Japan protests to S Korea over military drill on disputed islands

I be interested in scuba diving around those

Putin win by default by dealing with dysfunctional Asian leaders,they going to chastised Putin,when they at each other throats

That looks just like the island from the game Myst.

Back when Trump talked to Kim Jong Un for the first time, South Korea cancelled its joint military drill with the U.S. along the border, yet still did its regular drill on the rocks "in case of an invasion from Japan". Shows South Korea's priorities.

Back when Trump talked to Kim Jong Un for the first time, South Korea cancelled its joint military drill with the U.S.

No they didn't.

Trying to re-write history you are.

Fumio and his colleague from ROK had so good time last time,sushi were good...now this...?

Back when Trump talked to Kim Jong Un for the first time, South Korea cancelled its joint military drill with the U.S.

No they didn't.

Trying to re-write history you are.

"Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of US military exercises with South Korea, in a surprise concession at an extraordinary summit with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un."

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/us-to-suspend-war-games-with-south-korea-donald-trump-kim-jong-un-north-summit

"Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of US military exercises with South Korea, in a surprise concession at an extraordinary summit with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un."

Weird that you posted a quote proving yourself wrong with your claim that South Korea canceled the military exercises with the US. Did you mean to show that I was correct in pointing out how you were trying to re-write history?

Or do you think Trump was running South Korea maybe? I wouldn't put it past MAGA folk to believe that...

Silly Japan

How else can the Koreans protect Dokdo from the Japanese unless they hold drills?

XavierToday  08:58 am JST

If Yoon really wants the Japan relationship to move forward, he should allow the Takeshima/Dokdo issue to go international arbitration at the ICJ, as Japan has been trying to do since 1954 (point 10 in below PDF) and Korea has refused. Arbitration is the right and proper thing to do.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000092147.pdf

Perhaps Japan could agree to rename the Sea of Japan as a good faith step (though not to Korea's "East Sea," as the sea is West of Japan - it would have to be a neutral name.) Though the Japanese government is unlikely to go for that, it might be a welcome, reciprocal action.

Certainly agree. However, going before the ICJ would likelys result in a ruling in Japan's favor. As indicated by SK's refusal to go before the ICJ three times. And such a ruling would be used by Pres Yoon's adversaries and inflame anti-JP sentiment. Hence, the Liancourt Rocks will likely be the last bilteral issue to be resolved. In fact should the Yoon administrations agenda continue succesfully ultimately we may see a joint administration with both nations using them for their mutual security purposes. But for now Pres Yoon's agenda will have to move step by step to overcome the deeply ingrained Soth Korean bias.

As for the "East Sea" idea, on one hand it would be a gesture on Japan's part that would be no skin off it's back, particularly since every country that borders that body of water calls it Sea of Japan apart from the Koreas. But there would be the utterly illogical aspect of calling it "East Sea" when it lies West of Japan.

Japan lodged a protest with South Korea....saying it was "extremely regrettable", the foreign ministry said ...."

Round and round we go.

Both the Government of Japan and South Korea could take a deep breath, review the global challenges presented from the threats of a belligerent Government of China, and North Korea and look to the ICJ to settle there historic differences in whole host of disputes,

An agreement to how this could be politically and legislatively formatted is long overdue.

This small story about an island reminded of something I found out years ago at school. Does anyone here know which world country has the most islands? Well, the answer is Sweden, it has the most islands with 221,800, yes, 221,800. I know that is hard to believe and even I did nor believe it, so I went there and counted all of them....Even the capital of Stockholm is built across a 14-island archipelago with more than 50 bridges.

China loves it when SK and Japan fight each other.

The Japanese government has sued the ICJ three times so far, but the South Korean government has fled.

Is the reason why the Japanese government does not file a lawsuit alone is because of its relationship with the United States and China?

Regarding the name Sea of Japan, it is only because it is inconvenient for South Korea that Takeshima is included in the Sea of Japan.

Without Japan, it would be the Pacific Ocean.It was originally named by the Russians.

Since it is determined by the IHO, an international organization, it cannot be easily changed. Only the North Sea is officially registered as a direction.

The local name is a problem that can be done arbitrarily with only the Korean map.

@Xavier

If Yoon really wants the Japan relationship to move forward, he should allow the Takeshima/Dokdo issue to go international arbitration at the ICJ

He won't have the chance to do that as he would immediately be impeached and be removed from office. Yoon has enough enemies within his party to go along with the Democratic party to pass an impeachment within 24 hours if Yoon decided to commit a treason.

Japan could agree to rename the Sea of Japan 

Sea of Japan is a local name used by Japan that is no longer recognized by IHO. The water between Korea and Japan is now officially called the 18th sea.

@OssanJapan

going before the ICJ would likelys result in a ruling in Japan's favor. 

Japan has less than 1% chance of a win because Korea can prove entirely with 19th century Japanese records and documents that Japanese government was aware of the Liancourt Rocks being Joseon's territory.

Korea already ran several mock simulation trials in Europe with evidence at hand and they won every single time. 

