapore government didn’t published the map which include Pedra Branca included her territory until 1995. However the court admitted the Singapore’s sovereignty about Pedra Branca because of the activities on the islands till 1980.<br /><br />2. International law about the belonging island<br />[CASE3: Ligitan and Sipadan]<br />The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically. The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, <b>which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question</b>.<br />[CASE4: Pedra Branca]<br />The distance of Pedra Branca island and Middle Rock is 0.6 nautical miles. The court admitted the sovereignty of Singapore about Pedra Branca. Singapore said that the Middle Rock is her territory, because Pedra Branca island and Middle Rock are the same legal unit.<br />JUDGEMENT: “As the Court has stated above (see paragraphs 273-277), it has reached the conclusion that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh rests with Singapore under the particular circumstances surrounding the present case. However <b>these circumstances clearly do not apply to other maritime features in the vicinity of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, i.e., Middle Rocks and South Ledge</b>.”<br /><br /><br /><i>Sloww:And, next year, Edo Bakufu issued an ordinance prohibiting Japanese to go to those two islands.</i><br /><br />Though Bakufu ordered to prohibit Japanese to go to Takeshima(Ulleundgo), she never ordered to prohibit Japanese to go to Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks). International law demands the definite renunciation for the voluntarily abandonment.(See CASE1)<br /><br /><i>Sloww: :If you don't know why Japan needs to have the maps, I mean the old maps, depicted Dokdo as Japanese land, it means you are not ready to discuss Dokdo issue here.</i><br /><br />Japan never need such maps, because International law doesn’t demand such maps. (See CASE2)<br /><br /><i> Sloww: My point is your Edo government proved Japanese old maps showing Japanese recognition of Dokdo is not related to Japanese sovereignty on it.</i><br /><br />Effective control was prior than maps. If you want to prove Japanese voluntarily abandonment. you must show the evidence which show the definite renunciation. (See CASE1)<br /><br /><i>Sloww: Japanese claim that voyage to Dokdo was not banned because there's no specific mention in the Edo Bakufu's ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongdo is just wrong. Edo government clearly excluded Dokdo as part of Japan.</i><br /><br />International law demands such specific mention for the voluntarily abandonment.(See CASE1)<br /><br /><i>Some Koreans: Takeshima is an island belonged to Ulleungdo. For this reason, Bakufu abandoned Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) together with Ulleungdo.</i><br /><br />Takeshima isnot an island belonged to Ulleungdo according to the international law.(<br />See CASE 3,4).<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />Koreans' claim is always contradictory to the international law. they cannot present effective evidences according to the international law, This is the true reason why they avoid ICJ.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-13607279573108219612012-05-28T12:25:49.076+09:002012-05-28T12:25:49.076+09:00小嶋日向守,
Tell me how it's wrong.小嶋日向守,<br /><br />Tell me how it's wrong.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-72996279030121368062012-05-28T00:23:24.038+09:002012-05-28T00:23:24.038+09:00Sloww,
It's wrong.
"Korean government cl...Sloww,<br /><br />It's wrong.<br />"Korean government clearly excluded Dokdo as part of Korea." <br />Rather Korean government didn't know that existence.<br />Please show me a dokdo map or a documentary evidence.小嶋日向守https://www.blogger.com/profile/07893820564918155381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-28654993653863395142012-05-27T02:31:49.871+09:002012-05-27T02:31:49.871+09:00小嶋日向守,
You must know the Edo Bakufu's sign pr...小嶋日向守,<br /><br />You must know the Edo Bakufu's sign prohibiting Japanese to travel to Ulleongdo has a passage like "都而異國渡海之義者重キ御製禁ニ候条" which means "It's strictly forbidden to sail to foreign land."<br /><br /><br />Ulleongdo was definitely foreign land to Japanese and Dokdo was, too. Tottori Han and Edo Bakufu clearly declared not only Ulleongdo but also Dokdo was foreign land. Thus, there's no doubt the voyage ban to Ulleongdo includes the ban to go to Dokdo.<br /><br /><br />Japanese claim that voyage to Dokdo was not banned because there's no specific mention in the Edo Bakufu's ordinance prohibiting voyage to Ulleongdo is just wrong. <b>Edo government clearly excluded Dokdo as part of Japan.</b>slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-82082372186682439862012-05-23T02:35:26.424+09:002012-05-23T02:35:26.424+09:00Sloww,
Ascertain the original decree text.
以来は、なるべ...Sloww,<br />Ascertain the original decree text.<br />以来は、なるべく竹嶋 沖乗不致様、乗廻り可申候。右之通従公儀被仰出候間常々無忘却可相守者也 <br />天保八年<br />http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2009/03/1837-japanese-sign-to-be-auctioned-off.html<br />http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2010/02/1966-2.html<br />http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2011/08/1902-on-coasts-of-cathay-and-cipango.html<br />http://www.cwo.zaq.ne.jp/oshio-revolt-m/kosatu2.htm小嶋日向守https://www.blogger.com/profile/07893820564918155381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-62784188265333749702012-05-22T22:27:57.941+09:002012-05-22T22:27:57.941+09:00Sloww
I understand that you can't show the or...Sloww<br /><br />I understand that you can't show the original text and you run away. Then I should say that you are liar.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.com