The US Influence on the

Liancourt Rocks Dispute

Jessica Haynes
April 16, 2014

The Liancourt Rocks Dispute

Between Japan and the Republic of Korea
Takeshima/Dokdo

Began in 1905 with Japanese invasion

Japanese Cabinet ruled islands were terra nullius
Did not notify Korean government of decision
Occupied the island moved on to Korea
Korea established as protectorate the same year

Japan has been claiming ownership of the islands

ever since.

The US Influence
US has (unfairly) tipped the scales towards Japans claim of
the islands.
How?
1951 Treaty of San Francisco
Rusk Note
Avoiding new declarations/treaties on the matter

Why?
Self interest:
Fostering a close US-Japan partnership (post-WWII)
Strategic importance of Liancourt Rocks (post-WWII - Korean War)
Fear of Communism (Korean War)

But before we talk about the US

A Brief History of the Liancourt Rocks

Appeared in Korean governmental documents and on
Korean maps as early as 512 AD
Was referenced as a part of Ulleungdo County (includes
neighboring island, Ulleungdo)

Used as a fishing port by Korean and Japanese fishermen up

until late 1800s
Japanese fishermen, however, were chased out of the area
(when caught)

Temporarily occupied by Japanese navy during the RussoJapanese War (1894-1895)

Established watchtowers and ran telegraph wires underwater

A Brief History of the Liancourt Rocks

(continued)
Declared terra nullius by Japanese Cabinet in 1905
Occupied by Japan in same year

Became bombing range for US forces in 1948

Exercises continued until 1952

Came under the administration of Korea in 1954

Now has a small Korean police force stationed there
Korean boats regularly take tourists

The Geography of the Liancourt

Rocks
Consists of two tiny islets (58 acres in total)
Extremely rocky; mostly steep cliffs

In the middle of resource-heavy waters

Traditionally used for whaling/fishing
Nearby reefs are home to a huge and diverse fish
population
Rare minerals and natural gasses believed to be in
nearby seabed

Koreas Claim on Dokdo

Historical knowledge

Claims of sovereignty go back to 512 AD

Korea claims that their early knowledge and inclusion of the

islands into Ulleungdo county gave them occupation rights.

Previous Japanese decisions

1696 Korean government condemns Japanese fishermens use

of the islands; Tokugawa Shogunate issues apology
1877 Meiji government denies Shimane Prefectures claim to
both Ulleugndo and the Liancort Rocks

Japanese takeover by force (1905)

Violation of fundamental principle(prohibition on the use or

threat of force)
Modern viewpoint: violation = Japanese claim is moot

Koreas Claim on Dokdo

Effective control/inhabitation
Effective (evident) control over a region has become the most
important prerequisite to proving ownership.
Based on Island of Palmas decision Effective occupation of a
region supplants historical claim and proximity arguments.

Korean military presence 3 dozen officers

Fisherman Kim
Lives on Dokdo (moved there in 1971)
Receives monthly stipends from South Korean government

Why the US Favors Japan (Self-Interest)

Factor One: Fear of Communism

Cold War began in 1947
US begins fighting against Communism in any way
possible

1950 Korean War

Threat of Communist Korea
Liancourt Rocks could become mini-base for Communist
soldiers

Domino effect Japan?

Leads US to allow Japan to keep Liancourt Rocks

Why the US Favors Japan (Self-Interest)

Factor Two: Strategic Importance

Risk of Communist Korea to Japan
Buffer island to protect newly Westernized Japan

Used as a bombing range by US

1948-1952
Killed 16 Korean fishermen in 1948 caused uproar in Korea
Korean fishermen adds to claim of Korean sovereignty?

Trained bombers in preparation for action in Korea

William J. Sebald (US Political Advisor for Japan)
Recommended:
Naval base
Radar/ weather stations

Why the US favors Japan (Self-Interest)

Factor Three: Forming a Close Partnership

San Francisco Treaty Japan enters Western sphere

US helps rebuild after WWII

Partnership = buffer against communist Japan/ new

empire
Fear Japan would return to imperial ways
Therefore, US attempted to win Japanese affection
Sided with Japan in Liancourt dispute (initially, at least)
1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security

How the US Favors Japan

Factor One: The 1951 San Francisco Treaty

Treaty between Japan and 48 other states
Officially ended World War II in the Pacific
Dismantled Imperial Japan
Followed the model laid out by the Allies in the Cairo and
Potsdam Declarations (December 1, 1943, and July 26, 1945)
[t]he terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and
Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu,
Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we [the
Allied Powers] determine