So why won't Korea go to ICJ if it has the 99% chance of a win? That's because going to the ICJ over the sovereignty of the Liancourt Rocks is like Japan going to the ICJ over the sovereignty of Honshu, or the US going to the ICJ over the sovereignty of Hawaii or Alaska; it is entirely a preposterous notion.

@Agent_Neo

Since it is determined by the IHO, an international organization, it cannot be easily changed. 

IHO already changed the official name to the 18th sea. Incredible Japanese didn't already know this.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/south-koreas-fight-against-the-sea-of-japan-pays-off/

South Korea’s Fight Against the ‘Sea of Japan’ Pays Off 

The country’s long battle for co-use of the names “East Sea” and “Sea of Japan” is over as the IHO decided to adopt a new numerical system.

The Japanese government, however, downplayed the IHO’s decision by saying that the name “Sea of Japan” will be maintained on the organization’s map of oceans in the print version, known as S-23, leaving room for the international community and press to keep using the term.

The IHO Secretary-General’s report, however, confirms that S-23 is no longer a valid standard, according to the South Korean Foreign Ministry.

@Xavier

the reason SK is avoiding the ICJ is because it's pretty sure it will lose.

Actually the only reason Korea won't go to the ICJ is the same reason Japan won't go to the ICJ over the sovereignty of Honshu. The very notion is ridiculous and preposterous.

I personally wouldn't be averse to joint administration if that were ever to happen. 

Japanese rightwingers are confused that the Liancourt Rocks are in same legal limbo as the Diaoyu Islands.

The Liancourt Rocks are actually heavily visited tourist destinations and ALL are welcome, including Japanese. All that Japanese need to visit the Liancourt Rocks is a ferry ticket and your passport to be photocopied at the time of ticket purchase to keep a record of who's visiting. It is actually the Japanese government that's asking Japanese citizens to not visit the Liancourt Rocks.

This is the total opposite of the Diaoyu Islands, where all Japanese civilians are BANNED from approaching within 1 nm of the islands. Why? Because the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands is in doubt.

This is a case of Give a little. Receive a lot.

If Japan were to seed these islands to Korea it would cement a truer friendship between the two countries.

That is worth a lot!

gary

The territorial claim of the Japanese government on Takeshima is comical. Japanese people know what 'Takeshima' literally means: bamboo island 竹島, but there is no bamboo in Takeshima.

But, there is another small island called 'bamboo island' (Jukdo 竹島 in Korean) at 2 km (1 mile) east of Ulleungdo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukdo_(island)

You may see those abundant bamboos there: https://wayfaringflaneur.com/2018/09/02/jukdo%EC%A3%BD%EB%8F%84-bamboo-island/

Japanese government never mentions this real bamboo island (Jukdo in Korean) when they explain their territorial claim. They intentionally omit it, or obfuscate it with Ulleungdo. For example:

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/takeshima/page1we_000057.html

Long times ago, Japanese fishermen certainly recognized the existence of Jukdo 竹島 near Ulleungdo island. At that time, Takeshima did not designate the Liancourt Rocks, but Jukdo to Japanese fishermen. Both Jukdo and Ulleungdo are now Korean territories that Japan and the other countries acknowledge. Now the Japanese government claims the territorial right with a wrong name or a wrong location.

There are 7 Japanese islands called the same name Takeshima (竹島 bamboo island) along the coast of Japan, and all of them have bamboo:

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_(%E6%9B%96%E6%98%A7%E3%81%95%E5%9B%9E%E9%81%BF)

But only one exception is the remotely-located Liancourt Rocks, called 'Dokdo' in Korean, which literally means a rock island. It is a consistency problem. Koreans knew that it consisted of rocks, and therefore bamboo could not grow there. The so-called bamboo island without any bamboo was just an ad hoc, imaginary island for Japan to forcefully occupy Dokdo in 1905. Now they still shout "the bamboo island without any bamboo is a Japanese territory".

As long as ONE of 'em is there to keep the chinese off it

Agent_NeoToday  12:46 pm JST

The Japanese government has sued the ICJ three times so far, but the South Korean government has fled.

Is the reason why the Japanese government does not file a lawsuit alone is because of its relationship with the United States and China?

The ICJ requires both parties to agree to settle at the ICJ, and requires participants to sign an agreement that recognizes ICJ jurisdiction over the issue, always answer a claim brought against it, and abide by the ICJ ruling.

Japan is already a signatory to this agreement. South Korea is not.

Despite SK nationaliists perpetually claiming to have alleged "evidence" supporting SK's claim to ownership of the Liancourt Rocks, SK's continued refusal to settle this dispute at the ICJ casts considerable doubt on the existence of such "evidence" and their confidence in their claim. After all, anyone with a preponderance of evidence would be eager to go to Court and win.

SJ,

The Governments of Japan and South Korea urgently need to find a compromise, to turn the pages of history.

The ICJ offers the independence if an agreed format can be enshrined in international law.

Regional tensions are close to boiling over, especially with the situation developing in an ever unstable incendiary relationship between the Governments of China/US over Taiwan.

