Dokdo Dispute Intensifies as Korea and Japan Clash Over Historical Claims

The dispute over Dokdo remains a contentious issue between Korea and Japan, with both nations maintaining firm but opposing positions. While Japan continues to assert its claim, legal experts argue that Korea holds both historical documentation and effective control over the territory. A recent analysis by Dr. Doh See-hwan, a leading researcher on Dokdo, sheds light on the legal and historical foundations of Korea’s sovereignty.

Dr. Doh See-hwan, former Director General of the Office of Dokdo Research and Director of the Dokdo Research Institute, emphasises that sovereignty is determined by lawful title and continuous administration—not by repeated assertions. Korea has exercised effective and uninterrupted control over Dokdo, reinforcing its legal standing under international law.

Japan’s claim, however, relies on early 20th-century legal arguments tied to expansionist policies. The 1905 Eulsa Treaty, often cited in this context, was deemed null by the United Nations International Law Commission due to coercion during its formation. The Commission highlighted this case as a clear example of how agreements forced under duress hold no legal weight. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 further undermined Japan’s position by condemning its occupation of Korean territory as an act of 'violence and greed.' The declaration explicitly called for the restoration of lands seized through such means. Despite this, Japan persists in its claims, systematically embedding distortions in official documents, school curricula, and public campaigns. Korea’s stance remains grounded in historical records and the principle of effective governance. Legal experts argue that Japan’s repeated assertions do not confer legitimacy, particularly when they conflict with established international norms and historical evidence.

The debate over Dokdo centres on legal reality rather than competing narratives. Korea’s sovereignty is supported by both historical documentation and continuous administrative control. Meanwhile, Japan’s claims face challenges from international law, including rulings on coercion and territorial restoration.