Territorial Dispute.

Sovereignty over the Liancourt Islands seen through International

Relations: Dokdo (독도) or Takeshima(竹島)?

1. INTRODUCTION
Hello everyone, thank you for coming today. I hope all of you enjoy my presentation. I am going
to talk about the territorial dispute between Japan and Korea over the Liancourt Islands. I have
the hypothesis that the main reason why both Japan and Korea want the sovereignty of the islands
is more for a nationalist feeling than for an economic reason. But how am I going to do it? How
am I going to prove it? well, I am going to do it by answering these two questions, and the first
one is the main, and the second is the one I will try to prove it. Actually, the second one is today's
presentation, and if I accomplish my objective, the answer to this question will be the basis that
will support the main subject.
 Could the territorial dispute of Liancourt be analyzed through the IR theories?
 Is nationalism the main reason why the Liancourt Islands are disputed?
And this is the way I organized the presentation. I will tell you about the dispute and also
contextualize it historically. After that, I will analyze the main theories of international relations
until I find the one that best describes the relations between both countries. And finally, I will
show you the current situation and reach the conclusions.
2. TERRITORIAL DISPUTE: LIANCOURT ISLANDS & LOCATION
The Liancourt Rocks dispute is a territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan. Both
countries claim sovereignty over the Liancourt Islands. Which are a group of small islets in the

East Sea which are referred to as "Dokdo" (Korean: 독도; Hanja: 獨島) in Korean and

"Takeshima" (竹島) in Japanese. An also they have significant ecological value but not

economical.
To understand the reasons why both countries claim the sovereignty of these islands, we must
know about their history. The history between the two countries is so extensive to explain, but I
wanted to focus only on one aspect: the period in which Japan colonized Korea. This
colonization was very strict and violent. That is the reason why until today the consequences of
this colonization have not been forgotten by Koreans and make diplomatic relations between the
two countries difficult.
3. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
1900: Chosun government issued an imperial decree that established the boundaries of Ulleung
County. The peninsula was occupied and declared a Japanese protectorate through the Eulsa
Treaty in 1905. The same year the islets were officially incorporated by Japan to be part of its
Shimane Prefecture. And then it was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation of Japan and Korea in
1910. Following Japan surrendered to the Allied forces on 15 August 1945, it also ended 35 years
of Japanese occupation. In 1952 the dispute originated, when the S.K. government issued a
Presidential Proclamation of Sovereignty over the Adjacent Seas, including Dokdo within Korean
territory and consequently the Japanese government protested. In 1965 Japan and South Korea
normalize their bilateral relations by signing the Treaty on Basic Relations and also the treaties
of 1905 and 1910 were declared invalid. However, by the 1900s, tensions flared again because of
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows maritime states to claim exclusive
economic zones. And, to sum up, since the 2000s and up until the present days, the territorial
dispute remains one of the main sources of tension in their bilateral relations.
4. SOVEREIGNTY & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The concept of sovereignty can be defined from the point of view of political theory and
international law too. But, in the end, the conception of sovereignty is the same, is the idea of the
exclusive political authority exercised by a state over other territory.
The concept of international relations is often used to name a discipline that is part of the
political sciences and that focuses on the links established between States or between States and
other entities. Depending on the type of relationship established by the different states, they can
be understood as a conflict, cooperation, or association. But, here, I wanted to emphasize only
two: conflict and cooperation. In cooperation relations, there is a compatibility of interests but,
on the other hand, in the conflict relations, two or more states, aspire to satisfy incompatible
interests, which causes them to carry out antagonistic activities.
As I am going to present a territorial dispute today, it is evident that in my topic I am talking about
a conflict. ¿what is a territorial dispute? a territorial dispute is a disagreement about the
belonging of a territory or a portion of the territory. The territorial disputes between States have
generated and still generate, numerous conflicts, without being an exclusive cause of these. Since
1946, the International Court of Justice de La Haya has been responsible for deciding disputes
between States. The most numerous territorial disputes today concern maritime extensions.
5. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES
 Realism: Realism explains the international reality from the interest of states to
maximize their survival, security, or power. And, also, stated that the
international system is governed by anarchy. The states are the highest authority
over the people and the government. As a result, the paradigm seeks to gain
power to survive from other state or other enemy states.
 Liberalism: Recognizes the existence of anarchy in the international system.
However, liberals believe that by creating alliances, its presence can be reduced.
The liberal school emphasize the possibility of cooperation and the generation of
a context for general progress. For liberals, the foreign policy of democratic states
should not be explained only in exclusive terms of balance of power (as realists
 do), but also through the relationships of trust that are generated between
democracies.
 Constructivism: argues that personal ideas are the basis that establishes
international relations. I mean, has focused on the influence that ideas and norms
have in the behavior of the States. The state identities, for constructivism,
determine who each State is and who the others are, in addition to affecting their
interests. These identities, which are changing, depend on the historical, cultural,
political, and social context.
Taking into account the historical context, personal value, and ideas that both countries defend,
the best theory to define the relationship between both is constructivism. In this case, there is a
relationship between the feeling of identity, based on the historical context, and the search for the
personal victory that would mean achieving their sovereignty. What I want to say is that the main
reason why both countries wish the sovereignty of the islands is based on their own pride. Because
in fact, the group of islands does not have an important economic value, only ecological or
geostrategic, in case there is a war.
6. CURRENT SITUATION & FUTURE
The administration of the islands is Korean responsibility since 1954. In recent years there have
been sporadic protests and demonstrations that have mostly coincided at a time when a politician
has made statements that he should not say. It the end, all this has caused bilateral relations to be
complicated, and the anti-Korean and anti-Japanese feeling has been increasing.
 What will happen in the future? It is not very clear how the conflict is going to be
resolved because even international law does not know who is right.

7. CONCLUSIONS
Yes, we can do it and also classify the conflict according to some requisites. As I said before, the
theory that best represents the situation between the two countries is constructivism. And,
therefore, the reason that best defines the conflict is prejudice, nationalism, linked to a strong
identity, and values. The reality is that diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea are
not going through a good time, and that makes it difficult for the conflict to be resolved soon.
However, they choose to keep the peace and not take the dispute into dangerous ground. But, on
the other hand, another negative effect has to do with the perception of the population towards
the opposite country. Because negative feelings against both countries have increased in recent
years.