竹島問題の歴史

14.6.08

1897 American map of Japan and Korea

The non-existent island of Argonaut usually does not appear on American maps in the late 19th century, especially in the 1890’s, but, for some reason, Argonaut reappears on American maps in the early 20th century as “Taka Shima” or “Taka island,” or sometimes as “Tako-shimo.” These names are different spellings for the Japanese name, Takeshima (竹島). For example, a map published in Chicago in 1900 has the name of “Taka Isl.,” a map published in Buffalo in 1902 has “Taka Shima,” a map published in New York in 1904 has “Argonaut I. (Tako Shimo),” and another map published in Chicago in 1904 has “Taka I.”

If you would like to see the above maps and others, you can go to http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/, which is a site introduced by Kaneganese.

Most American maps in the 1890’s do not show the name "Taka Shima," but there are some exceptions. Here is an American map of Japan and Korea that was published in 1897, entitlted “THE CENTURY ATLAS. JAPAN AND KOREA.” The copyright credit as 1897, The Century Co., New York. The map featured Taiwan (Formosa) as Japanese territory, which was consistent with the fact that Japan acquired Taiwan in 1895 through the Treaty of Shimonoseki, after the Sino-Japanese War.
If you look at the islands in the Sea of Japan, you can see three islands labeled as “Taka Shima”, “Matsu Shima” and “Hornet Is. (Liancourt Rocks).” Taka Shima is shown smaller than Matsu Shima, which apparently meant to be the Korean island of Ulleungdo’s. That means that the Taka Shima on the map was the non-existent island of Argonaut, which was a mismapping of Ulleungdo by a Bristish naval vessel named "Argonaunt. The islands were colored in greenish yellow, which indicates they were considered to be Japanese territory. Korean territory was colored pink. Since the map incorrectly shows Ulleungdo as Japanese territory and the non-existent island of Argonaut, is shows that even the Americans were confused about the islands in the Sea of Japan.
The fact that the Americans used the Japanese names for Argonaut (Take Shima) and Ulleungdo (Matsu Shima) suggests that they may have shown those territories to be Japanese based simply on the fact that they had Japanese names.
In 1876, Mutoh Heigaku wrote in his “Argument for the Development of Matsushima” that an American merchant living in Vladivostok told him that Matsushima was Japan’s territory. Hornet island (Liancourt Rocks) had lost its Japanese name, but it was always drawn as Japanese territory. As Watanabe Kouki wrote in 1878, “All foreign maps indicate that Hornet Rocks belong to our country.” http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1892-german-made-map-of-east-asia.html

Therefore, this American map is more evidence that Liancourt Rocks was considered to be Japanese territory in 1897, just three years before Korean Edict 41 made Ulleungdo and its neighboring islands of Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島) a county of Gangwon Province. There are no Korean, Japanese, or Western maps that support the Korean claim that the Seokdo in the imperial edict was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

23 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com14/6/08 22:34

    Pacifist, I totally disagree with your inaccurate post.

    Why are you posting incorrect, inaccurate maps drawn by foreign countries to deceive the public? If you want to know which islands were part of Japan around 1900. Check accurate Japanese maps.

    Japan did not consider Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan before she seized the island during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905.

    Here are some accurate map books of Japan from 1895. It shows all Japanese prefectures and outlying islands.

    JapanLimit1
    JapanLimit2

    These maps are of Japan's Shimane Prefecture. The closest Japanese land to Liancourt Rocks (Takehshima)

    JapanLimit3

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    As I repeatedly wrote, I am showing the international circumstances around the islands in the Sea of Japan in the 1890's.

    It was the time before or after the Sino-Japanese War and the western developed countries were watching the area closely, so the objective geographical information from those countries must be a clue to the truth.

    As far as I observed, no western maps describe Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory in the 1890's, which support the theory that Seokdo was not Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  3. dokdo-takeshima.com14/6/08 23:45

    Pacifist, there is no "clue to the truth" in the map you posted.

    It is an outdated chart showing errors that had been corrected at least 30 years prior in more accurate maps. That's all.