OssanAmerica

Today 07:22 pm JST

Agent_NeoToday 12:46 pm JST

> The Japanese government has sued the ICJ three times so far, but the South Korean government has fled.

> Is the reason why the Japanese government does not file a lawsuit alone is because of its relationship with the United States and China?

> The ICJ requires both parties to agree to settle at the ICJ, and requires participants to sign an agreement that recognizes ICJ jurisdiction over the issue, always answer a claim brought against it, and abide by the ICJ ruling.

And that is why the socalled arbitration suit filed by the Philippines against China is not valid because China did not agree to and did not participate in the proceedings

ianToday  07:56 pm JST

OssanAmerica

Today 07:22 pm JST

Agent_NeoToday 12:46 pm JST

The Japanese government has sued the ICJ three times so far, but the South Korean government has fled.*

Is the reason why the Japanese government does not file a lawsuit alone is because of its relationship with the United States and China?*

The ICJ requires both parties to agree to settle at the ICJ, and requires participants to sign an agreement that recognizes ICJ jurisdiction over the issue, always answer a claim brought against it, and abide by the ICJ ruling.*

And that is why the socalled arbitration suit filed by the Philippines against China is not valid because China did not agree to and did not participate in the proceedings

Incorrect. The Phillipines fild a claim against China not at the ICJ, but at the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not a "so called arbitration" it is a real and recognized forum under the UN.

Unlike the ICJ, the PCA does not require both parties to a claim to appear, and China refused to answer claiming that it does not recognize any international jurisdiction over matters of Chinese sovereignty. Which is why China's failure to respond resulted only in a ruling against it.

OssanAmerica

Today 08:41 pm JST

ianToday 07:56 pm JST

> OssanAmerica

> Today 07:22 pm JST

> Agent_NeoToday 12:46 pm JST

> The Japanese government has sued the ICJ three times so far, but the South Korean government has fled.*

> Is the reason why the Japanese government does not file a lawsuit alone is because of its relationship with the United States and China?*

> The ICJ requires both parties to agree to settle at the ICJ, and requires participants to sign an agreement that recognizes ICJ jurisdiction over the issue, always answer a claim brought against it, and abide by the ICJ ruling.*

> And that is why the socalled arbitration suit filed by the Philippines against China is not valid because China did not agree to and did not participate in the proceedings

> Incorrect. The Phillipines fild a claim against China not at the ICJ, but at the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not a "so called arbitration" it is a real and recognized forum under the UN.

> Unlike the ICJ, the PCA does not require both parties to a claim to appear, and China refused to answer claiming that it does not recognize any international jurisdiction over matters of Chinese sovereignty. Which is why China's failure to respond resulted only in a ruling against it.

I was referring to the act of arbitration itself.

If you can a drag a country to an arbitration without their agreement then other countries with claims against other countries would have done so also. Almost all are signatories and have ratified the unclos.

Anyway, the pca only acted as the registry for the arbitration , they were also not the tribunal of arbitrators who decided on the case

The position of the UN itself regarding the arbitration is telling. As far as I know the UN has no position on the legal and procedural merits of the case

Omg. I thought we were in good terms.

Dokdo is administered by Korea, by Korean citizens and with a whole structure built by Korea.

Why should Japan care of they bring any military personal info that rock?

ianToday  09:18 pm JST

I was referring to the act of arbitration itself.

If you can a drag a country to an arbitration without their agreement then other countries with claims against other countries would have done so also. Almost all are signatories and have ratified the unclos.

Anyway, the pca only acted as the registry for the arbitration , they were also not the tribunal of arbitrators who decided on the case

The PCA ruling is valid and recognized by all signatories to UNCLOS. Your further comments are irrelevant tothe facts and outcome. China was invited to answer, they chose not to. They also refused to recognize the ruling. In any Court of law a default judgement is a valid judgement. You are simply grasping at straws to excuse China's behavior.

Well you can certainly check =)

The PCA ruling is valid and recognized by all signatories to UNCLOS.

As I've said it's not a PCA ruling.

And it's easy for even you to see that it's not recognized by all signatories to the unclos

@What ol' Jack Burton always says

Did you forget Japan officially colonized Joseon during that time

Duh, the Japanese annexation was 1910, 20th century.

ianJuly 8 09:18 pm JST

If you can a drag a country to an arbitration without their agreement then other countries with claims against other countries would have done so also.

Maybe China's claim is so egregious and China so obstinate on the matter that it was the first one.

Subject to the provisions of Part XV, any party to a dispute may submit the dispute to the arbitral procedure provided for in this Annex by written notification addressed to the other party or parties to the dispute. The notification shall be accompanied by a statement of the claim and the grounds on which it is based.

I suspect China's claim that there is no dispute is about as valid as Trump's counter-suits.

This article is about the Liancourt Rocks dispute, where Japan has requested settlement at the ICJ three times whith SKorea refusing each time.

The PCA or the Phillipines/China dispute is not relevant to this article.