How the US Favors Japan

Factor One: The 1951 San Francisco Treaty

Revisions to the territorial clause
Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and
all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart
Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island, and Liancourt Rock
(Takeshima).
included in 5 drafts of the treaty (March 1947 December
1949)
January 1950 the Liancourt Rocks are not mentioned in
the territorial clause
Due to the change in the clause, it is obvious that the US
recognized the Japanese claim to the islets

How the US Favors Japan

Factor Two: The Rusk Note

To Korean Ambassador, from Dean Rusk (Assistant
Secretary of State) in August 1951
After the Liancourt Rocks were first removed from the
territorial clause of the San Francisco Treaty
Korean Ambassador requested the Liancourt Rocks be put back
in the clause
Mr. Rusk replied:
Never a part of Korea
The Shimane Prefecture effective control of the islands (1905)

The Rusk Note has become one major point the Japanese
government uses to legitimize its claim.

How the US Favors Japan

Factor Three: No New Declarations

Despite end of Cold War, US has made no new declarations

Did not reverse the buffer island decision
Leaves recognized sovereignty in question

Korea has had effective control since 1954 yet US still takes
no action
If US sides with Japan openly Treaty of Mutual Cooperation
and Security is activated
If US sides with Korea US-Korean Security Agreement
activated

US officially takes no sides avoid wars between allies!

Conclusions
Koreas claim on the Liancourt Rocks is the strongest, based on
effective control.
Effective control (within the last 100 years) is currently the biggest
determination of ownership.

Japans claim on the Liancourt Rocks only continues because of

US interference.
Decision to leave Liancourt Rocks out of San Francisco Treaty
Japan never obligated to give up the islands
Rusk Note direct recognition of Takeshima to Korean
government
US cannot take a side obligated to protection of both countries

Had US self-interest not interfered, the Liancourt Rocks would

be unquestionably Korean, according to the San Francisco
drafts before 1950.

Images Used
Slide 2: Google Maps
Slide 8: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wpcontent/images/dokdo-airshot.jpg
Slide 10:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&positi
on=7&with_photo_id=82749188&order=date_desc&user=729214
7
Slide12 : http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/why-japan-cant-havedokdo-i.html

Bibliography

2012. Profile: Dokdo/Takeshima Islands. Last modified 10 August 2012. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19207086.

2013. Liancourt Rocks. Colombia Electronic Encyclopedia Online, 6th Edition. Accessed 10 April 2014.

Charney, Jonathan I. 1995. Central East Asian Maritime Boundaries and the Law of the Sea. The American Journal of
International Law 89:724-749. Accessed 23 March 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2203934.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true.

Gale, Alastair. No, John Kerry Didnt Give the Liancourt Rocks to Korea. The Wall Street Journal: Korea Relative, 14
February. http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2014/02/14/no-john-kerry-didnt-give-the-liancourt-rocks-to-korea/.

Glionna, John M. 2011. South Koreas Fierce Island Guard. Los Angeles Times, 4 August.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/04/world/la-fg-south-korea-island-20110804.

Hara, Kimie. 2001. 50 Years from San Francisco: Re-Examining the Peace Treaty and Japans Territorial Problems. Pacific
Affairs 74: 361-382. Accessed 22 March 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3557753.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true.

Kim, Hong Nack. 2009. The U.S. and the Territorial Dispute on Dokdo/Takeshima between Japan and Korea, 1945-1954.
International Journal of Korean Studies 13:97-127. Accessed 5 April 2014. http://www.icks.org/publication/pdf/2009-FALLWINTER/6.pdf.

Lee, Seokwoo. 2002. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan and the Territorial Disputes in East Asia. Pacific Rim
Law & Policy Journal 11:63-146. Accessed 22 March 2014. http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspacelaw/bitstream/handle/1773.1/748/11PacRimLPolyJ063.pdf.

Lee, Seokwoo, and Jon M. Van Dyke. 2010. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and Its Relevance to the Sovereignty over
Dokdo. Chinese Journal of International Law 9:741-762. Accessed 1 April 2014. doi: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmq030.

Oda, Shigeru. 1967. The Normalization of Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. The American Journal of
International Law 61:35-56. Accessed 25 March 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2196830.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true.

Simsarian, James. 1938. The Acquisition of Legal Title to Terra Nullius. Political Science Quarterly 53:111-128. Accessed 1 April
2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2143606.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true.

Van Dyke, Jon M. 2007. Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary. Ocean Development
and International Law 38:137-224. Accessed 22 March 2014. doi: 10.1080/00908320601071504.