    Why rely on the perceptions of inaccurate foreign maps to determine if Japan's claim to Takeshima is valid?

    Japanese maps prove the islands were either NOT Japanese or considered to be Korean land like this map in 1894.

    DokdoIn1894

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve Barber,

    It is important to know that Western countries considered Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory because the Western countries must have had reasons for thinking so. For example, Watanabe Kouki made it clear in 1878 that he considered Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory, even though they had not yet been incorporated into a Japanese prefecture. Here is what Mr. Watanabe said in 1878:

    "Our Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) seems to be called Hornet
    Rocks in the West. It also seems that Europeans recognize Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as Matsushima and, furthermore, imagine another island with the name of Takeshima. And all the foreign maps indicate that Hornet Rocks belong to our country”


    Aren't you the one who has been claiming that it is important to know the situation at the time?

    By the way, why have you ignored my questions about the 1711 map? You said the Usando on the map was not Jukdo, so I asked you where you thought Jukdo was on the map. Are you still trying to find it?

    Also, you said the following:

    Your rock excuse doesn't wash at all. The islands Bak drew are huge, they are alomost the same size as Usando.

    When I pointed out that the rocks off the northern shore were drawn even larger than the rocks off the southern shore, you didn't respond. As I wrote, the rocks were drawn to show relative position, not relative size.

    Are you not responding because you do not want to admit that you made a mistake?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    The map you mentioned is not Ulleungdo and Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

    You must read the longitude - the left island 竹島 (Takeshima) seems to be located at less than 130 degree (around 129 degree 40') in longitude E and the right island 松島 (Matsushima) seems to be located slightly less than 131 degree (around 130 degree 50') in longitude E.

    References:
    Ulleungdo is located at 130 degree 52'.
    Liancourt Rocks is located at 131 degree 52' in longitude E.

    These two islands are Argonaut and Dagelet islands. It's the same as the western maps - Taka Shima (Argonaut) and Matsu Shima (Dagelet). And these two islands, the phantom island and true Ulleungdo, were the two islands that Meiji government thought to be Korean territory.

    Konbu-haseyo, Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pacifist,

    When you click the button to insert a picture into a post, you will get a dialog box that shows four boxes, which gives you four different options for inserting the picture.

    The first box will not attach the picture to any text, which is good to use when you have more than one picture and not much text, and also want to show the picture as large as possible.

    The second box attaches the picture to the left of the text, which is good when you have a small picture. I often use this option to put a picture of the cover of the atlas I am getting my maps from. It looks good and helps to introduce the post.

    The third box centers the picture and does not allow text to flow to either the right or left of the picture. This is a good option to use when you have more than one picture and do not have enough text to separate them. It is also good to use when you want to show a large picture. You can used this option instead of the option in Box 1. I use this option to show large closeups because it allows people to see the closeup without having to click on the picture.

    The fouth box attaches the picture to the right of the text. This is good option to use for attaching pictures of maps or scans of original text that people could click on if they wanted to see the map or original text more clearly. This is the one I often use when I have a lot of text because it helps to divide up the text. For example, I can attach scans of the original text to the translated paragraphs they apply to. Also, it is better to put the picture to the right of the text because you can determine the wide of the column you want for the text. If you put the picture to the left of the text, the text might be squeezed by the picture into a narrow column, which does not look very good.

    Also, to the right of the four boxes are three size options for your picture. I usually use the "small" option to insert may atlas covers to the left of the text at the beginning of my posts. If it seems to small, then I will use the "medium" option, which inserts a slightly larger picture. You can insert a medium size picture and then use your mouse to adjust the picture to the size you want.

    I use the "large" option when I want to show my maps as large as possible, which is what I normally want to do. This option may allow people to see the details of the map without their having to click on it. After you insert the picture, you can use your mouse to make it even bigger if you want to.

    It takes some practice to get a post formatted just right. I hope my explanations help you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerry,

    Thank you for telling me the technique and thanks a lot for the modification.

