Repeated distortions do not legitimize Japan’s claim to Dokdo

Doh See-hwan

The author is a former Director General of the Office of Dokdo Research.

Repeated distortions — systematically reproduced across official documents, educational materials, public campaigns and institutions such as the National Museum of Territory and Sovereignty, a state-sponsored exhibition space dedicated to territorial claims — have become a defining feature of Japan’s claim over Dokdo.

Each year, this pattern unfolds in a predictable sequence: “Takeshima Day” in February, textbook screening in March, the Diplomatic Bluebook in April and the Defense White Paper in July. These are not isolated acts, but elements of a coordinated strategy designed to systematically reinforce Japan’s territorial claims narrative regarding a territory under Korea’s sovereignty.

Such distortions, no matter how consistently repeated or institutionally reinforced, do not create legal legitimacy. Repetition does not create sovereignty.

Under international law, sovereignty is determined by lawful title and effective control—not by the persistence of unilateral assertions. Korea’s position is clear. Dokdo is a territory under Korea’s sovereignty, supported by extensive historical documentation, including records from both Korean and Japanese sources. Korea’s continuous and peaceful administration constitutes decisive evidence under contemporary legal standards.

By contrast, Japan’s claim remains rooted in legal reasoning developed during a period of fundamental transformation in international law. Early 20th-century Japanese legal thought reflected a state-centric positivist approach closely aligned with expansionist state practice. Within such a framework, legal arguments often functioned to justify territorial acquisition rather than to evaluate it against emerging normative standards.

A closer examination of this intellectual context reveals a structural problem. Sakutaro Tachi, a pioneer of Japanese international law, remained closely associated with Japan’s foreign policy establishment and served as an advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs until his death in 1943 at the age of 69, during which time Japan’s expansionist policy toward Korea was actively pursued. In constructing his legal arguments, he did not fully engage with evolving international legal standards, including those reflected in the 1935 Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, instead framing his reasoning in a manner consistent with the period's policy orientation.

This tendency has persisted in contemporary Japanese international legal scholarship. Scholars such as Sakamoto Shigeki, who has defended the legality of the 1905 Eulsa Treaty and Japan’s annexation of Korea, and Tsukamoto Takashi, who has argued for the legality of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo as terra nullius by separating it from the broader process of Korea’s colonization, continue to advance interpretations that isolate the Dokdo issue from the historical context of Japan’s expansion. Such approaches reflect a continuing effort to legitimize Japan’s imperial policy by fragmenting the legal and historical continuity of these acts of aggression.

This broader context has long been recognized by the international community. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 explicitly identified Japan’s conduct as rooted in “violence and greed,” affirming that territories taken by such means should be restored. The repeated distortions surrounding Dokdo must therefore be understood against this historical backdrop of colonial expansion and its legal rationalization.

The evolution of international law further reinforces this assessment. The United Nations International Law Commission, during its 1963 codification work, addressed the legal consequences of coercion in treaty-making as a ground for invalidity. In that context, the 1905 Eulsa Treaty was presented as a representative case illustrating the nullity of agreements concluded under coercion exercised upon state representatives.

Accordingly, claims derived from such a context cannot be insulated from critical reassessment. No degree of repetition, institutional reinforcement or financial investment can transform a legally deficient claim into a valid title.

Dokdo is not a matter of competing narratives. It is a matter of legal reality. Korea exercises effective and continuous control over Dokdo, a territory under its sovereignty, in full accordance with international law.

The distinction is firmly established in international legal understanding. This issue concerns the essential clarification of distorted claims regarding historical facts and legal principles related to Dokdo, a symbol of Korea’s territorial sovereignty. Repeated distortions cannot alter legal validity, nor can they substitute for evidence grounded in law and historical fact. Moreover, such efforts pose a serious risk to the development of a stable and cooperative peace framework in Northeast Asia.

Ultimately, the credibility of the international legal order depends on maintaining a clear distinction between assertion and legitimacy. Sovereignty over Dokdo must therefore be understood not through the persistence of distorted claims, but through evidence, legal principles, and historical context.

Dr. Doh See-hwan is a former Director General of the Office of Dokdo Research and Director of the Dokdo Research Institute at the Northeast Asian History Foundation.