Dokdo (Takeshima)/Debate Guide: Difference between revisions
imported>Chunbum Park mNo edit summary |
imported>Chunbum Park No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
The territorial dispute between [[South Korea]] and [[Japan]] over Dokdo is an issue that can be easily misunderstood without an extensive survey of the arguments presented in academic setting. Because the news outlets outside the countries involved are primarily interested in the new developments of the dispute, they will abstain from | The territorial dispute between [[South Korea]] and [[Japan]] over Dokdo is an issue that can be easily misunderstood without an extensive survey of the arguments presented in academic setting. Because the news outlets outside the countries involved are primarily interested in the new developments of the dispute, they will abstain from dealing with the aspect of historical correctness and appear to show that both parties are equally right, or, even worse, that the side with weaker claims continues to perpetuate the issue through a more aggressive approach. On the other hand, the academics are able to determine which side has a stronger case by examining the intricacies of the arguments and their supporting evidence. Consequently, there is a huge perception gap regarding the dispute between the concerned academic experts and the journalists as well as their laymen readership. | ||
For the laymen, understanding the dispute is made more difficult by the fact that their primary source of information and dialogue on the dispute would be the [[internet]], where there is a | For the laymen, understanding the dispute is made more difficult by the fact that their primary source of information and dialogue on the dispute would be the [[internet]], where there is a considerable bias towards Japan and the corresponding anti-Korean sentiments, which is loosely termed as "[[Korea bashing]]." At the core of the anti-Korean [[netizen]] contingency are the Japanese ultra-nationalists and devoted [[Japanophile]]s, who project totalitarian images of poverty-stricken [[North Korea]] | ||
Revision as of 22:44, 11 September 2010
The territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan over Dokdo is an issue that can be easily misunderstood without an extensive survey of the arguments presented in academic setting. Because the news outlets outside the countries involved are primarily interested in the new developments of the dispute, they will abstain from dealing with the aspect of historical correctness and appear to show that both parties are equally right, or, even worse, that the side with weaker claims continues to perpetuate the issue through a more aggressive approach. On the other hand, the academics are able to determine which side has a stronger case by examining the intricacies of the arguments and their supporting evidence. Consequently, there is a huge perception gap regarding the dispute between the concerned academic experts and the journalists as well as their laymen readership.
For the laymen, understanding the dispute is made more difficult by the fact that their primary source of information and dialogue on the dispute would be the internet, where there is a considerable bias towards Japan and the corresponding anti-Korean sentiments, which is loosely termed as "Korea bashing." At the core of the anti-Korean netizen contingency are the Japanese ultra-nationalists and devoted Japanophiles, who project totalitarian images of poverty-stricken North Korea
can be evaluated by two main frameworks of
Korea claims territorial sovereignty over Dokdo based on historical control of Dokdo beginning with the conquest of Ulleungdo by Shilla in 512 A.D. and subsequent de facto control based on visibility from Ulleungdo, which is the nearest historically inhabited Korean island from Dokdo. Japan claims territorial sovereignty based on activities including fishing and felling of bamboo groves at Dokdo from mid-17th century on. Korea claims that prohibition of seafaring to this area since 1696 by the Japanese government applied only to Ulleungdo, while Korea maintains that the ban applied Ulleungdo and appurtenant islands including Dokdo. Many maps, both Korean and Japanese, before 1905 show Dokdo as a Korea territory. On January 28, 1905 during the Russo-Japanese war, Japan issued Shimane Prefecture Notice No. 40 that incorporated Dokdo as a Japanese territory under the claim of terra nullius. The Korean government was not notified until March 29, 1906, well after Japan defeated Russia and concluded, on November 17, 1905, the Eulsa treaty that made Korea a protectorate of Japan amd prevented Korea from lodging any protest against the Japanese action over Dokdo.