    I must learn how to post articles in good form. I will try to improve my postings, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. dokdo-takeshima.com15/6/08 14:32

    Gerry, I think you've missed the point regarding the 1711 map. What I've stated is the errors on this map coincide with the position of the "hae-jang bamboo" island from the 1694 Ulleungdo Shillok showing Bak's map was not entirely based on an on site survey. It also appears he located the island directly East of Song-in Bong where the previous surveyor did.

    We know on the 1711 map Bak drew "So-called Usando" in front of Dodong Harbour where he placed his stone marker. With these reference points in mind the only plausible answer is Bak Seok Chang drew some data from the Shillok. Many mapmakers and surveyors combined past survey data with their maps Gerry. we know this to be fact.

    The islands to the South show this map also prove this map is wrong Gerry. There are no islands of even close to the size of Gong Am to the South. Furthermore, look at maps that were made after Bak's map. Gradually these phantom circles bacame real islands. Gradually Gongam was moved closer and closer to Ulleungdo until it bacame part of the island itself.

    I don't know why you find it so hard to believe the Bak incorporated part of Shillok into his 1711 map. Where is Jukdo Islet on his map? Probably the same place Gwaneumdo is. Bak Seok Chang drew Seal Point to the South, where is Gwaneumdo?

    Bak Seok Chang drew his map and concluded this island was "So-Called Usando" He named the island after Chosun's neglected Ulleungdo for at least a century. Anyongbok also visited Ulleungdo Island at least twice and stated Dokdo was Usando. In 1694 when Jang Han Sang surveyed Ulleungdo Island he reported seeing and island with bamboo on it very close to Ulleungdo (Jukdo?) and an island 300 ri away about a third the size of Ulleungdo (Dokdo) Both islands were un-named at this time.

    So what makes Bak Seok Chang's island names more accurate than Anyongbok's? Anyongbok had far more experience in the region than these weekend warrior inspectors whom even the Chosun government themselves didn't trust.

    Another point. It was recorded Jang Han Sang stated Dokdo was a third the size of Ulleungdo and 120kms away. Why did he think the Dokdo was so far away? Because size and distance are related he thought Dokdo was larger so he assumed it was much further away.

    Anyongbok's 50ri distance can be explained in much the same way. I think he never landed on Matsushima and fabricated part of his story to justify going to Japan to protest their activities on Ulleungdo. I think he sailed past to the South and wrongly estimated the size and thus distance of Dokdo. It is not possible he didn't see Dokdo en route to the Oki Islands.

    See map.
    Anyongbok

    Gerry et al, the last maps you've posted are all inaccurate charts showing Korea's Ulleungdo Island as Japanese land. Some even have islands that don't exists on them In other words these charts prove nothing. Garbage in, garbage out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve,

    Whatever you insist, the fact is fact - the western people in those days believed that there was an island named Matsu island in Japan, which Meiji government examined and after the examinations declared that the island is a Korean island, Ullengdo.

    I think Meiji governemnt was very fair.

    Anyway, it's a fact that the world recognised Matsushima-Ulleungdo (although wrongly) and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory in the 1890's.

    Steve, this is a fact. You should admit that. And you should know that the circumstance around these islands leads to the conclusion that Seokdo in the Ordinance #41 can't be Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve Barber (Dokdo-Takeshima):

    That's right. The island labeled as "Usando" on the 1711 map does match with the island that was described in the 1694 survey report as being 5 ri (2 kilometers) off the east shore of Ulleungdo and having haejang bamboo on it, which means the Usando on the 1711 map was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off the east shore of Ulleungdo. Again, Steve, the Dokdo Museum director and Korean scholars have already conceded that the Usando on the 1711 map was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

    We know for sure that Bak Seok-chang inspected Ulleungdo in 1711 because he left a marker to prove it. Also, his is the earliest map of Ulleungdo that still exists, so it is silly to suggest that he did not draw his map based on his survey.

    No, we do not know that the island labeled as Usando was in front of Dodong Harbor since harbors were not labeled on the map. The map shows Usando due east (東) of the main island. And the harbor near there is labeled 船泊所倭船倉, which means "boat landing and Japanese boathouse." Korea's old maps show the Japanese boathouse and marker somewhere north of Usando and south of Jeojeon-dong (猪田洞). See HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

    On Lee Gyu-won's 1882 map HERE, there is a cove north of Jeodong (苧洞) labeled 船板邱尾 (Seonpan-gumi - "Boat Hauling Cove"), which suggests it was used as a place to haul boats up onto the shore. That could had been the place labeled as "boat landing and Japanese boathouse" on the 1711 map, or it could have been Jeodong (苧洞), which was also shown to be due east on Lee Gyu-won's 1882 map. Also, Lee Gyu-won showed a Japanese boat landing (倭船艙) at present-day Jukam (竹岩).

    Anyway, the 1711 map gives relative positions of the islands, rocks, and islets, not exact positions. It would be hard to give exact positions since the size of the islands, islets, and rocks were exaggerated.

    Yes, there are rocks south of Usando, as you should know since you went to Ulleungdo, and they are pretty big. Look at the pictures HERE and find Bukjeo Bawui (北苧岩), Chotdae Bawui (燭臺岩), and Geobuk Bawui (거북바위). The map you posted HERE and Lee's 1882 map both five rocks south of Usando.

    You are wrong again, Steve. An Yong-bok did not state that "Usando was Dokdo." He said that Matsushima (松島) was Usando, but we do not know where his Matsushima was since his distances were all screwed up. At any rate, the Korean inspectors who went to Ulleungdo after the An Yong-bok incident determined that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

    The 1711 map is one of four known Korean inspector maps of Ulleungdo, three of which label Ulleungdo's neighboring islan of Jukdo as either "Usando" (于山島) or "Big Udo" (大于島). The fourth map, Lee Gyu-won's 1882 map, labeled the island with its new name of "Jukdo" (竹島), which tells us that the name of the island had begun to change to "Jukdo" by 1882. However, we know that some people were still referring to the island as Usando (于山島), based on THIS MAP of Ulleungdo, which was made sometime between 1884 and 1894.

    Yes, Jang Han Sang had said that he saw an island southeast of Ulleungdo was one third the size of Ulleungdo and 300 ri (120 kilometers) away. Even though the island he saw was probably Liancourt Rocks, he did not give the island a name, and we know he did not go to the island since he said it was one third the size of Ulleungdo, which is actually about 392 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks.

    If An Yong-bok's 50 Japanese ri (200 kilometers) distance can be explained in the same way as Mr. Jang's distance was, then it tells us An did not go to Liancourt Rocks, either, since Liancourt Rocks is only 92 kilometers from Ulleungdo.

    So your answer to my simple question of where is Jukdo on the 1711 map is as follows?

    Probably the same place Gwaneumdo is. Bak Seok Chang drew Seal Point to the South, where is Gwaneumdo?

    That is a pretty lame answer, Steve. Are you suggesting that there is not Jukdo on the map?

    As for your question about Gwaneumdo (觀音島), I answered it in one of the comments above. Did you not read it? I suggested the two islands drawn just north of Usando was Gwaneumdo (觀音島) and the cape that sticks out toward it. In 1882, Lee Gyu-won also drew Gwaneumdo as two islands. See HERE.

    The last maps I posted? I do not know what maps you are talking about, Mr. Potatohead. If you want a response, then you have to be more clear.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In case you cannot see it in the link I posted above, HERE is the section of Lee Gyu-won's 1882 map that shows Gwaneumdo drawn as two islands.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not only a head of Dokdo Museum, but Mr. Oh Sang-hak(呉尚學) of 済州大学校(地理教育専攻 専任講師), who is not pro-Japanese, also admitted "Usando" in 朴錫昌's 1711 map is Jukdo, not Dokdo. matsu sent me a translation of his article below. But Mr. Oh made mistake of translating "海長竹田" as "long bamboo fields along the coast." I think Mr. Lee from Seoul Uni's kyujanguaak also admitted it in English site.

    http://www.dbpia.co.kr/view/ar_view.asp?arid=718898

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve,

    You always turn silent when you are cornered. What do you say about Prof.Hosaka's map?

    Did you admit that the two islands in the map 竹島 and 松島 are Argonaut and Dagelet islands, and that the map is not related to Liancourt Rocks?

    Your bad habit is that you don't admit your false. You'd better take a good, hard look at yourself or there won't be a progress, Steve.

    확실히 공부해서, Steve!

    ReplyDelete
  14. dokdo-takeshima17/6/08 01:48

    Gerry, you are posting ass backwards. The Usando maps you are using for reference to prove your point are subsequent copied Usando maps. The 1711 map influenced these maps and not vise versa. Look at where Gong Am is look at the locations on these charts, they were made at least a century after the map were talking about.

    Gerry, as I've said. the 1711 map shows Jeojeondong (Naesunjeon Harbour) way to the North of this So-Called Usando. We know he drew this island well South of Naesunjeon (Jeojeongdong, Jeodong) Don't you remember the 1794 Report by Shim Jin Hyeon? He said Jeojongdong was South of Gwaneumdo with Jukdo in the middle and Ongdo (Bukjoebawi) to the East. This would also put him right at Naesujeon.

    Jeojeongdong is the former 저전포. Today it is called Naesujeon. Check these links.
    JeojeonIsNaesujeon1


    We also see Bak Seok Chang drew this So-Called Usando in front of where he placed his Stone Marker at Dodong. Can't you see where he drew "Stone Marker" on his map? So we know "So-called Usando is in front of Dodong Harbour.

    It's obvious he copied information from the 1694 survey.

    Why would he write Haejang bamboo the on the island in the same way? Why would he write it on one side in the same way? Why is the island directly in front of Dodong? Why is the island due East of Song In Bong, instead of far to the northeast where he drew Three Angles Rocks Gerry?

    Look how close Jukdo is the Angel Three and Gwaneumdo. This is from Jukdo slightly northeast, this picture was taken at a 35mm focal length. (This means less than zero magnification.)

    JukdoGwaneumdo

    You could throw a stick from Three Angels Rocks and hit Jukdo Islet. Yet Bak blindly drew the island 4kms to the South, due East from Dodong Harbour. Why? Because he copied another document. Now you say those two towers south of Three Angels are Gwaneumdo? Give me a break Gerry, they aren't even remotely similar. As I've shown above, other maps also show the same two rocks to the South with high tower shapes.

    Here also is Jukdo Islet from Seokpo, this is directly South of Three Angles.
    SeokpoGwaneumdo

    As I've said before, Jukdo Island is not even visible from Dodong. The areas North and South are very sheer. Bak would have spent some time in this area as they carved their place marker here didn't just briefly pass through, so it's not plausible they considered Jukdo in front of Dodong.

    Why are all the other islands drawn in reasonably accurate locations and shaded (coloured) but this "So-Called Usando" and the other phantom islands left as outlines? Because he copied this "So-called Usando" from the 1694.

    Also, did you notice one of these "rocks" is marked "Southeast" of Usando also like the previous inspection mentioned?

    Gerry, Bak Seok Chang marked an island as So-Called Usando. How and why he came to this conclusion, we don't know. Even if this island was Jukdo it is clearly not Anyongbok's Usando by the distance Anyongbok gave. I've already explained why this could have been. The Japanese mapped the distance way off too, the previous inspector as well. So your "distance" excuse doesn't hold water at all. The question is, in the search of the true identity of ancient Usando why does the opinion of some of this inspector mean more than Anyonbok's? These inspectors came one time, stayed for days and left. I don't think I've seen 2 inspections from the same man.

    We know Anyongbok had visited both Ulleungdo and Japan before the 1696 incident. Anyongbok wasn't a tourist, he fished on Ulleungdo and he stayed there for extended times. Even before the 1696 incident he had been on Ulleungdo before. We also know the existence of islands East of Ulleungdo were common knowledge to Korea's Gangwando coastal area fishermen (1714 record)

    Kaneganese what I think the article is saying is after the vacant island policy the perception of which island was Usando may have shifted from Dokdo to Jukdo. I'm not saying Usando is any one thing, I'm saying each historical reference has to be studied individually. We not only should look at a map, but also previous versions of the map or documents that we can say influenced it.

    Gerry, calling someone a potato head has a hollow ring when you post your picture beside it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pacifist

    There’s a map with Dokdo as Korean territory made by France in 1894.
    The name of the map is ‘Carte de la Cor e du Japon et de la Chine Oriental’ and it was put on the' Le Petit Journal' on Sep.3 ,1894.
    This map marked Dokdo and Ulleungdo as I.Ouen-San and drew the border line on the sea between Japan and Korea with the name ‘Limite des eaux japonaises’

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually, the only way the Americans could know about the island was through Japan. Japan was opened long before Korea was opened. So if these maps exists (and I have older German maps which draw the border between Japan and Korea SOUTH of what you call Takeshima and what the Koreans call Dokdo).

    The countries are colored and the color of Takeshima/Dokdo is definitely the same color as Korea, not Japan. There are also documents in which the Japanese Government state that Takeshima is Korean. So what do you want. A false case of history? American maps don't prove anything nor do German maps. Eventually it's the Japanese document which disclaims the ownership of Dokdo which is important.

    Also Korea is in control of the island since 1952 and at that time the Japanese government didn't protest, only later they started to claim ownership since it was obvious that minerals, oil and abundance of fish might be there. (and of course it's convenient but also more aggressive to make your borders bigger)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi, Henny

    Thank you for interesting information. Could you give us the name of the German map you mentioned and the coordinates of the island you claim as Dokdo/Takeshima? I'd appreciate if you upload the image of the map, thanks.

    For your information, right after President Syngman Rhee issued a Declaration concerning maritime sovereignty, with which he installed the so-called "Syngman Rhee Line" on Jan. 1952, the government of Japan officially protested against ROK.

    1952 January: Syngman Rhee Line

    Both countries exchanged the official letter intensively upon the issue in 1950's.

    Japan & Korea Argue Their Claims in 1950s Letters

    ”only later they started to claim ownership since it was obvious that minerals, oil and abundance of fish might be there”

    You are apparently confused China's attitude towards Senkakus with Japan's. China suddenly started to claim the ownership of Senkakus after 1970, right after UNESCO reported the possibility of the an offshore oil field near the islands.

    ReplyDelete
  18. correction

    UNESCO

    UNECAFE(Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East=国連アジア極東経済委員会)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi, Henny, or should I call you Prof. Savenije?

    I found your Korean map site here, but I couldn't identify the "older German maps which draw the border between Japan and Korea SOUTH of what you call Takeshima and what the Koreans call Dokdo." I hope you'd give us more detailed information about the map.

    Anyway, the site you created over there is fantastic and it's definately worth to have a look for us. Thanks and kudos to you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It’s not so significant how the westerners perceived the ownership of Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) before 20th century. Instead, the Japanese map, especially military map, made after Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 is conclusively important in reading the true ownership of Dokdo.

    The map linked below was made by Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department (陸地測量部) under the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office(参謀本部) in 1936, relatively recent one.

    Japan's Army Land Survey Department’s Map of 1936

    Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department marked Dokdo(竹島) as Korean land which the imperial Japan took by force. This map obviously proves Japan’s incorporation of Takeshima in 1905 was illegal and today’s Japanese government’s claim to Dokdo is based on falsehood.

    Don’t the Japanese politicians including Prime Minister Abe have conscience or courage to face with Japan’s history of territorial greed? Why, why, why is Japan so mean to Korea with the matter of history including Dokdo issue? Please stop provoking Koreans. Japan gave enough pain to Korean people for the past 36 years. Please stop!

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

    ReplyDelete
  22. Henny,

    Eventually it's the Japanese document which disclaims the ownership of Dokdo which is important.

    Maps can't become the evidence of the ownership on the international law. International law demands "peaceful effective control" for the ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  23. opp,

    There’s no such a thing "peaceful effective control" on Dokdo by Japan. Japanese control on Dokdo based on the false claim is far from being peaceful.

    I have a question for you. I hope you answer yes or no if you don't mind. Do you agree Dokdo was marked as Korean land by Imperial Japan's Army Land Survey Department in the map "陸地測量部発行地図区域一覧図"?

    ReplyDelete